Frigidity is ugly.

Commenter Jen reminds us that miserliness isn’t the only option for a wife:

Honestly, if a woman loves her husband, even if she’s NOT in the mood, she’ll be more than happy to acquiesce simply out of her love for and desire to please him & make him happy (which ought to, by default, make her even happier she said yes). And this is not “duty sex” or “Oh, FINE” sex, but “All right, Sweetheart!” and happily off the couple goes. IMO there is no room for the “duty” or grudging sex in marriage, because the woman is only “giving” grudgingly, and that is not giving at all, and may be just as cruel as denying. I wouldn’t like it if my husband acted that way. (God loves a cheerful giver! Perhaps that ought to be embroidered onto bedsheets…)

Many have grown so accustomed to the miserly perspective of feminism, where even love for family is subject to a penny pinching curmudgeonly attitude, that they forget that it doesn’t have to be this way.  Feminism is ugly because it teaches women to be misers with love, and frigidity is all about being miserly with love.  This feminist obsession with miserliness has caused large numbers of women to scorn what is beautiful to God;  what could be uglier than that?

There is a tendency in the sphere to make everything about Game/attraction, as if women can’t be loving unless their genitals are leading them that way.  This is the opposite extreme of Dr. Mohler seeing a woman’s clitoris as a divining rod for good men, and equally as foolish.  It isn’t that attraction and romantic love don’t matter;  they are very important.  But they aren’t the only thing.  We do miserly women a disservice if we claim the only way they can overcome their ugly attitude is for their husbands to lead them via their genitals.  We also do good and loving women a disservice by assuming they are only good and loving because they are following their genitals.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Foolishness, Frigidity, Game, Miserliness, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

289 Responses to Frigidity is ugly.

  1. Pingback: Frigidity is ugly. | Manosphere.com

  2. Toz says:

    John C. Wright has written a good deal on why liberalism eschews beauty. This is an excellent example. Post-modernism in general is a campaign against beauty, feminism even more so. The root of it is that it’s a rejection of God which leads to the rejection of objective truth and the rejection of beauty.

  3. Tilikum says:

    Man, I love your thoughts but on this I don’t know.
    I just can’t seem to square this up with my actual experiences.

  4. jf12 says:

    re: “We also do good and loving women a disservice by assuming they are only good and loving because they are following their genitals.”

    True. They should be following and serving their husbands’ genitals.

  5. joshtheaspie says:

    It’s interesting to hear people talk about “romance” in a positive light on a Christian blog, when the romance movement was an anti-christian one.

  6. Dalrock says:

    @jf12

    True. They should be following and serving their husbands’ genitals.

    Why do you insist on making that which is beautiful seem ugly?

  7. Some teaching in the “Church” would go a long ways towards changing this, if they weren’t feminists. Something 1kink-of-finks (hey, what can I say that is “my reality”) said on “Frigidity and Power” set up a false dichotomy, that is the Madonna/Whore. What happened to Godly and appropriately sexy wife? I would argue that the Madonna/Whore dichotomy is a product of feminists trying to control their own destinies and not responding to the Holy Spirit and not wanting to offer their bodies in wifely submission. Thusly they cheapen and negotiate with a gift that God gave to husbands (M/W dynamic). By introducing this negotiation the entire complexion of the relationship, the social contract, and the family changes.

    Try negotiating an “allowance” for wives and watch the feminists start foaming in a fit of apoplexy. Negotiate who gets the couch. Negotiate who does the dishes. Negotiate who mows the lawn. Negotiate the division of child-care. Negotiate who will file for divorce. While this is common it doesn’t sound like a marriage so much as a deal being worked between two used-car salesman. Modern feminism in the “Church” is setting that table for us.

  8. Escoffier says:

    Hear, hear.

  9. jf12 says:

    @Dalrock @9:37 am

    Hee hee. “But darling, you *are* more beautiful when on your knees like that.”

    It’s interesting that both men and women seem to be doing unto the other what they want the other to do unto them: men worship women’s genitals, and women let them.

  10. Sisyphean says:

    Well, in my mind we do miserly women a disservice by marrying them at all. That’s what cats are for.

  11. Mike says:

    Your last paragraph is something many people need to understand. Game/Attraction, Alpha/Beta and Slut/Prude are all extremes at opposite ends. Finding the sweet spot that pulls equally from both extremes is the goal.

  12. Exfernal says:

    Toz, are you implying that there is an universal beauty standard? The concept of beauty is derivative of expectations of the perceiving entity. For example the ideal of female beauty not coincidentally fits extremely well with indicators of high fertility.

  13. Godly submission is beautiful. No amount of looks compensates for a Spreadsheet relationship.

  14. greyghost says:

    I like this one Dalrock is the very reason I am not for fluff the cunt game but more into reality game (dread) in marriage. Good stuff to speak to my daughters about.

  15. greyghost says:

    Young women on the margins know something is up http://www.the-spearhead.com/2014/07/21/the-disposability-paradox/ Interesting article from Welmer at the spearhead

  16. We do miserly women a disservice if we claim the only way they can overcome their ugly attitude is for their husbands to lead them via their genitals.

    They do themselves the disservice by marrying men just to be married before they hit that wall. They’re miserly because they couldn’t get married to the Alpha; they’re misery because they couldn’t upgrade to a better husband via divorce, they are miserly simply because it causes them and those around them, drama..

    Men and women shouldn’t be getting married currently, I say that because men and women nowadays have zero clue of what marriage is about and have turned it into a Romantic Getaway for a few years to be disposed of when the feelings subside. We don’t prepare them for marriage, we don’t advise them about marriage, we don’t do anything remotely close to teaching men about headship or women about submission.

    The War of the Sexes is raging; and you don’t marry the enemy.

  17. donalgraeme says:

    @ God is Laughing

    The Madonna/Whore complex is older than contemporary feminism. Far older. It is the male equivalent to the Nice Guy/Bad Boy dichotomy that so many women practice these days. Whereas that phenomenon/behavior arises when women follow their impulses and instincts to their natural conclusion, the M/W complex arises when men follow their instincts and impulses to their natural conclusion. While I generally deride the modern concept of “balance,” this is one area where a healthy medium is necessary to avoid the worst excesses of both sexes.

  18. jf12 says:

    @donal, re: Madonna/Whore.

    I totally disagree. The *problem* of the Madonna/Whore thing is that wives refuse to do it properly: they refuse to be the Whore only inside the bedroom and Madonna everywhere else. Hence this *problem* is not of men following their impulses but instead, as in the original post, the problem is of wives refusing to follow their husbands’ impulses.

  19. Sunshine says:

    There is a tendency in the sphere to make everything about Game/attraction, as if women can’t be loving unless their genitals are leading them that way. This is the opposite extreme of Dr. Mohler seeing a woman’s clitoris as a divining rod for good men, and equally as foolish. It isn’t that attraction and romantic love don’t matter; they are very important. But they aren’t the only thing. We do miserly women a disservice if we claim the only way they can overcome their ugly attitude is for their husbands to lead them via their genitals. We also do good and loving women a disservice by assuming they are only good and loving because they are following their genitals.

    Exellent, excellent, excellent observation here.

    And really, isn’t this what GBFM has been trying to say in his own way all along? Although there is nothing sinful about wanting to be attractive and attracted to one’s spouse, tingle-based marriage is not biblical marriage…it’s not even marriage at all. It is right and honorable for a woman to be giving, loving, and generous in all ways with her husband, just as it is right for him to be giving, loving, and generous with her.

  20. feeriker says:

    Honestly, if a woman loves her husband, …

    Key words in bold print. Unfortunately, Jen used a slightly misleading construct here, albeit unintentional.

    “Honestly, if a woman is in love with her husband…”

    Fixed. Only a woman in love with her husband is going to do what Jen suggests. That said, it’s unlikely that such a woman will need very much serious prompting. However, most men doing battle with freezer queen wives are facing either ILYBINILWY or contempt. While it’s possible that wives in the grip of either of these two types of feeeeeeelings might just surrender at some point out of a sense of frustration or desperation, the vast majority have neither the interest nor the incentive to sex up their husbands. Absent the ability of the husband to impose any kind of meaningful sanctions upon freezer queen that will affect her where it hurts, why would she submit or sex him up?

  21. theasdgamer says:

    Tu batt ze dalllroccxians churchrianszz doan carezz boutut ze Sonngg uv Salomans wichh teeechhez da Gammes xtrreemlly welllz.

  22. Anonymous Reader says:

    Since feminism is a branch of Marxism, it contains within it many of the premises of Marxism.
    Seeing the world through the lens of “oppressor / oppressed”, assuming that all humans are essentially identical and thus interchangeable, and therefore reducing all human interactions to some form of conflict resoluion; either “overthrow the oppressor” (“Fight teh Patriarchy!”) or negotiations between interchangeable equals.

    The androspheric world view is essentially orthogonal to this, because we know that men and women are not the same (except women can have babies), we know that men and women have different strengths and different weaknesses, within the larger arc of common humanity. In Bible terms, “weaker vessel” in a real sense (not just as a Get Out Of Trouble With Tears Free card) that fits into a larger Headship model. Also in Blble terms, Adam’s sin isn’t the same as Eve’s, but both are still sin. Complimentarity is a word that I’m already growing to dislike because of the careless misuse of it by pedestalizing neo-Victorians, but in an abstract sense it is very useful because it accrurately describes an aspect of reality. It is obvious to an unblinded observer that men and women have different strengths and different weaknesses, and each ought to bring something to a relationship that the other doesn’t have – we compliment each other in such a way that the whole is greater than the sum of parts. The Feminist-Marxist-Rousseau fallacy that no such complimentarity exists, that women’s strengths are just like men’s strengths (well, only smaller[*]) does not match reality. Not observable reality, and increasingly not scientific reality. Those who have chosen to fold, bend and mutilate Bible quotes in order to serve Feminism will have an increasingly difficult task before them in the years to come, by the way.

    Feminism is like a one-dimensional construct, such as a line in the X direction, while the androsphere both secular and Bible based is a line in the Y direction. Or perhaps feminism is the X-Y plane, and we are planes in the Z direction. Either way, while there is some intersection it is minimal. I’m recalling Flatland now – we try to communicate with feminists about “up”, about the 3rd dimension, and since they are 2-dimensional thinkers they do not understand. They can’t, and continue to be feminists.

    The 3rd dimension is a very free, liberating place, for those who can live in it. Freed from demanding that women work and play just like men, freed from the mirror demand on men, we no longer must bring increasing force to bear in order to hammer men and women into roles that they clearly are not suited for. It is ironic that the Marxist-Feminist “liberation” of women has led to an ever more obnoxiously oppressive conformity.

    “We’re all individuals, here! That’s why we all must eat, sleep, work, love and live exactly the same way!”

    [*] This is a reference to a 2nd stage feminist trope from the 80’s, probably originated in the 70’s, that attempted to place male and female genitalia on an equal footing, as it were. It was risible then…

  23. DrTorch says:

    Another excellent post. You’ve pointed out some very compelling truths.

    It’s interesting to hear people talk about “romance” in a positive light on a Christian blog, when the romance movement was an anti-christian one

    Romanticism and romance aren’t the same thing.

  24. Side point: Why is it that the words Duty and Obligation have become bad words in our culture? They are not bad words, and they do not and ~should not~ imply grudging, resentful acquiescence to whatever task is laid upon one.

  25. Gunner Q says:

    “There is a tendency in the sphere to make everything about Game/attraction, as if women can’t be loving unless their genitals are leading them that way.”

    This is because Game is the only tool men have to claim our Biblical role of leading women. Our government, entertainment, culture, even religion are united lockstep against male headship. I would rather men have legal, religious and social tools with which to lead their wives but we have been explicitly and intentionally denied them. We American men are paper tigers.

    Game is all we have so it’s all we’re about.

  26. Thinkn'Man says:

    @Toz:
    “Post-modernism in general is a campaign against beauty, feminism even more so. The root of it is that it’s a rejection of God which leads to the rejection of objective truth and the rejection of beauty.”

    Bingo.. next, you may wanna read this little gem by Kurt Vonnegut Jr.:

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

  27. HawkandRock says:

    Gunner Q,

    Well said.

  28. donalgraeme says:

    @ jf12

    With all due respect, you don’t know what you are talking about. What you are describing is NOT the Madonna/Whore complex, but rather what Feminists think is the M/W complex. A man “afflicted” by the M/W complex is a man who doesn’t want to have sex with his wife. His wife can be attractive, even beautiful, but he doesn’t want to have sex with her. But he will have sex with other women… if they are perceived by him as harlots/whores. Men who suffer from it do so because they have built up a mental “block” in their minds whereby women are either a Whore, and thus good for sex, and sex only, or they are a Madonna, and thus good as a wife and mother, but not as a sexual partner. Their long experience with harlots has created a mental association between female sexuality and unsuitability as a wife and mother. It is a perversion of the normal male ability to distinguish between women who are made to be used (harlots still), and women who are to be kept (wife material). A healthy-minded man will still want lots of sex with the latter, while a man with the complex won’t want to.

  29. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    The 3rd dimension is a very free, liberating place, for those who can live in it. Freed from demanding that women work and play just like men, freed from the mirror demand on men, we no longer must bring increasing force to bear in order to hammer men and women into roles that they clearly are not suited for. It is ironic that the Marxist-Feminist “liberation” of women has led to an ever more obnoxiously oppressive conformity.

    Great insight.

  30. donalgraeme says:

    @ Feather Blade

    Why is it that the words Duty and Obligation have become bad words in our culture?

    Because we here in the West despite Authority and Responsibility, and Duty and Obligation arise out of them. We are, in many ways, a culture of rebellious children who refuse to grow up.

  31. TFH says:

    Flatland :

    I consider that more apt in describing the difference between red-pill and blue-pill men, rather than any awareness of women. The women who are ‘rejecting’ feminism are just rejecting the label, not all the FI benefits.

  32. tertioptus says:

    This post on your average Christian blog, would surely get the “it goes both ways!” response.

    Which the answer is yes and no. The corollary is the husband being stingy with provisions. You know, building bigger barns and such. Justifying his miserliness by touting the security gained from extreme frugality. God bless any women living with that.

  33. jf12 says:

    @donal, re: “A man “afflicted” by the M/W complex is a man who doesn’t want to have sex with his wife.”

    Which is rare. Pathology points the way to characterize typicality, which is that wives refuse, not husbands.

  34. theasdgamer says:

    @ Gunner

    This is because Game is the only tool men have to claim our Biblical role of leading women.

    I keep asking for a cite for this claim which I think is an Urban Legend, but nobody seems to be able to provide one.

  35. jf12 says:

    @donal, not to get all nit-picky, but *you* were responding the this: “not wanting to offer their bodies in wifely submission. Thusly they cheapen and negotiate with a gift that God gave to husbands (M/W dynamic).”

    i.e. in the usage that I gave.

  36. Dave says:

    “We are, in many ways, a culture of rebellious children who refuse to grow up.”

    Feminism = rebellion against society and against God.

    Rebellion = witchcraft (according to the Bible)

    Therefore,

    Feminism = witchcraft.

  37. greyghost says:

    Women are lead by their following if it can be done with out her that is preferable.

  38. theasdgamer says:

    Oh, I can’t wait. Popcorn ready. Gonna jump in.

    But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. verse 3 at http://biblehub.com/esv/1_corinthians/11.htm

    This is the typical cite for the claim that husbands are to lead wives. The image that most people glean from this is a head topping a body (i.e., head of God topping the body of Christ). However, the context isn’t about leadership roles, but about covering human glory so that God’s glory is shown in church. The whole context is far removed from modern conception, so you’ll really have to stretch your brains here.

    The image Paul assumes is one of head/halo. Christ is the head and a man is his halo (halo corresponds to glory). Here’s another example: God is the head of Christ. Christ is the glory of God since he came from God.

    Woman is the glory of man (since Eve came from Adam). Woman’s hair is her glory (since it comes from her head). Paul is advocating that the Corinthians cover up man’s glory (woman) and woman’s glory (her hair) so that God’s glory (Christ) won’t have competition for attention.

  39. Taking it Slow:

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/04/taking-things-slow/

    Sex is the deal breaker, but in my pointing it out I run the risk of coming across as “shallow” or “superficial.” It’s important, but it shouldn’t be that important, right?

    Wrong. It is THAT important. Sex is the glue that holds relationships together.

    If you encountered a woman who fit every ideal you ever had for a relationship – best friend, loving, 100% loyal, excellent mother, came from a great family, perfect HB 10, healthy both mentally and physically, emotionally available, intellectually stimulating, shared all your beliefs – who loved you unconditionally and wanted to marry you, but with one caveat; he/she would NEVER have sex with you under any circumstances, would you marry this person? You could have children together through insemination and they would always be platonically affectionate with you; knowing full well before you did, and pledging to be completely faithful yourself, would you spend the rest of your life in a completely sexless marriage with an otherwise ideal person?

    Remember this sexless state doesn’t come after having had sex before (due to an injury or disability), it’s a pre-condition for the relationship. That’s the underlying message of “taking it slow” – all the benefits and emotional perks of a relationship with no expectation of sex. It’s like men having a fuck buddy, all the sex he wants with no expectation of emotional investment.

    This is how important sex is. I love my Mom, my brother, my best friend and my daughter, but I only fuck my wife – that’s what makes us husband and wife, not brother and sister. Sex can be an expression of love or it can be an act of recreation, but it is always a prerequisite for an intersexual relationship. It’s time we all stopped deemphasizing the importance of sex and accept it for what it is. Every time we think we’re taking some moral high-road by saying it’s superficial or shallow to place such importance on sex, we only do a disservice to ourselves and our lovers. We’re only screwing ourselves by thinking that we’re in some way above sexuality in some lame self-delusion that in stating so will make us more desirable and set us apart from the rest of the herd (who are also claiming to be above sex anyway). It IS that important, so start giving it the respect it deserves. You do yourself no favors by desexualizing yourself.

  40. Gunner Q says:

    donalgraeme @ 11:20 am:
    “Because we here in the West despite Authority and Responsibility, and Duty and Obligation arise out of them. We are, in many ways, a culture of rebellious children who refuse to grow up.”

    I haven’t noticed. Just looking at Westerns, it’s clear that these concepts go way back in American culture. Many men today despise Authority on the very reasonable grounds that our Authority is willfully destroying us, and we despise Responsibility because we aren’t given the means with which to be responsible. Only powerful men can be responsible men.

  41. jf12 says:

    re: 3rd dimension. Anonymous Reader is correct that the view that men and women are the same is too simplistic by compressing the dimensionality of differences. But emphasizing the lack of intersectionality is also incorrect. The correct view is that men and women are intertwined: this symplecticness is how we together extend into other dimensions.

    BTW the universal formula for making two things symplectic is to swap some attributes (but not all) with a minus sign.

  42. donalgraeme says:

    @ jf12

    I was actually responding to this part:

    I would argue that the Madonna/Whore dichotomy is a product of feminists trying to control their own destinies and not responding to the Holy Spirit …

    The M/W complex is old, not new. And you are right that it is a pathology, and rare in the West. Unfortunately, we have the opposite here: the Nice Guy/Bad Boy complex where women don’t want to sleep with their husbands.

    @ Dave

    Ouch. But true.

  43. Novaseeker says:

    Regarding M/W dichotomy, it’s true what donal has said, but the current application of that is generally not married men refusing to have sex with their wives (although I am sure this does happen, and was likely more prominent in earlier eras), but men refusing to marry the women who fall under the “whore” category. In other words, it’s often today used as way to criticize the tendency of some men to have sex with a certain set of women and marry a different set, in terms of which classification the woman falls under. This is also increasingly uncommon (most couples seem to cohabit and fornicate prior to marriage), but I suppose still exists. And it is very much the mirror flip of the AF/BB thing that is still very much going on with women.

  44. HawkandRock says:

    donalgraeme @ 11:20 am:
    “Because we here in the West despite [sic] Authority and Responsibility, and Duty and Obligation arise out of them. We are, in many ways, a culture of rebellious children who refuse to grow up.”

    The modern family law system has piled responsibility onto men will simultaneously stripping them of any actual corresponding power. All stick, no carrot.

    Assigning responsibility without granting corresponding power is a recipe for disaster. That is indeed what you are seeing with the steady Detroitification of America on almost every front with the destruction of the family leading the way — slow motion catastrophe.

  45. Ra's al Ghul says:

    TFH:

    “The women who are ‘rejecting’ feminism are just rejecting the label, not all the FI benefits.”

    This is the way I view the women against feminism. They’re starting to realize that men are bailing out and so they’re taking away the obvious “hate men” part of feminism while embracing everything else: equality, etc.

    Its basically “I like you doing things for me, so I’m going to speak sweetly to you instead of screech, but you’re still a slave”

    A desire to return to the privileges of chivalry with the benefits of modern society.

  46. jf12 says:

    @donal re: “the Nice Guy/Bad Boy complex where women don’t want to sleep with their husbands”

    Ah, ok, now I see what you mean.

  47. Escoffier says:

    AR, not to let Rousseau off the hook for his various idiocies (which are numerous and serious), but misunderstanding sex differences was not one of them. He wrote two books on this, Emile and Julie, or the Nouvelle Heloise. He is extremely blunt about sex differences and explores them at great length. The books were very popular (especially the latter) and influential. Wollstencraft went at him with both barrels over this and while the Discourse in Inequality and Social Contract are still widely taught (because they can so easily be shown to fit the PC narative), the academy prefers to pretend that these two “philosophical novels” do not exist.

  48. jf12 says:

    @Novaseeker, re: “not married men refusing to have sex with their wives …, but men refusing to marry the women who fall under the “whore” category.”

    Good symplectification! It seems to me the essence of a Bad Boy in this regard is in making Whores out of supposed Madonnas.

  49. donalgraeme says:

    @ Nova

    You are correct in that the practice of sleeping with harlots and marrying “good girls” is what M/W is being described as now. At least, that is how feminists describe it now. But that isn’t what the complex really is, at least historically. Unsurprising that feminists would try and twist it to their purposes.

    @ Ras

    Yup, women who are “rejecting feminism” are really just rejecting the more modern flavors of feminism. Traditional feminism? They are perfectly fine with that.

  50. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier
    Wollstencraft went at him with both barrels over this and while the Discourse in Inequality and Social Contract are still widely taught (because they can so easily be shown to fit the PC narative), the academy prefers to pretend that these two “philosophical novels” do not exist.

    Which would explain why I have read a translation of Social Contract and excerpts from Discourse but never heard of the novels.

    That said, the blank-slate conceit and the myth of the Noble Savage both fit in just fine with 1st stage, 2nd stage and even 3rd stage feminism, so…nossir, I don’t let the old baby-abandoner off the hook at all. I will look around for translations of the novels, and thanks for the references.

  51. cicero says:

    “This is the typical cite for the claim that husbands are to lead wives.”
    -“The man sitting across the table from you is known for trickery. He is a stage magician. You know he employs trickery, so he tells you he is going to do a card trick in which he can’t possibly manipulate the cards.”-

    “The image that most people glean from this is a head topping a body (i.e., head of God topping the body of Christ).”
    -“In this trick, you will do all of the card handling. He won’t touch the cards at all. He instructs you to cut the deck into four piles. You do so. He then tells you that you are going to randomize the order of the cards by shuffling them around and moving cards from one pile to another. Pointing to a pile of cards, he instructs you to take the top three cards and place them at the bottom of that pile. Then, take the next three cards and place them, one each, on top of the three piles remaining on the table.”-

    “However, the context isn’t about leadership roles, but about covering human glory so that God’s glory is shown in church.”
    -“You repeat the procedure with all four piles of cards. The cards should now be very well mixed. The man then begins his patter in earnest.”-

    “The whole context is far removed from modern conception, so you’ll really have to stretch your brains here.”
    -“He asks you to confirm the fact that he has not touched the cards. You agree.”-

    “The image Paul assumes is one of head/halo. Christ is the head and a man is his halo (halo corresponds to glory). Here’s another example: God is the head of Christ. Christ is the glory of God since he came from God.”
    -In no way could he have manipulated how you would cut the cards or handle them. Again, you agree. With a smile, he asks you to turn over the top card from each pile. You are amazed. The four aces sit at the top of each of the four piles of cards”-

    “Woman is the glory of man (since Eve came from Adam). Woman’s hair is her glory (since it comes from her head). Paul is advocating that the Corinthians cover up man’s glory (woman) and woman’s glory (her hair) so that God’s glory (Christ) won’t have competition for attention.”
    -“Take a moment and see if you can identify the lie that makes the trick believable. Everything the magician says is true with one exception. The trick is based completely on a facet of human psychology that most people–stage magicians, salesmen and politicians aside–don’t understand. When a person is given a number of facts that are demonstrably true, they will tend to group all statements in that group together, agreeing to everything said, including an embedded lie.

    1. The magician asked you to agree that he did not touch the cards during the trick: True
    2. He asks you to agree that he did not influence you in any way in how the cards were cut: True
    3. He asks you to agree that in no way did he manipulate you in the handling of the cards: FALSE

    In fact, the only thing he did was manipulate you while creating the illusion in your mind that you were making free choices. If you don’t see the manipulation yet, read through the description of the trick again. The magician did not allow you to choose how the cards would be shuffled once they were cut into four piles. Instead, he guided you through a pre-programmed series of moves–three cards to the bottom then three cards on top of the remaining piles–designed to move the four aces to the top of the four piles from their pre-placed position at the top of the deck!”-

  52. Random Angeleno says:

    Love in the context of marriage and relationships is an action you choose, not a feeling you have. This point cannot be overemphasized.

    The woman to look for is one who has internalized that. She is the one who will consciously choose not to be miserly in her attitude toward her husband and her children. Even when she is not feeling it, she will choose to do it. That is real love. Men will go to the ends of the earth for a woman like that in their corner. There are just too damn few women who espouse that mentality. It’s not just those who don’t who will ultimately pay the price, it’s their potential suitors, it’s their husbands and their children. This whole marriage based on “feewings” business is toxic to society.

  53. jf12 says:

    This whole post is crying out for an illustrative picture.

  54. feeriker says:

    Ra’s al Ghul says:August 5, 2014 at 12:31 pm

    Yup. This is why the whole #womenagainstfeminism thing leaves me stone cold. As I find myself endlessly repeating, ALL women have enjoyed spillover benefits from feminism over the last half century (benefits which accrue at men’s expense, of course), benefits which NONE of them are going to give up without a fight that would eliminate any distinction between feminist and non.

  55. jf12 says:

    “There are no bad lovers, just women who don’t inspire great loving.”

  56. jf12 says:

    Unless I misunderestimate Emily, it is ugly squid-things that make a girl grow frigid.

    Still looking for a good illustration, though.

  57. DeNihilist says:

    LOL! was walking into a building the other day, a mid aged lady was about a pace behind. I grab the door, swing it open and hold it for her.

    “why thank-you! no one ever does that anymore!”

  58. Cane Caldo says:

    Feminism is ugly because it teaches women to be misers with love, and frigidity is all about being miserly with love. This feminist obsession with miserliness has caused large numbers of women to scorn what is beautiful to God; what could be uglier than that?

    Yes! Yes! Yes!

    There Are No Ugly Truths. The Economy of Respect is currently full of miserliness and perverse incentives. Men started it, but now Feminists Have Ruined Everything by taking the men’s ball and running with it to a land whereThere is No Poon. We should not follow them. We must Get Ourselves a New Map.

    And drink upstream from the pissers.

  59. Oscar says:

    “Feminism is ugly because it teaches women to be misers with love, and frigidity is all about being miserly with love.” ~ Dalrock

    Several commenters on this blog claim women are incapable of love, which of course flies in the face of Scripture and observation.

  60. Oscar says:

    @God is Laughing

    “What happened to Godly and appropriately sexy wife? I would argue that the Madonna/Whore dichotomy is a product of feminists trying to control their own destinies and not responding to the Holy Spirit and not wanting to offer their bodies in wifely submission.”

    Unfortunately, no. The Madonna/Whore false dichotomy is a product of prudish Christians’ false doctrines. It’s been around far longer than feminism. I suspect it goes back to Gnosticism, but I’m not sure about that.

  61. jf12 says:

    “The idea of topless sunbathing as an essentially practical and personal choice is all but lost.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/28/topless-womens-liberation-elle-covering-up

    When it became something you *had* to do, it no longer felt rebellious enough.

  62. @Donal, So I missed it regarding the M/W thing. In my defense I was acknowledging 1kinks “reality”.

  63. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    Feminism is ugly because it teaches women to be misers with love, and frigidity is all about being miserly with love.” ~ Dalrock

    Several commenters on this blog claim women are incapable of love, which of course flies in the face of Scripture and observation.

    Yes. This actually takes us back to what I believe was my very first post in this series, Who loves best? I closed with:

    Clearly women can love selflessly, as witnessed by our modern paranoia that they might actually do so.

  64. Oscar says:

    @Toz:

    “Post-modernism in general is a campaign against beauty, feminism even more so. The root of it is that it’s a rejection of God which leads to the rejection of objective truth and the rejection of beauty.”

    Francis Shaeffer made that point in his excellent book, “How Shall We Then Live?” He used the arts to make that point long before feminism’s putrid seed gave fruit.

  65. DrTorch says:

    This is because Game is the only tool men have to claim our Biblical role of leading women.

    I thought Game was a loving act from the man b/c it made it easier (and even desirable) for a woman to fulfill her obligation to her husband. Living in an understanding manner and all that.

    The Economy of Respect is currently full of miserliness and perverse incentives. Men started it

    Ugh, will the foolishness never cease?

  66. Henry Blanchard says:

    As a man, if your wife wants sex and you’re not entirely in the mood, you try to get into the mood. That may be more difficult for women than for us; I’ve only been a man.

    But the same principle applies: You really don’t want to sexually reject your spouse. If you absolutely can’t do it right now, you need to communicate clearly and plausibly that it’s not a rejection. You’re not sorry she’s not attractive to you. Rather, you’re sorry you’re not holding up your end of the deal this time. Sexual rejection wounds people and it abrades the relationship, and (modulo the dictates of game), that cuts both ways.

    Women as a rule (with exceptions, I’m sure) don’t seem to get this. If they say no, it’s usually either completely callous, or pitying. Both amount to contempt.

  67. Mike says:

    Madonna/Whore is a conflict within Man’s own nature; he desires both, but they are mutually exclusive in one woman. So he must either choose one or the other, or have more than one woman.

  68. jf12 says:

    @Mike re: “they are mutually exclusive in one woman”

    That may be empirically true, but isn’t logically necessary. In fact, it literally ought to be the case that every wife is a Madonna to all other men, always austerely difficult to them, but a fine Whore, always warmly easy, with her husband. And it would be very easy for every wife to *act* as though she felt that way. If she wanted to.

  69. jf12 says:

    So, has anyone else been doing any Spreadsheet-like tracking? If not, why not? Ya scared? Don’t give me that “no record of wrongs” stuff, since it ought to be a record of rights.

  70. @Mike, I think it’s been already stated but what most men want is a wife who is free in the marriage bed and modest everywhere else. A “whore” who is faithful to her husband, modest, submissive in body and soul to her husband what I call a good wife. Leave the “whore” language to the Dave Swindle’s of the world who like nothing better than to denigrate Godly women and Godliness in women and echo Satan’s condemnation of sexual liberty within the bound of marriage.

  71. @jf12

    Nope, no spreadsheets in my household. My wife stopped that crap years ago. We’re BOTH a lot happier now.

  72. I’ve been holding my tongue on this issue for some time, but I think it’s time that I speak out. If you are an atheist or otherwise someone who refuses to be part of a Christian church body, this message will be irrelevant to you.
    There are plenty of congregations in North America that affirm masculinity, create a female herd in order to reign in female misbehaviour, and strongly affirm marriage and scorn divorce. In essence, there are plenty of “red pill” communities in existence you are free to join.
    Perhaps you are Catholic or Orthodox. Catholic churches in the Byzantine tradition seem to generally not have the kind of rot Marcus is fond of pointing out on CAF. Of course, if you choose to be a part of such a body, you’ll be expected to be Catholic: no fornication, sacramental marriage, confession, and so on. Such is the price of admission. I also hear good things about the Russian Orthodox church (from a masculinity perspective), but have no other person knowledge.
    Maybe you aren’t Catholic, but like the idea of a patriarchal culture. But in that case, plenty of OPC (Orthodox Presbyterian Church) and a PCA church here and there await you. Find one that is strongly patriarchal (most OPC and some PCA). Of course, you’ll have to actually be part of the partriarchy: you will occupy a spot in the hierarchy above some men and beneath others. Sunday morning church won’t be Sunday morning nightclub, but instead will be the divine liturgy… over and over. There will be plenty of social life, plus fathers trying to marry off their attractive daughters. Of course, you’ll need to be attractive yourself to participate. There’s a spectrum of other culturally traditional Reformed churches as well, but I have no personal experience with them.
    Perhaps Calvinism isn’t for you and rigid patriarchy isn’t either. On the other end of the spectrum, moderate-conservative anabaptists exist. They come in many forms; $10 sent off to Christian Light Publications for a copy of their Mennonite Church Directory should do the trick for finding a congregation near you. Of course, you’ll have to become part of conservative Mennonite life, which means integration into a tight-knit community and behavioural standards. But one of those behavioural standards is a restraint on hypergamy, female usurpation of male roles, and social ostracism of divorce.
    I can already hear the complaints: “Wahhhh the Catholics are hypocrites. Wahhhh the Mennonites won’t let me watch whatever TV I want. Wahhhh I have to have sex with a girl on the first date, or she’s not worth marrying. Wahhhh the theology of the Calvinists isn’t perfect. Wahhhhh!”
    Become a man of God, and be part of a community full of men of God. Your wife might not choose to submit to your leadership–at first–but who cares? A man who chooses a church based on his wife’s whims chooses poorly. Communities of people exist who have no room at all for feminism, for women in leadership, for divorce, and for fornication.
    Of course, membership in such a community implies men being set free from sin as well. We underestimate how toxic fornication is for men, even as we discourse regularly on its evil against women. It is high time we reject sin and embrace righteousness. Go out and join a community of people doing the same.

  73. Spike says:

    A good point Dalrock.
    Feminism is all about what you call miserliness, but I call selfishness. it is all about women doing the minimum: minimum responsibility, minimum children, minimum accountability, minimum work, minimum marriage, minimum sex – all while maximising what they get: free childcare, free contraception, free handouts from ex-husbands, free handouts from the government for their reproductive choices, quotas for CEO positions, lowered standards for entry into men’s positions.The pattern is sickeningly obvious.

    @Oscar (above) has rightly pointed out Francis Schaeffer’s critique of Western culture in “How Should We Then Live”. I’d go one step further:
    Alex Jones from Infowars points out that the archetype of Satan is loose in the world: Deception, destruction, corruption, selfishness: they are his trademark, whether you choose to believe in a literal devil or not.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTvnU-fbQkA

    The pedigree of Feminism can be traced back from Gramsci’s “Cultural Marxism” to Marxism itself and back, in turn to Satanism.
    Schaeffer’s contemporary Os Guiness touched on this in his landmark book, “The Dust of Death”.

    A good Christian scholar sorely needs to write the sequel to Guiness’ work, for the Counter Culture is now The Culture, and we, formerly “The establishment” is now the counter culture.

  74. Jen says:

    I can’t believe you quoted me! *ducks and hides*

    (I do mean what I wrote, though. Better a happy husband than “power”, which we women are not so great at wielding anyhow.)

    (Also, wouldn’t “God loves a cheerful giver” embroidered onto bedsheets be a great niche market item?)

  75. enrique432 says:

    A woman’s sexual mood has NOTHING to do with foot massages or other forms of “TV” / Romance Novel foreplay (as some early critics of the Spreadsheet guy claimed). All of this stuff is raw biology. A woman wants sex when certain things (Alpha related) are invoked (feelings, instinct, etc), and a man gets sex when he refuses to let refusals go unpunished. (Dread, money, etc). Being Beta, leads to more Beta. Showing NO interest and acting more Alpha, leads to more sex.

    To Dalrocks point here: Spot on. Certain trigger words exist in the Anglosphere, and they are not always obvious parallels on their face: Calling a woman “frigid” (which stings in different ways when heard by each gender, of a particular woman) is like saying a man has a small penis (not a bad sex drive). It’s NOT like saying a man cannot get it up–it’s WORSE. Women absolutely HATE being called or perceived as frigid, BECAUSE (as has been pointed out here, and ROK and CH) it removes the one thing they had–VagPower. It’s like a woman going out in the street in the middle of a riot and yelling her husband has no weapons in the house to protect the family.

    The last thing a woman wants out there, is that her purse is empty–implying she’s dried up and can’t get moist, destroys her value.

  76. jf12 says:

    AD proposes the simplest explanation, confining his speculation to the case under discussion.

    http://dissention.wordpress.com/2014/06/25/what-i-really-think-about-human-beings-as-a-species-2/

    And it is what others here, and I surmised also: women enjoy the badness of hurting the men they claim to love. Yes, I realize it is almost too perfect an explanation.

  77. jf12 says:

    I realize now I really shouldn’t have linked based on finding the one article. I apologize, should have warning label.

  78. Oscar says:

    Jen says:
    August 5, 2014 at 8:10 pm

    “(Also, wouldn’t “God loves a cheerful giver” embroidered onto bedsheets be a great niche market item?)”

    Get to work, sister!

  79. Oscar says:

    @Dalrock

    “This actually takes us back to what I believe was my very first post in this series, Who loves best? I closed with:

    Clearly women can love selflessly, as witnessed by our modern paranoia that they might actually do so.”

    Yes, I thought that was very well put!

    It seems as though “The World” (in the Biblical sense) is more focused on preventing women from learning to love selflessly than preventing men from learning to love selflessly. Does it seem that way to you? If so, why is that? Is it more destructive when women fail to love selflessly?

  80. Rollo,

    What does HB 10 mean?

    If you encountered a person who fit every ideal you ever had for a relationship – best friend, loving, 100% loyal, excellent spouse, came from a great family, perfect HB 10, healthy both mentally and physically, emotionally available, intellectually stimulating, shared all your beliefs – who loved you unconditionally and wanted to marry you, but with one caveat; he/she would NEVER have sex with you under any circumstances, would you marry this person?

    Tragically, I know of one such marriage (if you even want to call it a marriage.) I’m not so sure I would call this a marriage but… whatever. A good friend of mine buried his wife of 8 years (beautiful wife died of lung cancer) leaving him a widower with three very young children (ages 6,5, & 3.) He just couldn’t do it alone, he KNEW his children needed a new mother. So he married his “female friend” that he loved like a friend. She was in love with him (loved his kids) but he merely loved her (was not/is not IN love with her.) He loved her because he knew how much she loved his kids. That was her way IN to his life to become his wife.

    He never wanted to have sex with her and (as far as I know) after two years of marriage, they have not consumated it. And believe it or not she agreed to these terms ahead of time. She knew what she was getting into when he told her their marriage would be purely platonic and she went for it. She stays home and cares for his children while he goes to work. And at night, they have separate bedrooms.

  81. Spawny Get says:

    (I also agree that some of these women want to keep the goodies of feminism without the yucky label. I’m talking about another potential path to #WAF)

    I wonder if WomenAgainstFeminism isn’t also that girls have grown up alongside beaten down boys whose educational marks are suppressed by female ‘educators’, places at college are reduced by AA and quotas for everyone else (gender, race). Careers broken by AA and quotas again. Opportunities for men to shine defeated by Title IX etc.

    They see that the system is unfair (so their heart might well be in the right place) but they actually believe that they are as good as unshackled men, because they’ve never seen unshackled men.

  82. jf12 says:

    (I’d as soon buy a bridge.) I’d as soon believe a man lives on nothing but air and sunshine than for him to insist on never having sex with a wife whom he loves.

  83. Sisyphean says:

    Such as what? An ice queen? Loads of those pictures online these days given the popularity of frozen. Which actually wouldn’t be a bad fit given one of the important plot points in the movie revolves around how a woman doesn’t really need a man and shouldn’t rush into a relationship with one.

  84. Sisyphean says:

    I did and I posted about it on my blog here.

  85. jf12 says:

    @Sisyphean, although I don’t watch movies and stuff, almost entirely, I watched Frozen with a great niece and her family, at her insistence that it was her favorite movie of all time and so we had to. She sometimes sucked her thumb, which she isn’t supposed to do, while watching us watching the movie.

    And I thought the storyline tremendous. Thoroughly enjoyable, except for some of the songs, and the girls’ noses.

  86. earl says:

    I think Dalrock is getting to the “heart” of what is wrong with a lot of people these days.

  87. earl says:

    Rollo says: “Sex is the glue that holds relationships together.”

    I say: “God is the glue that holds relationships together.”

  88. Dalrock says:

    On the topic of a picture, I think this one sums it up.

    Which type of wife are you?

    Private beach image licensed as creative commons by Jarrod Trainque. Standing Guard image licensed as creative commons by the German Federal Archive.

  89. Rollo says: “Sex is the glue that holds relationships together.”

    Earl says: “God is the glue that holds relationships together.”

    I say: God gave us sex as (a critical part of) the glue to hold marriages together.

  90. Bluepillprofessor says:

    “There is a tendency in the sphere to make everything about Game/attraction, as if women can’t be loving unless their genitals are leading them that way.”

    Dalrock, very few women can or will be loving unless they are getting that tingly dopamine rush from their husbands. Perhaps none. So yes, without Game/Attraction, masculine dominance, a strong frame, and seduction skills, and unless you are giving it to her good and regularly (in a totally filthy but eminently beautiful way of course) then ANY woman will cease to be a loving wife, walk all over you, hold you in contempt, divorce-rape you, drive you to an early grave and then piss on it. That is the nature of women. That is the Red Pill. Your statement assumes Game/attraction- the ONLY tools that men have to influence their wives in this culture- is somehow anti-biblical. I don’t know why modern Christians hover on the words of Paul- even when half the time he writes basically something along the lines of ‘but I say this just because this is what I think not because I have any idea what God really wants- while ignoring the Song of Solomon. “Game” and “frame” and “hard dread” are exactly what the “lover” does to his “beloved” through the entire book.

    @Oscer: “Several commenters on this blog claim women are incapable of love, which of course flies in the face of Scripture and observation.”

    This is not correct whatsoever or if commenters have said this they are new and have not read enough. Women are incapable of loving a man UNCONDITIONALLY- the way he has been conditioned by Disney and the culture. The observation means that you cannot relax and let your guard down with your wife but you must continue being dominant, masculine, attractive etc. Women are clearly capable of love. They love their children unconditionally. They love themselves unconditionally. They love their husbands for how he makes them feeeel and what he does for her. The difference between male/female love is that women stop loving when they stop feeeeeeeeling it. Men stop loving when their woman leaves, shacks up with another man, and he goes to about 2 years of therapy, and often not even then.

    @JF12: “So, has anyone else been doing any Spreadsheet-like tracking?”

    Yep! I kept a diary of her rejections over a 6 month period that grew to over 100 pages of strikingly bitter and angry text, much of it agonizing and pining over her constant rejections and expressing my pain and rage in the rudest possible terms. I am very glad I did the exercise because when I confronted her, finally, she tried to gaslight me that “we have sex all the time.” It didn’t work and it was a big part of breaking through to her- along with the hard and credible dread that I was not playing her patsy little whiny boy any longer. No more whining about sex. I told her I was either going to do it with her or else I could leave and get her some kittens (a cat lady starter kit). Rollo tells us you cannot negotiate desire- but you can command it. I told my wife in the crudest terms possible- ‘frack me, or frack you. We don’t have marriage when we are just roommates.’ Of course when I learned game/frame/attraction cues everything turned around. Later I deleted the diary and ordered my wife to focus on the light ahead and never to think about the years of darkness in the past again.

    @Earl: Your ascetic, pious view notwithstanding, I agree God can be the glue that holds together a relationship but you should agree that God made sex the lubricant that lets men and women live together in peace and joy. Gluing together 2 people that despise one another with every fiber of their being is not what God intended for marriage and this is what happens in each and every case when sex is withheld.

    @Dalrock: I am not sure what the pictures represent. Does the left side represents a marriage where a you go giiiirrrrl wife makes sex a battleground and the right where the man is in charge and God’s way is followed? Cuz the left side should be strewn with bloody, gutted, bloated bodies and far-staring shell shocked soldiers huddling under cover from 1,000 pound shells shaped like stomping high heels.

  91. jf12 says:

    @Bluepillprofessor re: “we have sex all the time”

    According to my wife, we too “have sex all the time”. When I made that statement where I used to comment, accusing her of simple self-deception, multiple women took it upon themselves to try to console me with the rationalization that she therefore must think it sufficient, i.e. plenty, i.e. good. I (predictably) lashed out, (correctly, probably) accusing them of trying to justify their own frigidity as if a pat on the back *during* a rejection counts “No, I don’t want to do anything with you now. But you’re trying so well! Good job!”

    Now, I still don’t actually believe that women don’t know how deliberately miserly they are being. But now I think their self-deception is more complex. They literally believe that their self-deception ought to cause men to be deceived too.

  92. jf12 says:

    re: keeping record. Two in the win column for August over 5.5 days so far, Saturday morning and Saturday evening, which I’m counting as two because they were separate. I didn’t do or say anything different than on other days, and actually she was kind of more whiny than usual.

    See? No record of wrongs.

  93. Dalrock says:

    @BluePillProfessor

    Dalrock, very few women can or will be loving unless they are getting that tingly dopamine rush from their husbands. Perhaps none. So yes, without Game/Attraction, masculine dominance, a strong frame, and seduction skills, and unless you are giving it to her good and regularly (in a totally filthy but eminently beautiful way of course) then ANY woman will cease to be a loving wife, walk all over you, hold you in contempt, divorce-rape you, drive you to an early grave and then piss on it. That is the nature of women. That is the Red Pill.

    I don’t deny the pathologies you describe. In fact, I’ve documented the problem probably as well or better than any other blogger in the sphere. But the fact that large numbers of women are behaving incredibly badly doesn’t prove that women can’t act differently. The same data which shows the bad behavior also shows that women can in fact act differently. With nearly 50% of marriages ending in divorce, this also means that just over 50% don’t end in divorce. Are you going to argue that for the over 50% which don’t divorce (and this isn’t including the 1/4 of divorces initiated by men), that the husband has Game/Attraction, masculine dominance, a strong frame, and seduction skills, and is giving it to her good and regularly (in a totally filthy but eminently beautiful way of course). I understand that not all marriages which avoid divorce are well functioning ones, but you have gone so far as to claim that divorce is the natural result of a man not being sufficiently dominant. If this is true, over half the married men in the country must have some pretty tight Game. The fact is the law and the culture, including the churches, are outright cheering women on to divorce. Even with this, and with men being taught that to avoid divorce they need to become supplicating betas, the majority of women don’t divorce. Basically we have conducted a society wide multi generational experiment to see how bad women could become, and we’ve proven it is incredibly bad. But this doesn’t prove women can’t be different.

    Your statement assumes Game/attraction- the ONLY tools that men have to influence their wives in this culture- is somehow anti-biblical.

    This kind of nonsense is very frustrating, given the amount of energy I’ve expended explaining how Game could fit with biblical headship. Moreover, my statement makes no such assumption. What I said is that many falsely assume that the only way women can be good is if they are lead to be good by their genitals. How you leaped from that to “Game is anti-biblical” is beyond me.

  94. MarcusD says:

    @johnnesteutes
    “Catholic churches in the Byzantine tradition seem to generally not have the kind of rot Marcus is fond of pointing out on CAF.”

    I’m not fond of it, to be honest. It’s more of an informational thing – I think people need to know what’s going on.

  95. Boxer says:

    in a totally filthy but eminently beautiful way of course

    In the context of a married couple, I find very few explicit limitations on what they can or can’t do in religious texts generally.

    I suppose the introduction of third parties (i.e. group sex or sex with outsiders) is explicitly forbidden in a couple of places. Other than that, couples seem to have the freedom to do what they want.

    Note also that the bible was written for the vast majority of people. The fact that there aren’t direct commandments against choking each other out, or dressing as a Nazi while beating your wife, doesn’t mean that these things are encouraged. Most people like to have sex, and don’t get off on all the weird stuff that’s currently being promoted in pop culture.

    In any event, if you can point me to a demarcation between “totally filthy” and “eminently beautiful” in the text of the bible, I would be grateful.

    My people (Mormons) tried for years to regulate people’s sex lives, with no text justification (bishop’s interviews used to pry into whether married couples had oral sex, for example) and we did a lot of damage to ourselves with that nonsense. Religious texts tend to give married people the freedom to explore, with very wide boundaries, and that’s as it should be.

    Best, Boxer

  96. jf12 says:

    re: “demarcation between “totally filthy” and “eminently beautiful””

    I’m pretty sure the Venn diagram has lots of overlap between these categories.

    Somewhat tangentially, please try to draw the Venn diagram of two arbitrary independent probability sets. I’ll wait.

    Ok, you’ve now discovered that Venn diagrams are a horrible way to visually represent anything probabilistic. Essentially all probability sets *have* to be visualized in discrete topologies, with the *densities* of points varying, not shapes with demarcations.

  97. bluedog says:

    re: Dalrock’s answer to Bluepillprofessor, August 6, 2014 at 11:28 am –

    I think Dalrock’s answer here is exceedingly important.

    The efforts in the manosphere to remove the ghost from the machine and understand, mechanistically what’s going on between men and women, via the insights of evolutionary psychology, are all largely laudable.

    But removing the ghost as a confounding variable for purpose of experimental analysis does not remove the ghost for purposes of empirical reality – and we are making our way in empirical reality.

    In empirical reality there is an essential consideration: Women are people. Women are human.

    Human beings have the capacity to be vile, and the capacity to be decent. In most people, men and women, the latter capacity requires considerable cultivation. I am cultivating souls in my sons. I think I’m doing a good job. I think they will make fine adults. Don’t tell me – that absent my considerable efforts as a parent, or absent even my decision to raise them in the aegis of a religion, that all by their lonesome, that on account of their gender, that that alone will make them fit and moral adult men.

    Women are the same this way – no better, no worse. Women and men, as girls and boys, require cultivation. That is why I – though a liberal – find so much to identify with here on this blog. While I disagree with some attitudes and politics – I agree with the essential, non-disposable role of cultivating the next generation. We are on the same side in this.

    Lastly – and I think this is critical – the attitude that expects nothing of women, that demerits women as a class and a gender, as unable to rise above its vile nature, that attitude is the same attitude, the mirror image in fact, of the opposite attitude that led to the present state of affairs.

    40 years ago – there were individual women, in relationships with individual men – and those individual men … were vile. Putting a frame and a microscope on this – looking only at the case of vile men in their relationships with women and labeling these matters a “women’s issue” – our culture created entire institutional structures around the assumption that men, as a class and a gender, are vile, unable to rise above the demerits of their own biology, and that we must be attended to as chattel.

    And here we are. This state of affairs – leading to the endless discussion and unpacking here on Dalrock and elsewhere – is what that attitude has wrought. Good men, must fight like the devil, to be treated as decent human beings, and to have the right recognized of them to raise their own children, as decent human beings. Let’s not repeat the error, in the opposite direction.

  98. MarcusD says:

    @IBB
    Tragically, I know of one such marriage (if you even want to call it a marriage.) I’m not so sure I would call this a marriage but… whatever. A good friend of mine buried his wife of 8 years (beautiful wife died of lung cancer) leaving him a widower with three very young children (ages 6,5, & 3.) He just couldn’t do it alone, he KNEW his children needed a new mother. So he married his “female friend” that he loved like a friend. She was in love with him (loved his kids) but he merely loved her (was not/is not IN love with her.) He loved her because he knew how much she loved his kids. That was her way IN to his life to become his wife.

    He never wanted to have sex with her and (as far as I know) after two years of marriage, they have not consumated it. And believe it or not she agreed to these terms ahead of time. She knew what she was getting into when he told her their marriage would be purely platonic and she went for it. She stays home and cares for his children while he goes to work. And at night, they have separate bedrooms.

    It’s rare, but it does happen. In Catholicism it’s called a “Josephite marriage.” Because of fewer Catholics getting married in the Church, it’s become (proportionally) more common. I believe it requires special permission from the local bishop.

  99. greyghost says:

    That “josephite” marriage sounds like the typical ameriskank marriage after the kids. The marriage that IBB described is a normal marriage The manosphere would never have happened with out it. The man in question is actually in a good place because those kids are his and he has a live in nanny. As a widow that is a mgtow way to go. I wouldn’t do the marriage thing but is a good way to have adult supervision for your children with out the liability of some otherwise worthless legal and financial burden, which is pretty much what women proudly are these days.
    As soon as the youngest child turns 12 get rid of her before she starts causing problems with your future.

  100. jbro1922 says:

    Re: “Josephite” marriage

    i never knew there was such a thing. I can see the motivations the man would have for this arrangement, but what would motivate a woman to agree to it? Does she just like the children (in reference to the above example)? Financial rewards? Company?

  101. jf12 says:

    re: sham marriage.

    Period.

  102. Pingback: HALLAEJULLLAH!!!! DALROCK HAS SEEN THE LIGHT! WE HAVE SAVED DALROCK’S SOUL!!!!! WELCOME HOME PRODIGAL SON DALROCKAS!!!! LZOZOZOZOZOZ | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl

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

    lzozozozolozolzozoz

    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2014/08/06/hallaejulllah-dalrock-has-seen-the-light-we-have-saved-dalrocks-soul-welcome-home-prodigal-son-dalrockas-lzozozozozoz/

    Today Darlrokzkzasz shared the good newsz:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/frigidity-is-ugly/#comments

    Dalrockasz “Christainsz need to learn game to sevr butt and gina tingzzlzlzooz” Lotas Cockas writes:

    “There is a tendency in the sphere to make everything about Game/attraction, as if women can’t be loving unless their genitals are leading them that way.”

    Where, one might ask, does this “tendency” appear? Why, check it out! Dalrockas states that the Bible is not enough, as following the Bible does not serve the base, animalistsic butt and gina tinzgzlzlzlololoozozozzo, which, according to Dalrock, is what Christian men must now do, as da tinzgzlzlzo is greater dan JEsus even who came to abolish da law of mosesz according to so many in dalrockckas flock of frankfartaian foflowowresz lzlzozozlzlozoz:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/why-christians-need-game/

    If you are a Christian in the manosphere you likely have asked the question:

    Shouldn’t Christians be able to learn what they need to know about men and women and marriage from the Bible, and not from the studies by pickup artists and Evolutionary Psychologists?

    The short answer is yes. The Bible should be all you need.

    The problem is Christians have decided not to follow the Bible on the question of marriage in specific, and men and women in general. I’m not just talking about Christian enthusiasm for providing moral cover for frivolous divorce. I’m also talking about the numerous sections of the Bible which modern Christians are embarrassed about because the sections offend their newer and more dominant religion, feminism.

    In an amazing feat of double-speak that would make Orwell proud, Dalrock writes, “This is the reason Christians need to learn game. The Bible is sufficient, but it isn’t what 99% of Christians are following when it comes to men and women. ” Basically the summersaulting, logic-defying Dalrock is stating that the Bible both is, and is not sufficient, and thus, naturally, “Christian” men must learn to serve da butt and gina tizngzzllzlzzzozo, rather than having Christian women serve God, Moses, and Jesus, as, well, because the Bible isn’t sufficient, even though it is, and isn’t and is, and isn’t, and thus, naturally Dalrockck flock of frankfariataizn “Christians must learn game.”

    Dalrock writes, “The answer to the question of why Christians need game is because Christians have adopted feminism over the Bible.” This is tantamount to writing, “The answer to the question of why Firefighters need to burn down houses is because Firefighters have adopted kerosene over water.” Some might suggest that “Firefighters” really ought adopt water to live up to their name, but not Dalrockasaz, who prefers game over Christ.

    lzozozozozozozoz

  104. greyghost says:

    but what would motivate a woman to agree to it

    That is what the topic is about That IS what marriage is today That sham marriage is a typical marriage. Only difference is the man is a prisoner at misandry gunpoint. Women love it, at least they think they do. Offer any woman a sexless marriage and they are almost certain to take it. Women don’t marry for love and sex. Marriage with out any obligation for a woman would be like greyghost living on 500 acres of land and owning an ammunition factory in charge of product research.

  105. MetalSound says:

    Lurker here. Unrelated, but I just wanted to drop this link.

    http://usmilitary.about.com/library/weekly/aa041799.htm

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

    zlzolzoolzoz

    a most remarkable thing about this blog is how many thousands upon thousands words there are, while those most important words, which would love it all, are banished, ignored, castigated, and impugned:

    6 To the woman he said,

    “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
    with painful labor you will give birth to children.
    Your desire will be for your husband,
    and he will rule over you.”

    Before Dalrock came forth with the “Christiansz need gamez” gospels, “Your desire will be for your husband,” worked pretty well for thousands of yeardzz lzlzlzolzozozl

    And even better, Jesus stated that he came to “fulfill the law of the Old Testament.”

    So, yes, it is OK for Christians to rejoice in “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

  107. Edwin says:

    @johnnesteutes

    Really? Really!? Are there really churches like that? Are those churches actually like that?

    I been thinking of joining a church after learning/reading all this MRA stuff, but from the standpoint of someone who WANTS to get married and have kids, but is just scared of getting screwed over, and also I would like to homeschool my kids to avoid this crazy modern culture.

    So if there’s really an ACTUALY traditionalist, patriarichal church, I may join

    Though the catch is that, not being an idiot and understanding the law, I only want to get married with a pre-nup. Even if a church is as you say, the fact of the matter is the woman would still have the right to blow up the mariage and get thousands of dollars for doing so, so no matter how devout some potentia wife may seem, not having a pre-nup could potentially be described as psycho

  108. You claim to understand the law, but you think a pre-nup will protect you from the woman blowing up the marriage?

  109. JDG says:

    I only want to get married with a pre-nup.

    It won’t help. The judge will just throw it out if he/she doesn’t like it.

  110. greyghost says:

    Edwin if you want kids I would suggest a surrogate over a wife and prenup. And no church gives a damn about you. A family man is just legally and culturally one half step about a child molester.

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

    lzozozozlzlzol
    AMEAZING GRACE!!!!!! DALROCK ONCE WAS BLINDZ, BUT NOW HE SEEEEZ!! LZOZOZOZOZOZO

    yesterday dalrock, lost in the dark, was breaching dta men must learn to serve da butt and gina tingzlzlzoz.

    he once was lost, but now is foundz, for he is preaching dat womenz need godz!!!

    lzozozozzo

  112. TFH says:

    Two things about miserliness and feminism :

    1) In the US, many PUAs who practice night game discuss the need for negs, and for acting aloof and disinterested. On the other hand, when Roosh goes to some poorer country, he says that just acting like an ‘interested nice guy’ is what works best. Imagine that. Without ‘feminism’, the more natural form of interaction is what works better.

    2) ‘Feminism’, by definition, believes in zero-sum. They believe that a woman can be happy only if a man suffers, and one must first make a man suffer and then the happiness will automatically go to the woman.

    See what Sheryl Sandberg said here (beyond her first point about why women should marry women) :

    http://www.cnet.com/news/women-should-marry-a-woman-says-facebooks-sandberg/

    Her thinking of marriage being zero-sum leads her to the extreme conclusion that women marrying women is best.

  113. joshtheaspie says:

    @johnnesteutes

    “People disagree with me. Waaahhhh.”

    If you would exhort people to do what you think they should without the shaming language comparing them to crybabies if they disagree with you, I think you’d get further.

    I’ve been hunting for a chruch for a long time. So far, I just participate in discussions about God with other Christian believers. This satisfies the requirement of coming together with the faithful.

    If I find a Church that I believe is following the scriptures rather than the current sinful culture, you can believe I will put work into that church, even if I don’t believe it’s theology is perfect.

    The idea that this is easy, however, strikes me as laughable. I’ve repeatedly visited services or bible studies at 20 different churches in my area, at least.

  114. JDG says:

    I would not marry or even spend time courting a woman who:

    – is not a Bible believing Christian.
    – has a poor or non-existent relationship with her father.
    – does not submit to the authority of her father (before marriage).
    – does not agree with the idea that a wife must submit to her husband.
    – does not agree that the husband has the final say in any matter.
    – has another man’s children.
    – has divorced her husband.
    – does not hate the idea of divorce.
    – wants to have a career.
    – won’t cook and clean.
    – does not agree with spanking children when necessary (and yes for many kids there are times when it is necessary).

    This list will eliminate most women in the US and western civilization. This list will eliminate most women who go to church in the US.

    Also, I would wait until she gets good and mad at me to see how she behaves. This should give you a fairly accurate picture of what she will be like after the vows have been exchanged. Making her mad shouldn’t be too hard if she is from the US. Just disagree with her.

    Also, I would take note of how she treats her father when she is mad at him.

    If it is at all practical and possible, I would try to find a way to do it without government involvement (even to the point of relocating to a country with fewer and saner family court laws if viable). Keeping the government out of it won’t help you in a US family court, but it might with alimony under the right circumstances. Maybe some of the more knowledgeable guys can way in on that.

    I’m still convinced the government does not have the right to declare when people are married and when they are not.

  115. joshtheaspie says:

    @greyghost

    “A family man is just legally and culturally one half step about a child molester.”

    Any man who takes an interest in the well being and happiness of children is going to be a suspected child molester in some churches.

    I’ve actually had a talk from a pastor, because I participated in some Church events.

    I’ve also had parents from that same church thank me for working with their children, and providing an additional male rolemodel in their lives.

    Children love hanging off of me, and having an adult who will race them, or teach them how to tell the difference between white and red oaks, or be happy to be one of the chaperons on a nature walk he wanted to take himself, or sharpen their knifes after he’s done sharpening his own. And I enjoy their innocence and enthusiasm for life, and seeing them enjoy what I can do to help them. I love to help, and be appreciated for helping.

  116. feeriker says:

    @Edwin

    If you want to get married and avoid the WMD minefield that is Amerikan Marriage 2.0, expatriate – preferably to East Asia or Latin America. Don’t even THINK about marrying an AW.

    Cosign what others here have said about pre-nups. They’re not worth the paper they’re printed on.

  117. greyghost says:

    Kids seem to ;like me too for some reason. The thing is by law and culture family men are not valued or respected in any way. They are props for some preacher to brow beat, baffoons for television shows and ads, The most awful thing is they are props in family and now criminal law. A mna is only legally a father if the mother says so. Child molester have more legal rights criminally than any family man that finds himself in criminal court. DV is an automatic and that usually is part of getting rid of the father as part of a divorce. It is now normal though the culture. Only a child molester is hated more

  118. Newdist says:

    The latest from CAF (one could literally do a daily blog just about the problems with that place. I’d do it myself if I could write worth a damn.):

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=901256

    “Do you think separate vacations for spouses is a good thing? Are women likely to try to cheat on their husbands in that kind of a scenario? My wife is 51 and so are her 3 high school girl friends…they went to Vegas 2 years ago and want to go on a cruise next year. Am I just being paranoid? We have no sex life as she says she’s no longer interested but isn’t menopausal. We go to church together on Sundays as well. Her girlfriends have read the 50 shades of grey **** as well…my wife hasn’t “

  119. TFH says:

    On pre-nups,

    There was a discussion at The Spearhead about the legal value of them, with lawyer members of our community (Novaseeker and doug1) chiming in.

    The conclusion was : it was a gamble.

    1) Some judges may honor them, but some won’t. Neither you nor your spouse can predict this beforehand. More likely, a man with a pre-nup might lose 40% instead of 80%…
    2) A pre-nup may prevent divorce in the first place, since the woman is unclear if she will in fact collect cash and prizes, as per point 1) above. The uncertainly of cash and prizes may protect the marriage from even going that route.
    3) Child support and custody, easily the worst aspect of divorce law, cannot be governed by pre-nups. The CS laws were specifically designed to siphon money to women in a way that bypasses the pre-nup, and cannot be called out as such (the child is the wrapper on the practice).

    Overall, having a pre-nup is better than not having one, but the judge may toss it out, and neither you and your spouse can predict if it will be upheld.

  120. So a pre-nup might help by fooling your wife into thinking she signed away her chance at cash and prizes. Seems like that might work right up until the time she talks to a lawyer or anyone who knows better.

    I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that they can be useful in protecting pre-wedding wealth. A judge can still ignore it for that too, but he’s less likely to, because the woman signed that part knowing exactly what she was giving up. But most guys getting married don’t already have a lot of wealth to protect. What pre-marriage wealth they might lose is dwarfed by what they could get stuck with for child and spousal support, not to mention the issue of losing their children, and a judge is likely to laugh at you for writing that stuff into a pre-nup — and then punish you for trying to limit his authority to decide those things.

  121. TFH says:

    Some pre-nups do work. It depends on many factors, especially the whiteknightedness of the judge.

    Donald Trump famously says how a pre-nup enabled him to pay very little (much less than 1% of his wealth) to Marla Maples, and he is vocal about saying all men need one. His lawyers are of course much better than what the average guy could hire.

    Pre-wedding wealth is already safe from divorce unless it was co-mingled, in the community property states.

  122. Pingback: Getting His Release | The Reinvention of Man

  123. Boxer says:

    I’m sure this will not go over well here, but as always, I don’t give a damn…

    If you want to get married and avoid the WMD minefield that is Amerikan Marriage 2.0, expatriate – preferably to East Asia or Latin America. Don’t even THINK about marrying an AW.

    I think we are thinking at our best when we’re not demonizing “American Wimminz” as a whole. Falling into that trap is perfectly understandable, when so many of them act so abominably, but it isn’t accurate.

    I’ve actually met many girls who would make great wives for you marriage-minded bros, and I didn’t have to go to some third-world shithole to do it. If you’re really interested in marriagable women, date down to the younger girls who are sorta quiet and shy, and who aren’t flashing their tits at you for attention. There are actually a huge number of women who are basically ignored by the vast majority of men. They stay single until the day they get sick of being passed over, and then they start giving off marriage signals, at which time they are suddenly married up (usually by a very eligible chap, too) in short order.

    Sure, some of these women might be frauds, but that’s on you brothers to check out her family and background before you buy that ring. And sure, twenty years hence she might suddenly morph into a total whore who steals money out of the joint checking account to fund her cocaine habit, but it doesn’t seem as likely as many make it out to be. Past performance actually is a pretty good indicator of future results (and I mean generationally: Look at her parents and grandparents.)

    As a scroungy bottom-feeding bachelor who spends his workdays surrounded by kids in their late teens and early twenties, I am in a unique position to watch such dramas unfold. It is nice to tell ourselves that all women in North America are irredeemably corrupted, because that lets us slack on making ourselves better, more attractive, and more competent men.

    Boxer

  124. greyghost says:

    They are bad women by law. It is the legal shit I’m talking. I don’t like the idea of my well being coming from the grace of a bitch. That is my reason for using a surrogate avoiding marriage. Looking for the gold nugget is just impossible by law.

  125. MarcusD says:

    The Social Pathologist is back: socialpathology.blogspot.com

  126. Leila says:

    I’ve been married to my husband for 20 years. About 10 years ago I read Thomas More’s “The Soul of Sex”. A couple ideas struck me then as particularly true when it comes to marital sex and have gotten me through dry spells much better than the perky “The Lord Loves a Cheerful Giver” (which, true as it may be, is bound to provoke the occasional rebellion): First, if it takes one night of lovemaking to make a child, it might take more than a thousand nights of lovemaking to raise that child in a happy home. 2) Sex is an opus. In other words, all the individual instances of sex add up to something really majestic. All you have to do is trust the ritual, trust the magic that will happen if you fall to it. It’s not so hard, really.

  127. Bluepillprofessor says:

    @Dalrock: “many falsely assume that the only way women can be good is if they are lead to be good by their genitals. How you leaped from that to “Game is anti-biblical” is beyond me.”

    Thanks Dalrock, I stand corrected and understand why my post was frustrating. The record should reflect that Dalrock has done more than just about any other to bring game to marriages and beyond doubt this is true for Christian marriages. I conflated the use of hard dread (i.e. learning pickup artistry/making clear that you are capable and preparing to leave if the situation does not improve- which Dalrock opposes on biblical grounds) with game, which he obviously supports.

    That said we differ in my dimmer view of the sinful nature of men and women. Game is the way you lead women by the genitals and yes I believe that is the only way most- probably the vast majority- of women will be good and even more that many women will only be good if you have the hard Dread ready to serve.

    I also think only a small fraction of those 50% who stay married are ‘good.’

    Dalrock said: “you (BPP)have gone so far as to claim that divorce is the natural result of a man not being sufficiently dominant.”

    Divorce is not the only consequence of a man losing dominance. There are “marriages” that are worse than any divorce. My parents have not had sex in 30 years. They hate each other with a bitter, angry passion. My mother is CONSTANTLY sniping and snipping and complaining and bemoaning her life and CONSTANTLY belittling her husband in the rudest most personal terms possible. I could go on and on but it is ugly and I have not been “home” in 10 years myself.

    I am not limited to my parents sample. Years ago I worked as a legal investigator and interviewed more than 200 prospective divorce clients for my brother’s law firm- albeit when I was well and truly Blue Pill- but now I see! There was a clear and obvious pattern in almost every case of Frivorce where the wife was not haaaappppy (because her husband had lost dominance). Of course too much dominance and assholery is also not good. Several of the cases were abusive/alcoholic/criminal husbands- and go figure the pattern was different (it wasn’t that they were not haaappppy- they just couldn’t keep “doing this any more”). If the man loses dominance she will start to ration the sex, use it as a weapon, and in many cases eventually cut it off completely. Moreover, she will be so frustrated she will grow to hate him with every fiber of her being and do everything possible to make his life miserable. I am not saying AWALT, just 95% or so. That is why our society is imploding.

  128. jf12 says:

    @Leila,
    thanks, yes for precisely identifying the problem: trust. The woman’s refusal to love her husband sufficiently is irrefutable evidence that she cannot be trusted at all by him.

    I only read Moore’s articles here and there, not a book, but his lone consistent theme, the one iron string he considers to be the fundamental truth, is precisely what I consider the Great Lie: that every thing, including the refusal of love, can be viewed as an act of love. That the lack of actual sex can be viewed as having even more sex provided you redefine what sex is.

    My exposing the Great Lie should make it seem ugly. But it’s not my fault. And I could be wrong about Moore. Somehow.

  129. Novaseeker says:

    what would motivate a woman to agree to it? Does she just like the children (in reference to the above example)? Financial rewards? Company?

    All of that, plus the status of being married, which is a huge benefit in terms of intra-sex status among women ( you surely are aware of this, as a woman ).

  130. Pingback: Ebola Ethics and Mapp Biopharmaceutical « SD Rostra

  131. anonymous_ng says:

    @Cail wrote: I’m not a lawyer, but my understanding is that they can be useful in protecting pre-wedding wealth. A judge can still ignore it for that too, but he’s less likely to, because the woman signed that part knowing exactly what she was giving up. But most guys getting married don’t already have a lot of wealth to protect.

    I always figured that prenups are worthless because what you really want is a contract that is unconscionable. You want her to get screwed over in the event of a divorce.

    Incidentally, in at least one state, any increase in the value of non-marital assets is a marital asset.

    It would be interesting to see if a loss in value of a non-marital asset would be a basis for shifting the division of the remaining assets. HAH!! Fat chance.

    Lastly, I considered the idea of a foreign asset trust and basically owning nothing in the US, but it seems that judges take a dim view of them and are inclined to let you rot in jail for contempt until such time as you can persuade your trustee to pay out.

  132. Looking Glass says:

    Depending on the amount of money you have, there are ways around problems.

    http://www.ciu.gov.kn/

  133. Mark says:

    @IBB

    re:”Josephite Marriage”

    We have a similar type of marriage from a “Jewish” perspective. If your brother died you were expected to take his wife and kids as your own,and get her pregnant. I do not know if this is still in practice today as I have never heard of it.Only in the ancient Jewish culture was it practiced.

  134. Oscar says:

    @Boxer

    “I’m sure this will not go over well here…”

    When I made similar points, they went over like a plumbus dirigible.

  135. pre-nups? Sometimes they work with the judge, someimes they don’t. The judge will typically enforce them (much to a woman’s chagrin) if she is the one unilaterally deciding to divorce.

    Mark, gg, everyone, my friend only married her for the same reason Cinderella’s dad married Cinderella’s step-mother, just to make sure his two young daughter HAVE a mother to raise them. He also is trying to show his son how important marriage is and getting (and staying) married until death. I expect that they will remain married (albeit with no sex) until one or the other dies.

  136. Oscar says:

    @TFH

    “‘Feminism’, by definition, believes in zero-sum. They believe that a woman can be happy only if a man suffers, and one must first make a man suffer and then the happiness will automatically go to the woman.”

    All Leftist philosophies preach that life is a zero-sum game. They preach, for example, that if a person is wealthy, he/she must have stolen his/her wealth from someone else. It never occurs to them that one can become wealthy by enriching others’ lives.

    Likewise, it never occurs to them that demonstrating love to our loved ones is more satisfying than going on some futile quest of self-actualization.

  137. feeriker says:

    @Boxer

    Much appreciate you sharing your perspective.

    I think we are thinking at our best when we’re not demonizing “American Wimminz” as a whole. Falling into that trap is perfectly understandable, when so many of them act so abominably, but it isn’t accurate.

    I’m sure it won’t surprise you to hear that I must respectfully disagree. While even those of us who hold the most antipathy toward AWs will never be so reckless as to say that ALL of them represent the nadir of womanhood, a large enough majority of them do that our society has suffered for it, perhaps irreversibly. If such women were a minority (loud and highly visible though they might be), they would not only have no influence, but would be shunned and shamed by the rest of the majority (which they were – until they became the majority). That such visible and obvious shaming isn’t taking place on a society-wide scale means that to assume the best about AWs and to treat them accordingly is setting oneself up for disaster.

    I’ve actually met many girls who would make great wives for you marriage-minded bros, and I didn’t have to go to some third-world shithole to do it. If you’re really interested in marriageable women, date down to the younger girls who are sorta quiet and shy, and who aren’t flashing their tits at you for attention. There are actually a huge number of women who are basically ignored by the vast majority of men. They stay single until the day they get sick of being passed over, and then they start giving off marriage signals, at which time they are suddenly married up (usually by a very eligible chap, too) in short order.

    Come on now. If that were the case, the blogosphere would be overflowing with endorsements for these women from the thousands of men who married them, along with detailed maps as to where they can be found (Deti has already exploded this whole myth of marriageable women who can’t find a man, and I’m not going to waste time and space rehashing that here). Matter o’ fact, the manosphere wouldn’t be a fraction of the size that it now is if these women were even a significant, let alone the prevalent demographic of marriageable women in Amerika. I’ll just assume you’re having a little fun here at our expense (which is perfectly alright).

    Sure, some of these women might be frauds, but that’s on you brothers to check out her family and background before you buy that ring. And sure, twenty years hence she might suddenly morph into a total whore who steals money out of the joint checking account to fund her cocaine habit, but it doesn’t seem as likely as many make it out to be. Past performance actually is a pretty good indicator of future results (and I mean generationally: Look at her parents and grandparents.)

    Most “changes” in the typical AW aren’t as dramatic as a sweet, demure June Cleaver housewife and mom turning into a crack whore. Most “changes” are simply that same, sweet, demure June Cleaver housewife and mom becoming bored and unhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaappy and nuking her marriage because of it, knowing that her church, her social circle, and the law will back her up in her efforts all the way and allow her to make her hapless husband pay for her unhappiness/violation of her marriage vows. No background check is going to be able to predict that. Nor will her family history be an accurate indicator either. PLENTY of AWs who’ve blown up their families on a frivolous whim are daughters of stable, decades-married parents, but that doesn’t make them immune from the overwhelming toxicity of the current culture (I know you’re familiar with enough churchians [even of your ancestral Mormon culture] to know how all-pervasively true this is). Again, the contemporary Amerikan culture is simply too corrupt, too toxic, too dysfunctional, and too godless for any sensible, self-respecting American man to trust his future and wellbeing to it, especially when that culture arms and empowers his (prospective) wife at his expense.
    As a scroungy bottom-feeding bachelor who spends his workdays surrounded by kids in their late teens and early twenties, I am in a unique position to watch such dramas unfold. It is nice to tell ourselves that all women in North America are irredeemably corrupted, because that lets us slack on making ourselves better, more attractive, and more competent men.

    Again, NO ONE said that ALL AWs are irredeemably corrupted, just as not ALL West African prostitutes with whom one decides to have unprotected sex are infected with AIDS. But enough of them are that it makes the prospect of marriage to them a foolhardy undertaking. And while “making ourselves better, more attractive, and more competent” as men should certainly be our ultimate goal regardless of our marital prospects (or lack thereof), it does nothing to change the observable and easily provable fact that the majority of the women of our national culture are utterly undeserving of the benefits of said self-improvement in the form of a committed marital relationship.

  138. Divorce is not the only consequence of a man losing dominance. There are “marriages” that are worse than any divorce. My parents have not had sex in 30 years. They hate each other with a bitter, angry passion. My mother is CONSTANTLY sniping and snipping and complaining and bemoaning her life and CONSTANTLY belittling her husband in the rudest most personal terms possible. I could go on and on but it is ugly and I have not been “home” in 10 years myself.

    You just reminded me in one of the best scenes in C.S. Lewis’s “The Great Divorce”. A controlling wife is complaining to her (apparently) sister, Hilda, after learning her late husband John is in Heaven and she is not.

    She whines and whines about how unfair it is, because Hilda didn’t realize that everything good about John was because of HER. She managed his friends, pushed him into a “proper” career, bullied him into getting her the house she wanted, discouraged him from hobbies he liked, and generally made his life a living Hell because she believed it was “for his own good”…presumably.

    By the end of her monologue the mask slips and she reveals her genuine fear that in Hell there is nobody for her to control.

    Eventually she gets wildly angry at the unfairness that John has been let into Heaven and she hasn’t (despite the fact that this scene is all about convincing her to come into Heaven!).

    It ends with the memorable line that she “towered up like a dying candle flame, then snapped and disappeared. All that was left of her was a sour smell in the air”.*

    That’s all shrews are worth, in the end…a sour smell.

    *That’s a paraphrase, but “The Great Divorce” is my favorite book so I can promise you it’s pretty freaking close.

  139. MarcusD says:

    @Looking Glass

    I was actually just about to post the link myself.

    It’s one way of reducing the “cash and prizes.” If you’ve got more money stashed away (and you don’t want a certain someone to steal it), there are alternatives (such as Bulgaria, on the low end): http://www.forbes.com/sites/ceciliarodriguez/2014/03/17/for-150000-you-can-buy-bulgarian-eu-citizenship/

  140. Looking Glass says:

    You can also get an Aussie passport for $5 million, but, obviously, that’s a lot of money. Granted, having to live in St. Kitts & Nevis isn’t what I’d call terrible.

    As for Boxer’s point, I believe I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s worth repeating.

    If you harmonize enough research data, talking about the 30+ year old set of Women, you can come up with roughly 1 in 6 are “worth the risk of marrying” and 1 in 8 will make for a decent marriage. (16-17% & 12-13%, respectively) You’re basically comparing the likelihood of Divorce, then honing down to further likelihood of a “solid” marriage. Perfect numbers? Nope, nor am I claiming they are, but they give a good idea of your odds.

    It also helps focus the mind on the reality that there are “good women” out there, but they’re very hard to find. And, even the “good ones”, still carry a set of risks. But, that means that 4 in 6 guys simply aren’t going to get a “good woman” to marry. (About 1 in 6 Men won’t marry, don’t forget) So, 2/3rds of Men in the USA are, under the current legal system, screwed beyond all measure. It’s just a matter of how terribly.

    Obviously, that’s a set of numbers that casts a wide net and, frankly, the realm of “logically marriageable Women” is far smaller than the total population. But the reality is that it’s pretty terrible.

    And, let’s also never forget: this is explicitly about the *choices* Women make. They’ve made the choices to be horrible. Which means, in a lot of cases, it will cost them their souls. As a Christian, that might be the worst part of it all.

  141. Novaseeker says:

    Come on now. If that were the case, the blogosphere would be overflowing with endorsements for these women from the thousands of men who married them, along with detailed maps as to where they can be found (Deti has already exploded this whole myth of marriageable women who can’t find a man, and I’m not going to waste time and space rehashing that here). Matter o’ fact, the manosphere wouldn’t be a fraction of the size that it now is if these women were even a significant, let alone the prevalent demographic of marriageable women in Amerika. I’ll just assume you’re having a little fun here at our expense (which is perfectly alright).

    There are quite a few of such women, as Boxer says. In my experience, they are not the ones who are very attractive. Often they are of average attraction or a bit lower *and* don’t do much to make themselves stand out, so they do get overlooked. There are quite a few of these around, well into the 30s.

    The flipside of the SMP for women is that because so many women of all attraction levels give up sex relatively easily today (alphas in two minutes, regular guys after a few dates, etc.), the ones who aren’t interested in that get passed over quite quickly. I’ve known and met quite a few of such women.

    Now, if they wanted to not get passed over, they would “put out” (which is not Christian) and/or they would make themselves stand out more (maximize appearance, be more sociable/out there and so on), which would maximize their opportunities. But, even so, I’ve met quite a few women who, having done the things to “put themselves out there” ended up getting plenty of dating opportunities with men, for sure, but the men all wanted them to put out (even “Christian” men!!), so if they were not willing to do that, the whole thing crashes, and it goes back to square one.

    The sluttier women have wrecked the market for average looking and slightly below average looking women who want to be chaste and find a good marriageable guy, because many guys, even Christian ones, won’t bother with them. They will attend singles group and all try for the single mom divorcee who is a hottie HB8, or the never married kind of born again virgin who is an HB7, but the nice plain jane 4s and 5s are not pursued, especially if it is assumed that they will not put out. This is, unfortunately, very common behavior and is denied in large part by the sphere, probably because these girls are mostly off the radar screen, and guys have higher attraction floors than they are willing to admit.

    I remember there was one poster over at SSMs, can’t remember his handle (grey something … not remembering), who openly admitted that one of the reasons he didn’t marry until he was much older was because he didn’t want to marry an average or slightly below looking chaste church girl, but was holding out for someone he thought was “his level” while also being chaste. This is not that uncommon, believe me — I’ve met many women in this situation.

  142. greyghost says:

    Just step around and go it alone

    http://www.caresurrogacygeorgia.com/

    http://news.yahoo.com/via-surrogacy-men-opt-become-single-dads-182314847.html

    This is why I have become indifferent to gay marriage. Marriage is to legitimize a child as part of a civilized society. Surrogacy will grow into an industry “too big to fail” when the male productivity is directed at it’s true goal of raising and protecting his children. You ladies are on your own.

  143. greyghost says:

    That “grey” something novaseeker is talking about was not me

  144. jf12 says:

    @feeriker re: “not ALL West African prostitutes … are infected with AIDS”

    Lessee, NAWAPAIWA. An important fact to keep in mind. One should bring it up in almost every post.

  145. The sluttier women have wrecked the market for average looking and slightly below average looking women who want to be chaste and find a good marriageable guy

    Even for the attractive ones, and that’s the case whether the man is looking to get laid or not. A guy soon learns that girls under 30 or so A) do not want to get married, and B) are far easier to get into bed than into a serious relationship. So even the marriage-minded man looks at the landscape and says, “Okay, if I want to get married, here’s what I apparently have to do: keep my mouth shut about that, ask girls out until sparks fly and one sleeps with me, and then try to settle quietly into a ‘relationship’ until she starts thinking marriage.”

    The drum I keep beating is: men will do what it takes to get sex, preferably regular sex that’s as exclusive as possible. With most girls in their 20s these days, you’re more likely to get that by gaming them into bed on the second date and letting things fall into a shack-up relationship than by trying to marry them. The relationship may not last forever, but there will be a reasonable expectation of exclusivity while it does, and 50% of marriages don’t last forever either, so…

    So now that most girls do want sex and relationships but don’t want to get married; and men, as always, are responding to the requirements women are setting as the gatekeepers of sex; we have a situation where the minority of marriage-minded men and women can’t find each other. Even if they do, they’re not likely to be able to tell each other so, because they’re both afraid to utter the M-word.

    The traditional script was that a man approached a woman he wanted to have sex with, and she kept the sexual gate closed until things got pretty serious, if not all the way to marriage. He knew marriage was the key to her lock, so if she was receptive to his advances, the next step was to propose marriage. The good, marriage-minded girls are still trying to follow that script, but they have no way to tell the guys that. If the typical girl is still stopping a guy at first base by the third date, it means she’s not into him that way and is trying to make him a beta orbiter or just enjoying the free dinners. A guy can’t tell that when this particular girl does it it means, “Ask me out again and keep trying; I wouldn’t keep saying yes if I weren’t interested.”

  146. jf12 says:

    @malcomthecynic, the Grace Builders get their reward.

  147. jf12 says:

    @Cail re: “A guy can’t tell that when this particular girl does it it means” … anything.

    This is the fault of women not bearing sufficient agency, and demanding enough ambiguity to plausibly deny … anything … at every step. As if Sleeping Beauty keeps one eye cracked and a finger on a hidden button to allow select princes access.

  148. Novaseeker says:

    That “grey” something novaseeker is talking about was not me

    No, it was not you.

  149. greyghost says:

    Cail
    That dynamic is a cultural one that the society needs to change. Marriage is not permanent so the shackup and the pull out is the way to go. As long as she isn’t pregnant just get you another one when she bails out. To get rid of her tell her how much you love her and be needing of her. She’ll be in the sack with one of your buddies in no time. All fully encouraged and indorsed by culture law and the church.

  150. Novaseeker says:

    we have a situation where the minority of marriage-minded men and women can’t find each other. Even if they do, they’re not likely to be able to tell each other so, because they’re both afraid to utter the M-word.

    The traditional script was that a man approached a woman he wanted to have sex with, and she kept the sexual gate closed until things got pretty serious, if not all the way to marriage. He knew marriage was the key to her lock, so if she was receptive to his advances, the next step was to propose marriage. The good, marriage-minded girls are still trying to follow that script, but they have no way to tell the guys that. If the typical girl is still stopping a guy at first base by the third date, it means she’s not into him that way and is trying to make him a beta orbiter or just enjoying the free dinners. A guy can’t tell that when this particular girl does it it means, “Ask me out again and keep trying; I wouldn’t keep saying yes if I weren’t interested.”

    Yes, this is also quite true. The script is messed up, so it’s hard for people who want to follow it to actually do so — the cues are missing or misinterpreted.

  151. Oh, and the converse of that is the guy who tries to follow the traditional script by being a “gentleman” and trying to wait for sex. Girls get offended when he turns down their goodies, decide he must not be interested (or is gay), or begin to see him as un-masculine because he seems indecisive and weak compared to the norm.

  152. deti says:

    Nova, Boxer, feeriker:

    Re: average to below average women, chastity and marriage.

    It might be a function of regional preferences/conduct, then. Nova knew a lot of chaste Christian women of average to slightly below average range (probably the 4s and 5s) who were shut out of the market because they were holding out for marriage and didn’t want to put out, and they were disadvantaged because they weren’t all that attractive and wouldn’t put out before marriage. That might be the case on the Eastern seaboard, I don’t know.

    But, this notion of there being a glut, a market inefficiency, of Christian girls who are utterly unable to get anything at all, can’t get any interest at all; are completely shut out of the market because they won’t put out – I’m not seeing it. This notion that there’s an underserved bumper crop of average chaste Christian women who are just DYING to get married, they don’t fit into the market anywhere, and the market is completely unable to serve them? I’m not seeing it. There might be a few here and there; but a significant number? No, I haven’t seen this in my neck of the woods in Mid-America.

    In the Midwest and based on my experience, the girls who fit this description? They get married, albeit to men who were their rough assortative peers or even a little lower. They weren’t always happy about that either, because they knew they were getting the less desirable, less attractive men. Some of them got burned a couple of times with a boyfriend or two who didn’t work out. Some of them got divorced; and eventually remarried. I will agree that nearly all the Christian men wanted them to put out; and those girls resisted, and held out for what they wanted.

    Another issue here is that these average to slightly below average women, these 4s and 5s, don’t want the chaste Christian men who are themselves virgins and are waiting until marriage. They don’t want Charlie Choirboy or Carl Church Committeeman, because those guys aren’t attractive to them. The HB4 and HB5s want male 8s, 9s and 10s just like their more attractive counterparts. They routinely turned up their noses at Charlie and Carl, until they couldn’t anymore. They married the chaste Christian men only because those were the only men left and the only men available to them. . If anything, they shut themselves out of the market by ignoring and rejecting their obvious male counterparts.

  153. deti says:

    I agree the dynamic is as Nova and Cail describe. I disagree only as to the apparent number of women affected by it and the extensiveness of this particular SMP problem. I agree it’s a problem; I just don’t think it’s as extensive a problem as Nova does.

  154. Novaseeker says:

    Well, it may be geographic, who knows. What opened my eyes to it was my GF. She’s a 4, on the looks scale. Before meeting me, she had a lot of dating opportunities, online and elsewhere (we know that’s the case for women), but the men wanted sex, even Christian men. She is chaste, so no go. After getting to know her, I became acquainted with her circle of friends, and there are quite a few of them, all in the same general looks area, who have never been married and are chaste. I am almost certain these are women whom I otherwise never would have seen (because they no longer bother to put themselves out there), or if I did I likely would not have noticed. But they are there, and they are in churches every week. These are not women who want male 8s and 9s, they’re women who date normal guys and then push them away once they push for extramarital sex.

    Of course, there are plenty of women in that looks range who *are* married, but they also tend to compromise a bit (or more) on the Christian bit, and the chastity bit, or both, to get there. Otherwise, from what I have seen, it’s a tough road.

  155. jbro1922 says:

    Novaseeker, et al regarding marriage minded women who are passed over

    Yes, that definitely resonates. I’ve taken to just being brutally honest. Just tell the guy you want to get married. I usually ask a guy what type, if any, relationship he is interested in. I understand all the “don’t say marriage” pressure, but someone has to do it.

  156. jf12 says:

    @deti re: “I’m not seeing it.”

    I’ve *never* seen it, either. The “average to slightly below average” girls have all been pushing “average to slightly below average” guys away for *years*. Years and years and years, usually. In fact, I’ll say it: almost always the reason a girl is overlooked by men is because she is deliberately trying not to be seen by men precisely so “average to slightly below average” men will not think she might be open to them and keep bothering her.

    For some reason it *never* dawns on *any* woman that to hide from unattractive men requires her to be even more invisible to attractive men. This idea is the reverse to the obverse idea that her trying to make herself be seen by attractive men makes her be seen even more to unattractive men.

  157. greyghost says:

    jf12 you have nailed it. That is how it works

  158. Deti, I haven’t actually seen it either; I’m speaking theoretically as to how I can see it could happen because the general sluttiness has broken the traditional script. I’m working on a long post for my blog about that, so I won’t get into it all here. But I think what happens with women reporting here that they (or their daughters, as Elspeth has reported) don’t get marriage interest is that women who show up here are special flowers. A normal woman isn’t going to show up on this blog or make it past the first couple paragraphs. If she makes it to the bottom of the page, she’ll be too freaked out to write a coherent comment. So women who post here are atypical by definition. I don’t mean that in a negative way; they may be better than other women. But they’re different in some significant way. Maybe that difference worked against them in today’s dating/marriage marketplace.

    The other thing is that the Internet makes it easy for the “weird” to find other people who are “weird” in the same way. The down-side to that is that you can start to feel like your “weird” online friends are more common than they really are. If a dozen women show up here claiming that they have hot bods and long hair and spent their 20s walking around in dresses and high heels with a tray of warm cookies and a sign that said “Wife in training” and couldn’t get married, they might be telling the truth. They might also be the only ones. It would be a mistake to assume they’re anywhere near as common in real life as they are here. Neither you nor I have known one in real life, and we’ve surely known more women than have commented here, so you have to consider the sample size.

    So no, I don’t think we have a societal problem with non-hideous marriage-minded girls becoming spinsters through no fault of their own. The current problem is very simple: girls are delaying marriage in favor of keeping their options open for fun and adventure, so they’re spending their 20s in “relationships” that include sex and pushing away any guy who tries to get serious, and men are going along for that ride. But for the sake of that rare girl like Isa’s younger self — or just for the sake of argument — I’m willing to take her story at face value and discuss what she could do to improve her chances of a good marriage.

  159. @boxer

    In the old Testiment There is also a prohibition against sodomy, and one against having sex when the wife is on her period. Jesus instructs people not to sin sexually. How would people know what are sexual sins? Well, they had the old testament to guide them.

  160. @novaseeker

    Another aspect of the problem, is how do you know the difference between women who are chaste, and women who are “chaste” now that they’ve ridden the carousel, and are just going to lie about sleeping around, now that they’ve chosen to go to the Sunday Morning night club?

    Further, even if you assume a guy would be interested in marrying a chaste helpmeet over a bombshell, given no threat of divorce… chastity is no guarantee of her either being a helpmeet, or not ruining you in divorce.

    1st Corinthians, man. No marriage for me, and thus no sex.

  161. Boxer says:

    Dear Freeriker:

    Thanks for such a well reasoned rebuttal. Please see below…

    I’m sure it won’t surprise you to hear that I must respectfully disagree. While even those of us who hold the most antipathy toward AWs will never be so reckless as to say that ALL of them represent the nadir of womanhood, a large enough majority of them do that our society has suffered for it, perhaps irreversibly.

    No disagreement there.

    If such women were a minority (loud and highly visible though they might be), they would not only have no influence, but would be shunned and shamed by the rest of the majority (which they were – until they became the majority). That such visible and obvious shaming isn’t taking place on a society-wide scale means that to assume the best about AWs and to treat them accordingly is setting oneself up for disaster.

    Nowhere did I advocate that men “assume the best” about any population. My reply was simply to counter the overwhelming (and understandable) nihilism that I don’t find any empirical support for.

    If that were the case, the blogosphere would be overflowing with endorsements for these women from the thousands of men who married them, along with detailed maps as to where they can be found (Deti has already exploded this whole myth of marriageable women who can’t find a man, and I’m not going to waste time and space rehashing that here).

    People with happy marriages tend not to overflow the blogosphere for a few different reasons. The nihilism is surely off-putting to them. They are busy hanging out with their spouses and kids. I hope we can agree that blogs like Dalrock appeal to a few specific populations, most notably social critics and men who have been screwed in divorces or breakups. These people are generally not the guys and gals that somehow make things work in relationships, through luck or foresight.

    Matter o’ fact, the manosphere wouldn’t be a fraction of the size that it now is if these women were even a significant, let alone the prevalent demographic of marriageable women in Amerika. I’ll just assume you’re having a little fun here at our expense (which is perfectly alright).

    We certainly disagree here. The manosphere has a very small (but necessary) footprint. I would guess that there are no more than a few thousand people who write or regularly read it. That is growing, I think, but it’s nowhere near the overwhelming powerhouse that you’re making it out to be.

    I’m not trolling, by the way. I don’t do that here, and I resent the implicit accusation. I’m just disagreeing with the popular sentiment that “All [or the vast majority of] American women are… [unfaithful whores, etc.]”

    Most “changes” in the typical AW aren’t as dramatic as a sweet, demure June Cleaver housewife and mom turning into a crack whore. Most “changes” are simply that same, sweet, demure June Cleaver housewife and mom becoming bored and unhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaappy and nuking her marriage because of it, knowing that her church, her social circle, and the law will back her up in her efforts all the way and allow her to make her hapless husband pay for her unhappiness/violation of her marriage vows.

    Well, I have no plans to marry anyone, and this is part of the reason, so clearly we’re on the same page. The illumination of this part of the discourse is what makes the content at Dalrock so interesting. Outside of this one blog, it’s largely untheorized.

    No background check is going to be able to predict that. Nor will her family history be an accurate indicator either.

    You’re wrong. There are plenty of statistics, right here on this blog, which will help the prospective suitor make an educated guess about the likelihood of marriagability of a woman, based upon her family situation and personal history.

    PLENTY of AWs who’ve blown up their families on a frivolous whim are daughters of stable, decades-married parents, but that doesn’t make them immune from the overwhelming toxicity of the current culture (I know you’re familiar with enough churchians [even of your ancestral Mormon culture] to know how all-pervasively true this is). Again, the contemporary Amerikan culture is simply too corrupt, too toxic, too dysfunctional, and too godless for any sensible, self-respecting American man to trust his future and wellbeing to it, especially when that culture arms and empowers his (prospective) wife at his expense.

    I am sorry that you’ve come to that conclusion, because I did too, at a young age. I do think the risks are too high for me, but I don’t think every prospective marriage (or even a large majority of them) are doomed to misery and divorce.

    At the beginning of my article, I specifically dedicated it to marriage minded guys. There are men who get married and do well in this society. It is something of a gamble, but my romantic soul is glad to see them taking it. I would just prefer they chose from the pool of girls who are serious, rather than wifing up the first skank who drops her panties (which, in my experience, is dreadfully common).

    Regards, Boxer

  162. solitude says:

    I doubt its a coincidence that soon after the viral sex spreadsheet this article now exists: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/meg-conley/five-reasons-you-should-h_b_5647291.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000063

    In fact, it is the same woman I see on the internet posting both articles. I’m perplexed. This self-identified feminist is actually making sense. I think her article and video interview really demonstrate how frigidity is not only ugly but an expression of a woman thinking of herself as ugly.
    Furthermore, it seems having sex everyday has made her more aware of masculinity/femininity differences and more capable of understanding her husbands needs.

    Maybe the spreadsheet guy’s actions were beta in the marriage but they caused serious unease in the establishment. That’s what i call some meta game.

  163. @boxer
    “You’re wrong. There are plenty of statistics, right here on this blog, which will help the prospective suitor make an educated guess about the likelihood of marriagability of a woman, based upon her family situation and personal history.”

    What combination of verifiable information can a man use to pass the standard statistical 95% confidence interval? If that does not exist, I would say that we are lacking sufficient prediction capabilities to say who will be a good wife.

  164. Boxer says:

    What combination of verifiable information can a man use to pass the standard statistical 95% confidence interval? If that does not exist, I would say that we are lacking sufficient prediction capabilities to say who will be a good wife.

    It took me a whole five seconds to pull this article. Intelligence/education as predictor of future divorce, based on contemporary samples:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/whistling-through-the-graveyard/

    Furthermore, if you’re holding out for a 95% confidence, then you’re realistically better off just being like me. Have sex when you want to with the large minority of women who are thoroughly ruined, and never get married. It’s not the optimal life by societal standards, and not the ideal life by mine, but one gets his needs met and gets along OK.

    The marriage minded bros here are the ideological descendants of guerrilla fighters, innovators and world-changers. I am not among them, but I admire them, and I’m writing to them, in hopes that they can see the big picture.

    Best, Boxer

  165. feeriker says:

    “You’re wrong. There are plenty of statistics, right here on this blog, which will help the prospective suitor make an educated guess about the likelihood of marriagability of a woman, based upon her family situation and personal history.”

    I should have mentioned earlier that while Boxer is absolutely correct with this statement, the risk to American men comes in the aftermath of a frivorce decision by an American wife.

    By no means is there an absolute guarantee that even the most suitable Christian wife won’t turn and frivorce her husband. I don’t think any man with a mental age above 10 expects or believes that anyway. The problem is the existence of Marriage 2.0 and no[his]-fault divorce. Without this extra-legal blight on the Amerikan landscape, the worst that any man could expect to happen should his wife become unhaaaaaaaappy and bail would be possibly a civil lawsuit in which she would be unable to prove just legal grounds for divorce and would therefore walk away with nothing but a bill for legal fees (and any property she brought to the marriage) if she really was determined to go through with it. The only loss the husband would sustain would be the loss of a wife (and would it really be a loss if her unhaaaaaappiness turned her into a bitchy, frigid shrew?).

    With Marriage 2.0 and [his]-fault divorce omnipresent, the married American man has a legal Sword of Damocles hanging over his head at all times (or perhaps the more accurate metaphor is a loaded shotgun pointed at his temple). No matter how remote the odds are of his sweet, demure, submissive Christian wife going EPL on him, should she choose to do so, she can and probably will RUIN him. Without Marriage 2.0 and [his]-fault divorce, her leaving him would be a minor annoyance/inconvenience, as she would lack the legal firepower to make it anything stronger. But since these weapons have essentially been issued to every American female from birth, for their own “defense” whenever they think they’ll need them at any point in their lives, this has made marriage to them an untenable proposition for any self-respecting man who values what he has built up in life (to say nothing of his offspring). THIS is the point I’ve been attempting to drive home.

  166. joshtheaspie says:

    @Boxer
    “It took me a whole five seconds to pull this article. Intelligence/education as predictor of future divorce, based on contemporary samples:”

    I think that some disagreement comes from a difference in how various people are using the word “predict”. You are correct that there are very statistics you can look at, where if someone falls in a given category, their chances are higher or lower of getting a divorce Another, is that couples that go to church every week have a 30% divorce rate, which may be cause and effect, or both may be indicators of the ability to stick with something they have committed to.

    There is a similar case with having obtained a college degree — in which case harder to obtain degrees would have better predictive value, both on the intelligence, and dedication angles.

    However, another common use of the word is synonymous with the ability to reliably determine the future. In which case, you need some form of confidence interval. In that case, the standard 95% confidence interval is probably the best to go with.

    In that sense, I think we are agreed that there is no known combination of verifiable data that can achieve this level of reliability.

    Also, I’ve chosen a life of chastity. No marriage, no sex.

  167. MarcusD says:

    Oh, Chastity Is Too Hard? Man Up! (and the one for females doesn’t exist)

    http://www.chastity.com/article/oh-chastity-is-too-hard-man-up

  168. Leila says:

    @jf12
    I’m not sure I follow you. You engage in the ritual of marital sex with the person you love, even if on that particular day you have been annoyed with each other. The overarching love trumps the daily complaints, pettiness and difficulties of living with the opposite half of the universe. You can call it the “glue”, I suppose. Enough glue and at the end of life you have an opus.

    No one is withholding anything. Are you married?

  169. Boxer says:

    Dear Josh:

    However, another common use of the word is synonymous with the ability to reliably determine the future. In which case, you need some form of confidence interval. In that case, the standard 95% confidence interval is probably the best to go with.

    I have a BA in pure mathematics, and it required a few statistics courses (originally I was going to minor in math, but I had done so much of it, that it was only nine extra months to finish up the dual degree). Going in, I thought STAT courses would be similar to the physics classes, I enjoyed (not really math, but close, and lots of mathy stuff all around).

    I am old enough to admit that I hit my limit with those STAT classes. I sucked. They almost ruined me. They’re the only C grades on my transcript, and I busted my ass to get them. Confidence coefficients are something I dimly remember hearing about, but admittedly don’t understand. I’ll trust your judgment on the matter.

    Admire your ability to be celibate, by the way. That’s not my ideal life either, but it is closer, and would have saved me a lot of headaches (and heartache) if I had had the fortitude to embrace that discipline.

    Regards, Boxer

  170. greyghost says:

    By law of misandry there really is no wife. And women wouldn’t have it any other way

  171. JDG says:

    he didn’t marry until he was much older was because he didn’t want to marry an average or slightly below looking chaste church girl, but was holding out for someone he thought was “his level” while also being chaste. This is not that uncommon, believe me — I’ve met many women in this situation.

    I have not seen this. I say this as a married man with no dog in the fight. Rather what I see is most of the marriage age girls in my sphere of influence (especially the pretty ones) want to put off marriage and go to school. All (every single one) of the girls that I know who want to get married (no matter how obese or unattractive) have found guys who will marry them. This is the pattern I have witnessed over the last 17 years or so.

  172. anonymous_ng says:

    Cail – Deti, I haven’t actually seen it either; I’m speaking theoretically as to how I can see it could happen because the general sluttiness has broken the traditional script.

    Here is an anecdote pretending to be data:

    My eldest just graduated from high school. This last Spring, around half of the girls came to school with the bottom curve of their ass hanging out of their booty shorts. This is at an UMC college preparatory high school, but half the girls still dress like sluts.

    My ex and I are pretty unified on how to raise the kids despite our divorce. My eldest was given certain standards of modesty in dress and then allowed the freedom to dress as she wanted within those parameters. I let her know from the beginning that I was providing her a cell phone for my convenience, and that I reserved the right to go through her text messages and pictures etc at any time with no warning. Lastly, from a young age, I explained that dating wasn’t supposed to be a trial marriage, but was instead to evaluate someone as a potential spouse.

    The result of all this is that in comparison to her contemporaries, my daughter while thin and reasonably attractive doesn’t give off the same signals as her counterparts and as a result doesn’t get much attention.

    She’s smart enough to see that she’s missing out on a good bit of drama that comes from immature relationships, aware enough to understand that in some ways what she wants is the attention and not necessarily a relationship, but young enough to still want that attention.

    It will be interesting to see how things play out at the university. At least living at home, her mother and I can exert some influence versus being thrown off the cliff into the dorms.

  173. greyghost says:

    solitude
    I guess what the ameriskank needs is dread on a national scale. Wicked selfishness rules the vagina

  174. JDG says:

    Another issue here is that these average to slightly below average women, these 4s and 5s, don’t want the chaste Christian men who are themselves virgins and are waiting until marriage. They don’t want Charlie Choirboy or Carl Church Committeeman, because those guys aren’t attractive to them. The HB4 and HB5s want male 8s, 9s and 10s just like their more attractive counterparts. … They married the chaste Christian men only because those were the only men left and the only men available to them.

    This fits better with what I have observed. One girl who is approaching 100 pounds over weight didn’t get married until after she was pregnant and held accountable by members of the congregation. The guy she married (I’m pretty sure he is the father of the child) is at least 3 points above her in the SMV.

    I know another couple where the woman is probably a 3 or below (not exaggerating). Her husband is probably a 6 or 7 in looks, but is very timid. Another couple where both have fairly good looking faces has the wife at 40 pounds or more over weight, and the husband is recently out of boot camp and physically fit. I see a lot of these kind of match ups. I can’t actually think of one where the man has a lower SMV than the woman, though I may if I try hard enough.

  175. JDG says:

    By law of misandry there really is no wife. And women wouldn’t have it any other way

    Boom! Right on target and great insight. Marriage 2.0 by law has no wife, and so is not really a marriage at all. It’s just a legal contract between a man, a woman, and the state. The state, of course, is the dominate partner and does not recognize God.

  176. Boxer says:

    I know another couple where the woman is probably a 3 or below (not exaggerating). Her husband is probably a 6 or 7 in looks, but is very timid. Another couple where both have fairly good looking faces has the wife at 40 pounds or more over weight, and the husband is recently out of boot camp and physically fit. I see a lot of these kind of match ups. I can’t actually think of one where the man has a lower SMV than the woman, though I may if I try hard enough.

    I see these too, and part of my original point was in support of the marriage minded brothers, and younger brothers who are at least open to marriage. Too often I see these guys court the mousy chemistry major for a few weeks, until the slutty blonde with the hot ass suddenly misses her beta orbiter, and drops her panties for him. Women (at least the young ones) love to exercise their sexual power — not only over men, but also over other women who are in the process of siphoning off the attention the sluts previously enjoyed.

    Of course, you’ll have short-term fun with the hot ho’ who suddenly throws you some sex, but the mousy girl who dresses modestly and minds her business would have been a much better wife, and once you bang the slut, she’s not going to be available any more for marriage (marriage minded women don’t usually fall for the “taming the playa” trope).

    Hell, this shit was known 1900 years ago.

    While you’re still free, and can roam on a loose rein,
    pick one to whom you could say: ‘You alone please me.’
    She won’t come falling for you out of thin air:
    the right girl has to be searched for: use your eyes.
    The hunter knows where to spread nets for the stag,
    he knows what valleys hide the angry boar:
    the wild-fowler knows the woods: the fisherman
    knows the waters where the most fish spawn:
    You too, who search for the essence of lasting love,
    must be taught the places that the girls frequent.

    http://poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/Latin/ArtofLoveBkI.htm

  177. Since getting involved in a very traditional church a few years ago, I’ve met some women who married young, and had that as their goal which they pursued with a plan. Every one of them found a husband pretty quickly; good ones who appear to lead their families well and make a good enough living to support a large family (though many of the wives have small home businesses to contribute). I’m sure their lives aren’t perfect, but they’re doing well.

    Before meeting them, I’d never known a girl who openly wanted to get married. Not one. Mostly what I heard was (and I’m sure many guys will nod along with me here): “I’m not ready to get serious yet. I don’t even know who I am or what I want in life. I need to travel/study/experience/find myself first before I get tied down.” I knew from my grandparents’ stories that it was different in their time, but in my young adulthood, I never met a single girl who declared any desire for marriage. Most were outspoken in their opposition to it, at least until “someday.” Others subtly dodged the idea. (And it’s not just that they didn’t want to marry me; they turned their noses up at the idea in general.) So if there were girls pining for marriage before 29, they either kept it to themselves very well, or they got married so quickly right out of high school that I never got a chance to meet them single.

  178. Boxer says:

    I can’t actually think of one where the man has a lower SMV than the woman, though I may if I try hard enough.

    It is common for us to conflate SMV with marital value. These men who got married may well have judged their women on some different standards. Is she capable of being faithful? Does she have a proven track record of loyalty? Does she bash her parents verbally? Are her parents and grandparents stable and disapproving of divorce?

    I would argue that if a woman scores highly on these qualities, then she should be considered. Of course, she shouldn’t be physically repulsive, but if she’s plain or unflashy, then I think she should be seen as a good bet. Ten years down the road, all the flashy, slutty girls will likely look worse (hard living does that to a body) than she will anyway.

    Boxer

  179. joshtheaspie says:

    @Boxer

    Thank you. I’ve studied and enjoyed statistics and reliability theory, as well as pure mathematics (proofs, etc). And a life of celibacy was not easy at first, but has gotten easier.

    Regarding statistics:

    The 95% confidence interval is a short hand way of saying that “under these assumptions, 95% of the time, our results will be in this specified range”. This is used as the common/accepted statistical level of confidence that something is “true enough to rely on” until we can prove it one way or the other. There are looser intervals (90%), and tighter ones (99%+), depending on the required level of confidence that the results will fall within the interval (thus, confidence interval).

    For the same distribution, to make a statement with increased reliability, you will need to widen the interval in which you say the results will fall.

    For example, in order to ensure that a larger X percentage of people have an IQ between 100-Y and 100+Y, you need to make your Y bigger, to ensure that a larger proportion of people (X) fall in that interval.

    Alternatively, you change the distribution, but keep the interval the same. One way to change the distribution is to narrow the population under consideration by adding more and more restrictive constraints.

    For example, the higher the level of education in the sciences you consider (high school, associates, BS, masters, PhD, post-doctoral), the larger the percentage of people that will have an IQ over 120.

    So in order to ensure that your restricted population has a 95% chance of not getting divorced, you need to apply more and more restrictive conditions on inclusion in that population. Both spouses must have at least a B.S. in a non-grievance study, for example. Neither has had pre-marital sex, for another example (an N of 0). But an N of 0 is not data you can reliably verify, so it’s not one you can use to reliably choose your population of consideration.

  180. JDG says:

    I would argue that if a woman scores highly on these qualities, then she should be considered.

    Absolutely. I would even say that many men do this, while many women do not.

  181. jf12 says:

    @solitude,
    Conley’s admirable intentions paved a thin veneer over her husband’s road to … dissatisfaction. She is discussing an experiment they did in 2012 wherein they “made time for sex” “almost every day” “for nearly a month”.

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/03/frigidity-and-power/#comment-135008

    They did not have sex every day, and apparently 15 minutes of cuddling “counted” anyway.

    And then when the allotted month was out she heaved a huge sigh of relief, “Glad that’s over!”

  182. Of course, you’ll have short-term fun with the hot ho’ who suddenly throws you some sex, but the mousy girl who dresses modestly and minds her business would have been a much better wife,

    That’s true, but in my experience, the mousy ones didn’t want to get married either. Their reasons might have been different — school and travel rather than parties and carouseling — but they were just as uninterested in marriage. I don’t know if they were holding out for an unrealistic alpha, or had internalized the “a woman’s life ends at marriage” meme of feminism, but the result was the same. Lots of guys thought of the strategy of going for the quiet girl, especially guys who were shy or awkward themselves, and it didn’t work any better than chasing the hot chick would have.

    It’s possible that that’s changing; I grew up and started dating in the late 80s and into the 90s, right into the teeth of the girls who were raised by the hard-core “fish-bicycle” feminists of the 60s. Some of their own daughters may be reacting in the opposite direction. That would be a good thing.

  183. jf12 says:

    @Leila, re: “No one is withholding anything.”

    That would be great if true. But statistics say almost all wives withhold most days.

    Yes, I am quite married.

  184. jf12 says:

    @Cail, re: “in my experience, the mousy ones didn’t want to get married either.”

    Correct.

    “It’s possible that that’s changing”

    No. The mousy ones tend to want to want to get married at some point, but do not currently have the desire.

  185. anonymous_ng says:

    That’s true, but in my experience, the mousy ones didn’t want to get married either. Their reasons might have been different — school and travel rather than parties and carouseling — but they were just as uninterested in marriage.

    Yep.

  186. JDG says:

    joshtheaspie says:
    August 7, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    Where were you when I was embarrassing myself with divorce stats a few threads ago?

  187. donalgraeme says:

    No. The mousy ones tend to want to want to get married at some point, but do not currently have the desire.

    That is my experience as well. I wrote some time back about one such mousy girl. Average looks (so about a 6-6.5 or s), thin, good personality and character. We meshed well, shared a lot of interests, and she was, from everything I could tell, not a Churchian. But she wanted to wait almost a decade before marrying.

    Lets be real, they mostly don’t want to marry. And many of us around these parts have explained in part why.

  188. joshtheaspie says:

    @JDG:
    “Where were you when I was embarrassing myself with divorce stats a few threads ago?”

    Probably working, or sick.

  189. JDG says:

    Even after I explain the realities of their ticking biological clock, they still want to wait. Women are being programmed to sabotage reproduction.

  190. donalgraeme says:

    JDG, I did the same thing- explained biological reality. She still didn’t get it, or more likely, refused to believe reality.

  191. johnmcg says:

    Great Books,

    The version of the Parable of the Prodigal Son in my Bible doesn’t include the father mocking his son for his leaving and previous sin.

    It’s possible that this post signifies some movement from Dalrock towards your (and, in fact, my) preferred position. It seems like this should be an occasion for encouragement rather than mocking and rubbing his face in his previous writings.

  192. theasdgamer says:

    @ jf12

    And then when the allotted month was out she heaved a huge sigh of relief, “Glad that’s over!”

    Even cuddling can be a drag when it gets in the way of posting selfies on fb and playing with cats on the sofa.

  193. theasdgamer says:

    Da GBFM’s Bible has cut out the Song of Solomon, which teaches Righteous Game.

  194. theasdgamer says:

    @ Josh the Aspie

    Glad to encounter a fellow autist.

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

    dear johnmcg,

    you write, “Great Books,

    The version of the Parable of the Prodigal Son in my Bible doesn’t include the father mocking his son for his leaving and previous sin.

    It’s possible that this post signifies some movement from Dalrock towards your (and, in fact, my) preferred position. It seems like this should be an occasion for encouragement rather than mocking and rubbing his face in his previous writings.”

    dear johnmcg,

    It is not every day dat da GBFM hires out BOTH the Mormon Tabernaclez Choir AND Carrie Underwood for a celebration.

    I always knew dat da GBFM could win over Dalrockasz–I just didn’t know it would take two years!

    Enjoy the celebrations! Welcome home prodigal son!!

    No longer must we sing:
    “AND DALROCK SHALL GAME FOREVER AND EVVV-ERRRRR LZOZZLZOZOZOZOOZ
    GAMER OF GAMERS, AND BRO OF BROS! LZOZOZLZLZOOZLZZLZOL”

    but now we can sing hahahllelelujahhshsz!!!

    But now we can sing AMAZING GRACE!!!!

    da GBFM lzlzozolzlozolzlo

  196. Oscar says:

    Reading all these comments makes me wonder how I managed to marry my wife when she was 22 ten years ago. Or how my brother managed to marry his 24-year-old bride four years ago. Or how my 20-year-old nephew managed to marry his 18-year-old bride last month.

    Seriously, where do you all live that finding a young woman who’s interested in marriage seems impossible to you?

  197. Oscar, in the Midwest USA, in small towns and smaller cities.

    Of course, we’re not saying it’s impossible. Did we forget to NAWALT often enough? As I disclaimed in my last comment, I didn’t start trying to date until college, so the really marriage-minded snowflakes may have been taken by then. Maybe I should have been hanging out at the high schools. I was dealing with college girls at first, and then after I dropped out and went to work, “career” girls in their 20s. Also, as I pointed out, I now belong to a church where early marriage is considered a good thing, so I know it’s possible.

    But those are outliers. My little church is about 0.5% of the town population. Say there’s an equally traditional Protestant church in town, and there are a few Amish families in the area, that might get us up to a full 1% of people who think that way. Pretty much everyone in the other 99% thinks girls should delay marriage until after college and degree and several years of building a career and getting to know themselves — and their parents are often the most strident in that belief. That’s the mainstream, what you’re going to get from girls you meet from bars to libraries. Your exceptions and mine don’t change that.

    I’m not claiming such girls don’t exist, or that it’s impossible to find them in the haystack. I’m objecting to the people who say girls aren’t delaying marriage, that most of them do want marriage as much as ever but men are uninterested/worthless. That’s just nonsense, and yet another attempt to find a way to put all the blame on men.

  198. Even cuddling can be a drag when it gets in the way of posting selfies on fb and playing with cats on the sofa.

    Unrelated but fresh

    Let’s visit this one. Yesterday morning, 6AM ish, comfortably seated on toilet in its little room, hear cats playing just outside the door. A towel rack, wrought iron sort of, crashes to the ground. One cat starts growling, the other hissing and screaming and the metal rack, heavy, starts banging around.
    I sit aside my coffee and Ipad from which I was consuming the morning news and looked out. One cats head was trapped in a curl of metal shaped like an upside down G. Its hind legs barely reaching the floor. The other, larger older cat must have thought, well…….looks like meat…..and was in full attack and kill mode. These cats normally comport playfully.

    In my effort to restrain the subdued cat my hands and forearms were vivisected. The free cat started attacking me. The trapped cat has all claws, the other de-clawed in front. If not for that my face would have been slashed as the large one was assaulting me while i was attempting to get a towel on the other one to subdue the claws. Wife joined the fray, holding the towel, I dispatched the predator cat to another room, dumped hair conditioner on the cat for lube yet couldn’t extract it. It was chocking itself and likely going to break its own neck.

    Eureka! I have some big ass bolt cutters that I use to rob copper from warehouses…..not really….retrieved them from the garage and turned the rack into scrap metal, freeing the cat.

    Both wife and I had blood pooled on the floor along with the cats excretions from its near death spasms. Marital bliss.

    OK now, back to you Dalrock

  199. It was actually choking, never seen one chock

  200. jf12 says:

    @empath re: “coffee and Ipad”

    Multitasking, eh? I’ve been slightly banned from bringing pencils in with the sports page, so I won’t get caught up doing the puzzles.

  201. jf12 says:

    @malcolmthecynic re: The Great Divorce.

    Yes, great story. I guess it’s been too long since I read it, because I misremembered the lizard as a monkey.

  202. Oscar says:

    Cail Corishev says:

    “I didn’t start trying to date until college, so the really marriage-minded snowflakes may have been taken by then. Maybe I should have been hanging out at the high schools. I was dealing with college girls at first, and then after I dropped out and went to work, “career” girls in their 20s.”

    Neither did I. My wife and I met in college. My brother and his wife met in college. Most of my college buddies got married right after college to girls they met in college.

    Among the groups of Christian students I hung out with in college, MOST of them (male AND female) were marriage-minded. Heck, the most popular Bible study was one a local pastor led each semester that was all about preparing for marriage.

    The biggest problem I had was that the War on Terror started when I was in college, so the probability of me going to war was near 100%, and most girls didn’t relish the possibility of becoming a widow at 22 (not that I blame them). Fortunately, my wife was – and is – made of sterner stuff. I deployed 10 days after we married.

    By the way, all this took place at a state university on the West Coast, though in a rural town. My brother still works at the university, and according to him, things haven’t changed much.

    Obviously, there were still pitfalls to avoid – the “Christian” “feminists”, the “reformed” sluts, etc. – but one learns quickly by observation.

    The reason I asked about location is that I was stationed in Germany for years. Over there it’s nearly impossibly for a man (especially an enlisted man) to find a quality girl. The only reason I say “almost” is that I know of one (ONE! In a 20-year career!) couple. A battle buddy of mine (we were platoon leaders together) married a young German girl, but I’m not even sure if that one counts, because she and her family moved to Germany from Poland, and are devoutly Catholic. She was one hell of a catch, though! She completed an MD degree and promptly became a house wife. They now live in the US (he left the Army) and have three kids.

    In general, however, the most conniving, mercenary women I ever observed, I observed in Germany. It’s amazing what one can learn from observation.

    Also pertinent to the subject of location: when I was enlisted, I quickly learned that the kind of women a young enlisted man can find near an Army post were not the kind I wanted, and the good ones generally avoid Soldiers (not that I blame them). Consequently, I dated very little before college, and applied myself to finding a wife before I returned to the Army.

  203. donalgraeme says:

    @ Oscar

    By the way, all this took place at a state university on the West Coast, though in a rural town.

    That would explain much. Demographics play a huge role in all of this. Some locations are more marriage friendly than others, especially at younger ages. Perhaps a mini-culture of sorts can develop which overrides the general culture.

    Consider yourself lucky/blessed. Not all of us found ourselves in such places when we were younger.

  204. Oscar, it’s funny that you mention Germany, because one woman I heard bemoaning the fact that her son was marrying young to a young woman, both of them virgins, because she thought they didn’t have enough “experience” yet, was an immigrant from Germany.

    It’s pretty much culture-wide, though. My church (definitely counter-culture) and your college group are outliers, exceptions that prove the rule. The attitude of the general population, reflected in and reinforced by all mainstream entertainment and the education establishment, is that a girl’s life basically ends when she shackles herself to some stupid man, so she should study and travel and enjoy herself before she settles down to the crushing boredom of diapers and housework. (Heck, I even heard the “ultra-conservative” Dr. Laura, probably 10 years ago, say people aren’t “mature” enough to marry until 28.) And she’d better establish an exciting and well-paid career just in case her loser of a husband fails the family financially or runs off with a stripper.

    All that means she won’t be “ready” to marry until about 30. At 35, she’s ready to start writing “Where are all the good men?” articles. Notice how you don’t see 22-year-old girls, hot or otherwise, writing such articles. That’s because 22-year-old girls who want to get married….get married. It may take a bit of effort, but the few who want to can do it.

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

    One of the more delightful aspects and greater joys of this blog are reading the comments of the likes of Oscar.

    The family is going up in flames, tens of millions of children have been aborted, Fatherhood is under attack throughout the greater culture. Does Oscar demonstrate Christian behavior in trying to help his brother and the society at large?

    Nope.

    He gloats with nyah nyah nyah nyah wot are all u losersz crying aboutz nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah looooozersz nyah it worked for me and me and me.

    and me.

    and it worked
    for me.
    for me.

    did i mention that
    it worked
    for me? and me too? and me?

    I would argue that this is an overarching theme amongst “men “these days. The complete divorce from fighting for heroic ideals and the common good that marked our Forefathers who fought and died for Freedom, and the complete and utter focus on oneself to the point of preening, taunting, and gloating, always with the subtext, “If only you had lostatst cockas gamez likesz mez, you and all da otehrz loooooozoers woudlz get sumz every ntesz!!! lzlzolzozozozoz sucz 2 bu!!! lzozozoozoz”

    the oscars/dalrockaz et al. oft make me lose all faith in men.

    this dude revives my faith:

  206. JDG says:

    I even heard the “ultra-conservative” Dr. Laura, probably 10 years ago, say people aren’t “mature” enough to marry until 28.

    Yep! Another ‘right wing’ feminist. And the “too young to marry until the late twenties” mentality is all too prevalent, even in the more conservative church circles, unfortunately.

  207. Robin Munn says:

    @Cail Corishev –

    That’s because 22-year-old girls who want to get married….get married. It may take a bit of effort, but the few who want to can do it.

    In general, I agree with you, though I think there’s another category, of those who want to get married but haven’t received good advice on how to go about looking. There’s so much bad advice for men out there, so why wouldn’t the advice young women are receiving be equally bad? I’m not talking about the obviously bad advice they get from the world (“be slutty in your 20’s, then settle down at 29″, a.k.a. AF/BB), I’m talking about the advice they probably get from the older Christians in their church who come from a different era and aren’t informed about the current realities of the SMP/MMP. Advice like “Just wait, he’ll come to you” — when what she needs to do is to let her desire for marriage be known widely in her community, and ask wise older couples to set her up on dates with marriage-minded men.

    That’s why I have no trouble believing Isa when she claims that she wanted a husband and tried for over 10 years to find one with no success. I believe what she lacked was not the desire, but the knowledge of what to do. In other words, it’s not a case of “if you really wanted to find a husband, you’d have done this and that; that you didn’t do so shows that your desire was lacking.” Rather, that she didn’t do so shows (in my view) that her knowledge was lacking, because she was receiving bad advice. The female version of the blue pill, in a sense.

  208. Oscar says:

    @donalgraeme & Cail

    I agree with both of you that the people I mentioned are the exception, not the rule. And I agree that location has much to do with this. That’s why I asked “where do you all live?”

    As I explained (probably inadequately) I found myself in “good-woman-deserts” both in a Midwestern Army post, and in Germany, but for different reasons. Sometimes, a man looking for a job has to move to where the jobs are. I think the it’s reasonable to do the same when a man is looking for a wife.

    Cail: “Heck, I even heard the “ultra-conservative” Dr. Laura, probably 10 years ago, say people aren’t “mature” enough to marry until 28.”

    Yep, I’ve heard that too. And she’s dead wrong. People used to marry much younger and stay together for life at much higher rates in decades past. It’s probably true that 22-year-olds were more mature back then, but that – and their willingness to stay together – was a result of cultural expectations. Those expectations no longer exist in American culture as a whole, but they do in some subcultures.

  209. Robin, I think they exist too, and it’s an interesting side problem. I’m working on a post for my blog to try to help such girls who are slipping through the cracks. But there’s a context here that’s a problem. We’ve ended up on this topic several times now, and it always goes the same way:

    We’ll be talking about women delaying marriage, discussing why they do it, the bad influences that encourage them in it, what might be done about it, and so on. Then someone comes in and says, “I (or my daughter or friend) was pretty and feminine, could cook like a pro, let people in my social circles know that I was interested in marriage, and couldn’t get a single proposal.” (Heck, IBB used to insist that he knew a whole herd of acceptable girls at work who couldn’t even get dates.) The implication being (if they don’t state it outright) that it’s not that women are delaying marriage at all, but that women do want to get married but men won’t propose.

    Yay! The problem has been reframed as the fault of men. Now we can emit a sigh of relief, as order has been restored to the universe and men are the bad guys again. We’d all prefer that — even red pill guys — because if it’s men’s fault, maybe we can do something about it. Maybe we could fix it. Determining that it’s up to women sucks, because women aren’t fixers and there’s no way (as far as I can see) to change their incentives without a major economic/political meltdown.

    But we haven’t really reframed the problem, we’ve just switched to talking about a different one. Yes, women like Isa exist, and it would be good to help them. But that’s a separate problem from the much, much larger one of women delaying marriage. Discussing that smaller problem is great, but if it’s used to divert us from the bigger problem every time it comes up (whether it’s intentional or not), we should resist that.

  210. Robin Munn says:

    @Cail Corishev –

    I’m relatively new to Dalrock’s blog, so I didn’t have a sense of the history you mention. Good to know, thanks for telling me. I’m still not good at spotting reframes — when I’m in an argument (by which I mean a rational* debate, not two people yelling at each other), and the other person pushes a new topic at me, I tend to follow it and lose the thread of my original point. So I’m always in need of someone pointing out reframes to me, and I appreciate your doing so. With time, hopefully I’ll start learning to spot them myself.

    * Well, more or less rational, at least.

  211. BradA says:

    I put this argument forth to Elspeth on some forum: That her daughters were not in areas where candidate men were gathered. I would agree that a lot of the problem is the lack of like minded people being together.

    We need a way for that to happen, though we also need ways to enforce the seriousness of the commitment and that is a ways off I suspect.

    Boxer, I believe you have correctly identified some of the problem, but plainer looks do not guarantee a women is free from feminism, as has been noted. Those women can also faces the “do your calling first” idea that many in the Church have bought into.

    My wife would not have gotten married when I came along without my intense pressure and her belief that God told her to not let me go by. (The latter is her own confession.) She was planning a lot more “life” when I upset the apple cart, as it were.

    I was ready for marriage, but didn’t have huge numbers of prospects, largely due to a specific religious focus at the time. I recall her being the only eligible female in the church we both attended at the time. That made things tougher as well.

    (I had moved to the northern Virginia area from the high desert in California that had a dearth of women out of high school that were not divorcees, and even few of those. Not the ideal spouse hunting grounds.)

  212. jf12 says:

    @BradA, re: “where candidate men were gathered”

    Probably the biggest change from when we were young is that the world is a whole lot smaller. Besides what we could term the No True Man or No Suitable Man or No Good Man In My Neck Of The Woods fallacy, the fact is that any young woman could instantly connect with a hundred million men on social media if she wanted to.

  213. Oscar says:

    @Robin Munn

    “I’m talking about the advice they probably get from the older Christians in their church who come from a different era and aren’t informed about the current realities of the SMP/MMP. Advice like ‘Just wait, he’ll come to you’”

    Yep. I remember some girls in college repeating that terrible advice they heard somewhere. Some were pretty enough that it didn’t hurt them. Others were.. uh… not, and are still not married.

    Going back to the job search analogy: imagine a pastor telling a parishioner who needs a job that all he/she needs to do is pray and the perfect job will come to them, with no more effort necessary on their part.

  214. @theasdgamer

    A pleasure to meet you as well.

  215. Boxer says:

    Dear Cail Corishev:

    One of the reasons I like this little arena is the willingness to debate without resorting to lame personal attacks and goofy namecalling. Thanks (to Cail, but also to everyone else) for such well reasoned and kickass rebuttals… This is a good discussion.

    That’s true, but in my experience, the mousy ones didn’t want to get married either. Their reasons might have been different — school and travel rather than parties and carouseling — but they were just as uninterested in marriage.

    I’m in a sort of unique position, because I get to live full time in the academic petri dish, and I see all these things play out. In my experience, you are not entirely wrong. Some of the mousy plain girls are total sluts on the weekends, but ashamed enough of it to keep it quiet in daylight. Some of the mousy plain girls are dykes, or have mental problems. Most of them are not. I’ll tell you guys what I have observed. Wait for it. It’s good.

    Most of the mousy, plain girls in their late teens and early twenties “do not want to get married” because they think no dude is going to ever ask them to get married. They occasionally get propositioned for sex, and dressing down helps to cut down on that sort of unwanted attention, but it also keeps the dudes who are decent from noticing them.

    One of two things happens to these girls. Either a decent dude convinces them that he’s serious, and wants to marry her, and she changes her mind in about two seconds and says yes, or someone else (I suspect a mother or grandmother) changes her mind, and she starts telling people she is in the marriage market. When this happens, these girls get wifed up in dizzying speed, often by guys who are a bit older and already established. Good looking men with game will certainly “marry down” to get a loyal, decent wife, in my opinion (as JDG and others have pointed out up in this thread).

    So, this is all anecdotal, but take it for what it’s worth. If a young bro has a girl who says “I don’t want to get married yet, I want to finish school” just ignore that shit and press on for a while. These girls aren’t as hard to convince as you might think, and sooner, rather than later, I’ll be seeing your career minded wallflower giggle as she shows off the engagement ring to the slutty hoes who can’t get any commitment from a dude, beyond a half hour on saturday night.

    Regards, Boxer

  216. Luke says:

    Novaseeker says:
    August 7, 2014 at 8:46 am

    “Well, it may be geographic, who knows. What opened my eyes to it was my GF. She’s a 4, on the looks scale. Before meeting me, she had a lot of dating opportunities, online and elsewhere (we know that’s the case for women), but the men wanted sex, even Christian men. She is chaste, so no go”

    Why do you consider a woman with whom you have never had sex your “girlfriend”?
    “Friend” would seem far more apt. You eat dinner out with male friends, coworkers, and family members as well (presumably sharing hugs and kisses with the latter). There’s literally nothing to mark that relationship as anything special, saving perhaps giving her access to your wallet and spare time for nonsense stuff.

  217. feeriker says:

    Going back to the job search analogy: imagine a pastor telling a parishioner who needs a job that all he/she needs to do is pray and the perfect job will come to them, with no more effort necessary on their part.

    I’m sure it won’t surprise anyone here to learn that I was once given exactly such advice by a pastor – and it was actually better than most of the other “guidance” he gave (imagine an Inspector Clouseau of clergymen, and that was this guy). Needless to say, I didn’t take any of his dating and marriage advice.

  218. Eidolon says:

    @Boxer

    My wife fit your description well, for slightly different reasons. As a cultural transplant she had some trouble connecting with people and so ended up being a wallflower. She also had a tendency to unintentionally give off negative signals that discouraged guys from pursuing her, in part due to cultural differences and partly due to shyness.

    I’ve always liked shy women and so I was attracted to her immediately. I kept pursuing her despite what seemed to be some negative signals, and things went well after that. She confessed later that she started hoping for me to propose to her on our third date. We married around a year after we first met.

    She had in fact been propositioned for sex by a few guys and had gotten pretty pessimistic about meeting a guy who would be serious about her and consider marriage. Thankfully her reaction was to soldier on doing the right thing rather than bow to the pressure.

    I think you’re right about there being girls in that category who are marriage material, and a lot of the particulars in our story were very similar to what you said. It’s very worth it in my opinion to seek those women out if marriage is your goal.

  219. Pingback: Dark Brightness | There are no ugly women, only lazy ones.

  220. MarcusD says:

    Pope Francis: families are called to stability, fruitfulness [CWN]

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=901438

    Emotional affair cheating wife? Need help. (relevant to this thread)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=901544

  221. MarcusD says:

    So is this little more than an attack of vanity among a feminised generation that has lost the ability to act like real men? Simpson insists not. “People tend to think of narcissism, especially among men, as an idle, dissipating, poisonous force. But actually, narcissism is self-care as well as self-love, and without it no creature can survive.” Not surprisingly perhaps, Mike Shallcross, deputy editor of Men’s Health, agrees there is a beneficial side to the manopause. “Men no longer equate settling down with giving up. They’re becoming more health-conscious, more aware of their appearance, and more aware of the value of free time and they want to use it more actively.

    “Also, there’s a shift in working patterns. More men are in jobs where they have to look better groomed, and where youth is equated with vitality and ambition. As for the Mamils, Shallcross points out that “stuff like cycling is great exercise, and probably makes men look better than they would if they just waddled to the pub and back. But it’s also fun and a good way to spend time with mates. Maybe just that in itself is enough to make them feel younger.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11305521

  222. Boxer, thanks, your description rings true. And it fits with other things we’ve been saying. Such a girl can get married — and quickly, as you say — when she wants to. But if no guy ever decides to batter down her defenses, she may hit 30 without ever getting a serious offer, and not know how hard she worked to keep them away. She doesn’t realize that the defenses she’s built to keep away the cads work on the nice guys too. As far as she can tell, she’s been sitting there like a good girl waiting for Mr. Right to come along, and he just hasn’t. Men are pigs.

    Something similar can happen to laid-back guys. I think a lot of this goes back to the modern idea that romance and marriage are supposed to Just Happen — that it’s even somewhat unseemly to go about them with a plan. We’d be a lot better off if men and women both could say to themselves, “Okay, I’m ready to start a family. What do I need to DO to make that happen and happen well?”

  223. Emotional affair cheating wife? Need help. (relevant to this thread)

    I’m actually impressed. Only one person tried to shame him for recording his cheating wife’s phone traffic. Mostly he got decent responses: what she’s doing isn’t right, he should not be sleeping on the couch, no sex for years is unacceptable, the other guy’s wife should be told, and he should protect himself legally and not assume that she’s as anti-divorce as he is. Maybe the feminists are on vacation.

  224. BradA says:

    jf12,

    > Probably the biggest change from when we were young is that the world is a whole lot smaller.

    It is, though it is also a whole lot larger as finding out true information about people and holding them accountable can be a whole lot more difficult. The ability to “start clean with another group” at the drop of a hat means that holding anyone accountable is quite challenging. Google may be able to dig up dirt, but few bother and it can be challenging even then digging through those named the same. Look for “Brad Andrews” and you will find quite a few, for example, who are totally unrelated.

  225. hurting says:

    Cail Corishev says:
    August 8, 2014 at 5:02 am

    The bulk of the advice was indeed, not terrible at the CAF link. I am 101% certain, however, that if the genders were reversed, the long knives would be out in force.

  226. mikediver5 says:

    To Oscar and others; location makes a huge difference. The difference is due to cultural variations across geography. The cultural variations across the western world are reducing rapidly. Even the eastern European women which so many men fled the west to pursue are merging culturally with Western Europe, and Europe and North America are becoming very much closer culturally than even the recent past. Now if you want to escape the toxic culture in the west you have to go farther afield. I found my current wife in the Philippines. First let me tell you that the image of the submissive Asian woman is a complete myth. Practically the first thing my future wife said to me was, “Are you looking to get married; because that is what I want?” The second thing my then 23 year old future wife said was, “I am a virgin and will be on my wedding night, if you don’t like that then go look for someone else.” Does this sound submissive to you? How many western, and especially North American, women would make those statements on first meeting a man? And she did not mean that she was a technical virgin. My cultural conditioning made me misinterpret her comment. I found that all our dating would be chaperoned, and about two weeks before our wedding (about 2 years after we met) she told me that I was the first “boy” she had ever kissed.

    In the old days (which I can vaguely remember) the world was smaller. You guys think being able to contact millions of people worldwide makes the world smaller. I posit that this is exactly the opposite. Once upon a time your world was the village, or the neighborhood in the city, in which you lived. You knew that your eventual mate would be found among the people very close by. You would know them and their families all your life. This was a constraint, but it made life much simpler. Take my parents for example. They grew up in the same neighborhood of a large city in the Midwest and went to the same kindergarten Sunday school at the same church that their families went to. They basically met when they were 5. I grew up in the same parish and was related to about 75% of the congregation before the parish folded post a pedophile priest long after I had moved away. You had a limit on your options and you knew those limits from the beginning. Women could start the competition for the boys they knew right away, because they knew they would have no other options but to select from this limited group of men. The assortive mating took place rapidly. Now women are constantly on the lookout for the bigger and better deal (BBD). They are certain if they keep their options open the better man will just appear. They are frozen by too many options. Often they fail to make a choice until the options start to noticeably diminish. And it takes a lot of diminishing before the modern woman admits to herself that her options are less than they were. I recently had a woman tell me that 40 is the new 20, and that 60 is the new 30; utterly delusional. This is the BS that the culture feeds women; that they will be forever 21 (the name of a prominent store too.)

    To those that recommend church as the place to look for a bride, as many did when I was first divorced in my early 30s, let me just say you could not be more wrong. I found that church had absolutely no marriageable women. For the most part when girls graduate from high school they move away from home. They stop going to church. When and if they get married and have that first child they may return to church. What I found, even 30 years ago, was the church had no single women over 18 and less than 30. The few single women over 30 were divorcees with children. And this is in a very conservative denomination that supposedly stood foursquare against divorce. Meanwhile, I as a divorced man was treated like a leper. I left the church to its own devices.

  227. Oscar says:

    @ feeriker

    “I’m sure it won’t surprise anyone here to learn that I was once given exactly such advice by a pastor – and it was actually better than most of the other “guidance” he gave”

    Was this pastor talking about a job or marriage?

  228. jf12 says:

    @Cail re: “She doesn’t realize that the defenses she’s built to keep away the cads work on the nice guys too.”

    My current trust-building homework assignment is to upgrade my assessment of so many women “accidentally” defending against nice guys from “absolutely impossible” to “ok, well, maybe NAWALT, maybe some truly are ignorant.” The fact that every woman says the same thing doesn’t help my trust.

  229. JF12, I didn’t mean “nice guys” in the usual sarcastic way there, but the actual nice guys Robin’s talking about that they might want to marry if they’d give a guy a chance in the first place. Of course, it is an open question how many are just being overly defensive and how many are holding out for an unrealistic alpha.

  230. desiderian says:

    jf12,

    We’ve been over this before. It is no accident. Men are not called to be nice. Good, true, kind. Not nice. A woman looking for a nice guy is looking for a manservant.

  231. jf12 says:

    @Cail and desiderian, I too meant “good men”, having made myself perfectly clear about this before. The women drive the “good men” away as much or more than they drive the “bad men” away.

  232. Isa says:

    Heavens, I’m quite a topic of conversation! I don’t see this as a purely male or female problem, as I said before, it’s a question of odds and quite how far out of step particular religious/moral beliefs may make you. If either gender wants someone not fat, of their religion, and not sexually active, that is perhaps 10% of the population at best. Add on local, employed, not divorced, and marriage minded, perhaps 0.5%. In the 40’s and 50’s perhaps 25% of the population would suit and there were a lot of social outlets so they would meet.

    Generally I’m interested in the topic of how to get more people to find each other and get married early because a health condition developed in my mid to late 20s has made pregnancy a Very Bad Idea. Said condition is improving (thankfully), but that wasn’t a given. So Susy and Tom think they can wait until 27-32 to start having babies, but really Susy especially should look at health stats and decide 22-24 is a much better age. And perhaps if all the Susy’s were looking earlier, the market overall would shift downward. I educate the women I know as best I can, but it frequently doesn’t stick.

  233. Oscar says:

    @mikediver5

    “To Oscar and others; location makes a huge difference. The difference is due to cultural variations across geography.

    To those that recommend church as the place to look for a bride, as many did when I was first divorced in my early 30s, let me just say you could not be more wrong. I found that church had absolutely no marriageable women.”

    Yes, location matters because of subcultures. I’ve been a member of three very tightly knit subcultures most of my life: the Latin American immigrant subculture, the US Military and the Christian subculture at various stages and locations.

    As for your critique of church, I’d have to agree about churches as a whole, but at the same time caution that it depends on the church. Again, subcultures exist.

    The key is to find the right subculture and somehow make yourself part of it. For example, it would be difficult – though not impossible – for someone to be accepted into the immigrant subculture where I grew up. I know it’s possible, though, because I saw it happen.

    I even know a lady who married into the Menonite subculture.

    Elusive Wapiti wrote a post I unfortunately can’t find now about a wedding he attended at a Phillipino church. His description of it was beautiful. The scriptures they read (not just the pastor, but the parents and the bride and groom) at the ceremony were right on target. So, good churches, good women and good men are out there. They’re difficult to find for all parties involved, but not impossible.

  234. The women drive the “good men” away as much or more than they drive the “bad men” away.

    Agreed. The only question is why. I think you and I would agree that for most of them, it’s simple: they push good men away because they’re not attracted to them, because most good men have been taught to be “nice,” which bores the crap out of all women, not just the hot crazy ones.

    But now we’re being told that there are some women — the mousy ones who want nothing to do with the modern dating scene where three dates before sex is a long courtship, so they put up walls and keep all men out to avoid having to deal with that — who don’t need a lot of alpha and would be thrilled with one of these good men if he’d just knock down the walls. I can buy that, though I don’t think they’re numerous.

    The danger of that kind of thinking for a man seems obvious: it gives the Nice Guy an excuse to avoid the hard work of becoming more confident and dominant, instead going hunting among the mousy girls, spending time and effort knocking down their walls hoping to find a snowflake behind one. Every time one rejects him with “you’re a great guy, but…” he can tell himself that he just hasn’t found the Right One yet. A guy can easily waste a decade that way.

    If a guy stumbles over such a girl, great, but I’d never advise anyone to pursue that as a strategy. That’s like telling a woman who’s 100 pounds overweight to hunt for a man who likes fat chicks. Yes, chubby chasers exist, but they’re rare, so she’d expand her options much more by losing weight — and gain in other areas as well. The same thing is true of the Nice Guy: by becoming more alpha, he’ll not only expand his choice among women, but improve his life in other ways.

    I feel for the mousy girl who doesn’t know how to deal with a sexual marketplace that looks to her like it’s flying by 300 miles per hour, but that’s something she has to find a way to deal with for herself. I don’t want to see men pounding their heads against walls trying to save her.

  235. Wibbins says:

    Hey dalrock, there’s a lis 35 things men cab do for feminism, thought you or another blogster would have fun dismantling it.

    http://www.xojane.com/issues/feminism-men-practical-steps?utm_medium=facebook

  236. feeriker says:

    Was this pastor talking about a job or marriage?

    A job, although his advice to both sexes on dating and marriage was of the same nature as his advice about finding work. As I mentioned, I didn’t pay him any heed on either topic. If I had done so, I’d be an unemployed incel today.

  237. jbro1922 says:

    @Cail

    I agree with your assessment. I don’t think guys should exert so much effort to knock down a girl’s walls. Kinda one sided. What does the girl do while he’s hacking away? She needs to put forth some effort too. She can start by knocking down some of those walls herself and communicating that he shall be rewarded for his efforts. And then actually make sure he is rewarded for his efforts.

  238. jf12 says:

    @Cail, re: “A guy can easily waste a decade that way.”

    Yes, in fact I did. Because I was so used to rejection, because I had gotten “good” at being rejected, my bg criterion for bothering trying to knock down walls was if the walls were extremely high and extremely thick.

    It’s all so … stupid and backwards. The way women want it to be, apparently.

  239. desiderian says:

    jf12,

    “Cail and desiderian, I too meant “good men”, having made myself perfectly clear about this before. The women drive the “good men” away as much or more than they drive the “bad men” away.”

    I actually agree with you on this. As usual, Cail has the why better than I ever could. In my experience with the rising generation, the problem is already being solved. Good young men are getting less nice.

  240. desiderian says:

    “good men have been taught to be ‘nice,’ which bores the crap out of all women, not just the hot crazy ones.”

    It’s worse than boring. It’s the equivalent of “assertive” women.

    It’s an active turn-off. Unmanly.

  241. donalgraeme says:

    It’s all so … stupid and backwards. The way women want it to be, apparently.

    As Rollo and others have pointed out for a while, male and female sexual strategies are inherently at odds with one another. If one wins, the other loses.

    Mind you, “Christian sexual strategy” is a mid-point between the two, and I would argue a happy medium at that. It restricts the worst of both sexes sexual behaviors, and fascinatingly enough is also the ideal of building and maintaining civilization as well.

  242. MarcusD says:

    Japanese businessman allegedly fathered nine babies in two years using Thai surrogates

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/08/japanese-businessman-allegedly-fathered-nine-babies-in-two-years-using-thai-surrogates/

    Woman doused husband in gasoline and set him on fire because shooting him would be ‘too nice': police report

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/07/woman-doused-husband-in-gasoline-set-him-on-fire-because-shooting-him-would-be-too-nice-police-say/

    Barbara Kay: Rare justice sees mother punished for using children as weapons against Dad

    http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/08/08/barbara-kay-rare-justice-sees-mother-punished-for-using-children-as-weapons-against-dad/

  243. MarcusD says:

    And, a bonus:

    Chris Selley: Just when you thought the big human-rights battles were over …

    We likely won’t ever see artificial turf at a men’s World Cup, however. And that makes it discrimination, according to the high-priced lawyers. Never mind the threat of injury. In a letter to the Canadian Soccer Association and FIFA, they argued the turf “contradicts the Canadian government’s claim that ‘Canada is a world leader in the promotion and protection of women’s rights and gender equality.’ ” It constitutes “gender discrimination that violates … numerous provisions of Canadian law, including human rights codes and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” And it subjects the players to “the legally cognizable indignity of playing the game’s most important event on what your organizations admit to be an inferior surface.”

  244. desiderian says:

    Donalgraeme,

    That’s a godly endeavor, so it is natural that Christ’s teachings further it.

    What is fascinating, in a dark way, is how/why we ever got away from it and so stubbornly resist it. Of course, those teachings have that one covered too. We’ve gotten away from them on more than the topic of marriage…

  245. jf12 says:

    @donal re: “happy medium”

    Yes. Some further food for thought: A peak solution is always an unstable equilbrium, a high point. It’s hard to stay on the mountaintop (anybody remember “king of the hill”?) The only stable solutions are low points, mud holes, cess pools. It’s difficult to climb out of a pit, because you keep slipping back.

  246. Oscar says:

    @feeriker

    “A job, although his advice to both sexes on dating and marriage was of the same nature as his advice about finding work. As I mentioned, I didn’t pay him any heed on either topic. If I had done so, I’d be an unemployed incel today.”

    Wow. That is spectacularly terrible advice. On both counts.

  247. greyghost says:

    MarcusD
    First story cool I like that and made a comment.
    Second story was bull the woman will most likely walk for attempted murder and torture.
    The third was just the typical family court. She really wasn’t punished at all and she will never have to honor and court order at her expense. I would have shot her for that last stunt. Or even shot the family court judge for not enforcing the order.

  248. MarcusD says:

    What are some good books about dating for a young Catholic man? (people already recommending the gynocentric classics…)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=901676

    Proposal (Xantippe – unsurprisingly – cites Huff and Puff Post)

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=901858

    Tips for a healthy romantic relationship

    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=901769

  249. MarcusD says:

    So…

    One law student has a radical proposal for fixing marriage: Cut it off after four years

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/08/one-law-student-has-a-radical-proposal-for-fixing-marriage-cut-it-off-after-four-years/

    Like many couples in their first months of courtship, Véronique Laliberté and Francys-Roch Bisson agreed to take things step by step.

    For this Gatineau, Que., couple, this also meant line by line — in the form of a relationship contract. The agreement, they say, sets clear expectations around resources and fidelity, guarantees they not take their partnership for granted, and gives them an easy out should they wish to take it.

    “We renewed after three months, we renewed after six months and now we have a contract for one year,” Ms. Laliberté told the National Post this week. “It’s working out pretty well — so far so good. We’re still together, we’re still in love and everything is fine.”

    The early days of their relationship coincided with the start of Ms. Laliberté’s masters of law thesis at the University of Ottawa in which she has advocated a legal shakeup that would change the landscape of marriage forever in Canada: Fixed term marriage.

    (Also, nothing really revolutionary being proposed. That is, it’s been done before.)

  250. Pingback: Stardusk Exnihilates a Chimera and Baby Meaning is Born: Of Men and Women – on Meaning and the Love we Share - Blue Dog Talking

  251. cicero says:

    @theasdgamer
    “Da GBFM’s Bible has cut out the Song of Solomon”
    Have you actually studied the other books in the Bible other than the Song of Solomon?

    “ which teaches Righteous Game.”
    -“And finally, the poem paints a sad moral lesson as to what happens to those who try to flout God’s instructions, who do not understand that the relationship between a husband and wife is a special one-to-one relationship, that leaves room for no others. We learn in the poem that by this time, Solomon had 140 wives and concubines. By the end of his reign, he had almost one thousand. Where was there room for love in the heart of a man who simply amassed women as playthings, marrying new maidens when he got bored of the old ones? Way back in Deuteronomy 17:17 God gave an important piece of law to the kings of Israel: “do not multiply wives.” I.e. do not use your position and authority to do what Solomon had done, build a harem. God’s model in the Bible is monogamy, just as we see laid out in Genesis 2 which is quoted above. Why is it this way? Because the gift of love that God gives is a one-to-one love that leaves room for no substitutes; just as the maiden and the shepherd’s love for one another was so strong, that there was no room for her or him to even consider another. Love, relationships, marriage, and sex are all gifts from God. The Song of Songs demonstrates and celebrates this time and time again. In the light of this part of the Scriptures, we should give grateful thanks to God for the wonderful mystery of human sexuality, and pray that He guides us into using it responsibly and rightfully; within a one-to-one marriage relationship where there is mutual trust, giving, love, total commitment and respect.”-

  252. theasdgamer says:

    “And finally, the poem paints a sad moral lesson…”

    Uh, no, it doesn’t. You are reading a lesson into the text. Bad stuff, Maynard.

  253. Pro-Truth says:

    @Wibbins
    August 8, 2014 at 12:42 pm

    It doesn’t need to be dismantled, 26 says it all: “Be subordinate to women”

  254. Pingback: Roundup | Eternity Matters

  255. jf12 says:

    re: subordination. Em & Lo have a recipe for frigidity.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/em-and-lo/top-10-things-we-will-tell-our-sons-about-sex_b_5658225.html

    Em & Lo advise boys to learn how to please their girlfriend, be happy that their girlfriend has lots of other boyfriends, be happy when she turns him down, and to do what their girlfriends say.

    Em & Lo advise girls to learn what pleases themselves instead and to ignore their boyfriend’s sexual needs, to boss their boyfriends around, to insist he please her, don’t care when she turns him down, and above all don’t do anything just because he wants to.

  256. cicero says:

    @theasdgamer
    “Uh, no, it doesn’t.”You are reading a lesson into the text. Bad stuff, Maynard.”

    What…. that is it? Like I said you don’t read what is written (btw missy still waiting for an answer to my question that you are conveniently ignoring) as well as use feminist tactics to avoid the issue. I have said it before and will say it again, game and feminism use the same tactics for different reasons. You counter what was highlighted with me reading a lesson into the text. You don’t back it up with Biblical counters or even logical retorts? The whole Bible is about lessons in text you ignoramous. You yourself read the lesson of “game” into the text, the only difference is you employ deconstructionism of the Bible to support your fundamentally flawed personal views of game. Then you have the gall to say that I need to do my homework. What I highlighted is the cause and effect as shown in the Bible for those who employ game and don’t do the will of God (husbands leading being one you seem to have a particular issue with). You on the other hand are so obsessed with the Song of Solomon promoting game that any other Biblical lesson(s) that it might contain is wrong by default. You are a classic example of someone who only has women on his mind.

  257. theasdgamer says:

    @ cicero

    btw missy still waiting for an answer to my question that you are conveniently ignoring

    Shaming? How feminine of you.

    as well as use feminist tactics to avoid the issue

    Reframing much with the purpose of distracting? Try to stay on point. And again with the ad hominem shaming.

    We learn in the poem that by this time, Solomon had 140 wives and concubines.

    Cite? You need to somehow show that SoS must be interpreted by other books in order to justify your reading of it. You have failed to do other than show that it may be interpreted by other books.

    Have you actually studied the other books in the Bible other than the Song of Solomon?

    Yes, but they aren’t relevant to Game. SoS is new to me in the sense of reading it post Red Pill. Gonna post about it on my blog since no one else seems to be doing it.

  258. JDG says:

    jf12 says:
    August 9, 2014 at 9:09 am

    jf12 – that is the recipe for making effeminate manginas in a heathen society. I feel very sorry for any children that have to grow up under the tutelage of these women and any that agree with them. What a horrible situation.

    The children that don’t get butchered in the womb get to be raised by women who will basically indoctrinate them to be immoral, godless, hedonists. The girls will become like their mothers, and the boys will be degraded and humiliated while being taught how to degrade and humiliate themselves (and this while programming them to fail at most everything significant to becoming a man).

    Then these degenerate fine upstanding sluts and lesbians women will bemoan the lack of all the good men.

    That society at large doesn’t condemn what these people are doing condemns society at large.

    What am I saying, they probably are society at large.

  259. Mark says:

    @MarcusD

    Thanks for the NP links.As a subscriber to the NP I saw this the other day.I wanted to puke.It reminded me of that movie “Burning Bed” with Farrah Fawcett.The broad will probably get probation…..Very Sick!

  260. Mark says:

    @MarcusD

    Re:From SSM on Twitter.

    “”However, the “church” is extremely liberal. Until recently, the head pastor was a gay man who was “married” to another man.””

    Time to look for a new church!……Shalom!

  261. Anonymous Reader says:

    I have said it before and will say it again, game and feminism use the same tactics for different reasons.

    Repeating a false statement does not make it true. It does indicate an inability to learn.

  262. feeriker says:

    The agreement, they say, sets clear expectations around resources and fidelity, guarantees they not take their partnership for granted, and gives them an easy out should they wish to take it.

    In other words, formally codifying and structurally building assured failure into the relationship from Day One.

    No, thank you. Nothing new here to see. Move along, folks…

  263. JDG says:

    JDG says:
    August 9, 2014 at 11:09 am

    Okay…so the lesbians most likely won’t bemoan the lack of good men. But the sluts do.

  264. Hank Flanders says:

    johnnesteutes, if you’re still reading, I was wondering if you could expound on your post and particularly about the culture of the Presbyterian churches in regards to the part about men wanting to marry off their daughters. Do you have any examples of what you’re talking about? I ask because I’ve recently been attending a Presbyterian church, and I do get an inkling concerning what you’ve described, but I’m still not fully familiar with the culture, as my background has been in more modern, non-denominational (feminized?) churches. Also, I haven’t attended a lot of different kinds of more traditional churches like Southern Baptist or Church of God to any great extent, so I’m trying to figure out what the differences might be in regards to the dating/courting aspect of them.

  265. cicero says:

    @theasdgamer
    “Shaming? How feminine of you.”
    So let me get this straight. You think that what I wrote is shaming. What’s next you are going to accuse me of being verbally abusive and ignoring your reality?

    “Reframing much with the purpose of distracting? Try to stay on point. And again with the ad hominem shaming.”
    No… highlighting your tactics of avoiding the point and how similar it is to feminism. And you clearly have no idea what an ad hominem is so now you spout it your ignorance as a desperate defensive tactic. Go do your home work.

    “Cite?”
    Cite what? I site Bible verses that you ignore when it does not fit your interpretation. So what difference will a lesser cite make. If you don’t believe the primary source then why on earth would a secondary have any better outcome? Logically it makes no sense other than you wanting to go down the road of semantics.

    “You need to somehow show that SoS must be interpreted by other books in order to justify your reading of it.”
    I did sunshine. You just didn’t take the time to read. So I will refresh your memory.
    Deuteronomy 17:17
    1 Kings 11: (And this time read from verse one.)

    “You have failed to do other than show that it may be interpreted by other books.”
    And where in the Song of Solomon does he make reference to the word “game” and in what other books in the Bible does it appear? And for your information all the books of the Bible are connected to one another. Other wise how could the Bible have prophecy?

    “Yes, but they aren’t relevant to Game.”
    Well does that not tell you something about the fact that seeing as your views of game does not have relevance or reverence to any other book in the Bible that the game theory that you have might actually be the wrong interpretation?

    “SoS is new to me in the sense of reading it post Red Pill.”
    Try reading the Song of Solomon from a God fearing Christian man’s point of view who wants to do the will of God and not his own. There is no red pill or blue pill for a Christian man. There is only those who have properly been trained in how to be a man of God or those that have been trained to be a man of the world. Blue and red pill makes you rely on your own will and skill or what you have been told to believe by others and doesn’t make you rely on Christ to teach and train you for what He wants.

    “Gonna post about it on my blog since no one else seems to be doing it.”
    Well post away. It still won’t change what the Bible says about what God wants men to do and the consequences of those who ignore His will.

  266. Pingback: Dalrock’s severe lack of leadership and Christian Headship. | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl

  267. theasdgamer says:

    @ cicero the troll

    When your arguments lack substance, you typically turn to ad hominem shaming. What a perfect example of a God fearing Christian man. I am so impressed.

  268. theasdgamer says:

    Heh, Cicero reminds me of the mother on “The Waterboy.” “Game is the devil.”

  269. cicero says:

    @ theasdgamer
    “When your arguments lack substance, you typically turn to ad hominem shaming”
    Firstly you still don’t know what an ad hominem is and secondly you still have to show what I wrote is shaming . And I will happily acknowledge that my arguments lack substance when you show me scripturally where game tactics are taught in the Bible and mentioned in other books in the Bible that it carries the favor of God over that of leadership. If however you can’t then the one who’s argument lacks substance will be yours.

    “What a perfect example of a God fearing Christian man. I am so impressed.”
    Your guilty conscious is showing. Not once did I make a claim to be the perfect God fearing Christian man. However unlike you I do know and strive that God’s will be done and not my own.

    “Heh, Cicero reminds me of the mother on “The Waterboy.” “Game is the devil.”
    And yet you are to prove that it is what God wants. You say that I reframe the issue for distracting yet you reframe your own words to suit your whims.
    Example
    1. “Da GBFM’s Bible has cut out the Song of Solomon, which teaches Righteous Game.”
    This was your claim which you made and are entitled to. You did not back up your claim that SoS teaches “Righteous Game” that was your opinion.
    2. I made my opinion know and gave a more descriptive reason why I was of the opinion that it was not.
    3. You then go and change the goal posts by claiming that I should not read lessons it to text whilst you your self did it with your view of game and the SoS. That is Hypocrisy
    4. I counter your claim showing your double standards and that lessons are contained in text which up to now you haven’t refuted. Thus you could not counter my interpretation.
    5. You again move the goal post and require me to illustrate my claim in other Boobs of the Bible which I already did on previous posts and again reminded you of them. Something you haven’t done with your posts and haven’t refuted what I wrote.

    You haven’t refuted, disprove or even try and counter the arguments that I wrote in my last post and you can’t support your views. You and your views are dead in the water.

    All you do is make claims and can’t back it up scripturally or logically and ridicule me for pointing out the flaws in your argument. You don’t confront the issue so you keep on changing it in the hopes that it will lead to a confusion of the point of discussion.

  270. cicero says:

    #5 …other Books o0f the Bible…

  271. Anonymous Reader says:

    The agreement, they say, sets clear expectations around resources and fidelity, guarantees they not take their partnership for granted, and gives them an easy out should they wish to take it.

    freeiker
    In other words, formally codifying and structurally building assured failure into the relationship from Day One.

    Yes, such an arrangement merely formalizes the detonator in her hands, the Damoclean sword over his head. There would be one kinda sorta advantage to this; a man going into one of these arrangements would at least in theory know up front what he was getting into.

    But odds are teh wimmenz would still claim that detonation “just happened”, it Wasn’t Her Fault…

  272. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hank Flanders
    I ask because I’ve recently been attending a Presbyterian church, and I do get an inkling concerning what you’ve described, but I’m still not fully familiar with the culture, as my background has been in more modern, non-denominational (feminized?) churches.

    Not all Protestant denominations with the same name are the same. I have friends who were in the Evangelical Lutheran church (ELCA) who have switched to the Missouri Synod Lutheran church – because of women pastors in ELCA and the slow slide towards embracing homogamy. I used to know a black pastor whose church was part of the Methodists, and they were debating going nondenominational or to some other Methodist subgroup over the issue of homosexuality. There are Episcopal churches in the US that have pulled out of the US church and put themselves into the Anglican church, but associated with bishops in Africa, in order to get out from under women leadership. Long story short: the sign on the church may not mean much in terms of the culture inside.

    So, which Presbyterian flavor? The Presbyterian Church USA has been hemmoraging members and in the last year or two entire congregations, some of 1,000 people (Dallas, Houston, etc.). Many of the churches are moving to a new Presbyterian denomination, the ECO. In the 1970’s there was a previous split that created the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), and there’s an older split dating to the 1920’s or ’30’s called the Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC). There are other even smaller Presbyterian groups. For the most part any church with that sign on the wall is part of a denomination, but in the southeast there are a bunch of small churches in those denominations.

    Wikipedia is totally not trustworthy on many topics (Thomas Ball, anyone?) but in terms of the history, size, geographic distribution, etc. of Protestant denominations it seems to be pretty accurate. Suggest you search Wiki for the particular Presbyterian denomination, and that will tell you something about the culture.

  273. theasdgamer says:

    @ Boxer

    Sure, some of these women might be frauds, but that’s on you brothers to check out her family and background before you buy that ring.

    Check out whomever she spends a lot of time with. Usually it’s her friends. Women typically assume the values of their friends and reject the values of their families when they are younger.

    Past performance actually is a pretty good indicator of future results (and I mean generationally: Look at her parents and grandparents.)

    This can be a useful indicator. Interview her to find out how influential her family is in her life. Especially her father.

    As a scroungy bottom-feeding bachelor who spends his workdays surrounded by kids in their late teens and early twenties

    As a creepy, married observer of club life in America who spends his nights touching and being touched by lots of women (I couples dance) of all ages….

    Side note: if I’m any indicator of women’s preferences, they like creepy guys.

  274. Hank Flanders says:

    Thanks for the info, Anonymous Reader. I’m still curious about the dating/courting aspect of the Presbyterian/Reformed churches. Do you think Wikipedia has details on that? Some of what I’ve read in the manosphere isn’t very optimistic about meeting women in church. In fact, I think deti’s post on justfourguys about that subject, which I found through an Internet search, was my introduction to the manosphere after having read and been rather disappointed with Matt Walsh’s blog post about single men needing to “man up” and tell women how we feel, as if we haven’t heard that enough over the last few years.

    Deti’s article was interesting and insightful, but fortunately, most of the church girls I’ve known and who have rejected me were nice about it and also didn’t have sex outside of marriage to my knowledge. I’ve never seen the “nuclear rejection” he described, but I’m sure it happens.

  275. mikediver5 says:

    Oscar,

    I am very happily married to a Filipina. I am now part of the very large Filipino subculture in my metro area; of which I was unaware until I brought my finance back from the Philippines. My wife is a good woman (far from perfect) who is a good wife because of the support her mother gives to the marriage. The mother was opposed to her daughter marrying a foreigner and leaving the country. But once the deal was done she has been a staunch supporter of the marriage. Divorce is not an option in the Philippines. It is illegal. This is the only country in the world where this is true IIRC. I am intending to emigrate to the Philippines as soon as I can. I am trying to get my grown sons to at least think about emigrating with me.

    One sticking point is that my wife wants us to attend church here. I have my problems with the church in the US. I fully intend to become a member of a parish in the Philippines when we get there. What I have seen is that the church in the Philippines is a lot closer to the church I grew up with, but which no longer exists in the US. I think the best way to follow your advice about becoming a part of one of the “better” sub cultures is to get out of the US, period.

    I appreciate your support.

    Mikediver

  276. @mikediver5,

    The assertion that no decent church community or subculture exists in the U.S. is absurd. I grew up in such a subculture, and after living outside of it for 10 years, have returned.

  277. @Hank Flanders,

    Each Presbyterian congregation is different. I personally would avoid any church with signs of an excessive number of women in ministry. Most PCA and any OPC church is good to go. Most independent Calvinist churches will be good to go as well, but watch out for streaks of authoritarianism that show up in such contexts. A healthy church body will be able to fellowship with other like-minded church bodies.

    A characteristic of such a congregation is strong, healthy relationships between adult men in the church, both single and married. A consequence of such relationships is that healthy dating and marriage relationships result.

    If you’re divorced, watch out for fellowships where people believe in the permanence of marriage. This is my own belief, but if you are divorced and plan to remarry, a fellowship of people who believe that’s wrong will not be a good fit for you. Most conservative Reformed people will grant an exception for men who are divorced through no fault of their own.

    Again, the key things to look for is a church with men who are effective leaders, not authoritarian, and are capable of getting along with other churches in either their own conferences or across the wider community.

  278. Hank Flanders says:

    Thanks for that information, John. I’ll definitely be on the lookout for those things, and fortunately, I’m not divorced, so there are no issues there. I really just need to go at pursuing a wife in earnest. I’ve never had much luck with online dating sites, and I have trouble getting to know people in other walks of life like at the gym or at a bar. Church seems like the best venue to meet single ladies, given that my work situation isn’t at all conducive to meeting them, which is just fine, because I’d prefer if my wife didn’t have a career outside the home, anyway. I don’t want a “strong, independent woman,” because what would one possibly need me for?

  279. Hank, church isn’t necessarily the best place to meet single women. But church can be an excellent place to become the best man you can be. Find a church full of men you want to emulate – with marriages and families you admire.

    Befriend these men, learn from them, spend time with them. And befriend the young men in the church and teach them what you’ve taught about how to be a man.

    Rest assured that displays of masculine character will be sufficient to attract more women than any man could possibly need.

  280. Pingback: Corrupted purity. | Dalrock

  281. Pingback: Sometimes You Just Have to Look | The Reinvention of Man

  282. vio says:

    It is no surprise that people in the manosphere are religious. I would also bet that they come from less educated and poorer backgrounds, and of lower IQ. The cycle will keep repeating itself with your children, as they will be of religious backgrounds and lower IQ due to the way you select your woman. Just do not forget that apart from her making you sandwiches she is also contributing her genetic profile to your children (yes attractiveness and intelligence and health are mostly dependent on genes and early upbringing) and the way she raises them in their first years forms their intelligence for the most part. God Bless! :D

    [D: You clearly aren’t here for any meaningful discussion. Go troll somewhere else.]

  283. MarcusD says:

    I would also bet that they come from less educated and poorer backgrounds, and of lower IQ.

    Which is doubtful, actually. Do you read any studies/research on the subject?

    Besides that…

    Kanazawa, Satoshi. “Intelligence and childlessness.” Social Science Research (2014).

  284. Pingback: why/how did feminism succeed? because dalrock, vox and their flock of frankfartian fanboysz want it to. | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl

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