Note to feminists: Only protest culture of violence if there isn’t actually a culture of violence.

Given the Associated Press’ previous bizarre stories out of Cairo this may or may not turn out to be the truth, but USA Today is trumpeting:  Mob attacks women at anti-sexual assault rally in Egypt  From the AP article:

CAIRO (AP) – A mob of hundreds of men assaulted women holding a march demanding an end to sexual harassment Friday, with the attackers overwhelming the male guardians and groping and molesting several of the female marchers in Cairo’s Tahrir Square.

For anyone who has ever wondered what would happen if feminists ever protested rape culture where such a culture actually existed, this would seem to be the answer.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

74 Responses to Note to feminists: Only protest culture of violence if there isn’t actually a culture of violence.

  1. bskillet81 says:

    demanding an end to sexual harassment Friday

    This must be a new business trend. My employer still only does casual-dress Friday. Anyone else work for a comany that has instituted this new sexual-harrassment Friday? It sounds like an ideal place to work.

  2. zykosm says:

    How does one protest against rape culture. I mean, I could also organize a march to protest against several things, such as tomatoes not being sweet even though they are a fruit, the fact that Game of Thrones only airs on HBO, or that my hammer was mean to me and hit me on the finger when I was trying to hang that painting on the wall.

    That’s the problem with feminist and other PC rallies, they seem to be a conduit for releasing anger and discontent, rather than an attempt at fixing things. Taking the examples from above, what would be more productive would be for me to write to the producers of GoT to voice my dissatisfaction, perhaps invent a hammer that hits nails and not fingers, and finally read on the topic of biological classification and understand why it’s done the way it is. Similarly, feminists would have more luck writing congress about laws they dislike, try to find ways to fix the rape culture, or even read about biology and understand why some people rape. Amazingly enough, they already do all of the above, and in all cases, it’s given them success. Yes, success, they solved what they were seeking to achieve. But that’s a problem because if you have solved a problem, you can’t continue (legitimately) complaining about it and get your fix off of walking down the street with people who share your views.

    The real problem begins when they control the public discourse, so that the general population, even faced with the ridicule of such protests can’t even voice their exasperation without being called hateful.

  3. CL says:

    @ bskillet81

    Reminds me of those funny insurance claims: “I was later found in a ditch by some stray cows. The telephone pole was approaching. I was attempting to swerve out of the way when I struck the front end.”

  4. Which part of the bible commands us to destroy Muslims in far away countries? I must have missed it, sorry.

  5. Lavazza says:

    Hehe!

  6. Looking Glass says:

    I think Columnist was getting at “interior Islamic Theology” about fighting amongst Muslims. But it’s really, really hard to make out. If I had to guess, part of that feels like an auto-generation script.

    But a very common tactic is to be against people that won’t fight back violently. It’s why the New York Times, when discussing the Mohammed Cartoons, ran a picture of the Piss Christ painting. Moral Courage is rarely found in most, it has to be built. There’s actually an argument that to have any Moral Courage is actually be to be Anti-Feminist, but that’s for another time.

  7. Will S. says:

    @ cynicalcalvinist: Columnist isn’t a Christian; by his own admission, he’s a follower of Iblis, the Islamic Devil. I suggest ignoring his prescriptions, or anything else he says, frankly.

  8. Will S. says:

    I mean, the guy is spot on about Islam’s deception and lies – but then says we have to fight fire with fire, by becoming just like them.

    I should think that the Devil no doubt would like it if anyone was fool enough to follow such a suggestion. Fortunately, I think few will…

  9. Pingback: Mob Attacks Women at Anti-Sexual Assault Rally in Egypt | Happolati's Miscellany

  10. Will S. says:

    @ Looking Glass: It’s hard to tell just whatever the hell it is that Columnist is rambling on about, at any given time. He’s just another incoherent internet Aspie… The manosphere seems to attract them like flies, alas…

  11. Jim says:

    Looking Glass comes closest to revealing the truth. Feminists, Gay Rights, etc are cowards. They’ve made the calculation that 99% of the time Conservatives/Republicans and the like will back down and retreat. And even if that 1% should act out, they’ll be roundly condemned by everyone, thus earning the Leftists public credibility(You See?!?!? That’s what we’ve been on about…) and a political victory.

    With Muslims, the Left remains silent because they’ve made another calculation; that any criticism of Islam will be met with violence a great deal of the time. So, they don’t criticize Islam for the rampant misogyny, homophobia, institutionalized discrimination, and hatred of the ‘other’ within Islam. There’s also a great deal of moral and intellectual blindness among the Left, which perhaps explains why they often align themselves with Muslims whom share few of their ‘likes’(Allah, Sharia, Islamic Supremacy, etc) and many of their ‘hates’ (Judeo-Christian Western Civilization, Israel). It’s their ‘hate’ which brings these two groups together, not what they actually believe in.

    For example, that ‘Blindness’ is part of the reason why French philosopher Michel Foucault was completely enthralled and raved about the Iranian Revolution even though the people behind the revolution(Khomeni & co.) would have executed Foucault for being a homosexual. He just couldn’t see that other aspect because he was so blinded by his ideology.

  12. I see. Unfortunately he doesn’t sound too far off from certain pro-war Christians, but I guess that’s for another time.

  13. Will S. says:

    I hear you, my fellow Calvinist and anti-war brother. But indeed, such topics are beyond the usual scope of Dalrock’s blog.

    Not mine, though. :)

  14. Will S. says:

    That is, neither of mine. :)

  15. Suz says:

    Someone should charter a troop transport plane or two, load it with screeching feminists, and ship them to Cairo, where their efforts are clearly needed. I’ll chip in a few bucks.

  16. Haha, I’ll make sure to take a look. I’ve been working on some stuff to post but it’s slow going :).

  17. Will S. says:

    I was wondering; I clicked on your link, and found nothing. Must say, I was much disappointed, since there are so few Calvinist-run blogs out there. (j/k) ;)

    I was esp. curious, since I’m both a cynic and a Calvinist. I’m also Canadian, though I hope you won’t hold that against me.

    My two blogs are not just me, either; they’re multi-person, and the one even includes a Papist; the other includes an atheist. Just giving you fair warning. :)

  18. Don’t believe Will S, CynicalCalvinist. I was a Jansenist for a while.

  19. Will S. says:

    @ CynicalCalvinist: Don’t believe my fellow Patriactionary brother EA; he’s a Papist, with Jesuit tendencies. (i.e. rigidly rational / logical, great at debate, alas. ;) )

  20. Opus says:

    It may be (I’ve never been there) and perhaps I do not entirely undrstand Muslim mentality, but, I find the idea which Dalrock tacitly subscribes to, that there is or indeed might be a ‘rape culture’ in Egypt really fairly unfair on the Egyptians (the cradle of civilisation, a country always dependant on the overflowing Nile for its eight mile wide strip of fertile land – the problem in Egypt is the Malthusan one of a rapidly expanding population up to 78,000,000 from 60,000,000 in only a decade or so, and not some avaricious pharoah short on Democratic credentials). I would guess that the average Egyptian is as opposed to Rape as anyone else might be, however, I also suspect that the average Egyptian male recognises a slut for what she is when he sees one and without filtering it through some empowerment rhetoric. Let us not forget that Egypt is a Mecca for western women seeking ‘romance’ with men they are far older than and certainly far richer: the average GDP for Egypt being I believe about $1,500 a year, so is it any wonder that Egyptians see White western women as little more than whores where the only difference between those women and their own prostitutes is that the money is moving in the other direction.

    Mind you, it is nice to see someone standing up to the Feminazis, and reminding them that the only way they can get away with their usual behaviour is because Egyptian men can see little reason not to use their one natural ability (i.e. brute force) to stamp out something that would destroy Muslim culture – a culture I hasten to add which has been pretty successful socially for about 1400 years and which they believe in – will wishy-washy Western liberalism last that long before the misandry bubble bursts? I doubt it.

  21. At first blush, it does seem like the PITA feminists might draw the useful lesson that the only reason they get away with their arrant nonsense in the politer parts of the world is because of the nigh-on saintly forebearance of the men. How long this will last is anyone’s guess.

  22. Jeff says:

    @Opus — your ignorance of modern Egyptian culture is on full display, and you’re not only beclowning yourself but bordering on sounding like a despicable human being. Rape and sexual harassment (not the ‘he looked at me’ kind, the ‘rampaging mobs of men ripping the clothes off of women who are dressed fully modestly according to the dictates of Islam’ kind) are far more prevalent and much more widely accepted in Egyptian culture than in the Western world

    My wife and I lived there for 3 years, and I attribute the fact that the worst thing that happened to her was a police officer telling her he loved her (a single man talking to a married woman in such a way would be shocking by the professed mores of Islam, equivalent to an NYPD officer groping a woman walking down the sidewalk) to the fact that she scrupulously dressed modestly (no shirts with sleeves above the elbow, no pants/skirts above mid-calf, nothing tight), spoke enough Arabic to be polite, and was quite obviously Western (and therefore more likely to have powerful connections).

    To imply that the protesters in Tahrir Square deserved to be attacked for saying “we don’t think rape and sexual assault should be accepted” ["it's nice to see someone standing up to the Feminazis . . "] is horrendous and betrays at best a woeful ignorance of the situation you’re commenting on. I suggest you do some research into what actually happens in Egypt, instead of casting doubt on Dalrock’s assertion with no contradictory evidence other than “well, I think” when you’re discussing factual matters.

    There are many wonderful, kind, friendly people in Egypt. There is also a dark undercurrent of acceptance of the treatment of women as 2nd-class citizens, at best, or property. This is, sadly, a display of what happens when idealists underestimate their opposition and their opposition’s determination to prove their physical dominance because they cannot rationally defend their position. Egyptian women truly are still seeking to achieve the equality under the law that Western women achieved decades ago (and then pushed beyond into superiority in some areas, but that’s beyond the scope of this discussion).

  23. Mojo says:

    Latest post at The Neckbeard Chronicles … Feminists give good advice (?!)

    http://neckbeardchronicles.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/feminists-give-good-advice.html

  24. Jim says:

    I’d love to see a slutwalk or topless march happen there. Think those women would survive unscathed? Unlike here where spineless men allow them to get away with that crap instead of throwing things and spitting on them as they deserve, over there they might actually wind up in a world of hurt.

  25. There was a female blogger in these parts who used to say that feminism only lasts because men physically permit it.

  26. Jim says:

    One other thing. Yesterday I ate at a place called Baba Ghanoush in the mall food court and the person running the place is a gent from Kuwait. We got to talking and he says that the society in his homeland is unrecognizable now, that it changed overnight and the drug/sex culture of the west has fully invaded. Could that be why other nations in that region are doing their best to stave off the west? Can you blame them?

  27. Will S. says:

    @ Jim: No, I wouldn’t blame them, at all.

    It’s understandable why they hate us, between our immoral ways, and our interference in their region…

  28. Sunshine says:

    “feminism only lasts because men physically permit it.”

    Well, I wish ya’ll would stop permitting it then.

  29. Jim says:

    To stop permitting it Sunshine would mean that many men would have to be willing to make sacrifices. The femi-police state is quite a deterrent. And with all due respect, feminist and western women aren’t worth the spit in my mouth much less sacrificing my freedom or life for. Men can be more successful by merely dropping out and keeping as much money away from the system rather than directly forcing the issue. And once the well runs dry, and it will, they will be dealt with. And severely.

  30. Sunshine says:

    @Jim
    Yes, I totally agree with you that there is no way at this point that men can just physically compel women to behave. That day has passed. The current legal and political framework is going to have to crumble or at least seriously deteriorate before anything resembling true patriarchy can be re-established. I don’t know if that will happen in our lifetime or not. Probably the best that can be done now for those who don’t wish to utterly drop out is to follow Ephesians 5:16 and make the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.

  31. Opus says:

    @Jeff

    I would be more motivated to accept what you say as a fair approximation to modern Egypt had you relayed your greater and hands-on knowledge of the Country, with more concern for my obvious lack of knowledge, and if it bore any resemblance to my own discussions with those who I have spoken to who have lived in Egypt. It doesn’t. As it is, your attempt to portray me as a ‘clown’ and ‘despicable human being’ suggests to me that I have obviously got under your skin – perhaps it has something to do with your white-knighting of your wife, who was spoken to romantically by a police officer – the horror! I detect you must be one of those western liberals keen to turn Cairo into a somewhat hotter version of Washington D.C. – for you say that Egyptian women are still seeking to achieve equality as they are seen as property or second class citizens, a form of cultural imperialism where the white man knows better than the native. Yours seems to be the language of radical feminism, as is the laughable concept of ‘Rape Culture’.

    Thanks for the shaming.

  32. Höllenhund says:

    Why would any young Western man want to make a conscious effort to reestablish the patriarchy, dear Sunshine? Care to elaborate?

  33. Uncle Elmer says:

    Hey Dalrock, this recent study proving that older married men with stay-at-home wives are sexist, counter-revolutionary bigots and should be pushed out of the workforce is getting some attention from noted feminist journals such as “The Atlantic”, “ForbesWoman”, and “Jezebel”.

    Marriage Structure and Resistance to the Gender Revolution in the Workplace

    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2018259

  34. Jeff says:

    @Opus

    When someone starts with the equivalent of “I don’t really know, but I’m going to say you’re wrong” and proceeds to paint a group of Egyptian women objecting to being groped and raped with near-impunity with the same brush as Western radical feminists, I tend to stop wondering if he’s got a thick enough skin to hear that his assumptions and position bear no resemblance to the reality that I’ve lived through. When someone says it’s good to see women get attacked for protesting that sexual assault shouldn’t be tolerated, I stop being too concerned about his feelings or what his friends have told him.

    Uninformed bloviations that deny provable facts ( see here and here ) and say that peaceful demonstrators deserve to get roughed up and chased into hiding do, in fact, get under my skin. I’m not sure how pointing out that my wife was lucky to not get assaulted like most women in Egypt is white-knighting, but it looks like you had your manosphere buzzword bingo card out, so go right ahead. I’m also not clear on how stating that Egyptian women are striving for equality (without making any obvious statement in favor of their position, other than to say that they don’t deserve to be beaten for expressing it) equates to cultural imperialism (that is, after all, EXACTLY WHAT THEY WERE PROTESTING FOR), but check another box on your card.

    You may want to check the calibration on your detector, though, since I’m generally somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun politically. If saying that people have the right to peaceful protest for a fairly basic human right (to be treated as a person, not as a sexual plaything just because they’re physically weaker) makes me a liberal, well gosh, I guess I need to go home and rethink my ideology.

    Mine is the language of radical feminism? That’s a good one. Check another box on your card, but make sure not to realize that you didn’t like my tone, so you completely ignored my assertions and chose instead to go for that old liberal standby, poisoning the well by attacking me instead of refuting or even addressing the information I added to the discussion.

    Shaming’s only a bad thing if the person doesn’t actually deserve it. Making the assertions you did without knowing of what you speak qualifies, IMO, so you’re welcome, and don’t forget to check that box as well [BINGO!].

  35. freebird says:

    “Why would any young Western man want to make a conscious effort to reestablish the patriarchy, dear Sunshine? Care to elaborate?”
    Because that is the only system that works.
    Either re-institute it or accept the resultant die off.
    It starts with lies and unjust laws follow-those Syrian men fought against lies and creeping Satanism.
    (Death of the family)
    Good on them!
    No one likes being falsely accused,and those fem-protesters were doing just that,openly and in public,they are naturally subject to public reaction.
    The fems cannot micro control every last person,thought or thing!
    Crazy wanna be totalitarians.
    Syrians for freedom,yay!

  36. freebird says:

    @Jeff-yeah man, try protesting anything other than feminism leading to a Police State here in the good ole USA and see what it gets you.
    You’re going on and on about freedom in Syria and fail to see how we lost it here.

  37. freebird says:

    It’s self evident the Islamic protect their wimmin more than feminized countries.
    The just want to keep the rights that
    go with that responsibility.
    Who are we to question the religion that has been beneficial to them for so long.
    We are the destroyers,the locusts,the bringer of death through satanic ideology.

  38. Suz says:

    Freebird:
    ““Why would any young Western man want to make a conscious effort to reestablish the patriarchy, dear Sunshine? Care to elaborate?”
    Because that is the only system that works.
    Either re-institute it or accept the resultant die off.”

    Exactly, although I get the impression Hollenhund, unlike most men (young or not,) prefers the “die off.”

  39. Jeff says:

    @Freebird
    Did you really mean to just cheer on the Egyptian men who attacked women for organizing a protest against sexual assault? If you read anything about sexual assault in Egypt, the women weren’t making false accusations. They were trying to shine a spotlight on an issue that (some) Egyptians are ashamed of when it’s aired publicly, but which continues with the society’s tacit approval nonetheless. This wasn’t some slutwalk or crusade against dirty jokes.

    This isn’t a matter of husbands or fathers slapping around their wives/daughters (would you call that ‘exercising their rights?’), this is about random women, sometimes in full Islamic garb, being assaulted on the street in broad daylight with generally no repercussions. How’s that protection thing working for them?

    The system’s broken here, but you didn’t see people lining up to beat the hell out of the Tea Party protesters. It took how many weeks for the police to finally do anything about the Occupy folks? We still have an incredible degree of freedom to peacefully protest in the U.S., in spite of our creeping losses of freedom.

    I lament the damage that feminism is doing to our society, and it needs to be confronted and rolled back. Beating up peaceful protesters in the street, however, is not going to carry the day for our ideas.

  40. Jim says:

    No one is saying the system over there is perfect. Women do not deserve to live in fear anywhere and I think most can agree on that.

  41. Sunshine says:

    Höllenhund: “Why would any young Western man want to make a conscious effort to reestablish the patriarchy, dear Sunshine? Care to elaborate?”

    I am going to respond to your question even though I am not sure you are seriously asking for my thoughts; I suspect perhaps there is something you wish to say further on this issue?

    First I think we had better agree on the definition of patriarchy. From dictionary.com:
    pa·tri·arch·y   [pey-tree-ahr-kee] Show IPA noun, plural pa·tri·arch·ies.
    1.a form of social organization in which the father is the supreme authority in the family, clan, or tribe and descent is reckoned in the male line, with the children belonging to the father’s clan or tribe.
    2.a society, community, or country based on this social organization.

    First, I was not talking to “any young Western man”. I was speaking to the average reader here, who is most likely a Christian. The Bible teaches us that this is the correct structure for a family. Ballista74 has written an excellent post at his blog on complementarity and hierarchy http://societyofphineas.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/different-yet-equally-valued/ , which lists those scriptures and explains them extremely well (I will not argue that point here as many Christian men read this blog, and Christian women are not permitted to teach men from the Holy Scriptures per 1 Timothy 2:12 and 1 Corinthians 14:34). If you are an atheist, Game-playing alpha who is sleeping with 12 sluts a week, you may assume that I was not addressing you. Carry on.

    Second, since the Bible teaches us that Christian homes are to be headed by men in a hierarchical fashion, we must obey. If we “choose” egalitarian or matriarchal family structure, we have chosen to submit ourselves to Satan’s authority. The result will be chaos, as Satan is the father of lies, a deceiver, and only wishes our complete destruction.

    Just look around you and consider whether our society as a whole is healthier now than it was pre-feminism. The proof is in the pudding.

  42. Opus says:

    @Jeff

    This is Dalrock’s blog and thus I have no intention of using it for a slanging match, which would be as undignified for me to indulge in as it would be pointless for others to read, as it is clear that even were we to use the entire bandwidth available we would be no closer to agreement.

  43. JimthFin says:

    Firstly, I need to point out that there are two people posting on this thread named ‘Jim’. The first comment was mine, the rest a different person with the same name. Hopefully, the change of my posting name will clear any confusion up.

    I’m with Jeff. As much as we all can agree that Feminism is a corrosive element in Western society, as someone who lived in Muslim countries(Malaysia & Indonesia) I can guarantee you that Islam is NOT the answer to the problems with Feminism. Anyone who glorifies Islamic societies as being the antidote to Feminism probably hasn’t lived in them to understand how bigoted, misogynist, homophobic, racist, corrupt, supremacist, and institutionally discriminatory they really are. Either that or they’re Muslim. Besides, I like beer, alcohol, bacon, other pork products, dogs as pets, figurative art, equality under the law, free speech, and observing bikini clad women. On those issues and many more Islam is morally bankrupt, even more than Feminism. I also think Christianity has a far stronger case for producing vibrant, healthy societies and individuals than either Islamic or Feminist ones.

    That’s what my post was trying to get at. That when it comes to confronting real misogyny in Islam, Feminists are cowards and moral reptiles. In fact, I’d go one step further and call Feminists massive hypocrites, cowards, and racists for their abandonment of women of color in third world societies. Feminists are brave when it comes charging the windmill of Western Male Patriarchy but outside of the West, they don’t give damn. And no, I’m not white-knighting on this issue either. The problem is that Feminism is not interesting in women’s rights, just Female Supremacy. As Krauser-PUA succinctly puts it, Feminism is ‘Communism with tits’. That’s basically what Feminism is; Marxist-based Female supremacy at the EXPENSE of men’s rights and dignity. That’s entirely different matter than women’s rights. It’s a bit like the difference between ‘Community Service’ (which is honorable and beneficial) and ‘Community Organizing’ which nothing less than Marxist agitation(which is divisive and socially malignant). In essence, both Feminism and Islam are about Supremacy; Feminism Supremacy over men, Islamic Supremacy over women, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc. This is another reason why Feminists will likely never challenge Islam, they share too much in common, especially the same ‘hates’-Judeo-Christian Western Civilization.

    One of the best examples of this hypocrisy was Ayaan Hirsi Ali who was booted out of Holland with barely a whimper from Feminists and now lives in the US under bodyguard protection for fear of being killed by Muslims for her apostasy and criticism from Islam. Another was Lara Logan from 60 Minutes. Much more outrage came from the Right, than the Left and Feminism. My recommendation is this; If the Men’s Rights movement has any sense they’ll actually support women’s rights and Christian rights in Islamic countries, merely to showcase the moral bankruptcy and cowardice of Feminists in the West who do jack shyte for human rights. Not only would it highlight the moral bankruptcy and cowardice of Feminists, it would piss them off to the Nth degree. If you think Leftists get hysterically angry when Christians support Israel, just wait and see what happens when the Men’s Rights movement support women and Christians in Islamic countries.

  44. Twenty says:

    If the Men’s Rights movement has any sense they’ll actually support women’s rights and Christian rights in Islamic countries, merely to showcase the moral bankruptcy and cowardice of Feminists in the West who do jack shyte for human rights.

    “Women’s rights” almost always turn out to be sex-equalist delusional poppycock. The idea of shaming my enemies by advancing their lies with more enthusiasm than they themselves can muster is too silly to be refuted. By “Christian rights” you presumably refer to religious freedom and tolerance, choosing that terrible neologism in order to establish a completely false equivalence between an important human right (freedom of conscience) and a ridiculous modern fad (the fungibility of the sexes).

    The Egyptian story just sounds like what happens when the pussy pass gets revoked, and women come up against the reality of their dependence on male forbearance. I’m not going to shed many tears over people who get hurt doing stupid things, especially when those people are allied with a movement that would not hesitate to force me to comply with their ideas, had they the power to do so.

  45. Will S. says:

    Support the women, how, anyway? By supporting an interventionist foreign policy to overthrow their governments and try to install a pro-woman regime? How many young men, i.e. soldiers, will die for that? Is it worth it?

    As for the Christians in those countries, it has been shown that they are targeted more when Western countries, particularly the U.S., invade; they get scapegoated… The best thing we can do for them, other than prayer, is stay the hell out.

    We need to focus on ourselves. Others will speak for others, but who else will speak for men?

  46. Anonymous says:

    As usual, nothing but the sound of crickets chirping from our own man-hating feminazis on stuff like this an actual women-hating countries… they’d rather be anti-American and bash our own country than offend muslims (by whom they secretly wish to be defiled in their dissatisfied hypergamy).

  47. One top feminist journalist actually admitted to masturbating to the thought of being told to cover up with a longer burka by Osama bin Laden. In a “girl’s together, giggle, giggle” kind of way.

  48. freebird says:

    “Woman hating culture” Bullshit!
    “Rape culture” Bullshit!
    The thing every man,not matter what nationality is to OWN his womans sexuality and HIS offspring,it is BIOLOGICAL that men hate rape, and love faithful women.
    Anyone spouting anything else is citing an extreme exception or outright lying to gain traction with the Agenda.
    The Agenda allows women hypergamy and man-rape via the courts/police.
    That’s the truth.Don’t like it?
    Go pound sand.

  49. Höllenhund says:

    @freebird 11:25 am

    It can work – if certain conditions are met. The idea that patriarchy can work in a society where safe abortion and reliable contraception are technologically feasible, and male physical labor has been devalued, is questionable at best, for example. And these are only part of the current reality you need to take into account.

  50. Höllenhund says:

    @Suz 11:38 am

    Well, well, that’s a rather curious response, Suz, but unfortunately it’s off the mark. Whether I prefer a die-off, or whether anyone else does, for that matter, is beside the point. I’m addressing societal issues here.

    You see, Suz, for men, unlike for women, perpetuating one’s bloodline requires great sacrifice. Unlike a woman, a man cannot simply choose to become a single parent – he has to actually convince some broad to incubate his offspring, deliver it, nurture it and help to raise it. He also needs to choose the breeder very wisely, because he won’t have any legal protection from a broad who just decides to cuckold him, and so on. (Or he has to hire a surrogate mother, which costs money and usually carries social disapproval.) And even if everything goes well, it’s him, not the broad, who will be expected to sacrifice everything for his family when necessary.

    All in all, men need more incentives to breed than women do, plain and simple. And nobody but women can provide such incentives – by changing their behavior and pressuring politicians to change the laws. I’m sure it’s not necessary to explain why men cannot do the latter.

    Expecting young men to basically jump on swords – or push their head into the meat grinder, or whatever else allegory your prefer – by openly fighting the feminist matriarchy, thus exposing themselves to even more persecution and harm, when it’s THEM who need to be CONVINCED that the family as a social institution is to exist – otherwise we’ll just descend into depopulation and matriarchal squalor -, is pure idiocy. Pure idiocy, because it’s nothing but the perpetuation of the old gynocentric mentality – which is sometimes wrapped in feminism, sometimes in supposedly anti-feminist traditionalism – that men are the disposable sex who must expose themselves to danger to benefit “the common good” – or, in other words, “the benefit of women and their children, who may or may not have been sired by the men the women named as fathers”. This is exactly the insanity that drives men to ruin.

    You know what, Suz? Why can’t women make sacrifices instead? It’d be nice. Men have suffered enough. Women, unlike men, don’t even need to shed their blood to induce social change, because everyone seems to be convinced that their wombs have immeasurable worth – even though the reproductive value of most Western women has already dropped to zero due to them delaying motherhood to infinity and contacting all sorts of exotic venereal diseases. One thousand women protesting in front of the White House are a mightier force of change than one million men doing the same (and getting shot and beaten by the uniformed goons of Big Government as a result, of course). As long as women refuse to admit that it’s them who have the most social influence, why should men listen to their exhortations that men, for the millionth time, need to “take the lead” (“let some other idiot take the first bullet”, that is) and sacrifice for the “common good”?

  51. Höllenhund says:

    @Sunshine 1:23 pm

    That’s all nice and whatnot, but you didn’t answer my question. What incentives does the average young Western man, nominally Christian or not, have to make a conscious effort to try restore the patriarchy? Can you list any?

  52. P Ray says:

    @JimthFin
    Islamic society is really misogynist, ya right:
    http://www.iranian.com/main/2012/jun/abdolreza-navab-damankeshan-hanged-public
    Islam won’t drive back feminism. The Muslim men I know personally tell me that religious marriage counselors say that all the money and health of the relationship is the man’s responsibility.

  53. Höllenhund says:

    Correct, P Ray. I myself used to naively think that Islam can provide some reliable counterbalance against feminism. I should have known better.

    http://www.antifeministtech.info/2012/03/conservative-muslims-want-you-to-marry-single-mothers/

    Islam is screwed up for the same reason all other religions are screwed up: it’s rooted in gynocentrism and thus elevates women to an undeserved level of social status. Female supremacism is rampant in the Muslim world, just look at all the Islamist exhortation that believing men martyr themselves to protect the chastity of women. In fact, the doctrine of male disposability is probably even more deep-rooted in the Islamic world than elsewhere.

  54. hv says:

    I don’t know some of you people get this notion that feminists aren’t critical of Islam and women’s rights there. Most feminists hate Islam and hate Muslim and Arab patriarchal culture, and are harshly critical of it, just as they are harshly critical of Christianity and patriarchy in the West. Now certainly at this point in time, the secular West is far “ahead” of the Muslim world because Christianity was forced to moderate itself post-Enlightenment, and feminism helped to liberate many women from patriarchy. Feminists will argue this battle in the West continues but will concede things are much better for women now thanks to feminism. Western feminists might focus most of their attention to criticizing examples of cultural oppression of females and double-standards in the West but that is because they live in the West, and bear the brunt of those policies and “sexist” or double-standard norms.. but this doesn’t mean they aren’t as critical, and even more so, of the far worse conditions of women in other parts of the world, especially in the Middle-East and the Islamic world. I can easily find lots of examples of Western feminists being harshly critical of Islam and male patriarchy in the Middle-East. I can post examples if you’re too lazy to find them.

    What puzzles me about some of the reactions of people here is that you seem to be anti-feminist and yet you attack the Muslim and Arab world for keeping women in their place, which yes, sometimes unfortunately requires violence because ultimately, that is the only thing that will work. The manosphere is full of “analyses” about how feminism is destroying the West and ruining Western civilization.. you don’t seem to consider the fact that perhaps the only way to fight feminism is by threat of violence by men. Nothing else will work. You can write long articles about how feminism is detrimental to society and might cause all sorts of problems but that will not make women give up their rights or their freedoms, sexual or otherwise. Once you give women equal rights, you end up precisely with the problems you lament about in the manosphere.. you might want to consider minding your own business in the West. Muslim men know feminism and giving women equal rights isn’t in the interest of the average man, and clearly as the social experiment in the West demonstrates, equal rights for women is a disaster in many ways for most men. See the following articles by women in the Islamic world starting to question and fight male-patriarchal attitudes and cultural oppression:

    1) ““When a woman is the sum of her headscarf and hymen … then nakedness and sex become weapons of political resistance”

    http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/9105/nudity-niqab-and-the-illusion-of-free-choice/

    2) Beirut’s “Carrie Bradshaw”: tired of women being seen as mothers, daughters, lovers, wives, properties, accessories

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/joumana-haddad-arab-women-have-been-brainwashed-7804762.html

    Give women an inch, and they will demand a mile. I suggest you Western men here who seem to hate feminism after letting women walk all over you and emasculate you kindly STFU and don’t lecture the Muslim world about how to deal with their women. They know what is in their interests. Do you?

    You people also seem to be suffering from the delusion that the problem is that women’s rights are ok and that the only problem with the West is that feminism is too radical. There may have been pockets of radical feminism during its heyday in the 1960s but today, feminism really isn’t radical at all. It’s simply about women having the same rights as men, that women are punished or disadvantaged in their career for having children, and demanding men do their share of work when it comes to the home and raising children.

    What I’m trying to say is simply that you might want to consider that the problem in the West is precisely that when women have the same rights as men, and when they are free to do whatever they want without any form of coercion, physical or otherwise, what they want – which is clear from the social experiment in the West post-feminism – is to have lots of sex with socially dominant, handsome alpha males in their 20s, focus on their careers and their own pleasure and improvement, and then find one of those high-status men perhaps to settle with in their 30s once they’re done slutting around. Female nature, like human nature, is by default pleasure-seeking and non-productive. They will not choose to dedicate themselves to family, husband and children if they are given the freedom of choice. And if they decide to marry and have children, they want a husband who does his share of the work, and who satisfies her sexually.

    You also might want to consider that women are doing well in the West, i.e., attaining college education at far higher rates than males, and earning more than younger men in the same age bracket not because there is some conspiracy in the West to keep men down.. but precisely because when things are at a level playing field, as feminism has worked hard to do for women in the West, the average woman tends to do better than the average man in a post-industrial society. Women’s IQ tends to cluster in the middle of the Bell curve, while men are more extreme, i.e., more male idiots and more male geniuses. So it shouldn’t be surprising at all that when you have a level playing field, more women will find themselves at a higher income bracket and at a higher status than the average man.

    But the problem is that the average woman isn’t really interested in the average man, and the average man feels emasculated by a woman who is at a higher level than he is.. and that is because the woman makes him feel that way. Women can never respect a lower-status man. As some on the manosphere have said, what a woman wants is a man who is higher status, more intelligent, strong, socially dominant.. better than her, that is.. but who treats her like an equal.

    So when women are given the same rights as man, what you get is precisely what you have in the West: most women chasing after a small group of high-status men. And having lots of sex, through their favoured mechanism for doing so, i..e., serial monogamy, with multiple men, and putting off marriage and having children.

    So the point I’m trying to make is simply that contrary to what some of you might think, it is precisely equal rights for women that leads to the conditions you are constantly whining and complaining about in the manosphere. And it might very well be that threats of violence against women and strong patriarchy is the only thing that will work to keep women under control. It certainly has a lot more effect than blogging impotently on some marginal area of the internet known as the “manosphere,” while the larger culture ignores you and marches on towards greater female independence and female rights. You in the West opened up the Pandora’s Box by granting women equal rights. Your problems aren’t due to women having more rights or more privileges than men.. they are caused by women having the same rights and privileges as men. Good luck trying to close that Pandora’s Box again.

  55. an observer says:

    Coming late to the party, I know.

    ” … men need more incentives to breed than women do, plain and simple. And nobody but women can provide such incentives – by changing their behavior and pressuring politicians to change the laws…”

    Westernised government is running into the ground. All fiat currencies eventually fail. Banking on new laws to bring about change will bring disappointment. This amounts to expecting government to act in the broader interest of society. The classic, long-term view often expoused of government, acting in the best interests of the governed.

    This view is completely incompatible with the reality of democracy and an elected Government. Democracy is designed to foster a short-term outlook, the illusion of participation.

    Hans Hermann Hoppe explains it much better than I:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy:_The_God_That_Failed

    The best way to restore a patriarchy will be to let the current matriarchy run itself into the ground. Many people will be financially, emotionally and in other ways ruined. But it can’t be helped. Women pressuring politicians changes men into a victim group, just another special interest lobby. That means incentives, which will not work. Eventually, you run out of out of other people’s money to spend. (a Thatcherian quote, as I recall).

    Government is a master of market intervention, often in the name of ‘fairness’, and always with unintended consequences. If government ever acts as you suggest, it’s time to run the other way. Hard, and fast.

  56. Sunshine says:

    @Hollenhund: “That’s all nice and whatnot, but you didn’t answer my question. What incentives does the average young Western man, nominally Christian or not, have to make a conscious effort to try restore the patriarchy? Can you list any?”

    I want to make sure I understand what you are saying; please correct me if I do not. I think you are saying that patriarchal societies benefit women more than men, and given that we lives in such an astonishingly mis-andric culture, why should men do anything at all to benefit women any further?

    My answer is that even if there are NO incentives for the general population of young men, the cause of Christ is a sufficient incentive for Christians.

    Bskillet81, who comments here sometimes, has written a comment called The Christian’s Relation to Politics and the State
    http://cmd-n.org/2012/06/08/activism-shmactivism/ which you can find at 4:26 p.m. on the Activism post at his blog. I think actually that everyone here should read that comment, but here is the most relevant point he makes (forgive the long quote):

    “But there is another ethic within the manosphere: Some label as “men’s rights” the very same ethic that feminists parade as “women’s rights,” namely, the “right” to live apart from any personal and/or social responsibility for one’s actions. They want feminism, but with a penis. Patriarchy is not the opposite of feminism. Feminism is a system where women get total freedom without any responsibility for their actions, and taxpaying betas have to foot the bill for feral women. Patriarchy, on the other hand, is a system wherein men are truly men. They are heads of families and the society at large. They are free, and like all free men, they take responsibility for how their freedom is used. They are virtuous, and cannot imagine leadership apart from virtue. They are leaders, and the know that leadership must be for the good of those who are lead, not for one’s own selfish desires. Women cannot lead like this, because God did not make the vast majority of them capable of leading like this.”

  57. Höllenhund says:

    Sunshine, if you actually believe this mind-boggling piece of utter garbage – namely that the concept of ‘men’s rights’ equals men wanting to have freedom without any responsibility -, which is nothing more than yet another typically lame socon attempt at promoting the false equivalence between feminism and men’s rights, and if you cannot or will not answer a simple question and respond with a question instead, then there’s no point on my part to discuss anything with you.

  58. Hollenhund, Sunshine, I have taken this bargain in my life. I am happy with what I get. I am happy to have some burden as a husband in return for my wife’s services and deference.

    In a broader sense, I approve of Sunshine because of her attitude.

    I am sorry if that sounded pompous.

  59. kiddo says:

    “men martyr themselves to protect the chastity of women”
    Hmm…
    Reads: “Muslim men and women take the valuable time of their busy days to torture, sometimes rape and honor kill their female relatives for as huge an offense as being friends with their Christian male classmates and not wanting to get married to their Pakistani uncles – who they most likely haven’t ever seen. Oh, what a horrible martyrdom on their part that is. *sniffs*”
    There, fixed it for you.

  60. Sunshine says:

    H wrote: “Sunshine, if you actually believe this mind-boggling piece of utter garbage – namely that the concept of ‘men’s rights’ equals men wanting to have freedom without any responsibility -, which is nothing more than yet another typically lame socon attempt at promoting the false equivalence between feminism and men’s rights, and if you cannot or will not answer a simple question and respond with a question instead, then there’s no point on my part to discuss anything with you.”

    I thought that I had answered your question. My answer was this:
    My answer is that even if there are NO incentives for the general population of young men, the cause of Christ is a sufficient incentive for Christians.

    I do not see where I answered you with a question. Please explain and I will clarify if I can.

    Also, I want to point out in the comment that I took from the other blog that (I think) the author is not saying that all Men’s Rights can be equated with feminism, only that there are SOME who eschew any and all responsibility and therefore ARE the moral equivalent of a feminist. I am not trying to be willfully stupid but to answer your question as best I can, so please explain why my answer is unclear or correct me if you think I am wrong. I am not unwilling to learn something new (whether I agree with it or not) if someone will take the time to explain it to me.

  61. Höllenhund says:

    “My answer is that even if there are NO incentives for the general population of young men, the cause of Christ is a sufficient incentive for Christians.”

    Well, fair enough. That’s not exactly an answer, but it doesn’t seem to make sense to press on with this issue. I don’t know why you focus your argument on Christians, but I take that as an implication that currently there are no such incentives for non-Christian single men.

    “I do not see where I answered you with a question.”

    That hardly seems believable, but anyway, here it is: >>I think you are saying that patriarchal societies benefit women more than men, and given that we lives in such an astonishingly mis-andric culture, why should men do anything at all to benefit women any further?<<

    "only that there are SOME who eschew any and all responsibility and therefore ARE the moral equivalent of a feminist"

    Well, maybe, maybe not. I have yet to see anyone in the Androsphere who demands rights without responsibilities.

  62. Sunshine says:

    @H
    “I do not see where I answered you with a question.”

    That hardly seems believable, but anyway, here it is: >>I think you are saying that patriarchal societies benefit women more than men, and given that we lives in such an astonishingly mis-andric culture, why should men do anything at all to benefit women any further?<<

    Wait, I was trying to ask if I understood YOUR question, not ask one of my own!

    "I don’t know why you focus your argument on Christians, but I take that as an implication that currently there are no such incentives for non-Christian single men."

    You needn't "take that an an implication". I directly said so. In fact, one of my first comments was that I was only addressing my comments to Christians. If you are not a Christian, then my comments are irrelevant to you; if you do not have something to teach me, then responding to me is pointless.

  63. Suz says:

    Hollenhund:

    “why should men listen to their exhortations that men, for the millionth time, need to “take the lead” (“let some other idiot take the first bullet”, that is) and sacrifice for the “common good”?”

    Men most certainly should not listen to WOMEN’S (and society’s) exhortations. However, men do, always have, and always will, listen to their own instinctive need to reproduce. For a man to become a father without “taking the lead,” and working to establish any advantage he can find, is foolish at best. If all men would just stop wanting sex and families, they could overthrow feminism within a decade or so. I’m thinking that’s not a good (or likely) solution to feminism. Feminism needs to be actively fought, and live around in the meantime. Men must “sacrifice” for THEIR OWN good, or they must GTOW. Otherwise, they are guaranteed to become victims of feminism, as long as it has power.

    I have noticed that you rarely object to men telling each other to take control of their lives, but it seems to rub you the wrong way when women say the same thing, for the same reasons.

  64. P Ray says:

    @Kiddo:
    Reads: “Muslim men and women take the valuable time of their busy days to torture, sometimes rape and honor kill their female relatives for as huge an offense as being friends with their Christian male classmates and not wanting to get married to their Pakistani uncles – who they most likely haven’t ever seen. Oh, what a horrible martyrdom on their part that is. *sniffs*”

    I know what you mean, honour killing only alone affects unmarried Muslim women … NOT.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2065622/Saif-Rehman-Uzma-Naurin-murdered-suspected-honour-killing-Pakistan.html
    Who’da thunk men get killed in honour killings too? Where’s the outrage for them?

  65. kiddo says:

    P Ray, I’m well aware of the fact that honor killing affects men, too, thank you. Islam is a raw deal for everybody involved, men and women. What I’m pointing out is that claiming that Muslim women are in any way put on piedestals and Muslim men pussified in Islam, let alone as much as here in the West, is simply incorrect.

  66. Höllenhund says:

    kiddo 8:39 am

    Your reading comprehension skills don’t seem to be that good.

    ” just look at all the Islamist exhortation that believing men martyr themselves to protect the chastity of women” = Islamists, like religious fanatics in general, tend to elevate the chastity of their women above everything else in terms of social importance, the logical consequence being that they implore their male followers to take up arms and sacrifice themselves fighting the infidel, who supposedly want to dishonor and corrupt his pious sisters and other female relatives. You know, better have 100 Muslim men shot to pieces by the attack helicopters of the infidel than have one Muslim woman touched by infidel cock. It’s just a classic case of female supremacism and gynocentrism. The burqa is just another manifestation of the same – “we better cover up our pious wives and sisters lest she arouse the animalistic lust of the sleazy horndog bastards walking the street, just itching to grope and rape innocent women”. A classic case of female pedestalization, really.

  67. Höllenhund says:

    Suz 2:44 pm
    Hollenhund:

    “why should men listen to their exhortations that men, for the millionth time, need to “take the lead” (“let some other idiot take the first bullet”, that is) and sacrifice for the “common good”?”

    Men most certainly should not listen to WOMEN’S (and society’s) exhortations. However, men do, always have, and always will, listen to their own instinctive need to reproduce. For a man to become a father without “taking the lead,” and working to establish any advantage he can find, is foolish at best. If all men would just stop wanting sex and families, they could overthrow feminism within a decade or so. I’m thinking that’s not a good (or likely) solution to feminism. Feminism needs to be actively fought, and live around in the meantime. Men must “sacrifice” for THEIR OWN good, or they must GTOW. Otherwise, they are guaranteed to become victims of feminism, as long as it has power.

    “I have noticed that you rarely object to men telling each other to take control of their lives, but it seems to rub you the wrong way when women say the same thing, for the same reasons.”

    Well, when men are told to take control of their lives, it usually goes like this: opt out of the game that’s rigged against you, shrug misandry, start your own business and live frugally, avoid being used by women, go your own way, think for yourself etc. In contrast, when women are told to do the same, it goes thus: be a strong, independent woman, take full advantage of your feminist privileges like affirmative action, feel free to shit all over men, write articles that shit on men if you want to, go on national TV to shit on men (see Katie Bollocks), read Cosmo, travel to exotic places, start a family if you want to but do it on your terms only, eat, pray, love etc. So yeah, one cannot help but notice that such messages are diametrically opposed, because one message promotes the feminist status quo while the other doesn’t.

    However, it’s not such messages directed at women that I find tiresome – I just ignore them -, it’s nominally (or not only nominally) traditionalist women imploring men to start a bayonet charge against feminism, because, you know, someone has to finally do something about it, and it sure as hell ain’t going to be the women! Even though one average woman can do more damage to feminism than one thousand angry men.

  68. Suz and other like-minded women.

    The gold in Hollenhund’s comment is this: women created this problem and only women can fix it. One woman mocking a mangina, a white knight or a feminist is worth a thousand men. One woman speaking out plainly (and walking the walk in her own life, including her marriage) is worth a great deal.

  69. Sunshine says:

    Hollenhund: “it’s nominally (or not only nominally) traditionalist women imploring men to start a bayonet charge against feminism, because, you know, someone has to finally do something about it, and it sure as hell ain’t going to be the women! Even though one average woman can do more damage to feminism than one thousand angry men.”

    Thank you, I now understand the point you are making, and I appreciate your explaining it. I think I mostly agree with you. Commenter greyghost has mentioned before that the most useful thing that a traditionalist woman can do at this point is to try to influence the female herd.

    I see that as being my own small role in this cultural war, to influence my own small set of friends and acquaintances to peel off the layers of invisible feminism that have settled over the church (by “church” I am not referring to a congregation, I am referring to the entire Bride of Christ). My reason for reading blogs such as this one is to obtain information; just when I think I’ve expunged the last vestiges of feminism from myself, I’ll read something that points me toward another attitude or conception that I need to rethink. I also frankly didn’t perceive how deeply the feminist rot had invaded the church.

  70. P Ray says:

    @kiddo:
    Muslim women are put on pedestals. Muslim men are pussified.
    Baby hatches exist in Muslim countries too.
    Do you know any Muslims – men OR women – in real life?
    Or are they like the boogeyman that parents tell their children about, but can never show direct proof of existence?

  71. Suz says:

    Hollenhund,
    I agree with you as well, and I understand your reaction. I have also been conversing with you off and on for months; maybe I’m just a little miffed that you don’t yet trust me to be what I say I am. I guess MY reaction is rather silly. I’ll work on getting over it.

  72. kat says:

    Dear Sunshine,

    “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour……”
    “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church,………” Ephesians 5 : 22 – 23, 25 – 27

    “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” 1 Corinthians 13:4 – 7

    I’ve read the part in the Bible where the ideal situation is the one where I am not leading, but I have yet to read the part where I am incapable of leading. That was a very disrespectful thing to say.
    Women should make sure they are not leading, and men should make sure they are leading like Jesus would.

    And keep in mind, back in the good ol’ patriarchal days, man could legally beat the @%#$ out of his wife. Jesus would never beat someone. The good ol’ patriarchal system was a mockery of what it should have been.

    Rape of a woman outside a marraige is man committing sexual immorality. Rape of a wife inside a marraige is still sexual immorality, as well as failing the marraige commands. (See above.)
    Nobody should committ rape.

  73. Sol Manon says:

    Dalrock’s failure is not holding women accountable for their actions. If a woman wears the whore uniform, shoves her tits in random strangers’ faces and acts like a loud, aggressive skank in the middle of a healthy male-dominated nation, in order to fulfill her feminist propoganda at the expense of bystanders, then she will NOT be treated like a woman, nor should she be.

    Non-Western cultures treat women according to how they conduct themselves with their family, other men and their society. If they don’t behave like a functional, healthy woman should then they don’t get the male protection, male love, male care and male sacrifice that other women have earned by behaving like proper, feminine women.

    It’s funny how Western society and Dalrock mindlessly throw these sane masculine (ie. healthy) countries under the bus of “rape culture” or “backwards culture”, but what’s more backwards than expecting men to meet a certain male role as disposable tools and protectors for the benefit of society and women, and yet enabling women to fulfill little to none of their duties and obligations in a healthy society?

  74. Clayton says:

    @kat
    You basically answered your own question. It may not explicitly state that women are incapable of leading in the Bible, but you yourself acknowledge that “the ideal situation is the one where you (or women in general) are not leading”. An honest look at the current state of the Western World will more than prove the disastrous results of “female leadership”. There is nothing disrespectful about stating the obvious.

    You claim that patriarchy was “a mockery” of what is should have been. I disagree. Nothing in this world is perfect. That I concede. But patriarchy at the least produced healthy nuclear families, discouraged frivolous divorces, and formed the foundation of a strong, moral society. Contrast that with what society has devolved into under feminism…a system that has produced a 50+% divorce rate, encouraged frivolous divorces, produced rampant single motherhood, encouraged “proud sluts”, and tried to tell women they can “have it all” while they and everyone else suffers in the pursuit. Which system should truly be considered a mockery?

    And there is no such thing as “rape of a wife inside a marriage”. “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time…” 1 Corinthians 7:3-5

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