Bad dog!

For that you must marry a divorcée.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Foolishness, Hold my beer and watch this, Manosphere Humor, Post Marital Spinsterhood. Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to Bad dog!

  1. sunshinemary says:

    Ha! It looks like someone took that little kid taunt – Oh yeah, well if you love _________ so much, why do you marry it? – a little too seriously.

    For those keeping score at home, here is a partial list of things women now marry instead of men: dolphins, bridges, roller coasters, and the Eiffel Tower.

    Then again, this guy married a goat, though it does appear to have been ahem a bit of a shotgun wedding. :)

  2. A parody that has become realized in real life. LOL!

  3. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    It’s gay weddings like these that really devalue the institution of marriage.

  4. jf12 says:

    Where have all the good dogs gone?

  5. Spawny Get says:

    I’m so glad that Sheba stepped into the breach, truly a man’s best friend.

  6. Do they plan on homeschooling their offspring?

  7. Maeve says:

    There’s probably professional treatment for people who do BSC things like that. Is one allowed to suggest that nowadays?

  8. Do they plan on homeschooling their offspring?

    No, they’ll send them to obedience school.

  9. Heheh,..just name the topic, I’ve covered it:
    http://therationalmale.com/2012/04/07/that-damn-dog/

    There is a current field of study in this psychological transference of emotion to pets. Nothing terribly conclusive has been set in stone of course, but the theory goes something like this; People (mainly female) having a tendency to dote exorbitantly over their pets also tend to eschew meaningful interactions with significant people in their lives. It goes on to say that the pet becomes a ‘self-proving’ device that enables the individual to internalize that they are capable of loving while minimizing their own reciprocation of affection to another human being.

    In other words when she sits there with little Pookie and dotes over him rather than engaging you in even limited communication or affection it may be indicative of a more complex problem – a definite red flag to be sure. Of the examples of women’s behavior I used in this essay, all of them were in some unsatisfying relationship that they were uncomfortable discussing yet would do nothing about. However, when prompted with conversation about their pets they were always very talkative.

  10. Pingback: Bad dog! | Manosphere Me

  11. Elspeth says:

    Some people can be so ridiculous. One crazy woman is thing. But why the heck are 200 people showing up for this display of mental instability?

  12. If they decide to terminate their marriage will they get divorced or annulled? Would this depend on if they actually consummated their marriage? I can’t wait to hear how the judges will decide this one.

  13. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    If they decide to terminate their marriage will they get divorced or annulled?

    Guess it depends on whether it was a Catholic wedding.

  14. I see your dog and raise you a

    a bridge

    Seriously, when I had some rocky times in my marriage I once told my SIL that I found two things to replace one wife and had taken concrete steps to do that

    A dog – a warm presence in the bed
    A motorcycle – can be ridden whenever I decide I want to ride

    Still have the dog, sold the dang motorcycle dammit

  15. I also had a basset hound once that lets just say was so “impressive” that at times he could only walk frontwards on ceramic tile, because hard wood (Oy) floors or carpet respectively put splinters or carpet burns where no man wants to have gone before.

  16. MarcusD says:

    Realized again that it’s hard to type while laughing…

    I have a few interesting sources relevant to this.

    But, more on crazy:

    Patterson, Charles. Eternal Treblinka: Our treatment of animals and the Holocaust. Lantern Books, 2002.

    With the recent repeal by ballot votes in California and Maine, we have seen the populace shoot down state approved same-sex marriage. Interestingly, public backlash against same-sex marriage comes at a time where support for same-sex marriage rights continues to rise across the country. However, even in the face of polling data which suggests public support, we still see politicians such as those in New York City vote against same-sex marriage rights under the guise of “the will of the public.” Where the denial of equal rights comes from may vary from state to state, but whether coming from the legislature or the protesters on Main Street, you are likely to hear the same rationale: Same-sex marriage will ruin the institution of marriage, it will ruin families, it will ruin society, the next step is marrying animals, the list goes on and on.

    Georger, Michael Joseph. “The Homosexual Witch-Hunt: Using Fear to Shift Focus in a Time of Crisis.” APSA 2010 Annual Meeting Paper. 2010.

  17. “”For those keeping score at home, here is a partial list of things women now marry instead of men: dolphins, bridges, roller coasters, and the Eiffel Tower.””

    All this time I thought that American women were gone hysterical about a chemical in plastic toys.

    Turns out what they were calling phthalates was misspelled.

  18. If they decide to terminate their marriage will they get divorced or annulled?

    Annulled glands are drained before the ceremony

  19. Spawny Get says:

    Bridges can be very supportive…just sayin’

  20. Bridges also cannot lie, they like big buttresses

  21. Laguna Beach Fogey says:

    Hey, at least they made it official. I see a lot of women and animals just living together before marriage.

  22. greyghost says:

    Check out the chick doing the Eiffel Tower

  23. As for the Eiffel tower babe, the article says:

    Her first infatuation was with Lance, a bow that helped her to become a world-class archer, she is fond of the Berlin Wall and she claims to have a physical relationship with a piece of fence she keeps in her bedroom.

    A physical relationship with a fence, if the fence is too ornate she is prone to becoming over wrought. A bow named lance, a fence named spike, what is the pet name for the tower?

    re: that youtube clip, I swear there was a porn movie with that name in the 70′s……mustaches and black knee socks on gangly men….g’head, admit it, you know the one.

  24. Casey says:

    Sigh………..

    Do you suppose the bitch took the last name of their spouse?
    I’ll leave you to decide who is ‘the bitch’.
    I imagine the bride’s cupboards are well stocked with peanut butter

    The fact that this type of mental instability is making a headline anywhere (including the internet) tells me we will not see a return to normalcy any time soon.

  25. Casey says:

    Re: the Eiffel Towerl crazy woman……..

    Can you imagine having a cold, rigid, piece of steel rubbing up against you? I imagine it wasn’t very pleasant for the woman……….either.

    (High 5)!

  26. Random Angeleno says:

    Hey, at least they made it official. I see a lot of women and animals just living together before marriage.

    Under a bridge!

  27. jf12 says:

    @empathologism, fwiw tmi, re: physical relationship with a fence. The first female orgasm I was aware of was a young mare in heat who rubbed off against a gnarly fence post in which chicken wire was embedded. I was 9 and had already witnessed dogs, goats, and chickens having sex but wasn’t clear on what was in it for the females.

  28. feeriker says:

    So help me out here: is this a same-sex wedding combined with a pet adoption? Is the marriage license appended to the pet license (or vice versa – and which one is for whom)? Would a divorce involve the RSPCA?

  29. feeriker says:

    physical relationship with a fence

    What if the fence is electric?

  30. Lovely PETA meetah maid, so zoologically studied she thought two litter boxes equaled one large Coke bottle

  31. What if the fence is electric?

    If it isn’t its in the clearance bin..

  32. @SSM: People marrying animals, objects, etc. This is the slippery slope of gay marriage. When the only thing essential in a marriage is “love”, marriage is bound to be directionless and have sky rocketing divorce rates.

  33. Snowy says:

    I’ve seen, via the internet, some of the things that women do with dogs. It’s no surprise to me that, these days, a dog is a woman’s best friend. Doesn’t surprise me to see a woman ‘marrying’ a dog. Another sign of the time, and the time is near.

  34. Anon Guy says:

    I’ll stick my neck out here, and call a “top”

    This is it, this is Peak Feminism

    When woman would rather marry a dog than submit to a husband in a loving normal relationship, Feminism has peaked the end is very near.

    I hope this story gets a lot of coverage far and wide.

  35. Tam the Bam says:

    Okay. Where’s the consent in this rigmarole of a forced marriage? And the victim is apparently female, and plainly underage. Although maybe not in dog years. Trafficked to the Balkans, for goodness sake! And compelled to wear bondage gear in public.

  36. jf12 says:

    Re: Peak Feminism. You could say it jumped the shark, or some other species.

  37. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    We really are having too much fun with this!
    Anon Guy, I hope that you’re right.

    Time now to throw a wet blanket on all this jocularity. Currently, these women are functional. What happens when they slip past that point? There are a lot of spinsters out there.

  38. Mutual submission in that marriage is both of them on their backs pawing at the air

  39. My Pomeranian said, just now, “I knew Jack Russell, Jack Russell was a friend of mine, and that sir is no Jack Russell”.

  40. You could say it jumped the shark

    Yep, she’s his chum

  41. Elspeth says:

    Let me now Empath when you go on tour, LOL.

  42. The Rigorist says:

    I can’t help myself …

    I guess they went home to tie the knot.

    Sorry.

  43. Laszlo says:

    Ah, the Petriarchy.

    How long before she no longer has peanut butter Saturday nights with him and the longing for that doberman that lived next door to her in college, who just wouldn’t roll-over for her, proves to be too much and she frivorces him because she just wasn’t haaaaapy with his obedience and constant attention.

    Dog proves once again to be Man’s best friend for jumping on that grenade. Semper Fidelis Fido.

  44. Caspar Reyes says:

    The Eiffel Tower must be Torrie.

  45. C’mon boy, gimme yer paw,

    Shake!

    No no no no no, DO NOT PLAY DEAD RIGHT NOW …….NOOOOO!

  46. I guess they went home to tie the knot

    Till a bucket of ice water do us part

  47. feeriker says:

    The 46-year-old divorcee wore black stockings and suspenders for the ceremony…

    Amanda organises a gothic music night in Brixton called Stranger than Paradise which she claims is “a twisted exotic romp of Balkan beats, gypsy laments and cossack high kicks.”

    Y’know, it wasn’t but a generation ago that most women Mandy’s age would … well, act their age. Today, 46 is still not quite the upper limit of the adultolescence that is prevalent among what seems to be a majority of Gen X and younger. Any further regression and the average “adult” will experience only two stages of life: childhood and death.

  48. lets hope she just wants a reality show gig

  49. MarcusD says:

    So help me out here: is this a same-sex wedding combined with a pet adoption? Is the marriage license appended to the pet license (or vice versa – and which one is for whom)? Would a divorce involve the RSPCA?

    I hope they don’t get ideas from it. That is, decide to have transfer of ownership for men, too.

  50. Does “dog pound” becomes an imperative?

  51. Maybe that’s OTT, sorry

  52. @ lovelyleblanc7:

    I quickly checked out your blog. I am impressed. I won’t be commenting there, but I wish you further blessings as you appear to be a “very nice girl” as men from by age and culture would say. I hope my son meets a young lady like you some day. Your parents seem to have done a good job. God bless….

  53. Tom C says:

    That’s positively weird. You would think the first animals women would start to marry would be either cats or horses.

  54. Tam the Bam says:

    “either cats or horses”
    Nah not a chance, ain’t none o’ them can deal with a bone like a hound-dog. Both basically furry faggots and hairy vegetarians.

    “This old man, he played one,
    He played knick-knack on my thumb;
    With a knick-knack paddywhack,
    Give the dog a bone …”

  55. I think the lyric about the ASPCA was particularly appropriate. Mangy mutt?

    Dude is insanely omega.

  56. FuzzieWuzzie says:

    God id Laughing, That was a blast from the past! I needed some cheering up. Until tonight, i never realized that there was a response to this one hit wonder.

  57. embracing reality says:

    In all our concern and empathy for the men trapped in the living hell of typical marriages to western women or those men frivorced losing their children, homes, assets and future income potentially for decades aren’t we forgetting someone? No not the children, though they too suffer terribly in divorce in the clutches of selfish mother but there’s someone else we’re forgetting. Imagine being a helpless animal, a prisoner of a shrew with absolutely no hope of escape, living every day of your life in the presence of one of these monsters! The horror.

  58. MarcusD says:

    House of CAF:

    Solid pro-feminist advice to young women on how to marry smart
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=866875

    Personally, I’m as confused as the other posters. If it was a joke designed to draw the feminists out, it was well-played.

  59. MarcusD says:

    “What’s happened when a 19-year-old American male is jaded about sex?”

    “Part of the matriculation process for a young man has always been”, Mamet continued, “I don’t know how to make a living, but I better figure it out or I’m never going to get laid. When you take that away, you take away the strongest goad he will ever experience in his life.”

    [...]

    “It is hard to come back to life,” Mamet said, “Especially when your country is doing what all great civilizations have done, which is to try to use its wealth to eradicate human nature.”

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/13/war-stories-an-interview-with-david-mamet/

    What’s interesting is that much of it can be traced back to feminist. For example: flirting – if a man flirts, he can get hauled in for sexual harassment.

    Re: men: http://www.antarctic-circle.org/advert.htm

    Again, refer to the Baumeister address (Is There Anything Good About Men?):

    For women throughout history (and prehistory), the odds of reproducing have been pretty good. Later in this talk we will ponder things like, why was it so rare for a hundred women to get together and build a ship and sail off to explore unknown regions, whereas men have fairly regularly done such things? But taking chances like that would be stupid, from the perspective of a biological organism seeking to reproduce. They might drown or be killed by savages or catch a disease. For women, the optimal thing to do is go along with the crowd, be nice, play it safe. The odds are good that men will come along and offer sex and you’ll be able to have babies. All that matters is choosing the best offer. We’re descended from women who played it safe.

    For men, the outlook was radically different. If you go along with the crowd and play it safe, the odds are you won’t have children. Most men who ever lived did not have descendants who are alive today. Their lines were dead ends. Hence it was necessary to take chances, try new things, be creative, explore other possibilities. Sailing off into the unknown may be risky, and you might drown or be killed or whatever, but then again if you stay home you won’t reproduce anyway. We’re most descended from the type of men who made the risky voyage and managed to come back rich. In that case he would finally get a good chance to pass on his genes. We’re descended from men who took chances (and were lucky).

  60. feeriker says:

    You would think the first animals women would start to marry would be either cats or horses.

    Canine karma, perhaps (that is, was Sheba a “bad dog” in a previous life and now her chattel marriage to Mandy in this life is punishment for that)?

  61. MarcusD says:

    Quick word association: Bossy = [fill in potential presidential candidate name]
    http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/03/quick-word-association-bossy-fill-in-potential-presidential-candidate-name/

    Make no mistake, there is always a deeper agenda whenever a seemingly innocent campaign pops up overnight.

    On Sunday, Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg launched a new campaign, known as ‘Ban Bossy,’ which would – as you can imagine – encourage people to ban the word “bossy.”

    Is there some kind of epidemic of that word being used to keep girls from achieving? Many of the surveys cited by the Ban Bossy campaign are decades old, and a more recent survey by the Girl Scouts of America found that girls are more likely than boys to see themselves as a leader or have the desire to be a leader.

    So, why start a national campaign?

    For starters, Sandberg is an ally of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016….

    Two years ago, Democrats launched a campaign to brand Republicans as engaging in a “war on women,” a campaign with a lasting impact that will no doubt stretch into the 2016 elections if Clinton runs.

    Now the Ban Bossy campaign gives Democrats another weapon to use against those who disagree with Clinton’s policy ideas.

  62. MarcusD says:

    Quick word association: Bossy = [fill in potential presidential candidate name]
    http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/03/quick-word-association-bossy-fill-in-potential-presidential-candidate-name/

    Make no mistake, there is always a deeper agenda whenever a seemingly innocent campaign pops up overnight.

    On Sunday, Facebook’s Chief Operating Officer Sheryl Sandberg launched a new campaign, known as ‘Ban Bossy,’ which would – as you can imagine – encourage people to ban the word “bossy.”

    Is there some kind of epidemic of that word being used to keep girls from achieving? Many of the surveys cited by the Ban Bossy campaign are decades old, and a more recent survey by the Girl Scouts of America found that girls are more likely than boys to see themselves as a leader or have the desire to be a leader.

    So, why start a national campaign?

    For starters, Sandberg is an ally of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016….

    Two years ago, Democrats launched a campaign to brand Republicans as engaging in a “war on women,” a campaign with a lasting impact that will no doubt stretch into the 2016 elections if Clinton runs.

    Now the Ban Bossy campaign gives Democrats another weapon to use against those who disagree with Clinton’s policy ideas.

  63. MarcusD says:
  64. S. Chan says:

    There is a video interview with the dog’s new wife here:
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/woman-who-married-dog-tells-3229270

  65. Rookie Writer says:

    Will it be wrong to call here a bitch since she married a dog?

  66. Spacetraveller says:

    I know it is pedantic, but may I just make a small correction, please. The woman who married the dog is not British, she is an American who just happens to be living in Britain. As a British woman, I feel compelled to make this tiny point, for all the good it will do for my dwindling pride in the sisterhood. Many thanks :-)

  67. Opus says:

    This American woman lives in Brixton. Brixton is not Henley on Thames or Moreton in the Marsh; neither is it Chelsea or Cheltenham. Frankly, Brixton is the equivalent of the bad part of Detroit having gone down-hill recently – and certainly since the days when it was home to Sir John Goss (the man who composed Deep amid the Winter Snow) – that is to say from about 1947 onwards. Clearly Inter-species marriage is merely the next frontier where I do not propose going boldly (I refuse to split infinitives).

  68. @vascularity777: Thank you. God bless you too

  69. Canine karma?

    Yea, I knew her, she married a chameleon

  70. Sir John Goss

    the man who composed Deep amid the Winter Snow

    I’m grateful you cleared up that confusion. Us Americans were thinking it was a NY crime boss, though we were a bit doubtful as it dint sound quite right.

    Now we are at least confident we hadn’t any idea who he was, yet elated that when we need that information in the future its there for the recall.

  71. feeriker says:

    I know it is pedantic, but may I just make a small correction, please. The woman who married the dog is not British, she is an American who just happens to be living in Britain.

    Point taken, but since she appears to have assimilated so thoroughly, I think we can safely say that the distinction is meaningless.

  72. Opus says:

    Goss is to Victorian Church Music what Wagner was to Eighteenth Century German Opera. He also wrote Praise my soul the King of Heaven – around here the very dogs bark it. On balance I prefer Goss.

  73. Stand Watie says:

    I don’t understand why they’re so upset about a “war on women.” I thought they wanted women in combat…

  74. lady N says:

    “She married a man 20 years ago but that was short-lived.”

    Well, that’s a shocker. She is mentally ill. What I find more disturbing is that 200 people went to the “ceremony” of her union with her dog. WTF is wrong with people? Not only do they overlook mental illness, they ****ing celebrate and encourage it.

  75. Casey says:

    @ Lady N

    This should surprise no one. When our female role models are gawdy singers such as Lady Gaga, what other outcome can we expect?

    There is nothing Lady Gaga won’t do to garner attention. Gaga’s latest stunt last week occurred on stage (where else?). She paid some ‘artist’ to chug green milk, and then purposely vomit all over her on stage. This is how low the bar is for role models in general, and women in particular.

    So let’s take inventory, shall we?

    1) A woman who purposefully chugs colored liquids and forcefully vomits same back up onto a canvas is an ARTIST.
    2) A woman who purposefully has someone vomit all over them is an ENTERTAINER.

    This is the state of feminism today. It is one big purposeful vomit on the values of the entire world.

  76. Casey says:

    Also…………let’s not forget trainwreck Lindsay Lohan.
    Just last week her ‘N count’ (or partial ‘N count’) was released to the press.

    Seriously? What a travesty that she is given the slightest bit of air time. She is offensive as a human being, let alone a female role model.

  77. jf12 says:

    Lady Gag.

  78. Spacetraveller says:

    “Point taken, but since she appears to have assimilated so thoroughly, I think we can safely say that the distinction is meaningless.”

    Oh yes, Freeriker, I know…

    But I take comfort anywhere I can find it :-)
    It is the same principle as where Germans, sick to death of being blamed for Nazism suddenly remember that Hitler was Austrian.

    I accept that this exercise is futile, but somehow it is psychologically redeeming to do so. It is human nature to distance oneself from what one deems undesirable. And this woman is truly undesirable, by anyone’s yardstick.

    In my desire to make myself feel better, however, I am throwing American women under the bus, by throwing this woman back to America, in my mind.
    Sorry, American women!

  79. LostSailor says:

    There was a woman a while back who walked her Great Dane round my Manhattan neighborhood. The thing was huge, it’s shoulder nearly chest-high on her and she was no frail specimen herself. There was much speculation about their, uh, relationship.

    But I don’t think they were married, just cohabitating…

    (Seriously, the thing was the largest Great Dane I’d ever seen, bigger than a pony and only slightly smaller than a horse. Who keeps a dog that large in an NYC apartment? There’s companionship and then there’s companionship

  80. lady N says:

    LostSailor, since it is pretty much impossible for an average citizen to get a concealed carry permit for a handgun in NYC, she likely has the dog for protection as well as for companionship. A dog that size probably serves as a pretty good deterrent.

  81. jf12 says:

    @LostSailor, I wouldn’t worry all that much about physical activities between women and dogs. Women do not actually have a hard time getting laid with a real man anyway, if that what they wanted. But, I would start to worry if cats were actually capable …

  82. lady N says:

    jf12, ever seen a cat’s penis? It is smaller than a child’s pinky finger. It CAN’T work. lol

  83. jf12 says:

    lady N, that’s what I meant. Plus, the stereotypical cat lady, with seven cats, is typically sex-avoidant anyway.

  84. jf12 says:

    Paging MarcusD. A hormone behavior reference.

    van Anders, S., Goldey, K., Kuo, P. 2011. The Steroid/Peptide theory of social bonds: integrating testosterone and peptide responses for classifying social behavioral contexts. Psychoneuroendocrinology 36, 1265-1275.

    One aspect of increased nurturing behavior by men is increased conversion of testosterone to estrogen, presumably for the estrogen to increase the efficacy of peptides like oxytocin. Thus, petting and grooming and other “good dog” behaviors decrease testosterone.

  85. On the recent property seizures in the USA

    I’ve been outside of the USA for months (also not an American) and was waiting for property stuff to arrive while focusing on moving to Southern and Eastern Europe. My older brother was an idiot and was too busy with other stuff. But finally, like a week ago, he made the smart choice.

    He contacted Middle Eastern Arab services. In an instant (like 1 week ago) some property stuff has arrived recently through Arab services (I thank them).

    My sister is brainwashed crazy though. She wants to go study in the USA. Aaargghh. My older brother is leaving next year and well, I’m kind of glad that he’s not sticking there either.

  86. MarcusD says:

    @jf12

    That study fits with what I’ve read elsewhere. In general, male testosterone levels go down when they are married (or rather, in a long-term relationship). There might be some confounds in terms of selectivity (e.g. perhaps the men most likely to get married are also the types whose testosterone is most likely to decrease in an LTR).

  87. jf12 says:

    It’s a conspiracy, trying to make us be good dogs.
    “P450 immunostaining overlapped to a great extent with known estrogen target regions. Oxytocinergic functions are controlled by estradiol while androgen receptors are mostly absent in neuroendocrine hypothalamic nuclei.”
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23225240

    I think I am very sensitive to oxytocin, and consequently very tribal us vs them. I think a lot of men are.

  88. jf12 says:

    @MarcusD, apparently it’s the nurturing behavior that counts, not the nurturing feelings. Men who had nurturing feelings but were unable to engage in nurturing behaviors actually experienced a boost in T.

  89. LostSailor says:

    @lady N and @jf12: I guess you had to have seen them together, this wasn’t just joking around about a woman with a large dog.

    Yes, it’s very difficult to get a CCP in NYC (unless you have connections or a lot of money), but it’s not that hard to get a permit for a hand gun at home (it costs a bit and there are paperwork hoops to go through, but I know quite a number of people who keep permitted firearms in the house), and it’s unlikely that the dog was for a “deterrent” (after all, you can’t have such a large dog with you all the time, like on the subway). I’ve had family who have had Great Danes, and they can be difficult pets; keeping one in a city apartment would take an inordinate effort.

    Now, I’m not saying that there was anything untoward going on, mind you, but given the subject matter of the post, let’s just say that there was probably a strong, uh, bond going on there…

  90. Jeremy says:

    With weddings like these, why do women criticize MGTOW so much?

    Remember ladies, if you can’t get along with grown men, there’s always cats.

  91. Well it happened again. I got propositioned by a 20 year old girl but ignored her till she went away. It’s just not what i wanted and it’s not right. But the PUA would say that I should have and would be “doing the lords work”. So yeah thanks. The women can get sex all they want, and don’t have to earn it. And I can’t get the family I always wanted. And you all decided to marry whores and now you want my sympathy because they left you. tough luck buddy. I don’t care if you married a whore and she took your kids. Why should I??? You didn’t care that you were incentivizing women to be sluts. Ok end rant. Good night.

  92. Spacetraveller says:

    “The women can get sex all they want, and don’t have to earn it. And I can’t get the family I always wanted. And you all decided to marry whores and now you want my sympathy because they left you.”

    Liberty…

    I feel your pain. I really do.

    Your ‘rant’ is what I call the ‘good man’ or ‘good girl’ rant.
    The good man like yourself who refuses to be propositioned for sex, knowing it is wrong. The good girl who is saving herself for marriage but finds no good man for marriage, because all the men she meets want her to ‘put out’ by the third date.
    It is normal to feel the way you do.

    But…unless you are 90 or over, recognise that you have a high chance of that family you always wanted.
    This 20 year old girl is not what you would call ‘mother material’ for your kids. No worries.
    There are other nice young women out there (paging lovelyleblanc7, lol).

    Keep to your principles. The good Lord sees everything.
    I for one will remember you in my prayers.

    Thus endeth my rant too. :P

  93. Opus says:

    @Liberty

    I do not think, contrary to what you suppose, that any PUA is likely to think you are obligated to indulge in what is known as a Mercy Fuck. That would surely be a form of White-Knighting: you would dislike it and the chances are that she would be disappointed to. Females are not however used to rejection and often persist when they should withdraw – men hate being pursued.

  94. Spacetraveller says:

    Dear Opus,

    I don’t think Liberty meant what you describe. The type of action he abhors is not so much a Mercy issue as …just the opposite, which is what the PUAs see as ‘the Lord’s work’. It’s a kind of ‘teach the ho a lesson! sort of thing. It is anything BUT merciful. But Liberty won’t do it. Thank the Lord for that, bless his cotton socks :-)

  95. Opus says:

    @Spacetraveller

    Liberty wants a virgin, and is of the view that if you marry a woman who is not chaste then you deserve everything you get. A somewhat harsh view, I would have thought, given that where you and I are a virgin is as rare as the Arabian Phoenix. Of course, I am not in the market for wedlock, so I can pontificate as to the foibles of others.

    Perhaps he might have given that woman who was chasing him an opportunity given his limited other opportunities.

  96. Spacetraveller says:

    Opus,

    “Liberty wants a virgin, and is of the view that if you marry a woman who is not chaste then you deserve everything you get.”

    Whilst I agree that this view is indeed harsh, one cannot realy blame him for wanting what he wants in a wife. I am sure he has good reason for wanting what he wants.

    Giving his seductress an ‘opportunity’ would be to accept ‘low hanging fruit’. Which, to Liberty, may be unacceptable, not just for himself, but also, contributing to a woman’s notch count may take her over that magic number of FIVE.

    What? You don’t believe me? Get with the programme, Opus!

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2579030/Reached-fifth-sexual-partner-Then-stop-Five-magic-number-Mr-Mrs-Right.html

    Disclaimer: My own views on the linked article are…unprintable.

    ‘Ridiculous’ might be the nicest word I can think of that describes my thoughts on it…

  97. jf12 says:

    I can’t take LFM seriously in his thinking, although I acknowledge he has feelings. He commits three felonious fallacies when he decides that being propositioned by a girl is a bad thing.
    1) Apparently it happens quite often to him, that he gets propositioned by whores. Since in reality this is a rare thing to happen to the overwhelming majority of men, he either must be placing himself in unusual circumstances that he should have avoided, or he isn’t saying things quite right.
    2) He reacted wrongly by merely ignoring the girl, if it happened the way he says. If he really felt that strongly he should have told her to stop. Undoubtedly he feels guilt for not making her stop.
    3) He oughta know PUAs like to be considered bad boys, not doing the Lord’s work.
    4) He correctly blames the fact that women can get enough (too much!) unmarried whorish sex for the inability of many good men to find wives, but then contradicts himself by blaming men for marrying whores.
    5) He never says who he has in mind when he claims, fallaciously, that all divorcees were whores prior to marriage, and that all the men ought to have known that of their own wives.
    6) He never makes the logical connection between a whore propositioning him and whores getting married, unless he wants us to think she was asking him to get married …

  98. Opus says:

    I think part of the problem is that with an average age for marriage creeping up to thirty, five may not be so many. You may not care for that but if a woman is still a virgin at thirty, one has to wonder whether there is something wrong with her or whether perhaps she is a prick-tease. I know it is not entirely satisfactory but I would be happier with five than with five hundred [but why?] and a fair number of women have notch-counts of that order. Equally it may be that those five were teenage exuberance, since when she has sobered-down. Five does not always imply gross promiscuity – though perhaps it implies serial monogamy.

    Marriage (as Pliny wrote) is for the young. Prolonged exposure to the Carousel makes some women only fit for a brothel. A prostitute you will note is confident in her sexuality, emancipated and empowered.

  99. MarcusD says:

    You may not care for that but if a woman is still a virgin at thirty, one has to wonder whether there is something wrong with her or whether perhaps she is a prick-tease.

    Many women are delaying marriage to have/start careers. Frankly, N=0 would be quite an asset, and N>0 would be a deal-breaker (for me). Slumlord’s posts on the matter highlight the dangers posed by N>0.

  100. Opus says:

    @Marcus D

    Perhaps you will then explain (as you have read Slumlord) exactly why N = O is an asset. I will not pre-empt your reasoning.

  101. Just Saying says:

    Hahahaha… More than a few women have called me a “dog” in my life… Guess this is a woman that doesn’t want to settle for anything less than the “real thing” and the “knot” that goes with it…

    Of course, I’m surprised the ASPCA isn’t on the scene since this is definitely cruelty to animals if she treats this dog anything like women treat men that are stupid enough to “marry” them. :)

    But then, I’m Just Saying….

  102. MarcusD says:

    @Opus

    Well, it’s a lower divorce risk. It means no STDs (and potential infertility due to previous STDs). Infidelity is also much lower for people who were virgins at marriage.

    The “frigidness” people speak of is not the exclusive domain of virgins (in fact, I’ve read that it’s about even for virgins and non-virgins alike).

  103. Opus says:

    @Marcus D

    I have read those stats for Lower Divorce risks (of which I am somewhat sceptical because I believe they were produced by an organisation that had a vested interest in keeping females chaste). Equally the risk of divorce seems to go down for those with between 20 and 30 partners; rather strange and anyway 30 partners is not that many – these days. A women can knock that up in a month with little effort if she is minded and some are. The stats do not deal with higher partner counts and I would like to know why not. There are plenty of women with counts in triple figures so why are these missing. In short I do not believe those stats to be either truthful or reliable.

    The risks of STDs and infertility are surely low. When women start succumbing to AIDS we may see a change in behaviour but there is little of that presently.

    If the average age of marriage for women is thirty and the divorce rate remains stable at about 40% as it has for the past forty years then it would seem would it not that virginity is no indicator of a marriage remaining intact for in those far-off days marriage was frequently to ones first love.

    The interesting question is this: is infidelity lower for people who have not been promiscuous and thus have a low partner count – or, as I suspect – because they are just not that type of person who would be promiscuous? What I mean is, that it is not the case that having had a large number of partners instantly makes you un-marriageable but a large partner count is an indication of other problems. Good looking women do not tend to have high partner counts and are usually the ones on the receiving end of divorce (having married desirable men). Casual sex is (for women) an attempt at validation of themselves as women which validation women can obtain without the need to make themselves the town bike. The ladies at The Daily Mail (linked article) may be huffing and puffing but I doubt that any would want publicly known there allegedly high partner count.

    I am old enough to remember plenty of women marrying their first boyfriend and then promptly divorcing. One has to cut ones coat according to ones cloth. Even so, I would be unlikely to even consider dating a woman who was divorced or who had a child or children in or out of wedlock. The trouble is (this not being bible-belt America) there are no virgins over here. Perhaps SpaceTraveller can confirm that. I have never dated a virgin (so far as I am aware).

  104. MarcusD says:

    @Opus

    I have read those stats for Lower Divorce risks (of which I am somewhat sceptical because I believe they were produced by an organisation that had a vested interest in keeping females chaste).

    I’m ignoring the Heritage Foundation data. The Kahn & London, Laumann & Gagnon, Harton, Teachman, Paik, and Willoughby studies are all peer-reviewed and without any demonstrated vested interest (in fact, if there’s an agenda on their parts, it’s to make the divorce risk seem lower). They are all based on large, nationally-representative random samples.

    Equally the risk of divorce seems to go down for those with between 20 and 30 partners; rather strange and anyway 30 partners is not that many – these days.

    30 partners is still a lot – according to the 2012 GSS data, about 1.5% of women have 30 or more partners. It’s doubtful the divorce rate goes down – in all likelihood the lower numbers of those kinds of people reduces the possibility of analyzing them in detail (that is, smaller sample sizes can throw off results).

    The stats do not deal with higher partner counts and I would like to know why not.

    What do you mean by this?

    The risks of STDs and infertility are surely low.

    They are not low.

    When women start succumbing to AIDS we may see a change in behaviour but there is little of that presently.

    The new incurable gonorrhea that is spreading will probably take the place of AIDs.

    If the average age of marriage for women is thirty and the divorce rate remains stable at about 40%

    The actual divorce rate sees about 50% of marriages end in divorce. As for stability, I believe I’ve cited this study in the past:

    With 2010 as the standard population, the age-standardized divorce rate rose by 40% between 1980 and 2008. After a slight dip in 2009—possibly a result of the Great Recession (Chowdury 2012; Cohen 2012; Schaller 2013)—the rise has continued, and 2011 has the highest divorce rate of any year to date. If we substitute 1980 as the standard population, the change becomes smaller but remains substantial: if the age distribution of married women in 2008 had been the same as it was in 1980, the divorce rate in 2008 would have been 25 % higher than in 1980. Thus, the apparent stability of the unstandardized divorce rate since 1980 is an artifact of a shift of the married population out of high-divorce younger ages into lower-divorce older ages; if we hold the age distribution constant using either 1980 or 2010 as the standard, we can see a substantial increase in divorce rates. Even if the ACS overreported divorces by 15 %, the data would indicate a sizable increase in age-standardized divorce during the past three decades, regardless of the standard used. This finding does not reflect peculiarities of the DRA: the 2011 refined divorce rate was even higher for states outside the DRA.

    [...]

    There have been striking changes in the age pattern of divorce over the past three decades. Divorce at age 40 or older is much more common than it was, and divorce of persons in their teens and early 20s has dropped. The cohort born after World War II divorced more frequently than those who came before, and they are continuing to do so at unprecedented rates as they age. It makes sense that the Baby Boomers divorced more than their predecessors. The loosening of legal constraints and declining social stigma has reduced barriers to divorce, and the opening of new economic opportunities for women allowed many to escape bad marriages (Ruggles 1997). But why has divorce leveled off or started to decline among the young?

    The decline in divorce rates among women under age 25 probably reflects increasing selectivity of marriage. Fewer young people are getting married: over 40 % of the population in 2008 had not married by their 30th birthday, marking a fourfold increase since 1980. With the rise of cohabitation, it is likely that many couples who would have been at the highest risk of divorce in the past—for example, those entering unions as teenagers as a result of an unplanned pregnancy, or with low levels of income and education—are forgoing marriage entirely (Cherlin 2004; Smock et al. 2005). As pressures to marry recede, people can be more selective about their partners; thus, it makes sense that marriages may become more stable. We do not, however, anticipate that a decline of divorce will lead to an increase in overall union stability. Because cohabitating unions are more unstable than marriages, we expect that the rapid rise of cohabitation among the young will neutralize any decline of divorce (Kennedy and Ruggles 2013; Raley and Bumpass 2003).

    Kennedy, Sheela, and Steven Ruggles. “Breaking Up Is Hard to Count: The Rise of Divorce in the United States, 1980–2010.” Demography (2014): 1-12.

    then it would seem would it not that virginity is no indicator of a marriage remaining intact

    Given the fact that every new study on the virginity-divorce correlation over the past 25 years has only found a stronger correlation, this is simply untrue. For example, by way of confounds, what has happened to the marriage rate? (In the US, UK, etc.)

    The interesting question is this: is infidelity lower for people who have not been promiscuous and thus have a low partner count – or, as I suspect – because they are just not that type of person who would be promiscuous?

    That’s the interesting question, yes (though, in the grand scheme of things, the reasons for it don’t matter as much as the fact that it’s true). The research leans towards a genetic cause for a predisposition to infidelity.

    What I mean is, that it is not the case that having had a large number of partners instantly makes you un-marriageable but a large partner count is an indication of other problems.

    Well, it could make you unmarriageable just by the merit of high N, but it usually demonstrates that there are problems with person (e.g. inability to commit). Large partner counts are often symptomatic of something referred to as “novelty-seeking” (incidentally, novelty-seeking plays a large part in alcoholism and drug-use, another cause of divorce – see, for example: Ramrakha, Sandhya, et al. “The relationship between multiple sex partners and anxiety, depression, and substance dependence disorders: A cohort study.” Archives of sexual behavior 42.5 (2013): 863-872.).

    Good looking women do not tend to have high partner counts and are usually the ones on the receiving end of divorce (having married desirable men).

    The first part is generally true, but I haven’t seen any studies that support the latter part. I mean, it wouldn’t be surprising if it is in fact true, I just haven’t seen anything on it.

    The trouble is (this not being bible-belt America) there are no virgins over here.

    Someone once asked about improving their chances, to which I said: “there are a variety of indicators of whether a woman isn’t waiting, e.g.: drug use, divorced parents, friends who are sexually active, smokes, left-leaning politics, types of media consumed, military service, etc.” The chances improve by avoiding those.

  105. Opus says:

    @Marcus D

    That is all very interesting. I have been mixing with the wrong crowd – that 1.5% who have a partner count of over thirty.

  106. Spacetraveller says:

    Opus,

    “The trouble is (this not being bible-belt America) there are no virgins over here. Perhaps SpaceTraveller can confirm that.”

    Um, sorry, Opus, I cannot confirm this. Sorry, mate.
    Out of interest, did you realise I am of the female persuasion??

  107. Opus says:

    @Spactraveller

    Indeed I was aware that you are an Un_Man or Wo-Person, and assumed that your ear to the ground of female talk would elicit the information. Most disappointing.

    Further, no woman should ever refer to a man as Mate (it is bad enough when the male Check-out staff in Tesco do it). If you wish to be familiar with me then call me Lord Opus of Halfords (everyone else does).

  108. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Over the past 30 years, the figures I have seen show around 40% of FIRST marriages end in divorce, but at least 50% of ALL marriages end in divorce. For most men looking to marry, the first figure is the one which counts.

    And, though I understand things are changing every year, in the past, each extra divorce before a marriage produces a higher divorce rate for that individual.

    But, trends allegedly show reduced probability of re-marriage after divorce for both men and women. Dalrock has done graphs on this not long ago.

    My own concerns, should I be once again in the marriage market, would be disease. What are the figures for sexually active women? Like 60% have SOMETHING in there just waiting for you. No thanks!

    However, though odds are my wife will not die before me, I would never legally marry again. Here in Mexico, at least half the married couples in my part of town, so I am told, are not married by the law, but have an Old Testament marriage. It’s called Free Union, and the difference between that and shacking up is the couple truly view themselves as married, whereas shack-ups usually tell you they are NOT married, only living together.

    A few states do have common-law marriages after a time. And, a few grant a woman 20% of his estate if she has lived in his home over 10 years as of his death date.

    It isn’t just the ability to confiscate my property that has caused me to know I would never marry by the law again. Women definitely change once they realize they have your privates in a lock-box. Less sex; more temper tantrums; more demands; more criticism. Enough already. I have done my time in prison, no more.

    There was a book called something like Open Marriage some years ago. A couple shacked up for like 20 or more years, and finally decided to marry by the law. They were soon enough divorced.

    When they weren’t married, she made few demands on him, since they weren’t married. As soon as they got married, she had his whole life laid out for him.

    I do believe marriage is the foundation of society. But, Old Testament marriage, not something wherein the government takes control of your lives and everything you ever had or ever will have.

  109. Spacetraveller says:

    Opus,

    Re ‘mate’, it wasn’t so much familiarity as commiseration that I could not give you the ‘confirmation’ you sought. I suppose it was the word ‘confirmation’ that got me. How could I possibly ‘confirm’ what another woman tells me regarding her virginity? I could certainly repeat what another woman tells me, sure, but I am not sure that would be ‘confirmation’ that you would deem worthy enough for your purposes.
    This is why I wondered if you knew I was female. For, only a male could ‘confirm’ a female’s virginity (bar gynaecologists, to get all technical about it), and even so, this may not be possible, as I see some men here declare.

    For what it’s worth, I do know of some women over thirty who I ‘know’ are still virgins, not so much by their own testimony (in fact,I never discuss this issue even with my closest friends), but simply from living alongside them for many years and knowing their core values. This is why I said I could not confirm that there are no virgins in Britain – if anything, I have data to the contrary. But it is not conclusive evidence. Just my own anecdotal data.

    I am neither ‘un-man’ or ‘wo-person’. Where are these terms from, pray?
    They are certainly not British, are they? I don’t fancy those terms – they are a little too ‘politically correct’ for my liking, I have to say. Please do not use these terms when describing me and I promise not to call you ‘mate’ again.

    Deal?

  110. jf12 says:

    I am still leaning towards “woversyns” (“sons” being too male, and changing p to v). It sounds like mutated lupercalian lycogynic maenads.

  111. “Out of interest, did you realise I am of the female persuasion??”

    Why do online commenters feel this is in any way relevant to the conversation?

  112. jf12 says:

    Bad woversyn!

  113. Mark says:

    @MarcusD

    Here is an article that a buddy sent me the other day.Obviously written by a bitter feminazi.When I read articles such as this BS it makes me so happy that I am single!

    http://elitedaily.com/life/culture/why-men-arent-really-men-anymore/

  114. Mark says:

    @MarcusD

    ooops!…..Sorry! It was written by a Mangina…….what a useless,spineless piece of garbage he is!

  115. Crank says:

    This one is for Dalrock and his selling of divorce series. Enjoy

    http://www.learnvest.com/2012/07/why-are-women-financially-better-off-after-divorce-123/

  116. MarcusD says:

    @Mark

    To be honest, that website can be ignored in it’s entirety. I don’t think I’ve seen anything from that site that’s worth reading.

  117. Bad dog, please find Dalrock and bring him back

  118. Spacetraveller says:

    @ Aaron the just,

    “Out of interest, did you realise I am of the female persuasion??”
    Why do online commenters feel this is in any way relevant to the conversation?”

    I already explained to Opus why I asked him this question. In case you missed it, feel free to re-read my latest comment to him.

    In this context, it was a very relevant question to ask him.

  119. Michael says:

    This women should be institutionalized.

  120. jf12 says:

    @Michael, away to the dog pound!

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