Dude got a wake-up call.

He must have.  If he didn’t, he wouldn’t be reading this (H/T Empath):

Suddenly, divorce isn’t just some vague threat in your marital future. And now, the word you never thought you’d hear your spouse say is out in the open. It’s possible. It’s real. It has become an option, and you’re afraid.

Note also the inversion of the relationship between romantic love and marriage.  Where marriage used to be the moral place to pursue sex and romantic love, now romantic love is the moral place to pursue sex and marriage.  If not, why is the primary goal to fix the (romantic) relationship and not to teach Christians the biblical roles of husband and wife?

Marriage intensives exist for one reason only: to help couples on the verge of divorce and to begin the healing process for severely damaged relationships.

Modern Christian marriage is just another flavor of romantic relationship, wherein we turn to the Book of Oprah for guidance.  It is boyfriend and girlfriend officially recognized by the church and state.

This entry was posted in Book of Oprah, New Morality, Romantic Love, Threatpoint, Wake-up call. Bookmark the permalink.

377 Responses to Dude got a wake-up call.

  1. oblivion says:

    Until the butterflys leave our stomache, do we part.

  2. This stuff needs killed dead.

    “I have read many marriage books and attended marriage seminars, but this intensive really helped to get to the root and it showed a different way of connecting and hearing my husband’s heart. I could feel the presence of the Holy Spirit so strongly in the Hideaway.”

    What a contrast with an actual follower of Christ: And Paul said, “I would wish to God, that whether in a short or long time, not only you, but also all who hear me this day, might become such as I am, except for these chains.”

    Nope—to “feel” the Holy Spirit, you need to be in a resort setting. Only the best will do for you, unlike pikers like Paul and Peter.

    Whatever spirit these people are listening to… it isn’t holy.

  3. jf12 says:

    I don’t know about the marriagetoday ministry, and the site isn’t great for navigating, but the article I’ve just now read seem pretty good.
    http://www.marriagetoday.com/a-husbands-greatest-need-is-respect-2/

  4. @jf12,

    “Here’s a statistic to catch your attention: 80 percent of men are more sexually oriented than their wives. This means they crave sex more often and desire more variety in their sex lives. Men are visually stimulated.”

    My experience as a scummy practitioner of game is that this is simply, absolutely, 100% not true. I don’t look like George Clooney, either.

    I’m usually the one setting boundaries and limiting quantity when it comes to my sexual relationships. The simple fact is that the typical Christian wife today isn’t sexually interested in her husband. The easiest way to deal with this is to just shut down desire altogether.

    When it comes to sexual appetite, men and women are out of sync.

    Translation: “God made mistakes when he made men and women, and especially husbands and wives.”

  5. damntull says:

    Dalrock. Perhaps slightly off topic, but Vox gave his take on your post yesterday, and if you read through his comment section, he asserted that the wife’s duty to submit to her husband was absolute and trumped even explicit scriptural direction such as the First Commandment. Should a husband command his Christian wife to convert to Hinduism, she must comply. Should he command her to have an abortion, she must comply. In my mind, vox is plainly and obviously wrong, but I’d love to hear your perspective.

    [D: I hadn’t seen Vox’s post linking to mine. Thanks for the heads up. I don’t see him making that statement in the post, nor in the small number of comments I read. Either way, no, a wife is not compelled to convert to Hinduism. Cane Caldo had a good post on this a while back.]

  6. Modern Christian marriage is just another flavor of romantic relationship, wherein we turn to the Book of Oprah for guidance. It is boyfriend and girlfriend officially recognized by the church and state.

    You should get some kind of award for this insight. It’s so obvious once someone points it out, but hard to see until then since we’re all breathing it.

    So yes, naturally the assumption is that you heal the marriage by bringing back the romance — without the romance, why would you be married in the first place? The idea of staying in a marriage where the romance is gone is seen as torture; maybe you’d stay for a while for the sake of the kids, but after that, no sane person would expect you to stay.

  7. apollyon911 says:

    I don’t know. If you read the previous article, the point is that a man’s success is largely dependent upon the woman (the old ‘behind every great man is a woman’ line). Seems women get credit for their own success AND for his.

  8. apollyon911 says:

    Note: previous post was in response to jf12

  9. Novaseeker says:

    It is boyfriend and girlfriend officially recognized by the church and state.

    De facto, this is what it is – state certified boyfriend/girlfriend. Based on limerance. Breakable at will at any time for no reason. But … with benefits for one party. The only way to make sense of this is that there is an overriding idea that men must pay for sex, somehow.

  10. Opus says:

    Another of the less endearing things about America…

    People like Jimmy and Karen – good looking, well coiffured, and frankly, motivational speakers and they clearly know the Bible from cover to cover. Not only that, but you can buy their latest CDs and Books (special offer together only $60.00) and if a holiday is what you want you can check into their ranch style accommodation at Palo Alto Canyon – that food looks great, and have you see the room and its views – I almost feel the need to marry to experience such luxury.

    That’s what the rest of us so admire or rather are amazed by; the never-ending up-beat can-do attitude that permeates America, wherever you go there, even if to a cynic like Dalrock it looks as if they are actually selling Divorce. Be honest, would you rather do that or have to endure the Vicar of Dibley (she’s far too fat as well) discussing your marriage in such a way whereby all three of you suffer from excruciating embarrassment just talking about the subject.

    Choral Evensong is being broadcast live from Gloucester Cathedral – founded 678 A.D. – in twenty minutes: I’ll tune in for the music (some Purcell and S.S.Wesley) and spiritual exhortation in the readings (Isaiah and Luke). I wonder whether my sister will be in the congregation (its attached to her son’s school, King’s).

  11. Opus says:

    King’s Gloucester founded in the 12th Century; refounded by His Majesty 1541.

  12. jf12 says:

    @apollyon911 thanks for the wake-up call! I had just clicked on the one article. The next has this gem “The true barometer of a healthy marriage is a happy and secure wife.” Ugh. I retract my previous suspension of judgment, and pronounce these folks the same as all the others.

  13. Dalrock says:

    @jf12

    The next has this gem “The true barometer of a healthy marriage is a happy and secure wife.” Ugh. I retract my previous suspension of judgment, and pronounce these folks the same as all the others.

    You can see where this also ties in with the new sexual morality. If her husband is good, he will pass the (true love) bra test.

  14. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    Modern Christian marriage is just another flavor of romantic relationship, wherein we turn to the Book of Oprah for guidance. It is boyfriend and girlfriend officially recognized by the church and state.

    Cail Corishev
    You should get some kind of award for this insight. It’s so obvious once someone points it out, but hard to see until then since we’re all breathing it.

    We swim in the sea of the Female Imperative.

    So yes, naturally the assumption is that you heal the marriage by bringing back the romance — without the romance, why would you be married in the first place?

    Obviously this assumption must be correct, because correlation = causation.
    The same sort of wrongheadedness confuses “self esteem” with “competence”. In fact, I believe I could now argue that the “self esteem” movement is linked to the “romantic marriage” notion, but that is for a different thread. Certainly both of them are heavily “me-me-me” oriented.

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    The only way to make sense of this is that there is an overriding idea that men must pay for sex, somehow.

    The Female Imperative doesn’t give that stuff away for free, y’know…

  16. Dalrock,

    Modern Christian marriage is just another flavor of romantic relationship, wherein we turn to the Book of Oprah for guidance. It is boyfriend and girlfriend officially recognized by the church and state.

    That is the ultimate result of no-fault-divorce. Shame on you President Ronald Reagan for getting this all started back in 1969 in the state of California.

    Megan McArdle said it best about “no-fault-divorce” in her essay on same-sex-marriage. Emphasis mine:

    http://fireflydove.wordpress.com/2009/10/12/a-libertarian-view-of-gay-marriage/

    The third example I’ll give is of changes to the marriage laws, specifically the radical relaxation of divorce statutes during the twentieth century.

    Divorce, in the nineteenth century, was unbelievably hard to get. It took years, was expensive, and required proving that your spouse had abandoned you for an extended period with no financial support; was (if male) not merely discreetly dallying but flagrantly carrying on; or was not just belting you one now and again when you got mouthy, but routinely pummeling you within an inch of your life. After you got divorced, you were a pariah in all but the largest cities. If you were a desperately wronged woman you might change your name, taking your maiden name as your first name and continuing to use your husband’s last name to indicate that you expected to continue living as if you were married (i.e. chastely) and expect to have some limited intercourse with your neighbors, though of course you would not be invited to events held in a church, or evening affairs. Financially secure women generally (I am not making this up) moved to Europe; Edith Wharton, who moved to Paris when she got divorced, wrote moving stories about the way divorced women were shunned at home. Men, meanwhile (who were usually the respondents) could expect to see more than half their assets and income settled on their spouse and children.

    There were, critics observed, a number of unhappy marriages in which people stuck together. Young people, who shouldn’t have gotten married; older people, whose spouses were not physically abusive nor absent, nor flagrantly adulterous, but whose spouse was, for reasons of financial irresponsibility, mental viciousness, or some other major flaw, destroying their life. Why not make divorce easier to get? Rather than requiring people to show that there was an unforgivable, physically visible, cause that the marriage should be dissolved, why not let people who wanted to get divorced agree to do so?

    Because if you make divorce easier, said the critics, you will get much more of it, and divorce is bad for society.

    That’s ridiculous! said the reformers. (Can we sing it all together now?) People stay married because marriage is a bedrock institution of our society, not because of some law! The only people who get divorced will be people who have terrible problems! A few percentage points at most!

    Oops. When the law changed, the institution changed.

    …It is boyfriend and girlfriend officially recognized by the church and state.

    The marginal divorce made the next one easier. Again, the magnitude of the change swamped the dire predictions of the anti-reformist wing; no one could have imagined, in their wildest dreams, a day when half of all marriages ended in divorce.

    There were actually two big changes; the first, when divorce laws were amended in most states to make it easier to get a divorce; and the second, when “no fault” divorce allowed one spouse to unilaterally end the marriage. The second change produced another huge surge in the divorce rate, and a nice decline in the incomes of divorced women; it seems advocates had failed to anticipate that removing the leverage of the financially weaker party to hold out for a good settlement would result in men keeping more of their earnings to themselves.

    What’s more, easy divorce didn’t only change the divorce rate; it made drastic changes to the institution of marriage itself. David Brooks makes an argument I find convincing: that the proliferation of the kind of extravagant weddings that used to only be the province of high society (rented venue, extravagant flowers and food, hundreds of guests, a band with dancing, dresses that cost the same as a good used car) is because the event itself doesn’t mean nearly as much as it used to, so we have to turn it into a three-ring circus to feel like we’re really doing something.

    A couple in 1940 (and even more so in 1910) could go to a minister’s parlor, or a justice of the peace, and in five minutes totally change their lives. Unless you are a member of certain highly religious subcultures, this is simply no longer true. That is, of course, partly because of the sexual revolution and the emancipation of women; but it is also because you aren’t really making a lifetime commitment; you’re making a lifetime commitment unless you find something better to do.

    Awful!

    There is no way, psychologically, to make the latter as big an event as the former, and when you lost that commitment, you lose, on the margin, some willingness to make the marriage work. Again, this doesn’t mean I think divorce law should be toughened up; only that changes in law that affect marriage affect the cultural institution, not just the legal practice.

    That is the perfect definition of the damage wrought by “no-fault-divorce.”

  17. Dave says:

    Dal{rock}, first on a light note & OFF TOPIC purposely for it is early morning here my FAVOURITE time of the day (dawn); although I can be a sincerely serious (not serene) man by nature I also LOVE – REQUIRE a wholesome dose of CLEAN {{non-sexualized non-gender bashing}} but instead, Corny, Silly, Character-related, Slapstick, Witty, Clever or just downright Funny Looking HUMOURRRRRR (as if yelling this from a mountain top!!!). It seems that in the search of one’s “better half Soul mate” by BOTH genders who badly NEED more CLEAN humour too whether they realize it or not, has become an “Elusive Dream” for at least myself meeting so many “Yickitty Yacks Don’t Talk Back” if you catch the drift DALROCK? … which brings me to the suffix of your User Name (rock) > that has been my nickname for many years well before Chris Rock but not before the “Rock of Gibraltar” nor “Rocky” since at that time I was “Gobber” LOL !!!! Ok, I have a busy day ahead working on what some would call a comprehensive ‘Thesis’ intertwining Family Histories on all 4 side meaning my parents’ parents too … Politicians, SELF_MADE MEN in Business, and even Ministers … with my Home Country’s musical artists’ songs wherein I’ve chosen hmm maybe 500 songs maybe more amongst thousands-key actors/TV Series/Movies-Politicians-special dates throughout the calendar yr.-ALL spun within the Web of what I’ve learned about the Son of Man especially of late.

    I did breeze through your commentary up yonder and will head back there again latter perhaps today. It sounded intriguing so TU for sending it “My Way” {now there I go with a Paul Anka song LOL which is hint as to what country I am from}

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

    Hello Dalrockas!

    Anytime you want to begin considering why all this is happening and who is doing it, that would be great!🙂

    Rather than telling Christians they “need game,” perhaps you could tell them how to take back the fallen culture and exalt it, instead of merely partaking in it.🙂

    If anything, Jesus taught us the importance of calling out the money changers in the temple, speaking truth to power, and fighting for one’s ideals.

    Too many folks approach all this as journalists, reporting on statistics, instead of realizing that they have not only the right, but the duty, to alter the statistics.

    OK, back to regular gamey programming for now.

    We’ll get there in a couple years.🙂

    Patience, my friends, patience.

    lzozozozoz

  19. Tam the Bam says:

    ” endure the Vicar of Dibley”
    You want to ask our Len how that turned out.
    She always struck me from her first radio “interview” (=usual bumkissing on Women’s Hour or something, back in the French&Saunders days) as an OTT mentalist. Shouty and mad, feministe de trop. All rolled up in one lardy, “feisty”, paranoid, manbashing package. Delightful.

    Nice coat, btw, Lenny

  20. feeriker says:

    Suddenly, divorce isn’t just some vague threat in your marital future. And now, the word you never thought you’d hear your spouse say is out in the open. It’s possible. It’s real. It has become an option, and you’re afraid.

    It simply amazes me that there remain today in the Anglosphere ANY men naive enough to think that their marriages are immune from the threat of divorce. Not to sound unsympathetic, but I really wonder if such men shouldn’t be prohibited from doing adult things like getting married until they wake up and grow up.

  21. Opus says:

    Well, so far its not too bad but there are not too many ye’s and mine’s so I don’t think they are using the KJV, but I rather liked this verse from Isaiah Chapter 1 verse 17 (my KJV) : “Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow.” – not sure exactly what it means however.

    I see Mrs Henry has remarried and to someone who looks pretty much like Tam the Bam or myself. Still you know what they say about fat birds.

  22. Marriage counseling – last stop before toll.

    Dal, maybe you have the stats, or could point me in the right direction, but are there any numbers on the “success / fail” rates of couples who’ve attended things like this or ‘couples therapy’, Christian or otherwise?

    [D: I don’t, but I would bet that MarcusD does.]

    It would be my speculation that ‘getting things out in the open’ in the ‘trust nest’ kills all genuine desire as part of the negotiation process. Nothing confirms for a woman that her man doesn’t Just Get It, and never will, than the overt act of “airing things out” and negotiating his surrender to her frame at the threat point of divorce via a third party.

  23. The boyfriend/girlfriend thing makes sense. All I need is the one optic, the “Christian” group or radio station or whatever that lauds the couple married for 60 years (which is indeed an accomplishment in this day and age), listen closely and you will hear the strains of “how romantic, he must have given her decades worth of tingles”. To my ear it isn’t about Godly obedience and honoring the marriage covenant; no it’s an enduring Humanistic romance fueled on the satisfaction of female imperative. Put the least bit of a hint of lifelong submission on the part of the wife regardless of some mistakes on the husbands part and watch this type of testimony vanish from the aforementioned venues.

  24. GBFM,

    Rather than telling Christians they “need game,” perhaps you could tell them how to take back the fallen culture and exalt it, instead of merely partaking in it.

    You can but it wont do any good.

    You can’t take back our fallen cutlure (in this sense) until you end “no-fault-divorce.”

    You can’t end “no-fault-divorce” until you change the entirety of our Congress, Presidency, and Supreme Court.

    You can’t change the entirely of our Congress, Presidencyand Supreme Court, until you change the demographics of the voters.

    You can’t change the demographics of our voters with Ted Kennedy’s 1965 immigration reform and with the 19th Amendment to the Constitution.

    So until you can repeal the 19th Amendment, take the rights to vote away from women, and change immigration reform from 1965, our fallen culture will continue to fall.

    You can not put the cart before the horse sir.

  25. Novaseeker says:

    It simply amazes me that there remain today in the Anglosphere ANY men naive enough to think that their marriages are immune from the threat of divorce. Not to sound unsympathetic, but I really wonder if such men shouldn’t be prohibited from doing adult things like getting married until they wake up and grow up.

    I think this is just the common human tendency to discount risk by thinking “that will never happen to me”. It comes up in a lot of contexts, and marriage is only one of them. It’s probably also exacerbated by the fact that men tend to be less risk-averse in general than women, and can at times fall into a kind of thinking that equates prudent risk management with being a frightened pussy – i.e., they man themselves up into taking big risks that may not be prudent.

    It would be my speculation that ‘getting things out in the open’ in the ‘trust nest’ kills all genuine desire as part of the negotiation process. Nothing confirms for a woman that her man doesn’t Just Get It, and never will, than the overt act of “airing things out” and negotiating his surrender to her frame at the threat point of divorce via a third party.

    That is a part of it, Rollo, but it’s also that the counselor almost invariably faults the husband, thereby indirectly (and sometimes directly) reinforcing her incipient view that she wants to leave the marriage. In almost all cases it’s two against one, with the husband as the bad guy. Obviously that isn’t going to fix the marriage. It’s either going to end it fairly quickly, by confirming in the woman’s mind that she is justified in leaving, or it’s going to reset the marriage so that it is a female-led relationship de facto, which will in many cases eventually lead to a divorce as well (perhaps less quickly).

    A key point is that couples generally don’t enter counseling at the man’s instigation. They generally enter counseling at the woman’s instigation once she is well on her way out of the marriage – she is seeking validation (as women generally seek all the time) of the way she is leaning, so that she can do so on a good conscience and say “well, I tried … we went to counseling, and it just didn’t work out, and the counselor agreed that it was his fault.” It’s a win-win-win for the wife in almost every case.

  26. sunshinemary says:

    From the site:

    A marriage intensive brings a couple into an environment designed for restoration. How? By providing a safe, encouraging context to work through marital issues in the company of four to five couples in similar circumstances, and under the care of two highly trained marital therapists. Through experiential and group activities, these intensives help set marriages along a healthier path.

    This sounds like hell on earth to me. Group activities? You’ve got to be kidding me. The website notes that you get to do all this therapy in a resort-like setting. That sounds like a vacation for a spoiled wife where she can count on lots of group support for bitching about her husband.

    Has anyone here ever been to a marriage intensive?

    Rollo:

    Marriage counseling – last stop before toll.

    Yup. Had we not bailed out of marriage counseling all those years ago, I’m sure we’d be divorced.

  27. I challenge someone to find a testimony online that highlights the Godly submission of a wife married for 40 years. Where the couple states obedience to God as the reason why their marriage is still together.

    (Typically what we’ll find are bromides such as daily back rubs or putting the cap on the toothpaste, akin to the 116 year old woman that credits a daily cigar for her longevity.)

  28. SSM,

    Yup. Had we not bailed out of marriage counseling all those years ago, I’m sure we’d be divorced.

    The purpose of paid marriage counselors is not to mend the marriage and prevent divorce. The purpose of marriage counselors is to get you to keep coming back and giving them money. The more you talk to a 3rd party, the longer the process takes (hopefully forever for them) the more money they make.

    When the church did it and their counseling was “free” and they still believed in the Patriarchy, their goal was to save the marriage.

  29. Opus says:

    My sister has just e-mailed me to say that no she is not at Choral Evensong but is going to the Cathedral this evening for the Ash Wednesday service – now there is a true Christian for you – and still married to her husband – I trust happily, but that is merely a bonus, is it not. Counselling – I will deal with the scam that it is on another occasion.

  30. The “soulmate” concept is a big part of this. People start with the assumption that there is one person — at least within one’s circles where you might meet — with whom you could get married and live happily ever after. The flip side of that is that if you were to marry someone else who didn’t happen to be your soulmate, the marriage would be somewhere between disappointing and torturous. So it’s necessary to find that person with whom the romance is so great that you can’t imagine it being better, and then make it official with marriage.

    The marriage-first way of thinking is completely different. It assumes that any two people who are compatible on some foundational things like faith and culture can marry and be reasonably happy if they’re committed to fulfilling their roles and making it work. They may never have the kind of mind-blowing romance that dating people sometimes have, where nothing seems to matter except spending time with that person; but they don’t have to worry about that going away and leaving them feeling empty after the honeymoon period, either.

    The problem is, even if people understood this, which they don’t, no one wants to sign up for “reasonably happy” anymore. Women don’t, because they’ve been taught to hold out for the Mr. Perfect who gives them unbearable tingles. Anything less would be selling themselves short and consigning themselves to a life of heartache. Men would sign up for it, but they see all the divorce going on and figure that their best chance of avoiding that is making sure they get a woman who’s deliriously happy at the start, so she has farther to come down before she hits the unhappy level.

  31. jf12 says:

    @Cail, the power and pull of infatuation is nothing to sneeze at. The problem is that women’s infatuation doesn’t last because of their biology (we know, because it can be cured biochemically) and that women are permitted to blame their loss of infatuation on their husbands’ behavior.

  32. Cail,

    The marriage-first way of thinking is completely different. It assumes that any two people who are compatible on some foundational things like faith and culture can marry and be reasonably happy if they’re committed to fulfilling their roles and making it work. They may never have the kind of mind-blowing romance that dating people sometimes have, where nothing seems to matter except spending time with that person; but they don’t have to worry about that going away and leaving them feeling empty after the honeymoon period, either.

    The problem is, even if people understood this, which they don’t, no one wants to sign up for “reasonably happy” anymore.

    +5000 karma for you sir. This was perfect.

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

    lzoozozozozo

    yah i guess u are rightz zlzozozo

    “So until you can repeal the 19th Amendment, take the rights to vote away from women, and change immigration reform from 1965, our fallen culture will continue to fall.”

    i thinkz i seessaz a vissionz!

    2016 presidentailz ticketz:

    Heatristse for PResidentz
    GBFM for vice PResidenetz

    Dalrock can swear us in on da Bible zlzozo instead of da bookz of oprahsz

    Our platofrm will be to “repeal da 19th amendmentsz!!!” zlzlozozo🙂

    I already have the shirtsz printed for our failed 2012 campaign:
    http://www.cafepress.com/greatbooksformen.588144545

    HEARTISTE & GB4M lzoozlzlz 2016 LOLZOZOZ YOU CAN BELIEVE IN

  34. Elspeth says:

    The marriage-first way of thinking is completely different. It assumes that any two people who are compatible on some foundational things like faith and culture can marry and be reasonably happy if they’re committed to fulfilling their roles and making it work. They may never have the kind of mind-blowing romance that dating people sometimes have, where nothing seems to matter except spending time with that person; but they don’t have to worry about that going away and leaving them feeling empty after the honeymoon period, either.

    The problem is, even if people understood this, which they don’t, no one wants to sign up for “reasonably happy” anymore. Women don’t, because they’ve been taught to hold out for the Mr. Perfect who gives them unbearable tingles. Anything less would be selling themselves short and consigning themselves to a life of heartache. Men would sign up for it, but they see all the divorce going on and figure that their best chance of avoiding that is making sure they get a woman who’s deliriously happy at the start, so she has farther to come down before she hits the unhappy level.

    This is good, but so long as everyone is free to choose their mate largely on their own, this is what we will be left with. Nothing short of arranged marriages would eliminate the idea of romance first, then marriage.

    It’s true that women have absolutely no stomach for it. We never have, really. Volumes have been written long before the 21st century about the propensity of women to be led astray and deceived by emotions. It was that up until this point there were reasonable safeguards in place to keep this tendency from wreaking widespread havoc on families hither and yon.

    And despite the reaction this might evoke, I don’t think there are very many men in 2014 who would very amenable to signing up for “reasonably happy” in lieu of being with a woman for whom he burns intensely. The whole reason a carousel rider like Semi-hot Heather can marry after ruining herself is because there is almost always a man willing to overlook her history for the opportunity to bed a more attractive bride than he might have had he opted to give it a go with Plain Paula or Homely Harriet.

    The men and women of every culture are blessed or cursed with the mates they deserve.

  35. David J. says:

    @Cail Corishev: “The “soulmate” concept is a big part of this. People start with the assumption that there is one person — at least within one’s circles where you might meet — with whom you could get married and live happily ever after. The flip side of that is that if you were to marry someone else who didn’t happen to be your soulmate, the marriage would be somewhere between disappointing and torturous. So it’s necessary to find that person with whom the romance is so great that you can’t imagine it being better, and then make it official with marriage.

    The marriage-first way of thinking is completely different. It assumes that any two people who are compatible on some foundational things like faith and culture can marry and be reasonably happy if they’re committed to fulfilling their roles and making it work. They may never have the kind of mind-blowing romance that dating people sometimes have, where nothing seems to matter except spending time with that person; but they don’t have to worry about that going away and leaving them feeling empty after the honeymoon period, either.

    The problem is, even if people understood this, which they don’t, no one wants to sign up for “reasonably happy” anymore. Women don’t, because they’ve been taught to hold out for the Mr. Perfect who gives them unbearable tingles. Anything less would be selling themselves short and consigning themselves to a life of heartache. Men would sign up for it, but they see all the divorce going on and figure that their best chance of avoiding that is making sure they get a woman who’s deliriously happy at the start, so she has farther to come down before she hits the unhappy level.”

    Absolutely correct. Excellent point.

  36. Some Guy says:

    >> The men and women of every culture are blessed or cursed with the mates they deserve.

    If men weren’t being outright defrauded, I would be more inclined to agree with this.

  37. Joey says:

    “The true barometer of a healthy marriage is a happy and secure wife…” Hilarious. Ain’t no such thing.

    Women don’t experience anything a man would consider “happiness” unless it involves (1) a transitory jolt of pleasure at some material acquisition (“look at my new high heels… they’re Jimmy Choos!”); (2) getting the attention of a high status man, or a higher status man than the one she’s with; or, (3) watching a gal pal’s relationship/marriage/financial situation unspool in disastrous fashion.

    Even if you’re an Alpha, you’re actually not “higher status” than the next guy because most women have severe myopia or at least a bad grass-is-greener mindset when it comes to men. Game lets you at least feign being #2 once in a while for her.

  38. jf12 says:

    @Elspeth, good except “I don’t think there are very many men in 2014 who would very amenable to signing up for “reasonably happy” in lieu of being with a woman for whom he burns intensely.” You are wrong. All men would choose hamburger happy meals over contemptuous steak, every day for the rest of their lives. I believe your problem is that you continue to fail to acknowledge the truth that the more a man loves a woman the hotter her contempt will be.

  39. herbie says:

    Some Guy says:
    >> If men weren’t being outright defrauded, I would be more inclined to agree with this.
    March 5, 2014 at 1:39 pm
    =============
    I believe this comes back full circle in why women need to be obedient/submissive to the husband.
    They are not capable of thinking into the future as to what they really want, so they ‘thought’ they were “inclined to agree” to get married yet are not blessed with this type of forethought nor honor and virtue. It is beyond them as known through the only way the serpent could get to Adam was through Eve.

  40. Novaseeker says:

    This is good, but so long as everyone is free to choose their mate largely on their own, this is what we will be left with. Nothing short of arranged marriages would eliminate the idea of romance first, then marriage.

    Unfortunately, while I agree with Cail on the issue, I think this is also true, from a pragmatic perspective. Almost no-one is going to get married without having the romantic pull to do so in our culture, whether secular, Christian, Martian, what have you. I don’t think that’s defeatist, but realistic. There are exceptions (segregated religious communities like the Amish, some people who marry later in life and so on), but they are exceptions from the typical case of people marrying in that sweet spot from 25-33.

    The key then becomes making sure people have what it takes to satisfy the romance requirement prior to marrying (otherwise marriage won’t be induced) as well as, and this is crucial, maintaining that romance throughout the marriage. Because while it is the case that it will likely be romance first, then marriage, it’s also likely in most cases that where romance drops below a certain level, then the marriage gets jettisoned. This makes “sense”, because as Dalrock has pointed out before and reiterated here, romance is the space within which marriage legitimately exists, culturally. If that romance space ceases to exist or falls below a certain level such that it no longer pragmatically satisfies the “romantic needs” of one or both of the spouses, then not only is it legitimate to terminate the marriage, but in the eyes of many it is an imperative to do so – precisely because the existence of the very thing which gives marriage its contemporary cultural legitimacy – mutually satisfying romance – is no longer present – hence the raison d’etre of the marriage is also no longer present.

    This is why I agree with Dalrock very much when he says that this is a state certified BF/GF relationship. It’s an extended romance. That’s what marriage is, from a cultural point of view. Many (not all, but quite a few) of the other “goods” of marriage are permitted/sustained culturally/legally once the bonds of marriage are dissolved: provisioning, childcare, parenting time, etc. This makes sense because it gives both spouses the flexibility to pursue other romantic interests once the romance of the marriage is finished, thereby extinguishing the “moral space” within which marriage is culturally legitimate.

    There are a few (not many, mind you, but a few) who actually think this is a good model, because it prioritizes romance over rules. In theory, per this view, everyone would be perfectly flee to flit to the next romance partner, and much happier that way, because they would be much happier having, say, a series of romantic lovers in early life, followed by a romantic husband for raising children, followed by a few romantic lovers or a new romantic husband after children are born. Why? More limerence, more romance, and therefore more happiness for all. Of course, this is a disastrous idea for children and the social order, full stop, for everyone other than the wealthiest 5%, and among that segment divorce is not common, either, so they also see it as disastrous. But this is the idea which has underwritten the growth of the idea of the primacy of romance.

    As feminist Stephanie Coontz has written in her feminist triumphalist history of marriage, “Love conquered Marriage”. The subordination of marriage to romantic love is explicit, and is celebrated by these people, even though they know (and perhaps because they know) that due to the fickle nature of romance (as even a cursory glance at much of the world’s literature from the past will easily reveal), this means breakups as the norm, rather than the exception. It’s the new model, based on emotional hedonism, full stop.

  41. MarcusD says:

    Dal, maybe you have the stats, or could point me in the right direction, but are there any numbers on the “success / fail” rates of couples who’ve attended things like this or ‘couples therapy’, Christian or otherwise?

    The average is about 50%, with some having upwards of 70% success and others as low as 38% (a variety of studies, including: Jacobson, Neil S., and Michael E. Addis. “Research on couples and couple therapy: What do we know? Where are we going?.” Journal of consulting and clinical psychology 61.1 (1993): 85.).

    However, Christianity-based therapy is not any different in terms of success rates:

    Previous research on religiously-tailored individual counseling has generally found that religiously tailored therapies are as efficacious as (but not more than) secular therapies (e.g., McCullough, 1999; Wade et al., 2007; Worthington & Sandage, 2002).

    Hook, Joshua N., and Everett L. Worthington Jr. “Christian couple counseling by professional, pastoral, and lay counselors from a Protestant perspective: a nationwide survey.” The American Journal of Family Therapy 37.2 (2009): 169-183.

    And:

    Although Christian approaches for helping couples are common and popular, historically these approaches have lacked empirical support. This body of literature has begun to grow, both for religious therapies in general and Christian couple approaches in particular. In general, although sparse, evidence has shown that religious therapies and Christian couple approaches are about as effective as non-religious approaches, and may offer some spiritual benefits not found in nonreligious approaches.

    Hook, Joshua N., et al. “Christian Approaches for Helping Couples: Review of Empirical Research and Recommendations for Clinicians.” Journal of Psychology & Christianity 30.3 (2011).

    Unfortunately, it is estimated that only 10% of married couples have sought therapeutic services to help alleviate relationship difficulty (Johnson et al., 2002). Further, a myriad of controlled studies have demonstrated that marital therapy is in fact helpful (Lebow, Chambers, Christensen, & Johnson 2012; Shadish & Baldwin 2005, Snyder, Castellani & Whisman, 2006). While the efficacy of couple therapy has been established, the extent of its value may depend on the characteristics of the couples seeking treatment.

    Olarte, Diana. Couples in therapy: Problem areas, communication patterns, and outcome. Dissertation. Pepperdine University, 2012.

  42. I’m not saying men never want to get the hottest wife possible, but the motivation is different. A woman worries that if she chooses the wrong man, she will end up unhappy. A man worries that if he chooses the wrong woman, she will end up unhappy. As Dalrock’s quotes show, the emphasis by all parties, and the thing which determines whether the marriage will last, is her happiness (in most cases, of course).

    So a man going into marriage isn’t as concerned with his own happiness as he is with hers. He’s really not. Yes, he wants to be happy, but he knows she makes him happy enough, or he wouldn’t have proposed in the first place. She’s not suddenly going to stop making him happy next year, unless she gains a hundred pounds or cheats on him or something drastic. Men just don’t work that way. If a guy likes cheeseburgers today, he always will. (Yes, there are some guys who get bored easily and can’t stay satisfied with one woman, but they aren’t that common, and they aren’t usually doing the proposing. As long as a woman didn’t twist a guy’s arm to get him to propose, she shouldn’t have to worry about getting one of those.)

    Yes, a man wants a woman who excites him when she gets undressed, but the range of women who can do that is pretty large compared to the converse. Men also are aware that the hottest girls are often high-maintenance and not great wife material. So I think men, in general, would be receptive to the idea that a marriage can be happy and loving without starting with major tingles, as long as the two work at it, so it makes more sense to find someone attractive enough and get on with life rather than to go on a 10-15 year quest for your soulmate. (After all, that’s much more like how it worked when men were in charge.) That doesn’t really matter, though, since we can’t go back to that system unless both sides are on board.

  43. jf12 says:

    @Cail “A woman worries that if she chooses the wrong man, she will end up unhappy. A man worries that if he chooses the wrong woman, she will end up unhappy.” Correct. As I keep saying, the genders are not symmetrical, they are symplectical.

  44. jf12 says:

    Re: hottest. Keep in mind that in all relevant studies, the 10s and 9s and 8s among women have significantly lower Ns than the 7s and 6s and 5s. Significantly. I think women keep forgetting this, so it’s important to keep repeating.

  45. All men would choose hamburger happy meals over contemptuous steak, every day for the rest of their lives.

    I’d say “most men,” but yes, that’s exactly what I was getting at. Offer a man that hamburger, guaranteed to be waiting on his plate every night when he gets home for the rest of his life, and he’ll take that over the occasional steak that he has to fight for and that may stop coming altogether after a few years.

    Every man I’ve ever talked to about women, if he had any interest in marriage at all, wanted his wife to be pretty, but “hotness” wasn’t his main concern. If you told him, “Here, you can marry Hott Hannah, who works as a swimsuit model and normally dates guys with yachts and has never kept a boyfriend longer than four months; or you can marry Sweet Sally who’s kinda plain but keeps her body in good shape and will be devoted to you for the rest of your life,” most guys will take Sweet Sally. It’s an easy choice.

    The problem today is that Sweet Sally isn’t that likely to stay devoted to you either. Maybe her lack of hotness doesn’t give her as many options as Hannah has, but that won’t stop her from getting bored with you and blowing up the marriage if that’s where her emotions take her. So the choice isn’t risky marriage to hot chick versus safe marriage to plain chick; it’s risky marriage to hot chick versus risky marriage to plain chick. Since it’s pretty hard to gauge the difference in risk, the man might as well go for the hot chick and hope to get lucky.

  46. MarcusD says:

    Physical attractiveness was a necessity to men, status and resources were necessities to women, and kindness and intelligence were necessities to both.

    Li, Norman P., et al. “The necessities and luxuries of mate preferences: testing the tradeoffs.” Journal of personality and social psychology 82.6 (2002): 947.

  47. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev
    The problem today is that Sweet Sally isn’t that likely to stay devoted to you either. Maybe her lack of hotness doesn’t give her as many options as Hannah has, but that won’t stop her from getting bored with you and blowing up the marriage if that’s where her emotions take her.

    Often this can be because Sally has an N>1, she need not be a full blown alpha widow to wake up one day with her youngest child finally out of diapers and into pre-school, and her husband working long hours to keep the household going, then have her Is This All There Is moment. It’s probably a natural part of the female mind. But add to that The Whispers she’s surrounded by, and various “lottery tickets” that seem to be laying around (“hunky handyman millionaire, just one ticket and you might win him”)…the temptation to detonate is not small.

    It’s countercultural for a woman to get married, have children, and remain married. That’s just the fact.

  48. jf12 says:

    @Cail “The problem today is that Sweet Sally isn’t that likely to stay devoted to you either.” Exactly. The problem of modernity is that all the Mary Anns think they are Gingers.

  49. feeriker says:

    Elspeth wrote: The men and women of every culture are blessed or cursed with the mates they deserve.

    Added (with full attribution) to feeriker’s “Quotable Quotes” collection.

  50. jf12 says:

    One of the fundamental misunderstandings of men’s roles is revealed in how so many Christians (with good intentions!) blame Adam for not being a good leader of Eve. See Deepstrength, and basically all others who are calling men to “Man up!” The Bible says that Eve was specifically at fault for listening to someone else besides her husband, while Adam’s problem was in listening to his wife. It is the opposite of correct doctrine to blame Adam for Eve not listening, in the same way it would be error to say that Adam should have listened to Eve if only she had been saying the right thing.

  51. MarcusD says:

    Spengler’s Universal Law #11: At all times and in all places, the men and women of every culture deserve each other.

    Spengler’s Universal Law #8: Wars are won by destroying the enemy’s will to fight. A nation is never really beaten until it sells its women.

    Spengler’s Universal Law #9: A country isn’t beaten until it sells its women, but it’s damned when its women sell themselves.

  52. GBFM,

    i thinkz i seessaz a vissionz!

    2016 presidentailz ticketz:

    Heatristse for PResidentz
    GBFM for vice PResidenetz

    Yeah, what do you say? Oh yes. zzlozzlolozzlzolzzzz

    I think it is far more likely that Arrianna Huffington will give you your $500,000 a year salary (that you have asked for on YOUR site) before you become our next Vice President to change our country… Meanwhile, here in the world of reality, men that want to save their marriages must do as Dalrock said and use “game.” There is no real alternative.

  53. feeriker says:

    @jf12 You are wrong. All men would choose hamburger happy meals over contemptuous steak, every day for the rest of their lives. I believe your problem is that you continue to fail to acknowledge the truth that the more a man loves a woman the hotter her contempt will be.

    +1000, to both parts of that statement.

  54. Cail,

    Every man I’ve ever talked to about women, if he had any interest in marriage at all, wanted his wife to be pretty, but “hotness” wasn’t his main concern. If you told him, “Here, you can marry Hott Hannah, who works as a swimsuit model and normally dates guys with yachts and has never kept a boyfriend longer than four months; or you can marry Sweet Sally who’s kinda plain but keeps her body in good shape and will be devoted to you for the rest of your life,” most guys will take Sweet Sally. It’s an easy choice.

    If it were only that easy. You left out a bunch of stuff.

    Which one is smarter, Hot Hannah or Sweet Sally?
    Which one is a saver of her money, Hot Hannah or Sweet Sally?
    Which one spends less of your money, Hot Hannah or Sweet Sally?
    Which one is less critical of your faults, Hot Hannah or Sweet Sally?
    Which one is more likely to be fertile (should you want children), Hot Hannah or Sweet Sally?
    Which one submits and tends to do whatever the guy wants to do, Hot Hannah or Sweet Sally?
    Which one has a better credit rating, Hot Hannah or Sweet Sally?
    Which one has a more functional family, Hot Hannah or Sweet Sally?
    Which one has a father that is more likely to be your ally over his daughter’s nonsense, Hot Hannah or Sweet sally?
    Which one is a better cook, Hot Hannah or Sweet Sally?
    Which one is better able to live below her means, Hot Hannah or Sweet Sally?
    Which one is a better Christian, Hot Hannah or Sweet Sally?

    Of course, not all men have these checklists when choosing wives (if we even get to choose at this level) but I don’t think you’ve given enough information. I had quite a few Hot Hannahs and Sweet Sally’s and I wish they all followed the same pattern. They don’t.

  55. jf12

    One of the fundamental misunderstandings of men’s roles is revealed in how so many Christians (with good intentions!) blame Adam for not being a good leader of Eve. See Deepstrength, and basically all others who are calling men to “Man up!” The Bible says that Eve was specifically at fault for listening to someone else besides her husband, while Adam’s problem was in listening to his wife. It is the opposite of correct doctrine to blame Adam for Eve not listening, in the same way it would be error to say that Adam should have listened to Eve if only she had been saying the right thing.

    Close but no cigar.

    1. Man up is a useful tool between men to spur men on towards manhood. This is why men insult each other, criticize each other, get in heated arguments, call each other on their cowardice, etc.

    2. Man up in regard to women is foolish because of the listening (e.g. obeying) the wife.

    The Scriptures do indeed say that Adam was cursed for listening to his wife, and the Scriptures also say that a husband is called to headship, love his wife as Christ loved the church, be considerate of his wife as the weaker vessel, not be embittered towards his wife, not withhold sex from his wife, etc.

    Ignoring the rest of the Scriptures is a foolish idea.

    One of the responsibilities of headship is to call out a wife on rebellion through love by telling her the Truth (or if you prefer it in game terms “pass fitness tests”).

    A wife may still choose to stay in rebellion, and in such a case such consequences that the wife gets into do not fall onto the husband. Likewise, husbands should not assume responsibility for wives in rebellion against his guidance.

  56. If it were only that easy. You left out a bunch of stuff.

    Yes, because I was making a point, not writing a book, and cluttering it up with long checklists would have obscured the point. I’m too wordy already as it is.

    Women have a misconception that men want to marry the most attractive woman they can get, because women want to marry the most attractive man they can get. But men don’t work that way. It’d be more accurate to say we have a “floor” of attractiveness, and all women above that level are acceptable. So if my floor is a ‘6’ (whatever that means on my personal scale), then any woman who’s at least a 6 is a possibility. At that point, all the other stuff on your checklists comes into play. Yes, a 9 does get some bonus points over a 6 based on looks, and all other things being equal I’d take the 9. But all other things never are equal, so the 6 could beat her out on other factors.

    When I think of the attractive-enough single women I know, I don’t see them on a hierarchy with the hottest one at the top that I really want, and then some runners-up below whom I might settle for but never be really content with. Yes, I could rank them by hotness if asked, but I could also rank them by generosity, intelligence, or sense of humor. If they’re attractive enough to be in the running, it’s a fairly level playing field after that point.

  57. jf12 says:

    @Deep Strength “Likewise, husbands should not assume responsibility for wives in rebellion against his guidance.” Glad to hear it. I think I’ve read you say otherwise before, though.

  58. “@Deep Strength “Likewise, husbands should not assume responsibility for wives in rebellion against his guidance.” Glad to hear it. I think I’ve read you say otherwise before, though.”

    If I have then I spoke in error. I don’t think I’ve said something like that before though.

    That would be like God assuming responsibility for Christians sinning which is a foolish concept.

    When you choose to go your own way and rebel against God you assume all consequences for your decisions. Likewise, wives who rebel against God and their husbands assume all consequences for themselves. Their husbands should not bail them out.

  59. Cail,

    Yes, because I was making a point, not writing a book, and cluttering it up with long checklists would have obscured the point. I’m too wordy already as it is.

    Women have a misconception that men want to marry the most attractive woman they can get, because women want to marry the most attractive man they can get. But men don’t work that way. It’d be more accurate to say we have a “floor” of attractiveness, and all women above that level are acceptable. So if my floor is a ’6′ (whatever that means on my personal scale), then any woman who’s at least a 6 is a possibility. At that point, all the other stuff on your checklists comes into play.

    LOL. Fair enough. Yes, to all of this Cail. When you are right, you are right. And unfortunately because almost all men have that looks-floor of attractiveness that is a 6 (sometimes a 5) feminism was born.

    “Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of American life.”

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/04/16/study_confirms_undeniable_truth_of_life_24

    Were it not for that looks-floor (that men have for acceptable wives) there may not be feminism. After all if a woman is ugly, without feminism, she truly can’t have access (in this lifetime) to what attractive women have.

  60. Cail’s commentary is on fire. IBB, you need to notice that he’s specifically discussing one part of choosing a mate, his focus is there at the moment. Not that the other points don’t matter. On that one point though, he is dead on. It’s exactly how marriage minded men think.

  61. fh,

    Cail’s commentary is on fire. IBB, you need to notice that he’s specifically discussing one part of choosing a mate, his focus is there at the moment.

    And I gave him his props.

  62. jf12 says:

    @DeepStrength “That would be like God assuming responsibility for Christians sinning which is a foolish concept.” Indeed I’ve made that argument myself against the idea that a woman’s lack of followership is due to her husband’s lack of leadership. Glad to hear you’re aware of the problem.

  63. Elspeth says:

    I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’ve said Cail, but I couldn’t help but notice that you changed the analogy I used. Instead of Homely Harriet or Plain Paula you switched it to Sweet Sally.

    That’s telling I think.

  64. Tam the Bam says:

    Nova, “we went to counseling, and it just didn’t work out, and the counselor agreed that it was his fault.” It’s a win-win-win for the wife in almost every case.”, I think that IBB is on the ball with this, it’s also a win-win in that the best business is repeat business; ” The purpose of marriage counselors is to get you to keep coming back and giving them money.”

    Seen it since the Cuban missile crisis. The oul’ fella, old-skool coldwarrior and man’s man (boxing, rock-climbing, wintersports, ex-military). Put thought the mangle by the system and a mad wife (literally moon-yodelling mad, sectioned for years), but in those days it took like a decade-plus to get a divorce that only she wanted, even though I once bumped into her coming out of the bog with stains on her skirt and her latest loonybin lover grinning behind. In Dad’s house, and I was a teenager.
    He saw it too, cuz of the commotion (from them). Patience of a saint. He could have killed them both with a couple of casual backhanded blows (so could I, come to that. The only thing I was afraid of at that age was the Y M Toi. Turns out the wee man was a convicted incestous pederast/pedophile. Hooray! The full set!). But he didn’t, just called the cops to get them shifted, because (1) he’d get the jail and (2) even then people knew all about the so-called Care System in Britain. Jimmy Saville/Philomena etc. is just the greasy tip of the shitberg. No way he was going to let those oleaginous freaks get their paws on 4 sweet little longhaired whiteboys. Although I suppose we could have ended up in Oz, or Canuckistan? Hmm .. maybe lost out on that deal. Didn’t find out until a couple of years ago, because he’s going gaga, or just DGAF any more.
    And of course all children love their mother, even now I still can’t hold it against her, nutty as a fruitcake but very sweet and caring when sober, very very bright and talented, and Hot As All Hell, as an art student. Big Sylvia Plath fan (clue). In fact right up until she croaked age 60 proper men (OK coalminers lol) were chasing her (long hair, and kept her bobbysoxer’s waist. There’s also a clue of a better sort there, girls).

    Even then there were “counselors” of various stripes being wheeled on by Mommy Dearest. With one end in view. Prove that he’s the Bad Guy, and I get everything, house, kids, his goddam airforce pension for all I know. “Abuse! Aaaabuuuuse!!! He got me locked up and ECT’d/medicated! ”
    Which they were right up for, no questions asked. “Tell me all about the Bad Man” .. plus ca change ..

    No worries on the ‘Too Much Information Tam Old Son’ score, it’s me birthday, I have prosecco, pellegrino,aperol and ice, and I shall do as I like, and I have been .. pondering … now and again.

    If it helps the knowledge-base and, crucially, younger men, who’ve been lied to for their whole lives with none of the recall of a Vanished Age (when things were not that different) that I have.
    Otherwise scroll. Ignore the daft old dosser.

  65. And I gave him his props.

    Yea, sorry about that. I wrote the comment before refreshing the page and didn’t see your comment.

  66. Elspeth,

    I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’ve said Cail, but I couldn’t help but notice that you changed the analogy I used. Instead of Homely Harriet or Plain Paula you switched it to Sweet Sally.

    That’s telling I think.

    Damn straight that is telling. It tells women, don’t be born ugly or even plain (as if they had all the control here.) That have some, but not all…. and no matter how sweet Homely Harriet is, she’s not getting a marriage proposal in this lifetime.

  67. jf12 says:

    Ah Tam, her a Big Sylvia Plath fan, and me a lifelong teetotaler. But I can be the designated driver.

  68. fh,

    Yea, sorry about that. I wrote the comment before refreshing the page and didn’t see your comment.

    No problem. Thank you, we’re good.

  69. @ jf

    What people assume is that because I say that men should do what the Bible says (aka be the head) that I’m saying man up and take responsibility for everything she does. That is incorrect.

    A man can only take responsibility for what he controls — himself. Thus, serve God to the best of your abilities. This is primarily what my blog focuses on, though it may seem like it ignores the aspect of responsibility in rebellion.

    When a woman rebels she steps out from under the head and assumes her responsibility for her actions.

    God allows Christians to rebel against him, and Christians suffer from the consequences of their sin. Likewise, this is why rich kids are spoiled and entitled because parents bail them out without letting them suffer consequences. So too if a wife rebels against the husband he should let her suffer the consequences of her actions.

    This is what is good. This is free will. This is moral agency.

  70. tam the bam,

    I think that IBB is on the ball with this, it’s also a win-win in that the best business is repeat business; ” The purpose of marriage counselors is to get you to keep coming back and giving them money.”

    Thank you for those props.

  71. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev
    When I think of the attractive-enough single women I know, I don’t see them on a hierarchy with the hottest one at the top that I really want, and then some runners-up below whom I might settle for but never be really content with. Yes, I could rank them by hotness if asked, but I could also rank them by generosity, intelligence, or sense of humor. If they’re attractive enough to be in the running, it’s a fairly level playing field after that point.

    This suggests in turn that while SMV can be a 1-dimensional scale (“1 to 10”), MMV is multidimensional, more like a Venn diagram. Must have “enough” of this quality and “enough” of that quality and “enough” of the other. The standard 429-bullet-point list that some women carry around therefore is a Venn diagram with an overlap so tiny it’s basically a single point on the plane, and therefore all but unobtainable.

    Anyone who wishes to extrapolate this notion to higher dimensionality is welcome to knock themselves out…

  72. MarcusD says:

    Although consumer spending typically declines in economic recessions, some observers have noted that recessions appear to increase women’s spending on beauty products—the so-called lipstick effect. Using both historical spending data and rigorous experiments, the authors examine how and why economic recessions influence women’s consumer behavior. Findings revealed that recessionary cues—whether naturally occurring or experimentally primed—decreased desire for most products (e.g., electronics, household items). However, these cues consistently increased women’s desire for products that increase attractiveness to mates—the first experimental demonstration of the lipstick effect. Additional studies show that this effect is driven by women’s desire to attract mates with resources and depends on the perceived mate attraction function served by these products. In addition to showing how and why economic recessions influence women’s desire for beauty products, this research provides novel insights into women’s mating psychology, consumer behavior, and the relationship between the two.

    Hill, Sarah E., et al. “Boosting beauty in an economic decline: mating, spending, and the lipstick effect.” Journal of personality and social psychology 103.2 (2012): 275.

  73. Anonymous Reader says:

    IBB
    Damn straight that is telling. It tells women, don’t be born ugly or even plain (as if they had all the control here.)

    “Sweet” is an internal quality, just as “bitch” is. Ugly and/or plain are external qualities. Of the two categories, one is more under a woman’s control than the other.

    That have some, but not all…. and no matter how sweet Homely Harriet is, she’s not getting a marriage proposal in this lifetime.

    How do you know this to be true?

  74. jf12 says:

    @AR the curse of high dimensionality
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_dimensionality
    is precisely the problem that wiki relegates to the subsection Distance Functions, viz “the high-dimensional unit space can be said to consist almost entirely of the “corners” of the hypercube, with almost no “middle”.”

  75. Anonymous Reader says:

    Nobody expected the Geometricist Inquisition…

  76. That’s telling I think. — Elspeth

    Yes, it is, since “sweetness” speaks to desirability, not attractiveness. Sweet Sally’s sweetness doesn’t make her more attractive to me, but if she’s attractive enough to get over my attractiveness “floor,” then her sweetness can give her the edge over the girl who’s just hot.

    Now, if I had to choose between Hott Hannah and Plain Jane, and there’s no evidence that Jane is any sweeter or more desirable in other ways than Hannah, then of course I’m going to go for Hannah. The idea that less attractive girls tend to be sweeter, smarter, more marriage-minded, or whatever, is simply a myth. (And as JF12 pointed out, it’s quite possible that Hott Hannah has a lower N than Plain Jane.) So I’m not going to prioritize girls who are less attractive (but still above my floor) on the assumption that they’ll be better wife material than their hotter friends. Maybe that was true in some past era, it’s not now.

  77. Dalrock says:

    @Cail Corishev

    The “soulmate” concept is a big part of this. People start with the assumption that there is one person — at least within one’s circles where you might meet — with whom you could get married and live happily ever after. The flip side of that is that if you were to marry someone else who didn’t happen to be your soulmate, the marriage would be somewhere between disappointing and torturous. So it’s necessary to find that person with whom the romance is so great that you can’t imagine it being better, and then make it official with marriage.

    The marriage-first way of thinking is completely different. It assumes that any two people who are compatible on some foundational things like faith and culture can marry and be reasonably happy if they’re committed to fulfilling their roles and making it work. They may never have the kind of mind-blowing romance that dating people sometimes have, where nothing seems to matter except spending time with that person; but they don’t have to worry about that going away and leaving them feeling empty after the honeymoon period, either.

    Well put. I called this The one vs my one and only in a post a year or so back.

    The problem is, even if people understood this, which they don’t, no one wants to sign up for “reasonably happy” anymore. Women don’t, because they’ve been taught to hold out for the Mr. Perfect who gives them unbearable tingles. Anything less would be selling themselves short and consigning themselves to a life of heartache. Men would sign up for it, but they see all the divorce going on and figure that their best chance of avoiding that is making sure they get a woman who’s deliriously happy at the start, so she has farther to come down before she hits the unhappy level.

    This is true, but there is a paradox here especially for women (who are most under the sway of this); It is true that a woman’s best chance to chase the highest tingles is to how do they say it?… Hook Up Smart. However, her opportunity to have a marriage of mind blowing romance is best if she follows the traditional marriage script. The more of a HUSie she becomes, the lower her chance of eventually having a marriage with tingles.

  78. Dalrock, right. I think people used to recognize that trade-off, even if they didn’t always choose the right side. You can marry someone who shares your convictions and commitment, and build a lifelong romance within that; or you can jump into marriage with someone who totally turns you on, have a couple really exciting years, and then suffer the rest of your life because there was no foundation to build on (or divorce, nowadays). Parents used to warn their kids about that, and kids were at least aware of it when romance came along and threatened to sweep them away.

    The big difference now is that people — girls, at least — are being told they don’t have to make that choice. They can have the whirlwind romance AND — with the proper counseling from Oprah and Cosmo and passing some compatibility tests — they can funnel that into a great, romantic marriage. Some get lucky and that works. But it seems to me that whether it works depends on whether they’re the kind of people who would have made it work the other way. If they’re the kind of people who stick it out after the honeymoon period instead of turning unhaaaappy, they probably would have done fine with the marriage-first model. On the other hand, for all the people the whirlwind method fails for, the marriage-first model could have kept them from getting into trouble.

  79. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    This suggests in turn that while SMV can be a 1-dimensional scale (“1 to 10″), MMV is multidimensional, more like a Venn diagram. Must have “enough” of this quality and “enough” of that quality and “enough” of the other. The standard 429-bullet-point list that some women carry around therefore is a Venn diagram with an overlap so tiny it’s basically a single point on the plane, and therefore all but unobtainable.

    Anyone who wishes to extrapolate this notion to higher dimensionality is welcome to knock themselves out…

    One of the things I don’t think women especially take into consideration when amassing a 429 point bullet list is how this sort of whittling really works. In fact, it need not be all that long a list nor all that high a threshold for the list to start pointing to extremely small populations, and essentially the same extremely small population as every other woman prefers.

    For example, a woman might decide she only wants to exclude the bottom 50% of men, given that she is at least a 5, perhaps a 6 when she does her hair and makeup right and wears her favorite dress. So she won’t consider men who aren’t at least the 50th percentile of height. And of course, she doesn’t want a man with a below average salary, sense of humor, physical appearance, kindness, or (run before the definition police arrive) “Game”. Assuming these 6 qualities are randomly distributed amongst the population of men (they are entirely uncorrelated with each other), the effective reduction in the pool of men would not be to cut the pool of men in half, but to narrow it down to the top 1.6% of men (someone please confirm if I’m doing the math right this afternoon). Again, this isn’t looking at the top men in any of the short list of items, but merely discarding the bottom 50%.

  80. Dalrock says:

    @Cail

    Dalrock, right. I think people used to recognize that trade-off, even if they didn’t always choose the right side. You can marry someone who shares your convictions and commitment, and build a lifelong romance within that; or you can jump into marriage with someone who totally turns you on, have a couple really exciting years, and then suffer the rest of your life because there was no foundation to build on (or divorce, nowadays).

    I meant this in a different way. She can get great tingles going after the same small group of top men as the other women around her, but she can only get them for a very short time. Fbuddy rockband drummer isn’t going to marry her, or perhaps he would but even she isn’t interested in marrying a layabout; that would be humiliating. But if the woman takes maximum advantage of her youth and beauty to search for a husband early on, not only will she not set her own alpha bar to jerky levels, but the quality of man she can attract for marriage is also much higher.

  81. jf12 says:

    @Dalrock, yes math right given assumptions. Keep in mind that “doesn’t currently have a lot of other women after him” isn’t on the list. But if it were, i.e. if it would be required that he is truly unattached and not with any other women at all, then the number of acceptable men is basically zero.

  82. Dalrock,

    For example, a woman might decide she only wants to exclude the bottom 50% of men, given that she is at least a 5, perhaps a 6 when she does her hair and makeup right and wears her favorite dress. So she won’t consider men who aren’t at least the 50th percentile of height. And of course, she doesn’t want a man with a below average salary, sense of humor, physical appearance, kindness, or (run before the definition police arrive) “Game”. Assuming these 6 qualities are randomly distributed amongst the population of men (they are entirely uncorrelated with each other), the effective reduction in the pool of men would not be to cut the pool of men in half, but to narrow it down to the top 1.6% of men (someone please confirm if I’m doing the math right this afternoon).

    Math is right. For 6 binary criteia (only accepting top half in all)

    50
    25
    12.5
    6.25
    3.125
    1.625%

    And maybe (for some men) it works both ways. Remember what Jerry Seinfeld said, 99% of women are undatable.

  83. Novaseeker says:

    You forgot about the factor of penis size!

    Doesn’t that make the percentage even smaller (pun intended)?

  84. You are asking the wrong gender Nova. 🙂

  85. Dalrock says:

    Good point Novaseeker. I would say that makes the pool shrinkingly small.

  86. deti says:

    “ The purpose of paid marriage counselors is not to mend the marriage and prevent divorce. The purpose of marriage counselors is to get you to keep coming back and giving them money.”

    Not really. The purpose of marriage counselors is to validate the wife and reinforce her belief that she either (1) is justified in divorcing her husband; or (2) is right, and her husband should submit to her and her frame.

  87. deti says:

    “ I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’ve said Cail, but I couldn’t help but notice that you changed the analogy I used. Instead of Homely Harriet or Plain Paula you switched it to Sweet Sally.
    “That’s telling I think.”

    I can’t speak for Cail, but I would have put it the same way he did.

    With men , you have to speak in terms of the “attraction floor”. It’s assumed if a guy is talking about doing ANYTHING AT ALL with a girl, she has to be “above the floor”. It’s all about whether the particular girl is above or below “the floor”. If Harriet and Paula are below “the floor”, they’re out of the running no matter what other great qualities they have. If they’re above the floor, then we think about all the other things.

    That, I think, is why Cail framed it the way he did.

    The way you framed it gives rise to the usual feminine trope of “all you men care about is hotness; and you won’t give a less attractive girl a chance!”

  88. deti says:

    “Damn straight that is telling. It tells women, don’t be born ugly or even plain (as if they had all the control here.) That have some, but not all…. and no matter how sweet Homely Harriet is, she’s not getting a marriage proposal in this lifetime.”

    Ummm NO.

    Harriet’s probably above at least a few men’s floors out there. The problem is that she’s not attracted to the men who are attracted to her; the men for whom she’s above the floor. She’s not attracted to her assortative counterparts, the male 1 or 2.

    Harriet could get a marriage proposal. It’s just that she won’t be all that attracted to the men willing to propose marriage.

    1s and 2s of both sexes have it tough, because they’re not attracted to each other.

    All that said, I’m really getting tired of this meme that says women can’t get husbands. As I’ve said many times, the problem is that women aren’t actively looking for HUSBANDS. They’re looking for studs, for boyfriends, for sex partners; and for good time guys; but not for husbands.

    I have yet to meet even homely, frankly ugly, women who couldn’t use their youth and their kindness and femininity to spark some interest in some guy somewhere. I’ve yet to meet any woman anywhere who couldn’t get married once she set her mind to the specific goal of marriage.

  89. I’ve seen way too many seriously ugly married people to believe that just being “plain” prevents a girl from ever getting proposals. Obviously they do, or they wouldn’t be married. Maybe they don’t get as many as the hot girls get, or from men of as high attractiveness, but they do get them — unless they make sure they don’t.

  90. Tom C says:

    For review, here is our current cast of characters:

    Alpha McGorgeous, Eddie Steadyman, Harley McBadboy, Fbuddy Rockdrummer, Semi-Hot Heather, Plain Paula, Homely Harriet, Hot Hannah, Plain Jane and Sweet Sally.

  91. deti says:

    Frank Fratboy. Will WorshipLeader. Alan AssistantPastor.

  92. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock

    Good point Novaseeker. I would say that makes the pool shrinkingly small.

    Overinflated expectations will tend to do that.

  93. greyghost says:

    Off topic I really wanted to share this with you all here. Black men free from African American culture can see and are speaking. More truth and human compassion than any churchian speaker.

  94. Anthony says:

    deti says “All that said, I’m really getting tired of this meme that says women can’t get husbands. As I’ve said many times, the problem is that women aren’t actively looking for HUSBANDS. They’re looking for studs, for boyfriends, for sex partners; and for good time guys; but not for husbands.”

    And sometimes, they’re looking for a baby-daddy, but they’re just far enough out of the ghetto (whether black or white) that they “know” they need to get married to have kids. So they get married, but only because they wanted kids and “knew” they needed a husband as well. But they’re not interested in being a good wife, just a good mother. So ultimately they fail at both by getting divorced from the father of their children because the relationship wasn’t good enough.

  95. DeNihilist says:

    I think Aquinas Dad said it best over at Zippy’s – Love is an act of will.

  96. Novaseeker says:

    Plain Jane

    Not to be confused with the Desi troll who on occasion trolled this and similar blogs under that nom de troll.

  97. Farm Boy says:

    The problem is, even if people understood this, which they don’t, no one wants to sign up for “reasonably happy” anymore.

    Dunno. I bet some fellas would sign up. The gals on the other hand…

  98. Farm Boy says:

    Love is an act of will.

    There is truth to that.

    But this implies thought and work. And those are not spontaneous. So maybe it isn’t true, as love can only just “happen”, spontaneously and all.

  99. deti says:

    Denihilist:

    “Love is an act of will”

    Direct it to the ladies. From where I sit, I see lots of men loving their wives and ex wives into early graves without south as a “thank you”.

  100. deti says:

    Without so much as a thank you.

    Auto correct.

  101. greyghost says:

    Not even the government or the church says thank you.

  102. MarcusD says:

    @Dalrock
    And of course, she doesn’t want a man with a below average salary, sense of humor, physical appearance, kindness, or (run before the definition police arrive) “Game”.

    They aren’t independent factors (as you note) – in fact, they are quite closely related.

    For example, the link between intelligence and sense of humor and attractiveness:

    Greengross, Gil, and Geoffrey Miller. “Humor ability reveals intelligence, predicts mating success, and is higher in males.” Intelligence 39.4 (2011): 188-192.

    Yip, Jeremy A., and Rod A. Martin. “Sense of humor, emotional intelligence, and social competence.” Journal of Research in Personality 40.6 (2006): 1202-1208.

    Kaufman, Scott Barry, et al. “The role of creativity and humor in human mate selection.” Mating intelligence: Sex, relationships, and the mind’s reproductive system (2008): 227-262.

    The link between physical attractiveness and intelligence:

    Kanazawa, Satoshi. “Intelligence and physical attractiveness.” Intelligence 39.1 (2011): 7-14.

    Prokosch, Mark D., Ronald A. Yeo, and Geoffrey F. Miller. “Intelligence tests with higher g-loadings show higher correlations with body symmetry: Evidence for a general fitness factor mediated by developmental stability.” Intelligence 33.2 (2005): 203-213.

    Salary (and SES) interacts the same way. So, the chances increase due to large overlap between all of those factors.

    That all said, according to a fairly interesting paper (Wilder, Jason A., Zahra Mobasher, and Michael F. Hammer. “Genetic evidence for unequal effective population sizes of human females and males.” Molecular Biology and Evolution 21.11 (2004): 2047-2057.) which analyzed human genetics for clues of “sex-biased demographic processes” (that is, biased mating), found that women overall were twice as likely to have left modern descendents. So, 90% of women and 45% of men, for an arbitrary example.

    A short excerpt from Wilder:

    As an explanation for the observed differences in the genealogies of the human NRY and mtDNA, we favor a model in which the human effective population size is skewed toward an excess of females by sex-biased demographic processes. The human mating system has often been considered to be moderately polygynous, based on both surveys of world populations (Murdock 1981; Low 1988) and on characteristics of human reproductive physiology (Harcourt et al. 1981; Anderson and Dixson 2002; Dixson and Anderson 2002). The practice of polygyny, in both the traditional sense and via “effective polygyny” (whereby males tend to father children with more females than females do with males—a common practice in many contemporary western cultures [Low 2000]), would tend to increase the variance in reproductive success among males, thereby lowering their Ne relative to females. This effect will have an influence on the Ne of the NRY, even when practiced sporadically, but can have extraordinary consequences if male mating success is inherited patrilineally. An example of this phenomenon was recently described in central Asia, where Y chromosomes likely to be descendents of Genghis Khan and his male relatives can be found at exceptionally high frequencies (Zerjal et al. 2003), indicating a vastly disproportionate contribution of male members of this family to the contemporary gene pool.

    Not quite related, but was a very, very interesting read: http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5211B.pdf

  103. jf12 says:

    I would sneer at the concept of effective polygyny and introduce instead the concept of effective hemigyny with each of my two wives, except I did have children with both and they did have children with just me.

  104. jf12 says:

    I do sneer at the concept that intelligence is closely correlated with physical attractiveness, any more than intelligence is closely correlated with bad teeth, or anything else. And humor. And kindness and salary. These are fairly independent.

  105. DeNihilist says:

    Farm Boy, what I take from that statement, is that love may arise without reason, but to keep it, you really do have to work on it and be aware of it.

    I don’t know if men have a more innate ability to sense this, but sometimes it seems women folk just don’t get it that like all things good in life, love takes work.

  106. David J. says:

    Rollo said: “It would be my speculation that ‘getting things out in the open’ in the ‘trust nest’ kills all genuine desire as part of the negotiation process. Nothing confirms for a woman that her man doesn’t Just Get It, and never will, than the overt act of “airing things out” and negotiating his surrender to her frame at the threat point of divorce via a third party.”

    Novaseeker said: “That is a part of it, Rollo, but it’s also that the counselor almost invariably faults the husband, thereby indirectly (and sometimes directly) reinforcing her incipient view that she wants to leave the marriage. In almost all cases it’s two against one, with the husband as the bad guy. Obviously that isn’t going to fix the marriage. It’s either going to end it fairly quickly, by confirming in the woman’s mind that she is justified in leaving, or it’s going to reset the marriage so that it is a female-led relationship de facto, which will in many cases eventually lead to a divorce as well (perhaps less quickly). A key point is that couples generally don’t enter counseling at the man’s instigation. They generally enter counseling at the woman’s instigation once she is well on her way out of the marriage – she is seeking validation (as women generally seek all the time) of the way she is leaning, so that she can do so on a good conscience and say “well, I tried … we went to counseling, and it just didn’t work out, and the counselor agreed that it was his fault.” It’s a win-win-win for the wife in almost every case.”

    You’re both right, of course, but I think Rollo’s scenario is right more often than Nova believes. There are more counselors out there who get it right (at least as to the balance of fault) than Nova gives them credit for. Over the course of (the last) 15 years of my marriage, we saw a half dozen counselors for extended periods of time — always at my insistence (again contrary to Nova’s generalization). While they all called me out (rightly) for things that I needed to improve, they all also called her out (albeit sometimes more gently than I would have liked). The difference was that once they started calling her out, it became necessary for any number of reasons to stop counseling or to change counselors. And she ultimately divorced me directly contrary to the last counselor’s statement to her (in our penultimate session) that she did not have biblical grounds for divorce but that I did. Her take on all of our counseling was very much along the lines that all our counseling had simply proved that I just didn’t get it and never would.

  107. David J. says:

    @MarcusD: I get the link between intelligence and humor. Can you summarize the link between intelligence and physical attractiveness? Is it somehow the case that the good genes that yield intelligence are such good genes that they tend to yield physical attractiveness also?

  108. donalgraeme says:

    David J,

    Good genes in one area tend to also mean good genes in another. Genetic health across the board also means positive boosts to all things physical, and the brain is a physical thing.

    Otherwise, great post Dalrock.

  109. feeriker says:

    For review, here is our current cast of characters:

    Don’t forget Barry and Buddy Betaboy, Sammy Supplicant, Gary Groveller, and Cara Carouselrider.

  110. MarcusD says:

    @David J

    As Donal said, the root is good genes.

    The Prokosch study cited above summarizes the sentiment in their abstract: “Just as body symmetry reveals developmental stability at the morphological level, general intelligence may reveal developmental stability at the level of brain development and cognitive functioning. These two forms of developmental stability may overlap by tapping into a “general fitness factor.””

    The data support their hypothesis.

  111. Badpainter says:

    Regarding counseling,

    Perhaps it be advisable for the man on the first session, to preface the event by saying he’s tired of not being taken seriously, being nagged, being disrespected, and he doubts his wife’s love for him and feels, NOT THINKS, but feels as if the entire counseling effort is just a charade to allow the wife to exit guilt free. And further he has serious doubts about his ability to trust someone who would invite a third party to negotiate the excuses to justify her exiting the marriage. Thus he will state boldly that the marriage cannot be saved so long as the discussion is going to be framed around his, and only his failings.

    I am looking at this from the perspective that if the marriage goes to counseling it’s effectively over, so full Dread is called for. This would place the counselor in the position of having to qualify to the husband, or lose future fees from this couple, and having another failed marriage on his/her record. But mostly the lost fees.

  112. On the Intelligence + Looks stuff, if I remember right, it hones in around 115 IQ level. As much as the “dumb blonde” stereotype exists, a good looking Woman is likely to be in the upper 20% of the female IQ distribution.

    Because of the Male Variance differential, past the first standard deviation (so 130), it isn’t as strong. The larger the sample size, the more the effect would be smoothed out, as there simply isn’t a lot in the +130 range.

  113. MarcusD says:

    http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5211B.pdf

    I have to emphasize the link, in case people missed it. It’s really quite interesting (if a bit long). If anyone wants to see sources for some of the statements, let me know.

  114. Tam the Bam says:

    ” Y chromosomes likely to be descendents of Genghis Khan and his male relatives can be found at exceptionally high frequencies (Zerjal et al. 2003), indicating a vastly disproportionate contribution of male members of this family to the contemporary gene pool.”
    And most of them will be gone, within a historical i.e. multigenerational timeframe. The two standout and useful characteristics of the Y are its relative mutability and its segregation in one gender, giving easy-to-follow descent lines.
    It’s a bit of a truism to say that all Y-lines daughter-out eventually. What happens to all the rest of the ton of crap that arrived on the egg with it, autosomal and so on, is anybody’s guess. I imagine recombined every generation and pretty well chopped up and dispersed in tiny chunks across the available population, after a few hundred years.

    As for “good” genes, lucky for us ol’ Temujin left us a template for the apparent (but temporary as always) success of his clan’s C variety.
    Unbending vendetta, keeping your friends close and your enemies closer still, a decisive military edge, surprise attacks on the peaceful, adamantine will to power brooking no demurral, robbery, rustling, arson, torture, intimdation by execution, oh and pathological violence and obsessive covering of the vanquished’s females, mainly redistributed as rewards within one’s close male kin (with more than a hint of “an offer you can’t refuse” about it too, I’ll be bound), topped off with just a touch of genocide.
    It’s the Way Forward, chaps :¬p

    I am so far at a loss for evidence of his sense of humour (unless “muahahhhaahaaaaaa!” counts), good looks (didn’t obviously do a whole lot of lifting or healthfood in his later life to go by the pics; his fellow tradesman Attila (no relation) for example was famously ugly, short and vicious) or even intelligence.
    But his genes were, objectively, “good”, whatever that means.
    As were those of whoever Mr R1a and his cousin Mr R1b (particularly his ?grandsons L21/DF13 and all the other multifarious subgroups, although it’s very likely in part to be an artefact of intensive testing of this group)
    Job’s a good’un!

    Hard cheese, Judeochristians, Buddhists, Hindus and all the other civilized manginas. Extinction by ethics. A new one on me.
    On the other hand, “Science. It works, bitches”. I’d not take money on the outcome of a mob of cowboys with recurved bows against a group of Apache Longbows. Right up the yurt.

    Here’s a blessedly short .pdf with some interesting data, although I can foresee complaints about the “just-so” inferences of the authors. Farming, and its corollary largescale storable surplus looks like the magic ingredient. Have a butcher’s at fig. 1 and hg R (the really frilly one). Although it’s still an utter mystery as to how R just steamrollered earlier, original farming Y-haplogroups in the areas it now dominates. Jury’s out on that one for now.
    OFC some of the more select hgs such as the O and C (including our boy Genghis) of the Far East and even further have also got the huge numbers, not so much variety though. But does that really mean they have the “quality” over the “quantity” (in this case meaning close variants/descendants, not raw no. of individuals). An argument that only future historians can answer, I bet.

    far tl;dr
    As far as Y-chroms. go, all demographic success is strictly temporary.
    One day soon they’ll mutate out of recognition even though they’re direct descendants. Or get turned into gurlz .. ew.
    “Good” genes? Ain’t no such critter.
    Just “not quite dead yet”. Like me. And my boys.
    “Good enough to be stumbling along with for now” is what counts, but you never know what’s round the corner. If I was a eugenicist and planning on staying in UK I’d be trying to evolve gills and flippers in my entirely hypothetical grandchildren.

  115. Tam the Bam says:

    PS; women obviously do have more than a few subliminal (to them) and extremely powerful biological cues operating in mate selection. But these will necessarily always be very, very retro, and usually dysfunctional in a rapidly changing/unstable environment such as an industrialized planetary society. “Good” genes get left in the gutter in the mad scramble. “Good on the savannah” ain’t good enough round here mate.
    Which does make me question how innate and “involuntary” a lot of the Caligula-level behavior around sex and money that (western) women express really is, if the naughty PUAs for example can very convincingly fake it with a few well-written subroutines loaded into their processing units and a bit of cosmetic physical development. Well done them, like a chom it voiks, and I’m cheering them on, it’s hilarious.
    But surely the meat-puppets would sniff out the fraud with some sort of array of primitive hindbrain sensors, and hammer on the Dive! klaxon, despite what her eyes and ears are telling her, which as always is what she wants to believe?
    All at sea here, need some pointers.

  116. Tam the Bam says:

    Oooh I love being on this close to the Meridian, means I get to ramble on regardless ..
    .. right. Badpainter:
    “Regarding counseling,
    Perhaps it be advisable for the man on the first session, to preface the event by saying he’s tired of … “

    The only reason to take the first session is so you can plant one right on his nose.
    I already know what I think about things, and I don’t need a second opinion, from a dilettante voyeur least of all. Three-in-a-bed doesn’t work in a marriage. Agree with deti up top there, that once ‘counseling’ is pulled out of the locker, all you’re hearing is the sound of clods falling on the casket of your relationship. She’s gone, made her mind up well before, but wants to set the social dogs on you to vindicate her active choice.
    It’s the only way ‘counseling ‘ can be sold to women, and the reason it’s wildly popular.
    “Tell me how great I am, and kick this loser in the nuts for me. Preferably till he bleeds from the nose. Your fee? Oh my, how rude. It’s on his card of course.”)

  117. jf12 says:

    Re: “But surely the meat-puppets would sniff out the fraud with some sort of array of primitive hindbrain sensors, and hammer on the Dive! klaxon, despite what her eyes and ears are telling her, which as always is what she wants to believe?” Supposedly, the behavioral cues of PUAs are specifically designed to bypass her prerejection filters. IOW, her hindbrain tends to make the “error” of prerejecting Noel Nice Guy *despite* her eyes and ears telling her he’s fine, but if Noel did a couple of tricks then her hindbrain misses its chance to veto.

  118. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    @Cail- The idea that less attractive girls tend to be sweeter, smarter, more marriage-minded, or whatever, is simply a myth.

    This is absolutely true, and of critical importance to me. Please mail it to me 20 years ago so that I can save some heartache.

    Nah, who am I kidding? I most likely wouldn’t have listened to you, and certainly wouldn’t have believed you.

  119. jf12 says:

    Tam, wait wait don’t tell me. You woke up stretched out for hours on a cold wooden floor, because some caring son of a mother pulled a rug over you to keep you warm and not coincidently keep you in your place. And now your back is fine and you’re limber az a lover. A wee bit of rehydration and alkalinization later, and you’re itching for action.

  120. Novaseeker says:

    On the Intelligence + Looks stuff, if I remember right, it hones in around 115 IQ level. As much as the “dumb blonde” stereotype exists, a good looking Woman is likely to be in the upper 20% of the female IQ distribution.

    Because of the Male Variance differential, past the first standard deviation (so 130), it isn’t as strong. The larger the sample size, the more the effect would be smoothed out, as there simply isn’t a lot in the +130 range.

    Right. This is why when you spend time with people with very high IQs in STEM faculties, think tanks and the like, you aren’t necessarily struck by how beautiful they are physically. Above a certain level, it doesn’t correlate as much. At the intelligent but not super-bright level, it correlates much more strongly.

  121. Amanda says:

    http://www.thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5211B.pdf

    I have to emphasize the link, in case people missed it. It’s really quite interesting (if a bit long). If anyone wants to see sources for some of the statements, let me know.

    That was a fascinating read — thank you!

  122. hurting says:

    Novaseeker says:
    March 5, 2014 at 10:37 am

    Excellent points made here. I’d like to expound on the first (the apparent lunacy for men to enter marriage). Yes, it is true for the reasons that Nova states that men might purposely ignore or discount the risks known to them. There is another, and I’d argue more impactual force at play – simple ignorance. I really doubt that a great many men truly understand how lopsided the family law jurisprudence is in this country. I think that there is a significant subset of now-divorced men who perceived the emotional/mental threats that a potential divorce posed to their marriage, but being generally rational and mature, would never have imagined that no-fault divorce carried forward the vestiges of fault-based compensatory damages (e.g., alimony) that it does.

    Say it with me… Marriage counseling is divorce counseling. It is all premised on the Duluth model that presupposes that only a privileged man could be guilty of sins against a marriage. It is always 2 vs. 1.

    I’d be interested in Dalrock’s take on the Retrouvaille program for troubled marriages. I’m only vaguely familiar with it, but one its most notable features is the conspicuous absence of professional counselors – the program is run entirely by couples who’ve overcome marital difficulties.

  123. hurting says:

    deti says:
    March 5, 2014 at 6:16 pm

    Your point is well taken about the philosophical bias of the helping professions, but incentives do matter. Counselors and the like, despite all thier protestations to the contrary, don’t really want their to be less strife in marriages. Christians should be seeking marriage advice/counseling, if at all, from people who don’t have a stake in perpetuating the condition and understand the societal implications. Historically this advice cames from trusted family members or clergy. Now today these sources may be corrupted by a wrongheaded view of the world, but at least their not also incentivized to propagate their wrongheaded view.

  124. hurting says:

    David J. says:
    March 5, 2014 at 11:22 pm

    Trying to recall – wasn’t your marriage beset by some infidelity on your wife’s part? Even the most hardcore Duluth schooler would have trouble defending that. Apologies if I’ve misremembered that.

    As I understand the statistics, the vast majority of divorces are not driven by the truly serious infractions (e.g., physical abuse, infidelity, substance abuse to the point of dereliction of duty or abandonment) or would not have the term “frivorce”.

  125. hurting says:

    Badpainter says:
    March 6, 2014 at 12:47 am

    Interesting strategy, but it would require rational thought on the part of the practitioner. Not gonna happen because they don’t need it to happen.

    Seriusly, these folks do not respond well at all to any challenge of their assertions about marriage, many of which would have been considered patently absurd a couple fo generations ago.

  126. hurting says:

    Marriage counselors would have you believe they bat 1.000 because the measure of success is not the % or marriages saved, but the happiness of at least one of the partners to the marriage. Such counseling is performed in the context of individual counseling anyway for insurance purposes; and the counselors only one of the parties as patient (with at best input from a family member).

  127. David J. says:

    @hurting: No, no infidelity by my ex-wife (at least not until her unbiblical remarriage). Her complaints about me were many and varied — I didn’t do anything right. As I told the first counselor I approached for help, I had initially thought that we needed help in the bedroom (she was not interested in sex) but by the time I was desperate enough to seek counseling I had concluded that the larger problem was that she just didn’t like me very much. As I told her and our counselors, my only complaint about her was that she insisted, unfairly, on not liking me. A few years into counseling my pornography habit came to light, and that gave her the moral high ground ever after, even though I put the porn away (with one weekend relapse) for the remaining 9 years before she split. Her asserted biblical ground for divorce was that the previous pornography was adultery. Her other stated grounds were complaints about our finances, my husbanding, and my parenting.

  128. Matamoros says:

    Responding to JosephofJackson in Inner Game: Respect, is a point that is apropos here. He stated:

    Love is a gift. Respect is earned.

    I disagree. Love is not an emotion. The Church teaches that love is not feelings, though feelings may be connected to it.

    Love is an act of the will. I choose to love someone. I choose to love God. God chose to love man.

    Consequently, women, if they want to be truly loved rather than just the short term passion, or friendship, must be lovable.

    They must do the things that a man wants and expects, which are what God commands of them. That they obey in all things, that they are truly wives (a Japanese saying: many women are married, few are wives), that they love and respect their husband.

    Love is an act of the will. That is why women kill their marriages, they refuse to do the basics required to kindle and maintain love once the passion dies down. Thus, as in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Qh_XyVLan6g), they are always insecure about being loved because they know, in their heart of hearts, that they are not lovable.

  129. AmStrat says:

    @TFH

    “The men and women of every culture are blessed or cursed with the mates they deserve.”

    This is simply not true, no matter how many times it is quoted from Spengler or elsewhere.

    US women went bad long before US men even began to figure this out (and still very few have). If they ‘deserved each other’, men would have reacted far sooner…

    Men commit suicide at high rates under current ‘family court’ tyranny, and lose custody of their children. So the men are just as bad as the women, and deserve each other?

    No.

    Instead, I say that a democracy eventually turns an entire society into a goddess cult where all laws are re-written to favor women, and all resources are funneled to women. Hence, the power imbalance becomes extreme. This is certainly not a ‘they deserve each other’ outcome..

    THANK YOU. That saying never made sense, considering the above.

  130. Matamoros,

    they are always insecure about being loved because they know, in their heart of hearts, that they are not lovable.

    There is so much truth to this, it needs to be repeated.

  131. MarcusD says:

    @Amanda
    That was a fascinating read — thank you!

    Happy to pass it along.

  132. Some Guy says:

    While it is true that we all deserve hell, I would not wish modern marriage on my worst enemy.

    No man deserves to watch his wife’s love for him dissipate for him over the first few years of marriage, then endure almost constant complaining and fitness tests from her until he is banished to the couch/doghouse… to then have to sit through countless sermons and counseling sessions after that until he slowly realizes that the reason his wife can play hardball in all of these conflicts is because she can detonate the marriage anytime, lock him out of his children’s lives, while everyone assumes by default that he is a hateful abusive brute.

    All of her friends and religious teachers stand ready to whisper into her ear that the children will be better off without their father. If he objects to this, he is told to man up. If he cannot please her, he is told to step up. She owes him nothing unless and until he qualifies for it again and again and again. He is at the mercy of her whims. Everything he does or does not do can be construed to be disrespectful to her. If he asserts himself in the face of her contempt, she only needs to claim that he makes her feel “uncomfortable” and his life and freedom are effectively over.

    Men would not get married if they knew the actual odds of this sort of thing happening to them. They would not get married if they were told up front that should not expect loyalty, commitment, or sex. That’s what they think they are locking down with a marriage. That’s what they’ve been sold. It’s fraud.

  133. SG,

    Men would not get married if they knew the actual odds of this sort of thing happening to them. They would not get married if they were told up front that should not expect loyalty, commitment, or sex. That’s what they think they are locking down with a marriage. That’s what they’ve been sold. It’s fraud.

    The think is SG, while all of that may be true, that truth gets no traction in the world of public opinion. None. In the world of public opinion the response (to men) who voice this belief in public is largely “who cares?” Public opinion does not give a da-n if men go on a marriage strike for two reasons:

    * They believe the man on marriage strike couldn’t get married even if he wanted to because he has nothing to offer women so screw him or
    * They believe so few men of means who WOULD be good husbands would “opt out” that it wouldn’t matter in the grand scheme of things…

    So I guess what I am saying is that until all the men of means decide to go full Bill Maher (going full Bill Maher = guys with a lot of money and a lot to offer choosing to never marry) no one will care because public opinion will not be influenced.

  134. jf12 says:

    Re: Some Guy @11:59 am
    Best comment of the week. Women should read it over and over until they recognize their own men.

  135. James K says:

    @Tam
    The prevalence of Genghis Khan’s Y chromosome indicates that he has a huge number of descendants. It shows that his (less rapidly mutating) recombining nuclear DNA must also be very widely scattered, even if it is harder to detect.

    Perhaps Genghis is an example of the “Great Man of History”, a theory that is not currently fashionable. His grandson destroyed Baghdad and brought the Islamic Golden Age to an end. Seven hundred and fifty years later, we are still dealing with the fallout.

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

    lzozozozozo

    z;lzozozozozozzlzzolzozo

  137. Elspeth says:

    I believe your problem is that you continue to fail to acknowledge the truth that the more a man loves a woman the hotter her contempt will be.

    I don’t know how I’m supposed to acknowledge it when I know for a fact that this isn’t always true. Women like that are women who are too self-absorbed to be able to really love their man at all. It has nothing to do with how much he loves her.

    Women should read it over and over until they recognize their own men.

    I could read it 1000 times and not recognize mine.

    If he asserts himself in the face of her contempt, she only needs to claim that he makes her feel “uncomfortable” and his life and freedom are effectively over.

    And although I know men who live this reality to some degree, I also know men who refuse to let their wives cow them to the point that they won’t say what they think, her reaction be damned. They’re not happy, but they are not silently stewing either.

  138. Anonymous Reader says:

    Some Guy
    No man deserves to watch his wife’s respect for him dissipate for him over the first few years of marriage..

    Fixed that for you, otherwise very useful and to-the-point comment.

  139. feeriker says:

    I don’t know how I’m supposed to acknowledge it when I know for a fact that this isn’t always true. Women like that are women who are too self-absorbed to be able to really love their man at all. It has nothing to do with how much he loves her.

    1. The exception (e.g., Elspeth, SSM) does not invalidate the rule.

    2. That many, if not most women in the Western world are too self-centered to love their husbands (witness the fifty percent divorce rate in Amerika, 80 percent of which are frivorces initiated by the wife) only further strengthens the original assertion.

  140. And although I know men who live this reality to some degree, I also know men who refuse to let their wives cow them to the point that they won’t say what they think, her reaction be damned. They’re not happy, but they are not silently stewing either.

    If the situation is such that the wife wants out, she is just waiting for the moment to feel some sense of rightousness in getting out (frivorcing.) This moment (to her) is typically the instant her husband finally decides that he has had enough of the brow beating and he tells his wife that he is not happy with her and that she needs to change (something about her.) At that moment, she can now equate his remarks are “abusive” and in the world of public opinion, he is the bad guy. And she is empowered by “no-fault-divorce.”

    Prior to no-fault it would never have come to this Elspeth. Prior to no-fault, he has no fear that she could unilaterally nuke the marriage. She would have to go to a judge and show true fault (on his part) and he could (in court) say that he does not want the marriage to end. Then she must present her side and explain the abuse and he explains his side. And in these cases (the man telling her that she needs to change her unreasonable behavior) the judge would have decided that although he can not force teh wife to change, his remarks are NOT abusive and she has no grounds for divorce. This, the divorce would not be granted and they would have to remain married (albeit on her part completely unhappily.) So, he has nothing to worry about (from a cash and prizes standpoint)…

    …that was then. This is now. Now, men worry, all the time.

    Threatpoint.

  141. Some Guy says:

    @jf12, Women that should know better are unable to imagine their sons in a similar position.

  142. imnobody00 says:

    @TFH

    The men and women of every culture are blessed or cursed with the mates they deserve.

    This is simply not true, no matter how many times it is quoted from Spengler or elsewhere.

    US women went bad long before US men even began to figure this out (and still very few have). If they ‘deserved each other’, men would have reacted far sooner…

    Although you are obviously right, I interpret the Spengler’s rule in a different way.

    US men and women “deserve” each other because women are bad but men allow them to be. Every law punishing men has been approved by men (who are the majority of politicians). Every time you say something bad about women, you have fifty White knights defending them. The percentage of manospherians vs pussy worshipers is about 1:200.

    Go to a party and try to suggest (not say, only suggest) some red pill truths and see men starting to shame you like little bitches: “you are a loser that cannot find a good woman, you are bitter, this will never happen to me, you hate women and so on and so forth”.

    So the average Beta who is frivorced has been defending women all his life. When he saw a neighbor divorcing, he was quick to condemn the man and absolving the wife. He was eager to please his wife and do whatever his wife wanted. He wanted a mommy, not a wife. Then, when he is frivorced, everything is unfair and woe is me. Sorry, man, you wanted to worship pussy and you didn’t give a damn about other men, so pussy is a God without mercy. You deserve what you sow.

    In Mexico they say “Para que haya un cabrón, hace falta un pendejo”. Something like “It takes a schmuck for an asshole to exist”. That is, for somebody to abuse, it is needed that somebody else accepts to be abused. So, yes, I’m with Spengler.

  143. Badpainter says:

    “Women that should know better are unable to imagine their sons in a similar position.”

    I sometimes suspect that women only care that there son’s are pleasing to them, generate grandchildren, and be of service to women. Whether the boy’s are happy, content, or satisfied is mostly coincidental, and ultimately immaterial so long as the son’s status does impact the mother’s.

  144. Go to a party and try to suggest (not say, only suggest) some red pill truths and see men starting to shame you like little bitches: “you are a loser that cannot find a good woman, you are bitter, this will never happen to me, you hate women and so on and so forth”.

    That is true. Either that or… you are bitter because you are too short, fat, or ugly (usually short which equals short man’s syndrome) and no woman would have you.

  145. imnobody00 says:

    @Some Guy

    Although I agree with you, I take exception about this:

    then endure almost constant complaining and fitness tests from her until he is banished to the couch/doghouse…

    I can’t understand this American cliché. The woman saying the husband: “Today you are going to sleep in the couch” and the husband obeying like a little boy grounded by his mommy. This makes my blood boil. Grow some balls, you idiot. Tell her: “If you want to sleep in the couch, you are free to do it. But this is my bed and my house and I am not going everywhere. Good night and enjoy the couch”.

  146. imnobody00 says:

    I am not going everywhere.-> I am not going anywhere

  147. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    “(run before the definition police arrive) “Game””

    I’m more of an interpreter, really.

  148. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    @SG- Women that should know better are unable to imagine their sons in a similar position.

    And some figure that if their sons are broken, well, that’s how omelets get made.

  149. feeriker says:

    US men and women “deserve” each other because women are bad but men allow them to be. Every law punishing men has been approved by men (who are the majority of politicians). Every time you say something bad about women, you have fifty White knights defending them. The percentage of manospherians vs pussy worshipers is about 1:200.

    THIS, to the power of 10,000.

    American men, as a historical collective, held sociopolitical power that could have kept the worst of women’s reckless behavioral impulses in check and they exercised this power for the first 250 years of the nation’s existence. There was more than ample historical precedent to demonstrate what would happen to society if men gave up this control, yet a handful of powerful white knights with an ulterior agenda fanned the flames of feminism and far too few of the less power, lower classes of American men stood up against it (to say nothing of the female population that foresaw the dangers and wanted nothing to do with “liberation” [sic]).

    American women, for their part, either 1) wholeheartedly embraced institutional feminism, their built-in high time preference and short-sightedness preventing them from seeing the long-term consequences of this destructive ideology, or 2) while outwardly loathing feminism (or so they claimed), recognized “spillover benefits” to be enjoyed ftom it (e.g., abortion on demand, no-fault frivorce) and weren’t about to put principle ahead of opportunism by raising any objections. This demographic group of women was BY FAR the larger group of the two.

    So we have the majority of American men who capitulated to the white knight minority and the majority of American women who capitulated to the feminist majority. This, in no uncertain terms, IMO, says “American men and women deliberately pissed, shat, and vomited in their beds and are too lazy or scared to clean up the mess. Thus they are comfortable with the mess and fully deserve to wallow in it!”

  150. Elspeth says:

    I can’t understand this American cliché. The woman saying the husband: “Today you are going to sleep in the couch” and the husband obeying like a little boy grounded by his mommy. This makes my blood boil. Grow some balls, you idiot. Tell her: “If you want to sleep in the couch, you are free to do it. But this is my bed and my house and I am not going everywhere. Good night and enjoy the couch”.

    I don’t understand it either, and I’m American.

  151. Some Guy says:

    It is a euphemism for when your wife cuts out the sex, guys.

  152. feeriker,

    American women, for their part, either 1) wholeheartedly embraced institutional feminism, their built-in high time preference and short-sightedness preventing them from seeing the long-term consequences of this destructive ideology, or 2) while outwardly loathing feminism (or so they claimed), recognized “spillover benefits” to be enjoyed ftom it (e.g., abortion on demand, no-fault frivorce) and weren’t about to put principle ahead of opportunism by raising any objections. This demographic group of women was BY FAR the larger group of the two.

    So we have the majority of American men who capitulated to the white knight minority and the majority of American women who capitulated to the feminist majority. This, in no uncertain terms, IMO, says “American men and women deliberately pissed, shat, and vomited in their beds and are too lazy or scared to clean up the mess. Thus they are comfortable with the mess and fully deserve to wallow in it!”

    Could you even imagine the following conversation? Because I couldn’t…

    (white knight walking across the street) “Welcome to the neighborhood!”

    (red pill eating manospherian man who just moved in across the street) “Well, thank you very much.”

    (WK) “I think you’ll love it here. So I guess I’d like to welcome your wife…”

    (rpemm) “Oh I’m not married.”

    (WK) “Oh, okay. A single guy buying a house in a family neighborhood with kids, that’s interesting…”

    (rpemm) “Yes I liked the neighborhood and the house.”

    (WK) “Well it’s usually married folks who move in here, not singles.”

    (rpemm) “Well I like it here and I’ll never get married.”

    (WK) “Oh.” (thinking he’s gay) “So are you…”

    (rpemm) “Oh no, I’m not gay. I love women I just hate marriage.”

    (Angry WK) “Why do you hate marriage?”

    (rpemm) “Because there is nothing in it for me. She could divorce me at any moment for any reason or no reason at all and take away from me half of what I have worked so very hard to accumulate. If I get married, it will be a Biblical marriage only. I can’t have that in this country thanks to no-fault-divorce.”

    (Very Angry WK) “Ok, well, I guess I’m not going to like you am I?”

    (rpemm) “That is up to you.”

    (Very Angry WK) “You know what else is up to me? Protecting my family from whackos. Here is your warning. Never speak to my son or daughter or wife. If you do, I’ll call the cops, understand?”

    (rpemm) “I guess we have bad blood now huh?”

    (Very Angry WK) “F-ck off pervert.” (walks away in disgust)

  153. jf12 says:

    @SG Re: sons. My wife considered her son the handsomest and smartest boy as long he was still trying to find a wife, a date, anything, completely without success (no girlfriend ever, no date ever, going on 24 yrs old), and the girls just didn’t know what they were missing. Now that he’s given up on that and explicitly mgtow, although he’s noticeably happier and in better shape, she has washed her hands of that, instantaneously, and blames his giving up as making him uglier and stupider and thereby retroactively justifying the girls.

    When I was still married to my increasingly harpyish ex, my mother couldn’t understand why such a nice young man would put up with being so ill-treated. When she was bed-ridden herself and I visited, she fain would have me lie doun with her. As much as she could, she enjoyed belting out “eels and eel-broth, Mother” and, especially, “a rope from hell to hang her.” But as soon as we began actually divorcing, she blamed me for not being man enough to have exerted control.

  154. feeriker says:

    I can’t understand this American cliché. The woman saying the husband: “Today you are going to sleep in the couch” and the husband obeying like a little boy grounded by his mommy. This makes my blood boil. Grow some balls, you idiot. Tell her: “If you want to sleep in the couch, you are free to do it. But this is my bed and my house and I am not going everywhere. Good night and enjoy the couch”.

    I’m American, and what you describe is almost VERBATIM what I’ve said to my wife under such circumstances – every.single.time. She’s probably spent more time on the couch than in the bed.

  155. Anonymous Reader says:

    US men and women “deserve” each other because women are bad but men allow them to be. Every law punishing men has been approved by men (who are the majority of politicians).

    Apex fallacy.

  156. hurting says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:
    March 6, 2014 at 1:01 pm

    Yes, the strong man who’s standing up to his sh*t-testing wife is probably playing a very dangerous game of chicken.

  157. Some Guy says:

    The simpletons currently are signing up for this gig deserve every ounce of your contempt if they fail to go full “dread” from the start. Chumps. They’re probably all emotional-sluts that were all to happy to hang out in the friend zone in perpetuity anyway.

    Remember, the true barometer of a healthy marriage is a happy and secure wife.

  158. jf12 says:

    Re: chicken. Alan Grayson can be accused of many things, but lacking masculine appendages has never been one. But this large, popular, rich, connected man was immediately sentenced to no contact with his children solely on the word of his increasingly unstable wife, despite video evidence and testimony from his children that contradicts his wife.
    http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2014-03-05/news/os-alan-grayson-domestic-violence-lawyers-20140305_1_alan-grayson-congressman-grayson-spokeswoman

  159. feeriker says:

    Could you even imagine the following conversation? Because I couldn’t…

    I can’t imagine any red-pill single guy today who has alternatives moving into one of those human kennels in the ‘burbs anyway, especially any neighborhood with a homeowners association. I especially can’t imagine him wanting to have anything whatsoever to do with any of his busybody, collectivist herd neighbors.

  160. Cane Caldo says:

    @feeriker

    I’m American, and what you describe is almost VERBATIM what I’ve said to my wife under such circumstances – every.single.time. She’s probably spent more time on the couch than in the bed.

    If she does what you say, then say something besides, “Good night and enjoy the couch”. Something like: “I bought this bed for sleeping, and for me to enjoy your body. If you don’t want to sleep, then we can do the other.”

    “…and for ravishing you.” if you’re slightly more bold.

  161. feeriker says:

    If she does what you say, then say something besides, “Good night and enjoy the couch”. Something like: “I bought this bed for sleeping, and for me to enjoy your body. If you don’t want to sleep, then we can do the other.”

    “…and for ravishing you.” if you’re slightly more bold.

    Sure, those are the perfect responses – from a pussy-whipped beta.

    When she’s throwing one of her horvaginal tantruns, I’m in no mood whatsoever to even think about anything connected with physical intimacy. The idea of an intimate night in bed with my neighbor’s snarling Rottweiler holds more appeal.

  162. hurting says:

    feeriker says:
    March 6, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    The feminist imperative derives power from, in descending order, the following:

    1. the operatives (men and women) within the various societal structures who facilitate it (e.g. the family relations court – industrial complex, politicians granting freebies to women)

    2. women deriving direct benefits from the societal structures in #1 (e.g., frivorcers)

    Technically groups 1 and 2 combined are probably large enough to leverage the system (society) to their net gain a la public choice theory (the benefits to them from the current arrangement are direct and substantial relative to the costs whereas the burdens borne by the larger populace are too diffuse to warrant counteraction).

    3. all other women not subsumed in #1 and #2 who realize at least a nominal benefit in the form of a put option on the rest of society in one way or another (recognized as threatpoint within marriage)

    4. Top tier alpha men who enjoy the perquisites of relaxed morality with respect to marriage and sex and/or use their situational status to transfer wealth from men to women (politicians). Throw clueless white knights into this group just for good measure.

    If the group in #4 represent just 5% of the total adult population, the combined total is about 55% of the population who enjoys at minimum an indirect benefit from the status quo, at least for now. For all intents and purposes, that is an insurmountable hurdle to overcome in terms of changing public policy.

  163. Tam the Bam says:

    Absolutely, James K.
    The psycho bastard has I dunno, millions of direct offspring, all conveniently tagged by his clan’s Y profile. But the nuclear stuff came from somewhere, it’s not like God was keeping it in the fridge until he was born. All pre-chopped, from his dada and mama. And where did they get theirs? For all I know there could be chunks of William the Bastard and Rurik of Novgorod’s in them. Or Sitting Bull’s distant ancestors, or Shield Jaguar’s. And of course their mummies and wives and daughters, uncles and sons. Or Buddha’s. How in the name of the wee man would you even approach unmixing that tartan paint?
    And how would one determine if the identified genome segments, if such a thing were possible, were any bloody “good”? Or redundant, junk. Or deleterious?
    Which is my main gripe with the proposition “good” genes.
    Dream on. “Good enough not to be retarded or crippled” is the cap and the hem of it.
    My inner PUA is snarling “Good enough to get a shag. Problem?”

  164. Cane Caldo says:

    @feeriker

    Sure, those are the perfect responses – from a pussy-whipped beta.

    When she’s throwing one of her horvaginal tantruns, I’m in no mood whatsoever to even think about anything connected with physical intimacy. The idea of an intimate night in bed with my neighbor’s snarling Rottweiler holds more appeal.

    The reason to get married is to fuck her. The peculiar benefits of marriage are that you get to fuck each other. This is what marriage different from other relationships.

    In other words: You take the job because you want to do the work. You also fulfill the job by doing the work. Sex, unlike most other work, feels awesome while you’re doing it, and even better once it is completed. We were designed to enjoy every good work, but our sinful natures deprive us of many of them. One of the few bits of work that is still enjoyable after the Fall is sex. Recognizing that ain’t being a pussy-whipped beta. It’s enjoying being a man.

    If you don’t, then you’re no better than her. It’s decidedly worse to for a man to throw a horvaginal tantrum towards legit pussy because he’s ruled by his emotions.

  165. Opus says:

    With all respect to TFH (whose views about one and two bedroom luxury apartments shows great perspicacity – naturally I live in a luxury two bedroom apartment but alone and do not want a flatmate – as we say – male or female and indeed women do tend to bunk up together; and whose further views as to male facilitation of females I entirely agree with – Feminism has merely amplified that trait) I have to take issue with his notion that our nearest relative is any Chimpanzee or Gorilla – I’d say my nearest relative was my sister – but further out the simian to which I am most closely related is not the Gorilla or the Chimpanzee but The Orangutan which I believe comes from Asia.

    I just think that the Out of Africa theory has too many holes in it.

  166. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Asia is most likely where humanity originated, particularly the Middle East (or should I say Western Asia). Middle Easterners seem to be the most “ancient population” (and have preserved that factor through excessive cousin marriage and polygamy). The “Out of Africa” theory is preposterous.

  167. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Dude got a wake-up call.

    Posted on March 5, 2014 by Dalrock

    He must have. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t be reading this (H/T Empath):

    Suddenly, divorce isn’t just some vague threat in your marital future. And now, the word you never thought you’d hear your spouse say is out in the open. It’s possible. It’s real. It has become an option, and you’re afraid.

    Note also the inversion of the relationship between romantic love and marriage.

    Great post.

  168. Cane Caldo says:

    @TFH

    A lot of urban single women in America have 6-20 sexual partners before demanding a beta provider at age 32..

    The ‘price’ that an above-average man has to ‘pay’ to have sex, has plummeted at a rate that would rival Moore’s Law.

    While the ‘price’ that a below-average man has to ‘pay’ to have sex is trending towards infinity…

    Understood, but totally beside the point. If you take the job, then you do the work. I understand that things happen, but the response that a husband attempting to do his duty AND enjoy his life and wife is a pussy-beggar is absurd. It’s the same twisted logic that all sex is rape, or that every Christian submitting to their superiors in their turn (submitting to one another in a hierarchy) is the same as no one being in charge (mutual submission).

  169. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    No-fault divorce is like the Russian roulette with most chambers loaded.

  170. feeriker says:

    One of the few bits of work that is still enjoyable after the Fall is sex. Recognizing that ain’t being a pussy-whipped beta. It’s enjoying being a man.If you don’t, then you’re no better than her. It’s decidedly worse to for a man to throw a horvaginal tantrum towards legit pussy because he’s ruled by his emotions.

    Nice way of restating the FI. What you essentially are saying here is “fuck her even if she’s behaving like an insufferable cunt.” Or, to put it another way, “turn the sex act, one of a man’s few remaining natural pleasures, into painful chore equivalent to fixing a clogged toilet or getting up and going off to work everyday to a job he despises.”

    No thanks. PASS. Most women treat sex with their husbands this way. No need to join them in wallowing in the moral low ground.

  171. jf12 says:

    Re: “If you take the job, then you do the work.” True, if they let you work. That’s why it’s good when there’s both a right-to-work and a prohibition of lockout.

  172. Cane Caldo says:

    @feeriker

    Nice way of restating the FI. What you essentially are saying here is “fuck her even if she’s behaving like an insufferable cunt.” Or, to put it another way, “turn the sex act, one of a man’s few remaining natural pleasures, into painful chore equivalent to fixing a clogged toilet or getting up and going off to work everyday to a job he despises.”

    Hahahaha!

    You’re doing it wrong. Dude, you don’t have a woman problem so much as you have an attitude problem.

    @TFH

    Well, yes, but this assumes that men are allowed the choice of not marrying, and thus producing less.

    Tell that to all the churchian whiteknights and the church sluts who do not think men should have such autonomy about whether they want to sign up for such a job or not.

    The ‘job’ metaphor implies choice – a level of choice TradCons/SoCons do not think men should have…

    Now you’re doing it, too. There is NO similarity between telling men to marry, and forcing a man to marry. No one–TradCon or otherwise–is forcing men to marry. Seriously, you and feeriker are in “all sex is rape” territory. Leave now!

    @jf12

    Re: “If you take the job, then you do the work.” True, if they let you work. That’s why it’s good when there’s both a right-to-work and a prohibition of lockout.

    Fine. That’s not the problem though. Feeriker said he refuses to do work for which he’s already accepted the position. Now he doesn’t work because his feelings are hurt. Meanwhile; he brags that his wife sleeps on the couch more than in his bed. If he thought that was a problem I could be sympathetic, but he doesn’t. He thinks that it’s awesome.

  173. TFH,

    Well, yes, but this assumes that men are allowed the choice of not marrying, and thus producing less.

    Tell that to all the churchian whiteknights and the church sluts who do not think men should have such autonomy about whether they want to sign up for such a job or not.

    The ‘job’ metaphor implies choice – a level of choice TradCons/SoCons do not think men should have…

    That is simply not true.

    As a Trad-Con (and I am being sincere here) it is NOT that Trad-Cons do not think that men should have a choice to “opt out” of marriage. You will never hear a Trad-Con say that as they aren’t even thinking that. It is instead that (if it were up to them) they would rather have you work hard, get educated, enter marriage 2.0, breed, and support all your children (in that exact order) without the help of government. So they say shit to you like “men are like trucks they move straighter with a heavy load.” That doesn’t mean that they want to deny a truck the right to drive empty.

    And why am I making this distinction? Remember TFH, Traditional Conservatives hated the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare.) All the ACA is, is a bachelor tax imposed upon young men to make women (of all ages) and older people more financially whole. The ACA is taking away your “choice” to “opt out” of our current system of wealth transfer from men to women. No Traditional Conservative supported it. Not one GOP member voted for it (in the House or the Senate.) They all voted no and were out-voted. So unless you think there are Trad-Cons among Democrats (there aren’t) your argument does not hold water.

  174. TFH,

    Really? Men aren’t shamed into marriage? Pastor Driscoll not saying that men ‘require a heavy load’ in order to perform their divine duty of being useful to women? Shotgun weddings have merely become modernized to present-day methods, but exist all the same.

    Do not talk about SHAME. F-ck your SHAME. You sound like a woman.

    There is “no-fault-divorce” law. There is no “manditory marriage” law, nor are there any Trad-Cons that are endorsing it. I don’t want to hear anymore about SHAME.

  175. TFH,

    Read that article several times, so that you learn.

    I have. Now read this several times so that you learn.

    There is no law that mandates men marry anyone against their will. There are laws that mandate that single and especially previously married men transfer their wealth to women against their will, but no law mandating marriage.

    Not even feminists mandate marriage TFH. In this one thing, you have total autonomy. You don’t want to get married, you don’t have to, ever.

  176. jf12 says:

    One for MarcusD.
    Sheela Kennedy and Steven Ruggles. 2014. Breaking Up Is Hard to Count: The Rise of Divorce in the United States, 1980–2010. Demography, 38 pgs, epub DOI 10.1007/s13524-013-0270-9
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs13524-013-0270-9#page-1
    “This article critically evaluates the available data on trends in divorce in the United States. We find that both vital statistics and retrospective survey data on divorce after 1990 underestimate recent marital instability. These flawed data have led some analysts to conclude that divorce has been stable or declining for the past three decades. Using new data from the American Community Survey and controlling for changes in the age composition of the married population, we conclude that there was actually a substantial increase in age-standardized divorce rates between 1990 and 2008.”
    http://www.pop.umn.edu/sites/www.pop.umn.edu/files/WorkingPaper_Breaking_Up_April2013.pdf
    “Even among the youngest cohorts, however, the stabilization of divorce rates is more than offset by the increasing number of dissolutions of cohabiting unions.”

  177. TFH,

    Even when HE is desperate to armtwist a beta provider into being a son-in-law who will provide him with grandchildren (that the son-in-law might lose custody of on a ‘no-fault’ basis)?

    Armtwist? WTF is that? In English please. And don’t you dare say SHAME!

    TFH I am not pointing a shotgun at you (or anyone) to marry anyone. Yes I want grand kids. Yes I’m greedy. But you know what? I don’t have control over those things, nor would I ever support any changes to our laws to force someone to do something that I know is immoral.

  178. feeriker says:

    CC: Seriously, you and feeriker are in “all sex is rape” territory. Leave now!

    TFH: Your strawman needs……..a brain. Your lion needs courage too..

    I hadn’t planned on dignifying Cane’s utterly idiotic comment with a response, but thank you for taking the plunge.

  179. jf12 says:

    @Cane “Fine. That’s not the problem though. Feeriker said he refuses to do work for which he’s already accepted the position. Now he doesn’t work because his feelings are hurt.” I agree; that’s a woman’s way.

  180. TFH,

    But there is a law that forces a man to provide for a woman who takes his children from him, and even if the children are not his, but are the product of paternity fraud. And it is TradCons/SoCons who zealously passed that form of socialism..

    And that law is worse than one that forces a man to marry, as the ‘child support’ law makes it easy for the woman to get payments while keeping father and children apart.

    Don’t marry. And if you don’t marry, then don’t f-ck. If you must f-ck, only f-ck her in the @ss or get a vacsectomy.

    There you go. No Trad-Con would ever demand that you transfer any of your hard earned money to any woman for anything if you follow the above parameters.

  181. Mikediver says:

    I believe it was the medieval courts of love that ruled that marriage and romantic love were mutually exclusive. Too bad we have collectively lost this basic bit of wisdom. No matter how hot for each other you were before marriage it is doomed to die off. A quote I like is: Love is a type of temporary insanity, which luckily is easily cured by marriage.

    When I was going through my first divorce my parents went ballistic. As a man in his late 20s early 30s I told them I had had a sexless marriage for the past year and would not tolerate a wife that had abandoned the marriage and was serially unfaithful as well. They then sat me down separately and together and told me way more information than I ever wanted to know. They had not had sex for years/decades. They explained that marriage had nothing to do with love or sex; it was about children. When my mother had her last child the decision was made that there would be no more sex. However, the rule was dad could “find his comfort elsewhere.” This was very civilized of them. If more marriage could do this then there would be much less divorce. Their point was that marriage was a business deal, and you don’t go back on your word in a business deal.

    Marriage = business deal, with children

  182. feeriker says:

    “Fine. That’s not the problem though. Feeriker said he refuses to do work for which he’s already accepted the position. Now he doesn’t work because his feelings are hurt.” 

    Hamsterlation: “So what if she’s in rebellion against your authority? You still need to reward her behavior because, well, because she’s a woman. So MAN UP AND SEX THE BITCH!”

  183. Mike, your parents were wrong about marriage.

    TFH,

    Because the Bible said sex outside of marriage is immoral? But the Bible’s definition of what marriage is not the ‘Marriage 2.0′ that exists now.

    Then don’t marry. You don’t have to, not even God commands that you must marry. You MAY marry. And if marriage (as it stands right now) is not marriage in the sense that God calls marriage (because it is ALL 2.0), then you are perfectly within your God given rights not to be a part of it. You don’t have to explain this to a “clod” like me (or to any Trad-Con.)

    I’m your ally. So are Trad-Cons.

  184. jf12 says:

    Re: “Where marriage used to be the moral place to pursue sex and romantic love, now romantic love is the moral place to pursue sex and marriage.” Don’t forget this variation: Sex is now the moral place to pursue romantic love and later marriage.

  185. Dan says:

    “Marriage intensives exist for one reason only: to help couples on the verge of divorce and to begin the healing process for severely damaged relationships.”

    No, marriage intensives only exist to teach husbands to submit to their wives. 99% of all Christian marital problems could be solved by working with the wives only, teaching them to submit to their husbands. Scripture says, “Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives…” I’ve never, in 50+ years, ever heard that taught. It’ll never happen.

    ‘Church’ is so thoroughly saturated with female worship that it is no wonder that men hate being there…

  186. Mikediver says:

    As to the statistical Venn diagram of women’s expectations, I agree that there is some degree of correlation between the factors. Where I disagree is that base of .5. There are studies such as the one using OkCupid where it is determined that the vast majority of women rank over 80% of all men as below average. So the perceptual reality is that when a woman says she wants an above average man along some evaluation dimension, she is not really talking about the top 50% she is talking about the top 20% or less. So the number is .2 to the 6th power if you account for only a 6 point checklist (a huge underestimation). So the result is a reduction in population of available/acceptable men of .0064% of men, under the assumption of independence. With some correlation this will be increased. Just a SWAG would be on the order of at most 1% of men still acceptable. So, yes there are no good men left. I weep tears for these women.

  187. jf12 says:

    The inversion of correct values in sexual relationships is caused by, not merely correlated with, giving women more power of choice.

    http://www.uexpress.com/dearabby/2014/3/5
    The very young teen girl is NOT to be shamed for loving a bad boy. The older virgin nice guy is NOT to be helped to get laid, but is ordered for a psych eval as to the real reasons why he thinks he ought to. The virginal romantic sap is No True Nice Guy because he makes Abby feel like he must be creepy. The bad boy threatening to harm himself is the True Nice Guy because he makes her feel like being nice to him.

  188. jf12 says:

    Re: the 429-point checklist. The generic hyperdimensional object is spikier than a sweetgum ball
    sweetgum fruit squircle
    spikier than a chestnut husk
    http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photos-sweet-chestnut-its-spiky-husk-image28760113

    The 6-point checklist lives in a hypercube of 6 dimensions with therefore 64 “corners” (vertices) sticking out.

  189. b g says:

    TFH

    First Goodall and then Voissey were sent to study the apes by the famous physical anthropologist Leakey. He, or quite possibly his wife Mary another long time anthropologist, most probably fully understood what they were likely to find were very dangerous ideas. They were both scientists, they had both been studying our early relatives in Africa for decades.

    Remember, at the time, Mead’s foolish ideas were actually prevailing amongst cultural anthropology. By then, I suspect that only a female biologists like Goodall, would have survived the resulting political outrage amongst academic feminists.

  190. Cane Caldo says:

    @TFH

    Really? Men aren’t shamed into marriage?

    Not in decades.

    Pastor Driscoll not saying that men ‘require a heavy load’ in order to perform their divine duty of being useful to women? Shotgun weddings have merely become modernized to present-day methods, but exist all the same.

    You are being ridiculous. The desire of women is to sample all the sweets one at a time. That takes longer. Shotgun weddings are not the problem now (if they ever were).

    The problem now is that fathers discourage and forbid their daughters to marry anyone until they’ve “reached self-actualization and experienced the world”; including several men. The DELAY in marriage is the problem. It is women doing so, and at their fathers’ behest. Women are dropping nuclear rejections. Men have been shamed AWAY from marriage for the “benefit” of women.

    Aside from all that, Mr. Sunday Morning Nightclub AND Mr. Marriage Strike: You’re a giant pansy if Mark Driscoll, “Churchians”, and the rest of the betafied/TradCon/crypto-feminist conspirators have an enervating effect on your confused strategy for others to attack while you retreat. Your calls for political movements make sense in light of this revelation of cowardice. You’re a natural politician. Politicians always think law is the answer, and they’re always ready to prove it by letting others suffer.

    On the other hand: You could cut the cry-baby routine and focus on the real problems, and how Feminism really has co-opted the churches, church leadership, and so-on.

    @feeriker

    Hamsterlation: “So what if she’s in rebellion against your authority? You still need to reward her behavior because, well, because she’s a woman. So MAN UP AND SEX THE BITCH!”

    You are the one who gloated that you tell her to go to the couch, and she goes to the couch. You said you do this so often that she spends more time on the couch than in your bed. That’s not rebellion; that’s compliance.

    I suggested that you use that compliance in a more beneficial and enjoyable way, and you retorted that man having sex with his wife is something pussy-beggars do, and that you feel very strongly about this because it hurts your feelings to think about commanding your wife to have sex and her obliging. That’s messed up. You’re messed up. It’s your hamster of hurt feelings that is misapprehending your situation.

  191. MarcusD says:

    @jf12
    Thanks for the reference (though, I’ve already cited it previously). (For those who want to read an excerpt: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/02/05/off-to-the-races/#comment-108395)

    It’s a good study, and it backs up the claims of studies in 2011 and 2012 that the divorce rate is in fact about 50%. In my estimation, with the rise of cohabitation, the divorce rate will go down slightly, while the marriage rate falls. The people most likely to cohabitate are also more likely to separate (and divorce, should they end up married).

  192. Tam the Bam says:

    “Armtwist? WTF is that? In English please.”
    Er, getting on for a half-nelson, boss. Plain as a pikestaff to me, but then I’m not very English.
    Maybe you should follow the wrestling a bit more.

  193. b g says:

    Sorry, I meant Dian Fossey ;-D

  194. imnobody00 says:

    @TFH

    AR said :

    Apex fallacy.

    Precisely. The ‘they deserve each other’ meme is wrong for this reason, and appeals to people who crave oversimplified one-liners.

    The politicians, lawyers, and professional manginas who profit from the misandry industry are just 2-10% of the population.

    I think none of us would be here if only 2-10% of women behaved in a way that the androsphere chronicles…

    It’s not apex fallacy at all. Yes, the politicians are 2-10% of the male population. How many are the white knights? 90% of the male population? I think they are more.

    Go to a party and try to talk about women who frivorce. And look every MEN to say you are bitter, you are a loser and women are not to blame and so on and so forth.

    None of us would be here if only 20% of men were red pill. But men are only red pill after going through incredible suffering.

    And remember that the politicians are elected by men and women. Women vote for feminist politicians (both Republican and Democrat). What about men? They also vote for feminist politicians.

    So, yes, Spengler is right. They deserve each other. One-liners like “apex fallacy” cannot hide the truth.

  195. Tom C says:

    I think (but I am not certain) that there is a jurisdiction in Canada that has ruled that if a man lives with a woman for a certain period of time or fathers her child then they have a legal relationship equivalent to marriage. And I think (again, I am not certain) that men have been incorrectly named on a child’s birth certificate (in California?) and then have been legally considered the child’s father because they did not contest the paternity in time or in the correct way. So even though it has not happened yet, if these types of laws became enacted in the same jurisdiction and the fates conspired against a man, he could theoretically be incorrectly named a father and declared effectively married, that is, forced to marry against his will.

  196. Some Guy says:

    @imnobody00,

    The tender mercies of guys like you make it all just that much better.

  197. b g says:

    Tom C

    Yeah, a new legal definition of “spouse” came into effect in British Columbia about a year ago. Common-Law couples that lived together for two years have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples.

  198. imnobody00 says:

    TFH says:
    March 6, 2014 at 4:31 pm

    I have been several years saying that, but TFH has put it more clearly that I could with my broken English. Thank you TFH.

  199. Works for me. As long as people see that some simian traits are common to humans (gibbons are also from Asia). Many people here are devout American Christians, who don’t believe in this sort of evolution.

    I’ve noticed that if a sharp or hot object moves slowly from the side of the blurry frame I am in (and have no idea why I can see a huge eye in the sky above me) towards me, I shimmy the opposite direction.

    As long as you note that we share behaviors with amoebas. This is even cooler than the simians because dude, it all congeals in the primordial soup man

  200. imnobody00 says:

    @Some Guy

    The tender mercies of guys like you make it all just that much better.

    I guess this is irony and I don’t grasp it very well in English. I think you are saying that, since I am not merciful, I don’t make things better.

    Well, firstly, I don’t think some lines I have written in a blog are going to make marriage worse in America. I am not that important.

    Secondly, it is not about being merciful. It is about saying the truth. The truth hurts, you know. This is not a “I am better than you, you loser” argument like the ones some American men like to write. Everybody is a fallen human being and I am not better than a White knight.

    But, until we men don’t admit our responsibility in this problem (and I admit mine), we cannot make anything to improve it. If our position is “everybody (alphas, women) is to blame but I am a victim”, there is no chance of improvement.

  201. First Goodall and then Voissey were sent to study the apes by the famous physical anthropologist Leakey. He, or quite possibly his wife Mary another long time anthropologist, most probably fully understood what they were likely to find were very dangerous ideas. They were both scientists, they had both been studying our early relatives in Africa for decades.

    Remember, at the time, Mead’s foolish ideas were actually prevailing amongst cultural anthropology. By then, I suspect that only a female biologists like Goodall, would have survived the resulting political outrage amongst academic feminists.

    This is the essence of the post” Whats wrong with the manosphere” that I pulled down and accidentally discovered one of the very best things about the manosphere, that random things like an empty post generated good conversation, humor, a Rorschach test of reactions, and even some brief sense of sharing something that no one even knows what it is.

    But the tedious pseudo intellectualism is unbelievably off putting and a man who, as someone aptly stated above, has been through the hell of divorce and is blundering around the inet, that man can actually find solace in things we would consider manosphere 101, but when that man, tha man some actually want to find solace, reads the debates that begin about the flipping Olduvai gorge, he will indeed move on. Lately so have I.

  202. Forgot to add, I often read those side bar debates and the citations and the quotes all designed to impress, extra points for obscurity, and I think several things
    I think that those who authored the books quoted, or who uttered the profundities some men find themselves wedded to, those men of old are buried and rotted in the same dirt I will be and you will be and the only thing most of them could remotely point to that has survived them is a batch of blowhards arguing over some nano spec of a turned phrase and how that was the very thing that we pedestrians just do not grasp.

    Then I think, this is precisely the “form of knowledge/wisdom” the bible says we will run to and fro spouting off about , meanwhile the things that ARE profound, that will last, and that are so much more thought provoking as well as applicable than these dead and dry facts are mocked as things of simpletons. The mere presence of such tedium is a form of mockery towards real contemporary life and is one big fallacy of appeal to authority. How handy it is that to blather endlessly GUESSING what Leakes wife “most probably” fully understood is so vacant a notion it has to have the pull of a black hole.

    What . Me on soap box.

  203. b g says:

    Lol, okay, what on earth are you talking about?

  204. Anonymous Reader says:

    imnobody00
    It’s not apex fallacy at all. Yes, the politicians are 2-10% of the male population. How many are the white knights? 90% of the male population? I think they are more.

    Who cares? Look, Ronald Reagan didn’t bother to ask even a fraction of the men of California for their opinion prior to signing “men’s fault” divorce into law. So the number of white knights didn’t matter, doesn’t matter.

    Go to a party and try to talk about women who frivorce. And look every MEN to say you are bitter, you are a loser and women are not to blame and so on and so forth.

    So what? Unless you are at a party in a capitol city, none of the men in the room will have any power to change a law.

    None of us would be here if only 20% of men were red pill.

    How do you know that? Suppose that the poorest 20% of men, men who can’t contribute to political campaigns, who don’t go to the right cocktail parties in Georgetown, who can’t get the ear of even a local politician for more than a few minutes – suppose they were all red pill. What then? Would divorce law change? No, it would not.

    And remember that the politicians are elected by men and women. Women vote for feminist politicians (both Republican and Democrat). What about men? They also vote for feminist politicians.

    In the US it no longer matters who men vote for. Women are the majority of voters…

    So, yes, Spengler is right. They deserve each other. One-liners like “apex fallacy” cannot hide the truth.

    Spengler is wrong. He might as well claim that the average Zeg in the Gulag “deserved it”.

    Spengler is writing from the perspective of a UMC, politically connected man with mulitiple degrees. He knows nothing, nothing at all, of what most men’s lives or like. He has no connection with the welder, the diesel mechanic, the concrete pourer, the assembly line worker, or even the average college graduate cube-farm inmate.

    Do you?

  205. Michael says:

    TRUE STORY

    I met the owner of a large privately owned corporation (I know the corporation and his name sounded familiar) today, whose wife divorced him after 40 years of marriage and three children. Seemed like a really good guy/person. Heartbreaking news. But sadly somthing I keep hearing more about. Everytime I hear something like this I can’t figure out if God is punishing me or saving me.

    According to this individual (who I just met today) his wife got the CA Beachhouse – he got to keep his car.

    He is now living in an apartment.

    8(

  206. imnobody00 says:

    n the US it no longer matters who men vote for. Women are the majority of voters…

    Yes, Hispanics, gays and blacks are also majority. This is why they are pandered by politicians.

    So yes, keep on voting feminist politicians and wallowing in victimhood. A strategy that has proved its efficacy.

  207. b g says:

    Hmm, I am an old guy now, but have to say, the level of defeatism, even nihilism, disturbs me.

  208. hoellenhund2 says:

    Spengler is a gynocentric, biased, pedestalizing, ignorant twat. He may be correct about some things concerning politics and economics, but he’s blue pill, full stop.

    ” women do not want to be sex objects, and a culture that objectifies women will make them hate sex”

    “After half a century of sexual revolution – otherwise known as objectification – women suffer en masse from the sexual equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome, identification with their tormentors, as a number of popular commentators observe.”

    “Why are so many American women fascinated by sexual cruelty? The answer is that the prevailing regime of sexual objectification already carries with it the experience of cruelty. For adolescent girls, the replacement of courtship by “hooking up” with “friends with benefits” is a cruel prospect.”

    “Adolescent boys are monsters, as anyone who has been one, or known one, can attest, and to require adolescent girls to engage in sexual activity of any kind with such creatures is horrifying. The considerate and courteous young vampire of the Twilight books is a cavalier by comparison.”

    “Women want what every human being wants, which is to be unique, and to be loved for their uniqueness.”

    “Like Japanese women, who encountered mainstream sexual violence and now eschew sex altogether, American women will have a great deal less sex and a great deal more chocolate.”

    All quotes from here:

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Japan/NC13Dh01.html

    It’s typical misandry, nothing more. Do any of you want to take this idiot seriously? Do you want to believe him and thus spit in the face of decent, moral, American beta men by telling them that they deserve the cunts who despoiled them, ruined them, lied to them and exploited them? Is that what you want to do?

    Screw that.

  209. hoellenhund2 says:

    By the way, if Spengler’s idiotic “law” is correct, how do you explain it that foreign men are traveling en masse to Russia just to meet local women and Russian women have plenty of options if they want to get married to foreigners, but pretty much no non-Russian woman wants to even go within 10 feet of the average Russian man? Have you ever heard of a great number of Russian men looking for wives abroad and finding plenty of willing suitors? American men have no problems finding wives abroad. Have you ever heard of a great number of foreign men traveling to the USA because they think the women there are awesome? Have you ever heard of foreign men going to the USA to find wives? I’m not counting the men who only do it to get a Green Card.

  210. Spawny Get says:

    Regarding not being able to do anything right in your marriage (h/t David J above). Thought I’d lighten the mood as we head for the weekend

    A man walks into the street and manages to get a taxi just going by. He gets into the taxi, and the cabbie says, “Perfect timing. You’re just like Frank.”
    Passenger: “Who?”

    Cabbie: “Frank Feldman. He’s a guy who did everything right all the time. Like my coming along when you needed a cab; things happened like that to Frank Feldman every single time.”

    Passenger: “There are always a few clouds over everybody.”

    Cabbie: “Not Frank Feldman. He was a terrific athlete.
    He could have won the Grand-Slam at tennis. He could golf with the pros. He sang like an opera baritone and danced like a Broadway star, and you should have heard him play the piano. He was an amazing guy.”

    Passenger:”Sounds like he was something really special”.

    Cabbie: “There’s more… He had a memory like a computer. Could remember everybody’s birthday. He knew all about wine, which foods to order and which fork to eat them with. He could fix anything. Not like me. I change a fuse, and the whole street blacks out. But Frank Feldman, he could do everything right.”

    Passenger: “Wow, some guy then.”

    Cabbie: “He always knew the quickest way to go in traffic and avoid traffic jams. Not like me; I always seem to get stuck in them. But Frank, he never made a mistake, and he really knew how to treat a woman and make her feel good. He would never answer her back even if she was in the wrong; and his clothing was always immaculate, shoes highly polished too – he was the perfect man! He never made a mistake. No one could ever measure up o Frank Feldman.”

    Passenger: “An amazing fellow. How did you meet him?”

    Cabbie: “Well now… I never actually met Frank. I Just made the mistake of marrying his widow.

    ( http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070727014503AA1pgf9 )

  211. Opus says:

    Much as I would like to agree with TFH and bask in the knowledge that I do not deserve them bitches, I cannot but conclude that American (and British) women are as bad as they are because American (and British) men allowed them to get that way.

    As it happens I would not care for Russian women either (although they do tend to be afflicted with the species known as The Land Whale). It has to be said that as every nation’s women seem to be contemptuous of their own men it is surely a case of the grass looking greener elsewhere, especially if you look different from the indigenous native – as a child the Onion-seller who came round on his bicycle told my mother how popular I would be in Latin America – though I have yet to test the theory.

  212. hoellenhund2 says:

    That’s beside the point, Opus. If Spengler’s law was correct, Russian men and women, or American men and women, would be viewed by foreigners as having equal worth. The global demand for them, so to speak, would be the same. But that’s not the case.

  213. jf12 says:

    I can’t quite decide if I agree with Opus “It has to be said that as every nation’s women seem to be contemptuous of their own men it is surely a case of the grass looking greener elsewhere” (although “men allowed them to get that way” is incorrect given Some Guy’s too-apt “If men weren’t being outright defrauded, I would be more inclined to agree with this.”) or hoellenhund2 “That’s beside the point, Opus.” (although “If Spengler’s law was correct, Russian men and women, or American men and women, would be viewed by foreigners as having equal worth. The global demand for them, so to speak, would be the same.” is surely incorrect IF Spengler’s law is valid.)

    I think I’m not vacillating, just waffling.

  214. Cane Caldo says:

    I’m with Opus on this. “Allowed them to get this way” is not true enough. It’s not a matter of women getting away with something, but we (as a society) encourage and participate in defrauding and rebellion.

    Recall IBB’s shrugging in the face of his daughter’s current or impending ride on the carousel, and then reflect that most fathers similarly ignore it by saying: “Well, she’s 18 now. She has to make her own decisions.”, as if that means they’re not allowed to even advice her in strong terms. Forget about the effect on the daughters themselves: How are men who are trying to do the right thing supposed to survive daddy-empowered sluts? You can’t even rely on your sense of respect for her father because he’s ripped that thread right out of the social fabric.

  215. Way off topic, but I just posted this on Haley’s Halo. It downed on me that me are the Way Women Keep Score Amongst Themselves. I hadn’t seen this topic explored much either in the androsphere nor in places like HUS.

    Galloper, Kracken –

    Attractive Christian women go to events that display or showcase Christian Alphas; concerts, sports-themed events that feature at least the possibility of the participation of unmarried athletes from a local sports team. I remember back in the 80s there was a group of muscleguys who “testified” for the Lord by performing strongman stunts in the sanctuary.

    They know it’s a one-in a thousand shot, but they prefer that .1% chance at landing Beefyboy to having a lesser man locked down tight. Remember that the quality of man that they attract is a strong indicator of their own position in the female hierarchy, and they are all of them in a virtual Roller Derby the ruthlessness and savagery of which most men cannot understand until they have a daughter.

  216. ++”dawned on me that men are the Way Women Keep Score”

  217. jf12 says:

    @asinus, yes, I am probably my wife’s most important accessory, after her purse and shoes. Although researchers would have us believe accessories are deployed by women for mate-guarding (see
    Yajin Wang and Vladas Griskevicius. Conspicuous Consumption, Relationships, and Rivals: Women’s Luxury Products as Signals to Other Women. Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 40, No. 5 (February 2014), pp. 834-854.
    “Whereas men often display luxury products to the opposite sex, women often seek to flaunt expensive possessions to the same sex.”)
    it usually feels like mates are employed by women for accessory-guarding.

  218. imnobody00 says:

    By the way, if Spengler’s idiotic “law” is correct, how do you explain it that foreign men are traveling en masse to Russia just to meet local women and Russian women have plenty of options if they want to get married to foreigners, but pretty much no non-Russian woman wants to even go within 10 feet of the average Russian man?

    Russian men don’t put up with 1% of the bullshit American men tolerate from their women. So, yes, Spengler is right. American men are the fruits of two centuries of pedestalization plus feminism plus Oprah and the like. If you saw it with foreign eyes, you would be ASTONISHED at how much sh*t American men are willing to put up with from their women.

    I have lived in Central America for 15 years and women are not better here. It is only that men don’t tolerate so much stupidity, egotism and abuse. To be fair, they tolerate a little bit, but nothing compared to the States. As a result, Central American women are not the monsters that US women are.

  219. Tam the Bam says:

    “How are men who are trying to do the right thing supposed to survive daddy-empowered sluts? You can’t even rely on your sense of respect for her father because he’s ripped that thread right out of the social fabric.

    Non-apex guys vs Welfare State/guaranteed busywork in the imperial bureaucracy : No contest
    Daddy vs. State media, academia and churches : No contest

    Seems almost like we’ve reverted to an early agricultural form of social organization, with Everything and Everyone being the chattel of the god-king (and his armies) atop the ziggurat.

    Peons get handed a random sell-by-date expired woman to perpetuate the serf class, but only if they lick the imperial sandals and slog away till they drop. And everything gets confiscated when he does, if not before. Since it was never his in the first place.

    All women meanwhile are delighted to be able to skip tiresome parental restrictions and get themselves an education, by signing on as sacred temple prostitutes for a dozen years or so.

    Servicing wealthy passers-by and the priesthood, and loving it, because it gets them right up with the King and his clan and a shot at that, which they deserve, being sacred’n’shit.

    Is that why the betas are so exasperated? The apex men are using all their peer women (i.e. realistic marriage ambitions, for a 6-8 or thereabouts) as comfort women, until such times as the apex man has in turn made his bones in his 30s and actually commits to his peer, an 8-10 (and instantly turns beta lol).

    So the middling sort of guy goes strictly without, for years and years and years, or settles on sorting through the garbage for barsluts and other broken biscuits, and just plain offal. No, I can’t see that eventually leading to any sort of political and demographic problems at all … at all at all.
    Top guys say losers is losers, get on with losing it’s what you’re for, nothing to see here. Marry those sluts, when were done with them.

    And the uncomprehending carousellers are turned off into the paddock, wheezy, spavined and cranky (oh so very cranky) to forage for a feedlot.

  220. Pingback: Belle Knox Duke Porn Star Reads & Supports the Same Books / Economists as Dalrock! | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl

  221. GkChesterton says:

    yet a handful of powerful white knights with an ulterior agenda fanned the flames of feminism and far too few of the less power, lower classes of American men stood up against it (to say nothing of the female population that foresaw the dangers and wanted nothing to do with “liberation” [sic]).

    You meant to say a small group of PUAs that now no longer have to suffer social scorn for their behavior and a large group of white knights and wannabes.

  222. GkChesterton says:

    @anon,

    In the US it no longer matters who men vote for. Women are the majority of voters…

    And Game says the women listen to who?

  223. Mikediver says:

    Some Guy says:
    March 6, 2014 at 1:54 pm
    “It is a euphemism for when your wife cuts out the sex, guys.”

    No it is not. It is the expectaion of most American women that the man will obey like the littel boy that they treat him like. I am American and I have told a couple of wives (now ex-wives) exactly what a commentor up thread said. If you don’t want to sleep in the bed with me then you can find somewhere else as I am sleeping in my own bed. Let it be said that they found this disconcerting.

  224. Mikediver says:

    [I/]b g says:
    March 7, 2014 at 1:30 am
    Hmm, I am an old guy now, but have to say, the level of defeatism, even nihilism, disturbs me.[/I]

    I am an old guy too. I don’t see this as defeatism as much as it is realism. At this point there is no way to correct the course of our country and western culture prior to a disastorous collapse. The political process will not work in these conditions. There are too many vested interests that need the status quo to survive. They are not going to commit suicide to help everyone out in the long run.

    I am leaving the country and the west in a few years. I am urging my sons to do the same. Everyone talks about that being the policy of rats deserting a sinking ship. But I say what else are the rats to do if the ship is sinking?

  225. Some Guy says:

    @Mikediver,

    I have said the same thing, too. (I heard a PJMedia host talking about this and the lightbulb went off.)

    Sure, I was incredulous when my wife trotted out that tired “go to the couch” line in our heated arguments after we got married. When I stood up to her, I never heard it again. Every man needs to be prepared for this moment before he gets married and taught how to handle it. The reality is that we snicker at the “chump” as he walks down the aisle and get ready to sneer at him for his credulousness when things go sour for him.

  226. Farm Boy says:

    And Game says the women listen to who?

    Their hamsters?

  227. GkChesterton says:

    I’m happy to say even in my most beta of moments I never did the couch. Not that I was a paragon, but I at least drew the line there.

    I’ll agree as I generally do with Cane though, there is a lot of bleating going on here. Why would you perpetuate the argument by not bedding her and establishing dominance? It’s like male pouting and I just don’t get it. It makes everyone happy and is a Divine command.

  228. Anonymous age 71 says:

    @TFH Instead, I say that a democracy eventually turns an entire society into a goddess cult where all laws are re-written to favor women, and all resources are funneled to women.

    A man I know who has studied the Bible extensively says what the societies do is put women over God, and God over men.

    ###
    On the topic of a neighbor accusing a man of being a pervert, living in an area with kids while not being married, does anyone remember Systems from DGM? His friend’s daughter used to come visit him. Once she brought a woman friend with her to a barbecue or grilling or something like that. That woman friend noted the primary school down the street, and commented she was surprised they let him, a bachelor, live so close to a school.

    He told his friend, “Get her off my property. NOW!” In mid-bite, she was gone.

    Yes, Virginia, American women are that insane.

    ###
    Sometimes, I think the hostility on this board can’t get any worse. But, then someone surprises me. The latest, unless I misunderstand, is Cane’s claim that a man who doesn’t want sex after being cursed out by his wife, is failing on his job as a husband. B.S. Stop and think what you are saying. Cane, are you nothing but a penis with legs?

    Men aren’t supposed to have feelings? That sounds pretty much like feminist garbage to me. Misandry from MRA’s. Same old; same old.

    ###
    @IBB
    “No Trad-Con would ever demand that you transfer any of your hard earned money to any woman for anything if you follow the above parameters.”

    What about Obamacare premiums for men designed to absorb increased female health care? What about the fact that most taxes are paid by men, most benefits go to women?

    ###
    Some comments about what the majority of citizens think of marriage/divorce make it impossible to change the laws. History shows that if less than 5% of citizens refuse to be governed, no government can stand. Why do you think Delta trains for attacking our own citizens? Why do you think small town police forces are given tanks by the government? The government think tanks know pretty much what is going to happen eventually.

    Not that those details will save the misandrist government if the flag goes up.

    The government allegedly ordered maybe 7 billion bullets. A gun expert tells me that we have over 20 billion bullets in private hands. He said he knows of one man who has 100,000 bullets.

    A man told me those 7 billion bullets in government hands should be considered ammo dumps (caches to you young guys) by those who are unhappy with our tyrant government.

    The only way a government can force its will on a society is if they are totally disarmed. This should tell you why the liberals want to take your guns.

    ###
    @Imnobody00 I have lived in Central America for 15 years and women are not better here. It is only that men don’t tolerate so much stupidity, egotism and abuse.

    That pretty much also describes Mexico, to some extent. Women here do bad things, but there are few baby showers for knocked up, unmarried women.

    One of my English students, 17, got knocked up by a married man with 5 kids by three different women. There will be no child support. Her mom and dad are stuck with the costs. There is no beta husband in her future as step-dad.

    My viewpoint of the differences between Mexico and the US: In Mexico the men took control of the political system and use that control to abuse women. In the US, women took control of the political system and use that control to abuse men. The difference is, in Mexico, almost never do men take women’s kids and hide them, and force women to send money in the mail. And, toss the women in jail if they lose their jobs.

    In spite of complex gobbledegook, American men are viewed over much of the world as the best possible husbands. And, American women (and UK) are considered over much of the world to be the worst possible husbands. It is not a case of the greener grass. It is never a good idea to talk about things you know nothing about.

    Even in rural Mexico, there are few places that have had no women marry North American men, then write home to tell how well they are treated. In Mexico, your reputation precedes you. And, in rural Mexico, Nice Guys[tm] are hot!

    Do not marry a Mexican woman. They have what I call private marriages, not the same as shacking up, but government is not involved. Free Union. At least half the couples in my neighborhood are Free Union, and all consider them as really married. But, do not take her to the USA.

  229. GkChesterton says:

    Their hamsters?

    Strong men.

  230. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Worst possible wives, not husbands.

  231. Some Guy says:

    >> Misandry from MRA’s. Same old; same old.

    Yeah, it’s pretty thick on this thread.

  232. Pastoral Shame (Man up and marry/sex-up a slut)

    I was thinking about this crap last night and trying to understand why this type of twisted-Christian-chivalry-shame (for lack of a better term) bothers so many of you guys here in the manosphere but it most certainly does not bother me. And it finally occurred to me why this is the case. You guys feel too much. You allow yourselves to get your feelings hurt.

    Feelings are not right or wrong. They just are. Any psychiatrist will tell you that, that is a 101 class in college. But here is the kicker, no one can make you feel anything unless you let them. That’s the truth. And what do I mean by that? Well, from my perspective it is impossible for anyone here at this blog to make me feel bad about anything. I don’t give any of you that kind of power over my emotions. There is absolutely nothing that any of you could say that would make me feel bad. The worst it would get for me would be for me to simply shun you the way I do currently with two regular posters (they know who they are.) But you guys here (who keep talking about this Pastor Driscol shame and his “guys are like trucks, they drive straighter with a weighted load” crap) feel too much. You irrationally ALLOW yourselves to feel some kind of shame from his churchianity crap. You shouldn’t. Don’t let him (or any of them) in…

    ….instead let me offer a suggestion: two shames make a right. In this sense I think it does. The next time (or even first time) any pastor in any church tries to “man-up” shame you about not being married and maybe it would be a good idea if you took another look at the churchianity-born-again-virgin sluts that you have no interest in, tell him that he needs to mind his own business. Put HIM on the spot. Don’t let him put you on the spot. Shame him right back… I’m serious.

    I can’t even imagine (for the life of me) the following dialogue happening between you and your pastor but lets assume for the sake of silliness that it does. If he asks you why you are aren’t married yet, tell him you have met anyone yet that you are interested. That should end it. Assume he persists in his shame filled inquisition.

    If he mentions any of the churchianity-born-again-virgin sluts and says something along the lines of what a great thing it would be if they could marry a man like you (and it wouldn’t do you any harm either which is a lie) tell him that you know of them (like you said) and that you aren’t interested.

    If he asks why (he won’t, but if he does) now its time to get nasty. Tell him that you aren’t interested in a wife who has been had by so many other men. There might even be something Biblical there. You can double down and say that you could even get past all the men they’ve been with but you don’t believe for one second that any one of them would ever obey you in all things (the way a good Christian woman should.)

    If he starts to get indignant with that remark tell him that he is crossing a line of yours and that it is none of his business.

    If he says that because he is your pastor that it is his business SHAME HIM by asking him why he (as your Pastor) never mentions Luke 16:18 or why he is so willing to mention Epheshians 5:25 but never mentions Epheshains 5:24?

    (at this point, the gauntlet is thrown down. you better be ready to pick a new church)

    If he starts getting all pissy about that and how he just wants you to be married because he thinks that would make you a better Christian man, start quoting Paul and his comments about not being encumbered by a wife makes you a better Christian, you have more time to spread the Good News of Christ.

    Point is this, don’t let other people make you feel bad about having high standards for a wife. Ever. Don’t be sensitive to their feelings if what they do is intended to make you feel bad about your priorities. They are not thinking of you or what is in your best interests. They are thinking of HER because HE KNOWS that she doesn’t have the kind of options that you have. That said, it is entirely possible (maybe even likely) that with the way the laws are written in pretty much every first world nation regarding marriage and divorce, that you will never be married. That is okay. You are doing as Paul says, you are living your life Biblically. And God will understand. Christ saved you, you don’t need a churchianity-born-again-virgin slut to save you from your never-ending hornyness.

  233. Cane Caldo says:

    @AA71

    The latest, unless I misunderstand, is Cane’s claim that a man who doesn’t want sex after being cursed out by his wife, is failing on his job as a husband. B.S. Stop and think what you are saying. Cane, are you nothing but a penis with legs?

    You misunderstand. Feeriker bragged that when his wife suggests that he sleep on the couch, he retorts that is is his bed, and that she can sleep on the couch; which she then often does. She listens to him so well that she spends more time sleeping on the couch than in his bed. I suggested that he should use his powers of persuasion to instead give her a good shagging. If she is prone to listen, perhaps she will be prone for more.

    He retorted to me that only pussy-beggars would try such a thing. Well, that thing is called sex, and sex is what marriages are made of and around. It’s not the only thing, but it is the distinct thing; the peculiar thing; which is what I said. It’s not different than my assertion that a wife that denies her husband sex is denying the marriage itself.

    Men aren’t supposed to have feelings? That sounds pretty much like feminist garbage to me. Misandry from MRA’s. Same old; same old.

    Haha! Are the only choices:

    1) Obey my feelings. Let them rule my decision-making process?
    2) Pretend I don’t have them?

    No, and this is not particular to men. Every human ought to control their emotions–sometimes suppressing, sometimes arousing, sometimes re-directing–but always in control of them, and never at their mercy. The solution isn’t to pretend they don’t exist, but to master them.

    Me an MRA? Hell no.

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

    IBB writes,

    “Christ saved you, you don’t need a churchianity-born-again-virgin slut to save you from your never-ending hornyness.”

    Good to see you coming around, IBB. Earlier you were stating, like Dalrock, that Game is superior to Christ because it can land you and keep you a churchianity-born-again-virgin slut to serve your horniness.

    Good to see that someone here is finally seeing the light. I had hoped for more men, but I guess that is a tall order these days, when the word “man,” like the word “Game,” can mean anything, at any time.

  235. imnobody00 says:

    Cane’s claim that a man who doesn’t want sex after being cursed out by his wife, is failing on his job as a husband. B.S. Stop and think what you are saying. Cane, are you nothing but a penis with legs?

    It is not about having feelings at all. It is about not rewarding bad behavior. I am not f_ing my woman when she is disrespecting me. Doing this is a recipe for disaster. So, yes, please apologize and then I will accept your apologies and then we can make sex. But don’t think you are going to use sex as the alibi for mistreating me.

    American men are viewed over much of the world as the best possible husbands. And, American women (and UK) are considered over much of the world to be the worst possible wives.

    I couldn’t agree more. And American women are so bad because American men are so good. This is what I was referring to when I said that . If you allow women to disrespect you this is what you get. Being too good is not a virtue. Everything has to be in measure. “Para que haya un cabrón hace falta un pendejo”.

    It is never a good idea to talk about things you know nothing about.

    Well, I don’t know if this refers to me but, if it is, it’s simply laughable . Yes, you know a lot Mexico and I know a lot Central America (not only the rural parts but also the capitals). I am an European and I have lived in the States. Also in South America. I have more experience than you so this sentence is ridiculous.

  236. jf12 says:

    “And American women are so bad because American men are so good.” yes, pretty much. But that’s not how we were told the causation would be.

  237. Farm Boy says:

    . And American women are so bad because American men are so good

    Priceless. I wonder if it is a zero-sum game…

  238. Some Guy says:

    “And American women are so bad because American men are so good.”

    Enough. Spenglar had a witty remark good for discussion at a cocktail party, but it just doesn’t hold up. Sure, the Leif Eriksons of the country have a set of behaviors that are guaranteed to put their marriages under a great deal of strain. They are ignorant. The deck is very much stacked against them. But they are facing an almost identical scenario that young people going into debt for mediocre liberal arts degrees that have next to no value in the marketplace.

    The only reason to blame men in the abstract for our country’s marriage situation is to obscure who it is that is taking advantage of them and who it is that profits from the continuation of this scheme. It’s disingenuous.

  239. imnobody00 says:

    And American women are so bad because American men are so good

    .Priceless. I wonder if it is a zero-sum game….

    It is. It is similar to the Battle of the Sexes model.

    http://www.heretical.com/ess/cyclical.html

  240. imnobody00,

    It is not about having feelings at all. It is about not rewarding bad behavior. I am not f_ing my woman when she is disrespecting me.

    You are thinking like a prideful man. Give up the pride. In this case, either think like a woman OR just do as God commands you to do (you must f-ck your wife.) God insists upon that and for a very good reason sir.

    You want to know how women think, what makes them tingle? My favorite James Bond movie has a dialogue between Bond and Marc-Ange Draco of Draco Construction Company. Draco is trying to bribe Bond into marrying his high maintenance daughter, Tracy. And I quote:

    What she needs is a man to dominate her. To make love to her enough to MAKE HER LOVE HIM. A man like you.

    Get it. You force her to respect you, force her to love you by f-cking her. That is why these girls tingle for the alpha-mc-harley-badboys because they f-ck them. If you want her to respect you, f-ck the respect into her. God Almighty commanded that she respect and obey you.

    Genesis 3:16 – 16 Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”

    And God’s wisdom is infinate. When he made Eve he designed her (designed all women) in such a way as to respect that which makes them tingle. You want her to respect you, make her tingle more. You want her to tingle more, f-ck her more. Like all the time. Every day if necessary.

    It is not about rewarding bad behavior. It is about understanding women and understanding God.

  241. imnobody00 says:

    Let me adapt the Battle of the Sexes model to behavior.

    1. If females are good wives, it pays males to be good husbands.

    2. If males are good husbands, it pays females to be bad wives (because they can rely on a beta to pay for the broken dishes). We are in this point of the culture

    3. If females are bad wives, it pays males not to commit. This is the next step.

    4. If males do not commit, it pays females to be good (in order to entice them to commit).

    It is a cycle. Of course, this is not blaming men and this is not absolving women, alphas or lawyers of their responsibilties. It is only trying to understand the situation. Some commentators take this too personally.

  242. Some Guy says:

    If it is just a cycle, then how can the men hurt most by this “deserve” it? Would you care to walk that one back now?

  243. imnobody00 says:

    imnobody00,

    It is not about having feelings at all. It is about not rewarding bad behavior. I am not f_ing my woman when she is disrespecting me.

    You are thinking like a prideful man. Give up the pride.

    No. Pride has nothing to do with it: this is a strawman fallacy on your behalf. I am thinking as a responsible husband. When I have kids, I will also avoid rewarding bad behavior. If my kid is cursing me, I won’t give him a candy.

    In this case, either think like a woman OR just do as God commands you to do (you must f-ck your wife.)

    Nice try about shaming me about “think like a woman”. Next time, try harder.

    God does not mean that I have to fuck my wife every time he disrespect me. This is the female imperative talking. You Churchians are not worshiping God but pussy.

    What she needs is a man to dominate her.

    You are not dominating her if you allow her to curse you and rewards her with an orgasm.

    That is why these girls tingle for the alpha-mc-harley-badboys because they f-ck them.

    They f_ck them but they don’t tolerate any disrespect. First time she is behaving like a b_tch is next.

    Genesis 3:16 – 16 Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.”

    If a wife is cursing a husband and the husband is giving her sex, he is not ruling over the woman. She is ruling over him. She is giving him crap and he is giving her pleasure.

    Please look up the meaning of “to rule” in the dictionary.

    It is not about rewarding bad behavior. It is about understanding women and understanding God.

    Look, Cane. I don’t have a lot of chance to interact with you (I often let it pass because you have a lot of time in your hands and you can argue until the hell freezes even if your arguments don’t resist the least examination).

    But let me tell you that your arguments are simply laughable. Not only your arguments with me, but your arguments in general. You twist the logic to an incredible extent, commit lots of fallacies and non-sequiturs and contradictions. Only to justify the female imperative. You argue like the Hamster. You should be called “Cane Hamster”.

    And your interpretation of the Scripture is that of a female Churchian. It is not the interpretation of the Fathers of the Church, that of the Roman Catholic Church, Luther, Calvin or every Christian who is not a pussy worshiper. Please don’t go outside the States because everybody who will listen to your exegesis will laugh at your face.

  244. imnobody00 says:

    If it is just a cycle, then how can the men hurt most by this “deserve” it? Would you care to walk that one back now?

    Sorry, I don’t understand this very well, especially the first sentence. But I don’t take back anything I have said. American men deserve American women because they have accepted, enabled and supported their rebellion. Of course, NAAMALT but this goes without saying. And no, I don’t feel better than American men: I am only describing a situation.

    Don’t take so personally, Some Guy. I was not talking about you. I don’t know you. I was talking in general.

  245. Please look up the meaning of “to rule” in the dictionary.

    I don’t care what it says in the dictionary. Neither does God. God designed women to be ruled over by men. And there is one thing a man can do to a woman to make sure that happens. It has nothing to do with women being able to search the dictionary of the word “rule” and then applying that definition to Gen 3:16.

    Look, Cane.

    Wrong guy.

  246. Some Guy says:

    @imnobody00

    You are talking about me.

    You’re uncharitable and smug. Slutty women may be impressed by that sort of thing, but I find it pretty tiresome.

  247. hoellenhund2 says:

    “Russian men don’t put up with 1% of the bullshit American men tolerate from their women. So, yes, Spengler is right.”

    Yes, they don’t put up with it. But no, that doesn’t mean he’s right. Because the way they chose to avoid putting up with it is normally to go their own way, and do it their own way, so to speak – by drinking/smoking/drugging themselves to death. Yes, they don’t pander to their women. But they aren’t manning up either, at least not in the sense of the word that is common among tradcons and the so-called Christian Manosphere. Are they pushing back against feminism? Doing self-improvement on a wide scale? Choosing to become responsible fathers? No.

  248. b g says:

    Mikediver

    The political process will not work in these conditions.

    The political process will change. Because something that cannot continue, will not continue. Canada underwent a similar time, perhaps even worse. All three political parties openly courted the feminist vote, one party broke apart under the pressure of the resulting anger. That party reorganized ands is now in control. But there had been decades of endoctrination. cleaning up the mess is slow and difficult.

  249. deti says:

    The main reason the American SMP is how it is is because of powerful men giving in to the feminist movement on the vote, then on pretty much everything else.

    The female thinks not in terms of justice, but in terms of raw fairness. The two concepts are not precisely the same. That which is just isn’t always fair, and vice versa. It began when women obtained the vote in federal elections by constitutional amendment; and the vote followed to states and municipalities soon after via the 14th Amendment Due Process clause. After all, if men get to vote; it’s only fair that women get to vote too. And now that women get to vote, all other things that men get to do should be opened up to women as well. Work, education, jobs, housing, contracts, etc.

    From there it went on to sexual conduct, primarily fueled with a heaping helping of apex fallacy. “If men get to have sex whenever, wherever and with whomever they want, then we women should have that right too.” Laws regulating sexual conduct were judged to be archaic and obsolete, and they fell one by one. “If men can get divorced, then we should have that right too. It’s not fair that we have to stay in loveless marriages.” Enter no-fault/his fault divorce. Birth control and abortion came on the scene. “We should have the right to have sex with whomever we want without fear of getting pregnant. Our bodies, our choice.” And “I should have the right not to have a baby if I don’t want to –especially not by a man I don’t love.”

    The sexual benefits of feminism were economic freedom (I don’t have to answer to a man) and sexual liberation (I can play the alpha stud lottery; I don’t have to sleep with icky beta men).

    That’s how it got so ridiculous. Everything needs to be fair. Everything needs to be exactly equal. If there are any inequities anywhere at all, they must be remedied. It stemmed from a belief that (1) men and women are exactly alike with no substantive differences; (2) sex roles and intersexual relationships are purely social constructs with no innate or in-born qualities whatsoever; and (3) everything must be fair (not just, but FAIR), meaning everyone gets the same benefits.

  250. b g,

    All three political parties openly courted the feminist vote, one party broke apart under the pressure of the resulting anger.

    I can’t speak for Canada, but here in the United States with our politics, winner takes all. There are no coalitions formed, no deals need to be made. The winner takes all, the winner makes the laws. And in order to be the winner, you have to get elected. And in order to get elected you must have the plurality (quite often, the majority) of the votes. No coalitions.

    Same is true for our Congress. There was just barely enough Democrats in congress (both House and Senate) for them NOT to have to listen to anything the GOP said about the Affordable Care Act. The Democrats wanted it and they had just enough votes so they unilaterally made the decition to create a law which was nothing but a bachelor tax. Not one GOP member voted yes, all voted no, all got nothing. Winner take all.

    As a result, the political parties (both of them) must court feminists. That is because women vote. That was a mistake. And we have not recovered since.

    I guess what I’m asking is how can any political party in Canada (that wants to actually WIN elections) succeed in winning without giving feminists what they want?

  251. MarcusD says:

    http://www.uproxx.com/filmdrunk/2014/03/two-academy-members-admit-voting-12-years-slave-without-seeing/

    There’s probably tons of that kind of thing being done (e.g. ‘tokenism’).

    What’s on Google’s start page today?

  252. b g says:

    Some Guy

    Love is easy, marriage is difficult. During courtship, both of the couple are full of the biochemical hormones that secure attraction. After marriage, the economic reality of provisioning changes the man’s outlook and that in turn will alter the woman’s outlook. She will feel ignored, at some point every wife will fail to respond kindly to her husband. How the husband then responds to her refusal settles the matter from then on.

  253. MarcusD says:

    Just a brief post backing up claims about the gender ratios for voting: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/03/gss-gender-breakdown-of-2008-us.html

  254. Anonymous Reader says:

    imnobody00
    Yes, Hispanics, gays and blacks are also majority.

    No, they are not.

    This is why they are pandered by politicians.

    I promise not to make ignorant statements about the politics of your country if you will stop doing the same.

    So yes, keep on voting feminist politicians and wallowing in victimhood. A strategy that has proved its efficacy.

    Strawman.

  255. Anonymous Reader says:

    “GK Chesteron”
    @anon,
    In the US it no longer matters who men vote for. Women are the majority of voters…

    And Game says the women listen to who?

    Game says women listen to whom? This has been covered a time or two in the androsphere. Perhaps you could put some effort into keeping up, if you wish to contribute to discussions. If all you want to do is troll for flames, you are much closer to that goal.

  256. imnobody00 says:

    Yes, Hispanics, gays and blacks are also majority.

    No, they are not.

    My original statement is called “irony”. We all know that many minorities that can further their interests without being the majority: Jews, Cuban Americans, gays and so on and so forth. Why can’t men do the same?

  257. Anonymous Reader says:

    “GK Chesteron”

    [Whom do women listen to]
    strong men

    Sure. Sandra Fluke. Show me the strong man she listens to. Ditto for the millions of unmarried women who had children last year (40% of all births, 50% of births to women aged 30 or younger). Show me the strong man they listen to. Is it their nonexistent husband? Their father ? To whom do the mothers of bastards listen, “GK Chesterton”?

  258. imnobody00 says:

    Yes, they don’t put up with it. But no, that doesn’t mean he’s right. Because the way they chose to avoid putting up with it is normally to go their own way, and do it their own way, so to speak – by drinking/smoking/drugging themselves to death. Yes, they don’t pander to their women. But they aren’t manning up either, at least not in the sense of the word that is common among tradcons and the so-called Christian Manosphere. Are they pushing back against feminism? Doing self-improvement on a wide scale? Choosing to become responsible fathers? No.

    Well, I think you have misinterpreted me. I haven’t said anything about manning up and even less about self-improvement or becoming responsible fathers. I have said about not putting up with BS from women. MGTOW seems to me one of the best strategies to do that (although not the only one). I am not a Tradcon and manning up seems shaming language to me.

    It is about rejecting the idea the you are going to do anything for a bit of pussy or for receiving female approval or for pleasing your wife because “if mommy is not happy, nobody’s happy”. It is about reclaiming your dignity as a man. I know that I preach to the choir because most men here agree with that. But it is a minority.

    Russian women are so good because Russian men are so bad. In America, it is the other way around. So yes, it is a zero-sum game.

  259. Anonymous Reader says:

    imnobody00
    My original statement is called “irony”. We all know that many minorities that can further their interests without being the majority: Jews, Cuban Americans, gays and so on and so forth. Why can’t men do the same?

    Do us all a favor, go read TFH’s ‘Misandry Bubble”, then perhaps you will be less inclined to write such nonsense.

    PS: In the US, men as a group cannot have Official Victim Status because they are Official Oppressors.

  260. imnobody00 says:

    @imnobody00

    You are talking about me.

    You’re uncharitable and smug. Slutty women may be impressed by that sort of thing, but I find it pretty tiresome.

    No, I am not. I swear. But, hey, the Internet is prone to misunderstandings.

  261. imnobody00 says:

    @Anonymous Reader.

    I have read the Misandry Bubble. And I have read the manosphere since 2006. What about you? Yes, I am aware that white men are the official oppressors in the US. But white men accepting this without protesting does not help at all. And men playing for Team Woman does not help either. I am not talking about men here, who are aware of these things, but about the vast majority of men.

    I don’t understand why this is so offensive and why you guys get so angry. Have I touched a raw nerve here?

  262. GkChesterton says:

    One wonders what Fluke needed the contraception for? Was she perhaps attracted to the powerless troglodyte that lived in the college basement?

  263. Anonymous Reader says:

    “GKCheseteron”
    One wonders what Fluke needed the contraception for?

    Why not ask her yourself?

    Was she perhaps attracted to the powerless troglodyte that lived in the college basement?

    Perhaps she was attracted to her future babydaddy, or future ex husband?

    Since you ran away from the following the first time, clearly it must be repeated:

    Ditto for the millions of unmarried women who had children last year (40% of all births, 50% of births to women aged 30 or younger). Show me the strong man they listen to. Is it their nonexistent husband? Their father ? To whom do the mothers of bastards listen, “GK Chesterton”?

    Care to make some attempt to answer this time? Or is it too much for you to deal with?

  264. Anonymous Reader says:

    imnodoby00, please learn that “some” and “all” are not synomyms. Some men enacted men’s-fault divorce and then later created anti-family court, then still later created beat-dead-dad debtor’s prison, and then still later passed VAWA. Most men weren’t consulted, and any protests or disagreement ignored.

    One of the games women like to play is blaming men for events they have no control over. You are doing that. It is annoying.

  265. b g says:

    innocentbystanderboston

    Canada, generally has a winner take all government. Yes, there can be coalition because there are often elected representatives of all three parties present, sometimes even up to five. But the coalitions are rare and seldom stable. Yes, all political parties openly courted the feminist vote at one time. But not all women can be purchased, and most particularly many conservative wives were not pleased by the radical changes. Wives will generally respond to their husband’s unhappiness.

    In some regions, hit hard by unfair economic change, there was open thought of secession. Fortunately instead a new much more conservative party was started in the western regions. One of the old line parties broke apart under of the loss of voter support within those regions. The new party changed its name and shifted position just sufficiently to secure votes in other regions…and eventually won enough support to form the government.

  266. In some regions, hit hard by unfair economic change, there was open thought of secession.

    Fiancee #1 (dual citizenship with Canada and US) was nutso about this. She was BPD which made it worse (she could not have a rational discussion about this without becoming a screaming emotional harpy) but she was freaking out that her home province (New Brunswick) was about to be cut off from the rest of Canada (turn that unemployed New Brunswickwhich sucked off Canda for its existance into a resouorceless, oil-less, and timberless Alaska for Canada). Vote in Quebec came down 49.9 to 50.1% to remain federalized Canada. She then calmed down…

  267. By the by, the Quebec secession vote was taken in either 1994 or 1995, I don’t remember. Your comment about the Western regions being conservative (as opposed to the Eastern ones being liberal) makes sense. Western Canada is resource rich and Eastern Canada is resource poor. The East of Canada consume the resources that the West creates. So of course, it would have been lunacy for a destitute Quebec to seceed from Canada as their population consumes far more than it has ever created. New Brunswick and its 25% unemployment rate in Moncton is just too far gone. Detroit isn’t even that bad.

  268. Novaseeker says:

    Yes, Hispanics, gays and blacks are also majority.

    No, they are not.

    Right. Just for clarification (not jumping on imnobody, really), the coalition is latinos-blacks-gays-umarriedwhitewomen. That last factor is the biggest of the bunch. Married white women are split, but lean slightly for the more overtly feminist party most elections as opposed to the more covertly feminist party. But the coalition wouldn’t exist without the huge advantage it has among unmarried white women, and the slight advantage it often has among married white women as well (that advantage tends to swing by election).

  269. Novaseeker says:

    Jews, Cuban Americans, gays and so on and so forth.

    Because they are subsets that have something in common that matters to them other than their sex. Men don’t band together on the basis of their sex. There is too much competition among men for that. The patriarchal system was set up not because all men got together and agreed to it, but because the men with the power imposed it due to it being advantageous. Once it ceased to be so, they stopped imposing it, and we are back to the war of men against men. That can’t be overcome in a collective sense — there are personal solutions, however.

  270. Novaseeker says:

    IBB —

    He wasn’t talking about Quebec. He was talking about the revolt in Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC that decimated the liberal party. There was talk in the *western* provinces of secession back in the early naughts.

  271. b g says:

    innocentbystanderboston

    Lol, at “screaming emotional harpy” ;-D But yes, that vote might well have meant the end of Canada as she had known it.

  272. b g says:

    Novaseeker

    Yes, the western alienation weakened the Liberals. They keep trying, but they win very few seats federally in the region. Liberal is still a dirty word for many. But it absolutely destroyed the Progressive Conservatives, because they too in turn failed to respond, and so their support dwindled to next to nothing. New political movements are born out of anger and frustration. You should expect that the same thing will eventually happen in the USA, should the political parties not develop platforms that keep the country united.

  273. Cane Caldo says:

    @GKC

    There’s nothing to be done about the “bitter betas” until they stop being bitter. It simply cannot matter to AR that you actually answered his question–not only with an answer, but with exactly the answer he was looking for–because he doesn’t want agreement. What he wants more bitterness. He’d prefer it if you were bitter in the same way he is, but if he can’t get that then he’ll take any bitterness he can get.

  274. embracing reality says:

    When I read “bitter betas” I’m picturing young, blue pill guys who’s only success with women is the occasional opportunity to be a pretty girls emotional tampon in the friend-zone. I readily admit to being beta and even quite bitter after a few breakups in my early 20s. It was around 25 when I started to see the men around me who were ‘successful’ with women going through excruciating marriages or divorces and then slowly began to realize I had become the winner, even if only by default. Now in my early 40’s, single never married, no kids, I’ve come into my own in many ways, as men tend to do. Attractive, significantly younger women are now often available to me yet I’ve never been less interested. I’m convinced many a young, hopeless beta has actually won a lottery in life, blissfully unawares.

  275. embracing reality says:

    If there’s any “bitter betas” hanging around these parts of the sphere I’d like to know what they’re so bitter about? If they’ve lost their children or fortunes or even future income to a frivorcing wife, that I can understand. Can they be bitter about losing the wife? Surely they can’t be bitter about remaining single if they’re on the red pill. I’ve heard for years from married men about their manipulative, controlling, sexless wives. I have a friend who’s wife gained 100lbs, I’d be pretty damn bitter about that.

  276. Nova,

    He wasn’t talking about Quebec. He was talking about the revolt in Saskatchewan, Alberta and BC that decimated the liberal party. There was talk in the *western* provinces of secession back in the early naughts.

    There was another one, not just Quebec. My goodness, is this country going to remain united?

  277. Marcus says:

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/03/07/is-there-an-epidemic-of-rape-culture-at-canadian-universities/

    Now universities are worried about a “crisis of enrollment” (hurting the bottom line) due to male students being driven off.

  278. Cane Caldo says:

    @embracing reality

    If there’s any “bitter betas” hanging around these parts of the sphere I’d like to know what they’re so bitter about?

    It doesn’t matter. The bitterness the defines the “bitter beta” is not the bitterness they’ve suffered, but the bitterness they express; that they create. Often men do get dealt a really bad hand, but when they become a source of bitterness then the more pressing problem is their pride and envy. Those are internal, and no external problem can be resolved until those are.

    You can’t even sympathize with proud and envious people in a way they recognize because they only recognize themselves as real people. They are their own reference for how any rational person should behave, and since that behavior is bitterness then anyone who is not bitter–at the very least–must not be real, or “in the know”, or “understand the problem”. More likely, such a person is part of the conspiracy against which the “bitter beta” pretends his bitterness directed: crypto-feminists-tradcon-triple agents. Really, he’s just mad at God and the world. It’s simply pride and envy. Vanity.

  279. b g says:

    innocentbystanderboston

    Lol no, but there was another regional alienation that eventually tore our then political elites apart. It was a necessary positive; ending in a doing, rather than an angry talking. As for continuing, the woman that now leads Quebec appears to be threatening yet another of that province’s neverendums. Sadly, Pauline Marois truly does seem to have little concept of the most probable consequences of such a victory.

    Your own independence was just one of the ultimate result of the British Crown’s decisions in The Royal Proclamation and The Quebec Act. The first claimed the area West of the then 13 colonies as a tribal protectorate under British control, but the second left it as a British colony from what is now Quebec to Louisiana. The second also removed the protection of Common English Law in the colony of Quebec, but rather left a vanquished French colony basically in charge of it’s own political elites.

  280. Micha Elyi says:

    You can’t end “no-fault-divorce” until you change the entirety of our Congress, Presidency, and Supreme Court.
    innocentbystanderboston

    So called no-fault-divorce (really unilateral divorce) came into being by the acts of state legislators and governors, not the federal government. And it will only be abolished by legislators and governors–if, of course, the voting public demands it.

  281. Exfernal says:

    @MarcusD

    Heh. Only if migratory birds returning would cause the coming of spring…

  282. imnobody00 says:

    OT – One night stand and I lifetime to regret it.

    http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/one-night-stands-lifetime-regret-1687864

    “Tracey Pyburn was up for a crazy night with the girls. She was just out of a 3.5 year relationship and thriving on her first taste of single life.As the happy hour drinks flowed in Newcastle’s Bigg Market, Tracey and her mates became more and more intoxicated and at the end of the evening she went home with a lad and had a night of unprotected sex. A year on, and Tracey, 20, has a four-month-old baby boy to show for it.

    “I was on the rebound when it happened,” she explains. “I’d just broken up with my boyfriend who had never let me have any freedom to go out with my friends. I was determined to enjoy myself for the first time in years.”

    In the morning the lad offered Tracey his phone number, but she wasn’t bothered about seeing him again and so declined.

    “I wish I’d taken the number now,” she says. “I found out a couple of months later that I was pregnant but had no way of tracking down the father.

    “He still doesn’t know he’s got a beautiful baby boy.”
    […]

    “This is more or less the first time I’ve been out since I had Luke, so I’m going to get drunk and let my hair down,” she says. “My mam and dad have been really supportive and don’t mind looking after him now and again to give me a break.”

  283. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Novaseeker says:

    March 7, 2014 at 6:37 pm

    Jews, Cuban Americans, gays and so on and so forth.

    Because they are subsets that have something in common that matters to them other than their sex. Men don’t band together on the basis of their sex. There is too much competition among men for that. The patriarchal system was set up not because all men got together and agreed to it, but because the men with the power imposed it due to it being advantageous. Once it ceased to be so, they stopped imposing it, and we are back to the war of men against men. That can’t be overcome in a collective sense — there are personal solutions, however.

    Jewish-Americans make about 30-40% of the Forbes 300 (or was it 400? Perhaps 500?), meaning roughly 30-40% of Billionaires in the USA are Jewish-American, and include Bloomberg, Soros and others among them. Even the more “typically” upper-middle class Jewish boys such as Rahm Emanuel, Woody Allen (Jewish director) and Bernanke (Chairman of US Federal Reserve) are dangerous.

    I have seen that these secular Jewish Ashkenazi men dominate and rule USA academia, finance, media, entertainment (Hollywood), politics and pretty much are radical modern, social liberals on steroids. Those guys need to go (and no this isn’t the vapid charge of “anti-Semitism”) since they are part of the decadent upper.

    Just look what these Billionaire Ukrainian Jews are doing to Ukraine. Here are Billionaire Ukrainian Jews who now control Ukraine –> http://irishsavant.blogspot.com/2014/03/ukraine-mist-begins-to-clear.html

    Keep in mind, that this post was flagged by Google for its crime thoughts, so just click on yes to enter and read the page fully.

  284. Lurker No. 9 says:

    The bitterness comes from desperately to hang onto what they believe is theirs by right as a ‘good man.’

    They’ve been allowed to believe that principles matter more than nature, that Jacob always wins over Esau, that the princess is capable of preferring the doofy stable boy over Prince Badass.

    And the frustration is, they sure as hell can’t cede the lofty, pie in the sky principles that rewards being a decent human being over strength and beauty, lest he name himself as worthy of being stepped on by his “betters.”

    Unless you honestly think they’d bend the knee to the Esaus of the world and admit they are unworthy of their father’s blessing?

    No, of course not. So, bitterness and frustration abounds.

  285. MarcusD says:

    Does anyone in the UK have any insights into the statistics presented? I know for sure some of them are false – given that they are for International Women’s Day, my initial suspicion is that many more of the stats were devised in creative ways.

  286. Opus says:

    Not so much false as seriously misleading and selective, and as it is tucked away in The Indie no one is going to read it and they surely wrote exactly the same thing last year. Women only feel happy when complaining so there is no point rushing to equalise the inequality as they would then have nothing to complain about so even though the average age of mortality for a woman is eighty-one the fact that that is eight years longer than for a man is not mentioned – but if it were, it would be proof that women suffer because men abandon them by dying to leave them to fend for themselves – the inconsiderate cruelty! – and because women receive the state pension five years earlier than men – at 60 rather than 65 – this is surely proof that women suffer by reason of having to spend longer and alone as OAPs.

  287. MarcusD says:

    The largest stat is false: http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/03/women-own-1-of-world-property-a-feminist-myth-that-wont-die/273840/

    Other stats, like the “1 in 7” are false. But yes, as you say, most stats are very selective.

    Male life expectancy is 79.5 in the UK, compared to 82.5 for females. For Swaziland, it’s 49 for males, and 51 for females (otherwise known by many feminists as “equal”).

    Some other stats are close, but rounded up or down depending on which would have a greater propaganda effect.

  288. Micha Elyi says:

    “How to Choose a Spouse:” an Article
    MarcusD

    Much more interesting to me than the chatter on a trolled forum is the article they’re chattering about itself, How to Choose a Spouse by Marshall Fightlin. The blurb at the end of the article says “Marshall Fightlin is an experienced licensed psychologist specializing in personal, marriage or family problems.”

    Even though Fightlin’s article is 15 years old (copyright date 1999) it seems to me to be characteristic of the advice and attitudes I typically encounter today from Catholic counselors, psychologists, advice book authors, radio show hosts, bishops, priests, and deacons. I am disturbed that Fightlin, supposedly a trained professional, displays biases common to pop psychology and folk belief. Read it and ask yourself, does Fightlin describe both men and women fairly? If a troubled couple went to Fightlin for marriage counseling, would he be trying to help rescue the marriage or rescue the wife?

  289. MarcusD says:

    on a trolled forum

    Would you care to explain this?

  290. princeasbel says:

    Can they be bitter about losing the wife?

    I’ve never been divorced since I haven’t been married- but I am bitter about losing my girlfriend. I’m bitter about the fact that I’ve been lied to and got myself emotionally invested in a woman who, for all intents and purposes, seemed to initially appreciate my “nice-guy-ness”. I’m bitter about the fact that feminism ruined her for me, and that she is surrounded by peers who cheered her on in her dysfunctionality when I started to come down on her for her rotten behavior. I’m bitter about how I expended all the effort and selflessness I could muster just to get it all thrown back in my face because so many women are so incredibly self-centered.

    Why am I bitter? Can’t imagine why. After all, I lost her, and she has no legal hold over me like a marriage-then-divorce situation would entail. So shouldn’t I be happy? Well, if only it were all so simple. The problem is that, believing what many of my own peers have said in sermons and in writing, I got screwed over. I’ve had to turn to secular sources on this subject to learn the truth. I’m still single to this day. I have a woman I wish I could have married had she not been completely poisoned by feminism. She and other women I know are all doomed to failed marriages- they aren’t even married yet and I can tell. This kind of rolled over and exposed the under belly of a lot of people who claim to believe in Christian marriages yet spew feminism if you just push certain buttons. If you can’t understand why any of these things might make me bitter, then perhaps you’re just not all here. It’s not as if these stories aren’t being screamed in your ears in the comment boxes of Dalrock’s blog.

  291. Opus says:

    I see that the Daily Mail is today (International Vagina Day) running an article about a female Professor who has scientifically concluded that there is no difference between the male and the female human brain. Who am I to doubt her findings and once more stand in awe of unbiased Academia. The woman is (in the Mail’s picture, ugly in a very masculine way, although I draw that conclusion without any form of qualification in support of my assertion). You never find men claiming that they are just the same as women by being just as emotional. Perhaps next week the Mail will also explain why all the great Philosophers, Composers and other Scientists are overwhelmingly if not exclusively male.

    The problem for those women gathering tonight to be lectured by the said Professor as to how awesome they are is surely this: if she is correct, then how is it to be explained that men have been able to oppress women for so many millennia. Surely the women would have, at least half the time, succeeded in oppressing the men, – or perhaps there would have been a stalemate – in which case we would not have to endure female Professors stating what would then be the bleeding obvious. Clearly it will all come as a surprise to tonight’s delegates who will be whooping with delight at what they had not even previously considered possible and it is no good merely saying that men are bigger – some of the greatest tyrants in history and certain exponents of game have been fairly vertically challenged.

    As nature works on a just-so basis is would be rather strange if women who throughout history and prehistory had needed to do little more than care for small children and keep home would have had the same mental skills as men who needed to bring down with stealth that bison or mammoth or play Chess at Grand Master level. Certainly it is women and not men who break into tears over the slightest matters though our Professor is surely herself not of that ilk..

  292. Lurker no. 9 says:

    Dude, believing in differences between the genders is a double-edged sword. It can be just as easily used to justify women being snotty and conceited in their different ‘strengths’ that men lack, and their weaknesses used to justify being held to less responsibility than men in the same situations.

  293. S. Chan says:

    These links are very off-topic, but worth considering…..

    First, a nice exemplification of standards being lowered so that women can compete, this time among professors as Cambridge University:
    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26259644

    Second, a nice exemplification of feminist rewriting of events, this time for a movie about ancient Greece:
    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-magazine-monitor-26484784

  294. DeNihilist says:

    Opus – I think Dal covered the true version in his post “How men could make themselves useful to Katarina Kroslakova.”

    And then there are a myriad of studies, some within the last year, showing significant differences in male/female brains.

    Like the climate change con, “the science is settled!”

  295. DeNihilist says:

    Like Animal Farm, we are all equal, some of us are just more equal. LOLZ!

  296. ray says:

    pls stop sending your comments to my e-mail, i have unsubscribed from your blog many times — i do not wish your content nor comments, thx

  297. Anonymous age 71 says:

    imnobody00 says:
    March 7, 2014 at 11:13 am

    …laughable.

    …ridiculous.

    Translated: I have nothing to say so I make insults.

    Is that unfair? Possibly, but perhaps not. You might indeed know a lot but you didn’t share it. Simply dismissed my comments as laughable and ridiculous whatever that means.

    I will say that is par for the course of the last 45 years of MRA/FRA.

    And, to be honest, though I am not in the mood for checking out my posting, I am not sure I was referring to you when I said it is not a good idea to talk about things you know nothing about. I well understood you lived in a CA country, and would presume you did know how things are different there, which most men have no idea of. In fact, if you wrote about life there, I would read your comments with special interest and try to learn from them. Life is very different in these other countries. Women may be basically the same, but being castigated instead of receiving cash and prizes for bad behavior does make a big difference in the long run.

    And, as I have written many times over the years, living in another culture actually helps you understand your native culture better. Historically, affluent families did not consider their children educated until they had lived in another culture for several years. I have learned more about the US by living in Mexico than in my entire life there before retirement.

    it is not so much what I personally know about life in Mexico. But, I do have a number of educated intellectual friends from various social classes. And, over the years I ask many questions to try to understand things. I learn slowly. The last important thing I learned, last year, was that in the US old men are especially hated, even by other old men. Yes, all men are hated, of course, but especially so old men. I told my wife’s best friend they call old men, old farts, even on this blog. And, she looked like she wanted to vomit.

  298. David J. says:

    Interesting. Pretty sure my ex-wife qualifies as falling within “the most serious of orgasmic dysfunction cases,” since she never had an orgasm from any cause in her entire life, either before or during our marriage. This includes masturbation, which she had never tried before marriage (believing it sinful) and refused to try in the marital bed, despite Christian sex counselor recommendations (believing it sinful as well). If they’d had this device during our marriage, I’m sure she would have refused to try it, given she refused every other recommended treatment. Don’t suppose I’ll ever find out if her new husband wants her to sign up for it.

  299. BradA says:

    Depriving women of sex until they come grovelling back to you is like throwing them into the briar patch in most cases. A few younger exceptions may exist, but it seems rather childish to have to wait for that until she acts right.

    I will admit that a bad attitude makes attraction go way down, but that is just part of things. I would certainly not want that to be the norm, but some of the arguments in favor of that here lack much thought.

    I also don’t see tradcons forcing men to marry. I used to consider myself one (not really now since not much to conserve), but I would never compel someone to marry even then or even try to shame them into marrying.

    Noting that society is in for quite a rough spot if it stops reproducing is far different than saying, “man up an marry those sluts.”

  300. BradA says:

    I don’t know if you will read this Ray, but you subscribed to the comments at some point, likely in WordPress. Only you can fix that unless Dalrock knows another way. Take responsibility for yourself!

  301. MarcusD says:

    The Bride of CAF:

    I don’t want to be a trophy wife.
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=865601

  302. Opus says:

    Well that is truly amazing. I have read Herodotus and had never previously realised that women were front-line troops under Xerxes, but I suppose it is no worse than the movies I used to watch where the action had to be stopped so that Charlton Heston could save Sophia Loren – though I always felt that a big girl like her should have been able to take care of herself more successfully than she usually did.

  303. Opus says:

    Actually that is not quite right. This is what Herodotus says, after saying that he need not give the names of the other squadron commanders [because they are men]: he mentions Artemisia [a squadron commander] who not withstanding her having an adult son [that is telling] took power after her husband died and controlled the forces of Halicarnassus, Cos, Nisyrus and Calydna and supplied five ships [Triremes? he does not say]. They were apparently the best ships after those of Sidonia.

    Very Impressive; but in the two previous paragraphs Herodotus has set out the extent of Xerxes naval forces and its Admirals, and the Commanders serving under the Admirals (not merely lowly squadron commanders) and says that there were three thousand ships all told. Clearly had Artemisia not been female she would not as a mere Squadron Commander have had any mention.

    He says Artemisia gave Xerxes the best advice – even so he still lost – and sadly that War-winning advice has not been recorded by history so we will never be able to judge it for ourselves. I detect some considerable White-knighting in Herodotus for he mentions in the Paragraph on her and entirely unnecessarily her name a second time just so that we grasp who she is. He also of course had a lot to say about The Amazons but as that was entirely fabricated one needs to treat his view of Artemisia with some considerable caution.

    A case as usual of awe of the fact that there was any woman there at all and according to Herodotus the total of Xerxes forces invading Greece totalled a staggering 2,641,610 – presumably all men.

  304. jf12 says:

    @BradA “Depriving women of sex until they come grovelling back to you is like throwing them into the briar patch in most cases.” Correct. All lousy-wife behaviors are designed for the purpose of being sexually repulsive to the husband.

  305. Anonymous age 71 says:

    Yes, on that Runway model on CAF, I suspect it will not be a loss to the human race if she fails to reproduce. I may be wrong, but that is my opinion of her postings.

  306. Norm says:

    I have seen that these secular Jewish Ashkenazi men dominate and rule USA academia, finance, media, entertainment (Hollywood), politics and pretty much are radical modern, social liberals on steroids. Those guys need to go (and no this isn’t the vapid charge of “anti-Semitism”) since they are part of the decadent upper.

    These types are the ones Jesus said who say they are Jews but actually belong to the Synagogue of Satan. Why do so many American Jews vote for Democrats. They must hate Israel, and are acting like the ancient kings of Israel who did what is bad in God’s eyes.

  307. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    I was right and not seeing things. They DO make up about 40% of the Forbes 400.

  308. MarcusD says:

    Dave Barry Learns Everything You Need to Know About Being a Husband From Reading 50 Shades of Grey
    http://ideas.time.com/2014/03/04/dave-barry-learns-everything-you-need-to-know-about-being-a-husband-from-50-shades-of-grey/

  309. MarcusD says:

    @Dalrock

    I’m sure you’ll be interested to read this:

    Unreal sales for Driscoll’s Real Marriage
    Document suggests Mars Hill Church bought its pastor’s spot on the New York Times best-seller list

    Seattle’s Mars Hill Church paid a California-based marketing company at least $210,000 in 2011 and 2012 to ensure that Real Marriage, a book written by Mark Driscoll, the church’s founding pastor, and his wife Grace, made the New York Times best-seller list.

    http://www.worldmag.com/2014/03/unreal_sales_for_driscoll_s_real_marriage

  310. @ Norm:

    My understanding of why most Jews vote democratic is due to the civil rights movement in this country. Jews saw more safety aligning with the civil rights movement 50 years ago. Also, as Jews were persecuted, Jews at that time were also trying to advocate for blacks. I agree with you that Jews should not vote for democrats as the democrats are much more anti Israel.

  311. Anonymous Reader says:

    cane caldo
    There’s nothing to be done about the “bitter betas” until they stop being bitter. It simply cannot matter to AR that you actually answered his question–not only with an answer, but with exactly the answer he was looking for–because he doesn’t want agreement. What he wants more bitterness. He’d prefer it if you were bitter in the same way he is, but if he can’t get that then he’ll take any bitterness he can get.

    Another day, another bogus attempt at psychoanalysis. Oh, well, consider the source…

    Meanwhile, in the real world, the majority of unmarried women vote in a particular fashion, while a plurality of married women vote the same way, and that is for feminism today, feminism tomorrow, and feminism forever. There are, of course, bubble-dwellers who don’t recognize reality even when it lives right next door from them, or who seek to disrupt reasoned discourse with their little trolling-for-flames games. Ignoring them is the best course, except when they start handing out their concrete-life-rings to those men in the water, and then correction is needed.

    The disruptors are entitled to their own opinions, even if those opinions change violently from week to week, but not to their own facts.

  312. feeriker says:

    Document suggests Mars Hill Church bought its pastor’s spot on the New York Times best-seller list

    For anyone who is a member of a behemoth churchian franchise (a.k.a “megachurch”) and has ever wondered where their “tithes and offerings” wind up, this is very instructive.

  313. Cane Caldo says:

    @AR

    Another day, another bogus attempt at psychoanalysis.

    That’s not psychoanalysis, but simply paying attention to what you say. It’s no surprise that the same self-centeredness that is the source of bitterness would lead you to attempt a defense on the grounds of uniqueness, AR.

  314. vascu,

    My understanding of why most Jews vote democratic is due to the civil rights movement in this country. Jews saw more safety aligning with the civil rights movement 50 years ago. Also, as Jews were persecuted, Jews at that time were also trying to advocate for blacks. I agree with you that Jews should not vote for democrats as the democrats are much more anti Israel.

    AIPAC owns both the GOP and the Democrats. Both political parties are great allies of Israel even if American Jews are more sympathetic towards the Palestinians. The Civil Rights movement in the early 1960s was supported by the GOP and was resisted by Southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) all of whome hated JFK. There weren’t too many GOP House members (maybe none) that were against Civil Rights.

    Jews vote Democrat mostly for the following reasons…

    * FDR was a Democrat and Jews were taught (incorrectly) in the 1940s and 1950s that FDR single handedly saved the European Jewry from certain destruction
    * Jews believe that Christians control the platform of the GOP (which is partially true) and one of those GOP platforms is conversion of Jews to Christianity (which is not true) but they resent Christians for trying to do as Ann Coulter said in “perfecting Jews” (ie saving them)
    * Most American Jews’ ancestors immigrated from nations that were firmly in the camp of “Command Economics” (Russia, Poland, Rumania, Germany, etc), they still largely believe in this economic system, and the Democrats are more firmly Command Economics than the GOP
    * Christians are focused on saving one’s soul from eternal damnation and worrying about the afterlife where as Judaism, they are more concerned with life and the freedoms we have here and now (Freedom to Abort unwanted pregnancy perhaps) so this is incompatible with the GOP

  315. Dalrock says:

    @Ray

    pls stop sending your comments to my e-mail, i have unsubscribed from your blog many times — i do not wish your content nor comments, thx

    As BradA mentioned upthread, I don’t have any control over that. This is a wordpress hosted free blog, and WordPress manages those tools. The only options I have are two checkboxes:

    Show a ‘follow comments” option in the comment form

    Show a ‘follow blog’ option in the comment form

  316. MarcusD says:

    The Son of CAF:

    Daughter engaged- why am I devastated?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=865749

    Cleavage (Prediction: train wreck thread)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=865850

  317. On the Jewish question, I think an excellent start is subscribing to Brother Nathanael on Youtube. Ted Pike’s “The Other Israel”. Much of what I see in churchianity is what I consider to be an outpouring of Judaism into the body of Christ.

    In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy. For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.
    (Luk 12:1-2)

    For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. Ye did run well; who did hinder you that ye should not obey the truth? This persuasion cometh not of him that calleth you. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
    (Gal 5:3-9)

    Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
    (Mar 7:13)

    And then they bought Moody and Dallas Theological Seminary………

  318. But of course, rank and file Jews are as much in bondage to the “rabbis’ as they ever were.

    And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem. And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, By what power, or by what name, have ye done this? Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus. And beholding the man which was healed standing with them, they could say nothing against it. But when they had commanded them to go aside out of the council, they conferred among themselves, Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it. But that it spread no further among the people, let us straitly threaten them, that they speak henceforth to no man in this name. And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard. So when they had further threatened them, they let them go, finding nothing how they might punish them, because of the people: for all men glorified God for that which was done.
    (Act 4:6-21)

  319. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    A Sunday field report from an Episcopal church (first visit):

    Far more women than men in the congregation (no surprise, as this is true of churches generally). No exclusively men’s group (no, the Tech/AV group doesn’t count), one exclusively women’s group named (what else?) Daughters of the King. Male pastor took a gratuitous shot at the men in his congregation (“These lazy men just won’t learn to cook, amiright ladies?”). No equivalent shot at women was noted.

    Sad to say, I was pleasantly surprised that it was only that bad. Won’t be returning.

  320. deti says:

    “one exclusively women’s group named (what else?) Daughters of the King. ”

    Seriously? I was just kidding and engaging in extreme hyperbole when I went on and on about that.

    Youve GOT to be kidding that a women’s church group has actually adopted that moniker.

  321. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    Sort of an inverse of Poe’s Law, I guess. No matter how outrageous your parody, there will be a real life example of it.

  322. jf12 says:

    @deti, no, “Daughters of the King” is pretty common. It’s a lampoonable stereotype; to include in a church bulletin e.g. “As a fundraiser for the choir robes fund, the Daughters of the King will serve plate lunches on Saturday following the rummage sale, which will be in the Activities building if it rains.”

  323. jf12 says:

    Suggested new background theme song (old, 1977) for the site: Daytime Friends. Highlights
    “she’s been neglected”
    “it hurts her”
    “they don’t want to hurt the others”
    “the way things should have been”
    “some men never find that a woman needs a lover and a friend”

    When you rationalize it the right way, you can see that she’s doing the right thing.

  324. alcestiseshtemoa says:
  325. Just Saying says:

    This is BS. You cannot save a marriage once her attraction for you is gone – that is just a symptom of the disease – you are a supplicant of hers – that is what killed her attraction. When a man goes from being the leader – to a follower – attraction is doomed. The ONLY way to revive it is for him to punt on her and get on with his life – that may revive her interest once she thinks she has lost him, but that depends on if it was caught in time. Usually, by the time things are at the stage of “needing marital help” you are better off just writing it off and moving on with your life. You cannot revive attraction, by pouring more of what killed it on any embers which are left.

  326. Anonymous age 71 says:

    MarcusD says:
    March 10, 2014 at 12:24 am

    The Son of CAF:

    Daughter engaged- why am I devastated?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=865749

    Cleavage (Prediction: train wreck thread)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=865850

    The daughter engaged was interesting. So, why does a wedding have to cost thousands? In today’s economy, get the license, take your parents and find a pastor who will marry you. Most communities have an Open Door church, if you have no church of your own.

    A divorce lawyer some years ago did a study on cost of weddings, and learned that the more a couple spent on a wedding, the higher the odds of divorce.

    When my wife and I married in 1975, our total cost was around $150 or so, including a week-end honey-moon. (Okay, so we had to work fast, heh, heh.) I am not going to say those ~38 years were without stress at times, but she stuck with me, which puts her in the top 60% of women with no further discussion. And, the kids were not raised in maternal custody, which is the worst thing that does happen to most kids.

    A big wedding, in my opinion, is a pagan party. You are not any more married with a big wedding than we were, in the office of the Unitarian church.

    In fact, big weddings tend to distract from the marriage.

    The Cleavage posting was so typically AW in action. The ole’ slutty view if I hang my t*ts out in the air, and a man looks at them, it’s his problem? You gotta’ be kidding. But, no, no joking. AW are that messed up.

    One of the nicest things I have ever heard about the Muslim societies is where old women with whips run around and whip silly dummies who run around half naked. That does my heart good.

    Also, Black Sheep said he once ordered a sluttily dressed ho’ out of his church, and the priest backed him up. Good men, both of them. And, of course the usual suspects said if it happened to them, they would go away and never come back. Great idea! They did understand Black Sheep. So, remind me, what do sluts get out of church? Gotta’ wonder!

    I remember in the 70’s, there was a combined program, press with feminists working together, on men looking at scantily dressed ho’s. The ole’ sex harassment routine. Most of the women agreed, if a man looks at a scantily dressed women, it’s his weakness. Women don’t dress for attention, they dress for personal preference and style.

    A woman friend since 1956, I met her when she was a freshman in our high school, told me, “Anonymous, don’t you believe a word of those lies. I hear them in the restroom boasting how much attention they are getting from the men.” I believed her.

  327. Anonymous age 71 says:

    For ten years, I supplied no-fee counseling on divorce issues for men, and a very few women.

    After ten years of giving free counseling services, maybe 20 hours a week total, I got sick and tired of being attacked by the same men who I helped as best as I could. When I realized one day I was almost manic with delight over the pain some miserable idiot was experiencing, I had to quit.

    It was the same old thing over and over. The men would tell me they never heard of anything like what was happening to them. I knew they were lying. No man in the US has failed to hear of divorce and men getting screwed with a Black and Decker corn cob.

    I started getting more aggressive about asking the question. Finally, they would all admit, yes, they had heard of it, but NEVER IMAGINED IT WOULD HAPPEN TO ME!

    I called this, “The great and wonderful me” syndrome.

    I started telling men they needed to work with other men for justice for divorced men. Men would tell me, “No! All other men but me deserved this, but I did not! I am not going to help men who deserved to be divorced. They should all come to help me.”

    Yes, AM are that stupid. We see other signs of it everywhere. Instead of combining forces to stand up to those who destroy men, every blog and board is a total p*****g contest, with constant bickering over everything, no matter how trivial. “You can’t say that! Grrr!” Along with insults directed at my generation for not having done something, even as the current generation does exactly the same destructive things my generation did. (Let me say the one positive thing men are doing today is avoiding marriage. That is very effective.)

  328. MarcusD says:

    @A71

    Severus68 is a typical Catholic crypto-feminist, and BlueEyedLady is a delusional Jezebel feminist (if you can stomach it, you can go through her post history to see how utterly contradictory and hypocritical (etc) she is).

    At the moment I can’t really pin down what “AW” means or stands for…

    This study backs up your latter points:

    The relationship between a female’s clothing choice, sexual motivation, hormone levels, and partnership status (single or not single, partner present or not present) was analyzed in 351 females attending Austrian discotheques. We digitally analyzed clothing choice to determine the amount of skin display, sheerness, and clothing tightness. Participants self‐reported sexual motivation, and we assessed estradiol and testosterone levels through saliva sampling. Results show that females are aware of the social signal function of their clothing and that they in some cases alter their clothing style to match their courtship motivation. In particular, sheer clothing—although rare in the study—positively correlated with the motivation for sex. Hormone levels influenced clothing choice in many groups, with testosterone levels correlating positively with physique display. In females who had a partner but were at the disco unaccompanied by the partner, estradiol levels correlated positively with skin display and clothing tightness. Significant differences were not found, however, for clothing choice across the partnership-status groups.

    Grammer, Karl, LeeAnn Renninger, and Bettina Fischer. “Disco clothing, female sexual motivation, and relationship status: Is she dressed to impress?.” Journal of Sex Research 41.1 (2004): 66-74.

  329. Houston says:

    “one exclusively women’s group named (what else?) Daughters of the King.”

    Not Sisters of the Suffering Servant, you’ll notice. And a daughter of the King is called what? A princess!

  330. Escoffier says:

    “Married white women are split, but lean slightly for the more overtly feminist party most elections as opposed to the more covertly feminist party.”

    Really? I’m wondering what you’re basing that on, because they numbers I’ve seen show that married women lean slightly Republican (not to suggest that the Republicans are not worthless). The problem is that a +3 R advantage among married women is overwhelmed by a +36 D advantage for singles.

  331. MarcusD says:

    @Escoffier

    According the GSS, 54% of married women voted for Obama, while 43% voted for McCain (72% of single women voted for Obama).

  332. feeriker says:

    @MarcusD:

    AW = American Woman

  333. Escoffier says:

    but in 2012, it was 49 Romney, 46 Obama. Even bigger pro-R gap in the 2010 midterms.

    2008 was an outlier election in a lot of ways. The long term trends shows a slight R preference for married women and a huge D preference for singles.

  334. Escoffier says:

    Also, I think Nova was taking about white women only. If you count all marrieds, then the D number goes up because race is an even better predictor of D voting than sex.

  335. MarcusD says:

    @feeriker

    Thanks.

    @Escoffier

    Yes, the 2008 election was odd in that way. And yes, minorities in general voted for Obama in significant numbers, and that really pushed the married women vote towards Obama. I suspect the 2016 election will be closer to the 2008 than the 2012 election because Hillary will be running.

    49% of married white women voted for McCain (vs. 48% for Obama). 54% of married white men voted for McCain (vs. 43% for Obama). 99% of married black women voted for Obama; 97% of married black men voted for Obama. Unmarried blacks voted for Obama in lower numbers than their married counterparts (98% for women, 89% for men).

    What is completely weird (to me) is that around 7% of “liberal” and “extremely liberal” women voted for McCain.

    Something else to read: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/372958/our-political-culture-problem-miniature-michael-potemra

    It’s about the MRA skit on SNL.

  336. Totally off topic:

    You all have been good to me; especially Dalrock. Before finding the sphere I was totally alone with my thoughts about culture and relationships. By finding this blog and others I have found some “fellowship” so to speak.

    Therefore I am offering a stock tip. [Redacted]

    [D: Welcome misanthropicz]

  337. Escoffier says:

    “What is completely weird (to me) is that around 7% of “liberal” and “extremely liberal” women voted for McCain.”

    Why? McCain is a lib. He’s the “conservative” even liberals can stomach.

  338. feeriker says:

    I suspect the 2016 election will be closer to the 2008 than the 2012 election because Hillary will be running.

    I’m pretty sure that Hitlery as already been “elected.” The quadrennial theater production that is scheduled for November 2016 just hasn’t been fully scripted yet.

  339. MarcusD says:

    @Escoffier

    I know he’s more liberal than what a conservative should be, but I never thought he’d get that much support from that demographic. Then again, I’m not an American, so there are undoubtedly gaps in my knowledge of US politics.

  340. Mark says:

    @bg

    “”Yeah, a new legal definition of “spouse” came into effect in British Columbia about a year ago. Common-Law couples that lived together for two years have the same rights and responsibilities as married couples.””

    I believe that Quebec had the same thing?(or similar)….Please,correct me if I am wrong. About a year ago also,there was a big case in BC about a “Polygamous Mormon Sect” that lived in Southern BC…….I believe that this had something to do with this? I never knew that Canada had Mormon Sects like this….I assumed they all lived in Utah.

  341. Anonymous Reader says:

    The advertisement for Planned Parenthood aka “skit” on SNL is interesting for two reasons. First, it means that the “ignore them and they will go away” phase is over, now we are into the strawman argument phase. Second, this episode got the 2nd worst viewership numbers for SNL this season. Evidently the chance to see some of Lena Dunham’s skin doesn’t play as well to larger audiences than the little Girls hothouse on cable.

    MarcusD, leaving aside the issue of “what is a conservative”, Escoffier’s larger point is clear: single women very strongly vote for one political party, a party heavily identified with feminism, while only a plurality of married women vote that way. It should be no surprise, given the number of unmarried women who “marry” the state. This circles back to TFH’s point, that much of the social spending is a transfer from men to women. Given the increasing debt load the US is carrying, and the fact that China has been quietly selling US debt while the Federal Reserve essentially monetizes other debt, it’s also a transfer from the future to the present.

  342. MarcusD says:

    Re: SNL, yes that appears to be the stage that is being transitioned to.

    Re: voting patterns: it certainly appears to be the case that security of resource(s) (acquisition) is important to women, perhaps even subconsciously. Single women voted 72% for Obama (vs 66% for single men). I don’t think feminism (gynocentric, generally) is what’s important to women, but rather just resource accessibility/security (feminism is just coincidental to their primary concern).

  343. Badpainter says:

    I propose the following change to our vocabulary:

    Where as Feminism has a deeply rooted strain of political theory, and call to action, and whereas that strain of theory is essentially Marxist in its policy implications,and desired outcomes,therefore feminism can be seen to little more than gyno-centric Marxism.

    Thus from here on we should simply refer to it as what it is Femarxism.

    Try it out. It’s easy to say and neatly replaces feminist, feminism and all other fem-derivatives perfectly.

  344. b g says:

    Mark

    Every province is different, but all have legislation accepting some form of common law marriage and delineating any resulting rights and responsibilities. There are Mormon sects in both Alberta and BC, but I think that only the one in BC remains polygamous.

  345. MarcusD says:

    @TFH

    They support the gynocentric aspects, as they have in the past. This is the “theory versus practice” element of feminism – in theory it might be equality of the sexes (however one defines “equality”…), but in practice, well…

  346. Badpainter says:

    TFH,

    I get your point and agree. I suggest the new term because I rather enjoy separating spades from shovels. This is just one spade to be called out.

    But lets be clear the Republicans and various types of conservatives are just the Femaxist’s useful idiots, and quislings. In fact didn’t Krushchev make some remarks about destroying us from within back in the 60s? Can’t say we weren’t warned now can we? The cons big problems are failing to admit defeat when defeated, failing to fight when cornered, and the never ending willingness to sacrifice someone else to their ill-defined cause. The fact the cons stand for nothing means they surrender to anything, bunch of spineless cowards.

    So in addition to the Femarxist lets start referring the neo/social/traditional conservatives as cons. There selling a lie, a elixir that if it ever really worked is long past its expiration date. I’d add fiscal conservative to the list but we are so few, and so marginalized, and so powerless that we are inconsequential.

    We can call Republicans just that, it’s time for a new party. Let the name die with party, like the Whigs. They believe in nothing but their own little petty empires, and campaign contributions.

    Much as I hate the Dems I do admire their single minded purpose. Those people know how to win and how to wield power.

  347. Bloodwood says:

    Interesting, which way do feminists vote, left or right? It’s very interesting to listen to you rail aginst conservatives and Republicans (according to several posters here they are worse than feminists) while never mentioning democrats and liberals. Is it because your a liberal?

  348. MarcusD says:

    The Ghost of CAF:

    Cleavage (100 more comments from yesterday – I’d be interested to see the Orthosphere/Neo-reaction/etc tackle the modesty debate)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=865850

    Scared and sad…porn and my boyfriend (a bit long)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=866058

    Second thread is interesting, given the comparison between pornography (a cause for concern of women) and virginity (a cause for concern of men) – observe the reaction of the OP.

  349. Badpainter says:

    Bloodwood,

    Where’s the need to mention to mention the Femarxists, and other leftists? We already know they’re evil. Railing against the so-called right is necessary only because those “leaders” have betrayed us at every turn. They’ve sold us out, lied, and generally blundered their way to creating the mess we have today. No they didn’t do it alone, the Dems helped but still 30+ years (as long as I’ve been voting) of politics by compromise and now the health of the nation is compromised. Are the Dems worse? Undoubtedly, but at least they’re reliable in their evil. They never give me a sense of false hope.

    The Republicans ran the executive, and legislative branches from 2000-2006 and managed to, in spite of being so called fiscal conservatives, run up a huge deficits. Yes, there was the small matter of the war they had no real intent on winning, but the deficit exceeded the annual spending on the war every single year. They conned us. The Republicans since 1988 have offered the following candidates for the presidency: Bush the elder, Dole, Bush the Younger, McCain, and Romney. None of whom had right of center domestic policy platforms, except for abortion. The Republicans are every bit as authoritarian and anti-constitiutional as the Dems, just in somewhat different ways. They are slow socialists.

    If the Republican party gave a damn about the people they claim to want to serve then where are the lawsuits in congress against the NSA? Against the Obama’s fickle enforcement of Obamacare? Against the IRS? WHERE? You see, they when they get the chance they will use those examples as precedent so that may conduct business in the same type of statist, authoritarian manner.

    I want to believe all is not lost. I want to see the Republicans take the Senate this year. I want to see if a Scott Walker can be the right man to turn things around. I do. But instead we’re going to the establishment money chosen guy, probably the churchian candidate like Huckabee or Satorum. If so once again it won’t matter who we vote for we’ll all lose.

    PS. By the end of the 2012 campaign I was full fledged fan of Romney, I think we missed a great opportunity. But the Cons stayed home. Can’t vote for a Mormon.

  350. Can’t vote for a neo-con. Can’t vote for a re-branded Freemason who goes into their own version of Judaism’s Temple and does their best impression of a Zionist. Nope sorry, might as well have the wolf in wolves clothing.

  351. And I won’t vote for Paul after seeing him down with the Shekinah-humpers at the Wailing Wall either, neo-con. Cruz I don’t know about but am highly suspicious. Bush did more to give us 0bama than 0bama did.

  352. No man in the US has failed to hear of divorce and men getting screwed with a Black and Decker corn cob.

    You are correct, around here its been Craftsman and an occasional Wagner where they are not screwed but sprayed

  353. A71
    Instead of combining forces to stand up to those who destroy men, every blog and board is a total p*****g contest, with constant bickering over everything, no matter how trivial.

    Yessir, scroll down, invariably the hair splitting definitions of political ideologies begins. Mentioning Marx is like mentioning Nazis or Hitler, there is some cyber rule about it. It is whats wrong with the manosphere. As well informed and well intentioned as most red pill men are, men generally, after we find consensus on a problem, keep trying to find the problem.

    I was told about a brilliant polymer chemist who used to work where I do. he left to start his own company and was designing new polymers and applications in the family of polymers and uses we deal in. He had sensational ideas. He was a customer of our company and was asking us to support his sales efforts, which we did. At a meeting with one of his prospective clients, one of our guys heard him do something akin to what we do. The customer was ready to buy in, and the brilliant guy said something like, well, if you think its good now you ought to wait another 8 months when i have the next generation perfected.

    Result?
    No sale
    Same thing all the yammering accomplishes.

  354. Anonymous Reader says:

    MarcusD
    I don’t think feminism (gynocentric, generally) is what’s important to women, but rather just resource accessibility/security (feminism is just coincidental to their primary concern).

    It’s all different facets of the same thing, the Female Imperative. Alpha sperm and beta provisioning, by any means necessary.

  355. @Empath, I would argue that the onslaught of feminism, critical theory, and churchiantity so much culture has been lost. I would say that like the advance of the Roman Empire that swallowed hundreds of cultures whole that these ideologies have done much the same. It isn’t one culture that we are operating out of but many and even though we may have a common enemy each man being masculine is going to be opinionated and have a strong independent streak, so some squabbling is inevitable. Didn’t work for the Celts, did work for the Goths.

  356. Anonymous age 71 says:

    While I cannot defend “Mormon” Theology I do want to correct the comments here on the Mormons. The correct name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

    Although here in Mexico, they are indeed popularly known as Mormones… Yet, if you go to one of their churches, for example the one in Tehuacan, the name is LDS in Spanish.

    I sent a picture of their church in Tehuacan to my brother who has converted to LDS and he was amazed. He said it was bigger than anything he was used to. Heh, heh. (I don’t think they call it a church, though.)

    Their headquarters are in Salt Lake City, Utah. They have prohibited polygamy per instructions given to them by their prophet, I think over 100 years ago. There is no legal polygamy in that church. The polygamists are not connected to the Salt Lake City organization in any way that I have been able to find.

    In spite of their un-believable theology, they do represent very strongly conservative family values, and probably provide the best life style of any church I have investigated. They tell their members how to eat; how to conduct family life; and financial responsibility. Their health statistics are much superior to that of other churches. The famililes are somewhat dominated by women, though, according to the husbands. People who work with LDS men claim they are the ultimate White Knights.

    These other “sects” have nothing at all to do with the LDS church. Not just different interpretations. Not just different sects. Totally independent and unrelated organizations,.

    Adding words to the name like Fundamentalist is not just a minor change.These dirt bags who marry multiple wives and 13 year old girls, knowing it is prohibited by the nations they live in are, well, dirt bags.

    I have a lot of contact with LDS because of a lot of genealogy work here in Mexico. I can access local church records way back to 1609 – 1620 because the LDS came here in 1972 and microfilmed the church and civil records. Except death records for an important ancestor of my wife, who was born in 1793, and who probably died in 1876, and alas the 1876 records are missing completely. Sigh.

    Before 1876, he was shown on a marriage document as living father of one of the participants, and his wife as deceased. In 1877 he was shown as deceased father of one of the participants. That causes me to believe he died in that year. Still, it would be nice to see the actual death record.

    You can access millions of documents via Family Search, the free LDS genealogy data base..

    familysearch.org

  357. MarcusD says:

    CAF Meets the Wolf Man:

    Worried Father
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=866273

    My therapist’s opinion…
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=866293

    Devout Catholic dad returns home from Afghanistan to find daughter is a porn star (First comment should be utterly shocking coming from a Catholic)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=866170

    Excerpt:

    But, you seem to stretch it out MUCH further than that, by talking to me (and the others on the Forum) like I am un-Human for NOT being Upset.
    Personally, I do not mind that a girl needs to work in order to put herself through College (and a good College at that).

    And, if she decides to star in a Porn movie, then that is her choice of Employment.
    I am pretty sure that she gets paid MUCH MORE than if she was flipping burgers at McDonalds.

    So, she works a few hours a month, and lives like she was working full-time at a decent Job.
    This makes it much easier for her to do her Class Time and her Homework.

    Also worth noting: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/01/paternal-disengagement-and-female.html

  358. MarcusD says:

    CAF Meets the Wolf Man:

    Worried Father
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=866273

    My therapist’s opinion…
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=866293

    Devout Catholic dad returns home from Afghanistan to find daughter is a porn star (First comment should be utterly shocking coming from a Catholic)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=866170

    Excerpt:

    But, you seem to stretch it out MUCH further than that, by talking to me (and the others on the Forum) like I am un-Human for NOT being Upset.
    Personally, I do not mind that a girl needs to work in order to put herself through College (and a good College at that).

    And, if she decides to star in a Porn movie, then that is her choice of Employment.
    I am pretty sure that she gets paid MUCH MORE than if she was flipping burgers at McDonalds.

    So, she works a few hours a month, and lives like she was working full-time at a decent Job.
    This makes it much easier for her to do her Class Time and her Homework.

  359. I hear Fabian Socialists are really nice when you get to know them too.

  360. GIL
    You may well be correct, i suspect its a safe observation. And it fits the criteria of being illustrative therefore useful, unlike Higgs Boson splitting ideological arguments

  361. hurting says:

    MarcusD says:
    March 12, 2014 at 12:37 am

    Marcus,

    What is your take on this one?

    My therapist’s opinion…
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=866293

  362. BradA says:

    I believe the Mormon “revelation” on polygamy was a political expediency rather than a spiritual one. They are definitely not “Christian” as some think. Many nice people, but lots of things at odds with Christianity when you dig deeply.

  363. Iniquity is do the right thing for the wrong reason.

  364. Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
    (Isa 55:6-9)

  365. Correction: Iniquity can include doing the right thing for the wrong reason….

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