As expected.

Several commenters have expressed disbelief at my prediction that we will see a (generally low key) movement to curtail the worst abuses of the family court.  Honestly this isn’t a bold prediction on my part.  I’m only predicting more of what we are already seeing.  Dr. Helen has linked to a soon to be released movie about corruption in the family courts titled Divorce Corp.

Not surprisingly the trailers of the film include comments from Glenn Sacks.  More noteworthy however is the narrator of the film, Dr. Drew Pinsky of “Dr. Drew” sex advice fame.  From the main trailer, the general perspective of the film is that the family courts are corrupt and inefficient in the way they are breaking up families.  We pay the courts good money to destroy families, and they are making a mess of this noble work.

However, the movie does touch on the problem of false abuse claims:

They also have trailers covering the abuses of child support and lifetime alimony.  Here is the one for child support:

Here is the one for lifetime alimony:

As I’ve explained before, this kind of push to roll back the worst abuses of the family court is not at all surprising but shouldn’t be misunderstood for a genuine movement to fundamentally change our family structure back towards one of traditional marriage or even anything resembling equal treatment of men and women.  While different participants will have different perspectives and motivations, overall this is about mending it, not ending it.  The elites have no desire to end the no fault divorce/child support gravy train, they just want to streamline the process some and remove some of the most indefensible abuses.  However, while the intent is to create support for a tune up and not a true overhaul, there is always the risk that by highlighting the incredibly evil and corrupt system that men will start to refuse to marry.  Also, when the liberal elites acknowledge the incredible corruption in the system they are cutting conservative groups like Focus On the Family off at the knees.  When even Dr. Drew is outraged about the family courts, Christian organizations eagerly reminding women to be sure to collect their 30 pieces of silver when destroying their families are suddenly in an embarrassing position.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Church Apathy About Divorce, Divorce, Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

561 Responses to As expected.

  1. MarcusD says:

    Where the shaming language started: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/161330822/Donald-F-Miller-Questions-Young-People-Ask-Before-Marriage

    First two questions of page 2, particularly. I didn’t realize that it went back so far.

  2. Jason says:

    You;ve got to start somewhere and even if the hope is simply to patch the system at least it is a start.

    What surprises me is that in the effort to fix the abuses things will probably go to far in the other direction and you will see a stronger backlash than desired.

    Not stronger than I think is needed, i’d see the whole lot burned to the ground and marriage returned to a simple private contract with terms and penalties for break of contract and get the state out of the whole thing entirely.

    But for those of a less rational disposition who think the mess can be fixed, they will probably get more than they bargained for.

  3. This is incredible.

    I just wonder about its effectiveness, but I guess every little bit helps.

  4. Keenan McGregor says:

    “However, while the intent is to create support for a tune up and not a true overhaul, there is always the risk that by highlighting the incredibly evil and corrupt system that men will start to refuse to marry. ”

    Like I said, men will inevitably become increasingly non-committal. Heterosexual women who don’t want to be celibate will comply in order to get some sort of opposite sex touch and affection. Your daughters’ future options will consist solely of:
    1.) cock carousel
    2.) lesbianism
    3.) celibacy

    Perhaps 1 in 10,000 will choose celibacy.

  5. Aservant says:

    This is just damage control. The PTB are very astute at monitoring the pulse of the situation and they know that every now and then they have to let some pressure off and throw a couple of bones to the dogs to keep the situation contained. This isn’t to say that this whole system can’t and won’t be trashed one day, perhaps even quite soon, but it won’t be done by the mainstream pundits that cheerled us into the current state of affairs (ie; Dr. Drew). When you see the MSMers “exposing corruption”, be very, very wary.

    True reform will only come when real men finally smash the system completely in what will probably be a very swift, violent, messy take down.

    And my life would be complete if I could be one of those men. Dying for such an endeavor would be a truly honorable sacrifice.

  6. Keoni Galt says:

    While different participants will have different perspectives and motivations, overall this is about mending it, not ending it.

    I agree wholeheartedly.

    To anyone hopeful to somehow, someway change the system, understand that anything that is supposedly done to “fix” the problems is meaningless unless Title IV-D of the Social Security Act is rescinded.

    “Taken as a whole, what we have here is a Federal Government that PAYS State Governments to create as many non-custodial parents liable for child support obligations as possible.

    There are no financial incentives from the Federal Government that reward State social work bureaucracies to resolve marital differences or reconcile separated couples.

    There are no financial incentives from the Federal Government that reward State social work bureaucracies that restore children to two parent homes.

    There are no financial incentives from the Federal Government that reward State social work bureaucracies that act with reason, temperance of compassion in reviewing the personal and financial situation of non-custodial parents charged with child support obligations . It’s pay the imputed income judgement or go to jail.

    There are no financial incentives from the Federal Government that reward State social work bureaucracies for discouraging divorces, nor resolving child custody disputes.”

    Follow the money…the TItle IV-D money.

  7. MarcusD says:

    Perhaps 1 in 10,000 will choose celibacy.

    As it stands, 2-3% do (according to the GSS). I expect that that number will increase, not decrease, in the face of less commitment, since women will know that having sex before marriage will most likely not lead to commitment from a man (women tend to rationalize premarital sex as a precursor to commitment).

    The opposite argument is that it will decrease because women will know that their chances of getting commitment are practically nil, thus justifying premarital sex as the only possibility (falsely).

  8. Keenan McGregor says:

    Excuse me, “pre” marital sex? You say that like “marital” is a given. Read again, friend. Men will increasingly become non-committal. That means you can kiss marriage goodbye.

  9. MarcusD says:

    Extramarital, then. It is before (and outside) marriage, regardless if marriage practiced or not.

  10. Keenan McGregor says:

    Extramarital has no meaning without a concept of marital to build on. Where there are no examples of said thing, said thing does not exist.

  11. Johnycomelately says:

    I think Ferdz of the No Ma’am blog called it the two steps forward one step back shuffle.

    You push an extreme position, dial it back a tad and you get to keep the bulk of the excesses while seeming to be pragmatic and fair.

  12. Tam the Bam says:

    “Amarital sex”? Amirite or wot.
    If marriage becomes vanishingly rare as more men see the heffalump trap, then it’s a bit precious to claim that because 4 Amish in a wood somewhere are married, everyone else on the planet is “external” to that.

  13. Fotf et al are happy running the three legged race…..or being cut off at knees. The family court is their ally.

  14. Julian O'Dea says:

    An historian I know told me that revolutions occur AFTER reform is initiated. Any backdown is seen as the beginning of capitulation. Someone used the term “preference cascade” here recently. The dam of feminist nonsense could collapse quickly.

  15. Tam the Bam says:

    Ninja’d by the Gregarach. Again.

  16. Tam the Bam says:

    “You push an extreme position, dial it back a tad and you get to keep the bulk of the excesses while seeming to be pragmatic and fair.”
    Ahh. The smack of the authentic Whitehall mandarin government house style-sheet. The Nasty Party are particularly adept (“Kill your babies, madam? Ohhh, no, no, no , you silly pleb, that was just a manifesto pledge, of course we wouldn’t. Why, the very idea is mad! How could you possibly … ? We meant “keep” your babies. Wash them and send them round in a cab this afternoon”).

  17. 1kingofkings says:

    Sad men kept us out of the work force then ‘bitch’ when they have to pay for the babies they make!

  18. Keep the slaves not-so-miserable you can’t make money off them – that’s all this is.

    I found it funny that the movie knew how to play the Sex of the Victim card really, REALLY well. 90% of the ‘wrongfully’ accused in any of the situations were women in the trailers, yet we all know that isn’t quiet the breakdown of how the courts operate in truth.

    Don’t praise it too soon; it may merely become a victim advocate for women’s status and thus working directly against what anyone here would hope.

  19. TMG says:

    Also keep in mind that women & LGBT are starting to realize that they too have much to lose. Therefore it is now a problem we need to solve rather than an opportunity for straight men to “man up” and take it in the testes.

  20. Keenan McGregor says:

    1kingofkings, Jeanie Hitner at the 50 second mark in this video is working two jobs to pay off the ex-wife of her husband and keep him out of jail

  21. Release valves are always included during design as part of a pressurized system.

    By the way, who here’s pissed/elated that the Packers-Eagles-Bengals-Chiefs/49ers-Saints-Chargers-Colts lost/won? [snicker]

  22. Adonis says:

    Subbed

  23. Anonymous says:

    Hey, Divorce Court– an avenue of State power but NOT subject to the Constitution! Gee, how come? They can take your stuff, throw you in jail and not let you have a lawyer– all using gov’t authority– but the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to you there? (That’s a scandal– beside that it’s a big scam.)

  24. Casey says:

    @ 1kingofkings

    Go pedal your wares elsewhere.

    If you are some strong headed feminist, take responsibility for your actions……..including the babies YOU make.

    TWAT.

  25. JDG says:

    I think there will be a trimming back and a kind of lip service to the problem on behalf of the media and some government officials, but I also believe that the usual snow jobs will be employed for damage control (kind of like Fannie Mae, Goldman Sachs, or Benghazi). Only I don’t think this will get any where near the attention that those got.

    Even with some of the atrocities out in the open, will ‘Christian’ organisations like Focus on the Female really be able to see the precarious position they are in. I mean Christianity is mocked and despised the world over because so many ‘Christians’ are indistinguishable from the non-Christians. Yet they do not understand this.

    If ‘Christians’ can’t understand the ramifications of the world seeing them living like the world, how will they see the connection between their teaching women to take advantage of government enforced injustices (live like the world) and the precarious position of the world seeing them as having supported the said injustices (having supported living like the world)? They may just as likely blame it on something else.

    That is of course assuming that enough people even care.

    I use ‘Christian’ to differentiate from Christian because not all who claim to be Christian are indeed Christian. I may just as well have used churchian.

  26. JDG says:

    This is just damage control.

    Agreed!

  27. JDG says:

    The dam of feminist nonsense could collapse quickly.

    One can only hope. I would like to see a return of biblical Patriarchy. I don’t see that happening though.

  28. JDG says:

    Hey, Divorce Court– an avenue of State power but NOT subject to the Constitution! Gee, how come? They can take your stuff, throw you in jail and not let you have a lawyer– all using gov’t authority– but the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to you there? (That’s a scandal– beside that it’s a big scam.)

    Exactly! Here is a great, big, glaring abuse of the constitution of the United States, yet crickets…

  29. JDG says:

    Did I miss another drive by?

  30. Keenan McGregor says:

    LOL. This video was in the youtube list with the Divorce Corp trailers

  31. Ras Al Ghul says:

    “As it stands, 2-3% do (according to the GSS). I expect that that number will increase, not decrease, in the face of less commitment, since women will know that having sex before marriage will most likely not lead to commitment from a man (women tend to rationalize premarital sex as a precursor to commitment).

    The opposite argument is that it will decrease because women will know that their chances of getting commitment are practically nil, thus justifying premarital sex as the only possibility (falsely).”

    There are several factors that would indicate that women will not generally chose celibacy (but it may be imposed as the age or because they are hideous).

    First, the number of marrieds per thousand women will end up ( assuming the system maintains and that’s a big if) about 28% based on current numbers and divorces at any given time. ( I would guess it will stabilize around 20%. There will plenty of women that will think they will be that 20%.

    They all believe in the power of their magic box to tame the aplha (and five minutes of alpha has always been worth it even at the risk of their marriages).

    This is the same magical thinking that keeps people getting married today (like the comedian pointed out, would you go parachuting if the chance was 40-50% that it would fail?)

    Second, there will always be desperate betas willing to pay full freight (five miniutes of pussy is worth a lifetime of child support)

    Third, the drive for having children is too great for women. We already have a 40% single mom rate, it is not inconceivable for that to hit 80%. Women are herd animals and single motherhood is celebrated.

    Fourth, shacking up (which is closer to traditional marriage any way) is more popular than ever.

    Fifth, polygamy will be legal soon, and even if it is not recongized, it will be practiced more and more

    I would expect as the economy unravels more “extended families” where the single mom mooches off her parents more and more.

    Women do not generally pick celibacy, regardless of the social franework or lack of it. The natural drive to have children is too strong.

    Celebacy is usually imposed on both men and women because of a lack of better options.

  32. 1kingofkings says:

    @keenanim already hoping for no marriage now, just a use of the sausage and go…I will never encourage my daughter to marry either. Men take women for granted after they ‘get’ them, so no use in keeping them. It’s a two way street- we women learn well from you men. Just as men want the sex and go, I agree with this. Marriage only benefits the man because after marriage woman stop being romanced and are turned into slaves. Don’t marry women – date forever… at least men will have to work for the sex and can’t get lazy or boring.

  33. Anonymous Reader says:

    Well, we’ll see what the movie actually contains, and what effect it has. Right now, I can’t help but recall various pro wrassling figures from the past – they all went into the ring knowing the script of the “fight” in advance…

  34. @ Dalrock:

    Thank you for the encouraging, good news.

    Finally some of the truth will be aired to the general public. I admit I am surprised at this positive turn in events. Hopefully this movie will initiate long lasting dialogue.

  35. When even Dr. Drew is outraged about the family courts, Christian organizations eagerly reminding women to be sure to collect their 30 pieces of silver when destroying their families are suddenly in an embarrassing position.

    Indeed.

    The Mark Driscollites will have their work cut out for them after this hits theaters. I wonder what sermon he’ll have for Jenny Erikson’s husband (Lief) then? No doubt it’ll be about taking a leap of faith in spite of all the dire warnings.

  36. jack says:

    The unsustainable will not be sustained.

  37. Anonymous age 71 says:

    I am the man who wrote the essay some years ago on DGM-2, stating my belief that AW are collectively clinically insane. See postings by 1Kingofkings for supporting evidence.

  38. Pingback: The Bulwark | Alpha Is Assumed

  39. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:

    In the same way a 30-year-old women wakes up one day and asks, “Where have all the good men gone, and why is my butt sore?” the Elites, after instituting the Communist manifesto which calls for the abolition of the family, awake one day to ask, “why has the family been abolished?”

    lzozozlzolzolzlozolzozoozoz

  40. Boxer says:

    I’m glad Anon 71 is here, since he earlier asked about the origins of the word “game” in its contemporary context, though at the time I didn’t have a concrete example.

    I hope the blog owner will forgive my posting this (extremely crass and not at all safe for work or children) youtube video. This is one example where the phrase “running game” is used in the way Roosh uses it. Cue to around 1:39 to hear it used in context, to skip the veritable flood of pornography that surrounds it.

    When Boxer was a younger fella, he stole this CD from the elder brother of one of his friends, and it rapidly became one of his favorites.The phrase “got game” and “run game” appears in several places on this release, circa 20 years ago. I doubt Theodor Adorno would approve, but the 2 Live Crew is still something of a guilty pleasure, though I much prefer their earlier stuff. I grew up assuming that the phrase was something from the 1950s, and never really thought of it as a new addition to the lexicon.

    As a bonus, we see 1kingofkings in this video, back in the day when she was young and attractive, partying with Uncle Luke and the fellas. See if you can pick her out.

    Regards, Boxer

  41. 1kingofkings says:

    @ anonymous age 71. Bringing up the old ancient “hysteria” derived from the uterus to object to any female with an opinion? good one. Can’t wait until the likes of you and your old ideas die out.

  42. Just Saying says:

    @Ras Al Ghul
    ……..Women do not generally pick celibacy, regardless of the social franework or lack of it. The natural drive to have children is too strong.Celebacy is usually imposed on both men and women because of a lack of better options.

    This would be true in the case of men – ie have celibacy imposed on them. Not so true for women. Remember there is large segment of women who would rather go without than put up with second or third rate.

  43. 1kingofkings says:

    You losers!! I’m hot and you wish you could have me!! Ha!

  44. Boxer says:

    You losers!! I’m hot and you wish you could have me!! Ha!

    You were probably one of those mediocre looking chicks who rode the carousel because you sensed, rightly, that you didn’t have the looks or character to get and keep an alpha male. Now you’re bitter, angry and masochistic enough to troll for negative attention here.

    Well, you’re not the first, and I’m sure you won’t be the last. Good luck, granny.

    Boxer

  45. Psan says:

    It’s a movie, not a push for reform. State governments, women’s groups and lawyers make money from divorce. Given those incentives in place, what evidence is there that divorce will be affirmatively curtailed?

  46. 1kingofkings says:

    You loser, I’m a sweet cougar dating a man 20 years younger:) I’d never date the likes of saggy ball men like you. Haha! So happy for he milf , cougar times!! The young men are hot in bed!!! Yiung men are way better than old jaded, grumpy, curmudgeons like you men on this blog. Lots of energy:) hehe

  47. JDG says:

    1kofk kinda sounds like a male pretending to be a female. MarcusD could you run that type checker?

    1kofk if you are female get back in the kitchen. Those sammiches won’t make themselves.

  48. JDG says:

    Totally sounds male.

  49. JDG says:

    No such thing as a sweet cougar. The whole concept is repulsive.

  50. bwah says:

    Did LivingTree send her long lost sister 1kingofkings to troll while she was on vacation? They will not enjoy competing for attention when LivingTree gets back.

  51. bwah says:

    “Totally sounds male.”

    She is the new hyena subspecies created by feminism, of course she sounds male. She’s just bummed her traits are dysgenic and will be bred out by the mexicans within 20 years.

  52. Julian O'Dea says:

    Who describes herself as a “sweet cougar”? It sounds made-up like a Playboy letter.

  53. Jason says:

    Playboy letters are made up?

  54. JDG says:

    Playboy letters are made up?

    LOL! So glad I wasn’t drinking anything when I read that.

  55. MarcusD says:

    Third, the drive for having children is too great for women. We already have a 40% single mom rate, it is not inconceivable for that to hit 80%. Women are herd animals and single motherhood is celebrated.

    Well, some wedlock birth stats here:

    http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s0083.pdf

    With economic equality/sameness between men and women now pretty much reality, women no longer rely (necessarily) on men – as a result a man’s status is therefore determined by his desirability/SMV to women. Women go up the SES ladder (not down) resulting in the prestige of many occupations being permanently lowered. The middle class is shrinking, and male employment (and employment potential) along with it, leading women of similar SES a strong incentive to not marry those men of similar SES. They will instead look to higher SES men, usually without success.

    The UMC marriage rate hasn’t changed that much in 50 years (94 to 83% – http://whiskeysplace.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/reviewculturalonline012012.gif), but the working class has gone from 84 to 48%. Whenever there is a shortage of men, women lose a lot of power they have in the sexual marketplace (Cf. college campuses with a low male:female ratio). This means there will be an enormous number of women looking up to the UMC men, who will probably have something akin to polygamy, as you mentioned. Unlike women, men have little concern for the SES of women they ‘interact’ with (e.g. Townsend, John Marshall, and Timothy Wasserman. “Sexual attractiveness: Sex differences in assessment and criteria.” Evolution and Human Behavior 19.3 (1998): 171-191).

    I think also the decrease in desired number of children (see report here: http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/AR9/AR9.pdf), which has been orchestrated by the population control types has led to a decreased need for marrying, since ~2 children is easy enough for a single women to support, but 3-4+ would not be, and would thus see those women, desiring that number of children, to marry for the additional resources a man could (theoretically) supply. By the way, groups like “Measure DHS” (whose report I linked above) see delaying marriage as a necessary part of female empowerment. If there is an interest in not having children, then marriage is seen as even less important. About 15-20% of people in the world do not reproduce.

    Basically, there’s an upper class and a lower class, with men in the lower class being ignored, and men in the upper class being more desired. Lower class men are idle (as noted above). Upper class men are not. So, it could be that lower class men will slide further, and lower class women will increasingly rely on government or upper class men. Ironically, some people have suggested shaming men for not working.

    Birth control also plays a role in this, I think, but not a significant one. Large percentages of women were already having sex prior to the sexual revolution (and plenty of studies have found that biology plays a bigger role in promiscuity than risk compensation [e.g. reducing consequences of sex leads to more of it]).

  56. TFH says:

    1kingofkings is clearly a red-pill men trying to be a caricature of a female.

    What is surprising is how many men still fall for that trick.

    That trick is effective when used outside the androsphere, however, as it converts new men to the red-pill.

  57. feeriker says:

    JDG said I use ‘Christian’ to differentiate from Christian because not all who claim to be Christian are indeed Christian. I may just as well have used churchian.

    Yes, indeed, “churchian” is the operative word here. Once again, I urge everyone to use it liberally where obviously called for.

  58. Julian O'Dea says:

    Clicking on 1KingofKings’s site leads to an empty wordpress site.

    There is an OKCupid site with that name:

    http://www.okcupid.com/profile/1kingofkings?cf=profile_similar

  59. MarcusD says:

    Okay, 1kingofkings comes up as female (87% – highly likely).
    Negative sentiment (70%).
    Happy mood (65%).
    Age results are inconclusive.
    Myers-Briggs: ESFJ (85%)

  60. jf12 says:

    “From the main trailer, the general perspective of the film is that the family courts are corrupt and inefficient in the way they are breaking up families. We pay the courts good money to destroy families, and they are making a mess of this noble work.

    While different participants will have different perspectives and motivations, overall this is about mending it, not ending it. The elites have no desire to end the no fault divorce/child support gravy train, they just want to streamline the process some and remove some of the most indefensible abuses. However, while the intent is to create support for a tune up and not a true overhaul, there is always the risk that by highlighting the incredibly evil and corrupt system that men will start to refuse to marry.”
    The question the lawyers and judges want to know is: how can we make more money from this?

  61. MarcusD says:

    Target Type Sentiment
    men Keyword negative
    young man Keyword negative
    young men Keyword positive
    saggy ball men Keyword negative
    old men Keyword positive
    Seriously pathetic men Keyword negative
    man saggyball man Keyword negative
    grumpy old man Keyword negative
    relationship Old men Keyword negative
    cougar lifestyle Keyword positive
    best thing Keyword positive
    Ca n’t wait Keyword positive
    sorry boys men Keyword negative
    marriage woman stop Keyword positive
    women Keyword positive
    blue eyed woman Keyword negative
    women sex drives Keyword positive
    Yiung men Keyword positive
    cougar times Keyword positive
    Sad men Keyword negative
    sweet cougar Keyword positive
    man cheating Keyword positive
    old ideas Keyword positive
    postmenopausal body Keyword positive
    women divorce Keyword negative
    young fun Keyword positive
    date forever… Keyword negative
    Sorry boys….live Keyword negative
    work force Keyword negative
    exes baggage Keyword negative
    young boys Keyword positive
    models runways Keyword positive
    bald face Keyword negative
    older women Keyword positive
    breast implants Keyword neutral
    centuries the women Keyword positive
    muscular athlete Keyword positive
    mid twenties Keyword negative
    actual try Keyword positive
    water parks Keyword positive
    best sex Keyword positive
    energy Keyword positive

  62. MarcusD says:

    Okay, so no formatting possible…

    Here it is, then: http://pastebin.com/HMgqB6Y2


    Just a bit self-focused

  63. jf12 says:

    Re: saggy. I can’t imagine any man would bother pretending to think that hanging low was actually a bad thing. But for some reason older women do think that older men can be made to worry that *younger* women might think that the older men (erroneously) worry that younger women think hanging low was bad, and believe it or not I do know this fact and I did properly communicate it to you, and yes it does involve, irreducibly, seven (count ‘em) recursive levels of theories of mind.

  64. Johnycomelately says:

    There is one notorious factor about this trend that has seemingly been under explored by the sphere, to quote Hilary Caldwell (Masters of Health Science), “Until the last 20 years research into people who buy sexual services has represented less than one percent of all sex industry research.”

    From Johns’ Voice, a Canadian study into the clients of sex services which correlates well with European studies.

    http://www.johnsvoice.ca/docs/JOHNS_VOICE_GENERAL_RESULTS_EXECUTIVE_SUMMARY_FINAL_DIST.pdf

    Over 50% of clients are single, 50% earn over 50k, 50% have attained an undergraduate degree or higher, average age of 40, 84% are employed and 95% are recurring buyers.

    What these studies show is that the majority of users of sexual services are prime marriage candidates with high education, good incomes and who have seemingly eschewed marriage.

    A high focus on ‘human trafficking’, the spate of recent anti prostitution laws and Divorce Corp show that Dalrock’s premise is right on the money.

  65. MarcusD says:

    the spate of recent anti prostitution laws

    Canada recently saw anti-prostitution laws deemed unconstitutional – it’ll be legal in about a year.

  66. MarcusD says:

    In the event that people can’t read the document I linked far upthread, an excerpt for your amusement:

    Should an Engaged Girl Reveal Her Past?

    PART II

    Problem: We are several girls in our late teens who would like to disagree with an opinion you expressed several months ago. You said that a man had no right to ask a girl whom he wanted to marry whether she had previously fallen from virtue, and that the girl had no obligation of admitting anything about her past to her fiance. We think that if a man wants to know what kind of girl he is marrying he should be allowed to ask her about her past, and that she should honestly tell him. After all, it is important to a man to know that he is marrying a good girl.

    Solution: We are in perfect agreement with the statement that it is important for a man to know that he is marrying a good girl. It is the purpose of the period of company-keeping to provide a man with assurance on this point, and equally so to provide the girl with assurance that he is a good man. By going together for several months, a man and woman can learn all they need to know about the ideals and moral characters of each other, if both are interested enough in this matter to look for and draw out from the other the spiritual and moral principles that are considered of greatest importance. A girl who lacks character and sound moral principles will not be able to hide her lack from a man who really considers such things necessary for a happy marriage. And a man who has not acquired solid virtue will clearly manifest his weakness to a girl who realizes that without it a happy marriage could not be hoped for.
    This testing of each other’s characters on the part of a boy and girl keeping company does not require open and complete revelations of each one’s past. We have set it down, and we repeat, that it is a general presumption that it is not wise for two people preparing for marriage to make full confessions to each other. It is not good for a man to demand of a girl whom he might ask to marry him that she tell him whether or how she ever fell into sin in the past. In our experience, we have found that most men who insist on being told such things have had rather chequered careers themselves, and have a leaning toward an unhealthy, not to say morbid, kind of jealousy. There are exceptions, of course, and our presumption, that in general it is best to leave the past buried, leaves room for them.
    It still remains possible, we believe, for a man to learn all he needs to know about a girl, even up to whether she has ever been a sinner or not, without asking direct questions or demanding revelations. And it is possible for a girl to learn through company-keeping whether the man she is going with hates sin, loves virtue, and is willing to face the sacrifices and responsibilities involved. The sad thing is that so many are not interested in these supremely important matters.

  67. Spawny Get says:

    If 1kingofkings is actually ‘Plain Jane’ then she has bigger problems than being a troll. When her meds are working and she doesn’t medicate in other ways, she can add to a discussion. Never lasts long though, it always falls apart. I actually feel a bit sorry for her from time to time, but then she flips out and all that goes away…

  68. Chris says:

    Julian is right. The court will reform, the become punitive, then reform, then crash. Just like the Romanov system: you have to let the pressure off the serfs, and if you get it wrong (or worse, the serfs get educated) the system will fall.

    But historically, that has not been a bloodless process.

  69. Spawny Get says:

    @MarcusD
    You need to release that software, I’d love to run it on a few people. Politicians, women, blue-pillers

  70. MarcusD says:

    I quote the above in light of the Erikson Saga.

  71. Julian O'Dea says:

    Leif has wished Jenny a happy birthday today. On Twitter.

  72. Poor Leif.

    Julian, your historian’s observation above alludes, probably, to Crane Brinton’s famous book “The Anatomy of Revolution”, a comparative study of the English, French, American, and Russian revolutions. I’ve only read Brinton’s separate book on the French Revolution but, as I understand it, his analogy of Revolution to fever holds that only when oppression eases do the oppressed figure out that they’ve had enough.

  73. Pingback: As expected. | Truth and contradictions | Scoop.it

  74. Julian O'Dea says:

    Thanks Lucius. It is good to know that it is a genuine historical theory.

    Yes, poor Leif. It is strange that he shares a name with a great Norseman, Leif Erikson.

    There is an old saying – Never Explain: Never Apologise. It is fatal to back down. Men learned this with feminism. It may work the other way too.

    GLAAD knows this, which is why the Duck thing was such a disaster for them. The pushback worked.

    Feminism will face its Stalingrad.

  75. Julian O'Dea says:

    The gender war is real. Men are having their resources stolen, lives are being lost, even if you don’t count the abortions. Men’s reputations are being ruined.

  76. One time I was reading on a discussion forum about one of those hoarding shows, where the wife was such a bad hoarder that the couple’s kids had been taken away because of the terrible conditions. They were trying to clean up the house to get the kids back, but she kept dragging more stuff home while hubby was at work. Now, this is a very liberal forum, where the participants (mostly women) are universally pro-gay, pro-diversity, etc. They were all upset and confused at the husband in this case, wondering why he hadn’t left her and taken custody of the kids.

    I wanted to yell at them: Because he can’t, you idiots, because of the system YOU created and support! If he tried, he’d probably lose, and then his kids would still be living in terrible conditions, but without him there to protect them as best he can.

    In any other case, these viewers would say that of course the mother should get the kids. But they want to be able to make an exception when they personally see a case that they think should go the other way. It doesn’t work that way. If you make the presumption of maternal custody and paternal child support, that’s what you’re going to get across the board, because judges aren’t Solomon. They’re just following the marching orders of the female imperative like everyone else.

  77. Leif has wished Jenny a happy birthday today. On Twitter.

    Of course he did. He’s trying to show her A) that he still loves her, so she can come back; B) that he’s a good man who doesn’t hold grudges, not the petty kind who would punish her. Pure blue pill thinking, to believe it will gain him anything but her scorn.

  78. Elspeth says:

    I found it funny that the movie knew how to play the Sex of the Victim card really, REALLY well. 90% of the ‘wrongfully’ accused in any of the situations were women in the trailers,

    For example, the woman in the pink shirt being cuffed in court….was that supposed to be serious?

  79. Boxer says:

    Leif has wished Jenny a happy birthday today. On Twitter.

    Leif, my brother, I know you’re reading here. The only chance you have of getting your marriage back is refusing to pursue. Counterintuitive, but true.

    The best thing to do is to work on yourself. Make sure you see your little girls as much as possible. Be the best possible father you can be.

    Hit the gym. Don’t date anyone (including Jenny) for at least a few months. Get your diet right. Pay down the debt that your ex wife has, no doubt, accrued in your name. Enjoy and appreciate the peace of living alone. Take things one day at a time.

    Best, Boxer

  80. Tam the Bam says:

    Although there are limits ..
    “The whole frame was filled with stones and clods that he flung at everyone who came up to look at him in his nakedness, with his narrow tool and his balls hanging down through the chariot floor”

    Thus Ilech, a demented old grandfather, a burlesque and tragicomic figure in the early medieval epic Táin Bó Cúailnge .

  81. Boxer says:

    I might start some shit up here by telling this truth, but I just can’t help myself.

    For example, the woman in the pink shirt being cuffed in court….was that supposed to be serious?

    A couple of years ago, when I had some free time, I hung out at the family courts. Women getting fucked over are outliers, but they occasionally appear. I remember one female who was back in court for the umpteenth time, after having quit school, got a job at a car dealership, and still couldn’t pay the insane amount of maintenance and child support those hucksters imputed. Her ex-husband and kids were not in the courtroom, because they had moved a thousand miles away. This did not make any perceivable difference to the mangina on the bench. Only the state’s child support lawyer was there, making her out to be some sort of criminal. IIRC the judge told her what a piece of shit she was, and added some interest on to what she owed already. At the end she asked “can I make a statement?” and the judge barked “NO!”. What an asshole.

    It’s usually men, but they occasionally squeeze women too.

  82. earl says:

    “Leif has wished Jenny a happy birthday today. On Twitter.”

    Well she did just turn 31…I’m holding out hope it was a backhanded compliment.

  83. Ton says:

    As a rule, people don’t correct their mistakes, they double down on them.

    Folks will do the same about the family courts

  84. Zippy says:

    It isn’t just pragmatic; it is ideological. Modernity is ideologically committed to liberalism, and where liberalism (of which feminism is an offshoot) produces inequalities it will be policed by its own. The problems with feminism (for modern people) arise from the inequalities and restrictions on freedom that it produces in its encounter with reality. That is always the source of intramural conflict within liberal modernity.

  85. Keith Young says:

    Feminists have sold young women a bill of goods: that they can live like men, curse like men, work like men, display their bodies like men, tattoo like men, have sex like men, and then turn back into women whenever they feel like it.

    Dalrock, I think you should address the alternative view of men, disgusted with white women and their feminist antics, who have abandoned the generic ‘Becky’ and opted for women of a different color and/or culture.

    A good place to start is the blog, Beyond Black and White.

    http://www.beyondblackwhite.com/

  86. For every Lief Erikson, there’s a……

    oh wait.

  87. Pingback: How the USA’s government and culture work together to destroy nuclear families | vulture of critique

  88. All this divorce shit just reaffirms what I have believed since I was 13…

    …be so very careful who you marry. Don’t do it hastely. And don’t second guess yourself if you decide to dump her and move on to the next. The risks here fo marrying the wrong woman (in this day and age) are just so large, it isn’t worth it.

    My first fiance was BPD. I got out cheap, just $700 in legal expenses to dump her after all that meaningless wrath. Had I married her, it would have cost me $700,000.

    #2, I got out cheaper. Just moved out of the house that I owned (that I allowed her to live in carte blanche so she could pay off her debt) so she could have one month to get her shit together and find her own apartment.

    In both those situations, it stung that day. I took my emotional and financial lumps, but got out pretty cheap all things considered. No bad marriage and horrible divorce. Gentlemen, be oh so very careful, who you marry.

  89. 8to12 says:

    @Anonymous age 71, with his previous discussions about private marriages in Mexico, may be showing us the way.

    As long as “married in the eyes of God” marriage is synonymous with “legal marriage” (where the secular government makes all the rules) then we will never get out of this mess.

    I’m also starting to wonder if the Devil isn’t using “legal marriage” as a tool to destroy marriage. Every year it becomes more obvious that the law penalizes people are are legally married, and rewards people for not marrying.

    There was a story the other day about a woman that found she and her child were ineligible for subsidies under ObamaCare, because she was legally married to the father. Had she been shacking up with a man and had the child out of wedlock (and thus a single mom), she would have been eligible.

    I’m pretty sure that throughout most of human history in most cultures, the government had little (if anything) to do with marriage. It was a private matter regulated by the families involved and whatever religious beliefs they had.

    By turning over the regulation of marriage to the government, we’ve put the most important Christian institution–the family–under the complete authority of a non-christian institution.

  90. Anonymous Reader says:

    Leif has wished Jenny a happy birthday today. On Twitter.

    Oneitis feeds the solipsistic beast, yep. Of course, there are ways that could have been done to great effect, “Happy B-day, you’re not getting older, at 31 you’re getting better!” or something like that. He won’t do that, though. And even that token bit of attention will surely feed her self-esteem-monster for a while.

    Up thread I referred to pro-wrassling. This is not to imply that Mrs. Instapundit and Dr. Drew are Machiavellian actors in some convoluted drama, so far as I can tell they are on the up-and-up. But someone produced, and will distribute, this video. The infotainment industry thrives on conflict but only within a circumscribed zone – manufactured conflict, tame drama as it were, in various forms; from “LIfetime” and “Oxygen” and “Oprah” made for TV movies to the more downscale Maury Povitch type conflict, the drama must be contained within bounds. It does not take a lot of imagination to think of infotainment execs seeing the ever more detailed and vituperative comment streams on many articles in the last few years, and thinking, “Hmm, here’s some potential drama we can make money off of, within bounds”.

    Punch and Judy are clearly puppets. Other figures are not obviously puppets, but still may be.

  91. Elspeth says:

    A couple of years ago, when I had some free time, I hung out at the family courts. Women getting fucked over are outliers, but they occasionally appear.

    I know that women sometimes get hit. I am related to a woman who was judged 65% financially responsible for the child’s support because she made that much more money than her ex. When she lost the good paying gig and replaced it with one that paid less, she got a part time job to keep up with the judgment until she could get a new hearing. Of course, they were never legally married either.

    I still think it would have been more realistic to have portrayed the cuffed party as male since 90% of the time, that’s the way it goes in reality.

  92. Anonymous Reader says:

    Elspeth
    I still think it would have been more realistic to have portrayed the cuffed party as male since 90% of the time, that’s the way it goes in reality.

    Sure, but reality isn’t what will convince people to view the video…

  93. And, unironically, I come across this article this morning:

    http://bottomline.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/07/22214968-marriage-may-not-be-silver-bullet-for-poverty-study-says?d=1

    Interesting how the ‘study’ presumes women should marry primarily to improve their socioeconomic status as facilitated by the men who happen to impregnate them.

    And here I thought it was The End of Men and we were all obsolete now. NIce to know we’re still considered useful insofar as offering an economic hand up to the women we marry.

    What exactly is men’s incentive to get married these days?

  94. jf12 says:

    re: as expected. I wonder if things have really changed at all since my divorce. Shall we take a poll about our expectations of how much Jenny will get in her divorce?

    I too got frivorced at age 30 after ten years of marriage to a woman who increasingly felt trapped in paradise and wanted to find a snake with a better looking apple. But that was in 1980, basically the peak of the boomer women’s empowerment phase (keep in mind Farrah Fawcett’s poster, at age 29, was in 1976 i.e. 38 years ago!). My wife moved out to a teeny tiny 1-br apartment in which our daughters never spent the night, while I stayed in our (very expensive) marital home during the entire separation. After she filed and I belatedly began looking I literally could not find a male lawyer in all of Dallas willing to represent a husband in a frivorce, and as expected the assigned judge was a woman. So on D-day, I was the only male in the courtroom, me against my ex, her lawyer, my lawyer, the judge, and the reporter. Being the only one with substantial money I wound up paying all legal fees, court and both lawyers. She got the house, the good car, all real property, half of “our” money assets as they were at separation, and the kids full custody as expected. I got to keep the shirt on my back, and I got visitation, and I got to pay child support, and I got to pay all house payments for a temporary period, not counted as alimony. As soon as that period ended, less than two years after the divorce she was selling the house and kept the entire proceeds (and moved out of state etc).

  95. 8to12: I’m also starting to wonder if the Devil isn’t using “legal marriage” as a tool to destroy marriage. Every year it becomes more obvious that the law penalizes people are are legally married, and rewards people for not marrying.

    Yep. The devil hates women and hates families and will do everything he can to destroy women and families. His current tool of choice is Marriage 2.0.

    Rollo: What exactly is men’s incentive to get married these days?

    The incentives for Christian men is to avoid social ostracism for sleeping around. I certainly know that’s the only reason I ever think about getting married.

    Essentially, modern Christian men want to worship at the altar of the holy vagina and get a stamp and licence to do so. I often wonder if Marriage 2.0 is, indeed, the type of fornication and whoredoms spoken about in the Pauline epistles and in Revelation.

  96. TarzanWannaBe says:

    When considering the differences between men and women, movie narrator Dr. Drew has stated elsewhere that he thinks ‘female’ is a “*better* form of the human being”, that there “wouldn’t be wars”, “men had their time” etc. Listen from 26:20 through 30:40 http://podbay.fm/show/584543823/e/1360472400?autostart=1

    I wonder if the good Dr. supports equality under the law for us lesser, outdated, humans?

  97. Ton says:

    The constitution and bill of rights died in 1860. It’s beyond useless to bitch about it now.

  98. hoellenhund2 says:

    Pinsky seems to be a typical media whore. He loves the attention.

  99. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    The incentives for Christian men is to avoid social ostracism for sleeping around. I certainly know that’s the only reason I ever think about getting married.

    Then those Christian men haven’t caught up with the current market conditions. Men that sleep around are fought over by the women of the church. Virgin men are reviled, if they let slip their status.

  100. Anonymous Reader says:

    Bill Price explains a few things quite clearly in this article:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2014/01/06/how-child-support-enforcement-works/

    There is a USSC / SCOTUS decision cited that I was not aware of that is interesting, and
    in passing explains why men have no right to legal representation in anti-Family Court.

  101. @Cautiously Pessimistic

    I don’t really care what women at my church think.

    I do, however, care quite a bit about the men in my life think. Family members, business associates, friends, pastors, acquaintances. And there’s quite a bit of stigma on being a “playa”.

    I currently deal with this by keeping my shenanigans geographically far enough from home that it’s mostly a joke, heh-heh, wink-nod, about my frequent business trips. Things stop being a joke once that girl you played turned out to be your business associate’s sister’s daughter. Oops.

  102. ar10308 says:

    “Being the only one with substantial money I wound up paying all legal fees, court and both lawyers. She got the house, the good car, all real property, half of “our” money assets as they were at separation, and the kids full custody as expected. I got to keep the shirt on my back, and I got visitation, and I got to pay child support, and I got to pay all house payments for a temporary period, not counted as alimony.”

    It is for this reason that when men who take their own lives, due to despair and hopelessness put upon them by the state, should also take those who placed them in that situation with them. Especially the judges.

  103. deti says:

    @ AnonReader, Cail, Dalrock, Julian:

    “Leif has wished Jenny a happy birthday today. On Twitter.”

    “Oneitis feeds the solipsistic beast, yep.”

    Every Christian man – hell, every man – should carefully study the Jenny Erikson case. One could not have asked for a more convenient set of facts setting out manosphere truths. All carefully documented, hamsterized, and presented on a silver platter, all in one place, for any man to see — and by the very churchian woman who lived and lives them; from her very own computer keyboard.

    This story’s got it all. Set against Churchian backdrop. Daughter of the King/God’s Special Princess with 463 bullet point checklist by day; party girl with possible drinking problem by night. Female premarital sex. Alpha widowhood. Beta orbiting. Captain Save-A-Ho. Churchian instructions and blessings. Alpha f*cks, beta bucks. Oneitis. Solipsism. Confusion and conflation of attraction traits and desirable traits. Marriage to an unattractive man. Beta provider believing he’s hit the jackpot, that his beta provider “game” finally paid off. Hamsterizing the marriage for its duration; then revisionist history when she leaves to make clear she never really loved him or wanted him from the beginning. Unhaaaaappiness. His continued oneitis in the futile hope of marital reconciliation.

    One could simply not ask for a better illustration of manosphere concepts.

  104. Keenan McGregor says:

    “Marriage only benefits the man because after marriage woman stop being romanced and are turned into slaves. ”

    Marriage benefits babies and children and that’s all it was created for. Adults don’t benefit from it as much. Our species is not naturally lifelong monogamous. We have to be socialized into that. Which is fine. But we’d be fools to assume that its natural in the biological sense.

  105. sunshinemary says:

    Deti: “One could not have asked for a more convenient set of facts setting out manosphere truths.”

    The only thing that doesn’t fit is the part about how women ride the carousel and use up all their youth having fun, then jump off into the arms of a beta provider at the last moment. Mrs. Erikson appears to have been 19-20 when she married Mr. Erikson. For all the good it did him.

  106. gdgm+ says:

    Rollo Tomassi, January 7, 2014 at 10:59 am:
    Interesting to note the study that your link references, was done by the Council on Contemporary Families (CCF): http://www.contemporaryfamilies.org/marriage-ineffective-in-war-on-poverty-report/

    Writer and academic Stephanie Coontz is heavily involved in the CCF, and some would say she has a certain bias, as reflected in her past books such as “The Way We Never Were”.

  107. jf12 says:

    Re: beta provider. In all primates, alpha males essentially never service females because the females are too busy servicing them. I’m talking physical bodily service, including especially grooming, but also supplying food. There is never any quid pro quo; the females won’t even let the alpha groom if he wanted to! In contrast, servicing females is what defines beta males, especially grooming, but also supplying food (fruits, maybe, bananas instead of sandwiches). Occasionally there is a little quid pro quo, like females do to each other.

    So, anyway, in addition to being in love making a male *automatically* a beta, being a provider automatically makes a male a beta.

    Keep in mind that females experience MUCH more physical pleasure from a beta, but are stingy and miserly in return to him. In humans, females orgasm much more frequently and stronger when with a loving beta provider. But it doesn’t make her treat him better.

  108. Elspeth says:

    So, anyway, in addition to being in love making a male *automatically* a beta, being a provider automatically makes a male a beta.

    Is this to be translated: There is no such thing as a faithful married alpha? Or even a righteous Christian one?

    I have no real problem with this conclusion for what it’s worth. Just wondering.

  109. SSM,

    The only thing that doesn’t fit is the part about how women ride the carousel and use up all their youth having fun, then jump off into the arms of a beta provider at the last moment. Mrs. Erikson appears to have been 19-20 when she married Mr. Erikson. For all the good it did him.

    Exactly right.

    That is why I have been saying (and continue to say) women should focus on marrying from 25 to 29. The fact that so few women marry between 20 and 25 does not bother me in the least. She is “having fun” (for lack of a better term) during that “term” and making memories (many of those memories, the different cocks she’s had, possibly.)

    If she does as much of the manosphere says she must (marry at 19 or 20 the way Jenny did, when her SMV is highest and her hymen might be unbroken, or if it has been broken, a very tiny window of cock carrosel) she will not have those memories. Lo and behold, she feels like she missed something and so…. she frivorces her husband at age 31 to go find the time she never had. That is basically what is happening with Jenny.

    Jenny Erikson did as everyone here requested she should at age 20. Problem is, Leif did what everyone here would request that he NOT do, that is marry a woman that never really loved him. That is the problem. Of course, when YOU are in love with a woman, you think you know better and no one is going to talk you out of anything. More to the point, there is no real book/manual instructing poor hapless souls like Leif to know (for sure) if the woman he loves, truly loves him back and would not frivorce his @ss to go make some memories that she never had. What a conundrum.

  110. MarcusD says:

    For the record:

  111. Every Christian man – hell, every man – should carefully study the Jenny Erikson case. One could not have asked for a more convenient set of facts setting out manosphere truths. — deti

    Yep, it really does have it all. Unfortunately, if you had pointed to her in my bluest of blue-pill days, I would have said NAWALT. It’s so easy somehow for blue-pill guys to say, “Yeah, every attractive girl I’ve ever met blew me off for a biker/drummer/starving artist/pothead/felon, but NAWALT. They can’t all be like that. Please let me believe they’re not all like that!”

    SSM, you have a point there. Maybe Mrs. Erikson’s path is the “good Christian girl” version: she was just well-raised/conservative/churched enough to want marriage early and not to want to spend her 20s on the carousel, but she was still following the feminist script of alpha-fun-then-beta-provider, so she shifted into find-a-beta-provider mode a decade early — and subsequently hit the unhaaaaapy stage early as well. Just a guess.

  112. sunshinemary says:

    That is why I have been saying (and continue to say) women should focus on marrying from 25 to 29. The fact that so few women marry between 20 and 25 does not bother me in the least. She is “having fun” (for lack of a better term) during that “term” and making memories (many of those memories, the different cocks she’s had, possibly.)

    If she does as much of the manosphere says she must (marry at 19 or 20 the way Jenny did, when her SMV is highest and her hymen might be unbroken, or if it has been broken, a very tiny window of cock carrosel) she will not have those memories. Lo and behold, she feels like she missed something and so…. she frivorces her husband at age 31 to go find the time she never had. That is basically what is happening with Jenny.

    Respectfully disagree, sir. Women should focus on marrying young and then being faithful to their vows.

    Making memories of another man’s penis inside her is hardly a prerequisite for a wife to maintain a life-long marriage.

  113. SSM,

    Respectfully disagree, sir. Women should focus on marrying young and then being faithful to their vows.

    Making memories of another man’s penis inside her is hardly a prerequisite for a wife to maintain a life-long marriage

    I understand and (well) to some extent, I agree with you. There is much that I agree with what you are saying.

    Problem is, it doesn’t play out that way in the world of reality. The data supports what I am saying. She should be faithful to her vows. She isn’t. And society doesn’t expect her to be. That is why they gave women no-fault-divorce.

    The fact that you are faithful is part of what makes you (and other wives like you, sadly an ever decreasing percentage) so special.

  114. Anonymous Reader says:

    jf12
    Keep in mind that females experience MUCH more physical pleasure from a beta, but are stingy and miserly in return to him. In humans, females orgasm much more frequently and stronger when with a loving beta provider.

    How do you know this to be true? Have you ever heard of “5 minutes of alpha”, or “alpha widow”?

  115. MarcusD says:

    Men that sleep around are fought over by the women of the church. Virgin men are reviled, if they let slip their status.

    It depends. It’s probably due to why one man is sexually experienced and the other isn’t (e.g. the independent variable — attractiveness, etc).

  116. jf12 says:

    @Elspeth, you quoted a comment about betas, then asked about alphas “Is this to be translated: There is no such thing as a faithful married alpha? Or even a righteous Christian one?” I’m going to answer the right question instead. You (women in general, too) really should force yourself to be more interested in betas instead of alphas. Seriously. There are so few alphas, relatively, that women, ESPECIALLY Christian women, ought to ignore them. Alphas are big big big big big trouble for women, all women, always, and all alphas will always find it MUCH more difficult to be faithful, much more difficult to be righteous, much more difficult to be Christian. Always. You cannot help an alpha be more faithful etc by paying him more attention. You cannot.

  117. AR,

    jf12
    Keep in mind that females experience MUCH more physical pleasure from a beta, but are stingy and miserly in return to him. In humans, females orgasm much more frequently and stronger when with a loving beta provider.

    How do you know this to be true? Have you ever heard of “5 minutes of alpha”, or “alpha widow”?

    Exactly right.

    I’ve known more than just a few women who have frivorced their husbands because their husband’s penis wasn’t long/thick enough as what they were used to and (as a result) they could never have an orgasm with him in their bed the way they did with other men who had bigger cocks. Size matters. Sadly, these women didn’t know what they were getting with their husbands because their husbands were good Christian men who wanted to wait until marriage for sex….

    ….so she had no way of knowing how small he was, nor did she know that she would not be sexually satisfied by him…

    …so she felt justified in leaving him afterwards for not being big enough. The rationalization hamster doesn’t have to run very hard on the wheel to get to this point.

    Frightening, isn’t it?

  118. Anonymous Reader says:

    Drat. Wrong quote. I will correct it. Previous comment should go away.

    IBB
    That is why I have been saying (and continue to say) women should focus on marrying from 25 to 29. The fact that so few women marry between 20 and 25 does not bother me in the least. She is “having fun” (for lack of a better term) during that “term” and making memories (many of those memories, the different cocks she’s had, possibly.)

    Why do you love divorce so much?

  119. I don’t. I hate divorce. I don’t know where you could have gotten the idea that I like it.

  120. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB

    Problem is, it doesn’t play out that way in the world of reality. The data supports what I am saying. She should be faithful to her vows. She isn’t. And society doesn’t expect her to be. That is why they gave women no-fault-divorce.

    But it is documented that the probability of divorce increases, monotonically, with every sex partner a woman has before marriage. So your promotion of women riding the carousel means more divorce, not less, more suffering, not less, more broken families, not fewer.

    You seem to have a problem with cause and effect…

  121. MarcusD says:

    I don’t have sources at the moment, but women who are devout Christians who engage in premarital sex with someone they don’t end up marrying may actually be a worse marriage risk than women who are not devout Christians and engage in premarital sex with someone they don’t end up marrying (and later convert/revert). Devoutness is a buffer, seemingly, and a man who is able to override that buffer will probably leave a mark, less so for a woman who has no concept of waiting until marriage.

    It’s also amusing to see Christians/Churchians freak out about Game as preying on young women, but the irony is that it is just exposing those women for who they are, and also revealing why they are able to, generally, wait until marriage — e.g. no attractive men (via Game or not).

  122. earl says:

    “Men that sleep around are fought over by the women of the church. Virgin men are reviled, if they let slip their status.”

    It could be for a few reasons…

    1) Men that sleep around aren’t needy and virgin men are. That doesn’t matter if you believe in Jesus or not.

    2) Men that sleep around are seen as the men that women want commitment from and they think sexing him up will put him in the fog. Virgin men are basically invisible but they can observe how these women act.

    3) Virgin men have self control…which reminds the lady how little of it she has. A player is just as much dirty sexually as she is, therefore she is more comfortable with him.

  123. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB

    I don’t. I hate divorce. I don’t know where you could have gotten the idea that I like it.

    You would encourage women to marry late. That promotes divorce. You would encourage women to be promiscuous prior to marriage. That promotes divorce.

    You say one thing, but encourage actions diametrically opposite…

  124. jf12 says:

    @AR,
    Yes, there are data. Beta men are much better lovers, due in large part because they have to be in order to get any, and promiscuous alpha cads are by far the worst lovers. Typically concentrating on only his pleasure, of course, but also treating the women actually poorly physically: pushing them out of bed, smacking them around, twisting their arms if they don’t make sandwiches on time, etc.

    In one of the more amusing related experiments, women who were TOLD a man was promiscuous reported 60% less actual orgasms with him but faked orgasms more than 500% more! Regardless of whether he was actually promiscuous or not! So the men who were reported to be promiscuous erroneously thought themselves to be better lovers, and probably became more promiscuous!! Enough hahas and lols to share with everyone!

  125. AR,

    But it is documented that the probability of divorce increases, monotonically, with every sex partner a woman has before marriage. So your promotion of women riding the carousel means more divorce, not less, more suffering, not less, more broken families, not fewer.

    You seem to have a problem with cause and effect…

    Jenny got married at 19 or 20. So her experience is the OPPOSITE of the data (in this sense.)

    That was SSM’s point. She’s right. It made no difference did it AR?

  126. Chris says:

    Well, my advice for the sons, despite the fact that I respect SSM and Elspeth and the Ladysphere — is to never date an American. Because the court is stacked against you: and by American I mean Canada and the USA.

    First daugther — Mom left a week before we would have wed — when I met up with her (at 18) her first question was “Why would you not raise me?”. I said that the chance of THAT happening in the 1980s was zero. And her female MSW therapist backed me up .

    If my boys do fall in love with Godly, Christian (not “good churhian girls”) who happen to he American, I will advise them to not LIVE in America. Unless both Canada and the USA have reformed: and I cannot see that happening.

    I’m not saying that NZ and Australia are better — but there is no alimony here: you get the assets and you are then expected to support yourself (if you get state aid, when the youngest is three you must be in training, ad when the youngest is five seeking work. Our minister of social welfare is a solo Mum: she has no time for welfare queens). And the court will count you as married if you have a kid.

    The laws may change but we can starve the beast.

  127. MarcusD says:

    But it is documented that the probability of divorce increases, monotonically, with every sex partner a woman has before marriage.

    Off the top of my head: Kahn & London (1991), Heaton (2004), Teachman (2006), Paik (2011), and Willoughby (2013).

  128. Anonymous Reader says:

    jf12

    Yes, there are data.

    Cite, please.

  129. Pingback: Watch This Closely — courtshippledge.com

  130. MarcusD says:

    Virgin men have self control…which reminds the lady how little of it she has. A player is just as much dirty sexually as she is, therefore she is more comfortable with him.

    Yes, it pricks their conscience.

  131. Opus says:

    Mrs Erikson has a new essay at The Stir – a ten point list of what and what not to do if you date a divorced mother – she is an expert on this as she recently went on her first post-divorce date. The guy was a lawyer and she does not propose giving him a second date – or perhaps she senses he is not interested in her and is getting the boot in first – or perhaps she is just making it all up, for given how smart lawyers are supposed to be, especially ones with pretty eyes, one really has at least to wonder why he would want to date a feckless frivorcee?

    Apart from the tediousness predictableness of her dim-witted self-serving list, what I found most interesting was that she reveals that she attended a small private University. I am not quite sure what that implies – academically speaking – but I find it hard to grasp how she managed that at all if she was married and with child aged nineteen. Would I be correct in guessing that the Alpha dudes who pumped and dumped her were fellow students there and that Leif was a fellow student?

    Is Leif putting on weight? That beard does not suit him.

  132. earl says:

    “Frightening, isn’t it?”

    Only how you found out this information. Divorcing because of penis size was probably a cover for the fact the dude was weak to begin with.

  133. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB

    Jenny got married at 19 or 20. So her experience is the OPPOSITE of the data (in this sense.)

    No, her experience is right in line with the data, because Lief was not her first man, in fact he surely married her on the rebound from an Alpha sexual experience. Thus she verifies the data.

    You want more women like Jenny Erickson, IBB, not fewer. That’s what you encourage, with this “experiences” hogwash you are pushing.

    Why do you love divorce so much?

  134. MarcusD says:

    Jenny got married at 19 or 20. So her experience is the OPPOSITE of the data (in this sense.)

    That was SSM’s point. She’s right. It made no difference did it AR?

    If I recall correctly, JE stated that she had other sexual partners, which is what AR is saying (in light of the above studies) – thus the higher risk. Her young age should also show how dangerous marrying such a person is, as well.

  135. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    I’ve known more than just a few women who have frivorced their husbands because their husband’s penis wasn’t long/thick enough as what they were used to and (as a result) they could never have an orgasm with him in their bed the way they did with other men who had bigger cocks

    Classic “alpha widow” situation. Remarkable that those women would share such details with a man, IBB, really remarkable.

    But I digress. You encourage women 20 – 25 to “experience”, and therefore you want more such divorces, not fewer.

    Why do you love divorce?

  136. No, her experience is right in line with the data, because Lief was nother first man, in fact he surely married her on the rebound from an Alpha sexual experience. Thus she verifies the data.

    You want more women like Jenny Erickson, IBB, not fewer. That’s what you encourage, with this “experiences” hogwash you are pushing.

    Why do you love divorce so much?

    We are going in circles. Jenny married very young. That is what the manosphere and other people here think is a good idea. It didn’t matter. Still frivorced.

    I don’t love divorce. I’ve already said that. You repeated it. I’m done with you.

  137. earl says:

    Leif was the emotional tampon to listen to Jenny’s bad boy dates.

    Most American women are useless if they’ve had any sexual partners. You either have to be the top of the mountain (and who knows if you are ever going to be that) or she will always put you behind some other dick.

  138. Classic “alpha widow” situation. Remarkable that those women would share such details with a man, IBB, really remarkable.

    No, not all that remarkable. I just listen (and learn) what they say (over years) until I find out the real reason. They share that information (with each other) and eventually it gets to m.e Not right away, but I learn.

    Surprising that the information doesn’t get to you ,is it not? Maybe women just don’t want to talk to you? Maybe if you spent less time asking people why they love divorce (when you know they hate it, you just like being a prick) instead of trying to really look at the data and really try to understand women, you wouldn’t be asking dumb @ss questions?

  139. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    We are going in circles.

    No, you are going in circles. I know where I’m going.

    Jenny married very young.

    Jenny married on the rebound from an alpha. Her age is not all that relevant.

    That is what the manosphere and other people here think is a good idea. It didn’t matter. Still frivorced.

    The frivorce was due to her being an alpha widow, who married a beta man that she was not truly attracted to. The situation would be the same if she’d followed your advice and pulled a few trains…er…”gained experience” between the age of 20 and 25, then followed the usual AFBB script of marriage by 30, divorce by 35.

    It is interesting that you cannot seem to understand this. It’s almost as though some sort of imperative is in the way…

    I don’t love divorce. I’ve already said that. You repeated it. I’m done with you.

    Your words are contradicted by the actions that you encourage women to perform. And you don’t grasp cause & effect very well. I think that you are annoyed by my pursuit of the truth.

    You do love divorce, as an option for women. That is clear. You can be “done with me”, but reality isn’t “done with you”, IBB.

    Neither is ketchup…

  140. Anonymous Reader says:

    Classic “alpha widow” situation. Remarkable that those women would share such details with a man, IBB, really remarkable.

    IBB
    No, not all that remarkable. I just listen (and learn) what they say (over years) until I find out the real reason. They share that information (with each other) and eventually it gets to m.e Not right away, but I learn.

    I’m sure that gossip gets to your ears, eventually, after the women share it with each other, IBB.

    Surprising that the information doesn’t get to you ,is it not? Maybe women just don’t want to talk to you? Maybe if you spent less time asking people why they love divorce (when you know they hate it, you just like being a prick) instead of trying to really look at the data and really try to understand women, you wouldn’t be asking dumb @ss questions?

    Every day I understand women just a bit better, IBB. I’m understanding you better, too.

  141. Jason says:

    @AR & IBB,

    I think you are talking past each other.

    IBB, could you please explain what you mean by “gain experiences” 20 – 25. AR thinks you mean “ride the carousel” and everything about you loving divorce stems from that statement.

    If that is what you mean, then I would probably agree with AR that you are at least encouraging a situation that will increase rates of divorce. However you may well mean something else.

  142. earl says:

    “What exactly is men’s incentive to get married these days?”

    My only reason would be a family.

    But you can still be head of a household without getting married…even if it means you are the only person there.

  143. Mikediver says:

    I have six sisters, two daughters, and numerous other women in my life. If you sit quietly while they talk for a long time they will forget you are there and the truth will come out. I grew up with this and learned many nasty truths. I know exactly how detailed and clinical women’s discussions of sex and men’s equipment can get. They hate men being somewhere without women because they think (project) that men talk with other men the way they talk with other women.

    No one has a lower opinion of women than other women. They just have a same group bias 4 times that of men. It may be an evolutionary adaptation. What is good for all women is good for them (at least in the short term, and women never think about the long term; that is what men are for.)

  144. Mikediver says:

    “earl says:
    January 7, 2014 at 2:05 pm
    “What exactly is men’s incentive to get married these days?”

    My only reason would be a family.”

    The problem I see, and what I advise my sons about marriage, is that it is a lie. They do not get a family. She gets a family. What the guy gets is the billl for her family. Marriage 1.0 was a business deal. The man gave his excess production for her excess reproduction. The children were his because he had bought and paid for them. Now marriage 2.0 is he provides his excess production and she gives nothing. Not a good deal.

  145. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jason
    IBB, could you please explain what you mean by “gain experiences” 20 – 25.

    That’s already been done up the thread. Here, I’ll repost it, marking the relevant section in bold.

    IBB
    That is why I have been saying (and continue to say) women should focus on marrying from 25 to 29. The fact that so few women marry between 20 and 25 does not bother me in the least. She is “having fun” (for lack of a better term) during that “term” and making memories (many of those memories, the different cocks she’s had, possibly.)

    The short form of this is “riding the cock carousel”, and with every cock the probability of divorce increases.

  146. Jenny divorced Leif based on a few things, age not being one of them. She was not a virgin, she was not attracted to Leif and therefore did not bond to him. She lied, she conned and she couldn’t do it any longer. He was her beta, not her alpha. And eventually the beta caused her so much revulsion she had to jump ship.

  147. jf12 says:

    @AR, a couple of recent citations regarding women having worse sex by casually hooking up with what they think are promiscuous men, despite conspicuously preferring those men for casual hookup!

    Armstrong, E. A., England, P., & Fogarty, A. K. (2012). Accounting for women’s orgasm and sexual enjoyment in college hookups and relationships. American Sociological Review, 77(3), 435-462.

    Conley, T. D. (2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality And Social Psychology, 100(2), 309-329.

    Another funnier fun fact is that women who THINK a man is rich report having more frequent and stronger orgasms with him, regardless of whether he is rich or not, but also report faking orgasms more frequently. Presumably any male’s best ploy, to get the most quantity times quality (for him) sexual response from a woman is to pretend to be poor but extremely promiscuous in order to get her into bed the quickest, and then while doing the deed show her bank statements (faked if necessary) showing net worth of millions of dollars etc.

    Women basically do not bother faking orgasms for beta males, nor for faithful males, nor for poor males. In much the same way, men do not bother faking commitment for _____ females, nor ______ females, nor ______ females.

  148. MarcusD says:

    Jenny married very young. That is what the manosphere and other people here think is a good idea. It didn’t matter. Still frivorced.

    Marrying young is not in exclusion of other things (e.g. not having 20 sexual partners).

  149. Lol, if women ‘experience’ all those cocks in order to build memories, they will simply still divorce you upon realising you cannot make them orgasm. I’m sorry, if IBB’s solution is to allow women all they can have, eat their cake, smear it on their faces; and then marry them after all that… he can have it. Fuck IBB, was your wife a whore?

  150. Elspeth says:

    I’m going to answer the right question instead. You (women in general, too) really should force yourself to be more interested in betas instead of alphas. Seriously. There are so few alphas, relatively, that women, ESPECIALLY Christian women, ought to ignore them.

    I think you misunderstand me, sir. I am not interested in “alphas” at all. I have said on more than one occasion that my husband is certainly MY “alpha”. Good genes and a father whose chauvinism would make most men here blush were what laid the groundwork for his relationships before marriage and conversion, not game.

    He has a very dominant frame but I’ve never been convinced that he is an “alpha” in the sense that the term is used here. And that’s precisely because of the things you said in the original comment I referenced. He is a provider, and faithful, and of strong character. The antithesis of what is often touted as “alpha” characteristics around these parts.

    What I want is to see women get a clue, be more holy and appreciate good men. As I’m not looking for one and cannot change the choice I made 20 years even if I wanted to ( thank goodness I don’t), it serves no purpose for me to be concerned with where a man falls on the Greek alphabet scale.

  151. deti says:

    IBB:

    You’re simply wrong that early marriage is not a good idea for women.

    Anon Reader is correct. Jenny Erikson is not evidence for the proposition that early marriage is a bad idea. Jenny Erikson’s marriage failed not because she married at a young age. Her married failed because she married a man she didn’t truly love and was never sexually attracted to. The fact that she’s an alpha widow and was on the rebound surely didn’t help.

    I don’t know of anyone in the ‘sphere who suggests that a young woman seeking marriage should just marry any man who presents himself to her. The exhortation is that a young woman marry a man she’s in love with, for whom she burns with passion, to whom she is currently sexually attracted (not to whom it’s POSSIBLE she COULD BECOME sexually attracted).

  152. Anonymous Reader says:

    Thanks for the cites. I’m afraid I cannot comment until I have at least read the abstracts, or better still the studies, because so much shoddy or even dishonest work is being published these days…sometimes with very bad methodology. And if self-reporting is involved, meh.

    Let us recall your previous claim:

    Beta men are much better lovers, due in large part because they have to be in order to get any, and promiscuous alpha cads are by far the worst lovers.

    That’s a pretty sweeping generalization, you know…

  153. earl says:

    Submissive men are not better lovers. Men with authority are the only ones that have the ability to love.

    Love is an action…not a reaction.

  154. sunshinemary says:

    What is this “in love with” business? That’s just saying “attracted to” again. If you actually LOVE someone, you seek their best; it’s not a random feeling, like sexual attraction is. It is an action that you choose to take. You may or may not be able to choose/change sexual attraction, but you sure as heck can choose to love someone and do right by them. Turning “in love with” into a feeling distinct from “in lust with” just seems like giving people the chance to justify divorcing someone because they “weren’t in love anymore”.

  155. Jason,

    IBB, could you please explain what you mean by “gain experiences” 20 – 25. AR thinks you mean “ride the carousel” and everything about you loving divorce stems from that statement.

    If that is what you mean, then I would probably agree with AR that you are at least encouraging a situation that will increase rates of divorce. However you may well mean something else.

    I’m not trying to encorage anything. Here is what I’m saying.

    A 21 year old girl who is a virgin? You wont find one in this lifetime. Let me amend that statement, the likelihood of you finding one that wants to get married to you before having sex with you, engineering approximation of zero. Highly unlikely. So few that if that is what you expect (demand) of her, best you plan on never marrying.

    And if she SAYS she is a virgin, she is likely to be lying. Of course, you are not going to know that until your wedding night and if she doesn’t bleed, now how are you going to feel? The courts are on HER SIDE. You could divorce her for not being a virgin bride, but even after one day of marriage, she has legal rights towards your property. That is the way the law is written. What are you going to do gentlemen if you married her and she lied to you? You are screwed. She is protected.

    And if she says her N is 1, it could just as easily be 100. You’d never know. She could be lying again. People lie.

    I don’t think AR and I are talking past each other. He is settling for nothing but exactly what he wants and demands because he believs that is the only way to avoid frivorce. Good for him. I certainly hope he gets what he wants. That is all I can do for him. And if he doesn’t have it, I hope some day he gets it. But in the world of reality, women who are virgin before they are married…. engineeing approximation of zero.

    Women DO want to get married. They don’t typically want to get married at 20 because don’t know what they want (yet.) And they almost always think they can do better. They almost never want to get married to a man that they haven’t had sex with first just to make sure he is a good enough lover. (They want that information before hand.) I know that sounds horrible and unChristian, but that is REALITY. Its wrong. But it is what it is.

    Yes I understand the data. Yes, ideally, a virgin should marry a virgin. Should be that way. If I could snap my fingers and make it so, it would be that way. (That way, she will never know how big or small he is compared to the others and he will never know how good in bed she is compared to the others.) Now you can properly pair bond and sex bonds the marriage much better….

    …that is the IDEAL. That is not reality. I wish it were. For everyone’s sake.

    So (given reality) no, I am not bothered that women aren’t getting married from 20 to 25 because they aren’t virgin (not likely.) There is not much we (as men) can do to change that. All men can do (particularly the youngest, virgin, Christian ones) is basically boycott marriage at this point. They can just say (publically)…

    I am a virgin. I wanted to marry a virgin bride so she would have no idea if I was a good or bad lover. I wanted to be her first and ONLY! I wanted to break the hymen to pair bond. I didn’t get that. I missed my window or maybe I never had a window to begin with because no virgin would have me, I was never loved. If that’s the case and it is, then I wont marry anyone. I’ll be a good Christian man and take my virginity to my death bed and never have children. If I can’t get it all, I wont take anything because she will just divorce me if she had sexual experiences prior to me!

    …you could go young male virgin Christian Galt. But is that all that realistic? How many young virgin men are going to do that? Probably none (unless they want to be a Priest.) But that is what really has to happen to change things.

    Notice Jason, I never said I like the situation as it is. I don’t think it is right what has happened to society and marriage and I largely blame no-fault-divroce. And yes, sex to pair bond is critical. When I was teaching a young Christian single’s group, we talked about this quite a bit and it is much harder to pair bond in marriage (with sex) if either wasn’t a virgin first.

  156. princeasbel says:

    I have a question- I plan on marrying. I’m remaining celibate until I marry, but after swallowing the red pills, my current plan is to have prenuptial agreements signed by my fiance right off the bad so that I’ll be completely protected in divorce. Does anyone here, Dalrock or anyone else, have any feedback on this?

  157. sunshinemary says:

    Earl, we cross posted the same idea. :)

  158. jf12 says:

    Re: “Good genes” (by which you mean good looking), raised to be a bad boy (I’m reading chauvinistic and unconverted), “relationships” plural with women plural, and “very dominant” (by which you mean of women, since being dominant of other men, like I am and like Bill Gates was, doesn’t count). Sounds to me like the thesis of what is often touted as alpha characteristics around these parts. That he became faithful and a provider after conversion is a good thing, but is the antithesis of what makes him anyone’s alpha.

  159. Elspeth says:

    What is this “in love with” business? That’s just saying “attracted to” again. If you actually LOVE someone, you seek their best; it’s not a random feeling, like sexual attraction is. It is an action that you choose to take. You may or may not be able to choose/change sexual attraction, but you sure as heck can choose to love someone and do right by them. Turning “in love with” into a feeling distinct from “in lust with” just seems like giving people the chance to justify divorcing someone because they “weren’t in love anymore”.

    And from this corner comes a hearty “Amen!”

    Well said.

  160. Elspeth says:

    (by which you mean of women, since being dominant of other men, like I am and like Bill Gates was, doesn’t count)

    Oh no. A leader of men as well, Jfr. On the job and off. He is frequently looked to for sound counsel.

    By men.

  161. jf12 says:

    Re: definitions. Beta male doesn’t mean he is submissive. It means it will be difficult for her to be submissive. Big difference. Overarching principle is that pecking order depends solely on female response, not male response.

  162. 8to12 says:

    @Opus,

    She wrote about going out with a lawyer so she brag to other women.

    1) She’s bragging that she can still pull the interest of a top-tier male A lawyer, like a doctor, has high status due to his profession.

    2) She’s bragging that she’s got so much going for her, that she can afford to be picky and pass up a top tier male.

    I suspect the reality varies somewhat from her description. A 31 year old, chubby divorcee dragging along two kids isn’t the target wife material for a tall, hunky, rolling in dough lawyer. Maybe a 5′ 3″, 350 lb lawyer who specializes in drunk driving cases, but not a top-tier type of one.

  163. earl says:

    “I am a virgin. I wanted to marry a virgin bride so she would have no idea if I was a good or bad lover. I wanted to be her first and ONLY! I wanted to break the hymen to pair bond. I didn’t get that. I missed my window or maybe I never had a window to begin with because no virgin would have me, I was never loved. If that’s the case and it is, then I wont marry anyone. I’ll be a good Christian man and take my virginity to my death bed and never have children. If I can’t get it all, I wont take anything because she will just divorce me if she had sexual experiences prior to me!”

    That sounds like a person who had celibacy forced upon them instead of willingly choosing it.

    To me while it makes a lot of sense to react that way…that doesn’t make it sound rewarding.

  164. Elspeth says:

    That he became faithful and a provider after conversion is a good thing, but is the antithesis of what makes him anyone’s alpha.

    You know, this notion that a man who is strong and/or has had any success with women is caddish is startling.

    The truth is that my own husband had purposed in his heart as a teenager that when/if he married he would be faithful. He would not put any woman through what his late mother endured. Yes, he had some trysts before marrying but as far as I know, he has kept that vow.

    Yes. Very, Very caddish!

  165. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    And if she SAYS she is a virgin, she is likely to be lying. Of course, you are not going to know that until your wedding night and if she doesn’t bleed, now how are you going to feel?

    Not all virgin women have intact hymens. Therefore,not all virgin women bleed. Therefore, a lack of bleeding upon intercourse is not necessarily evidence of previous intercourse.

    The courts are on HER SIDE. You could divorce her for not being a virgin bride, but even after one day of marriage, she has legal rights towards your property. That is the way the law is written. What are you going to do gentlemen if you married her and she lied to you? You are screwed. She is protected.

    True. But really not relevant to the discussion.

    And if she says her N is 1, it could just as easily be 100. You’d never know. She could be lying again. People lie.

    Yes, IBB, people do lie. Thanks for reminding us all of that fact.

    I don’t think AR and I are talking past each other. He is settling for nothing but exactly what he wants and demands because he believs that is the only way to avoid frivorce.

    Nice example of projection from IBB. I’ve stated multiple times two facts:

    1. The more different sexual partners a woman has prior to marriage, the more likely she is to be divorced later. This is not controversial.
    2. IBB has stated that women aged 20 to 25 should not marry, but should rather “experience”, and if that “experience” includes a number of different men via intercourse, it’s all good.

    The behavior IBB champions in 2 above increases the probability of divorce, as noted in 1 above. Therefore, IBB is in favor of increasing the number of divorces in the US.

    Note how IBB, rather than deal with any of the facts I have posted, instead turns to personalizing the issue. Instead of choosing to defend, or amend, or clarify words posted, IBB makes up a straw man about me and bashes away at it.

    We are not talking past each other. IBB simply does not want to face the full implications of words that were posted. There seems to be an imperative desire not to face those words, on the part of IBB.

    Good for him. I certainly hope he gets what he wants. That is all I can do for him. And if he doesn’t have it, I hope some day he gets it.

    Again, what I want is irrelevant to the discussion. I’m merely pointing out the logical implications of IBB’s preferred path for women. And IBB keeps on avoiding this logic. Almost as if IBB doesn’t “do” logic…

    But in the world of reality, women who are virgin before they are married…. engineeing approximation of zero.

    How do you know this to be true, IBB? Oh, and is this what you want for your daughter?

  166. deti says:

    SSM, Elspeth:

    It’s pretty clear Jenny Erikson didn’t love Leif and wasn’t in love with him. I understand your saying that love is an action; but the point is that she didn’t love him and probably never did.

    I’m unclear as to exactly what your problem is with asserting that Jenny didn’t love her husband. She didn’t. She chose not to. It’s a major reason for their divorce. Done and dusted.

    What’s the controversy?

  167. IBB, the thing with your scenario is absolutely correct though. Such a man shouldn’t marry. If no woman could bond to him, nor would choose him willingly before others, he isn’t meant to marry.

    This is the whole thing about this, you choose a lifestyle to live by, you don’t cherry pick here and there for convenience. A principled life is far better than marrying a whore.

  168. Submissive men are not better lovers

    They are freaking irresistible lovers folks

    The Leif fell near the tree

  169. MarcusD says:

    A 21 year old girl who is a virgin? You wont find one in this lifetime.

    In devout Christian circles, it’s still possible (50%+ chance, depending). In the wider population, about 10-15%. See wtm.org (since citing studies is pointless if you can’t access them, in this case).

  170. Elspeth says:

    I agree that from what she has posted, it seems Jenny Erikson was never in love with her husband.

    None of that excuses her actions nor does it mean that she couldn’t somehow (no matter what the cost to herself) actually love someone more than herself enough to keep her family together.

    Love isn’t about how we feel. It’s about what we do, often at great personal sacrifice. She could have remained married, prayed to the God she claims to believe in, kept sleeping with her husband (and may even have grown to enjoy it) and kept her family together. Out of love, active love, not feelings.

    Would she have lost out on something? Yep. We all make sacrifices for love of someone or something other than ourselves. If we don’t, I question whether it’s love at all.

  171. In devout Christian circles, it’s still possible

    An assertion only believed by high-men

  172. MarcusD says:

    The irony is that Jenny has responded to other birthday greetings, but not her [ex]husbands:

  173. MarcusD says:

    An assertion only believed by high-men

    ?

  174. Elspeth says:

    What’s the controversy?

    It sounds as if you’re saying that what she did was sort of justified since she didn’t tingle. I don’t think that’s what you meant, but that’s how it comes across.

  175. She doesn’t feel anything for him Marcus. To her he is nothing, was nothing but a paycheck. Leif can save himself some sanity if he stops using twitter and other social media and starts putting himself out in places where Jenny doesn’t go. He needs to extract her presence from his life.

  176. Marcus

    Slack please, lame joke attempt

  177. earl says:

    “The irony is that Jenny has responded to other birthday greetings, but not her [ex]husbands:”

    “Maxim #13: When the love is gone, women can be as cold as if they had never known you.”

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2008/01/14/dont-get-married/

  178. jf12 says:

    Re: cites. The Armstrong et al paper makes the strongest case that women have fewer orgasms with promiscuous men, but I’m still looking for the study about women faking it more when they are led to believe. Some more reading, from the leading researchers of casual sex at Kinsey, Garcia and Herbenik.

    Garcia JR, Reiber C, Massey SG, Merriwether AM. Sexual Hookup Culture: A Review. Rev Gen Psychol. 2012 Jun 1;16(2):161-176.

    Herbenick D, Reece M, Schick V, Sanders SA, Dodge B, Fortenberry JD. Sexual behavior in the United States: results from a national probability sample of men and women ages 14-94. J Sex Med. 2010 Oct;7 Suppl 5:255-265.

    Herbenik is probably the world’s leading authority on women’s masturbatory practices. She claims that the fact that women seek out casual sexual encounters that will not lead to their own orgasm should not be judged, because orgasms do not provide any explanatory behavior for women’s sexual behavior (according to the world’s leading authority). Interestingly, and increasingly offtopic, men buy somewhat over have of women’s sex aids for women, and the ones that men buy for women are considerably bigger than the ones women buy for themselves.

  179. Joshua says:

    Congrats Anonymous Reader you just won this comments thread.(as if you didn’t know)

  180. jenny is re-tweeting that the elder Bush couple have been married 69 years. What is it with how women can blow up a marriage, and keep that reality totally separate from THE reality, and go’head and celebrate the longevity of Barbara and George?

    Someone wrote, here, the other day about their wife or ex wife and how she felt that, because she regretted things in her past it was truly as if she had never done them. Jenny is pretty fast to flood the breach isnt she

  181. Joshua says:

    jf12, man give it up. 5 stages of grief, your still in denial.

  182. jf12 says:

    typo “men buy somewhat over half of women’s” etc.

  183. the ones that men buy for women are considerably bigger than the ones women buy for themselves.

    Servant leadership explained.

  184. deti says:

    “Love isn’t about how we feel. It’s about what we do, often at great personal sacrifice.”

    Believe you me; few people understand that better than I.

    “It sounds as if you’re saying that what she did was sort of justified since she didn’t tingle. I don’t think that’s what you meant, but that’s how it comes across.”

    No, what Jenny Erikson did was not justified at all; not even “sort of”. She didn’t choose to love her husband. I have no doubt she felt no love. She could have chosen to love; chosen to serve; but she didn’t. That’s one of the major things that detonated her marriage.

  185. 8to12 says:

    Since this is turning into another Jenny E. thread, here is a quick summary of her latest post 10 Tips for Dating a Single Mom.

    * Tip well:
    * Don’t ask about my ex:
    * And never defend him:
    * Do ask me questions about my kids:
    * Don’t ask when you can meet them:
    * Do ask to see pictures of my kids:
    * Enjoy your work:
    * Act interested in what I do too:
    * Don’t expect sex on the first date:
    * Be yourself:

    The story line of how the date went can easily be inferred from her bullet points.

  186. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    It sounds as if you’re saying that what she did was sort of justified

    Not justified. Predictable.

  187. jf12 says:

    @Joshua Give up what? What is it that you don’t like in what I wrote?

  188. earl says:

    Well now time to read between the lines:

    * Tip well:
    (She has to know that you’ll shell out dough to women)
    * Don’t ask about my ex:
    (Still a sore spot, eh?)
    * And never defend him:
    (Because it would reveal what a terrible person she is)
    * Do ask me questions about my kids:
    (Because she needs to know that you will be a good replacement daddy)
    * Don’t ask when you can meet them:
    (Because most men are just breaking down the door to raise another man’s spawn)
    * Do ask to see pictures of my kids:
    (You need to see the two new financial albatrosses you’ll be funding)
    * Enjoy your work:
    (Especally if it pays well)
    * Act interested in what I do too:
    (because it is all about her)
    * Don’t expect sex on the first date:
    (a 31 year old alpha widow divorcer with two kids and is a 5 at best…she should be greatful any man wants to have sex with her)
    * Be yourself:
    (the statement of the damned)

  189. Jenny has ‘wanderlust’. She’s like a new age hippie; and you know what that means? Lots of variety..

  190. Ton says:

    Women cum more/ harder with a Beta doesn’t make sense. If that were true, divorce wouldn’t be what it is, sexless and low sex marriages wouldn’t be as common etc etc.

    IBB is providing cover fire for his daughters. Got to have some dumbass marry his get. Women do that all the time.

    Leader of men counts for alpha if he leads by the force of his personal authority. Doesn’t create much tingles if he relies on his job title. One is a man among men, the other a drone bee. An extra hard working beta

    Beta men are submissive. It’s why the are.second tier men.

    Did folks brains turn to snot and run out their nose?

  191. I have 1 tip for dating single moms…

    DONT!

  192. Anonymous Reader says:

    MarcusD to Empathalogicalism:

    ?

    Heh.

  193. jf12 says:

    @empathologism: Mississippi Wife Tamer.

  194. Ton says:

    10 tips for a man dating a single mom

    1) Don’t
    2) refer to rule #1
    Etc etc

  195. jf12 says:

    Re: “doesn’t make sense”. Women do not make normal sense.

  196. JDG says:

    You want more women like Jenny Erickson, IBB, not fewer. That’s what you encourage, with this “experiences” hogwash you are pushing.

    Why do you love divorce so much?

    How can a Christian recommend fornication before marriage for any reason?

  197. Anchorman says:

    Guys,
    It’s not the orgasm that gives them tingles, it’s being submissive that gives them tingles. Betas may give them orgasms (a moot point), but make it tough for a modern American woman to submit to.

    It’s not a contradiction.

  198. deti says:

    Earl:

    LOL! Splendid, and Steel. On. Target.

  199. earl says:

    “IBB is providing cover fire for his daughters. Got to have some dumbass marry his get. Women do that all the time.”

    IBB would have done better by raising his daughters right…instead of trying to dupe men.

    Daughters are as much a reflection of how their fathers raised them as sons are.

  200. Marissa says:

    Interestingly, and increasingly offtopic, men buy somewhat over have of women’s sex aids for women, and the ones that men buy for women are considerably bigger than the ones women buy for themselves.

    I think this has to do with 1) loud size queens and 2) pornography distorting men’s idea of average size. Also, that’s just sad.

  201. jf12 says:

    Re: strength of orgasms. The women who claim to have, and by measures of muscle contractions etc do have, the strongest orgasms are older women (post menopausal) in very long term relationships with very very very very very patient men. But these are the very same women who insist on having sex less frequently, paradoxically, as with all things related to female sexuality. These paradoxes do have a sort of perverse logic of their own, but they do not make normal sense.

  202. IBB, could you please explain what you mean by “gain experiences” 20 – 25. AR thinks you mean “ride the carousel” and everything about you loving divorce stems from that statement.

    If IBB hadn’t made it clear that he meant sex in the bit that AR quoted, we could still infer it. What else is a single girl in her 20s who is putting off marriage likely to “experience”? Thing is, he’s saying NOT to marry a girl at 20-25 because she’s too busy “experiencing” men to be trustworthy; but then he expects the same girl to become trustworthy at 28-30 or so. (Of course, she might start to act more trustworthy because she’s hitting the wall and getting desperate, but that doesn’t make her a good risk.) That’s straight out of the feminist playbook: sexual experimentation is good for women, but it also has no effect on them in the future so men have no right to ask about their pasts.

    The key here is that IBB has unmarried daughters, in that 25-30 range that he admires if I recall correctly. So of course he thinks girls like them are great wife material. And of course he wants them to have as many options as possible (ultimately including divorce, whether he admits it or not). That’s a big reason we are where we are: fathers changing laws and mores to give more power to their princess daughters.

  203. deti says:

    Ten tips for taking a single Churchian mom on the first date:

    1. Leave your wallet in the car.
    2. Make her pay for the activity (NOT dinner, and NOT drinks.)
    3. Ask her lots of questions about her circumstances. Find out if she’s a Divorced Mom or a Baby Mama.
    4. If she’s divorced, ask her why. If she’s a Baby Mama, ask her about Baby Daddy.
    5. Don’t ask about her children.
    6. Ask her her N.
    7. Find out the name of her superalpha (first name is all you need to know).
    8. Check your smartphone frequently.
    9. Put a time limit on the dinner. 90 minutes tops.
    10. Ask her how “her Holy Spirit” is doing.

  204. jf12 says:

    I agree with Anchorman.

    Probably my least favorite of women’s paradoxes is this one: on the day after a (rare! sigh) night of extended sex in which she tried hard but did not quite get off, a woman will be lovey dovey and unusually submissive. Always. Guaranteed. AWALT. And then there will be sex again the next night. But on the day after a (not quite as rare! sigh) night of extended sex in which she gets off big time, wearing her out, she will be brash and cocky and even more unsubmissive than usual, and there is less likelihood of sex the next night.

  205. earl says:

    Here’s my tips for dating a single mom.

    Take the palm of your hand and slap yourself silly for making a dumb decision. Or if you prefer…have one of your friends punch in you the face.

    Before the date…down enough alcohol to get good and wasted. Then you’ll forget the terrible decision you made and will skip the date.

  206. sunshinemary says:

    It’s pretty clear Jenny Erikson didn’t love Leif and wasn’t in love with him. I understand your saying that love is an action; but the point is that she didn’t love him and probably never did.

    I’m unclear as to exactly what your problem is with asserting that Jenny didn’t love her husband. She didn’t. She chose not to. It’s a major reason for their divorce. Done and dusted.

    What’s the controversy?

    My issue is this. Not everyone believes that sexual attraction can be generated if it didn’t exist right from the beginning (I am willing to believe that *maybe* it can be generated). If sexual attraction isn’t there and can never be generated, we would be sympathetic to the difficulty of living in a passionless marriage. While acknowledging that it is morally wrong, we might nevertheless feel some sense of understanding and sympathy if such couples ended up separating/divorcing. They simply couldn’t choose to feel attracted to each other (I don’t accept this as a morally-licit reason to divorce, of course).

    But to say “I fell out of love” is B.S. because, unlike with sexual attraction, love can always be chosen. That is why saying not to marry someone you aren’t in love with makes no sense to me; it’s like saying “don’t marry someone if you don’t intend to choose to love them.” What is really meant by “in love with” is simply “attracted to”.

  207. earl says:

    Here’s all my rules…and by the way be yourself.

    Since I can being myself I can overlook the other 9 things. If she doesn’t like it…then put “be the way I want you to be” on the list.

  208. Ton, Earl, Cail,

    IBB is providing cover fire for his daughters. Got to have some dumbass marry his get. Women do that all the time.

    IBB would have done better by raising his daughters right…instead of trying to dupe men.

    The key here is that IBB has unmarried daughters, in that 25-30 range that he admires if I recall correctly. So of course he thinks girls like them are great wife material. And of course he wants them to have as many options as possible (ultimately including divorce, whether he admits it or not).

    You guys have no idea what you are talking about….

    I have said how old I was. I have never said how old my children are. What I am saying (now) is not about me or you or anyone. It is about reality. Stop trying to personalize everything. Stop taking things so personally, all of you.

    This isn’t personal. Things are not always all about you.

  209. Joshua says:

    jf12. almost everything you think is wrong. Assume for a second your right, women orgasm better with betas. Why don’t they have more sex with betas? Its cause they don’t want orgasms, they want tingles.

    Tingles>than all.

    Any man taking the red pill goes through grief, You’re still in denial. Grieve, dont argue.

  210. Joshua says:

    Dig that hole IBB, dig ti deep. Then we can fill it in for you, with you in it.

  211. jf12 says:

    By “in love with” men always mean infatuation, or rather what Donal Graeme is calling adoration.

    http://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/godly-masculinity-versus-game/comment-page-2/

    It is totally distinct from “attracted to”. I think probably Rollo’s maxim “women can’t love men right” means this same thing: that women have a much harder time adoring their sexual partners than men do.

  212. jf12 says:

    @Joshua, since you’re agreeing with what I say, how does that prove I’m wrong?

  213. Joshua,

    Dig that hole IBB, dig ti deep. Then we can fill it in for you, with you in it.

    You asked a detailed question. I have answered it. I did not answer it in a condescending way. Nor did I insult anyone with my answer. What more do you expect of me?

  214. @ All:

    It is time for a group hug. I know just how you all feel!

  215. Jason says:

    I’ll stick with my original observation that IBB & AR are talking past each other a bit.

    IBB is talking about making the best of the situation you find (even if he is a bit pessimistic about how bad it is) and AR is talking principles and also what the data shows.

    IBB admitted he doesn’t think the current circumstances even approach the ideal. I get the impression he underestimates the risk of marrying a former carosel rider though.

  216. A better measure is how many vaginal (and anal) orgasms a woman achieves. Betas rely on cunnilingus.

    With that said, women are not men, and do not choose partners based on orgasm quality.

  217. Julian O'Dea says:

    Anchorman, yes.

    Elspeth, I understand what you mean.

    Reading this thread has given me a clearer idea of what a “concern troll” is.

  218. @jf12, the women who reward me with the best sex have feelings towards me somewhere between disgust and revulsion.

  219. Jason says:

    Ms Ericksons list (is she going to drop her husbands name?) for dating her is pretty amusing.

    I notice her last point was “don’t expect sex on the first date”. Interesting … that would suggest sex before getting remarried would be ok.

    Even if we assumed for the sake of argument that her jettisoning Leif was somehow justified and permissible (it isn’t), since when does being a divorcee give you a license to have extra martial sex (post-marital sex?) ?

    You’d think she is just making up the rules as she goes along. I wonder if any of her regular readers noticed this.

  220. Vascularity,

    I know just how you all feel!

    Fortunately (for me) I don’t know how some of the guys here feel. How could I possibly know how it feels to have my wife frivorce me needlessly OR how could I know how it feels to not find a wife who loves me? I knew how it felt to be alone, but I am not that way anymore. So for those men who are in terrible pain, I feel for them. How could I not?

    Life is not easy nor is it fair. All I can do for all the people here at Dalrock’s blog is hope that everyone gets what they need to make themselves happy. I can pray to God above to make that happen (to at least give them peace) but ultimately, I have no control.

    It appears that some people here feel the need to criticize me or try to tear me down for whatever reason. What I have written, some of my words have either hurt them, or they disagree with them so completely, that their emotional reaction is to try and slander me. It isn’t about debate, it is to attack. I could guess as to their motives, but I don’t know anyone here personally, so all that would be is guessing. I am not going to retaliate in anyway because that is not my way.

    My feelings could never ever be hurt by any of you. I refuse to give any of you that kind of power. That said, I certainly don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. And I don’t want anyone to think that what I’ve said was bragging in anyway, nor do I want to come off like I am a know it all. Far from it, I’m smart enough to know that I don’t know much.

    If you feel the need to lambast me in someway, ask yourself a question first: why are you doing that? Is it because you are stung and if so, what did I do to sting you? What did I ever do to any of you?

  221. feeriker says:

    Chris said Well, my advice for the sons, despite the fact that I respect SSM and Elspeth and the Ladysphere — is to never date an American. Because the court is stacked against you: and by American I mean Canada and the USA.

    More accurate and inclusive would be to advise young men to avoid any women whose native tongue is English (although yes, I personally agree that women here in Norte Amerika are generally the worst and most dangerous of the lot).

  222. Julian O'Dea says:

    Mrs Erikson may veer to the left politically as a wise career move.

    Arianna Huffington was once a famous anti-feminist.

  223. jf12 says:

    Ruminations. I don’t smoke (never have), but you may envision smoke rings circling lazily towards the ceiling. Female orgasms as in mammals are inarguably vestigial (Elisabeth Lloyd. 2005. The Case of the Female Orgasm. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA). (inarguable meaning I don’t feel like discussing right now) Is male submissiveness vestigial? Hmm. Puff puff. Hmm.

  224. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    If you feel the need to lambast me in someway, ask yourself a question first: why are you doing that? Is it because you are stung and if so, what did I do to sting you? What did I ever do to any of you?

    Interesting how IBB can’t separate out criticism of an idea from personal criticism. Fits in with the difficulty understanding cause and effect.

    I’ll strongly object to any person who suggests that women should be promiscuous prior to marriage, and doubly so for the mealy mouthed who on one hand encourage women to make themselves a bad risk for marriage, and on the other hand oh-so-piously claim to hate divorce.

    I’m certain that this statement is accurate:

    IBB
    I don’t know how some of the guys here feel.

    Indeed.

  225. Anonymous Reader says:

    Julian O’Dea
    Reading this thread has given me a clearer idea of what a “concern troll” is.

    Interesting thing to watch, isn’t it? Not always obvious at first glance, either.

  226. Elspeth says:

    Elspeth, I understand what you mean.

    Thank you, Julian. You usually do. The idea that a man can be strong, commanding, sexually attractive and righteous* gets short shrift.

    * making the stipulation that number 4 on the list did not describe my husband and did not concern me when I first met him.

  227. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti
    Every Christian man – hell, every man – should carefully study the Jenny Erikson case. One could not have asked for a more convenient set of facts setting out manosphere truths.

    Yes, it is, with one major addendum: the usual script where wife frivorces beta husband and receives the warm, loving embrace of churchladies, while hubs is shunned…did not happen. Recall how this story broke open – the pastor of their church discovered her plans to frivorce, and called her on it, and told her husband. Plus when she carried her plan through, the church leadership threw her out of the church. This is a significant detail that should not be overlooked.

    Because, as we know, that’s not the standard script. The pastor who “ruined the surprise”, and the leadership who followed through with excommunication, surely accounts for some of her anger. And that denomination ought to be noted as one that clearly isn’t on board with modern American Protestantism’s tolerance- or perhaps embrace is a better word – of divorce.

    A churchgoing man and woman who plan to marry might just want to look into their own denomination’s stance on divorce, not just what they say but what they do, and adjust accordingly their religious membership, if possible.

  228. AR,

    I’ll strongly object to any person who suggests that women should be promiscuous prior to marriage, and doubly so for the mealy mouthed who on one hand encourage women to make themselves a bad risk for marriage, and on the other hand oh-so-piously claim to hate divorce.

    I didn’t suggest that.

    I suggested that maybe women who are very-very young when they get married, they tend to have some regrets about what they may have missed in life. And quite often, (especially in the age of no-fault-divorce) those regrets may lead to frivorce. I am not suggesting that anyone ride the carrosel. I can’t control if someone wants to be a carrosel rider or not. Neither can you.

    I don’t know Jenny Erikson AR. Neither do you. No one here does. What I know is that what she has done is destructive and harmful. She ruined the one human being in her life that was probably her greatest champion. As a result, I pray for his soul (and also hers as she is probably in much greater jeapordy.) But their situtation is not all that unique. This is the reality of the world in which you and I now live, a world where we have so many options (options that should not have been made available to us.) I can say that because yes (piously, if that makes you feel good) I hate divorce.

    As I see it as men, we have two choices. We can choose to live in this world and refuse to allow it to bring us down OR we can go our own way. I chose the former. You can choose whatever works for you. You know yourself.

  229. Julian O'Dea says:

    A “three-pipe” problem, jf12?

    It was common to see the pictures in book blurbs of authors with pipes a few years ago. Showed the chappie was a deep thinker.

  230. Ton says:

    No one is taking it personally, we just see through your bull$hit. It’s no different then seeing through a woman’s

    Nice lady like shaming attempt though

  231. Mrs. Erikson appears to have been 19-20 when she married Mr. Erikson. For all the good it did him.

    Jenny is making up for lost time. She’s lived vicariously through her blog (and most likely her single girlfriends) for the duration of her marriage. She’s done the Beta script in reverese, now it’s time to find the Alpha she’s craved all this time and have Leif foot (probably half) the bill while she does. She had the kids early and now it’s time to play.

    But don’t worry, she’s a born again Christian and is already forgiven for her present and future sins by virtue of her vagina. Feminized fundamentalism is the new plenary indulgence for women.

  232. Plus when she carried her plan through, the church leadership threw her out of the church. This is a significant detail that should not be overlooked.

    Good point. In fact, the unusualness of the treatment she received may be the only reason any of us know her name. If she’d gotten the usual coddling from her pastor and congregation that most frivorcees get, she wouldn’t have written the outraged article that made her a manosphere legend.

  233. Joshua says:

    IBB—-
    “As I see it as men, we have two choices. We can choose to live in this world and refuse to allow it to bring us down OR we can go our own way. I chose the former. You can choose whatever works for you. You know yourself.”

    But you didnt make an informed decision. I want to make an informed decision.

  234. jf12 says:

    @Julian O’Dea: as it happens I am wearing my “smoking jacket” as I call it, a thick sport coat with unfortunately professorial elbow patches that my wife bought me ages ago that I never wear unless it’s cold out which is hardly ever.

  235. But you didnt make an informed decision. I want to make an informed decision.

    I believe that you already have.

  236. earl says:

    “She’s done the Beta script in reverese, now it’s time to find the Alpha she’s craved all this time and have Leif foot (probably half) the bill while she does.”

    Then that makes her a bigger idiot than most women. How is a 31 year old going to bag an alpha now that she is neither young, fit, or tight? Plus all the negative pub she has spewed out about herself so that she could get the attention.

    The best she can hope for is another Leif…and I doubt even a man of that value will be coming through the door.

  237. Novaseeker says:

    I think all that IBB is saying is that many women prefer larger penises, like one might see in porn, and if they end up marrying a man with a non-porn penis without vetting his penis size first bu having sex with him before marriage (and basing the decision to marry on his penis size), they will be very tempted to divorce him when she learns that he doesn’t have a large penis after they marry. Therefore premarital sex, while immoral in the technical sense for Christians, cuts down on divorce rates due to disappointing male penis sizes.

  238. feeriker says:

    Since this is turning into another Jenny E. thread, here is a quick summary of her latest post 10 Tips for Dating a Single Mom.

    With this as evidence, I think we can now safely surmise that the “old” Jenny blogger is completely “dead and buried” (that would be the “Christian,” “conservative”
    “Mommyblogger”) and that Jenny is not only fine with that, but glad of it. She knows that many of her old followers no longer take her seriously and of those who now revile her, she revels in the negative attention. She has “reinvented herself” – and the new, sinful Jenny is having so much more fun than the old one ever did (“Jesus is sooooo boring!”).

  239. earl says:

    What a wonderful time to live in…darkness is everywhere.

    You either have to be sexually immoral in order to slightly cut down the chance of divorce…or stay pure and may end up getting divorced anyway because of her previous sexual immorality.

    So you can lose your soul through sexual immorality…or lose it through the state. No wonder the spirit of many men has been extinguished.

  240. Nova,

    I think all that IBB is saying is that many women prefer larger penises, like one might see in porn, and if they end up marrying a man with a non-porn penis without vetting his penis size first by having sex with him before marriage (and basing the decision to marry on his penis size), they will be very tempted to divorce him when she learns that he doesn’t have a large penis after they marry. Therefore premarital sex, while immoral in the technical sense for Christians, cuts down on divorce rates due to disappointing male penis sizes.

    That is certainly part of it. It is even more so the case if her N is greater than 0. Because NOW she will (personally) have something to compare her husband to….

    …so if the N isn’t a 0 (and I’m saying most likely it wont be) then her being young when you marry her (like Jenny was for Leif) wont matter all that much in preventing the frivroce (IMHO.) What keeps the hamster from running on that wheel is sexual ignorance (on her part.) If she doesn’t know how great it can be (and how poor YOU ARE) in bed, then it makes it easier for her to pair bond because she’ll think you are the best.

    That is the reason why men valued virgins back in the day. Fear. Fear that she knew too much.

  241. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    The best she can hope for is another Leif…and I doubt even a man of that value will be coming through the door.

    That’s correct. I think the most valuable aspect of this blog has been to point that out, and it does an excellent job of that. I trust a number of women have been suitably educated on the matter, and hope that these truths will become common knowledge.

    Jenny Erikson foolishly threw away the only man who, by her own admission, ever gave her the love and respect which all women crave. She used to be an honorable wife and mother. Now she’s a trashy skank-ho single mom. Some of my less picky bros in meatspace occasionally bang women like her. None of these women marry well the second time around.

    Of course if it was only the woman who threw her life away, it would be funny, but in Jenny Erikson’s case, she ruined the childhood of her daughters, too. Quite pathetic how selfish and solipsistic some people can be. I suppose it is her lot to serve as a warning to the smarter women out there, and she’s off to a good start.

    Regards, Boxer

  242. JDG says:

    Jenny married on the rebound from an alpha. Her age is not all that relevant.

    Yep! The only factor that I can think of at the moment which would discourage unfaithful women from behaving like that is a society that penalizes frivorce. But such a society most likely would also penalize fornication (premarital sex) and thus prevent the longing for a first ‘love’. Such a society might also provide the support needed to keep marriages intact even when they marry at a young age.

  243. jf12 says:

    Re: sexual intent and marriage intent, with applications to Absolutely Everything. The brilliant Martie Haselton has repeatedly showed that some erroneous cognitive and behavioral biases are useful adaptations to reality.

    http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/Group/BussLAB/pdffiles/Error_Management_Theory_2000.pdf

    In particular, as is well known, men are biased to perceiving things as an alpha male would and this alpha bias is manifested in the error of overperceiving women’s sexual interest. Always, unless he’s in love, men will overperceive women’s sexual interest, and in tandem with this male projection, a man will erroneously assume that a woman’s sexual intent towards him is predicated on her perception of her orgasm potential with him.

    And as should be as well known but is not, women underperceive men’s marriage intent (in the Haselton studies this is commitment intent). It’s as big of an effect as men overperceiving women’s sexual interest. The icing on this cake is that men accurately perceive women’s commitment intent, and women accurately perceive men’s sexual intent. I hypothesize that due to female projection a woman will erroneously assume that a man’s commitment intent towards her is predicated on his perception of his orgasm potential with her. Note the gender skew symmetry of the last projection, thus completing the symplectification of the SMV with the MMV. You’re welcome.

    P.S. My hypothesis of this particular female projection explains a lot of every female’s comments here. Think about it.

  244. earl says:

    “That is the reason why men valued virgins back in the day. Fear. Fear that she knew too much.”

    Not every male decision is based on fear.

    I doubt men were afraid of experienced women. They knew better than most males today how those type of women acted. Because they could compare those sluts to a more healthy population of feminine women…and realized that sluts weren’t worth it.

    Now with most women being sluts at least in this country…there is very few feminine women to compare them to.

  245. Elspeth says:

    My hypothesis of this particular female projection explains a lot of every female’s comments here. Think about it.

    Nope. You gotta break it down for this simpleton.

  246. earl says:

    Yes her daughters even at this point would be way down the list for marriage material. They are going to suck up a lot of the posion their mother brings to them…plus the increased risk of divorce there is with children who grew up in a divorced home.

    I imagine they will see their mother bring over “friends”.
    They will probably hear nonstop how terrible their father is.
    She will have a hard time keeping up with her kids…between her hard days work of writing blogs and getting her daily 3 glasses of wine out of the way.
    They will seek male attention any way they can…which in this day and age is the carousel.
    Or they will turn to the ice cream and gain a lot of weight…their mother after all does love the food.
    Then around 27…they’ll probably either marry a Leif of their own who they will divorce or will get a cat and plan for their upcoming spinsterhood.

  247. JDG says:

    The exhortation is that a young woman marry a man she’s in love with, for whom she burns with passion, to whom she is currently sexually attracted (not to whom it’s POSSIBLE she COULD BECOME sexually attracted).

    I have seen first hand women go from head over heals ‘in luv’ to repulsed by the sight of him ‘out of luv’ in just a few short months.

    Also when Paul wrote to the Corinthians concerning marriage, he most likely was addressing people in arranged marriages (which still occurs today). Women were instructed to remain faithful even if they were not attracted to their husbands.

    I am of the opinion that a woman frivorces because she is faithless and unable or unwilling to overcome her fallen nature.

  248. JDG says:

    A principled life is far better than marrying a whore.

    This! +1000

  249. Opus says:

    Mrs Erikson’s age at time of marriage is, to my mind, relevant in one respect, namely that having been dumped by the hot Alpha Dude, she promptly went to the other extreme and married Beta Orbiter Nice Guy ™ Leif. Then aged thirty one, and with two children and not withstanding her writings where she praises herself for her devotion to marriage and her wonderful husband she once again performs a U-Turn (and despite the bollox of her ten point plan to snare an Alpha male and on her terms) is now heading for Pump and Dumpsville with a string of players who will treat her as recreational. I do not propose guessing what the move after that will be (unlike TFH I do not have crystal ball).

    What is truly appalling is that this woman is followed by 10,000 on Twitter and you can see above one of her clueless (or desperate) Beat Orbiters Glen Asbury (who Mrs Erikson describes as a ‘sweet friend’ – just so he does not get any fancy ideas!).

    She is a lot older than she thinks she is and has both baggage and a very poor and very public track record, such that her ten point list is a bit as if I were to send Helen off Troy my own list of dating requirements.

  250. Opus says:

    What I meant to but failed to explain by suggesting that Mrs Erickson’s age at marriage was relevant was to suggest that even at nineteen she was as variable as a weather-vane in a storm. That is who she is – people do not usually change – and thus we may expect more abrupt changes in her behaviour and with concomitant rationalisation.

  251. JDG says:

    Arianna Huffington was once a famous anti-feminist.

    What happened?

  252. Novaseeker says:

    What happened?

    Hub turned out to be gay (said he was “bisexual” after the divorce, but I think we know what that means, given that he was a GOP pol).

  253. Keenan McGregor says:

    “My issue is this. Not everyone believes that sexual attraction can be generated if it didn’t exist right from the beginning (I am willing to believe that *maybe* it can be generated). If sexual attraction isn’t there and can never be generated, we would be sympathetic to the difficulty of living in a passionless marriage. While acknowledging that it is morally wrong, we might nevertheless feel some sense of understanding and sympathy if such couples ended up separating/divorcing. They simply couldn’t choose to feel attracted to each other (I don’t accept this as a morally-licit reason to divorce, of course).

    But to say “I fell out of love” is B.S. because, unlike with sexual attraction, love can always be chosen. That is why saying not to marry someone you aren’t in love with makes no sense to me; it’s like saying “don’t marry someone if you don’t intend to choose to love them.” What is really meant by “in love with” is simply “attracted to”.”

    I think arranged marriages the world over are examples of marrying people you don’t initially love, don’t initially feel sexual attraction for, hell, sometimes don’t even know. With time and familiarity these couples grow to love one another and often become sexually attracted as well. I imagine that without any previous sexual experience, one becomes greatly turned on by the one and only person they do manage to gain sexual access to. There’s got to be some psychology behind that. But aside from that these marriages are running on a premise that there are higher principles than sex and love.

  254. galloper6 says:

    1 king of kings needs to meet Desomnd Hatchet. I am sure he would give her some “attention” ;)

  255. earl says:

    31 year old women that stay in shape and eat right can still look decent.

    31 year old women that love their food and alcohol…is more like a 35 year old.

  256. Keenan McGregor says:

    princeasbel says:
    January 7, 2014 at 2:37 pm

    I have a question- I plan on marrying. I’m remaining celibate until I marry, but after swallowing the red pills, my current plan is to have prenuptial agreements signed by my fiance right off the bad so that I’ll be completely protected in divorce. Does anyone here, Dalrock or anyone else, have any feedback on this?

  257. earl says:

    The only way that you can be completely protected from divorce is to not get married.

  258. Julian O'Dea says:

    When she was a cute little Miss Stassanopolous, Arianna wrote The Female Woman and debated feminists on TV.

    Boxer, “respect which all women crave”. Well, it depends what you mean by respect.

    !0,000 Twitter followers may just enjoy watching the woman put on a show. And she is in journalism, which can be show business, especially her type.

    I think she is going to have trouble getting “dates” if the guy could end up in her next unflattering column.

    Julian’s thoughts on virgins:

    http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/no-one-misses-a-slice-from-a-cut-loaf/

  259. Mother can bring friends over. If there is an empty room between her bedroom and theirs its an off limits topic. If however they share a wall, the court will, at hubby request, test the soundproofing to make sure the girls can’t hear Jenny winning the powerball.

  260. earl says:

    Of course there is also the third party in all of this divorce mess…which is the worst of the three.

    I’m sure this is unconstitutional…but then again Ton mentioned when the Constitution ceased to exist.

  261. Julian O'Dea says:

    Opus:

    “… even at nineteen she was as variable as a weather-vane in a storm. That is who she is – people do not usually change – and thus we may expect more abrupt changes in her behaviour and with concomitant rationalisation.”.

    She has a lot of personal “jerk”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_(physics)

    Some people are like that. They convert to and from religions, reinvent themselves, go from feminist to subbie and back to feminist. Arianna Huffington and Jenny Erikson seem to be the type. Predictably unpredictable. Rich men and pretty women can get away with it – until their money or looks run out.

  262. Hugh G. Rection says:

    Let’s say they dial it back a few notches, make it a bit more fair etc.. Why would that make marriage more attractive? We have the precedent already. They can and will change the terms of your marriage after the fact.

  263. @ Keenan:
    The first point you need to understand is that the laws vary by state.
    Prenups are complete garbage if you have a child. The judge will disregard the prenup and decide what is best for the children; not what you think is best at divorce time.
    A lawyer once told me that a “separation of assets” would be better. And then both of you keep separate finances throughout the marriage. Once money is mixed, then that money is community property. You need to discuss this with a competent lawyer in your state.
    But remember the laws “evolve”over time. So if you follow a plan that your lawyer recommends now, five years from now that contract might not be protective any longer.

  264. oblivion says:

    @rollo ur right, Leif will never get it. Happy birthday? After all that!! What a foo foo man!

  265. Julian O'Dea says:

    Yes, I think we have learned a lot about women over the last few decades.

    Of course, it was all there in scripture. But it has been instructive to see women reveal their true nature.

    I hope someone is taking notes.

  266. jf12 says:

    @Elspeth Re: explaining female projection. I really mean explaining to men the fact of you and SSM agreeing that “in love with” is the same as “sexual attraction”. Obviously you don’t need that explained to you, since you said “Amen!” heartily already.

    Hence, as I said, *because* women orgasm easier in committed relationships with in-love males, women erroneously assume that the fact that a man’s willingness to commit depends on his perception of his enjoyment of sex.

  267. deti says:

    Leif Erikson should accept that his marriage is over. Jenny is not going to reconcile with him.

    His (soon to be?) ex-wife is writing public webzine columns talking about her fabulous single life, the reasons for her divorce from him, and about reentering the dating world.

    His Twitter messages about prayer, his worst year ever, and happy birthdays to his ex wife will not improve the situation. His buying divorce gifts for her is not helping. In fact that makes it worse. It just gives Jenny things to write about that make him look foolish.

    Sadly, his marriage is over and it’s not coming back. He needs to let her go. He needs to stop as much contact as he can with her, so as not to give her any more fodder for her to write about in public. He should make sure he threatens legal action if she writes or says anything defamatory about him. He should work out the best property settlement and divorce arrangement that he can.

  268. Julian O'Dea says:

    deti, he could be trying to position himself legally or morally as the injured party.

    That said, the poor man has given a master class in how not to be a successful husband.

  269. greyghost says:

    The double down after this airs and the conversation that follows is going to be fun to watch

  270. earl says:

    “Of course, it was all there in scripture. But it has been instructive to see women reveal their true nature.”

    The way women have revealed their true nature…has made me understand Scripture more than anything else.

  271. anonymous_ng says:

    @princeasbel I have a question- I plan on marrying. I’m remaining celibate until I marry, but after swallowing the red pills, my current plan is to have prenuptial agreements signed by my fiance right off the bad so that I’ll be completely protected in divorce. Does anyone here, Dalrock or anyone else, have any feedback on this?

    May answer here is based on my research regarding the state of divorce and how to protect my assets etc in the United States.

    Prenups and being protected in a divorce. First, prenups are worthless. OK, they’re not worthless, but they’re most likely not what you think. You cannot dictate any terms about child support, custody, or visitation in a prenup because the child or children aren’t party to the agreement. The judge probably won’t even bother to consider what’s written there. Secondly, a prenup cannot be unconscionable when entered into or when executed. That means it can’t be grossly unfair. If being completely protected in a divorce means to you that your now ex-wife only gets 1/3 of your estate, then a prenup might be useful. If your definition of completely protected means that in the event of a divorce she gets nothing, a prenup is worthless.

    Protection from alimony? Move to Texas. The laws there are less lucrative with respect to alimony. Be aware that if you do live in Texas, she might try and move to another jurisdiction and then file for divorce there because the laws are more favorable.

    Protection from child support? Get full physical custody. It’s probably next to impossible, but get as much time as you can. That’s a big input into the child support calculations.

    Of course, if you don’t care and want ultimate protection from alimony and child support, expatriate and ignore the US courts. [I haven’t really researched how well this will work in light of the US taxation of world wide income etc etc.]

    If you want to protect non-marital assets, property etc owned before you marry, a foreign trust or family limited partnership will likely work better than a prenup, and for Pete’s sake, transfer the assets before the marriage to avoid any appearance of fraudulent transfer.

    Be aware that non-marital assets can be and have been used as a basis for imputed income used to calculate alimony. I read about one case where a rich dude had millions invested in US treasuries. The courts said that he was purposefully underinvesting and imputed a higher rate of return equal, I think, to the average rate of return of municipal bonds and used that yearly income as a basis for her alimony.

    Bottom line, walking away without paying anything is probably like hitting a hole in one. It happens, but infrequently enough to merit attention.

  272. I know this might be a little too On Topic…ha

    I wonder if anyone has considered trying to get the Officiater of the wedding (justice of peace, pastor, priest ect) to elaborate on the meaning of marriage 2.0, in the same way that meranda rights are read to those being arrested.

    It could all be in the interest of insuring Informed Consent.

    Judge “Are you both aware that this union can be ended at any time for no reason by either party, and are you also aware that by saying I Do, you are both waiving your rights to life, Liberty, property, and Children?”
    Chump: “I Do”

  273. Crank says:

    @boxer
    “IIRC the judge told her what a piece of shit she was, and added some interest on to what she owed already. At the end she asked “can I make a statement?” and the judge barked “NO!”. What an asshole.”

    You’re white knighting here, bub. Whether or not she was treated unfairly, I consider him a hero. Nothing will change if only men suffer that sort of abuse. Women need to suffer it in much greater numbers before anyone will care.

  274. **** they could replace the part about “till death do you part” with “until she gets bored, so help you God”

  275. TFH says:

    As I said before, our sympathy for Leif should be provisional, since he probably was a whiteknight who cheered on other women who were frivorcing, thinking it could not happen to him. Also, Jenny ‘the chin’ Erikson still has some whiteknight beta fans. No doubt Leif was just like them…..

    Can someone send Jenny a copy of Rollo’s SMV chart? That would be timely on her B-day..

  276. Keenan McGregor says:

    ” Turning “in love with” into a feeling distinct from “in lust with” just seems like giving people the chance to justify divorcing someone because they “weren’t in love anymore”.”

    I love you but I’m not in love with you. ;)

  277. TFH says:

    Remember that most so-callled ‘social conservatives’ are :

    a) economic leftists, and
    b) radical ‘gender is a social construct’ leftists due to their belief that they can switch headship to the woman at will.

    ‘Social conservatives’ are leftists, plain and simple….

  278. hurting says:

    earl says:
    January 7, 2014 at 6:36 pm

    Haven’t see the trailer but agree with your observation that the essentially unchecked power of DR judges is the worst element of the system (again, this is a feature, not a flaw of the system in the eyes of those who’ve set it up and profit from it).

    Divorce laws vary widely by state, and the application of a given state’s laws can vary widely by jurisdiction, as I understand it. Even in the same county, a difference in the presiding judge can mean a big difference in the settlement.

    Couple this with the fact that no two divorce situations are identical, and it’s well nigh impossible to predict with any real certitude how it will turn out if put in the hands of the judge.

  279. Keenan McGregor says:

    So the reason why people are still getting legally married is because of tax breaks? Do they even get those?

  280. Jzb says:

    “strong, commanding, sexually attractive and righteous*”

    Elspeth, I don’t know that men have a hard time believing that there are men like this.

    With that said, the majority of men like this in the church world usually become “righteous” after their success with their current wives (the prodigal son and converted unbeliever I so often reference). Pastors, leaders of para church ministries etc seem to fit this bill quite well.

    Who are the kind of men who are all of these things? Generally the sons of the above or men who have grown up in Christian homes with strong patriarchs who model masculinity well.

    The pastors son from my old church who is ambitious, intelligent, leads his own missions organization, has six pack abs, etc – he married a hot virgin, and he was a virgin as well. The high quality Christian alpha male who wasn’t a hypocrite.

  281. Jzb says:

    To follow up:

    PK rolls in a crew of Christian super alpha males, but the rest of them share the prodigal son/unbeliever conversion story. Nonetheless they’re all married to beautiful and lovely women, and were always in high demand.

  282. Virtue says:

    Dalrock, thank you for framing this development so that we don’t get too excited. One way of summarizing the sentiments in the video trailers is: “How can we perfect our child support system?”, rather than, “Look how bad this is! Let’s abolish it.” Excellent observation about how bad this makes Churchians look, as well.

  283. Social conservatives’ are leftists, plain and simple….

    I’ m starting to wonder about drumbeat. I note above that someone claimed that feminism is an offshoot of liberalism. Assuming we are not playing with definitions beyond the pedestrian, it may be the case that the ignorance of social conservatives manifests as leftism. I’m not excusing ignorance but its better than the full on intentional leftism/feminism cabal.

    It is ideologically possible to be socially conservative and not be a leftist. I understand the observation, but the statement is too plain. It is not possible to be feminist and not be leftist.

  284. Keenan McGregor says:

    If marriage stands any chance of survival I’m afraid we will have to give up ideas like sexual attraction and even love, and base it on something beyond either one of those two. It could be the ideal of family, the ideal of society, the ideal of religion, even the ideal of science if it could be proven that there is some sort of evolutionary advantage to marriage. But basing it on sexual attraction and love is far too precarious and feeble.

  285. Tom says:

    The most important thing to remember about drafting a pre-nuptual agreement is to write it on a soft piece of paper and not a hard, scratchy paper so that you will get some use out of it later.

  286. Chris says:

    This is where the Jesuits can help us. Together with some smart Calvinist Lawyers, and a few Jewish ones thrown in. Each state needs a water tight prenup that will be required to be married in a Catholic church or shul or Calvinist Kirk. We should all be happy to share these contracts and covenants.

    And when a family court tries to break them: the aforementioned legal people will descend on the aforementioned judge, demonstrate that the wifey signe these without coercion, and take them to the supreme court if needs be: per the bill of rights.

    Plus excommicate the wronged party.

    The covenants we promise need teeth within the church. And this is a point — like when the Nazis wanted the swastika in the churches — that we need to fight.

    (and if those in the commonwealth like Julian, Jana and I all end up on hate speech crime charges, so be it: those laws need to be nullified, the judges shamed, and society move on).

  287. MarcusD says:

    @IBB
    That is the reason why men valued virgins back in the day. Fear. Fear that she knew too much.

    Two things:

    1) An approximately equal percentage of women value male virginity (according to a number of studies, and my own observations)

    2) A number of studies (e.g. Willoughby, 2013) have noted that comparison is a causal factor in divorce. You can disconnect variables, and simply take a shortcut and say “sexual experience == higher divorce risk” and leave it at that. Many men, surprisingly, are not aware of the link between SE and divorce.

    Now, it is certainly something that I’ve noticed amongst men (and potentially women) with surplus amounts of pride – they ignore those warnings because they feel they will be the best.

  288. MarcusD says:

    Prenups aren’t allowed for Catholic marriages. That’s why I find it so amusing/frustrating that Catholic bloggers and forum-goers are so quick to attack men (but not women) who seek to marry a virgin (regardless of that man’s reasons – “Reduce divorce risk? You’re just insecure!” or “STDs? Get over yourself!”).

  289. Julian O'Dea says:

    Catholic men should marry virgins. All men should try to marry virgins.

    Ignore the shaming language. Men have rights and preferences too.

  290. wolf says:

    “”””””“That is the reason why men valued virgins back in the day. Fear. Fear that she knew too much.”

    Not every male decision is based on fear.

    I doubt men were afraid of experienced women. They knew better than most males today how those type of women acted. Because they could compare those sluts to a more healthy population of feminine women…and realized that sluts weren’t worth it.

    Now with most women being sluts at least in this country…there is very few feminine women to compare them to.””””””””

    Exactly!

    IBB, having anything to say? Lol…

  291. Carlos says:

    @Keenan McGregor: If marriage stands any chance of survival I’m afraid we will have to give up ideas like sexual attraction and even love…

    If we could just stop equating sexual attraction with love, then there can be no stronger basis for marriage, or for living one’s life, than love. What some readers of the manosphere incorrectly interpret as “misogyny” is actually (if not in all cases, many) a profound disappointment that so many women, while professing love, have proven themselves so incapable of the real thing.

  292. Julian O'Dea says:

    Chris, the leftist feminists (Nicola Roxon et al.) in the previous Australian government tried to introduce new “hate speech” laws to prevent, essentially, anti-feminist speech and the like. I would have had to take some of my blog posts down.

    However, they failed and their government is now gone. Good riddance.

    So I am still at liberty to say that Nicola Roxon is a huge frump. And a stupid bitch.

  293. Jason says:

    Julian,

    It is entirely inappropriate to refer to Nicola Roxon as a huge frump and a stupid bitch,

    The is offensive to fumpy bitches everywhere that you would suggest they are anything like totalitarian lefty scum like Nicola Roxon.

  294. MarcusD says:

    And this is a point — like when the Nazis wanted the swastika in the churches — that we need to fight.

    This is something that people so frequently ignore or simply don’t know – Hitler wanted crucifixes replaced with swastikas or his portrait. There are parallels in the modern day.

  295. Keenan McGregor says:

    “If we could just stop equating sexual attraction with love, then there can be no stronger basis for marriage, or for living one’s life, than love. What some readers of the manosphere incorrectly interpret as “misogyny” is actually (if not in all cases, many) a profound disappointment that so many women, while professing love, have proven themselves so incapable of the real thing.”

    If by love you mean duty, I could agree with you. If by love you mean some sort of naturally monogamous feeling towards one’s spouse, then no. Monogamy holds no biological advantage for our species. Hence it is not “natural”. Humans have created monogamy and the marriage institution for socialization purposes, not natural, biological advantages. Even when we are young and in love (one-itis), we know deep down in our gut that it is impossible for us to only ever be sexually attracted to and desire to reproduce with just our wife. We suspect the same is equally true for the object of our one-itis as well but at that stage in the game don’t even want to entertain for a nano second the idea of her sexual attraction to other men.

    The fact is monogamy is not natural. That is why we had to create it and invent marriage, and socialize and incentivize people to consent to the idea of marriage in the first place. That is why it is stupid to base marriage on sexual attraction and feelings of love. We are sexually attracted to more than just one person, and we also have the capacity to love more than one person, even at a time. If all this is true, and it is, then monogamous marriage itself must be built on factors other then sex and love.

  296. Keenan McGregor says:

    “a profound disappointment that so many women, while professing love, have proven themselves so incapable of the real thing.”

    Let me also add that they are capable of it when love is there. But because love is fleeting by nature, when it fades they see fit to divorce. In that case what they are not capable of is duty. Duty to stay with their husband even when the love fades. A reason to stay that transcends sexual attraction and love. This is what is lacking. Because our society bases the marriage institution on vague, ephemeral, non-institutional ideas like sexual attraction and love.

  297. JDG says:

    Social conservatives’ are leftists, plain and simple….

    They support leftist ideas from decades ago that are now excepted as mainstream. If the trend continues conservatives will be trying to conserve today’s leftist agenda decades in the future.

  298. Julian O'Dea says:

    “The fact is monogamy is not natural.”

    Maybe, but humans do seem to pair-bond. I suppose serial monogamy is possible, but when lives were less certain due to sudden death this would have been fairly uncommon.

    Men certainly feel sexual attraction to many women, but this does not have to be expressed. Oneitis and wife goggles are real, in my experience.

    It is possible that different men or even different racial groups may vary in their strategies, some being more r strategists and some more K strategists.

    Most of this is not new, although the Manosphere Research Institute has pretty well established that hypergamy in women is real. We all deserve a collective Nobel Prize for that.

  299. Norm says:

    Perfect timing for this posting. I read an article called “An Unhappy Divorce”. Good read.

    http://www.kelownadailycourier.ca/local-columnists/the-unhappy-divorce-1514.html#comment-9451

  300. JDG says:

    Catholic men should marry virgins. All men should try to marry virgins.

    Yes. And it’s not just about rights. It’s the right thing to do if you’re going to marry. The Ancients knew this instinctively. The Bible more than implies this. Example after example shows that men of old expected their brides to be virgins with few exceptions.

  301. Julian O'Dea says:

    I have said it before, and no doubt I will say it again: the greatest of all modern feminist victories has been getting men to marry non-virgins.

    No virginity? No white wedding.

  302. deti says:

    “If marriage stands any chance of survival I’m afraid we will have to give up ideas like sexual attraction and even love, and base it on something beyond either one of those two. It could be the ideal of family, the ideal of society, the ideal of religion, even the ideal of science if it could be proven that there is some sort of evolutionary advantage to marriage. But basing it on sexual attraction and love is far too precarious and feeble.”

    The only way that is going to happen is to abolish the very idea of hedonic marriage altogether. That’s only going to happen with a wholesale, civilization wide return to arranged marriages, heavy paternal involvement in female dating and courtship; and paternal veto power over daughter courtship and marriage/mate selection.

    That is never, ever going to happen in this society short of repeal of female suffrage; and that in turn is never, ever going to happen short of civilizational collapse.

  303. Jenny Erikson is exactly the churchian Alpha Widow Mark Driscoll built his entire cult around suppressing his wife from becoming on him.

  304. Keenan McGregor says:

    Read it, Norm. Pretty bleak. I don’t think even my appeals to a higher ideal that transcends sexual attraction and love will keep the marriage institution from fading into complete oblivion. That’s an outdated notion anyway, that duty, family, society, god or financial security can be the glue that keeps couples together. It still somewhat works in poorer regions of the world, but then so does arranged marriage, for the above reasons of duty, obligations towards parents, etc.

    However one thing that stands out like neon lights in that article is this notion of a mid-life crises, feeling stuck, bored in the daily grind. For couples in the developed world the thing that might save their marriage is quitting their monotonous jobs and heading off to some exotic locale to live out the rest of their days in surf, sand and adventure.

  305. MarcusD says:

    They support leftist ideas from decades ago that are now excepted as mainstream. If the trend continues conservatives will be trying to conserve today’s leftist agenda decades in the future.

    “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob.”
    ― G.K. Chesterton

  306. Keenan McGregor says:

    “That’s only going to happen with a wholesale, civilization wide return to arranged marriages, heavy paternal involvement in female dating and courtship; and paternal veto power over daughter courtship and marriage/mate selection. ”

    Arranged marriages don’t involve dating and mate selection. The parents choose a prospective mate and then if the adult children agree to that choice, the dating ensues, if at all. Sometimes its just straight to the wedding. In the event that the kids meet someone before their parents have chosen, those parents still reserve the right to veto power not only over their daughters’ selections, but their sons’ as well. These and other reasons are why arranged marriages are on their way out, even in cultures where they have proven their merit on other areas for centuries.

    And of course I realize that my calls to higher marriage ideals than sexual attraction and love will fall on deaf ears. That’s why I believe marriage will probably not exist at all very soon. It seems there is nothing that can or will ultimately keep this institution alive, and I believe the reason for that is because its not natural in the evolutionary sense.

  307. Bucho says:

    “Not all virgin women have intact hymens.” – AR

    Quite possible. It could have ruptured horseback riding for all we know.

    But seriously. I know a few mid-20s girls that may be for all I know. But, I’ve also observed plenty of stuff that would have passed for lesbianism in a different time. Point being, there’s probably a lot of women out there who are probably getting their emotional jollies without lifting their skirt for a man. More like “Not interested in the boys right now. Me and the girls are getting together for a night of Redbox and wine. Going to have a good cry when we watch the latest Nicholas Sparks flick.”

    “What a wonderful time to live in…darkness is everywhere.” – Earl
    That pretty much sums it up

  308. deti says:

    ‘’And of course I realize that my calls to higher marriage ideals than sexual attraction and love will fall on deaf ears.’

    Exactly my point, Keenan.

    Women don’t want “higher marriage ideals”. Women don’t want marriage based on anything other than sexual attraction and love, even if that.

  309. Keenan McGregor says:

    Hymens don’t rupture, they stretch. That’s why they don’t normally bleed during first intercourse.

    “Catholic men should marry virgins. All men should try to marry virgins.

    Ignore the shaming language. Men have rights and preferences too.”

    You’re assuming that most mens’ preference would be for a virgin. There is no evolutionary advantage to it. Virgin preference was socialized after monogamous marriage was invented and pushed on people via incentives. Neither marriage nor virgin mate was advantageous to early humans in our natural state. “We’re more advanced than that now”, you may argue. I say scientific technology will enable us to act upon on our pre-socialized natural instincts like never before. Just watch and see. Sex is divorced from marriage in current society. In the very near future pregnancy, child birth and parenthood (for both sexes) will be entirely divorced from sexual intercourse. Being freed from both the marriage construct as well as from reliance upon an opposite sex mate for purposes of insemination or child-bearing, men and women both will be left to act upon their true sexual attractions and emotional triggers.

  310. Boxer says:

    Dear Crank:

    You’re white knighting here, bub. Whether or not she was treated unfairly, I consider him a hero. Nothing will change if only men suffer that sort of abuse. Women need to suffer it in much greater numbers before anyone will care.

    So, in other words, you will cheer on the destruction of families, and the alienation of children from their parents, so long as it’s “our team” that gets the twenty pieces of silver, rather than the wimminz team. You will also excuse men and women who betray the principles of this society and western civilization (like, for example, not punishing people without offering them a jury trial, and not keeping someone in bondage/slavery without a conviction, and not operating a debtor’s prison, all of which are in violation of the spirit and letter of the U.S. Constitution, etc.)

    The “hero” you are worshipping is a mangina judge who sits, on a semi-permanent basis, hearing family law cases. I’m sure that he thinks he is “doing his job” and thus he holds himself above any reasonable self analysis for the deplorable crap he does all day.

    The state, as it is currently constructed, exists to feed off the dysfunction of the citizens. It’s really not an issue to me whether those citizens are men or women. I dislike the scheme entire, and thus we part ways. Call it “white knighting” if you want. I’d prefer all this nonsense be done away with.

    Regards, Boxer

  311. Keenan McGregor says:

    “Women don’t want “higher marriage ideals”. Women don’t want marriage based on anything other than sexual attraction and love, even if that.”

    Marriage is not required for sexual attraction and love. Marriage is a relatively recent human-made construct that people had to be socialized and incentivized in to. We can complain about the state of contemporary marriage all day long if we want to, but the fact is the reason why it doesn’t work is because it is not natural. There’s really no mystery to this.

  312. Julian O'Dea says:

    Keenan, in my experience there can be rupture and bleeding. Even this Wikipedia site cites a study that 43% of women bleed at first intercourse.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymen

    Not all virgins have hymens, and not all hymens rupture and bleed. But the presence of a hymen is a good rough indicator of virginity.

    A theory of mine on the evolutionary advantage of the hymen:

    http://julianodea.blogspot.com.au/2007/11/hymen-as-honest-signal-purpose-well.html

  313. They Call Me Tom says:

    “No bad marriage and horrible divorce. Gentlemen, be oh so very careful, who you marry.”

    This echoes some of the best advice I ever received from my father. He’s still married to the woman he married after the divorce from my mother. My mom was married at least three more times. And he always points to one of my uncle’s as an example, as my uncle had a very good life for a bachelor, and had it whittled away ever since he decided to marry for the sake of getting married.

    There are plenty of pretty faces, and plenty of beautiful bodies, but I don’t want to know a woman(biblical euphemism) before I know who she is and what she’s about. The risk / reward balance is simply too far out of whack to gamble.

  314. JDG says:

    MarcusD – Mr Chesterton had a keen sense of observation to say the least.

  315. Keenan McGregor says:

    “Even this Wikipedia site cites a study that 43% of women bleed at first intercourse.”

    Just as I said, the majority don’t.

    “And he always points to one of my uncle’s as an example, as my uncle had a very good life for a bachelor, and had it whittled away ever since he decided to marry for the sake of getting married.”

    Marry for the sake of getting married. Why would anyone do that? Because “civilization” and religion tells them to.

    I wish to ask the long-married readers here, even the happy ones. If religion and culture were completely stripped from you mind, would you still be monogamous to your spouse. I’m not asking if you would still be with them, living with them, or feeling affection for them. I suppose many of you would. What I am asking is, without religion and socialization regarding monogamy, would you deny having an intimate relationship or even encounter with another human being if the opportunity presented itself?

  316. Julian O'Dea says:

    That is one study, Keenan, on a site that has been policed by feminists.

    A large number of women bleed at first intercourse.

  317. theshadowedknight says:

    If you are concerned with what is natural absent social conditioning, then marriage going away is the least of your problems. Monogamy may be a social construct, but for that matter, so is civilization. Rape and murder are natural, and so are a host of other bad things. Natural does not mean good.

    Women are too stupid to see that nuking the foundational social construct will have an effect on all that was built atop it. Perhaps a few years of watching their children die in the street of diseases cured by social constructs might give them an appreciation. Maybe it will take a few rapes by socially deconstructed men, or hunger pangs when the social constructs stop producing and transporting foodstuffs. Whatever it takes, it will take millions with it.

    You know what kind of woman is sure not to get an alpha? The one lying in the gutter with the dogs and rats fighting over her corpse. The one choking to death on her own fluids from the diseases she is carrying. Although to be fair, depending on the woman and her circumstances, the warlord raping and beating her every night might just satisfy her hypergamy.

    The Shadowed Knight

  318. sunshinemary says:

    @ Boxer
    I really appreciate how you are always the calm voice of rationality. Even when I don’t agree with you, I always appreciate your thoughtful commentary and your lack of histrionic proclamations. You provide a good example of how to engage in productive debate across ideological divides. Thank you.

  319. MarcusD says:

    I’m sure that he thinks he is “doing his job” and thus he holds himself above any reasonable self analysis for the deplorable crap he does all day.

    “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
    -C.S. Lewis

    @JDG

    Yes, he did. His thoughts, even decades later, are still pertinent and clarifying.

  320. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/01/08 | Free Northerner

  321. Morpheus says:

    She has “reinvented herself” – and the new, sinful Jenny is having so much more fun than the old one ever did (“Jesus is sooooo boring!”).

    I think many women and particularly female bloggers are skilled at “reinvention”. It isn’t hard to find examples.

  322. jf12 says:

    If we combine Baumeister’s sexual economics observations with Haselton’s intent misperception framework, then the *wrong* combination would be that sex (what men definitely want more of) is a female resource and commitment (what women supposedly want more of) is a male resource. That is wrong, experimentally, because women don’t want commitment from men they don’t want sex with! But let’s look at it from the misperception framework. Men tend to (quite drastically)overperceive women’s sexual interest because that’s what the men WANT more of. But women tend to drastically underperceive men’s commitment interest! I contend this is underpercerption is yet another manifestion of the apex fallacy, which seems to have virally infected every part of women’s thinking. “All men are alphas” etc.

  323. jf12 says:

    I forgot to add the punchline. Because women underperceive commitment interest, that bias reveals what women *actually* want in a man: lack of commitment. Women WANT the promiscuous man, because he is less likely to intend to commit. Women WANT the rich man, because he is less likely to intend to commit.

  324. MarcusD says:

    @Julian, et al

    There are two trends (of many) that I’ve noticed over the past few years, while reading various blogs that identify, to varying degrees, with feminism (and in the case of the blogs that I’ve been reading, usually qualified with “Christian” or “Catholic”).

    Dalrock’s post on men “manning up” and marrying “non-zero-N women” (http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/how-should-christian-men-respond-to-slutty-women-marry-them/, et al) highlights the tendency of certain Christian (including Catholics, Orthodox, etc) groups to ignore consequences of premarital sex and/or to act to force certain people (men, in this case) to accept the risks resulting therefrom. Various bloggers in the Manosphere, be they Christian or atheist (e.g. Athol Kay), recommend that men marry a virgin (for reasons of divorce risk, infidelity risk, bonding, STDs, femininity, etc). Statistically this is not an impossible task (the latest NSFG data states that 34% of married women have only had one sexual partner [recognizing that some are lying, of course]), but I’ve noticed a few more interesting hindrances than societal decline.

    Firstly: I’ve noticed that virgin women (but not men) are inclined to call the opposite sex’s insistence on virginity a “creepy virginity fetish” (or something along those lines – including references to the Madonna/whore complex [though, in reality, almost entirely inapplicable to virgin men]) and to refuse to date such men (usually accompanied with personal attacks, and the like).

    I have several theories as to why this is the case, but I think one seems more likely than rest: the constructing of a pseudo-virtue of accepting sexual pasts and associating it directly with other virtues (e.g. forgiveness, via conflation with acceptance). A thread (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=818007 – plenty of fodder for other topics, too) popped up on CAF a while back, and one of the posts had the following (which serves as a general example of the kind of posts I’m thinking of):

    “If your fiance is truly a ‘good guy,’ he will understand and forgive you.”

    What I think has ended up happening can be described with the following syllogism (modus tollens – though, with faulty premises):

    If a man has some [desirable quality], then he will overlook a sexual history,
    He does not overlook a sexual history,
    Therefore, he lacks that [desirable quality].

    It has been plainly stated in comment sections (usually by women) on the above-mentioned types of blogs that men who will not overlook a certain sexual history will be unforgiving, controlling (though, they are in reality being the controlling ones), etc, in marriage – I think this is due precisely to the conclusion from the above in the minds of those people. It seems closely related to the “man up” mantra.

    Secondly: another trend I’ve noticed is the outright (or near outright) refusal to disclose any sexual history whatsoever (even if it does pose significant health risks, and even if it is exemplary [i.e. no sexual experience at all]), almost exclusively on the part of women (or, in advice directed towards them, by older men and women). Basically, it seems like the approach outlined here: http://wwnh.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/415-virtual-virginity-20/ (The author of that post states elsewhere: “Everybody makes mistakes. Recovery is everything, and virtual virginity provides it for past sexual mistakes.”) He goes on extensively about “image management” on that topic (at least 50 posts), e.g.: http://wwnh.wordpress.com/2013/08/15/1890-make-marriage-work-addition-06-sexual-history/, http://wwnh.wordpress.com/2010/05/27/935-virgin-keep-it-secret-%E2%80%94-part-i/, http://wwnh.wordpress.com/2010/05/28/936-virgin-keep-it-secret-%E2%80%94-part-ii/, http://wwnh.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/1447-none-of-your-business/, http://wwnh.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/940-virgin-bride-actual-or-virtual/, etc etc (I cite that blog simply because it has the least “scurrility”). A Catholic blog (http://seraphicsinglescummings.blogspot.ca/ – quite frustrating to read, in general), written for young Catholic women, stipulates that virginity (or lack thereof) should be revealed only when “the wedding date is set, a hall is rented, and the invitations are sent out” – to quote her. Of course, there are many other examples to be found.

    It should be noted, though, that modern research generally warns against such approaches (e.g.: Berg, John H., and Ronald D. McQuinn. “Attraction and exchange in continuing and noncontinuing dating relationships.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 50.5 (1986): 942, Cavalie, Carlos. Disclosure of sexual history in hook ups, short and long-term relationships. Diss. Rutgers University-Camden Graduate School, 2010, Greene, Kathryn, and Sandra L. Faulkner. “Gender, belief in the sexual double standard, and sexual talk in heterosexual dating relationships.” Sex Roles 53.3-4 (2005): 239-251, etc). STDs and divorce risk seem to be far from the minds of many. Differential fecundity (ironically, affecting women the most), investment syndrome, relationship inertia, and so forth, seems to have the above approach leading to even higher risk of marital dissatisfaction, and a higher risk of women improperly investing time (e.g. a year) with a man who would end up not marrying her.

  325. MarcusD says:

    @Julian, et al

    http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/01/some-trends-worth-noting.html

    Thoughts are welcome.

    —-
    (I posted it here, as well, but it seems it had too many links, so it’s stuck in moderation.)

  326. Julian O'Dea says:

    Thanks, MarcusD, I shall certainly look at that carefully.

    “Other times, other customs”. But I knew a lot of young men in my youth who wanted to marry a virgin. In fact, I had a girl whom I broke up with, who had lost her hymen she said to a campus doctor’s examination. I believed her, but I later found out that a subsequent boyfriend did not. And ti mattered to him that that she had evidence of being a virgin.

    (Any feminists reading this, and offended, know that I am offended by partial birth abortion, and disgusted. So, deal with it, as the young people say).

    In any case, no-one would have been able to shame me out of wanting a virgin, and I got one, and I think it is one reason she and I are still together after nearly 28 years.

    Of course if any men reading don’t mind their bride having had strange dicks inside her, go right ahead and marry her.

  327. MarcusD says:

    Of course if any men reading don’t mind their bride having had strange dicks inside her, go right ahead and marry her.

    They are the “wide-eyed, true believers” of the Christian world – accepting anything they are told is necessary to be a good Christian (even in self-contradiction). Their self-righteous posturings on the matter are more reckless, exhibitionary self-worship than humble acceptance. They tell others seemingly because they want the praise – that is, the opposite of what a person who does not accept sexual experience in a spouse receives. It’s that kind of environment that will further damage marriage – by constructing a new “morality” around making bad choices of a spouse.

  328. MarcusD says:

    Okay, got that out of my system…

  329. Julian O'Dea says:

    You are right, MarcusD. It is pretty important whom you marry (to use some British understatement, although I am Australian).

    I think that once you marry someone you have to accept whatever comes along. But a man has a perfect right to do due diligence beforehand.

    Not very long ago, it was understood that Catholic wives would be virgins at marriage and would obey their husbands. Wimpy modern bloggers can apply modern spin but that was the way it was, and there is better theology behind that than in the feminised nonsense they promulgate..

  330. MarcusD says:

    Re: waiting:

    Husbands, too, though (admittedly, less likely). In the terms of current research, it is “associative mating by socio-sexual orientation.” Of course, culture does affect those expectations in a variety of ways. Anyhow, both men and women were expected to wait, and many did.

  331. Julian O'Dea says:

    Yes, husbands too. I have made no secret of my relative lack of experience. My lifetime N will likely be only 2. I had several offers, but I refused them, with one exception, and that involved alcohol.

  332. theshadowedknight says:

    Boxer, think of this: women initiate the majority of divorces. Given that she was the primary wage earner, it is even more likely that she was the one to file. She destroyed the marriage, not the state. I feel little sympathy for the result of actions she undertook.

    Society watches men get hurt and die all the time. No one cares. We are expendable. The injustices of the divorce court will go on forever until it begins to affect women. One woman being crushed by the system is more effective a tool for reform than ten thousand men.

    Sacrifices are necessary at this point. There will be pain, and some will suffer. The more we try to protect everyone, the more pain we will feel in the end. Better to spread the pain as efficiently as possible. Focusing harm upon women brings more attention than for men. It is harsh, but it works.

    As for the precepts of this nation, the people abandoned them long ago. The Constitution is a dead letter, and sentimentality is the only thing holding it up. This is the government the people wanted. They asked for it, and they are getting it good and hard.

    The Shadowed Knight

  333. earl says:

    “Reduce divorce risk? You’re just insecure!” or “STDs? Get over yourself!”

    Ah the old emotional outburst to good reasoning. If a woman calls you insecure or to get over yourself…you can take to the bank she’s had a dick or 10 in her.

    If a man does it…it is because he has a slutty daughter he wants to get married off.

  334. earl says:

    I too had several offers in college and a few after that…but rejected them. I’ve made it known my N is 0 and for good reason.

    I saw enough of what happened in a relationships when sex got involved with my friends that weren’t married. Let’s just say none of it was good…and most of the time the woman turned into a banshee. My flaw was that I saw a clear cause and effect…and I wasn’t going to waste my time dealing with that.

    In my 20s I probably would be ashamed of that number…now into my 30s I’m thankful that is my number. I’ve had a few doozy stories with women in my youth…but nothing like some of the divorce and break up nightmares I’ve read around these parts.

  335. http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/piv-is-always-rape-ok/

    Lol, have at it guys and for those of you who have any sex with a woman at all. RAPISTS!

  336. Julian O'Dea says:

    Earl, good work. “Never stick your dick in crazy”. It is a privilege for a woman, which she should earn.

    Do NOT marry a woman unless you pop her cherry.

  337. greyghost says:

    theshadowedknight
    Your last two comments are dead on. Good to see a man that is a warrior for real cultural change rather than survival. Both are necessary only live men can fight.
    This documentary is being made because guys like us are being heard and the pool of chumps is shrinking. (failure to launch, peter pans, PUA/MGTOW types) This is going to back fire on them big time.
    I say keep the laws in place and just make sure all men regardless know the truth and what the laws are. I can live with misandry I just hate the lies.
    In a previous article I posted up advise on marriage approach to a son and daughter. Though they looked different both were based on the truth of reality and the different consequences based on sex/gender.
    Involuntary Childless Spinsterhood is my thing for rebellious women. As soon as a male birth control pill is available I am going to be the biggest feminist activist ever. I’ll brow beat men about responsibility under the law and tell them what the laws are and show no mercy. I’ll encourage women from toddler to 50 to be true to her self. All the while owning a distribution center for the male pill.

  338. Johnycomelately says:

    Keenan McGregor

    I know a heck of a lot of guys who were saved from the divorce mill by having their assets in their parents name without the wife’s knowledge. To see the wives turnabout when they realize they got the short end of the stick is a sight to be seen.

    Another method I have seen is placing a financial caveat over property by a trusted family member which gives the holder first rights upon dissolution.

    As an aside prenups aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

  339. Pingback: More on Divorce Corp

  340. Elspeth says:

    With that said, the majority of men like this in the church world usually become “righteous” after their success with their current wives (the prodigal son and converted unbeliever I so often reference).

    That’s our story certainly and it’s not uncommon. I suppose this speaks to the darkness in the hearts of the women, including me back when. There are some who say it’s because men in the church have been conditioned to be too soft, and there my be some of that too but the onus is on women to stop ignoring godly men in favor of unbelievers. The biggest difference I have seen is that the unbelieving men who marry church girls are totally ignorant of Biblical morality.

    My husband truly didn’t know that sex before marriage was a sin, for example. When the girls started calling, giving him and his brothers Polaroids of themselves (nothing new under the sun folks), their father was proud of them. They had no frame of reference for abstinence until marriage I knew though and ignored it.

    The answer to the divorce dilemma in the church is one that no one wants to deal with: hold young women to account for the men they choose and the vows they take> Also, allow men the freedom to lead and correct their wives without it being labeled some kind of emotional abuse.

    There’s a flip side to that (1 peter 3:7), and my husband definitely had to learn it after being raised to thoroughly believe in the superiority of the masculine over the feminine, but the church has taken it too far, handicapping husbands and making them ineffective.

    The legal stuff in the clips Dalrock posted here? It’s not going to get markedly better so long as the child support machine is in place, and it can’t be overhauled because the OOW birthrate is too high. Even if they reform alimony (and they will), they’ll just find a way to convert that into child support by doing things like extending it past age 18 until the child finishes college or something.

    But id the church polices itself in line with Scripture and stop coddling divorcees, it won’t be our problem.

  341. Chris
    Your notion of a prenup as condition to have the privilege to be married in a given church, temple, whatever, is one I’ve also had for years. When, here in the US some states tried to do this, Arkansas, Oklahoma, one other, they offered a so called Covenant marriage. It was more difficult to break. The folks just didn’t like that idea.
    So making it conditional for even getting married in a church at least would shine another light on where the issue originates. Women would balk and choose secular magistrate marriages. Parents would be aghast at the church that refused to marry little snowflake unless she promised to stay married. The hypocrites would paint red letters on their doors, in effect.

  342. Pingback: Child support and the threat point. | Dalrock

  343. tweell says:

    Arizona has a covenant marriage, the Mormons managed to get it through the legislature here. It delays a divorceand makes it more painful for the frivorcee, but generally only Mormons and Catholics are getting them.

  344. Boxer says:

    Dear Shadow Knight and Grey Ghost:

    Boxer, think of this: women initiate the majority of divorces. Given that she was the primary wage earner, it is even more likely that she was the one to file. She destroyed the marriage, not the state. I feel little sympathy for the result of actions she undertook.

    My understanding, based only on fifteen minutes of testimony, months and months ago, is that neither of them were earning anything, and the father was the filer, though it doesn’t really matter.

    Society watches men get hurt and die all the time. No one cares. We are expendable. The injustices of the divorce court will go on forever until it begins to affect women. One woman being crushed by the system is more effective a tool for reform than ten thousand men.

    In other words, women have some nebulous “privilege” and men have been “oppressed for generations” thus such nonsense is necessary. This is the stock and trade of sites like Jezebel and Feministing.

    That’s the difference between us. You are a feminist, who is complaining about how society isn’t feminist enough for gender equity, and I am a revolutionary, who wants the family-court system thrown in the garbage can, and who wants men to be men, and women to be women.

    As for the precepts of this nation, the people abandoned them long ago. The Constitution is a dead letter, and sentimentality is the only thing holding it up. This is the government the people wanted. They asked for it, and they are getting it good and hard.

    I definitely don’t disagree with you on this point. I just like to bring up the document that so many feminists, conservatives and liberals all point to, to excuse their own excesses.

    Regards, Boxer

  345. Anonymous Reader says:

    Bucho
    Point being, there’s probably a lot of women out there who are probably getting their emotional jollies without lifting their skirt for a man.

    Sure. “Lesbian Until Graduation” at some Northeastern colleges….and so? One of IBB’s little smoke screens was a minirant about “if she doesn’t bleed…”, I merely pointed out a well known medical fact. Your point?

    Do you have any data to share regarding the effect of LUG on women in terms of long term marriage? If so, let’s see it. We have the Social Pathologist’s analysis of the effects of N > 0 on marriage. It is useful.

  346. Anonymous Reader says:

    jf12
    That is wrong, experimentally, because women don’t want commitment from men they don’t want sex with!

    This is false. It is very easy to demonstrate. Consider the 30 year old frivorcee with one or more children. She wants, and gets, financial commitment from her ex husband. She does not want, and does not have to provide, sex to him. She can demand quite a lot of commitment, and get it at gunpoint if need be.

    Or consider the babymomma I know of who has multiple children by multiple fathers, who lives in public housing, and who gets extra help from the church she’s attached herself to. She’s resource commitment from the state, as well as from dozens of men who are married to other women, and she ain’t giving up teh sex to any of them.

    In fact, the reproductive strategy of AF-BB relies on sex from one man, and commitment from one or more other man/men.

    Sorry, casual inspection of reality contradicts your claim.

  347. jf12 says:

    Re: covenant marriages. AFAIK, there have been zero successful legal enforcements of any kind of “you can’t leave me without cause” clauses. As soon as the “covenant” wife files for no-fault divorce, usually through claiming legal hurdles to filing for fault, her prior “covenant” agreement is considered de facto null and void. This is the same as any judicial set aside of a prenup. Probably, this is not my field, the only recourse for the husband is to counterfile for annulment based on fraud.

  348. jf12 says:

    Re: commitment. Yes, she wants the resources that tend to accompany commitment, but she doesn’t want the commitment. If he could mail his paycheck to her from Siberia, she’d like it better.

  349. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    I suggested that maybe women who are very-very young when they get married, they tend to have some regrets about what they may have missed in life. And quite often, (especially in the age of no-fault-divorce) those regrets may lead to frivorce. I am not suggesting that anyone ride the carrosel. I can’t control if someone wants to be a carrosel rider or not.

    Hogwash. Here is what you wrote:

    IBB
    That is why I have been saying (and continue to say) women should focus on marrying from 25 to 29. The fact that so few women marry between 20 and 25 does not bother me in the least. She is “having fun” (for lack of a better term) during that “term” and making memories (many of those memories, the different cocks she’s had, possibly.)

    You state clearly that women should not marry before age 25, that they should not be virgins when they marry, that they should experience as many different men as they want to before they marry. That’s promiscuity. That’s riding the cock carousel. In Bible terms, you encourage women to fornicate as much as they want prior to marriage.

    Novaseeker is mistaken. He did not, or will not, read the plain English words that IBB has written.

    IBB, two simple questions: is this what you want for your daughter? To be a slut for 5 years before considering marriage?

  350. Joshua says:

    I thought novaseeker was being sarcastic. No?

  351. AR,

    Hogwash. Here is what you wrote:

    IBB
    That is why I have been saying (and continue to say) women should focus on marrying from 25 to 29. The fact that so few women marry between 20 and 25 does not bother me in the least. She is “having fun” (for lack of a better term) during that “term” and making memories (many of those memories, the different cocks she’s had, possibly.)

    You state clearly that women should not marry before age 25, that they should not be virgins when they marry, that they should experience as many different men as they want to before they marry. That’s promiscuity. That’s riding the cock carousel. In Bible terms, you encourage women to fornicate as much as they want prior to marriage.

    (sigh, shaking head)

    I am not encouraging something to be done.

    I am acknowledging something that is already being done.

    I’m done with this. Its like trying to reason with a 4 year old in a foreign language.

  352. Joshua says:

    IBB by creating an environment for it to flourish, you are by definition encouraging it. Again this is a very simple concept you cant wrap your head around because your not as smart as you think you are.

  353. 1kingofkings says:

    Please define: man being a man. What is a man?

  354. Anonymous Reader says:

    jf12
    Re: commitment. Yes, she wants the resources that tend to accompany commitment, but she doesn’t want the commitment. If he could mail his paycheck to her from Siberia, she’d like it better.

    This is self contradictory for any standard definition of “commitment”. Therefore it is false, as I previously demonstrated.

  355. jf12 says:

    Commitment intent as described (Haselton and Buss, 2000) means the partner planning on sticking around for the long haul. Hence the expectation of commitment means, as per the true standard definition, trusting the partner to be present. The resources are contingent on the commitment.

  356. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    I am not encouraging something to be done.
    I am acknowledging something that is already being done.

    These statements are false on their very face. Perhaps you do not understand the difference between description and prescription.

    Here is a descriptive statement:

    “Many women are promiscuous between the age of 20 and 25.”

    Here is a proscriptive statement:

    “Men should be wary of women over 25 because many have been promiscuous when younger.”

    There is a word in the proscriptive sentences that is not in the descriptive sentence, and that word is should. This is because a descriptive sentence simply lays out facts, while a proscriptive sentence urges an action to be taken.

    Now, yet again, we look at your words, IBB:
    That is why I have been saying (and continue to say) women should focus on marrying from 25 to 29.

    The word should clearly is prescribing, or encouraging, or directing, a certain course of action. That course of action is what? For women to not consider marrying before age 25.

    IBB
    The fact that so few women marry between 20 and 25 does not bother me in the least. She is “having fun” (for lack of a better term) during that “term” and making memories (many of those memories, the different cocks she’s had, possibly.)”

    You are clearly saying that it does not bother you in the least for women to be promiscuous between the ages of 20 and 25. Given what we know about the effects of promiscuity in women prior to marriage, you are saying that it does not bother you in the least for women to make themselves less desirable for marriage and more prone to file for divorce when their youngest child is aged 5. Therefore, you are saying that divorce does not bother you in the least.

    Why can you not face what you have written, IBB? Why do you seem to have this problem with cause and effect? Is promiscuity what you want for your daughter?

    It is my opinion that from time to time, you reveal a bit more of your true nature than you really intend to – the “ketchup” thread in Submission was one example, and this is another. You need to face your own words and the plain meaning of what you have written.

    You aren’t describing a situation. You are prescribing it – encouraging it. There is a difference, a clear and obvious difference.

  357. Anonymous Reader says:

    jf12
    Commitment intent as described (Haselton and Buss, 2000) means the partner planning on sticking around for the long haul. Hence the expectation of commitment means, as per the true standard definition, trusting the partner to be present. The resources are contingent on the commitment.

    I’d like a more detailed cite than you have provided, because this “standard definition” does not quite match up to common usage, in my experience.

  358. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    I’m done with this. Its like trying to reason with a 4 year old in a foreign language.

    Is English your first language, or did you learn it as a second language? Perhaps that is part of the issue?

    Then again, you have problems with cause and effect.

  359. 1kingofkings says:

    What men forget about is, why should a woman stick with a commitment where a man treats his wife like a commodity and a slave as opposed to a lover? Men complain all the time it’s about the money but wait a minute… What about all the extra curricular sex he’s having betraying her or the talking down to her like some kind of child or second class citizen ? Women marry for a partner to assist them as an equal. Women do not marry to become some kind of male slave to be treated with contempt at his whim.

  360. jf12 says:

    Re: definition of commitment. Yes, the standard definition of relationship commitment IS the ability to trust in the presence of the partner in a continuing relationship. There is no other standard definition of relationship commitment. The first google hit for “relationship commitment trust” is

    Wieselquist J, Rusbult CE, Foster CA, Agnew CR. 1999. Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close relationships. J Pers Soc Psychol. 77(5):942-66.
    “Commitment-inspired acts such as accommodation and willingness to sacrifice provide diagnostic information regarding a partner’s pro-relationship motives. Individuals come to trust their partners when they perceive that their partners have enacted pro-relationship behaviors, departing from their direct self-interest for the good of the relationship.”

    Haselton’s ONLY implied definition must be inferred from her “An ancestral woman who consented to sex with a man who abandoned her shortly thereafter because of his low level of commitment could have suffered the costs of an unwanted or untimely pregnancy, raising a child without an investing mate, a reduction in her mate value, and reputational damage.” The presence of the mate is the ONLY highlighted factor, not mail-able resources.

  361. Keenan McGregor says:

    “I forgot to add the punchline. Because women underperceive commitment interest, that bias reveals what women *actually* want in a man: lack of commitment. Women WANT the promiscuous man, because he is less likely to intend to commit. Women WANT the rich man, because he is less likely to intend to commit.”

    I interpret the underperception of commitment as suspicion of the male’s motive whereas the overperception of sexual interest would be the hope of the male. The only way that underperception of commitment could be interpreted as positive on behalf of the female is if she is non-committal herself and desirous of short term relationships with multiple men. And that seems to be congruent with women in their natural state.

    “Arizona has a covenant marriage, the Mormons managed to get it through the legislature here. It delays a divorceand makes it more painful for the frivorcee, but generally only Mormons and Catholics are getting them.”

    I’ve read that non Muslims are beginning to turn to Sharia courts in the UK. Of course such rulings cannot overrule British law in letter or spirit, however with regards to child custody some are claiming they are fairer and as long as no national law is breached, they can carry on.

    “This documentary is being made because guys like us are being heard and the pool of chumps is shrinking. (failure to launch, peter pans, PUA/MGTOW types) This is going to back fire on them big time.”

    In a matter of a few decades we’re going to have a nation comprised of mostly unmarried people. The family courts will gradually disappear because there will hardly be any official families. Divorce will be phased out because very few people will marry. We are heading for libertarian values, less governmental involvement and more freedom, not even by our conscious design but just because Americans are becoming more autonomous, introverted and self-centered in lifestyle and habit and less social and externally motivated by the things that used to motivate us – community involvement, nationalism, family, religion, career status, etc. More and more of us would rather just be left alone to blog than deal with any of that.

    “If you are concerned with what is natural absent social conditioning, then marriage going away is the least of your problems. Monogamy may be a social construct, but for that matter, so is civilization. Rape and murder are natural, and so are a host of other bad things. Natural does not mean good.”

    I never said natural was “good”. My statements are not a moral judgement of good or bad, they simply state what is. Rape and murder in nature take place due to scarcity. Scarcity is the cause of much suffering.

  362. jf12 says:

    @Keenan Re: punchline. I hereby retract my error. Thanks for making me say it right. My point was to highlight the fact that effect of commitment is not positive: if women were truly hungry for commitment then they’d walk around seeing potential commitment everywhere, like the cartoon coyote seeing birds as trussed and baked. That point remains true, but I hereby correct my statement of it:

    The effect of commitment is due to women’s fear of its lack. Women fear the lack of commitment from a promiscuous man, so there is an effect. Women do not fear the lack of commitment from a beta, so there is no effect whether or not he exhibits commitment.

  363. This is self contradictory for any standard definition of “commitment”. Therefore it is false, as I previously demonstrated.

    That’s why, as Dalrock pointed out a while back, it’s more accurate to say that men are the gatekeepers of “investment” rather than “commitment.” What a woman having babies really needs from a man is his investment. She might like to have his commitment to back up his investment, but that’s not strictly necessary if she can get his investment some other way, or even get it from some other man (or men).

    On the other hand, promise a woman your undying commitment, that your life and everything you have are hers, but explain to her that you don’t have two nickels to rub together and probably never will, and see how far that gets you.

  364. jf12 says:

    Hmm. Here’s a thought involving my thumb-sucking and hair-twirling, instead of smokering-blowing. Is the effect of the red pill primarily to induce awareness of other’s intents as a threat to self? In other words, to produce a theory of mind that correctly incorporates the Other’s (women, government, machines of the matrix) badness?

  365. Keenan McGregor says:

    “My point was to highlight the fact that effect of commitment is not positive: if women were truly hungry for commitment then they’d walk around seeing potential commitment everywhere, like the cartoon coyote seeing birds as trussed and baked. That point remains true, but I hereby correct my statement of it:

    The effect of commitment is due to women’s fear of its lack. Women fear the lack of commitment from a promiscuous man, so there is an effect. Women do not fear the lack of commitment from a beta, so there is no effect whether or not he exhibits commitment.”

    I don’t quite buy that. Of course women would desire commitment from a man they are attracted to, why would anyone desire a relationship with someone they find unattractive? That makes no sense and they should not be expected to. But alphas are rare. That means probably 98% of the happy couples we know, even if those are just short term relationships of a few years (the natural ideal), are beta couples. We also can’t assume that alpha men enjoy life long happy marriages, that their wives never leave them.

    By the way, I think society’s aim now is to move in the direction of a “perfect world” scenario wherein humans will finally come close to getting what we’ve always wanted: a series of satisfying short term relationships with a variety of partners. A new partner every 5 years. The relationships will last 3-4 years (that’s the natural ideal), but in between we take a year or two off for ourselves. As this becomes the norm, and make no mistake its almost already to that point, there will be less negative effects on the children. But even the well-being of kids need not concern us since we are having less and will continue to have even less.

  366. Elspeth says:

    Is the effect of the red pill primarily to induce awareness of other’s intents as a threat to self? In other words, to produce a theory of mind that correctly incorporates the Other’s (women, government, machines of the matrix) badness?

    Now that Jf12, is an excellent question. Often times it seems the answer is firmly in the yes column. It’s all about the badness of the Other’s.

    It comes down to our way of looking at life. For example, the child support thread that is being commented on here. My husband has quite a story to tell on that score. He has gone through a lot, most of it the result of malice; “hell hath no fury” and all that.

    But you know what his response to it has been? To take it all in stride and accept that his sin was as much a part of what he went through as the former lover’s ill will.

    Some of the statements that fly out of his mouth have always been as red pill as anything I’ve ever read here, and he is still pro marriage, and sees women largely as a product of the culture and an inherently less rational way of perceiving things. But he still likes women and he doesn’t disparage marriage.

    If the “red pill” doesn’t serve to motivate

  367. Elspeth says:

    Ooops. Hit post too quick.

    If the “red pill” doesn’t serve to motivate one to be more human as well as more aware, then what’s the point? Christians are not allowed to indulge in a “survival of the fittest” approach to relationships.

  368. AR, quite beating around the bush. Let’s just get out with it:

    Here’s the results of the Gender Analyzer on IBB’s blog: “We guess http://innocentbystandersblog.wordpress.com/ is written by a woman (59%), however it’s quite gender neutral.”

    Here’s the results of a couple of comments on this thread, run through the Gender Guesser:

    Genre: Informal
    Female = 1017
    Male = 817
    Difference = -200; 44.54%
    Verdict: Weak FEMALE

    VERDICT: IBB is a female/feminist troll & false flag blogger, trying to present herself as a Conservative/Father/MRA to distract and derail Dalrock’s discussion threads.

  369. 1kingofkings says:

    What is the purpose of getting not bring allowed to get divorced? Control of property to abuse? Nice one.

  370. Marissa says:

    Is the effect of the red pill primarily to induce awareness of other’s intents as a threat to self? In other words, to produce a theory of mind that correctly incorporates the Other’s (women, government, machines of the matrix) badness?

    You are absolutely right. In religious terms, the red pill is an education in the fallen world. It seems to counter the humanist concept of perfecting man and society through social engineering. And it not only incorporates the Other’s badness, but one’s own sinful nature. I have learned a lot about female nature here that is helping me steel myself against it. Why are people (myself included) so stubborn in denying what is detrimental to them? I guess it is truly pride, since most people would rather suffer in (or blissfully ignore) their wrongness than admit they are wrong, which I identify with strongly.

    In a comment above, Dalrock questioned how to get otherwise rational, Christian-identified folks to see the light. I wonder if some kind of biblically-based program (for lack of another word) might not be helpful? “The Bible, Men, and Women” or something like that. People seem drawn to “battle of the sexes” framing, so maybe go with that. It could begin with some really simple questions like:
    1) How are male and female Bible figures portrayed as similar beings, with no division between the sexes?
    2) How are male and female Bible figures portrayed as different beings, owing to the difference between their sex?
    More specifically:
    3) How do men and women in the achieve virtue–in which ways do men achieve virtue that is similar to how women achieve it? Which ways are different?
    4) How do men and women commit sin–in which ways do men commit sin that is similar to how women commit it? Which ways are different?
    5) How are men and women commanded to act by God in ways that are similar? In ways that are different?
    6) How are men and women punished by God in ways that are similar? In ways that are different?

    You could start with these real softball questions that allows for discussion of difference between the sexes without the feminist-offended shutdown taking place. One cannot even broach the topic of “men and women are different” outright, but one would hope, with Christians who believe that Scripture is sacred and true, that you could at least coax people into a rational understanding of the differences between the sexes on a scriptural basis.

    And from there, once your discussion group/audience accepts and converses with these principles, you can move onto the more hard-hitting material involving marriage.

  371. 1kingofkings says:

    Females aren’t property, they’re humans.

  372. Marissa says:

    As this becomes the norm, and make no mistake its almost already to that point, there will be less negative effects on the children.

    Can you explain this in more detail? Is there any evidence that serial monogamous relationships are creating better outcomes for children than they were before now? Crime statistics show that step-parents are far, far more likely to murder their spouse’s child than a biological parent is. Same goes with abuse, sexual assault, etc. Children of divorce or unmarried parents have worse outcomes in regards to health and crime than those raised by the traditional model. I don’t understand how normalizing the serial relationship model will have fewer negative effects on children.

    Keenan MacGregor, did you formerly post as “Christians 4 Christ!”? I can’t help but notice he or she has disappeared at the same time you arrived and that you have a very similar outlook and writing style.

  373. MarcusD says:

    @AnonymousManosphereBlogger

    Good job on finding those tools. They’re free, which is to say, not the most accurate (or up-to-date), but otherwise still good. My results from my own software match up with yours. Suffice to say, I’m suspicious.

  374. MarcusD says:

    @Marissa

    Your hunch seems to be correct, after further analysis – both have very similar patterns of speech, topic choice, and the gender analysis is almost the exact same for both.

  375. Anonymous Reader says:

    MarcusD, AMB, the only analysis tool I’m using on IBB is the neural network between my ears. I’ve been training that network for a few years now to recognize certain patterns, and it’s getting better and better.

  376. Anonymous Reader says:

    AnonymousManosphereBlogger
    AR, quite beating around the bush. Let’s just get out with it:

    Tisk, tisk, glasshoppah, such impatience. Now you may have spooked the game…

  377. jf12 says:

    @Elspeth, thanks. I wonder if that’s what deti had in the back of his mind when he said women were naturally red pill i.e. very aware of the potential badness of Others (men).

    @Marissa, very good series of questions. My Pentecostal denomination teaches forcefully on gender distinctions both in appearance and roles, and in a previous life as a youth minister we did workshops (and worksheets!) incorporating many of the issues you mention.

  378. MarcusD says:

    So, it’s the less-than-beta males who accept sexual experience in a spouse more often, and that might contribute to the higher divorce rate.

  379. hurting says:

    MarcusD says:
    January 7, 2014 at 8:56 pm

    Technically, certain pre-nups are OK in the RCC so long as they don’t hinge in a divorce. One of the allowable reasons is to protect inheritances. I’ve asked for examples and never gotten a good reply as to an acceptable one.

    Also, a pre-nup that spells out what becomes of marital assets in the event of a civil divorce seems like quite a reasonable protection of assets and/or income that might have gone to my children instead of my ex.

  380. Jason says:

    WRT Commitment there appears to be two different definitions being used and then arguments because the different meanins aren’t the same (unsurprisingly!).

    A commitment is what you have in a marriage, it is freely given and each party offers commitment to the other and the terms of the agreement.

    Women commit to be faithful and provide children and the man commits to work and provide.

    Then a divorce happens and the man is saddled with a commitment to pay child support. But this commitment is very very different to the other usage of the word.

    So you could say a man makes a commitment and after that commitment is voided by the wife during a divorce he has a commitment to keep providing for her and any offspring.

    I don’t think it is right to say, at least in marriage that women seek commitment and men seek sex as is normally done as they both seek commitment and offer different things in exchange for it. Men off labour and resources and the women offer sex and child rearing and perhaps domestic duties, but both are offering something for the other to sign onto and exchange for. Both offer a commitment to provide.

    The real problem is that after a divorce one party is expected to honour the terms of an agreement while the other party is no longer expected too.

    The talk of one offering sex and the other commitment seems misguided and probably unhelpful. If instead we spoke of both offering different sorts of commitment it would make sense to say “you are no longer keeping up your end of the contract with sex and fidelity so I should not longer have to keep mine”.

    I really hate child support.

  381. Anonymous Reader says:

    One reasonable approach to the word “commitment” is to use the definition jf12 has provided, with the caveat that it implies a mutuality in marriage that includes “support” or “resources”. Therefore divorce breaks the “commitment” while preserving the “resources” or “support” required by men

  382. Anonymous Reader says:

    Addendum: or use the Dalrock / Cail Corishev term “investment” in lieu of “commitment”.

  383. AnonymousManosphereBlogger
    AR, quite beating around the bush. Let’s just get out with it:

    Tisk, tisk, glasshoppah, such impatience. Now you may have spooked the game…

    The only game here is that AnonymousManosphereBlogger is probably another more common blogger’s sock puppet. Perhaps Dalrock should check IP addresses? (Hint-hint)

  384. The only game here is that AnonymousManosphereBlogger is probably another more common blogger’s sock puppet.

    Brilliant deduction! See AR, women are capable of logic!

  385. But let’s not avoid the question, IBB. I’ll admit one thing – I am a male.

    Here, you can check for yourself – http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php#Analyze

    But please explain why every single time you put your comments into the analyzer, you come out as a female? Or is it just how “ketchup” alphas write?

  386. hurting,

    Also, a pre-nup that spells out what becomes of marital assets in the event of a civil divorce seems like quite a reasonable protection of assets and/or income that might have gone to my children instead of my ex.

    A pre-nup is good, great in fact if you have substantially more assets than your spouse before you enter the marriage. A large wealth disparity between two spouses is usually par for the course given all the “debt” that people carry from university.

    http://innocentbystandersblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/anti-dowry/

    What I’ve also found as helpful information is irrevokable trusts. Say you have a couple kids and one of them is getting married. You have a rental home that you own free-and-clear that is near you. You allow your child (and his or her spouse) to live in the rental home rent free. You have just given your children a HUGE financial leg-up in their lifestyle (no mortgage payment/rent payment to make) so they can start breeding and giving you grandchildren.

    OOOOPS! No-fault-divorce. Your child is frivorced. Your child didn’t want the frivorce, tough noogies. Man’s law trumps God’s law in a court of law. But your child has drawn a trump card. The house is in your name and can not be cut in half in frivorce proceedings. So when the judge is determining child support, alimony, and division of assets, your child needn’t worry about losing their home to their ex. Its not theirs to lose. And the judge must take that into account when considering custody of your grandchildren and what is in their best interests because the judge can NOT mandate that YOU (as the grandparent) continue to allow your child’s ex-spouse to continue living in that home. It wasn’t your marriage. You weren’t frivorced.

  387. Joshua says:

    Pretty sure your wrong IBB.

  388. theshadowedknight says:

    Boxer, I believe that you misunderstand the point I was trying to make. I am not saying that women have privilege or that men are oppressed. Only that for change to occur, the proper stimulus must be applied. Unjustly targeting women with a weapon they created to unjustly harm men not only provides the requisite stimulus, it also appeals to my sense of balance. Few care about an injustice done to a man, where many are quick to act if a woman suffers the same.

    Cause women enough pain, and we can force a alteration of the legal system. Once the momentum is regained, more and more reforms can be pushed through. Eventually, we may be able to abolish the legal presumptions that inflict the court on marriage.

    I do not consider women my equals, nor do I care for egalitarianism in my legal system. The optimal choice is to remove government interference in marriage altogether. It should be a private contract between two men; a father and a husband. No church, no state, just man, with God as witness. This is not going to happen, unless something else changes.

    Keenan, I was not arguing against you. I was just trying to point out that when the changes you notice become common, bigger problems will take the attention. No one will be worrying about marriage because they will have much more pressing thing about which to worry.

    The Shadowed Knight

  389. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    The only game here is that AnonymousManosphereBlogger is probably another more common blogger’s sock puppet. Perhaps Dalrock should check IP addresses? (Hint-hint)

    Doubtful AMB is a sock puppet, but if he is, that’s Dalrock’s call, not mine or any other commenter.

    Now, IBB, why is it that you want fried ice, don’t quite get cause and effect right, and encourage women to “experience” the cock carousel from age 20 to age 25, eh?

  390. MarcusD says:

    @hurting
    Technically, certain pre-nups are OK in the RCC so long as they don’t hinge in a divorce. One of the allowable reasons is to protect inheritances. I’ve asked for examples and never gotten a good reply as to an acceptable one.

    Also, a pre-nup that spells out what becomes of marital assets in the event of a civil divorce seems like quite a reasonable protection of assets and/or income that might have gone to my children instead of my ex.

    I’ve been told that any pre-nup that would be used in the event of a divorce is basically off-limits (and would invalidate the marriage). Canon law states that marriage with some future condition (e.g. “I’m marrying you because in the future “) in mind is prohibited (e.g. “Canon 1102.1 Marriage cannot be validly contracted subject to a condition concerning the future.”)

  391. Boxer says:

    Dear Shadowed Knight:

    Thanks for the response.

    Boxer, I believe that you misunderstand the point I was trying to make.

    I didn’t misunderstand you at all; but, on the off chance my own position is still unclear, I’ll reiterate. In your message of yesterday, you wrote:

    One woman being crushed by the system is more effective a tool for reform than ten thousand men.

    While I don’t believe you’re arguing in bad faith, I know that you’re objectively wrong.

    While the ratio of people getting fucked over in family court is overwhelmingly male, about one in twenty are females, at least in my area. This means that several thousand women in the USA get fucked over by the family court system every year, yet, none of these women have yet been able to catalyze any substantive change in the legal apparatus.

    I really can’t encourage you strongly enough to go sit in on one of these ridiculous court sessions and see the lunacy up close. Please don’t take my word for anything. Go on down to the courthouse on your day off, and get a good feel for what is actually going on. It will shock any normal person.

    And, again, your use of words like “reform” and “change” illustrate our fundamental disagreement. You can try and “reform” the system, and I will not do anything to stop you. I, however, look forward to the day when the system is overthrown, with or without the reforms you seek. Increasing the ratio of women being fucked over will not make families healthier, or children more functional, or society more stable.

    In any event, we’re not going to agree on this, but I appreciate the discussion

    Best, Boxer

  392. greyghost says:

    Boxer
    As soon as that number is 1 in 3 or so and the number of women is counted is millions maybe then women will use that vote they have.

  393. Bucho says:

    “Your point?” – AR

    Hey man, I was cosigning your comment about a girl not bleeding but could still possibly be a virgin. I didn’t read all of the exchange between you and IBB, so maybe the lesbian example wasn’t the right one to use (albeit it seems like a growing trend.) I was suggesting that out of the women out their that are still virgins, some women may actually not be out their bumpin’ uglies, but possibly getting that emotional release elsewhere. And, yes, that could cause problems down the road if her husband doesn’t fit her fantasy script.

    “Do you have any data to share regarding the effect of LUG on women in terms of long term marriage? ”

    Nope. Nor was I suggesting that everything would be hunky-dory in a marriage if a woman has a history of that mess.

  394. Anonymous Reader says:

    Thanks for the clarification, Bucho. I suspect that the Lesbian Until Graduation business, at least in the 90’s, was part political statement and part safety valve, but I’m just waving my hands around in the air at this point.

  395. Anonymous age 71 says:

    anonymous_ng says:
    January 7, 2014 at 7:17 pm

    >> [I haven’t really researched how well this will work in light of the US taxation of world wide income etc etc.]

    Note that in many, if not most cases, the first 80,000 is tax exempt in the USA, at least for Federal Taxes. The best places for men you can usually live on a fraction of that amount.

    This is not coincidence. For feminism to take over a society, the government needs enough money to pay ho’s to have kids without a husband. Poor nations are virtually never insanely feminist in nature.

    See also my comments on giving up US citizenship on the later thread.

  396. They Call Me Tom says:

    “Rape and murder are natural, and so are a host of other bad things.”

    That’s why I thought ‘Apocalypto’ was a great movie. Humanity is a bunch of monsters, only redeemable when their free will is applied towards being something else.

  397. They Call Me Tom says:

    “Note that in many, if not most cases, the first 80,000 is tax exempt in the USA, at least for Federal Taxes. The best places for men you can usually live on a fraction of that amount.”

    Ummmm… things have changed since you last checked. I haven’t cleared 70k yet, but I can tell you the taxes start becoming noticeable even when one is earning in the 30k’s just out of school. Another irony of Marxism… taxes always punish the poor more than the ‘wealthy’ and yet every socialist insists that what we need it tax rates above 50%, and that the heads of government can’t be expected to eat any less than caviar at the UN Conference on World Hunger.

  398. Boxer says:

    Grey Ghost:

    As soon as that number is 1 in 3 or so and the number of women is counted is millions maybe then women will use that vote they have.

    You are falling into the same fallacy, by alluding to the idea that “women” have “privilege” due to their votes.

    The reality is that they don’t. Women are not organized into some voting block. Women are sheep, and they vote as they are told to vote, by their electric masters in every room (a/k/a the tee-vee).

    Even if they did use their votes, it wouldn’t change anything. (Hence the old saying: if voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal).

    What you’re doing when you write such stuff is being a feminist. You’re buying into the idea that one gender has privilege or hegemony, and you’re demanding redress at the expense of the other gender. This sort of shit is the stock and trade on Jezebel and Feministe.

    Forget about payback, and women getting child support judgments. That already happens and it hasn’t helped. Start thinking about a society without a family court system *at all* and you’ll start getting an idea as to how a healthy society functions.

    Regards, Boxer

  399. Marissa says:

    You’re buying into the idea that one gender has privilege

    You don’t think women are privileged compared to men? Your own comment estimates that only 1 out of 20 women goes through the divorce grinder, even though they initiate the majority of divorces, and out of those divorces they initiate, only a small percentage cite adultery or abuse as the cause. Can you explain, absent privilege, why this state of affairs exists? I think both men and women privilege women over men. It is built into the human species as a survival tactic. But I don’t think I’ve heard you explain why you think one sex is not privileged over the other, even in light of this one sphere (there are clearly others, the economic and educational ones, where women are privileged over men too) so I’d like to hear why you think so.

  400. Anonymous Reader says:

    8oxer
    Forget about payback, and women getting child support judgments. That already happens and it hasn’t helped. Start thinking about a society without a family court system *at all* and you’ll start getting an idea as to how a healthy society functions.

    There are people walking around us who can recall what it was like to live in the US when there was no anti-Family Court system. Granted they are in their 70’s or older, but they do exist. The anti-Family Court is not some perpetual obligation handed to humanity by some goddess in a marshy swamp thousands of years ago, it essentially was kludged together in the late 60’s to early 1970’s. It came into being about the same time as Title IX.

    None of this stuff has to be permanent, even though it is deeply dug into social structures and hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people get money out of it. If nothing else, when the money runs out…things will change.

  401. Jason says:

    @Boxer,

    Although I agree with what you are saying about payback and the pointlessness of it there would appear to be something to what the others are saying about things changing when women get screwed by it.

    Iirc, it was Florida (?) who changed their alimony laws recently to get rid of it when the rate of women being forced to pay it to husbands jumped recently because of the mancession. The wives earned, the husbands were out of work and were struggling to find work so the wife for saddled with alimony.

    If women, privileged women not the dregs of society, got smashed by it more often them that would likely spur change. But I doubt you will see that happening ever in the family court situation. Also it would likely just further “reform” the courts to get rid of the “abuses” against the women in question.

    But I can see why they think it might work, even though I am doubtful. I don’t think it is because they have adopted a feminist mindset necessarily.

  402. Boxer says:

    Dear Jason and Anon Reader:

    Thanks for the feedback. I guess I am beating a dead horse at this point, but if you’re really interested in where I’m coming from, you could read Lenin’s *State and Revolution*, or Jack Donovan’s article on the Men’s Rights Movement, linked below.

    I realize that the reformists have (usually) noble motives, and I definitely don’t begrudge you guys. We all do what we feel is right. I just don’t see anything of value there to reform, and I won’t be joining any of the movements to reform the family court system. Show me a movement that is working to dismantle it altogether, and burn the scraps after, and I’ll be there tomorrow.

    But, for the most part, the “men’s movement,” or “men’s rights movement” has always accepted the most basic assumptions of mainistream feminism. Feminism argued for the cultural dissolution of specifiic gender roles, and an economic, political, and legal equality between men and women. Mainstream men’s rights activists(MRAs) argued for the same things. Their charges against feminism are merely that women aren’t being feminist enough.

    http://www.jack-donovan.com/axis/2012/09/long-live-the-manosphere/

  403. Jason says:

    @Boxer,

    No argument from me on the “burn it to the ground, piss on the ashes” approach.

  404. Anonymous Reader says:

    8oxer, I’ve read some of Lenin’s writings, and frankly at this point I consider the question of “Kto, Ktom (or, if you prefer, Kto, Kogo)” is slowly going to be more relevant, as much as I dislike citing any Bolshevist slogan. Where you got the idea that I have any interest anymore in reforming the anti-Family court system I can’t guess. Seems to me that pointing out “We lived just fine before this thing was created, and there are still people who can remember what it was like” is not exactly a ringing endorsement for reform.

    But feel free to dance with any of the strawmen of your choice.

  405. greyghost says:

    Gotta get there 8oxer. How do we do away with the family courts. Armed rebellion and kill all government officials? We just got to do this and we just have to do that. Lets put it in to play with what we have .

  406. Jason says:

    I’m honestly surprised more family court judges and attorneys aren’t murdered.

    Or are they and you just don’t hear about it?

    Or do the judges have security out the wazoo.

  407. Keenan McGregor says:

    “How do we do away with the family courts. ”

    By getting rid of families. This current generation of young adult Americans are not reproducing at replication rates so in a few decades we won’t be discussing family courts anymore.

  408. Keenan McGregor says:

    “The optimal choice is to remove government interference in marriage altogether. It should be a private contract between two men”

    Already happening ;)

    Gay marriage 2014. Gay Divorce 2020.

  409. Boxer says:

    Gotta get there 8oxer. How do we do away with the family courts.

    I’m doing my part by not getting married. It’s pretty hard for them to run you through the divorce mill if you aren’t married, ya know.

    On a larger scale…

    The Lenin reference wasn’t for show. He wrote a lot about riding historical trends. The best thing any of us can do, by my reckoning, is to refuse to support the system. Most of the system’s institutions are ineffective and can be recreated on a micro level.
    *I don’t watch television, you shouldn’t either (except perhaps for some objectively cool stuff that pops up occasionally on PBS, the lot of it is crapola).
    *Some of you Protestant/Catholic/Jewish bros should really consider turning your backs (at least financially) on these mangina preachers who “cut fathers off at the knees” and perhaps start your own healthy churches.
    *Network with local folks to get your needs met, rather than patronizing transnational corporations. Buy vegetables at the farmer’s market. Hire a local guy off the books to wire the addition on your house. et cetera.

    Note that none of this is illegal (at least in the USA), nor is it violent, but it is revolutionary. You are acknowledging that you don’t have a society that represents your interests, and you’re doing the most manly thing possible: building one from the ground up. This society is going down the tubes, so if you want to have any sort of normal life, you should be doing this anyway.

  410. theshadowedknight says:

    Boxer, I am not talking about privilege or the lack thereof. I was referring to the fact that society does not like to allow women to suffer. Just like with women in combat; if we can get a few of the first women to come back raped, disfigured, and maddened in the public eye, then feminism be damned, men will not allow it. Same principle with the court system. I am not in favor of hurting women for revenge or to get some measure of equality. I only support it because it will drive changes. I am not looking for redress, because that is an impossible task.

    I do believe, as you do, that the end of civilization will be the only thing that really fixes this. However, I can hope that something can be done besides the deaths of millions. Not to mention that is going to buy valuable time. Time we can use, to grow in strength, both in numbers and power.

    The Shadowed Knight

  411. MarcusD says:

    @Boxer

    Well, Catholics can’t really start their own churches (lower case ‘c’). In general, a diocese will cycle priests every so often, but other than that, Catholics are pretty much stuck with what they get (they also register at a particular parish, but can attend elsewhere). From my understanding, Judaism is different depending on the movement. Protestantism seems to have the largest number of possibilities.

    I think an interdenominational organization might be the way to go.

  412. Jason says:

    @Boxer and MarcusD,

    Splitting off new denominations wont really work. I’m a long time Anglican and much of the denomination is completely in the toilet. Some sage advice I was given once when I asked why Sydney and other conservative dioceses don’t split off from the lunatics.

    “100 years from now you will have the same problems in the new denomination”.

    We’d be better off reforming and kicking out the problem, although I guess with the way the Anglican church is setup that can be difficult. But they do die off and their congregations do leave as well, so perhaps in God’s timing their is hope.

    Based on what happened the last time civilization collapsed badly (Rome) the Church will be there to pick up he pieces.

    Unfortunately without a return to a different philosophical foundation than the one the west has embraced there is no real chance of it rising again.

  413. MarcusD says:

    Unfortunately without a return to a different philosophical foundation than the one the west has embraced there is no real chance of it rising again.

    Most people are only able to identify tree’s by their fruits. We’ll have to wait out this iteration of society. Glubb is right, I think.

  414. Opus says:

    I was once threatened with a double barrelled shot-gun. On two other occasions I have come close to being beaten – such is the ‘safe and secure career’ as my mother explained that I was forced into and very much against my will or talents by my parents – and the Husband of a client of mine cornered the assigned Judge in the Car Park of the RCJ and threatened him with a knife – for which he received a two year custodial sentence.

    May I protest however that killing the lawyers is merely shooting the messenger. These laws you so dislike are passed in Parliament by your democratically elected representatives. The lawyers merely act in accordance with the law, at least, that is the general idea.

  415. hurting says:

    Opus says:
    January 10, 2014 at 7:58 am

    I’m in now way condoning violence against anyone, even the minions of the domestic relations law -industrial complex, but I’d take some exception to the idea that lawyers and judges are off the hook ethically by virtue of having been elected and/or operating in an environment governed by elected officials. Willfully participating in a process that one knows or should know is grossly unjust, especially for one’s personal enrichment, is patently unethical, agency theory be damned.

    If more attorneys stood up and refused to take domestic relations cases on ethical grounds, matters would improve at least marginally.

  416. Boxer says:

    I’m in now way condoning violence against anyone, even the minions of the domestic relations law -industrial complex

    Indulging in random violence against people you don’t know (even if he’s the family court judge that ruled in your marriage) is not going to change anything — in fact, it’ll make martyrs of the people you dislike and end up strengthening the apparatus you want to abolish (not to mention getting you killed or jailed in the process). Thomas James Ball has my sympathy, but if we’re realistic, we’ll all agree that he didn’t do anything constructive. Again, read Lenin. This is a structural and historical problem that defies such simple solutions. This is exactly why the notion of “equality” or “changing the laws to send women through the divorce ringer” won’t work. You’ll simply make cosmetic changes to an unjust system, and in the process of making it more tolerable for the hoi polloi you breathe new life into it.

    The answer is to do, on a wider scale, what we’re all doing here on the Dalrock blog. Start becoming self-sufficient. Pull your consent and your participation from institutions that you feel are damaging, and start recreating them in your own location. This takes time and hard work, so people will rationalize not doing this, but it’s what you have to do if you want a healthier society in the future.

  417. some objectively cool stuff

    That is an oxymoron

  418. Anonymous Reader says:

    8oxer
    Indulging in random violence against people you don’t know (even if he’s the family court judge that ruled in your marriage) is not going to change anything — in fact, it’ll make martyrs of the people you dislike and end up strengthening the apparatus you want to abolish (not to mention getting you killed or jailed in the process).

    We do not have to speculate on this, we can learn from history . Look at the program of the Socialist Revolutionary (SR) party in the Russian empire circa 1902-1909. That program included both politics and direct action including assassination of government officials. The assassination program succeeded only in making martyrs of the murdered, and giving the Okrhana (Tzarist secret police) justification for various crackdowns, while alienating many potential supporters.

  419. hoellenhund2 says:

    The SR campaign of assassinations wasn’t unrealistic. The Russian monarchy was relatively weak and unreformable. Removing a few key figures could have great potential impact. The Russian state is fundamentally different from Western states. It has traditionally been held together by an absolutist hierarchy and nothing else. Russia has never had a civil society or stable, permanent non-state institutions like trade unions and so on. This is why it’s relatively easy to launch a successful coup in Russia – the common folk, the economic elite and the bureaucracy feel no attachment or loyalty to their ruler and accepts whoever replaces him.

    Having said all that, I agree that assassinations targeting the divorce-industrial complex should be discouraged. Those people deserve punishment, but we don’t need them to become the officially hailed martyrs of the current regime. The revival of the Underground Railroad for divorced men would be a better idea.

    The current situation, legal and otherwise, has deep-rooted foundations – killing a bunch of people wouldn’t change that. The Feminine Imperative has always dominated everything – individual men can escape it, but entire communities or societies cannot. One good observation I’ve read is that you could eliminate all anti-men laws tomorrow, but emasculated, brainwashed American husbands still wouldn’t know how to act as heads of their families. You have a long way to go if you want to change the current milieu.

    When we ponder what is to be done, the most important observation to make is the American society, in fact every Western society, is deeply atomized, divided and stagnant. In terms of surveillance, manipulation, infiltration and control, the state has more power than ever before, but the political leadership seems to be lacking any purpose – it seems like they can’t even be bothered to amass more power and follow any ideology. Those with privilege are only interested in guarding it any nothing else. So the state is more and more unstable, but it’s also unable to shake it up with organized political action, because all-pervasive government power makes that impossible.

  420. Anonymous Reader says:

    hoellenhund2
    In terms of surveillance, manipulation, infiltration and control, the state has more power than ever before, but the political leadership seems to be lacking any purpose – it seems like they can’t even be bothered to amass more power and follow any ideology. Those with privilege are only interested in guarding it any nothing else.

    The “purpose” of the leadership class in the West increasingly can be boiled down to preserving the status quo in various ways. How often do we read some feminist ranting about “protecting the advances women have made”, in some context? A few of the elite class are beginning to fret a bit about the ongoing degradation of the status of men, but what do they propose to do about it? Essentially nothing, because any change would mean reining in some of the privileges of women. Rather than, for example, reconsider TItle IX they’d rather see universities become more and more imbalanced in sex ratio. Rather than, for example, insist that women learn some degree of self control, they’d rather make it easier for Kampus Kangaroo Kourts to falsely label men as “rapists” or “sexual abusers”.

    So they have to amass more power over men, in order that ever more minute control of men can be created, “for the children”, “for women”, etc. because the alternative is to admit that not only are they wrong, they’ve been wrong for years, for decades, for generations.

    The Western “elite” increasingly resembles the French aristocracy of the Ancien’ Regime – possessing authority based on duties that they no longer bother to perform, or are even able to perform.

  421. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    May I protest however that killing the lawyers is merely shooting the messenger. These laws you so dislike are passed in Parliament by your democratically elected representatives. The lawyers merely act in accordance with the law, at least, that is the general idea.

    Advocating violence is one of the lines I draw as a moderator. But as far as I can see all of the comments on the topic have been against the wisdom/rightness of doing so.

  422. Anonymous Reader says:

    Look, hoellenhund2, even if we grant all the claims you make about the Tzarist Russian empire (and I don’t grant all of them, but that would be a major threadjack) the fact remains that the SR’s campaign of assassination failed. In a brittle society that looked a lot like an inverted “thumbtack”, it failed. In conditions pretty close to ideal for that sort of bloody mindedness, it failed. So there is no point to any babble about such things in the modern world. It’s mental masturbation, or frustration manifesting in idle talk. Or, of course, a deliberate campaign by agents provacateur. Manbooby types who wish to post false flag comments in order to feed feminist lies. It’s a simple game – post radical things on men’s sites under various names, then rush back to feminist sites screaming look! look! look! How horrible!. There are more sophisticated versions, but the general game is the same. So long story short, there’s nothing useful about such talk, and much that is harmful.

    This is not to say that some men, driven by the feminist divorce industry to total, suicidal, despair, won’t commit some terrible actions. The self-murder of divorced men, or men who are being divorced, has been going on for years, with no objection or concern from Feminism, inc. of course (it’s what radfems want, really) but it doesn’t have to continue in that form. If some man chooses to self murder in a more dramatic fashion than Thomas Ball, and take some of his tormentors with him, it won’t be a surprise to me. But it will be an act of utter despair, not part of some political program. And if that happens, all we can expect from the manboobies & other misandry peddlers is screeching for moar control of men, of course. Sympathy? Empathy? Any curiousity at what would drive a man to such extremes? Forget about that. Feminists and the manbooby bootlickers don’t care about such things now, nothing is going to change their stance towards the mule corral.

    Heck, Feminism, Inc. won’t even let a Wiki page on Thomas Ball to even exist…

  423. hoellenhund2 says:

    That may be true. But the essential vibe you’re getting from their actions and the media is that they don’t even believe in the ideology they are pushing and don’t even seem to be sure whether they can go further in their culture war. I’m not saying we won’t see more anti-men laws in the future, for example, it’s that it will all happen along the same lines and won’t bring the desired results. It’s window dressing, basically – they pretend to be doing their utmost, but they aren’t.

  424. hoellenhund2 says:

    The whole issue of the SR assassination campaign is kind of moot anyway. With the extent of surveillance that exists today, it wouldn’t even be possible to effectively organize it unless the conspirators swear off all modern tools of communication.

  425. Anonymous Reader says:

    That may be true. But the essential vibe you’re getting from their actions and the media is that they don’t even believe in the ideology they are pushing and don’t even seem to be sure whether they can go further in their culture war.

    That depends on who and where you read. Consider the new standard being imposed on colleges for handling rape accusations. I’m not exaggerating when I refer to this as the Kampus Kangaroo Kourt – it is a “guilty until we decide you are innocent” process that can explicitly exclude any legal representation for the accused. It turns the entire history of American and English jurisprudence upside down. Yet it’s still not enough for the “Rape Culture!” screechers of Feminism, Inc. So the push for more sticks to beat young, beta men with will continue, at the same time as some older feminists like Kay Hymowitz will wring their hands from time to time wondering why fewer young men want to go to college – not because of any concern for men as human beings, mind you, but because of a fear that fewer family pack mules will be available in the future.

    At this point, some of the cultural and social aggression from Feminism, Inc. has a life of its own. The AAUW is not about to back down on demands for more women in college, no matter the cost, because that’s one of their main fundraising tools and has been for 20-odd years. Of course Title IX must be forever expanded, because that’s what it’s for. Expansion of power over men is now a good thing in and of itself, with very little questioning of “why”.

    The days of Feminism, Inc. as a radical ideology are over. Now Feminism, Inc. is just the “norm”. It’s “normal” for boys in K-12 schooling to not do as well as girls, because that’s normal, to pick but one example of common circular argumentation. Doubling down on failed policies long after any possible usefulness has been lost s a common human error, you know.

  426. hoellenhund2 says:

    How big a change is the establshment of those cangaroo courts, really? As far as I can tell, the laws that created the ground for the current milieu – where false rape accusations have no consequences for the accusers who get to keep their anonymity as well, while at the same time ruining the lives of the accused – were passed decades ago.

    It appears that a sort of mental fatigue is afflicting the ruling class. They have no new ideas whatsoever and they cannot mobilize themselves for a campaign like the New Deal or something on the same level. Look at the Man Up Campaign: they cannot actually do the one thing – empowering men at the expense of women – that would solve the “Peter Pan” problem because their supporters would go berserk, so they are resorting to the same old tricks they used decades ago: more punitive laws against so-called deadbeat dads, more exhortation, more shaming. I’m sure even they know it won’t work. They are just doing it because that’s what the majority of voters want to hear.

  427. Anonymous Reader says:

    How big a change is the establshment of those cangaroo courts, really?

    In one sense, it is a big change, because it pushes the “men guilty until we decide otherwise” idea further into institutional life. Young men who endure that system in college will be much less likely to oppose the same thing being embedded into HR decisions in industry, for example.

    In another sense, implementation, that likely will vary from campus to campus. Some institutions were already “there”, but others probably had a more just system, or used a real criminal investigation. This is another “one size fits all” push to bring diverse institutions into ideological line. It remains to be seen how much effort the Feds are willing to expend to force uni’s to follow the guidelines. Universities get orders from Federal agencies all the time, but often what looks like a non-negotiable “do it or else” order turns out to be just another form being pushed out by an agency with no teeth that can be responded to with a bland letter from the campus lawyer.

    So, hmm, if some campus sex scandal results in a state uni losing any substantial Federal grant money, we’ll know that this is a serious priority. Until then, can’t be sure. All that said, the new standard gives a huge hunting license to any dean of students who wants to have a “rapist-witch hunt” and hang a few beta men out to dry as an example to all the other rapist..er..men, and in the current climate it is very unlikely that any university president will lift a finger to stop it. Look at the Duke lacrosse team case for an example of how such a witch hunt can play out; the big mistake there was made by Nifong, the perjuring prosecutor. If Duke had kept the “investigation” totally internal, likely the lacrosse players could have been thrown out of school with their reputations totally trashed, and little to no legal recourse readily to hand.

    So the “guilty because man” standard provides yet more tools of misandry, and further embeds the double standard into both institutions and culture.

  428. Keenan McGregor says:

    Older men should form guilds and mentorship programs for younger men. Big Brothers had the right idea decades ago. Don’t know how well they’re doing now. Rarely hear of them at all anymore. But if older men can form real groups, live groups, not online, where they meet with younger men and mentor them not only in lifestyle habits but in actual marketable skills as well, then young men could transition from Peter Pans to Peters and Pauls.

  429. Keenan McGregor says:

    Boxer you had some good ideas but just see the resistance you got with this one, *Some of you Protestant/Catholic/Jewish bros should really consider turning your backs (at least financially) on these mangina preachers who “cut fathers off at the knees” and perhaps start your own healthy churches.”

    Basically a bunch of excuses why they can’t just leave their churches. In other words, we already know most people are extreme conformists and would rather swallow and digest a bunch of bullshit than not be part of some club.

    “if we can get a few of the first women to come back raped, disfigured, and maddened in the public eye, then feminism be damned, men will not allow it.”

    “We”?

  430. Opus says:

    @Dalrock

    I originally prefaced my comment with the quote form Henry VI Part 2 – and then thought better of it – for I thought that one of the comments above mine was indeed encouraging violence against lawyers.

    Believe me, I have more than once been in court when a lawyer of the Christian faith has attempted to uphold the sanctity of marriage and use scripture or at least his own Christian interpretation of law to do exactly what you suggest. We all metaphorically shake our heads – as well as ticking up a win for our side ere long – for it merely wastes time and annoys the Judges.

  431. AR,

    If some man chooses to self murder in a more dramatic fashion than Thomas Ball, and take some of his tormentors with him, it won’t be a surprise to me. But it will be an act of utter despair, not part of some political program. And if that happens, all we can expect from the manboobies & other misandry peddlers is screeching for moar control of men, of course. Sympathy? Empathy? Any curiousity at what would drive a man to such extremes? Forget about that. Feminists and the manbooby bootlickers don’t care about such things now, nothing is going to change their stance towards the mule corral.

    Heck, Feminism, Inc. won’t even let a Wiki page on Thomas Ball to even exist…

    Wow just… wow.

    I just read his last manifesto (for lack of a better word) on why I should burn down the building for local law enforcement. I wont be doing that, (sorry Thomas) but my heart still breaks for his family.

    Imagine how his now 16 year old daughter feels? At age 4, she licked his hand. He told her not to. She thought it was cute, kept licking, he warned her again. She kept licking. He smacked her. His wife came in and didn’t know what to do and who to call (after all she couldn’t keep this in the family) and the state got involved and counseling services got involved and Thomas’s life came to an end…

    …all for a child not minding a father.

  432. hurting says:

    Opus says:
    January 10, 2014 at 1:59 pm

    The example you give illustrates my point…

    While the lawyer who tries to invoke extra-legal arguments into the secular system may indeed be harming his client, the attorney who willfully accepts frivorcing clients who intend to take advantage of a gamed system is arguably doing more harm, albeit to a more diffuse crowd. The latter individual, upon whom an arguably higher ethical standard applies than the typical layperson, also harms society by dint of his undoubtet lobbying to game the system so as to benefit himself.

    The legality of an act is supposed to be the last line of defense against antisocial behavior not the first.

  433. Boxer says:

    Boxer you had some good ideas but just see the resistance you got with this one … Basically a bunch of excuses why they can’t just leave their churches. In other words, we already know most people are extreme conformists and would rather swallow and digest a bunch of bullshit than not be part of some club.

    People who aren’t ready to do one thing can always do another. If you can’t get away from a church which spouts anti-family rhetoric on Sunday, then you can still cut off the tithes you give them. Aspiring urban guerrillas ought to attempt to get elected to the boards of directors of these churches where they can take control of them. It’d be fun to see something like that.

    Anything you do will help, though. Quit shopping at Wal-Mart, quit smoking and drinking alcohol (a legal form of tax avoidance), quit watching crap television, pull your subscriptions from Playboy and Cosmo. At the same time, build up a network of people in your immediate area who deserve support. Patronize small businesses and local farmers. If you have kids, set up home study groups for them, and teach them to think for themselves.

    The church and the store and the school and the media and the government all appear to be unrelated, but they’re really just extensions of the same superstructure. Superstructure is an old-school Marxist term, but men in the manosphere call it “the cathedral” these days… same thing. Cutting off support for one apparatus is as good as the next, and we can all start somewhere.

    This is decidedly unglamorous. It takes work, and you won’t get much recognition from it. That’s the way it goes.

  434. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    wow, just wow

    No surprise that you don’t understand what actually happened. You don’t get cause and effect, and you can’t see why it’s a bad plan for women in the 20 – 25 age bracket to ride the cock carousel, either. Maybe you should try a different glue on that beard, since it keeps slipping…

  435. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Keenan Macgregor”
    Older men should form guilds and mentorship programs for younger men

    This is funny, and ironic. Thanks for the laugh.

  436. Opus says:

    My dear Hurting, it is not for lawyers to second guess parliament, or, for that matter, to introduce their own ethical beliefs into the task for which they have been retained. It might be slightly different in America where I understand that lawyers are more free to give their own views (whilst walking up and down) on matters of social desirability. In England, both the opinionating and the perambulating would be frowned on. Judging is for the Judge and where there is a Jury, then on the question of fact, the Jury.

    One normally does ones best work for those one cannot abide and ones worst for those where one is emotionally involved in the outcome. I may be wrong but I doubt any lawyer is likely to disagree with me.

  437. Keenan McGregor says:

    “Imagine how his now 16 year old daughter feels? At age 4, she licked his hand. He told her not to. She thought it was cute, kept licking, he warned her again. She kept licking. He smacked her.”

    She was imitating her pet cat or dog. My son used to do that to the point of drinking water out of a bowl on the floor and then laying down on the floor on his is back for a scratch and then rolling on his side to take a nap. We all that it was cute and he grew out of it in a matter of months. Sometimes we just have to let kids have their little imaginary worlds of play and fun. That is what childhood is for. Its also they way they learn – by mimicking their environment. They grow up and get cynical about the world soon enough. Let them have their wide eyed amazement for a few short years while it lasts. They’ll be dodgy and miserable just like the adults in their lives by the time they reach 10 anyway.

  438. AR,

    No surprise that you don’t understand what actually happened. You don’t get cause and effect…

    I get cause and effect. I had heard of Thomas Ball. I knew he lit himself on fire. I did not (until just now) understand why. I’m not going to get into your silly nonsense about women at what ages and what-not, but from Thomas Ball’s perspective, this was the first time I his manifesto from beginning to end.

    http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2011/06/my-take-on-thomas-ball-case.html

    All I’m going to say is that it doesn’t surprise me that he did that. The way he looked at life, he was at “his end.” No one was going to save him. He could either go to jail and die there, or try and martyr himself so that the world would remember his name. He chose the path of Achilies.

    I find that sad. His daughter isprobably going to need 3 decades of therapy to forgive herself for what she did when she was 4, but ultimately, it was society that did it to him. She was just a child. His wife was also ignorant of what the system will do when they get involved. No winners.

  439. Keenan McGregor says:

    “If you can’t get away from a church which spouts anti-family rhetoric on Sunday”

    Victim mentality. They could walk away if they really wanted to.

    “Superstructure is an old-school Marxist term, but men in the manosphere call it “the cathedral” these days… same thing.”

    Interesting innit that “cathedral” is a place of…. worship. Red pill philosophy applies to our dearly held myth narratives as well, folks.

  440. Anonymous Reader says:

    All of this stems from the desire on the part of feminists & their allies to “fix” men. I’m going to post the following observation on both this thread and the child support threatpoint thread, because I believe it is interesting.

    Premise: humans are blank slates, all that they know is what they are taught.

    Therefore, a human who does not behave in the manner that is expected of
    them either has not been trained in correct behavior, and must be trained or
    retrained, or is disobeying. Disobeying humans must be corrected. Correction
    should first consist of explaining the expected behavior, and also explaining
    the punishment for that behavior. Some humans will deliberately disobey.
    They are called “bad”, because their behavior is anti social and deliberately
    disobedient. Further disobedience must be punished. Punishments should
    start off as light as possible, but must always be dealt out. Truly stubborn
    bad people who consistently refuse to act as they are required to must
    be punished very sternly, if need be by removing them from general society.

    Premise: men and women are exactly the same, except women can have babies.

    Therefore, men who do not act like women are not behaving in the expected
    manner. They are either untrained, or they are disobedient. Men who persist
    in not acting like women are clearly “bad men”. They must be corrected at
    every turning, and punished when they persist in their bad behavior. This is
    called “fixing men”, because only when men act like women are they truly
    good men.

    Thus we see that the fundamental premise of feminism, the “blank slate” notion that men and women are exactly the same, underlies many, many topics within the androsphere. Because men are actually supposed to behave like women – we are punished for being “bad men” when really the objection is we are doing a lousy job of being women.

  441. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    I’m not going to get into your silly nonsense about women at what ages and what-not,

    Your inability to admit when you are wrong is duly noted.

  442. AR, you are the only one who cares about that. I don’t care if you let it go or not, but please don’t set yourself on fire over it.

  443. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    All I’m going to say is that it doesn’t surprise me that he did that. The way he looked at life, he was at “his end.” No one was going to save him. He could either go to jail and die there, or try and martyr himself so that the world would remember his name. He chose the path of Achilies.

    That’s only part of it. But I no longer expect you actually understand how a man thinks.

    But perhaps you can explain why the feminists at Wiki absolutely refuse to allow any Wiki page on Thomas Ball?

  444. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    AR, you are the only one who cares about that.

    No, I am not the only man who cares about 20-something women riding the cock carousel, spending their years of greatest beauty and fertility on “experience”, and you’ll do your daughter a huge disservice if you encourage her down that path. Even women who are past menopause can understand the obvious problems with that plan. Perhaps you should reconsider your emotional investment in your error?

    Because you are wrong. I know you are wrong, others know you are wrong, and your refusal to admit it is not going to do you any good.

  445. Anonymous Reader says:

    Corollary to my above observation regarding “men need fixing”: note that men who feminists most like fall into two categories, either scalzied manboobs or badboy alphas. The former group do a good enough job of behaving like women, but…hypergamy betrays the ideology in the second case.

    Observation: No branch of feminism deals with female hypergamy. It can’t because that violates the blank slate, interchangeable, premise.

  446. Keenan McGregor says:

    “Superstructure is an old-school Marxist term, but men in the manosphere call it “the cathedral” these days… same thing.”

    “Interesting innit that “cathedral” is a place of…. worship. Red pill philosophy applies to our dearly held myth narratives as well, folks.”

    Just to clarify, the development of myths and mythic is a milestone in human evolution and seems to be a prerequisite to civilization. There is a very strong case for their existence and importance in creating culture. They are not to be taken literally but are meant to serve as archetypes for man.

  447. But perhaps you can explain why the feminists at Wiki absolutely refuse to allow any Wiki page on Thomas Ball?

    Sure. And you can explain it too!

    Feminists do not what Thomas Ball and his experience to set the narrative for anything. Ever. And as long as it isn’t in Wiki, it isn’t as likely that people are going to know about him. He’s harder to research because he is an unknown-unknown. And if they don’t know about him, they don’t talk about him or what he did (or why he did it.) And if no one talks about it (either positively or negatively) then public opinion (which is on the feminist side) doesn’t change.

  448. AR,

    No, I am not the only man who cares about 20-something women riding the cock carousel, spending their years of greatest beauty and fertility on “experience”…

    And now, YOU sound like the feminist because you are trying (in vain) to set the narrative while at the same time, QUIET all thought outside such a narrative. You are doing to me what Wiki and feminists are doing to the late Thomas Ball.

    How long have you lived on this planet? How much do you really know about women? I’m being semi-serious here because only someone who is completely brain dead about the opposite sex could say something so monumentally and profoundly stupid as to miss the root cause of the problem that you have outlined. Let me outline it so that you can drop this charade once and for all…

    For the record, in order for a woman to NOT “use up” her years of greatest beauty and fertility, she actually has to be proposed to. I hate ending a sentence with a preposition, but it is what it is, young girls are not getting marriage proposals. I don’t know where you could have gotten the idea that this was happening (because that is a requirement in order for your assinine narrative to be the correct one,) Allow me to assure you, this is increasingly NOT happening.

    Did you ever do online dating before you got married? I sure did. I’ll never forget the conversation I had with one of the last women I dated before I met my wife. She was 36 and I was 29. And she said to me, giggling in a sad way, “I’ve never had even one man ask me to marry him in my life.” Could you even begin to imagine that AR? Could you really? 36 years of nothing? Because in order for the Patriarchy to work the woman has to be asked. It doesn’t work the other way around….

    …get that think head of yours around that important point before you ever say to me again anything about 20-25 year old girls wasting their youth. It (quite often) is not up to them.

  449. Keenan McGregor says:

    “Did you ever do online dating before you got married? I sure did. I’ll never forget the conversation I had with one of the last women I dated before I met my wife. She was 36 and I was 29. And she said to me, giggling in a sad way, “I’ve never had even one man ask me to marry him in my life.” Could you even begin to imagine that AR? Could you really? 36 years of nothing? Because in order for the Patriarchy to work the woman has to be asked. It doesn’t work the other way around….”

    I believe you. These women are not riding any cock carousel either. They go through a series of committed short-term (2 years or so) relationships, if that. Its a myth that the majority of women are rotating different partners every weekend or even every month for years on end. Serial monogamy with a hope for marriage is still the norm.

  450. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    …get that think head of yours around that important point before you ever say to me again anything about 20-25 year old girls wasting their youth. It (quite often) is not up to them.

    Of course. Because women don’t have any agency. They can’t be held responsible for their actions. Things “just happen to them”, right IBB? Thanks for another display of the Apex fallacy. And just to spell this out, IBB: all those women are not getting proposed to by their dream Alpha. There are plenty of men that would marry them between the age of 20 and 25, just not the dream Alpha. This is the cause for 80% or more of women not to be married by age 25: they do not want to be married.

    Careful readers will note that IBB refuses to back down from the position that women aged 20 – 24 should not marry, but rather go about collecting “experiences” that specifically include sexual intercourse. Therefore, IBB is just fine with women engaging in what the Bible calls “fornication” prior to marriage. This despite the fact that it has been demonstrated to increase the probability of divorce later on, not to mention IBB’s professed religious status. Apparently IBB’s devotion to Bible truths only goes so far – when it collides with the Female Imperative, the Bible loses in IBB’s eyes. Very revealing.

    IBB thus supports actions that increase the chances of divorce, while oh so piously insisting on an opposition to divorce. IBB wants fried ice, can’t grasp cause and effect, understands how some of feminist thinking works but can’t understand how men think.

    My, my, my. How could this be?

  451. Keenan,

    When I started the on-line dating I told each woman I met (over coffee, date-zero) that we would (at MOST) date for one year. That’s it. Either she would be wearing my ring or we aren’t seeing each other one year. All or nothing. Not once, not once did that scare them off, not once. If I wanted there to be a second date after that one, rest assured, there would have been.

    Girls aren’t getting propsals. It is what it is. MGTOW means (really) no more marriage. Now maybe some good will come of that (change society for the better by changing the dynamics of how we live among each other) but it isn’t going to do anything to force younger girls to marry because there will be no options for them.

  452. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Keenan McGregor”
    These women are not riding any cock carousel either. They go through a series of committed short-term (2 years or so) relationships, if that. Its a myth that the majority of women are rotating different partners every weekend or even every month for years on end. Serial monogamy with a hope for marriage is still the norm.

    Serial monogamy is the cock carousel, dearie.

  453. Keenan McGregor says:

    “When I started the on-line dating I told each woman I met (over coffee, date-zero) that we would (at MOST) date for one year. That’s it. Either she would be wearing my ring or we aren’t seeing each other one year. All or nothing. Not once, not once did that scare them off, not once. If I wanted there to be a second date after that one, rest assured, there would have been.

    Girls aren’t getting propsals. It is what it is. MGTOW means (really) no more marriage. Now maybe some good will come of that (change society for the better by changing the dynamics of how we live among each other) but it isn’t going to do anything to force younger girls to marry because there will be no options for them.”

    I hear you. What some here don’t seem to realize is that young men have agency, and preferences and desires also. Just because a young man dates a particular girl doesn’t mean he wants to spend the rest of his life with her. There may be a number of different factors why he wouldn’t. Just like you chose you not to marry the women you dated before your married your wife.

  454. AR,

    Of course. Because women don’t have any agency.

    They don’t. Women do NOT propose. Men propose. Women wait to be proposed to. If you”roles”, you want the Patriarchy, it only works ONE WAY. That’s it. You can not have your cake and eat it too unless you want to be a feminist.

    They can’t be held responsible for their actions. Things “just happen to them”, right IBB? Thanks for another display of the Apex fallacy. And just to spell this out, IBB: all those women are not getting proposed to by their dream Alpha. There are plenty of men that would marry them between the age of 20 and 25, just not the dream Alpha. This is the cause for 80% or more of women not to be married by age 25: they do not want to be married.

    I call bullshit on this. They DO want to be married. They aren’t getting ANY proposals, none. If they were, they’d say yes. If they were getting proposals, they would know that their boyfriend was alpha. Betas (by the fact that they are beta) don’t propose marriage.

    An alpha proposes marriage to a woman he loves, to a woman he wants to spend the rest of his life with. If she says “no” (I suppose that could happen) he moved on right then. Boom. Find someone else. She’s done. But at least he knows. And she had a shot, a window. Now its on her if she becomes cat lady.

    I proposed marriage (without a ring) at age 22. She said yes. We got engaged and I broke off the engagement because she was BPD nutso. I proposed marriage again at age 26. She said yes. I broke it off because she couldn’t stay away from her credit cards. I proposed marriage again at age 30 with a ring. She said yes. We got married. Still married. I was never told no.

    Tell me AR, how many women did you propose marriage to? How many said no? What did you do after they told you no? How many said yes?

  455. And just to spell this out, IBB: all those women are not getting proposed to by their dream Alpha. There are plenty of men that would marry them between the age of 20 and 25, just not the dream Alpha.

    Let me reiterate AR as I have said this before, young girls typically do NOT know what they want (which is why I don’t have a problem with them not marrying so young.) But girls DO want to be married. Yes sir they do. They’ve been dreaming about that since they were 8 or 9. You don’t turn that off. And if they get a marriage offer, more often than not, they are going to take it.

    If you knew anything about women (which apparently, you don’t) I wouldn’t have to explain this to you.

  456. Marissa says:

    From the survey I link below, it looks like out of 2,600 young college women surveyed, only 17% want to be married before age 25. That might have something to do with it. A man does not propose to a woman who seems vastly uninterested (with a few exceptions). The majority of women at this age (83%) want to ride the carousel. Why are you so intent on denying that, IBB? Even fathers like you don’t want their daughters marrying before 25…and somehow you think the poor dears are going to signal to young men they want marriage before then?

    http://www.self.com/blogs/flash/2012/08/survey-most-college-women-want.html

  457. Anonymous Reader says:

    Unfortunately I have a series of tasks that will take me off line for a day or two. So I won’t be able to continue to restate the obvious to IBB, no matter how many impassioned pleas for fried ice are made.

    I leave this parting thought on the last 3 postings by IBB as analyzed by some freeware:

    1. female (84.8 %)
    2. male (15.2 %)

  458. Serial monogamy is the cock carousel, dearie.

    “Dearie”?

    Now who sounds like a woman? I wonder what that sock-puppet’s link would say what gender YOU WERE given this statement?

  459. AR,

    Unfortunately I have a series of tasks that will take me off line for a day or two. So I won’t be able to continue to restate the obvious to IBB, no matter how many impassioned pleas for fried ice are made.

    Gotcha. Coward. :)

  460. Marissa,

    From the survey I link below, it looks like out of 2,600 young college women surveyed, only 17% want to be married before age 25. That might have something to do with it.

    I’m sure that has quite a bit to do with it but it only goes to re-confirm what I’ve already said, young girls do not know what they want. This is what happens when you don’t have moral agency. So if they don’t get married before 25 (or whatever) it’s probably for the best. But that’s really not what I’m talking about…

    …what I’m saying is that even the ones who don’t know what they want, at age 21 they might think they are too young to get married but they are still going to say YES if they are asked. Think about it, you are woman. Maybe you did or didn’t get married at 21 or whatever (because you didn’t want to get married so young or you didn’t know what you want), but if you were crazy about your boyfriend and he asked you, you would have probably said yes.

    A man does not propose to a woman who seems vastly uninterested (with a few exceptions).

    An alpha does. I did. Let me assure you, the women weren’t all that interested in marriage (at all) until I actually offered it. Upon hearing the offer, they took it.

  461. Tam the Bam says:

    AR, as a man of learning you will of course not be unaware of “fix” as the coy euphemism so beloved of the veterinary trade. All “in the pet’s best interests”, naturally. Very apt.

  462. Marissa says:

    They don’t know what they want…but they want to get married if someone asks them. Let me ask, how is a man to know if he should propose if women don’t know what they want? They are signalling to men that they don’t want to get married. Men aren’t mind readers and they’re at least smart enough to tread carefully for fear of nuclear rejection or wasting their time. Clearly it is that women don’t want to get married before age 25. You can twist it all you’d like and lay blame at the feet of men, but you sound like a major white knight right now. It is (83%) the fault of women that they aren’t getting offers of marriage before 25. You’re being rather solipsistic by going off your experience alone of proposing.

  463. Marissa says:

    I analyzed AR’s last six posts:

    http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php#Analyze

    Genre: Informal
    Female = 862
    Male = 976
    Difference = 114; 53.1%
    Verdict: Weak MALE

    Weak emphasis could indicate European.

    Genre: Formal
    Female = 692
    Male = 643
    Difference = -49; 48.16%
    Verdict: Weak FEMALE

    Weak emphasis could indicate European.

    I’m manlier than both you guys after analyzing mine! It doesn’t seem to be the most fine-tuned software.

  464. jf12 says:

    Re: “”A man does not propose to a woman who seems vastly uninterested (with a few exceptions).” An alpha does. I did.”

    I am no alpha, then, because I was reduced to asking out on dates, hat in hand, women who were not interested in going out with me (not that that narrowed it down any). It wouldn’t even have crossed my mind to ask those uninterested women to marry me. (although I do have some amusing anecdotes about dating-uninterested women wanting to marry anyway) I did manage to propose to a few women who seemed to have become interested though dating me, and most of them did.

  465. MarcusD says:

    Now who sounds like a woman? I wonder what that sock-puppet’s link would say what gender YOU WERE given this statement?

    According to my results, he’s male (71%).

  466. MarcusD says:

    It doesn’t seem to be the most fine-tuned software.

    That’s because it’s based on certain theories, e.g. the paper cited at the bottom of the page, which make certain assumptions. “View source” to see the word list.

    By the way, my software says you are 59% female (if it’s any consolation or desolation).

  467. jf12 says:

    @Marissa: game on! I sloppily cut and pasted my first dozen (!) (~1300 words) comments from this article and got
    Genre: Informal
    Female = 2868
    Male = 1971
    Difference = -897; 40.73%
    Verdict: Weak FEMALE

    Weak emphasis could indicate European.

    Genre: Formal
    Female = 1518
    Male = 2077
    Difference = 559; 57.77%
    Verdict: Weak MALE

    Weak emphasis could indicate European.

    Maybe it’s because I was talking about sex and relationships and Farrah Fawcett, I dunno. But maybe not, because cutting and pasting Dalrock’s article text yields
    Genre: Informal
    Female = 201
    Male = 1098
    Difference = 897; 84.52%
    Verdict: MALE

    Genre: Formal
    Female = 266
    Male = 681
    Difference = 415; 71.91%
    Verdict: MALE

  468. jf12 says:

    So what is the manliest 300 word text?

  469. Marissa says:

    MarcusD that is some superior software you’ve made. What’s weird is that back in my uber feminist days I would have been disappointed at sounding like a woman. Now I’m happy to sound feminine.

  470. Marissa says:

    JF12, the names of the Spartans who died at the Hot Gates? Haha.

  471. Marissa,

    They don’t know what they want…but they want to get married if someone asks them. Let me ask, how is a man to know if he should propose if women don’t know what they want? They are signalling to men that they don’t want to get married. Men aren’t mind readers and they’re at least smart enough to tread carefully for fear of nuclear rejection or wasting their time. Clearly it is that women don’t want to get married before age 25. You can twist it all you’d like and lay blame at the feet of men, but you sound like a major white knight right now.

    Well IMHO, ultimately the blame here is “feminism” because thanks to “feminism” we don’t really even know what men and women are supposed to do anymore to pair up towards marriage. Halo had a very good link about this….

    http://haleyshalo.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/nobody-knows-what-dating-is-anymore/

    …if men and women are just meeting or hanging out (in a group) or having casual sex or whatever you’re doing (nothing structured, just casual) then it should come as no suprise that men aren’t getting any signals and women aren’t sending them because very few people know what they are supposed to do anymore (or even if they should do it.) Forget marriage proposals they will not be forth coming because no one is even at that level yet.

    That is why I liked on-line dating so much. It was efficient, very structured. You put out a profile defining exactly what you are looking for in meeting people and (most importantly) WHY you want to meet them. That’s good. That is the way it should be. And because the man is quite often leading and the woman is taking direction, it is almost (dare I say it) Patriarical. Feminists just haven’t yet found a way to ruin it.

    I’m not trying to sound like a white knight but nuclear rejection is exactly PRECISELY what a man should be getting if he approaches a woman who most certainly is not interested, long term. But that nuclear rejection comes long before a marriage proposal. It should come basically at the very beginning of dating when she is sure HE AIN’T IT. Same him $$$$ and heartache. Don’t just stick around for free dinner and make him think you are interested you silly food-digger.

    There is so much more I want to say on this but I think part of the reason everyone is coming apart here is back to “feminism”. It’s not a gender per se, a few women really messed it up for the other women who were on the fence.

  472. MarcusD says:

    @Marissa
    Well, it uses machine learning/text analysis to construct a database (but, I have to literally “train” my software). Part of the software is based off of clearTK (http://code.google.com/p/cleartk/) and GATE (http://gate.ac.uk/), if you’d like to make your own (and the possibilities are quite wide-ranging).

  473. JDG says:

    Maybe it’s because I was talking about sex and relationships and Farrah Fawcett, I dunno. But maybe not, because cutting and pasting Dalrock’s article text yields

    I did the same thing with mine. I was weak male and weak female when pasting random posts that were not necessarily related to each other. When ever I posted text that was all related to the same subject I was male and male.

    I have my own ideas as to why this is.

  474. MarcusD says:

    I have my own ideas as to why this is.

    I have a slight suspicion of what you’re talking about :). Perhaps I can start you off in that particular direction: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~jhclark/pubs/clark_gonzalez_coreference.pdf

  475. 1kingofkings says:

    What does being a man mean?

  476. Ton says:

    Why do men want to rule out the one tool that will actually work?

  477. JDG says:

    MarcusD thank you for the link. I hated Probability and Statistics but I managed an A.

  478. JDG says:

    Yikes! The math just went over my head.

  479. MarcusD says:

    It might look bad, but it’s primarily plug&play with lots of variables (equations included). If you keep track of things on paper (e.g. a 2D array), it’s a lot easier to see what’s going on. That said, it’s not a bad idea to read up on data mining first.

  480. 1kingofkings says:

    The cock carousel ? And what do you call the man whores?

  481. jf12 says:

    Re: suspicion. Is staying on message actually supposed to be more male? Then why would it seem I were (much!) more strongly male in a “formal” context when it really was a bunch of chatty comments squished together?

  482. JDG says:

    What does being a man mean?

    Sadly there are many men who don’t know what it means these days.

    1KoK on the off chance that you really are a female:

    A sammich a day will help keep the hamster at bay.

  483. IBB, I don’t think you know what ‘nuclear rejection’ means. Clue, it ain’t normal rejection..

  484. Opus says:

    Whenever I read the expression Man Whore I always want to reach for my Hamster.

  485. greyghost says:

    No such thing as a man whore bitch. I thick the term you are looking for is player

  486. “Man whore” is a shaming tactic used by women who get upset about their alpha boyfriend’s partner counts.

  487. Opus says:

    My mistake: I must not use the word Whore or Slut or Scrubber, but refer to Alpha Females or Women Players or Strong Empowered Woman Confident in Her Own Sexuality. Funny I never noticed that before.

  488. I have one reason and one reason only for sockpuppeting throughout the manosphere. That is to call out those who I suspect are sockpuppets themselves. The only reason I sockpuppet, is to “fight fire with fire” and use the cloak of anonymity to attack the anonymous. I’m not here to troll myself, but rather to serve as an inquisitor of honesty and expose those who appear to be disingenuous and attempting to subvert the comment threads of the manosphere.

    For months now I’ve been reading IBB’s commentary. My initial observation is that IBB expresses itself in a prose characterized by a mostly feminine manner of overly emotive hysterics, combined with a nice helping of solipsism. So I ran both IBB’s blog and a bunch of comments through those gender analyzers to confirm my suspicions. If IBB is in fact not a woman, he has a very feminine style of prose. But the gender “voice” of IBB’s content is not even that important. It was only the first cue that something is not quite right with IBB’s 2 cents. We can rest judgement based solely on the merits of IBB’s content. Note Anonymous Reader’s strong indictment of IBB here:

    Careful readers will note that IBB refuses to back down from the position that women aged 20 – 24 should not marry, but rather go about collecting “experiences” that specifically include sexual intercourse. Therefore, IBB is just fine with women engaging in what the Bible calls “fornication” prior to marriage. This despite the fact that it has been demonstrated to increase the probability of divorce later on, not to mention IBB’s professed religious status. Apparently IBB’s devotion to Bible truths only goes so far – when it collides with the Female Imperative, the Bible loses in IBB’s eyes. Very revealing.

    Yes AR, very.

  489. Boxer says:

    Dear “Anonymous”:

    I have one reason and one reason only for sockpuppeting throughout the manosphere. That is to call out those who I suspect are sockpuppets themselves. The only reason I sockpuppet, is to “fight fire with fire” and use the cloak of anonymity to attack the anonymous. I’m not here to troll myself, but rather to serve as an inquisitor of honesty and expose those who appear to be disingenuous and attempting to subvert the comment threads of the manosphere.

    Most of us here are men. Men are concerned with ideas, not with gossip girl infighting or bitchy trade-rag revelations.

    For months now I’ve been reading IBB’s commentary. My initial observation is that IBB expresses itself in a prose characterized by a mostly feminine manner… yap yap yap…

    LOL!

    Can’t speak for anyone else, but if I ever start giving a shit about your opinion of the other participants here, I’ll send you a telegram.

    Regards, Boxer

  490. galloper6 says:

    So what is the manliest 300 word text?
    March of the Cambreadth? But it was written by a woman?

  491. Boxer says:

    Dear Aaron:

    “Man whore” is a shaming tactic used by women who get upset about their alpha boyfriend’s partner counts.

    That’s correct.

    Yes, ladies, it’s a double standard. That’s the way life goes…

    http://www.rooshvforum.com/archive/index.php?thread-27808.html

    (note that this is a rather crass site which is not intended for the sensitive)

    Regards, Boxer

  492. Joshua says:

    If your new here, we’ve already had the IBB is a woman discussion. Please something else, anything else. For clarification, Im talking to newbies not regulars.

  493. Hey 8oxer, I enjoy 80% of your commentary, but your deflection, misdirection and continued defense of Cultural Marxism (not to mention your avatar change to Marcuse, nice touch!) is suspicious. Are you who you really say you are? Based on your defense of the Cultural Marxist’s long march, I merely raised the question for the readers to consider as they read your contributions. The most effective propaganda is based on mostly truth with only a little bit of falsehood mixed in. This describes your contributions around here to the “T.”

    BTW – I also enjoy watching you use Alinksy’s rules for radicals tactics in action. You are very adept at it.

    yap yap yap…

    LOL!

    Can’t speak for anyone else, but if I ever start giving a shit about your opinion of the other participants here, I’ll send you a telegram.

    Nice try. Not working on those of us that are well versed in your milieu.

  494. jf12 says:

    Elizabeth Swann’s (98 word) tide-turning harangue “What Shall We Die For?” is 100% male. Not 99%; 100%. I haven’t found any other 100%’s yet.

  495. jf12 says:

    The last 300 words of Heinlein’s “The Green Hills Of Earth”, much of it being Rhysling’s song lyrics:
    Genre: Informal
    Female = 306
    Male = 645
    Difference = 339; 67.82%
    Verdict: MALE

    Genre: Formal
    Female = 283
    Male = 421
    Difference = 138; 59.8%
    Verdict: Weak MALE

    Weak emphasis could indicate European.

    My verdict: it’s hard to be male.

  496. greyghost says:

    All of greyghost comments appear manly and masculine. Causing uncomfortable gina tingling from the female commenters and lurkers.

  497. jf12 says:

    Ted Hughes’ jut-jawed version of Patrick Star’s “I Wrote This Song” entitled “The Thought-Fox” scores 93.44% informal male with 137 words,

    Genre: Informal
    Female = 41
    Male = 584
    Difference = 543; 93.44%
    Verdict: MALE

    Genre: Formal
    Female = 94
    Male = 211
    Difference = 117; 69.18%
    Verdict: MALE

    Patrick Star meanwhile goes for the formal prize in 75 words, vastly outpacing Dalrock too in sheer formal eveningwear I mean maleness.

    Genre: Informal
    Female = 150
    Male = 180
    Difference = 30; 54.54%
    Verdict: Weak MALE

    Weak emphasis could indicate European.

    Genre: Formal
    Female = 12
    Male = 99
    Difference = 87; 89.18%
    Verdict: MALE

    My verdict: this gender software was written by jaw-admiring English majors, possibly lesbian English majors. You win this round, Broccoli! (necessarily capitalized because of the apostrophic address)

  498. Tam the Bam says:

    O wut? 8oxer’s being lambasted for the old Kulturbolschewismus again?
    In Yoorp he’d be viewed as a christiandemocratic/conservative type, somewhat to the right of William Hague, I’m afraid (sorry old chum).

    Look, I don’t give a flying fantutti whether he’s a dandruff-shedding marxist academic, or a carefully-embedded manchurian candidate. Or even a spit social justice warrior (the most evil of all, and I mean that most sincerely, folks).
    The thing is, either address the argument, refute the sources, or come up with a better explanation, for our mutual enlightenment. It’s not that hard, ye ken.

    {books motel room for “Mr & Mrs 8oxer”, on the off-chance it might come good for me if I bumsuck hard enuff}

  499. Tam the Bam says:

    That’s not a problem, Opus. Means we still get to apply the slippery term “you slag!” [/jack regan]

  500. MarcusD says:

    @jf12

    Not quite. It’s based on this paper (if I recall correctly): http://lingcog.iit.edu/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/gendertext04.pdf

  501. MarcusD says:

    Was watching this yesterday: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WqK5c8EzyY

    Worth watching is the part from 6:00 to 7:30.

  502. Anonymous age 71 says:

    >>innocentbystanderboston says:
    January 10, 2014 at 4:45 pm

    >>Serial monogamy is the cock carousel, dearie.

    >>“Dearie”?

    Just so you know there are places where men very sarcastically refer to women as dearies. This is a sarcastic response to the belief of many dearies that they are morally superior to men.

    When I use it in front of men, they look confused and ask what I mean. But, when I have used it in front of women, they never ask what I mean. They know instantly, get all red in the face and start screaming. Hee, hee.

  503. Tam the Bam says:

    Ya OK Marcus man, could have done with a trigger warning, mmm?
    Y’know I justhate watching belgians on TV.
    My mind tends to wander, worrying about what any individual presenter might have chained up in their basements as they pontificate. Ooo those smug little fat trippel&frites-fed faces! Lemme attem!

  504. MarcusD says:

    The Erikson Saga continues:

  505. Thinkn'Man says:

    @MarcusD:
    Ughhhh….. that is just painful to read. Especially the “my wife” part.

  506. Boxer says:

    Dear “Anon”/”Jeb”/etc. (f/k/a Rob Fedders):

    yap yap yap communist! Alinsky! Marcuse! yap yap yap Are you who you really say you are?

    Let me tell you who I am. I am a real playa. That was probably your girl last night that was giving me straight neck.

    Who you are, despite all your various nyms and socks, is obvious to everyone here as well. You’re my bitch. It’s amazing and hilarious to see such a lowlife, desperately seeking my attention, three full years after I started ignoring him. My name is branded on your butt, and it’ll be there until your dying day. I’ll probably be the last person you think about on your death bed, you little hoe-ass cunt.

    Now get back to shining IBB’s shoes, bitch, and don’t open your mouth again without permission.

    Regards, Boxer

  507. Boxer says:

    Dear Marcus:

    That’s an obvious response to my tweet of this morning. Oneitis hits some fellas pretty hard. On the upside, he is spending lots of time with his kid, judging from the photos. That’s a good thing, Leif. Keep hanging with the people who matter, and try to forget those who aren’t worthy of you. Peace.

    Boxer

  508. MarcusD says:

    @Boxer
    Knowing who your avatar is of, I was wondering if that was you.

    Yes, I think Leif will eventually move on (perhaps further along in the divorce process).

  509. Boxer,

    Now get back to shining IBB’s shoes, bitch, and don’t open your mouth again without permission.

    I think he’s in a lot of pain right now. I’m not. So I just kind of let everything he said about me and my family… go. No point piling on someone who is really hurting. Just be the bigger man. As I said earlier, I don’t give anyone here the power to hurt my feelings so I guess the personal stuff just doesn’t make any difference.

  510. Jason says:

    Just to be clear, I wasn’t advocating for the murder of judges or lawyers. I’m guessing it would be wildly counter productive and so not a good course of action and I think it would be questionable morally even if it could be shown to be an effective means of solving the problem. It seems it would be similar to the result of killing abortionists.

    What I meant was, the current situation is extremely dangerous. You have men (usually) with no legal means of getting a fair shake and the system is so bad that they will find themselves made to pay or face jail even while the courts do everything in their power to make it impossible for them to pay the money in question. Worse yet, they will take away access to their kids and leave them in the clutches of borderline psychopaths.

    They are creating men who have had everything taken away from them that they value Men are being created with nothing left to lose. This is a circumstance where some men will conclude that they are already dead anyway and have no chance of fixing the situation so they might as well visit bloody vengeance on those they perceive as the source of the problems.

    As Israel and US troops in the middle east know very well, it is extremely difficult to protect yourself from an attacker who doesn’t care if they die in their attack as long as they hurt those they perceive as the source of their pain.

    Why do the courts and feminists expect this to end well?

  511. Opus says:

    The Eriksons have this in common: They both air their dirty laundry in public.

  512. 1kingofkings says:

    Why lower females by demanding sandwich making? Should I lower men by telling them something derogatory? My complete reason why I say marrying men turns women into slaves. There’s no reason for women to marry men when they carry attitudes taking them for granted like this…then men wonder why the divorce rate? Please ask yourself the question if you were lowered constantly like this,what benefit would she serve you besides driving you into a hole ?

  513. 1kingofkings says:

    Why isn’t there a manwhore? Because when women have lots of sex they’re whores but men are players? Lol sooo… Men get trophies for being sexually active, and women get slut shamed? Hmmm…who are the men having sex with?

  514. 1kingofkings says:

    Ahh a shaming tactic? So that’s what men do to women!!! So, did men ever realize that they hinder their own futures by shaming women in sex? Why don’t your wives like to have sex? You’ve got a whole site of MGTOW with men literally crying that that their women don’t want sex and won’t do the dirty. Geeee, I wonder why? If you shame a woman about sex, why would she want to do something that was for dirty people ? Men are really stupid.

  515. AnonymousManosphereBlogger says:

    Boxer writes,

    “Who you are, despite all your various nyms and socks, is obvious to everyone here as well. You’re my bitch. It’s amazing and hilarious to see such a lowlife, desperately seeking my attention, three full years after I started ignoring him.”

    lozlzollzolzlol Boxer thinks therez onlyz one sinlegz sockpuppet in all of the manosphere, and if anyone dares criticize him for his exalting of the frankfurterz over the Law of Moses and Christ, it must be all the same troll stalking him.

    Note how Boxer, in his typical anti-Christ jihad, goes off-script and resorts to the bernakified ghetto lingo to try and AMOG anyone who dares point out his buttehxtualz devotion and gina tinzgzlllzlz for the cultural Marxists and their long march to buttehxt Western Civilization.

  516. MarcusD says:

    Why lower females by demanding sandwich making? Should I lower men by telling them something derogatory? My complete reason why I say marrying men turns women into slaves. There’s no reason for women to marry men when they carry attitudes taking them for granted like this…then men wonder why the divorce rate? Please ask yourself the question if you were lowered constantly like this,what benefit would she serve you besides driving you into a hole ?

    You’re being selective. Please think about what happens when either of them fail to live up to their duties they agreed to at the outset of marriage.

    Also: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303433304579304493099001588

  517. Boxer says:

    1kingofkings asks:

    Hmmm…who are the men having sex with?

    It depends on how scrupulous a man is. I draw the line at married chicks. This is less out of respect for the husband than a desire not to get involved with a nutjob. I usually don’t hit it with anyone who has a kid or anyone who is over 32, but in those cases I make exceptions.

    As an aside, one of the reasons I decided, early on, never to marry, was the prevalence of married headcase women who would let it be known that they were down for some anonymous, one-time-only, no strings sex. This happened so many times to me that eventually I got through the awkwardness of it, and started talking to other young men about it, and I realized it happened to them also. I used to wonder why otherwise attractive married women would troll for sex on the dl, while attractive single women were so seemingly hard to lay. Eventually I just started seeing it as what women do. My guess is that somewhere around half of all married women will offer up sex if they think they won’t be caught.

    So, the answer you wanted is that we have sex with sluts. There are a lot of sluts these days. Married sluts, single mom sluts, “nice girl” sluts, etc. No shortage of hoes to choose from, for a man who has himself together.

    Hope that helps,

    Boxer

  518. MarcusD says:

    Why isn’t there a manwhore? Because when women have lots of sex they’re whores but men are players? Lol sooo… Men get trophies for being sexually active, and women get slut shamed? Hmmm…who are the men having sex with?

    You’re being selective. What happens when either men or women don’t have sex? (Hint: think of opposites.)

  519. MarcusD says:

    Ahh a shaming tactic? So that’s what men do to women!!! So, did men ever realize that they hinder their own futures by shaming women in sex? Why don’t your wives like to have sex? You’ve got a whole site of MGTOW with men literally crying that that their women don’t want sex and won’t do the dirty. Geeee, I wonder why? If you shame a woman about sex, why would she want to do something that was for dirty people ? Men are really stupid.

    You’re making assumptions that don’t hold. There’s different kinds of shaming going on: for having sex, for not having sex, for having sex outside of marriage, for having sex irresponsibly, etc etc.

    For example, the incidence of gonorrhea and chlamydial infection is now higher in women than in men, an indication that the population of promiscuous individuals is disproportionately female (Miller, William C., et al. “Prevalence of chlamydial and gonococcal infections among young adults in the United States.” JAMA: the journal of the American Medical Association 291.18 (2004): 2229-2236.).

    I also think you are displaying a confirmation bias – that is, you’re only considering information that reinforces your view. Some of the shaming is for the express purpose of having people wait until marriage. You are seemingly only noticing the reaction to females having premarital sex. If men aren’t having sex, they aren’t going to be shamed for having sex.

    Just as a final note: society is quite complex, and it’s hard to make any overarching conclusions. (The only real exception is based in biology.)

  520. MarcusD says:

    No shortage of hoes to choose from, for a man who has himself together.

    I’d like to offer a correction: ho is American English slang, representing a ghetto pronunciation of whore. “Hoe” is the gardening tool.

  521. greyghost says:

    No man shames a wife for having sex with him. Just commenting to make trouble now.

  522. Boxer says:

    Dear Marcus:

    I’d like to offer a correction: ho is American English slang, representing a ghetto pronunciation of whore. “Hoe” is the gardening tool.

    Sorta interesting, and I have never before thought about it… Whenever I write the plural, it’s hoes, though I usually spell the singular ho or ‘ho (why I don’t put the apostrophe on either side, I don’t know.

    In any event, slang is fun when communicating with the “less advantaged” anon socks. Maybe next time I’m in Ditchmond I’ll take old Rob up on his invitation to stop by for a beer and a few laughs.

    Regards, Boxer

  523. MarcusD says:

    @Boxer

    Correct to the etymology of the word the plural would be “hos,” but frankly, it’s slang in the first place, so it doesn’t really matter in the long run.

  524. feeriker says:

    I find that sad. [Ball’s] daughter isprobably going to need 3 decades of therapy to forgi e herself for what she did when she was 4

    I haven’t kept up with the aftermath of the Ball travesty, but barring words out of the daughter’s own mouth or words from her own pen that echo it, I seriously doubt that your assumption is correct. Much more likely is that she’s been thoroughly brainwashed in the feminist narrative, by both her mother and the reigning Establishment, into believing that her father was a sick monster who should’ve met a fate even more violent than what he inflicted upon himself and sooner than he did and that she’d be better off forgetting hei ever existed.

    I hope my assumption is proved wrong, but I’d be perfectly comfortable backing it up with money if I were a wagering man.

    but ultimately, it was society that did it to him.

    BS. “Society” is a meaningless collectivist term used to avoid assignment or acceptance of responsibility (funny, considering how tradcons/socons are forever harping on how no one accepts responsibility for their actions anymore). In this case “The Law”[tm], a malevolent machine set up and operated by specific and easily identiable dominant special interests at the expense of the majority, that influenced Ball to do what he did after backing him into a corner. Legislators, judges, and shysters wete at fault – not “society” (and please don’t insult us by belching up the “these are agents of society” nonsense so popular among statists of all stripes. It just mkes you sound more ridiculous than you already do).

    His wife was also ignorant of what the system will do when they get involved.

    More BS. Ball’s wife knew EXACTLY what she was doing by calling upon agents of the State to white knight for her and her daughter. She might not have expected her husband to ultimately go to the extreme that he did in the end, but NO American woman with an IQ north of 50 is unaware of what happens when the State gets involved in domestic issues. Ball’s wife was no exception.

    You really need to stop the white knighting here. You’re leading me to believe that AR’s and AMB’s assertions about you are correct.

  525. They Call Me Tom says:

    Someone mentioned above, that men should abandon the profane churches and start healthy ones. The question is, how does one start their own church?

    It’s really the same question in the end regarding the law. Abandon the corrupt laws and write just laws, but how does one do it?

  526. jf12 says:

    Re: sandwiches. Men are shaming non-sandwich-making women, more specifically shaming the women for being recalcitrant at doing what the women know they ought to do if they really wanted a better relationship. Men prefer sandwhich makers.

  527. jf12 says:

    Re: classifier systems. Quantitive classification must be based on either representativeness, i.e. distance from the average of a class, or exemplariness, the distance from the most extreme endmember. Since in the gender classifiers under discussion there is a dichotomy being drawn between endmember male and female writing, no matter the math, the person who decided on the training sets HAD to have externally decided on exemplars: THIS is the most male writing, THIS is the most female writing, etc. Moreover, since most men wind up being weakily male, rarely approaching 100%, that too is evidence that they did not chose unbiased samples of men and women writing, forming clouds which didn’t really bother separating (e.g. via hyperplanes) into two distinct clusters. Our maleness distance isn’t being calculated as distance from average (e.g. beta 5) but instead as distance from exemplary (e.g. alpha 10). The training sets were biased to what the chooser had already decided were most exemplary. Period.

  528. They Call Me Tom says:

    “Why lower females by demanding sandwich making? Should I lower men by telling them something derogatory? My complete reason why I say marrying men turns women into slaves. There’s no reason for women to marry men when they carry attitudes taking them for granted like this…then men wonder why the divorce rate? Please ask yourself the question if you were lowered constantly like this,what benefit would she serve you besides driving you into a hole ?”

    When women behave in a way that warrants respect, they get it from men. When women behave in a way that doesn’t warrant respect, men don’t respect them. Men don’t want to marry women they don’t respect, so it isn’t anything even approaching tragedy if woman who don’t warrant respect ‘go on strike’ for not being respected.

    The divorce rate is the result of men’s capacity for tolerance and forgiveness, even for those women who have more and more contempt the further and further that tolerance and forgiveness goes. The number of such women is greater than the number of women who don’t test the limits of men’s capacity for tolerance and forgiveness. The latter women tend to be happily married and very respected by their husbands, and they don’t find an excuse to get offended at doing the smallest kindness of making a sandwich. I’m guessing they don’t have to be asked to make a sandwich in the first place.

    I guess that’ll be my closing comment, love isn’t selfish, and selfish women can’t be loved. So go make me a sandwich, because I know you’ll get in huff about it, and that’s the whole point. If you weren’t the kind of woman who’d get in a huff over it, I wouldn’t be telling you to make me a sandwich.

  529. MarcusD says:

    @jf12
    I’m not saying it wasn’t based on samples. I was referring particularly to the “English majors” part.

  530. jf12 says:

    Re: Deciding on authority of specific exemplars was probably done by a lesbian English major inexplicably enamorous of jutting jaws. Just saying.

  531. Boxer says:

    Someone mentioned above, that men should abandon the profane churches and start healthy ones. The question is, how does one start their own church?

    People in the United States just need to get a group of like minded folks together to read and study their religious texts. That’s what a church is. The first amendment gives you the idea. If you want to be fashion conscious about it, you can turn your collar around and give yourself a fancy title (“pope”, “high priest” etc.) Christians in my area rent out commercial space on the cheap for sunday services (most convention rooms, etc. are ordinarily empty at that time) but you can also meet in a home, or at a public park, etc.

    If you want to ride the tax-exempt 501 gravy train, there are probably additional hurdles to jump, which you’ll ask a qualified tax attorney about, but that ought not be necessary when you start out.

    Boxer

  532. jf12 says:

    My version of The Thought-Fox would be more akin to The Herds Of Thought-Wildebeests, or maybe even The Foraging Of The Thought-Army-Ants.

  533. JDG says:

    Y’know I justhate watching belgians on TV.

    You aren’t a Poirot fan by chance?

  534. JDG says:

    A woman comments a question to the message board: When a guy says “Go make me a sandwich” what’s a good come back?

    Best Answer chosen by voters was: Well, you better comeback with a !@#$%^& sammich.

  535. JDG says:

    I just want to add that making a sammich is no more degrading to a woman than fixing a care is to a man.

  536. JDG says:

    OOps s/b fixing a car.

  537. MarcusD says:

    I just want to add that making a sammich is no more degrading to a woman than fixing a care is to a man.

    Yes, I think a lot of people are selectively outraged. Sandwich-making: “What a horrible thought”; car-fixing: “I thought that’s what they liked to do.” Alas.

  538. R7 Rocket says:

    1kingofkings said:

    Bringing up the old ancient “hysteria” derived from the uterus to object to any female with an opinion? good one. Can’t wait until the likes of you and your old ideas die out.

    @1kingofkings Don’t put too much faith in the Cathedral’s (academia, media, civil service functionaries) continued rule and dominance. With $200 trillion in unfunded liabilities, the Cathedral will eventually fail to pay the army and police. And without that armed power, the Cathedral’s Progressive religion (including feminism and equality) will die with it.

  539. MarcusD says:

    Basically, the openness will backfire (in one way) in the sense of not offending peoples’ consciences as much.

  540. Please ask yourself the question if you were lowered constantly like this,what benefit would she serve you besides driving you into a hole ?

    Ask yourself why women have no sense of humor

  541. hurting says:

    Opus says:
    January 10, 2014 at 2:30 pm

    I suppose we are in more agreement than you may suspect, but I’ll hold firm to the position that an attorney may and should exercise ethical behavior by refusing to participate in judicial processes that are inherently unethical. He does have an obligation, having accepted a given case, to vigorously defend his client’s position.

  542. feeriker,

    More BS. Ball’s wife knew EXACTLY what she was doing by calling upon agents of the State to white knight for her and her daughter. She might not have expected her husband to ultimately go to the extreme that he did in the end, but NO American woman with an IQ north of 50 is unaware of what happens when the State gets involved in domestic issues. Ball’s wife was no exception.

    I would have said the exact same thing before I read Ball’s Manifesto. I got the impression from his writing that HE got the impression that his wife didn’t have clue what she was doing. If it hadn’t have been in his words, then I would have been an advocate for what you were saying. If I remeber his words correctly, Thomas Ball’s wife went all nuclear because she was threatened by “the state” (or should I say some Domestic Violence group empowered BY the state) that if she didn’t have her husband arrested, the state would have arrested her. The state had its own threatpoint over his wife. I don’t think Thomas Ball blamed his wife all that much.

    I mean much of Ball’s screed was anti-state, not particularly anti-wife. Here is a man who genuinely wanted everyone to burn down every law enforcement building, every marrital counciling center, and every courthouse because they use the “second set of books” (his words.)

    No seriously, in this situation, I tend to think that Thomas Ball’s daughter was being a disrespectful 4 year old and Thomas Ball slapped his daughter way too hard and his wife genuniely feared for her daughter’s life (at that moment) when she made the call. Perhaps 15 minutes later, she regretted the call she made to the state. But at that point, it was too late. Everything was set in motion. No winners.

  543. Boxer says:

    Dear IBB et. al.:

    Nobody knows exactly what happened, and I don’t want to throw another uninformed opinion on the pile. My main point in bringing up TJ Ball (RIP) is to illustrate the futility of violence at this point in the historical narrative.

    With the caveat that I mean no disrespect to Ball or his surviving kin, Ball’s last act clearly didn’t have the effect he was hoping it would. It would have been much more effective for the man to have simply given the bird to the judge and dared him to open the jailhouse door. Then *he* would have been the martyr. The feminist state would have had to feed and house him, and he’d have been able to write books from his cell about how he had been railroaded.

    He could also have absconded. It’s pretty easy to hide in Canada, The Bahamas, etc. Borders are porous (go to any landscaping company in your town to get the idea) and gray market work isn’t all that hard to come by. If he were still pissed off after leaving, he could have started a manosphere blog from the exterior, giving hope to others in his situation. Most importantly, he would have lived to see the day when his kid got sick of her mother, and would have been around to tell his own side of the story.

    I hope that any other man who is in a similar situation will think twice before he does such a thing. It behooves us to be wise and realistic, rather than to do something rash that will deprive the next generation of a positive male role model.

    Best, Boxer

  544. Ton says:

    Violence directed at the self never accomplished your goals.

  545. Anonymous Reader says:

    I pointed out the obvious to ” Keenan McGregor”
    Serial monogamy is the cock carousel, dearie.

    IBB
    “Dearie”?

    Yes, dearie. Anonymous Aged 71 explained it quite clearly.

    Now who sounds like a woman?

    You do, IBB. Your beard has slipped multiple times. You thump your Bible and proclaim that the Japanese “need Jesus”, while encouraging young women to fornicate and thereby lower their MMV. You are most likely an aging 2nd wave feminist who is fretting about her daughter but who can’t come to grips with the fact that the 1980’s are long gone, and the methods used by 2nd wave feminists 25+ years ago to snag a beta while falling off of the carousel are now beginning to fail.

    I suggest you move over to “Hooking Up Smart”, a site where you are sure to fit in much better than here.

    Dearie…

  546. Tam the Bam says:

    Marcus D “.. the media’s interpretation of this ..”
    Well, par for the course really, it looks like British Catholics also don’t have too firm a grasp of the theory and practice of marriage.
    Wonder who’s fault that could be?

  547. Tam the Bam says:

    @Boxer and Ton ; even old anarchist crusties eventually came to understand that “you can’t blow up a social relationship”.
    I’d also regard poor Tom as a Fail. Nobody outside the ‘sphere has ever heard of him, and when they do, they don’t give one single fark. As suggested, there’s a hell of a lot of “well he prolly deserved it, fer sumthin’-or-other”-type crap. Strong the dissonance in these ones is. More like displacement activity before the femState stoats, I reckon.

  548. MarcusD says:

    @Tam

    Well, British Catholics (and Catholics in general) have not had much (or any) training in the Faith. The media certainly isn’t going to let them make up for that deficiency, either. Though, I would imagine the media consists partially of poorly-trained Catholics.

  549. Anonymous Reader says:

    Tam, Marcus, most people don’t know much about their own religion. Catholics, various flavors of Protestants, plenty of Jews, more than a few Moslems – all of these come with a book, and most people who follow don’t bother to read the fine manual. What people tend to “know” is what someone else told them, for any of several definitions of “someone else”.

    Within each group, of course, there are devout people who commit parts of their book to memory – the conservative Catholics, various flavors of Protestant, Orthodox Jews, truly devout Moslems. Those people know what they are about. They are, for better or worse, a minority within their own group.

  550. R7 Rocket says:

    Since most American women aren’t virgins, they shouldn’t be wearing white wedding dresses. Instead they should be wearing street walker costumes at their “weddings”.

  551. > says:

    I just saw the movie.
    There was only one other person there. He is a 50-70 year old man who went through a divorce twenty years ago, and lived through some of what the film described.

    ****SPOILER ALERT****
    Here is what happened in the movie.

    Two of the “victims of the system” were men, but the rest were all women. Most of the other men were “part of the system” and therefore part of the problem. The emotional stories of the women make us want to feel really sad for their unfortunate outcomes. We don’t really feel bad for those two men until the end of the movie. All of the women who are also “part of the system” were portrayed more as people who don’t like what the system is doing and would change it if they could. They were not portrayed as “part if the problem”. They showed a lot of male lawyers and judges that have poor ethics and were “part of the problem,” but didn’t show much of any (maybe one?) female lawyers and judges that have bad ethics and were “part of the problem”.

    Some emotional clips were used to show that “this man is bad because we say he is, because that proves our point that the men in the system are bad, and therefore the system is bad.” Some other really emotional clips showed women as “victims” of the men or of the system. They only showed one female judge in one short clip when she could be portrayed as “part of the problem, but she is silent in the clip, and the editor cuts away from her back to female victims of the system.

    The editor clearly mixed together multiple soundbites/sentences by some people to create entirely new and different soundbites/sentences that likely didn’t exist.

    I want to do more research on the producers/talent of the movie to find out what their angle is. I think there is still more that we aren’t being told.

    Overall, it was a lot of “talking heads” with some decent animations and re-enactments to illustrate key concepts. I would have liked to seen more facts and real research on some aspects, but many of the most important details about the broken system were glossed-over with simple animation. There is still so much to uncover and discuss, which is why they just redirect the audience to their website.

    The just of it is “the system is broken, and all of these women (and two men) are having difficulty finding justice through the courts. It’s just so difficult, expensive, frustrating, and sad because all these bad men in the system are keeping all these poor, helpless women (and two men) from seeing their children. We need to hold these bad men/the system more accountable. We need real “equality” like they apparently seem to have in Scandinavia. In fact, we should become more “free” and “equal” like Scandinavia, where the divorce rate is still pretty high (about the same?), but doesn’t drag people through the court system for years and destroy lives in the process.

    The film didn’t say anything in terms of current or future solutions to these problems. It just listed the problems.

    I could say more, bit don’t really want to at the moment.
    I’m sure others here might be able to share their opinions after having seen the full-length documentary.

  552. Joshua says:

    You give that review like your shocked.

  553. wolf says:

    IBB is a woman, nuff said. :)

  554. Anonymous Reader says:

    Tam the Bam
    AR, as a man of learning you will of course not be unaware of “fix” as the coy euphemism so beloved of the veterinary trade. All “in the pet’s best interests”, naturally. Very apt.

    Or maybe “tutored”…

    http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4229062/Tutored/

    http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4229062/Tutored/

  555. Pingback: Top 10 Manosphere Posts of the Week (01/16/2014) | Kid Strangelove

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s