She’s saving her farts for you.

From Men You Marry Vs. Men You Bang:

Marry: A man who lets you fart around him.

Bang: A man who is grossed out by female functions.

Sure all of those other men banged her when she was younger and hotter, but you get something special.

This entry was posted in Cracks in the narrative, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

169 Responses to She’s saving her farts for you.

  1. gmg says:

    Dalrock, you’re on fire. Keep it coming!

  2. I guess queef doesn’t count as a fart.

  3. Pingback: She’s saving her farts for you. | Manosphere.com

  4. Elspeth says:

    Oh, my word. Where do you find these women?

    First women with less baggage are less than women with all kinds of issues. Now boyfriends get enthusiastic sex while husbands get farts.

    It boggles.

  5. Will S. says:

    Reblogged this on Patriactionary and commented:
    I can’t imagine a guy not ‘allowing’ a woman to fart near him, nor one who is particularly grossed out by it, unless she drops real stink bombs; I imagine most guys really don’t care if not stinky or too often, it’s just something to tease her about, surely.🙂

    But how revealing, such an attitude as displayed by that site…

  6. Feminine But Not Feminist says:

    :-O

    No way would I fart around a man on purpose (did it on accident once when I got to laughing really hard… and man did I get teased for that!). I mean, a woman’s gotta retain some mystery after marriage… (and actually, all bathroom functions apply here).

  7. Pro-Truth says:

    New answer to “where have the good men gone?”

    They were scared off by your flatulence.

  8. earl says:

    Marry: A good man.

    Bang: Boys.

    Women are gross pedos.

  9. Anyone still doubt my assertions of Open Hypergamy now?

  10. Opus says:

    Now I know why I am single.

  11. greyghost says:

    I must have been out of circulation to long because I have never heard of this. But I will say a man is more likely to get some anal sex from a woman before he hears her fart in todays world. And it looks like Dalrock has found him some women to share with us that think that is the case also.

  12. oldfashionedfellow says:

    Where do we find women like this?

    I walked out my front door.

  13. elovesc34 says:

    Wow, just freakin wow.

  14. earl says:

    The general thought process behind these comparisons is:

    Marry: A man already comfortable in his emasculation.

    Bang: A man who either isn’t or decided not to be emasculated.

    I hate how marriage has become basically a one way ticket to emasculation in this day and age.

  15. Dalrock you have outdone yourself.

  16. Mofo says:

    My mom claims to this day she has never farted. My dad thinks he heard one in back in ’77 but she says it was the dog.

  17. Guy Incognito says:

    It’s basically the same advice Sheryl Sandberg gave in “Lean In”. Except possibly for the part about bodily functions.

    It’s incredible that women divide men up into these two categories, then can’t understand why men prefer one over the other.

  18. earl says:

    “It’s incredible that women divide men up into these two categories, then can’t understand why men prefer one over the other.”

    Apparently when it comes to casual sex…both genders prefer the worst in each other.

  19. feeriker says:

    Oh, my word. Where do you find these women?

    Everywhere. Matter o’ fact, as a man, it’s not even necessary to search for them; they’ll find you if you’re not astute enough to spot them early and take steps necessary to avoid them.

  20. JDG says:

    My mom claims to this day she has never farted. My dad thinks he heard one in back in ’77 but she says it was the dog.

    What ever happened to those good ole days?

  21. Anonymous Reader says:

    I scrolled through the comments on the original article (and I still can’t stand Disqus). Two things stand out:

    1. A number of men and one or perhaps two women basically stated why this plan won’t work. One comment specifically used the words “alpha phucks, beta bucks”.
    2. Someone specifically used the term “cock carousel” in correct context.
    I wonder how long before rantchic.com discontinues comments?

  22. mojohn says:

    “And I’m savin’ all my farts for you.” (Isn’t there a love song of which this is part of the lyric?)

  23. JDG says:

    Apparently when it comes to casual sex…both genders prefer the worst in each other.

    I find it amazing that anyone from either sex would want to swap bodily fluids with people they hardly know. To me it’s mind boggling that women today actually WANT to be sluts. Then they want to marry some guy whom they can fart around after having wasted their youth and soiling themselves with boyfriends and boy toys.

    After having been joined at the groin with several other guys, they find it difficult to settle down and bond with the one guy they swore to remain faithful to. So they become unhappy and the majority of them forego their vows and nuke the marriage.

    And that ladies and gentlemen is why cat food is a good investment in western society.

  24. Anonymous Reader says:

    TFH is walking towards pedestalization a bit, perhaps. Humans are mammals, after all, and it is a fantasy to pretend otherwise. A ladylike image is fine, in times and places that are appropriate, but a man doesn’t want a woman to be a lady all the time. Singling out the one point regarding flatulance when every other point at the rantchic.com article is offensive in a frankly more serious way is somewhat immature.

    I have known couples who shared a sense of humor that can be called “earthy”, and while they wouldn’t be prone to post their shared jokes up on the world wide web, sometimes a private joke gets overheard by others.

    In reality, the rantchic.com remark about “a man you can fart around” is obnoxious when taken in context with the notion that it’s ok to bang men who are squeamish about women’s bodily functions. Why? Because it indicates a degree of contempt for a marriage partner and a degree of respect for carousel ponies. It shows the authoress is fully prepared to take any man foolish enough to marry her for granted from the start. We all know how that is likely to turn out.

    That’s the obnoxious part. The risible part? She’s arrogant enough to put this up on the web, where any man can see it.

  25. Bango Tango says:

    Count me in as a Bang! I’m grossed out to the maximum!

  26. Fred Astaire says:

    Grow up lads.

  27. Mulier says:

    The article is gross, in many ways. Why would anyone reward the men she describes as bangable? The advice on who to marry is mostly fine (although I admit that I didn’t read all the way through, so I might have missed something), but the suggestion that a woman should sleep with someone who matches the description of the “bang” is awful. Our culture really has devolved dramatically in the last decade. A woman can’t help sometimes being attracted to the wrong kind of guy anymore than a guy can help being attracted to a beautiful young woman, but the culture ought to do its job to warn the woman away from him.

    That said, you should marry someone that would be able to handle it if you did unintentionally let one slip, because many women find that when they are pregnant it is extremely difficult to control. You can try valiantly and still not manage to hold it all in, as I have found to my horror and shame.

    I would disagree with the advice to marry a man who knows his way around the kitchen. A man who is clueless about cooking is more easily pleased. I love being mistress of my kitchen, expressing love through what I cook, and being sure that he thinks it is wonderful because he just doesn’t know any better.

  28. earl says:

    I still assume women only go to the bathroom to powder their nose. And that’s the way I likes it!

  29. Bango Tango says:

    Rant chic next article and advice:

    Marry: Man who you can take a crap in front of and wipe standing up (if he really loves you he will help you wipe).

    Bang: Bad boy you met at the hotel bar. Make sure your freshly showered and douched wearing your sexiest Victoria’s Secret under a trench coat ready to play the submissive role.

  30. YOHAMI says:

    Dalrock, do you promote male promiscuity? I’d like to know your take on it. Is it as sinful as female promiscuity? or, what’s the reason it’s not debated as in depth as all the sins of women? A friend wants to know, thanks.

  31. Novaseeker says:

    It’s basically the same advice Sheryl Sandberg gave in “Lean In”. Except possibly for the part about bodily functions.

    It’s incredible that women divide men up into these two categories, then can’t understand why men prefer one over the other.

    It’s three, actually, like the well-known bar game “fuck/marry/kill”. The third category are the incels whom a woman would not voluntarily have sex with if they were the last man left on the planet. The first two categories are basic AF/BB. It isn’t new. What’s new is that, as Rollo says, this is now out in the open in a brazen way. Why? Because they can now be open about it. “Watcha gonna do, boy?” is the attitude.

    As to your last question there, I think women *do* know that many guys would prefer to be in the “fuck” category than the “marry” category. But they don’t care much, because movement between the categories isn’t easy for guys, and women, ultimately, know this (not many of them think a guy they put in the “marry” category can easily move into their, or another girl’s, “fuck” category — because if he did, they would likely also put him there due to herd pre-selection for prime breeding male stock).

    Anyone still doubt my assertions of Open Hypergamy now?

    It’s obvious and everywhere. I think you have to be blind not to see it once it is pointed out — as many other ‘sphere truths are, actually.

  32. Anonymous Reader says:

    what’s the reason it’s not debated as in depth as all the sins of women? A friend wants to know, thanks.

    Why doesn’t your friend come here and ask for herself, or himself, as the case may be?
    It’s only words on a screen, after all.

    Rhetorically, ask your friend if there is any shortage of places in the world for dissecting men’s behavior. Is there a shortage of churches calling out men for their behavior? A shortage of TV shows willing to point out men’s failings? A lack of publications conveniently located at the checkout stand of every grocery store in the country blaring out what men are doing wrong now? No courses at public funded universities devoted to opposing teh patriarchy?

    Then ask your friend where, aside from a handful of sites in the androsphere, there is any serious discussion of women’s behavior and what can be done about it .

    Probably should have some smelling salts to hand, lest the dainty flower (of either sex) be overcome with the vapors and collapse.

  33. Pingback: some men you just can’t reach, and so you get what we have here, which is the way dalrock wants it, and so he gets it. | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl

  34. Casey says:

    mojohn said:
    September 23, 2014 at 6:59 pm

    “And I’m savin’ all my farts for you.” (Isn’t there a love song of which this is part of the lyric?)”

    Yes, MoJohn…….I believe it is on one of Weird Al Jankovics albums.

  35. JDG says:

    Wake up Fred, if not for yourself, then for your daughter.

  36. Casey says:

    I’d say sex is in a downdraft (pardon the pun) once farting in front of your husband is the evening’s goal.

    Women: Ignore the advice of other women, particularly feminists.

    Marry young, marry pretty, give your husband your youth; not your flatulence.

  37. YOHAMI says:

    “Why doesn’t your friend come here and ask for herself?”

    Told her the same, but she’s shy.

    “Rhetorically, ask your friend if there is any shortage of places in the world for dissecting men’s behavior. Is there a shortage of churches calling out men for their behavior? A shortage of TV shows willing to point out men’s failings? A lack of publications conveniently located at the checkout stand of every grocery store in the country blaring out what men are doing wrong now? No courses at public funded universities devoted to opposing teh patriarchy?”

    More or less my words to her.

    “Then ask your friend where, aside from a handful of sites in the androsphere, there is any serious discussion of women’s behavior and what can be done about it .”

    Nowhere, of course.

    I knew that. I think what she really wants to know is that the omission of criticism of male behavior means that Dalrock is complicit on it.

    As a disclaimer, this friend is a feminist. I doubt she can get pass the “us vs them”. I assume that if Dalrock was attacking male promiscuity, she would still object the slut shaming because, oh well. But still, my question.

    What’s Dalrocks take on it?

  38. ARoss says:

    this whole convo reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CuWrCtNKpI

  39. Dalrock says:

    Yohami,

    This post isn’t about sin, at least primarily. It is about the ugliness of the AF/BB strategy and the risk each subsequent generation of women practicing it face of being exposed when it is discussed by other women so openly on the web. Unless she is planning on switching from AF to BB, I would say your lady friend shouldn’t be offended by this post. In fact, if she is planning on doing so, she may be able to enjoy a laugh at the expense of her future husband.

    On the topic of sexual sin, sex outside of (real, lifetime) marriage is a sin for men or women.

    I hope this puts her mind at ease.

  40. Eidolon says:

    @YOHAMI

    Dalrock is against male promiscuity, of course. His position as far as I recall is that it’s just as bad as female promiscuity, as any reasonable Christian’s opinion would be.

    Others will have to remind me. I’m pretty sure Dalrock has tackled this subject. The primary concern is women essentially because, while promiscuous males are morally equal, practically speaking in order to put sex back to its correct place inside marriage and not outside it, shaming of women is the only tool that will work.

    One of the ideas common in the manosphere, which is true to a significant degree, is that sexuality and relationships work according to economic principles. If you have 1000 men and 1000 women, most of the women will want the top 20% or so of the men. Now let’s say shaming works, but you can only apply it to one sex. If you can get 50% of the men who are sleeping around out of the game, the other 50% can still sleep with all the women this opened up. The women will become even sluttier to compete for the same men and you won’t have accomplished much. On the other hand if you get 50% of the women who are sleeping around out of that group, then the group of available males relative to females is doubled. The remaining women will not need to compete as much with each other for the men they want and will generally become less slutty. Thus even if men and women are equally susceptible to shaming (which they aren’t, of course, women are more susceptible) it would make the most sense to concentrate on women.

  41. Lyn87 says:

    YOHAMI,

    Dalrock can speak for himself, and may do so at some point, but you ask a question that has been asked and answered many times before. Dalrock is a Protestant, and Protestants like Dalrock, me, and bunch of others, recognize that from a spiritual standpoint, fornication is fornication no matter who does it… as far as eternal consequences, both are equally bad. But the temporal consequences of female promiscuity are generally greater than the temporal consequences of male promiscuity.

    And, as AR noted, we are awash in a sea of media and attitudes that dissect everything men do or fail to do in a giant whirlpool of “Damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.” But… NAWALT… we know, we know, believe me, we know. I have taken crap from a few people here (one of them a female Christian blogger just a few days ago) for stating that I married a unicorn.

  42. Lyn87 says:

    I see that Dalrock was answering YOHAMI at the same time I was typing.

  43. YOHAMI says:

    Thanks for the response and sorry for derailing the thread. Here’s her second question and last. If male promiscuity is bad why are promiscuous males welcomed here?

    Say, myself included. Isnt it hypocrisy?

  44. Now boyfriends get enthusiastic sex while husbands get farts.

    WELP.
    You’ve come a long way, baby.

  45. JDG says:

    Marry young, marry pretty, give your husband your youth; not your flatulence.

    This gets my vote for comment of the day.

  46. Lyn87 says:

    “why are promiscuous males welcomed here?”

    Again, Dalrock can answer for himself, but my take is that the host welcomes most everyone here. This isn’t a typical feminist site that drops the ban-hammer on “unauthorized” thoughts.

    And promiscuous men do get some flak here, by the way. In fact, about a week ago some newbie came in with the same complaint and I was able to quickly provided a lengthy list of condemnations of male promiscuity from the comments sections.

    Having said that, people who spout feminist crap may not feel very welcome here, and that’s as it should be. This is primarily a forum for men who do not suffer idiocy in silence.

    Add having said that, I have been viciously attacked on other websites where the Feminine Imperative holds sway. One case in particular that earned me no end of hate was when I pointed to an article where a man was ripped to shreds for literally being too sick to work, while another article less than a week later was highly sympathetic to a woman who was simply too lazy to be a housewife.

  47. donalgraeme says:

    If male promiscuity is bad why are promiscuous males welcomed here?

    There is a difference between being welcomed, and being tolerated. I cannot speak for Dalrock, but I suspect it is the latter for him. That is how I run my blog. I’ve spoken up against male fornication before, but I allow those who disagree with my take to comment. I just keep them on a short least, that’s all.

  48. donalgraeme says:

    That was supposed to read “leash”, not “least.”

  49. freebird says:

    “why are promiscuous males welcomed here”

    WTF are you talking about?
    Citations needed.

    Projection much?
    Or just trolling?

  50. Because Male Fornicators aren’t organizing DudeWalks in the streets claiming they’re being shamed.
    Because Male Fornicators aren’t claiming that the consequences of their actions are misandrist, therefore they should get no consequences.
    Because Male Fornicators, by getting married, do not then get to blow up their families because they’re Sex Widowers who are bored and now need cash & prizes.
    Because Male Fornicators aren’t speaking at the UN saying that they’re still not equal and women need to fix it.
    Because Male Fornicators aren’t writing articles in umpteen magazines whining about how young girls won’t date them now, and they’re clearly much better catches than those *other* dudes.
    Because Male Fornicators don’t have Title IX power to just make an accusation and send a woman to jail for 16 years with no evidence and no trial.
    Because Male Fornicators aren’t saying that giving women no reproductive rights whatsoever is equality.

  51. freebird says:

    “a man was ripped to shreds for literally being too sick to work, while another article less than a week later was highly sympathetic to a woman who was simply too lazy to be a housewife.”

    That is so typical,women have NO empathy for men,and total herd like unquestioning unconditional empathy for other women.

    They are about as intelligent in that regard as ole Bessy in the field,MOO!

    MOOOOOOOOOOO!

  52. freebird says:

    Cudos redpillsetmefree
    you killed it in comment 54.

    Totes slayed

  53. Novaseeker says:

    Say, myself included. Isnt it hypocrisy?

    No, because Dalrock isn’t running a church or an activist organization based on ideological purity. He’s running a website with a Christian orientation but which is welcome to all comers. He is critical of male promiscuity, male delays of marriage, male use of pornography and so on. But he doesn’t exclude you from the discussion, because (as I view/read him at least), he values inputs from all sources … unlike certain others who relegate to irrelevance any viewpoint from someone who does not agree with them on all things ( or even with respect to basic things ).

  54. freebird says:

    Let’s be honest,when an unattractive woman hits on a higher SMV man,she’s given a pass as ‘lonely’ and let down easy.

    When a fugly guy does it,he’s “creeping” and a moral panic ensues.
    Stalking!
    Perhaps the police should get involved.

    Woman: Aw she’s trying.
    Man:Rally the herd,we have a violation,take his balls.

  55. freebird says:

    Also,all evidence point to that woman are attracted to underage males just as often or more as the reverse is true.

    Except the woman is given a pass
    (he must have wanted it)
    and the man is tared,feathered,castrated,and incarcerated.

    Total P pass for female pedo’s.

    I had so many hits from old women when I was just a boy,it was VERY common.

  56. freebird says:

    @TFH

    She gets the responses because the hypocrisy needs pointing out.
    This is exactly why Oprah style feminism got so far ahead,the media is complicit,and men will NOT take a woman to task in person,they hold too much POWER to confront directly.

    Thus she has hit a hot button there.

    Grateful to have a medium to transmit a rebuttal.
    Thanks Dal

  57. embracing reality says:

    By far the most disgusting point of this Rant Chic article is that fools still marry these trashy women.

  58. freebird says:

    How many times do women get a nuclear rejection,and how many times do men get a nuclear rejection?

    Then we must ask ourselves,what is it that enables the dichotomy?

    It is because the females hold ALL the power in that transaction.

    So she can KMA trying to SHAME male promiscuity,whilst the fems get a ‘go-grll.’

    I have been at odd with Rollo about his statement that men “need” sex, I have refuted that in the past,but now I capitulate,it is a need,and I am resentful that I have been shamed for my innate human need whilst the fems are not.

    Forget all the defacotory hypocrisy.

  59. JDG says:

    By far the most disgusting point of this Rant Chic article is that fools still marry these trashy women.

    I’m still scratching my head on that one. It’s been explained to me, but I would not settle for one of these modern females. Furthermore, I can’t figure why anyone else would either. You don’t have to be religious to not want to be hitched to a soiled and disrespectful ticking time bomb.

  60. freebird says:

    Just one more post with the indulgence of our host before hitting the rack.

    Notice how women pre-select for the Fabio style man-whore,all of them.

    Whilst with men,only about %10 like ‘sloots,’ Not because they are more attractive,but because it’s easy sex.

    Man-whore=good
    fem-whore-bad
    By Wimmins standards.
    Which by the way,is the entire sick matriarchal run societies standard.
    (anti-christian)
    And thus the Fall awaits..

    (The very thing the religions were invented to fight against)

  61. JDG says:

    redpillsetmefree says:
    September 23, 2014 at 10:52 pm

    Nailed it.

  62. JDG says:

    Also, she sure seems to be able to get Yohami to do her talking for her, and jump through other hoops for her.

    There are some strange goings on here.

  63. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Definitely another example of open hypergamy.

    Pure, unashamed AF/BB.

  64. Swithun says:

    TFH
    “a) Female invasion of a mostly-male space..”
    “c) More FI-centric demands.”

    FI view on criticism of women
    1) not to be performed by men (men have no business talking without female supervision) (your point a)
    2) women doing this can only be criticising female behaviour contra to herd interests, OR describing actions that worked out well for the woman (no discussion of it not working for any other women nor any damage to men and family). “Look what I did! It was soooo bad, but it worked out for me! *tee-hee*”
    3) if men cannot be prevented from criticising women, at the very minimum it must be explicitly stated that men do it too / men do it worse. (your point c)

    Of course Yohami knows all this, perhaps he’s looking to show his feminist friend that the end is nigh for feminism, the men are awaking to women and the word is spreading?

    point 3 is a very female issue. Fayurness (c.f. unhaaaapppy).
    * It is never fayur if men aren’t explicitly described as being worse
    * men must do it too, or it’s unfayur to mention the topic
    * it’s always fayur that women are favoured (because patriarchy), equality is by definition unfayur.
    * reality is irrelevant. make up anything, however ridiculously false, and the female fayurness instinct cuts in. (77c on the dollar / 1 in 5/4/3 rape etc). It’s about the feelz, the facts are irrelevant patriarchal unfayurness.
    * women must in all circumstances be seen as the brave underdog fighting oppression, regardless of reality. because it’s the fayur thing to do.
    * countering female arguments is unfayur.
    * winning any argument is doubly unfayur.
    * it’s unfayur to point out that controlling women’s sleeping around works far better than directly controlling men’s (slut shaming used to work, and indeed it still stings – slut walks show that). Controlling women’s sexual behaviour directly, indirectly controls male’s behaviour. It’s very much harder and less effective to directly control male behaviour. However any talk of controlling female behaviour is unfayur. Doubly so if demonstrably effective.

  65. solitude says:

    This article has some interesting hidden implicit implications.
    Perhaps what is telltale about the article in its entirety is its order of presentation? Instead of getting nothing after she banged all those other men. First she gets to marry someone that worships the ground she walks on….and then she chases after some other illusive man (i.e. man with better game).

    Also interesting is that the married men “lets” her fart. Because of course he has permission to allow her to or not to fart. Even in the midst of rantchic we still have women wanting to be given permission to do things in marriage.

    And with all the discussion of consent, here’s an article where woman are encouraged that the answer is always yes. Bang a man who makes you cry? Yup good idea.

  66. Pingback: She’s saving her farts for you. | Truth a...

  67. BradA says:

    Answering someone like YOHAMI at times is good for those who may read the thread a long time afterwards. I definitely hold men accountable and have taken minor flak for standing for that, but it is not usually the point. The point of the OP is some idiot’s view of men as her own toys. That has nothing to do with male promiscuity. She will always find someone willing to be on her bang list, at least as long as she is even moderately attractive.

  68. earl says:

    Fornication is a sin no matter what gender you are.

    However some of the subsequent consequences seem to be different when it comes to genders. Both a promiscuous woman and man elicit some revulsion in me.

  69. Steve Canyon says:

    Don’t think that will work for me. I like to work on cars and sometimes I use a welder or a torch. That could be dangerous with a gal like that.

  70. Lucas says:

    “but..but…we are married!”

  71. earl says:

    Red pill nailed it.

    Most of your fornicators after a period of time experience burnout because eventually the excitement wears off (lust is never fulfilled). For women to get that excitement back they turn it into a cause and tell us we should respect and honor them for the ability to do the easiest thing they can do. For men…they just go into a different hobby.

  72. YOHAMI says:

    Thanks for the responses, I dont think my troll friend will be satisfied, but how do you satisfy a feminist? rhetoric question.

  73. earl says:

    I’ll still answer…by being an unapologetic sexist.

  74. sonofdeathswriter says:

    What in the hell did I scroll through? It’s a list of who to bang and who to marry and I didn’t the marry guy getting any. That is one f up list.

  75. sonofdeathswriter says:

    What in the hell did I scroll through? It’s a list of who to bang and who to marry and I didn’t the marry guy getting any. That is one f up list.

  76. Dalrock says:

    @Yohami

    If male promiscuity is bad why are promiscuous males welcomed here?

    Say, myself included. Isnt it hypocrisy?

    Letting people post doesn’t mean I agree with them or their lifestyle. But my sense is that I need to spell it out for you. The lifestyle you are living is sinful. You are greatly harming yourself and the women you are with, not to mention countless children and husbands who are or will be in the picture. You aren’t leaving them better than you found them, you are leaving them worse off (as you are harmed by each time as well). You (and her) are using people for your own selfish pleasure, and the cost to yourselves and everyone else involved doesn’t matter to you.

    I write this not to be mean, but because not telling the truth about sin is unloving.

    None of this by the way changes the fact that invoking the double standard is an entirely predicable reframe to avoid dealing with the rampant sin feminism has convinced the majority of our population is a good thing.

  77. Giraffe says:

    That should probably be its own post, Dalrock.

  78. Opus says:

    I doubt very much that Yohami has a female friend who asks him questions but who is otherwise too shy to comment here. A quick browse of the internet will surely show her (should she exist) that there is not so much a double standard as two separate standards, and by reason of the biological differences between men and women (a fact that women choose to deny except when it suits them to do otherwise). Yohami seems to be acting, for reasons I cannot grasp, as Avocati Diaboli.

    The term promiscuous man is not in use, (for promiscuity denotes a certain ease of action or lack of control) but the term promiscuous female is a common epithet, and is not used as a term of approval; at the same time the term stud or player refers only to men and is used in an approving way for it denotes a man who (without resorting to physical force) can persuade a woman to accept his sexual advances – and thus the possibility of prolonging the species. Whether the man injures himself in doing so no one cares. A female stud (an oxymoron) would if one could conceive such being would either not be female (say a Lady-boy), or if female, a damaged person, and that is something people do care about – one only has to consider how much crotchet-producing-ink was spilt in the nineteenth century by composers devoting their musical empathy on women who were suffering by reason of their sexual indulgencies – and the horrid fates their librettists usually had in stall for them.

    Short-time love seems to cause more problems for women; long time love more trouble for men or so the female friend who is too shy to write all my comments tells me.

  79. JDG says:

    Aaarrrggg!!! I can’t stand it. Gender does NOT = sex.

    But more importantly, YOHAMI – be careful, your feminist friend could be a double agent who has a fart just for you.

    Single guys – somewhere out there, lurking where you least expect it, could be a fart with your name on it.

  80. Anchorman says:

    Opus,
    As odd as it is for Yohami to post for his friend, it’s equally odd to believe a longtime contributor and blogger on this subject would create a fictional person just ot ask the questions.

  81. Gunner Q says:

    mojohn @ September 23, 2014 at 6:59 pm:
    ““And I’m savin’ all my farts for you.” (Isn’t there a love song of which this is part of the lyric?)”

    Nope. “Weird Al” Yankovic has standards.

    YOHAMI @ September 23, 2014 at 10:26 pm:
    “If male promiscuity is bad why are promiscuous males welcomed here?”

    Because the pickup artists were the only people to teach us Christian men about women. Just because they’re whoremongers doesn’t mean they don’t have a point. Also, evangelism is easier when they come to us. I think God has a sense of humor here. He doesn’t want us to send missionaries into the bordellos so instead he gave the PUAs a chance to teach us… and learn about Christ in the process.

  82. Pingback: A rebuke for Yohami | Dalrock

  83. HawkandRock says:

    What is amazing to me is that someone actually got paid to write that.

    It was contradictory and made no sense. It wasn’t funny (not even a little). It wasn’t educational. It wasn’t otherwise interesting in any way, even as an example of atrocious writing.

    I want my 2 minutes back.

  84. earl says:

    “Because the pickup artists were the only people to teach us Christian men about women. Just because they’re whoremongers doesn’t mean they don’t have a point. Also, evangelism is easier when they come to us. I think God has a sense of humor here. He doesn’t want us to send missionaries into the bordellos so instead he gave the PUAs a chance to teach us… and learn about Christ in the process.”

    The Bible spells out human nature pretty well if you look close. Genesis 3:16. Many a times in the OT a Godly man listened to his wife instead of God…doom came down the road. St. Paul gives a detailed account of how biblical marriage should work in the NT. We have a bunch of preachers who tried to sweep the part of woman’s nature under the rug.

    Even wicked people who decide to go into the slop can teach a righteous man a thing or two about how the world works. The prodigal son being a good parable.

  85. sunshinemary says:

    From the linked post:

    “Marry: A man who worships the ground you walk on.
    Bang: A man you have to chase.”

    There is a lesson there for men, I should think, and as usual, Jesus already taught that lesson:

    And Jesus answered him, “It is written, “‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve.’” (Luke 4:8)

    Or, as GBFM is oft reminding men…Thou shalt not serve not the tingelz!

  86. @SSM, maybe you should try convincing Aunt Giggles of the reality of blatant open hypergamy and AF/BB the next time you’re commenting there.

    Or would that’d be too red pill for you to mention now?

    Sell out.

  87. The Brass Cat says:

    Back to farting…

    Men, if your are of the gassy persuasion like me (I should lay off the yogurt) you have a couple options. 1) walk like you’re clenching a quarter until you find a secluded spot to depressurize, or 2) Fart Game.

    Fart Game is for long-term relationships. Not for use on new acquaintances. Think of your fart as a primitive territorial marker; everything it touches is yours. When you feel the pressure building up, walk into the kitchen where your wife is (best be makin’ me a sammich!), deliver your payload, and walk away (to a safe distance) while laughing. And while you’re laughing she’ll discover what you just did. She’ll react like “Oh gross, I can’t believe you did that! That’s awful!” You should maintain the laughing and own it–no apology–and say something like “Oh man that was a good one!”

    If you did it right she should walk over to you, say something like “You drive me crazy!” then kiss you.

    If it actually makes her mad then you did it wrong.

  88. PokeSalad says:

    TFH says:

    September 23, 2014 at 11:11 pm

    Why is Yohami’s friend entitled to so many detailed explanations, when she cannot post here herself?

    Yup. A “shy” feminist? Does.Not.Compute. 404, Logic Not Found

  89. Anonymous Reader says:

    TFH, PokeSalad, eviscerating feminist blame shifting, reframing and fallacies in as few words as possible is not only good practice, but will be seen by lurkers as well.

    Por encourager les autres, as it were.

  90. M3 says:

    This list works in reverse for men too:

    Bang: A woman who is grossed out by loud manfarts and getting bukakke facials.

    Marry: A woman who lets you gas her in the proverbial “dutch oven” and smiles after saying “Ewww, gross… but i love you so much!”.

    Works for me.

  91. hoellenhund2 says:

    Re: 12:19 pm

    I should mention that SSM, Kathy (who used to be a regular tradcon commenter here) and the author of Bodycrimes are all more more less regular commenters on HUS, and they all approve of her behavior and views. That’s how the female herd behaves.

  92. JDG says:

    Works for me.

    Its still not the same IMO. When a woman sluts it up and then gets married, the damage to the marriage is different and IMO much worse than when the man is a former cad.

    I think the equivalent tit for tat needs an example where a former millionaire is now living in his mother’s basement working a minimum wage job. After having squandered nearly all of his wealth and resources on pretty young women up until he saw the male equivalent of the wall looming on the horizon, he settles on her.

    Then she gets to try to make do with what he can provide from his minimum wage job while they live happily ever after in his mother’s basement.

    Also, if she tries to divorce him, the courts will force her to return to his adobe (his mother’s basement), to have sex with him, cook, clean, and do his laundry for several years (or until he remarries) while she still has to support herself. If they live in CA she has to do this until one of them dies.

    If there are children, they stay with him in his mother’s basement. She has to play the part of wife (with out access to any of his resources) until the kids are all grown up.

    It’s not a perfect example, but it seems closer than comparing a slut with a cad.

  93. JDG says:

    I’m not defending fornication for men in my statement above. I think men do damage in their own right. Within the marriage however, the woman’s part plays a bigger part. I think the man’s part tend’s to hurt other (future) marriages more than his own. Just my 2 cents.

  94. Novaseeker says:

    I should mention that SSM, Kathy (who used to be a regular tradcon commenter here) and the author of Bodycrimes are all more more less regular commenters on HUS, and they all approve of her behavior and views. That’s how the female herd behaves.

    SSM approves of HUS and is a regular commenter there?

    I haven’t read HUS in quite some time and I have no interest in her site since she basically became a female primacy advocate in the open, but I would be quite surprised if SSM agreed with Susan about a lot of things.

  95. Will S. says:

    “I should mention that SSM, Kathy (who used to be a regular tradcon commenter here) and the author of Bodycrimes are all more more less regular commenters on HUS, and they all approve of her behavior and views. That’s how the female herd behaves.”

    Figures.

    Birds of a feather…

  96. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    I haven’t read HUS in quite some time and I have no interest in her site since she basically became a female primacy advocate in the open, but I would be quite surprised if SSM agreed with Susan about a lot of things.

    Likewise. I wouldn’t assume commenting indicates agreement, just like a site owner permitting a commenter to participate doesn’t indicate agreement.

  97. Maunalani says:

    Re HUS–Have you seen her latest post? Excerpt:

    “To ensure a bad marriage, though, try the following:

    . . . . Marry a religious virgin male.

    When you spend the first twenty-plus years of your life thinking of sex as something beastly that needs to be controlled, it’s very difficult to make that transition to married life and viewing sex as sacred. And once these men are married, the church pulls away the support group.

    …As one of the guys said, once you get married, the “beastly” doesn’t disappear. They still struggle with issues like excessive pornography viewing, masturbation. A few of them were worried that they might want to have an affair. They’re still struggling with these things, but they no longer have an outlet to work through them. They didn’t have the tools to engage in a healthy sex life.”

    I guess she would avoid Tim Tebow like the plague, huh?

  98. Novaseeker says:

    I haven’t read it and won’t give the site clicks, to be honest. I stopped caring what she was writing about quite some time ago, after she moved more thoroughly to where she appears to be now. I’m not surprised by what you quoted, however, given where I understand her own perspectives have moved towards.

  99. desiderian says:

    Novaseeker,

    “her own perspectives have moved towards”

    They were there all along.

    It’s about age, not gender.

    Determined to die before they get old, or wise…

  100. hoellenhund2 says:

    “I wouldn’t assume commenting indicates agreement, just like a site owner permitting a commenter to participate doesn’t indicate agreement.”

    HUS has Stalinist comment moderation – in other words, you don’t get to comment if you don’t agree with her 100%. Yet SSM has posted a couple of comments since the great purge there, and she never expressed any disagreement with Walsh’s ideology and mission in those comments. HUS now runs Disqus so it’s difficult to find those comments with google, but they’re nevertheless there.

    It’s predictable, of course. De facto feminist egalitarians like Walsh, self-declared feminists like the author of Bodycrimes, and tradcon culture warriors like SSM, Alte, TTH, Zippy Catholic, Slumlord, Cane Caldo etc. have finally found their common enemy, and it’s a two-headed, murderous, horribly misogynist monster dwelling on the interwebz: PUAs and MRAs. This alignment has been taking place for a long time. It’s the Female Imperative in action, gynonormativity asserting itself once again, but with a slightly different justification than before. The FI is men’s enemy and will always remain so. This is just further proof.

  101. hoellenhund2 says:

    I should also mention that HUS now regularly links to Futrelle’s site and feminist women are permitted to spew their nonsense on tradcon sites like Elspeth’s blog.

    What does that tell you?

  102. hoellenhund2 says:

    In fact, things got to a point where female tradcon internet warriors now run blogs for the specific purpose of attacking and discrediting the Manosphere. See Sigyn and Haley’s Halo for examples. Feminist women have been doing the same thing for a longer time, of course, and the “arguments” presented on these sites are pretty difficult to distinguish.

    Again, what does that tell you?

  103. hoellenhund2 says:

    And, of course, let’s not forget our tradcon pals on Return of Queens, where men are banned altogether from commenting and the whole site is run to attack the Manosphere.

  104. Novaseeker says:

    HH —

    I agree on HUS. I think Haley’s site is more or less defunct at this point — about 6 posts in nine months this year, and none since June, so I expect she is moving onto other things. RoQ was not surprising, either, once they started to get other writers, who were definitely more of the mainstream bent — I’m not surprised they went the direction they did, after the first few articles from the new writers came along it was clear where that was headed.

    It may be true that Susan always had this position, but from where I am sitting, what happened is that she shifted towards her current position over time, and not always gradually (i.e., the great purge). JustFourGuys basically spun out of that, and it’s become a pretty good site, so there’s some silver in the lining I suppose.

  105. desiderian says:

    Novaseeker,

    “It may be true that Susan always had this position”

    Perspective, not position.

    The FI was always a core value, though she once perceived that it wasn’t being particularly well served by the status quo. What comes next terrifies her* (and a good chunk of her generation), and she had a pretty conservative temperament to begin with, so reverting to defending that status quo was in some ways an inevitable move.

    I subscribe to Strauss and Howe’s cyclical take on gender dynamics, so I’m more sanguine, one way or another. The Boomers bought hard into Progress in all things, so they don’t have that luxury.

    Plus they’ll be dying before the cycle turns their way again…

    * – as did Dr. Jeremy’s arrival in her blog comments, if you’ll recall. Those dots are not particularly difficult to connect.

  106. JDG says:

    I’ve never read anything to make me think Cane or SSM are for the FI, in fact quite the opposite. I can’t say one way or the other about the rest.

  107. Boxer says:

    Implying that Cane Caldo and Zippy Catholic are members of a conspiracy with kooky Susan Walsh (the nitwit that claimed, without any proof at all, that her life was threatened by readers and admins of this here blog) is a serious charge.

    It’s predictable, of course. De facto feminist egalitarians like Walsh, self-declared feminists like the author of Bodycrimes, and tradcon culture warriors like SSM, Alte, TTH, Zippy Catholic, Slumlord, Cane Caldo etc. have finally found their common enemy, and it’s a two-headed, murderous, horribly misogynist monster dwelling on the interwebz: PUAs and MRAs.

    I don’t agree with Cane Caldo (religiously, politically, or socially) but he’s a stand-up family man and a great thinker, who writes well and never stoops to personal attacks. I can’t really see this conspiracy theory coming together, in that context. Maybe you can help me out? How are these people working in concert to topple the manosphere?

    Hell, even Susan Walsh hasn’t fabricated anything in recent memory (the incident above was a couple of holiday seasons ago) and doesn’t generally waste time attacking anyone, any longer.

    Boxer

  108. @Boxer, all HUS wouldn’t exist if she wasn’t attacking the manosphere on a weekly basis – it’s all she does in her comment threads with the 7 or so regulars she permits to post. She’s got an eBook coming and has switched her blog format to a sales template like that of Athol Kay, Shyman’s dating and Evan Mark Katz. Which leads me to conclude that her C&P honeymoon with the HuffPo is over (dramatic reduction in her on-site advertising).

    hookingupsmart.com/2014/09/10/politics-and-feminism/hookup-culture-and-the-golden-rule/

    Direct attack on the christo-manosphere.

    As for SSM:
    hookingupsmart.com/2014/08/07/relationshipstrategies/yay-male-bloggers-urge-clueless-dudes-to-man-up/#comment-1533582741

    THANK you for this. This is probably the one time ever that I’ll be in agreement with you over people like Dalrock and Deti. I don’t understand at all the recent manosphere obsession with Matt Walsh. I’ve seen several of his posts written about in the sphere recently, and it always seems to me that what Matt wrote is really being misrepresented. I got into a disagreement with Dalrock, with whom I’m normally nearly 100% in agreement, over the post that Matt wrote to his young daughter about not listening to evil media influence which will try to manipulate her into feeling like she’s ugly and needs to buy stuff.

    And it’s the same with this post which you’ve written about – the gnashing of teeth in the sphere about this mystified me. Matt so clearly wasn’t talking to men as a whole group but rather to men who want to pursue traditional marriage (and btw, Susan, Matt’s advice isn’t about “relationships,” it’s about marriage). His advice – to be the proactive leader if you want a traditionally feminine woman who will be a good wife – seems pretty straightforward. But the reaction all over the sphere was that Matt was trying to shame all men everywhere into marrying sluts and being cuckolded beta providers and OH GAWD MISANDRY BUILD A BETTER BETA SQUAWK SQUAWK SQUAWK. I don’t get it.

    That’s just one, so yeah, SSM again provides the perfect example of what happens to “red pill women” once the attention from the manosphere dries up. Hollenhund called it, herd mentality.

  109. Dalrock says:

    @Maunalani

    Re HUS–Have you seen her latest post? Excerpt:

    “To ensure a bad marriage, though, try the following:

    . . . . Marry a religious virgin male.

    I’m trying to think of a downside to SW discouraging her HUSies from marrying a religious virgin man. So far, I can’t find any. I hope she continues on this theme and I hope they take her advice.

  110. earl says:

    She should have taken it a step further from that:

    Tell the sluts to ensure a bad marriage marry a religious virgin male who has a good job and wants a family. Maybe then more of those guys won’t get burned when these gals look for their plan b.

  111. JDG says:

    Earl I’m kind of surprised it was only half considering our society. Wait a minute, does this mean these women have the ability to plan ahead?

  112. JDG says:

    I will say that Matt Walsh seems to be a soft spot for SSM. Who knows, maybe there’s no such thing as a purely ‘red pill’ woman due to the built in desire to line up with the herd.

    This raises a question in my mind. Can a woman generally move against the FI for a long period of time (though she veers off course her and there but then self corrects) if the direction is against the herd?

    Another question: Is the herd always in line with the FI in some way or another, or to put it another way, is it possible for the herd to put another cause above the FI?

  113. desiderian says:

    Rollo,

    “That’s just one, so yeah, SSM again provides the perfect example of what happens to “red pill women” once the attention from the manosphere dries up. Hollenhund called it, herd mentality.”

    Meh. She’s (mostly) right on that one, and Herr Hellhound has his head up his own ass on a regular basis, so grain of salt, whatever. The tossing the manosphere under the bus in that forum is not a good look for her, that can’t be denied.

    Does she still have a blog? It would be more manly of us to take it up with her there than to gossip about her here.

  114. Kate says:

    “Can a woman generally move against the FI for a long period of time (though she veers off course her and there but then self corrects) if the direction is against the herd?”

    I can tell you from personal experience it isn’t easy. I think the degree of difficulty is relative to how extreme the move is.

  115. earl says:

    “Wait a minute, does this mean these women have the ability to plan ahead?”

    Don’t give them that much credit. There’s a LOT of thirsty men out there looking for a drink if you get my drift.

  116. JDG says:

    Kate – how often do you find yourself correcting your trajectory?

  117. deti says:

    I, for one, find it fascinating to read a pair of posts about marriage on a site called Hooking Up Smart.

    I also find it fascinating that SW, a woman argues for ethics , honesty and transparency in marriage, did, before her current marriage, have sex with a man who was engaged to another woman. She defended her conduct by saying she did nothing unethical.

  118. JDG says:

    She defended her conduct by saying she did nothing unethical.

    This is the way of an adulteress: she eats and wipes her mouth and says, “I have done no wrong.” – Prov 30:20.

    I know it wasn’t adultery, but the parallel is fascinating.

  119. Boxer says:

    @Boxer, all HUS wouldn’t exist if she wasn’t attacking the manosphere on a weekly basis – it’s all she does in her comment threads with the 7 or so regulars she permits to post. She’s got an eBook coming and has switched her blog format to a sales template like that of Athol Kay, Shyman’s dating and Evan Mark Katz. Which leads me to conclude that her C&P honeymoon with the HuffPo is over (dramatic reduction in her on-site advertising).

    She’s disagreeing with us. That’s not really an “attack” by my standards.

    Bear in mind that my statement ran: “Hell, even Susan Walsh hasn’t fabricated anything in recent memory (the incident above was a couple of holiday seasons ago) and doesn’t generally waste time attacking anyone, any longer.”

    Relative to her earlier behavior (claiming that the author of Dalrock, along with several regular contributors, were phoning in threats to various family members, etc.) she’s actually been pretty reasonable. (If she’s done any of that histrionic stuff, I’ll commence to laughing at her again, but I think she’s learned her lesson pretty well).

    It’s also nothing to me that I’m not allowed to comment on her blog. Lots of people are mincing little ninnies, and if any of these people ever says something that interests me, I’ll find the motivation to comment on my own blog and link back. (I’ve been banned tons of places, and I was banned from the-spearhead for much less than Susan banned me for, also Catholic Answers, etc.). These things aren’t really “attacks”. The people who pay for the bandwidth have the right to choose the guest list. I wouldn’t visit a place that would stoop to admitting me, anyway (quoting Marx, as I like to do).

    Best, Boxer.

  120. Lyn87 says:

    “quoting Marx”

    Not just any Marx, either… the smart one.

  121. earl says:

    “She defended her conduct by saying she did nothing unethical.”

    Whatever keeps her warm at night…but that is still fornication. There’s her truth and absolute truth.

  122. hoellenhund2 says:

    “Relative to her earlier behavior (claiming that the author of Dalrock, along with several regular contributors, were phoning in threats to various family members, etc.) she’s actually been pretty reasonable.”

    BS. Just one example:

    “It’s a small percentage of males. Many of them are part of the online seduction community, which is a scary thought. Rapists are teaching guys how to be attractive to women, and coaching them to ignore a woman’s protests.”

    http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2014/04/30/politics-and-feminism/finally-meaningful-progress-against-sexual-assault/#comment-1364280692

  123. YOHAMI says:

    “Rapists are teaching guys how to be attractive to women”

    The horror. Whats next? bank robbers teaching guys how to pay their taxes?

  124. deti says:

    Specifically, SW said she did nothing unethical in sleeping with an engaged man, because she wasn’t in a relationship with anyone else. In her way of thinking, the man was the one who acted unethically, because he, not she, was engaged.

    Somehow, I doubt a wife would care very much whether the “other woman” cheating with her husband was herself married or not.

    There’s only one set of rules, and they apply to everyone, single or married. Dishonesty is dishonesty. Fraud is fraud. Subterfuge is subterfuge. Lack of ethics is lack of ethics, whether you’re married or not.

  125. hoellenhund2 says:

    “She’s disagreeing with us. That’s not really an “attack” by my standards.”

    Again, BS. Look at the tone and “reasoning” here:

    hookingupsmart.com/2013/10/15/relationshipstrategies/myth-plummeting-female-sexual-market-value/

    hookingupsmart.com/2014/02/03/relationshipstrategies/myth-totalitarian-female-power-dating/

    hookingupsmart.com/2014/06/09/politics-and-feminism/manosphere-blogger-justifies-rape/

    hookingupsmart.com/2014/07/18/personal-development/the-bogus-alpha-male/

    hookingupsmart.com/2014/06/03/politics-and-feminism/eliot-rodger-and-the-red-pill/

    If you want to see the true extent of her lunacy, check out the comments as well.

  126. hoellenhund2 says:

    “Herr Hellhound has his head up his own ass on a regular basis”

    Care to explain, Mr. Tradcon?

    “Does she still have a blog?”

    Thankfully she no longer does. These tradcon mommybloggers are a blight.

  127. JDG says:

    In her way of thinking, the man was the one who acted unethically, because he, not she, was engaged.

    I hate to say it, but this kind of thinking isn’t that uncommon.

  128. Boxer says:

    Dear Hell Hound:

    BS. Just one example:

    Umm, you didn’t provide an example of anyone being attacked. That’s just kooky Susan, on one of her looney tirades.

    For it to qualify as an attack, she needs to name someone personally, like she used to do. You know, the whole “DALROCK AND HIS MINIONS [names inserted here] ARE CONSPIRING TO MURDER MY LITTLE KIDS” type stuff.

    Best, Boxer

  129. Boxer says:

    In her way of thinking, the man was the one who acted unethically, because he, not she, was engaged.

    Umm, you’ve got dudes who comment here spouting identical nonsense. “It’s not a sin, cuz I’m not married, and Jesus didn’t explicitly condemn unmarried men having sex, unless it’s the rape of a virgin” (blah blah, tl;dr, etc.)

    People regularly come up with all sorts of nonsensical excuses for their own shortcomings. I’ve caught myself doing it, in fact. It’s an ego-defense for those who aren’t self-aware and is probably hard-wired.

    Boxer

  130. JDG says:

    “It’s not a sin, cuz I’m not married, and Jesus didn’t explicitly condemn unmarried men having sex, unless it’s the rape of a virgin”

    That’s gotta hurt.

    Sometimes when I read what I’ve written I do a face palm.

  131. JDG says:

    Kate – if your reading my above question was not me being a jerk. I am genuinely curious.

  132. Dalrock says:

    @Boxer

    For it to qualify as an attack, she needs to name someone personally, like she used to do. You know, the whole “DALROCK AND HIS MINIONS [names inserted here] ARE CONSPIRING TO MURDER MY LITTLE KIDS” type stuff.

    I don’t think it is a big deal either way, but the one where she claims Rollo is advocating rape is right up there with Manboobz. Rollo certainly could have been clearer, but given that one of Rollo’s main themes is that sex must be “authentic” (meaning with the highest level of female enthusiasm/desire) the idea that he is suddenly arguing for rape is pretty far fetched.

    I hadn’t seen that post, because she used a cheesy “do not link” link to point to my post out of fear of helping my search rankings or a desire to gossip without being discovered. The hilarious thing though is that while it is referring you to an untraced rendering of my site it notifies you that Susan’s readers gave my post a thumbs up.

  133. Boxer says:

    Dear Dalrock:

    I don’t think it is a big deal either way, but the one where she claims Rollo is advocating rape is right up there with Manboobz.

    Good find. Mah goodness, what a farfetched attempt at click bait!

    Funny how she still has a hard on (metaphorically speaking) for Rollo. Back in the day, I remember he was one of the people who treated her decently and attempted an honest dialogue with her. One more example of the futility of treating a woman of loose morals like a “lady” or an equal. The slut will end up resenting you for it, and seeing your own decency as a sign of weakness, rather than simply good manners.

    Best, Boxer

  134. earl says:

    “People regularly come up with all sorts of nonsensical excuses for their own shortcomings. I’ve caught myself doing it, in fact. It’s an ego-defense for those who aren’t self-aware and is probably hard-wired.”

    Yup…the sphere even came up with one of the best terms I’ve seen on this. The rationalization hamster.

  135. Opus says:

    Allow me to explain how it is that PUAs are rapists and indeed how seduction is worse than Rape; real rape that is and not any of the other Baskin Robbins forty-nine varieties that we have these days. I must also confess that I am indebted to Marxist-groupie Slavoj Zizek for this insight (though I doubt it is original with him either).

    The reasoning goes like this: when a man seduces a woman he is effectively taking control of her mind – she cannot resist him as she is frozen by his assumption of high SMV, disarmed by his ego-deflating negs and manhandled by his insouciant escalation and time-dilution – enabling him to persuade her to do something which – as he is not Brad Pitt – she would never otherwise do. In this sense, seduction is worse than rape because in Rape the woman never surrenders her soul or will-power any more than the virgin-martyr willingly chooses to be lunch for the Lion, for she never abandons her devotion to Jesus; it is only her body that is used and against her will – not her mind. This is, apparently, a rather Islamic way of thinking and does not the law come close to such a view when it blames men for a woman’s freely-chosen inebriation and consequential regretted promiscuity.

    The man might of course protest that in fact it is he who is raped having been seduced – by her looks, make-up, perfume, dress, demeanour, tone-of-voice and coquetry. Equality must surely include Rape equality: we are now all Rape victims.

  136. Kate says:

    @JDG: I was thinking about how to answer. I guess I feel the strongest pull toward the herd when I am under stress. This is probably once or twice a month. They always make it sound like they’re offering a better deal. Reminding myself that they’re not is what I auto-correct for.

  137. JDG says:

    Opus – All this talk of rape equality will never do. A male can NEVER be the the victim of a female (remember she can do no wrong). And ONLY white males can be racist. And old white males are in control of everything… because of patriarchy.

    Patriarchy and sammiches!

  138. JDG says:

    Kate – thanks for the input.

  139. Ely says:

    “Marry young, marry pretty, give your husband your youth; not your flatulence.”
    What is a good age to marry or what age would you like your bride to be? I just turn 25 yrs old.

  140. Lyn87 says:

    Ely asks, “What is a good age to marry or what age would you like your bride to be? I just turn 25 yrs old.

    I met my wife shortly after my 25th birthday, and we got married about four months later. My wife and I hit the “half-plus-seven-year” result almost exactly. Half of 25 years + 7 years = 19.5 years… She had just turned 20. Anecdotal, of course, YMMV. If I were you I probably wouldn’t look among the high school set, but if a girl has a diploma she’s fair game for a man your age, provided she demonstrates adult-level maturity.

  141. Ely says:

    Lyn87, I’m a lady. I just wanted to know a guys opinion on what age would you like your bride to be?. I was in a relationship with a man 7 years older than me. I feel I wasted my time/youth with him…I was 21 when I met him.

  142. Lyn87 says:

    Ely, I thought you said you were a 25-year-old man. If you’re a 28-year-old woman now your MMV roughly corresponds with a man in his late 30’s or so. There is WIDE variation, though, so you can go either way depending on your MMV and the guy in your sights.

  143. Ely says:

    Lol I’m 25 yr old now. He is 32yrs old now but unfortunately it was working out between us.

  144. Lyn87 says:

    Ugh… I was trying to do three things at once and got myself confused. Got it now: 25-year-old woman. Up to the mid/late 30’s range then.

  145. @Ely
    Look for a guy that’s established himself that’s 35-40 years old. You’re at the peak of your SMV and he is at the peak of his SMV. Marry. Make babies. Ten years later he’s 45-50, you’re 35 or so with multiple muchchins. If you’re stupid you’ll frivorce him and destroy your family. You are highly likely to eventually be a lonely bitter old cat-woman. If you’re smart you’ll stay married and be a revered matriarch of the family. His income rises, your standard of living rises. You win. Divorce and your standard of living falls (drastically) and while he’s banging hot chicks while you’re struggling to put food on the table.

    Stupid is as stupid does.

  146. deti says:

    The matter regarding Susan Walsh and her having sex with an engaged man while she was single and in college is not about her sexual history or about having premarital sex. Those are beside the point. It is about her claim that her conduct was entirely “ethical” and that the man involved was the only person who engaged in “unethical” conduct. That’s hypocrisy — if the man acted “unethically”, so did she. It’s hypocritical for one who demands ethics in sexual conduct.

  147. deti says:

    It’s hypocritical for one who demands ethics in sexual conduct to fail to hold oneself to the same standards one demands of others.

  148. JDG says:

    It’s hypocritical for one who demands ethics in sexual conduct to fail to hold oneself to the same standards one demands of others.

    You speak of integrity. Is it possible for integrity and the hamster to coexist in the same woman for very long?

    To put it another way, which came 1st: hypocrisy or the hamster?

  149. Anonymous Reader says:

    Ely, an easy rule: (his age / 2 ) + 7 is workable. For example: 25 year old man and 19 year old woman. (25 / 2 ) + 7 = 19 or 20 depending on how you round. 30 year old man? 22 year old woman as a lower bound.

    There are many other details involved in attraction, companionship and in the terms of this blog, marriage beyond age difference, of course. The above rule is merely a guideline.

  150. Opus says:

    Ely seems to have been involved in a Regret LTR – let’s hope it does not get any worse.

  151. Kate says:

    @JDG: Thank you🙂

  152. Frank says:

    This is some good satire.

    Or some very unfortunate stupidity.

    The comments indicate it’s just a couple of boys who don’t get laid being stupid.

  153. Jeets says:

    I wonder what you pussies thought when you found out women poop. Hahaha.

    Farting as submissive training. Hahahaha.

    Y’all are a joke. I mean, you’ll literally say ANYTHING no matter how stupid or absurd to make yourselves feel like it’s not your abhorrant hatred and genuine ignorance of women that keeps you single, but the women themselves. Jeeze. I can’t imagine how lowly and sad you are. It’s literally beyond my conprehension.

  154. Jeets says:

    EVERYTHING IS MISANDRY!

  155. JDG says:

    Frank says:
    October 5, 2014 at 6:13 pm
    This is some good satire.

    Or some very unfortunate stupidity.

    Would you care to elaborate? Did you read the linked post?

    Do you agree with the advice that women should have intercourse with guys they treat with respect before they marry some poor sucker they can dump on?

    The comments indicate it’s just a couple of boys who don’t get laid being stupid.

    I’m going to go with reading comprehension on your part.

    Jeets says:
    October 5, 2014 at 6:25 pm

    Another one with reading comprehension and nothing to add to the discussion beyond poop and farts. Is Jeets a man’s name or a woman’s?

    It’s literally beyond my conprehension.

    I must agree.

    com·pre·hen·sion
    1. the action or capability of understanding something.

    The public indoctrination is strong in this one.

  156. JDG says:

    Should be “lacking reading comprehension” for Frank and Jeet.

  157. Lyn87 says:

    Oh no! Frank and Jeets hit us with a double dose of “Code Purple!” Oh the humanity! Whatever shall we do?

    “Frank” refers to us as – “boys who don’t get laid”
    Jeets thinks we have a – “genuine ignorance of women that keeps you single”

    Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) – The Sour Grapes Charge

    Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems. Example:

    – “You are just bitter because you can’t get laid.”
    From The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics.

    Jeets even threw in both a Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender) and a Charge of Irascibility (Code Red) to demonstrate her extra-special awesomeness! I wonder if these two jokers realize that their “clever new insights” are so old hat that guys in the manosphere have been mocking the clueless toads who use these same exact tactics since at least 2007 when the catalog was compiled.

    What’s next, ladies? Are you going to tell us that we have tiny wee-wees and we all live in our mother’s basements?

  158. JDG says:

    Jeets thinks we have a – “genuine ignorance of women that keeps you single”

    Thank you Lyn87 for pointing this out. It begs the question: “Who is ignorant, the man who blindly marries the slutty woman that sexed up a platoon of cads before settling on him, or the guy who understands that remaining single these days is akin to dodging a bullet (or perhaps a bazooka).

    A woman who has been the sexually empowered woman is much more likely to nuke their marriage and take him to the cleaners.

  159. Pingback: A year of ugly feminists | Dalrock

  160. Pingback: The ugly feminist secret weapon. | Dalrock

  161. Pingback: Coveting sin: The Law of the Double Standard. | Dalrock

  162. Lucien says:

    @Earl

    “Apparently when it comes to casual sex…both genders prefer the worst in each other.”

    That’s because casual sex is an inherently degraded enterprise. But this isn’t a logical truth; it’s a subtle moral and social one, hence a kind of truth people in this society are incapable of understanding.

  163. Pingback: He’s begging you; don’t forget the beta bucks! | Dalrock

  164. nick012000 says:

    @JDG: Technically, the sin there was not in the act of sexual impropriety, but in the fact that the man didn’t marry her afterwards. In the bible, adultery is defined as “a man having sex with a married woman, or a woman engaged to be married”; if a man seduces a virgin, he is instead required to marry her (regardless of whether or not he’s already married), or, if her father refuses to allow him to marry her, pay her father the bride price. She’s certainly a harlot now, but the Bible doesn’t ban harlotry (unless you’re still living with your parents, are the daughter of a priest, are married or engaged, or performing sexual acts for religious purposes), it just calls you stupid for wasting your time and money on harlots.

    http://www.holisticpolitics.org/LawOfLiberty/Harlotry.php

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