A rebuke for Yohami

Yohami requested a rebuke for himself and others in his lifestyle, and it would be unloving of me to not provide one.  This started as a comment but it was suggested that it deserves its own post, and I agree:

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.

As Heartiste explains:

It would be wise for you Don Juans to remember that, the next time you rationalize that your leaving her will actually make her a better person. There is no spinning away the ugly reality with a sappy cliche. Better to embrace your wicked choice and feast on the brutality of it all. Makes for a more invigorating life.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

266 Responses to A rebuke for Yohami

  1. earl says:

    “It would be wise for you Don Juans to remember that, the next time you rationalize that your leaving her will actually make her a better person. There is no spinning away the ugly reality with a sappy cliche. Better to embrace your wicked choice and feast on the brutality of it all. Makes for a more invigorating life.”

    I’d don’t agree with it being better…but I do respect the principle about honesty of who you are. If you are a sinner…by all means be honest about it and kick the hamster to the curb. The actions you can take are seeking repentance or doubling down on evil.

  2. Zelcorpion says:

    Well – in the best example available many Players have moved towards r-selected Lover-status from the onset thus limiting the emotional damage for women, since they instantly classify them as Lovers (which women do anyway). The women value those men similar to paid Gigolos, though of course it happens often enough that some feelings are created.
    Others like Roissy/Heartiste have rather advocated for mini-relationships that so many young women actually crave. The basic problem of course lies in the fact that excellent Seducers are thus High-Level-Men who many women would love to be together with. They are the manifested Demons of Hypergamy or as Heartiste calls them the Agents of Righteous Karma.

    However some do manage to stop the carnival of sex and get married as in the case of Paul Janka, who “shocked” the PUA-world by announcing his marriage plans after 20 years of constant Game-spitting on the streets of NYC.

    Were it not for the rotten marriage 2.0 contract many more PUAs would get married in their 30s. But since things are as they stand, that point is post-poned to the 40s or even 50s. Is the Player-lifestyle more virtuous than the conventional Family Man’s? Probably not – on the other hand feminists are only reaping what they have sown, since many of the current generation of Players would be good husbands in times of Marriage 1.0.

  3. Crowhill says:

    Yes. I don’t know Yohami, but the “enjoy the decline” crowd deserve rebuke. Traditional sexual morality exists because it is consistent with who we are as human beings, and it creates a culture that pushes masculine energy towards hearth and home. That builds a healthy, prosperous environment.

  4. daniel says:

    Rebuking them does little–just men responding to incentives.

  5. Zelcorpion says:

    @Crowhill – you will be hard-pressed to find a Player who does not believe that traditional relationships are the best way to go for humanity and civilization. In fact the entire Manosphere – from the Traditionalistis, MGTOWs, MRAs to the PUAs agrees on that point. Most Players are just rejecting it in current times and embarking on a different route – at least for a while.

  6. Gunner Q says:

    Aw, I already posted a response in the previous thread. To recap the point, I believe one reason God left us Christian men ignorant of women is to give the cads of our society an opportunity to be taught about Christ even as they teach us how to succeed with women. It isn’t as though we can send missionaries into the bars and bordellos.

    This would not be the first time in Christian history that God turns his back on a corrupt, ingrown Church and picks some roses out of the mud. The Almighty has no need for human bureaucracy.

    There are several Manosphere whoremongers that I think will end up Christians. They have enough truth to make the decision… if they value truth more than pleasure. Heartiste is one of them, thanks to quotes like the one Dalrock found.

  7. earl says:

    Believing in something and then willingly doing the opposite. That’s the sound of the enemy.

    Let me be loving to the players and dish out some more truth…actions speak louder than words.

  8. BuenaVista says:

    I’ll leave others to further construct their taxonomy of sin, and decide which circle of hell we each belong to. I’m just curious, contra Dalrock’s assertion of logic and purity, how many men here have *not* learned and benefited (as have their wives, daughters, sons etc.) from Game’s insights. Presumably all of them. For to embrace Game’s lies is to violate the covenant, and we self-celebrate our compliance.

    Quoting Roissy is fine, but where does Yohami self-annoint himself as an improver of women? That is just another straw man.

    Still, I see the real point. We need more two-legged arbiters of sin and grace. Men who inhabit an unambiguous space of certain, and objective, virtue. Which is another way of saying, Perfect Men. Divine, really.

    Matthew 7-3:5, obviously.

  9. earl says:

    “There are several Manosphere whoremongers that I think will end up Christians.”

    I certainly hope so…if we get another St. Augustine out of the deal that would be good for the world.

  10. Crowhill says:

    @Zelcorpion, okay. I have no way of knowing if you’re right or wrong. But ISTM that if they believe that traditional morality is best for themselves and society, they would be promoting it.

  11. Crowhill says:

    Zelcorpion said, “Were it not for the rotten marriage 2.0 contract …”

    This raises something that’s been near and dear to my heart for a long time.

    Wouldn’t it be possible to re-establish at least some of marriage 1.0 via private contract? Couldn’t a pre-nup help?

    I’ve wondered if the appropriate response to marriage 2.0 is to encourage people to write their own rules via pre-nup.

    I’m not saying it would solve everything. You’d still be swimming in a poisoned culture. But perhaps it could move things in the right direction.

  12. Anchorman says:

    “Wouldn’t it be possible to re-establish at least some of marriage 1.0 via private contract? Couldn’t a pre-nup help?”

    That’s been addressed a number of times. There are four states that have “Covenant Maggiarges.” I’ll let you look it up.

    Pre-nups don’t hold up as well as hoped in enough cases that it’s more of a “last line of defense,” rather than a rock-solid contract.

    Any marriage in a land that allows “no-fault” divorce is really only as strong or permanent as the man and woman make it. The solemnity of the vows, the promises of X or Y…all of it can be tossed at a moment’s notice if one party wishes it.

    The only defense a couple has is to build their house on God’s rock, pray without ceasing, and be mindful to live in the world but not of the world.

  13. Zelcorpion says:

    @Crowhill & @Earl Many bloggers mention it on their site. Some have been married even before their Player lifestyle which has started for a few in their 30s or even 40s.

    Traditional morality is all fine and well, but it ALWAYS is facilitated or made difficult by society. In this case feminism and the more prevalent feminine imperative which is living on crack in a sea of lies. And it is not hipocrisy, since the Players are not preaching Traditional Marriage and doing the opposite. They just state the obvious fact that it would be better, but in an environment as today, they choose not to. Is it cowardly or untrue? The MRAs are accusing the Players for not fighting the good fight and being more active in combating feminists. Instead they shrug and prefer to enjoy life – enjoy the decline – so to say.

    Even if all Players in the world would get married by next week, it would not stop the Carousel Riding of Women. They would just fuck other less exciting men. And then those women would dump those men sooner or later.

    There are by far worse things in life than the Player-lifestye – a frivorcee mother, a single mother who decides to get pregnant with the Dark Triad Ex-Con, even some true Dark Triad Alphas who truly hurt women. Red Pill Men are more a force of Nature. Maybe they should have tried more to build a stable relationship – their own fault for wanting young women – eh? They should stick to post-wall born-again virgins who have ridden the carousel hard and have some DarkTriad-spawn. That limits the chances of divorce.

  14. I’ve often found it amusing to see these Alphas talk about the Wall, feminism, and everything else wrong with sexual relations in modern society, then turn around and take full advantage of it.

    It’s like complaining about welfare then turning around and getting food stamps. Sorry, hypocrisy doesn’t fly with me. You either fight for traditional socio-sexual relations or you embrace feminism and the opportunities it has given you to get laid.

  15. Anchorman says:

    Crowhill,
    To put it more succinctly, the traditional marriage vows are made sincerely and publicly and have all “bases covered.” A public contract, made before family and friends, promising to never let any circumstance break the bond.

    And one or both can blow up the marriage “just because” and will not really face shame for having treated the spouse, their honor, or God so shabbily.

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

    heartiste,

    thou protesteth too much.

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/09/24/regret-rape-foiled-by-text-messages/#comment-618229

    you write, “F*** feminism, f*** feminist water carriers like Emma Watson, and f*** the white knights lapping the runny shit of feminist hags for promises of steamy pig snatch.”

    please keep in mind that dalrock is a happily married father and many of his frankfratian followers get their cockas wet via game + feminism. there is no need to reform family law and the corrupt courts, as all that men need is a bit more game, and they too will be happy, even when their assets and children are seized. feminism gives dalrock entertaining things to post about so that we can all go lzozozoozozozozoozo omgz zlzllzozoozooz every day.

    there is no need to reform the culture with da Great Books for Men,

    man/christian up, learn game, and be happy.

    best, da gbfm

    lzozozoolzozolzozo

  17. earl says:

    A player can believe in traditional social-sexual relations all he wants…but what they do partly brings about the disorder in social-sexual relations in society.

    It’s the very same thing when a self righteous person says how much they believe in Jesus…then engages in sinful activity.

  18. earl says:

    Put it this way…I’ll get the same responses from feminists as I do players when it comes to sexual promiscuity. If for the player’s mental health…quit following your base urges all the time and turning yourself into a woman who follows only her tingles. Seek something higher than that.

  19. Crowhill says:

    @Anchorman, to be a little more specific, I was thinking of a pre-nup that had some teeth to it. For example, the partner that files for divorce thereby loses all property in the marriage (unless certain exceptions apply). That is, take all the things that people complain about in marriage 2.0, and to the extent possible fix them via contract — with clear penalties. I believe that’s very different from any of the “covenant marriage” ideas that have been tried.

    I don’t claim this would solve all problems, and I don’t know family law well enough to know if it could even be enforced (although two lawyer friends have told me it could). But I do think it would be an interesting experiment.

  20. Pingback: Why must the manosphere remain anonymous? Because of the seething hatred for the Great Books for Men amongst Dalrock and his flock of frankfartian gamey fanboy followers. | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS

  21. Dave says:

    I am willing to bet my next cup of water that Yohami is a post-wall, previously or currently slutty female, posing as a man, and the questions she asked were her own questions, not of any of her nonexistent “shy” feminist, female friends. I have never met a shy feminist. I mean, a feminist so shy she could not even post anonymously in a discussion forum on the internet. Such a feminist is rarer than a unicorn. By their very rebellious and disrespectful nature, feminists are impudent, loud, belligerent, and silly. Please let’s ignore Yohami to her own silly questions.

  22. Anchorman says:

    Crowhill,
    I understand. I just think any contract can be smashed with enough effort if there’s enough money to seize. Ironically, I think the more “teeth” a contract has, the more a lawyer would argue it’s unneccessarily punitive to the poor dear who has forced him/herself to file for divorce because the other person was revealed to be a monster in disguise (and, thus, “tricked” the spouse into the horrendous terms).

    The crux of the issue is that when marriage became a legal institution (rather than God’s covenant), then man’s malleable “rule of law” became the god of modern marriage.

  23. Anchorman says:

    Dave,
    Yohami’s a guy and a longstanding (such as it is) member of the manosphere blogging community. As I said, it’s strange he wrote in for a woman, but even stranger to think he asked the question for his own benefit.

  24. Phillyastro says:

    That’s why you should only deal with prostitutes. It was good for the clergy and the least sexual sin of many of the Early Medieval monks. It is the most honest and least sinful of the vices of concupiscence. If you don’t believe me, please read St. Augustine and St. Thomas on the oldest profession.

  25. earl says:

    “Please let’s ignore Yohami to her own silly questions.”

    Male promiscuity isn’t a silly question. There wouldn’t be rampant female promiscuity if males actually held up the higher standard instead of following their base urges.

  26. earl says:

    I like St. Paul’s idea…he is aware men have those needs and that it is best to fulfill those in marriage.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7+%3A+1-7&version=NASB

  27. Phillyastro says:

    St. Paul said you shouldn’t unite with a harlot…but that includes marrying one.

  28. anonymous_ng says:

    @Crowhill, prenups are routinely set aside as are all contracts when the terms are unconscionable, which is to say that no person in their right mind, presumably, would sign such a lopsided contract. However, that’s what the one seeking the prenup wants, an unconscionable contract. Were I to remarry, I would want her to get nothing, less than nothing in the event of a divorce. No US judge will uphold such a document.

    Additionally, even were the prenup upheld, nothing related to children support or custody will be dealt with via a prenup as the children are not old enough to be party to the contract, and family court will adjudicate what is in their opinion the best interests of the children.

    Then, you get states where gain on non-marital assets is considered a marital asset, so that even were a prenup upheld and the company/house/stocks you owned prior to the marriage acknowledged to be yours and yours alone, you might still end up paying based on their increase in value.

    Bottom line, the only way I’ve seen to be able to “outwit” the divorce racket is to have all of your financial assets outside the US and thereby not subject to the US courts, and to be immediately willing to absent your person from the US should the judge rule against you, else you can languish in prison for contempt for not repatriating your assets to satisfy the judgement.

    Those are my conclusions and understandings after much research, but IANAL.

  29. Anchorman says:

    That’s why you should only deal with prostitutes. It was good for the clergy and the least sexual sin of many of the Early Medieval monks. It is the most honest and least sinful of the vices of concupiscence. If you don’t believe me, please read St. Augustine and St. Thomas on the oldest profession.

    Ah, no.

    Bible’s pretty clear on sex outside of marriage.

    More important, does that act proceed from faith?

    There aren’t enough rational lies to rationalize prostitution.

  30. “There are several Manosphere whoremongers that I think will end up Christians.”

    *raises hand*

    Since I’ll get dragged into this anyway, I’ll say this – I’m grateful that Dalrock has an open forum for discussing red pill issues in a moral / Christian context that’s unafraid to be raw and language uncensored. Profanity is inspired when used necessarily and I’m glad Dal doesn’t worry about twisted panties over it.

    Sin is educational. The wages of it may be death, but you’ll go to that death with a better understanding of it than those who don’t experience it. I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.

  31. Thomas Aquifer says:

    Swift,

    It is hypocrisy, yes. But for a thought experiment, is it a crime to loot a burning building (assuming the building and all contents will be destroyed)?

  32. Dalrock says:

    @Earl

    There wouldn’t be rampant female promiscuity if males actually held up the higher standard instead of following their base urges.

    No need to do the serpent’s job for him. It isn’t loving to women to help them rationalize their sin. You repeating the mantra of sluts doesn’t make it righteous.

  33. earl says:

    Sin is educational…it lets you know who you really are.

    I’d rather be a tax collector who knows he needs a Savior…than a Pharisee trying to rationalize why I don’t.

  34. I am willing to bet my next cup of water that Yohami is a post-wall, previously or currently slutty female, posing as a man, and the questions she asked were her own questions, not of any of her nonexistent “shy” feminist, female friends.

    I’ll take that bet.
    http://yohami.com/blog/

  35. Phillyastro says:

    Who’s rationaliising prostitution? Of course, marriage is the best course for sexual morality. But in this time, how many men are marrying prostitutes rather than just renting them. From St. Augustine:

    What can one find that is more ignoble, more deprived of honor, more charged with turpitude, than commercial women, procurers and all such scourges. If one suppresses prostitutes, the passions will convulse society; if one gives them the place that is reserved for honest women everything becomes degraded in defilement and ignominy. Thus, this type of human being, whose morals carry impurity to its lowest depths, occupies, according to the laws of general order, a place, although certainly the most vile place, at the heart of society.

    De Ordine

    Nevertheless, Jesus told the Pharisees that the tax collectors and harlots would get into heaven before them. That’s why I find my hookers at H&R Block. At least there will be saints there.

  36. earl says:

    “No need to do the serpent’s job for him. It isn’t loving to women to help them rationalize their sin. You repeating the mantra of sluts doesn’t make it righteous.”

    You are right. It is more loving to tell women to learn some self-control.

  37. PokeSalad says:

    Billy Joel references….now I’ve heard it all😉

  38. Lyn87 says:

    “I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.”

    False dichotomy leading to a very bad choice… in the long run it will be the sinners crying and the saints laughing. The statement also assumes that sinners are generally happy while saints are generally sad. That’s not true, but even if it was, the real question is this: would you rather cry for a day and laugh for eternity or laugh for a day and cry for eternity?

    A more obvious choice has never been offered.

    I was eight years old
    When I decided to follow Jesus, yeah
    I started down that road
    Somebody told me that this path that leads to Heaven
    Will not be the easy way
    Well I found that to be true
    But I also found, (also found)
    I found out there’s

    [Chorus]
    No better place on earth
    Than the road that leads to heaven
    No other place I’d rather be, yeheh
    No better place on earth
    Than the road that leads to heaven
    No better place to be, yea

    Well I know this road
    Has a final destination, oh
    But I also know
    That if we’re only looking for the prize that’s waiting
    We’ll miss so much along the way
    Cause Jesus came to give us life in the here and now
    (here and now)
    And to show us that there’s

    [Chorus]

    I know this path we travel along
    Is very straight and narrow
    But I’ve looked down other roads along the way
    And from all I’ve seen I can say without a doubt there’s

    [Chorus] X3

  39. JDG says:

    how many men here have *not* learned and benefited (as have their wives, daughters, sons etc.) from Game’s insights.

    I was learning many of these insights from the Bible and through prayer long before I even knew there was a manosphere. I still don’t know exactly what game is. There seems to be differing opinions.

    It’s like complaining about welfare then turning around and getting food stamps. Sorry, hypocrisy doesn’t fly with me. You either fight for traditional socio-sexual relations or you embrace feminism and the opportunities it has given you to get laid.

    These are my thoughts. For every woman these guys fornicate with, That is one more step in the wrong direction. Everyone involved is worse off for it even if the results aren’t discernible until later.

    The only defense a couple has is to build their house on God’s rock, pray without ceasing, and be mindful to live in the world but not of the world.

    This!

  40. Lyn87,

    I think Johnny Cash expresses it best:

  41. BradA says:

    SIn is pleasurable for a season. It is not pleasurable forever. It bites really hard and will ultimately own you.

    Earl makes a false choice. Don’t be the self-righteous individual, but neither be the one stuck in sin. Knowing you need to repent and not doing so creates a hardness that will eventually make it very difficult, if not impossible, to repent.

    Some hard core sinners may repent, but I suspect far more will end up stuck in their sin and that is a tragedy to enable in any way.

    Note that the Babylonians did God’s work in bringing judgment on Judah, but they were a very wicked people. The Assyrians before them that were used to judge the Northern Kingdom (Israel) were even worse and got major judgment themselves. Enjoying the decline is a very dangerous mindset to have.

    [Jdg 17:6 KJV] 6 In those days [there was] no king in Israel, [but] every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes.

    Look what good it did them!

  42. JDG says:

    That’s why you should only deal with prostitutes. It was good for the clergy and the least sexual sin of many of the Early Medieval monks.

    1Cor 6:15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined[d] to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, “The two will become one flesh.”

  43. Thomas,

    But for a thought experiment, is it a crime to loot a burning building (assuming the building and all contents will be destroyed)?

    For one thing, you can prove just about any point with an analogy, metaphor, or hypothetical. Also, you need to be more specific. Are the owners outside the building or have they abandoned it entirely? Do you have every intention of rebuilding after the fire has been put out or died down? Did the owners consent to allow passersby to take stuff out of the building? Are firemen present?

  44. Anonymous Reader says:

    Crowhill, why don’t you save some time and energy and just shout out ManUP and marry a slut!? Get it over with, ok?

    As for prenups, anonymous_ng has given you a summary. The prenup escape hatch doesn’t exist, it’s been discussed to death here and elsewhere multiple times, some comments have been provided by attornies (at least one of them divorced). Divorce is rare among certain groups in the US – Amish and Orthodox Jewish come to mind – because to do so brings shame onto the man and woman involved, and potential shunning. The social control is far more effective than any legal controls would be, and I’m sure the theology of the Amish is very clear on divorce as well.

    Example: For an Amish woman to frivorce her husband she would have to be willing to totally leave her community, and thanks to the custom of Rumspringa those individuals more prone to leave the Amish society have likely already done so prior to marriage. Orthodox Judaism has other social and theological controls that keep divorce very low.

    Crowhill, what you are attempting is to solve a social and moral problem via a legal method. Bear in mind that the US has a legal system, but it does not necessarily have a justice system despite the name on certain buildings. Don’t expect feminized courts to enforce any agreement that offends the Female Imperative.

  45. Phillyastro says:

    @JDG – Did you read my reply above? If so, you would know I replied that St. Paul in 1 Cor 6:15 indicated uniting with a harlot also meant marrying a harlot. Look at how 1 Cor 6:15 refers to the marriage bonds of “two will become one flesh.” Just read Hosea if you don’t believe me.

  46. Isaac Jordan says:

    swiftfoxmark2 : I’ve often found it amusing to see these Alphas talk about the Wall, feminism, and everything else wrong with sexual relations in modern society, then turn around and take full advantage of it.

    The key to understanding this seemingly contradictory stance is to realize that what benefits the group (in this case, society/civilization) is often not beneficial (or even downright harmful) to the individual, and vice-versa. It’s basic game theory, really. We all might agree that a society full of doves would be best, but there’s no benefit in being a dove when everyone else is a hawk.

  47. M3 says:

    My guess is Yohami is postulating a theory in his head and putting those questions out there to garner a reaction which would either prove or invalidate that theory before he decides to write on it.

    It’ll be interesting to see it come to fruition.

  48. Crowhill says:

    @Anonymousreader, I have never suggested marrying sluts, and my version of “manning up” is to go into relationships eyes wide open. It sounds to me as if you’re reading your pet demons into my comments.

    But yes, I am suggesting that we try to solve (or at least lessen) a social and moral problem through contracts. That’s what contracts are for. We enter into contracts to make sure both sides know what is expected, and to provide penalties for breach.

    The law used to do that for us. Since it doesn’t now (but rather rewards breach of marriage, in some cases), I’m wondering if there’s a contractual way to fix it.

  49. Thomas Aquifer says:

    Swift,

    Good point. And for the record, I wasn’t trying to defend those that engage in extra-marital sex, just trying to view things from their side.

  50. oldfashionedfellow says:

    The reason that marriage works for the Orthodox/Ultra-Orthodox Jews, the Amish/Conservative Mennonites, and to some extent the Mormons, is the separateness of those communities. Their physical separation from the rest of the world allows them the ability to cast out.

    Because Protestant and later Roman Catholic Christianity WAS the prevalent faith in the country, it was more easily influenced by the secular humanistic thought. The outlying groups had an easier time resisting changes.

    But folks, we lost. It’s over. They won. The culture is lost, and along with it, the legal system. We can expect no aid from that quarter. It’s a waste of time to bother. Even so called Social Conservatives balk at the idea of restraining people in lifelong marriage, with the husband/father as legal head of the household. Why not just bring back slavery! Face it, there are no conservatives left in public life. They’re all various shades of liberal; classical, modern, or radical, but liberal all the same.

    No, the only way in which marriage may retain some force, is by the purposeful creation of consciously separate communities within the greater community, in which shaming by and expulsion from, are a creditable threat.

    Short of that, spending time telling players to stop playing, will be even less fruitful socially, as telling whores to stop whoring. Eve’s Rebellion is at the root, just as it was back in the Garden. If that is not addressed, the rest is pointless. At any rate, simply refusing to f**k sluts, will not have you inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. Christians ought to be more concerned with the soul.

  51. Ra's al Ghul says:

    Crowhill and anyone else pro prenups:

    They are not worth the paper they are typed up on unless the court sees them as reasonable (consistent with current family law) any prenup with “teeth” is going to be worthless.

    Hiding your assets over seas and fleeing is possibly the only rational option, but the United States has maintained a position that it has authority and dominion over you and what you do no matter where you are in the world.

    “Traditional sexual morality exists because it is consistent with who we are as human beings, and it creates a culture that pushes masculine energy towards hearth and home. That builds a healthy, prosperous environment.”

    If it was “consistent” there would be no need for traditional morality at all because we would engage in that behavior normally.

    The fundamental issue (other than sin) is whether western civilization and the United States can be saved.

    If you believe it can, then pushing marriage makes sense.

    If it cannot, then pushing marriage is just pushing men into the meat grinder.

    Dalrock has admitted that the cultural war is over and WE LOST:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/nothing-is-more-subversive-than-the-truth/

    Mull that over for a minute. What is going on here is the beginning of a rebellion, it is not a war to preserve the west, we lost that. It is not an attempt to stave off the destruction of the west, that is already happening, it cannot be stopped.

    Its a rebellion.

    The men that are enjoying the decline or going Galt, or MGTOW are rebelling, they are starving the beast. If you think that deserves rebuke than I ask you to consider what exactly you are standing for. What side are you really supporting?

    If men continue to get married, they are sacrificing themselves for a culture that denigrates them, that treats them as no more than a beast to be used and tossed aside.

    Those of you pushing for people to get married, to preserve the west are serving Evil.

    It is better for men to be in the wilderness than married to a quarrelsome woman.

  52. Anonymous Reader says:

    Crowhill
    @Anonymousreader, I have never suggested marrying sluts, and my version of “manning up” is to go into relationships eyes wide open.

    For what definition of “eyes wide open”?

    It sounds to me as if you’re reading your pet demons into my comments.

    Ok. SO? You aren’t the first tradcon to blunder in here basically ordering men to “fix” women and the problems they create.

    But yes, I am suggesting that we try to solve (or at least lessen) a social and moral problem through contracts. That’s what contracts are for.

    I cannot decide if you are ignorant or merely naive.

    We enter into contracts to make sure both sides know what is expected, and to provide penalties for breach.

    Question: which is easier to break, a 5-year cellphone contract or marriage?
    Question: Suppose that you bought a car on 72 month paper and after 3 years decided that you were not haaaaapy with it, that you wanted the dealership to take it back and pay off your note. What would result?

    Evidently you have slept through the last N years and do not understand that there is no, none, zero, zip, nada penalty for a woman who breaches her “till death do us part” marriage contract.

    The law used to do that for us. Since it doesn’t now (but rather rewards breach of marriage, in some cases), I’m wondering if there’s a contractual way to fix it.

    Any such contract would be enforced by the same anti-family court system that routinely grants frivorces to any woman who asks for one. I believe you have said one true thing in this thread so far: you don’t know much about family law. So you are positing from a position of ignorance.

    This is another example of why some androsphere repository needs to have a FAQ.

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

    “But folks, we lost. It’s over. They won. The culture is lost, and along with it, the legal system. ”

    lozozozozolzozozoz

    why so serious?

    have you not heard the good news, brother, that all we must do as christians is learn game?

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

    while attacking and belittlinzgz da Great bookz for mensz of coursez!!!

    lzozozlzlozzlo

    game-up! game game gamemesz is da answerz!!!

  54. Emma the Emo says:

    “It’s like complaining about welfare then turning around and getting food stamps. Sorry, hypocrisy doesn’t fly with me. You either fight for traditional socio-sexual relations or you embrace feminism and the opportunities it has given you to get laid.”

    It’s not hypocricy. It’s just starving the system. Taking welfare is just compensation for robberies you already had to go through. Something similar for the players. Doing the opposite is viewed as noble by some, and equivalent to maintaining the slavemasters (“manning up”) by others.

  55. Dalrock says:

    On the question of whether men have an obligation to marry under the current system, I laid out my own argument on this as a guest post at the Orthosphere a while back: http://orthosphere.org/2013/05/20/must-a-traditional-man-accept-modern-marriage/

  56. greyghost says:

    The PUA and players along with MGTOW types and their subset of peter pan/grass eater types are making a landscape that is leading to this http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/ Women are now starting to rail against the abuses of feminism even out of wicked selfishness.
    I consider myself a MGTOW type even though married and at this point in time we are in a culture war. (The NFL is front and center now but it is every where) PUA/MGTOW is not sustainable just as a nation cannot remain permanently at war and as written by Heatiste himself he knows it is not sustainable. Even a man in sin still can be counted on to preserve civilization over personal pleasure.

  57. earl says:

    “Evidently you have slept through the last N years and do not understand that there is no, none, zero, zip, nada penalty for a woman who breaches her “till death do us part” marriage contract.”

    From the state…socially is a different story.

  58. Random Angeleno says:

    @Crowhill

    The law used to do that for us. Since it doesn’t now (but rather rewards breach of marriage, in some cases), I’m wondering if there’s a contractual way to fix it.

    That’s real funny, Crowhill, you are expecting the same court system that failed men to somehow allow for another way around its failure? A certain well known quote about the definition of insanity comes to mind …

    Contracts won’t fix this without substantial dislocation in the underlying culture, one that might actually cause contracts between men and women to be respected.

  59. The Brass Cat says:

    @Anon Reader

    Evidently you have slept through the last N years and do not understand that there is no, none, zero, zip, nada penalty for a woman who breaches her “till death do us part” marriage contract.

    A woman breaching a marriage contract is impossible. It is always the man’s fault.

    “No-fault” should be called man-fault.

  60. greyghost says:

    Women will only respect a contract when it is in their own selfish interest. Women vote and have no cause and effect and damn sure will never do as men do and vote for the interest of the country. The players on the cock carousel allowing the 50 year old Jenny Bahn to get the way she is a lost loser hopefully childless spinster. As it should be. Ideally and responsibly family law to sustain a civilization should not in anyway rely on any woman’s good will at all. The marriage vows should be followed with the same wicked hypergamous selfishness as the frivorce is today. The beta says isn’t she lovely and virtuous and the red pill man says “that bitch is so fucked up she is biblically honoring her wedding vows, I’ll take it I ‘m gong to take her to Lowe’s and let her pick out a new washer dryer.” As crazy as my post may look that is how this is going to have to be.

  61. BuenaVista says:

    Wow. Both theological and legal advice in one place! Pre-nups FTW! (Seriously: how stupid must a man be to both grandstand morally and point to a worthless contract as a solution.)

    Dalrock’s orthosphere essay doesn’t offer *any* opinion on modern marriage, other than the (More at 5!) institution and its defenders are confused, and he is “offended” when men refuse to subject themselves to the same risk of parental, financial, social, professional, and ecclesiastical obliteration that he has chosen.

    What’s wrong with this discussion is that the majority are just saying, “It hasn’t happened to me, why can’t you manage to be like me?” This line of reasoning has everything except the soft-rock praise songs, with five choruses, waxing rhapsodically on boyfriend-Jesus.

  62. Lyn87 says:

    I remember when pre-nups first showed up on the cultural radar – as a direct response to the high divorce rate and the way courts allowed ex-wives to be “liberated from their traditional roles” while forcing ex-husbands to continue in their “traditional roles” by providing their ex-wives (and their ex-wives new boyfriends) with all the benefits of marriage after the marriage had been dissolved. It was an attempt to deal with the symptom (the financial incentives wives had to dump their husbands), rather than the cause (wives having enormous legal power over their husbands). But the two are inseparable – power is a zero sum game. The fact that men are usually much better stewards of it than women are didn’t matter to the feminists, and it doesn’t matter to the law, the society, or even the church now.

    A pre-nup is a paper shield. A paper shield may be enough… if one’s opponent doesn’t realize that the shield is made of paper she may never put it to the test. And even a paper shield may work against an ill-delivered blow, but in battle a paper shield is generally worse than useless.

    There are just too many ways around it if a wife really wants out and wants to make her husband miserable. A 9-1-1 call is all it takes – it doesn’t even have to be credible for her to get a huge advantage. Even the best pre-nup won’t have ANY affect on where the kids end up, which means she gets the house because it’s in the so-called “best interests of the children” even if the pre-nup stipulates otherwise, or he ends up having to sell it anyway to provide her something comparable. It won’t affect child support, and it won’t really affect alimony if there are children, since it will just be disguised as child support.

    There are legal ways to protect oneself, and by doing so reduce a wife’s ability to get cash-n-prizes from divorce. Those ways involve setting up trusts and such like – I’m no expert but I understand that some wealthy men have figured out some serious ways to mitigate the damage (and thus the leverage). But it may also involve a willingness to simply go away. It makes sense – if a vindictive ex-wife is going to get everything you have and you have nothing to lose, why not just go? If you’re totally screwed if you stay, then you are no more screwed if you go – and at least you’re not being milked like a dairy cow for her amusement and enrichment.

  63. BuenaVista says:

    Earl, you don’t know any women if you don’t think women celebrate each other when they divorce or otherwise betray a man. (I acknowledge that you may not know any women; the contingency is not rhetorical.)

  64. BuenaVista says:

    LynM, advising men in divorce to “just go away.”

    Cool. Your average hedge fund manager might have $20mm of dark money stashed in some shithole like Mogadishu, and, hey, then he can “just go away.” He’ll spend his dough in a series of pirate havens and eventually buy a politician and a re-entry permit to the county. What’s not to like?

    OTOH, if you’re a high school principal and you happen to love your work and your own children and your home and town, “just going away” is about as useful a stratagem as “just be yourself.” “Just going away” unless you’re an 8 figure net worth guy is useful info like “just choose a better wife next time” is useful info.

    However, as rhetoric, it’s also useful because people (who are not confronted in their own lives with the lose off their homes, children, meager wealth, and self respect) can still say, “I’m offended that other men are unwilling to incur the same risks I am.”

    Anyway, none of that will ever happen to us. Let’s parade our disapproval of Yohami, because we uniquely are able to usurp Christ and pre-qualify the good and the bad.

  65. deti says:

    @ Dalrock:

    This post is an interesting one, because it’s what the Church of 100 years ago would say to a rake, a libertine, licentious man.

    “You’re injuring yourself. You’re exposing yourself and others to diseases. You’re causing yourself to become hardened, jaded and cynical. You’re searing your own conscience and hardening your heart toward God, toward those in lawful and rightful authority over you. And even if you aren’t hurting yourself, you might break the heart of a woman who actually loves you., and contribute to her own inability later to love a man who loves her.”

    Let’s take your statement and add to it what today’s Church says. Today, the player’s sin is not against God or himself, but against women.

    The lifestyle you are living is sinful (Your sin is not one of disobedience to God’s commands. Your sin is against society in general, and women in particular, in that you won’t man up and marry one of the sluts who sleep with you.)

    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 (because you have a moral duty to marry one of them to save her from herself).

    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). (Your ruining these women makes it harder for us to get them married off to the chumps who attend here. You’re harmed because you’re not chumping yourself out by strapping yourself to a plow and working working working for her.)

    You (and she) are using people for your own selfish pleasure, and the cost to yourselves and everyone else involved doesn’t matter to you. (Man up and marry that slut!)

  66. Lyn87 says:

    BV,

    Don’t read into my comment more than is there. I stipulated that “just go away” was a reasonable thing to do, “If you’re totally screwed if you stay…”

    TOTALLY SCREWED is a pretty high bar to clear, since it means that one would not be worse off by picking up whatever was portable and walking away. That’s not the best plan for every man, and certainly a man with minor children would have to consider the cost of leaving his children entirely in their mother’s care. However, if the only option is a lifetime of poverty, financial servitude, parental alienation, and imprisonment no matter what… there are worse things to do than cutting one’s losses.

    One of the things feminists cannot comprehend is that an opponent with nothing to lose is a potentially dangerous opponent indeed. Frankly, the main reason why the blood of ex-wives isn’t running in the streets like rainwater after a thunderstorm is that men are generally a lot less violent towards women than feminists like to pretend that we are. Most men are willing to just take their beat-down and soldier on. What we’re seeing now is in some ways similar to ex-husbands “just walking away.” But it’s not the ex-husbands walking away: it’s never-married men “just walking away” from the bear-trap of Marriage 2.0 in the first place. And they don’t have to move to another continent to do it: they can do it from the comfort of their own homes.

    Men withdrawing resources en masse is a great danger, especially to women, and the one-sided nature of divorce that strips men of everything and grinds them into powder is creating a nightmare scenario for feminism. It’s not ex-husbands killing their wives (the prevalence of male-on-female violence has always been a feminist myth), but rather the sons they raised without fathers who refuse to play a game where the other side is exempt from the rules.

  67. greyghost says:

    Lyn87
    Your comment was spot on and founded in reality truth. Looks like Beuna Vista is really butt hurt by this speech also (so what). with that as a reality what is so bad about MGTOW fatherhood and living life and enjoying fatherhood and family without women. Nothing I would advocate would involve enslaving and using the government to force anything from another human being. Not only that the productive drive from men for the sake of family would be restored with full benefits for the man and his children with a huge overall benefit to society and civilization in general. Not one pastor would ever praise or even passively ignore that but will openly lie about the bible to cover for the feminine imperative.
    The Philipines (spelling) is a place to go a Canadian guy book ass over there when he was frivorced.

  68. greyghost says:

    BV
    my comment to Lyn87 is what “walking away” looks like. It is MGTOW. Young men MGTOW/PUA and as they age just MGTOW and in the future with small numbers now MGTOW/family men. That would be rec pill me in todays world. I wonder about a 14 15 year old boy hanging around the manosphere today and how he would play out his life.

  69. deti says:

    As one who’s interacted with him much online, I’m not one to impute bad faith to Buena Vista’s criticism of this post or the comments.

    BV can speak for himself. I think his point is that marriage is a bad deal (it is). And that it does little good to condemn players when in fact they aren’t the main problem here. In terms of sheer numbers the ratio of players to sluts who sleep with players is, well, pretty big. Lots more sluts than players out there. Yes, premarital and extramarital sex is sinful. But in terms of causing societal breakdown, players aren’t the culprits here.

  70. BuenaVista says:

    LynM, I don’t really care about MGTOW, which is obvious because (although you diverted to a long discussion of it) I don’t address it.

    You are quite mistaken if you think that the average divorced man is not “totally screwed.” But dream on if you think otherwise. The only divorced men who are not totally screwed are those whose ex-‘s choose not to destroy them. We are surrounded by “totally screwed” men, and they are surrounded by patronizing men and women who say, “That would never happen to me!”. (Just as you just did in your soft equivocations.) Which is one reason why they just kill themselves, given that “just go away” is an option like “just date Kate Upton and forget about your ex-!” is an option.

    Greyghost, thanks for your note. After the ad hominem (worthy of Jezebel: the “butthurt” cliche no less) you proved yourself illiterate. I appreciate the heads up and will not bother with you again. You need to hang out on a feminist blog, and they’ll titter and cheer when you point out defective men.

  71. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Evidently you have slept through the last N years and do not understand that there is no, none, zero, zip, nada penalty for a woman who breaches her “till death do us part” marriage contract.”

    Earl
    From the state…socially is a different story.

    Examples, please, of women in the main stream society who suffer any social penalty as a result of frivorce. Don’t even start with Roman Catholics unless you want to endure another tirade about annullment-shopping, either.

    I’ve seen far too many divorces and frivorces where the woman came out with her social network including churchladies totally intact to just take your word for this.

  72. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lyn87
    Don’t read into my comment more than is there. I stipulated that “just go away” was a reasonable thing to do, “If you’re totally screwed if you stay…”

    Sometimes when I see a homeless man, I wonder to myself – is that man wanted somewhere for unpaid child support? Not all the men on street corners with a cardboard sign and a plastic cup begging for money show the obvious signs of addiction. Many, to be sure, but not all. Given a choice between prison and sleeping under a freeway bridge, I can understand some choosing the latter.

  73. Just my two cents says:

    I think there can only be “sin” or dishounour if you will, when one has made an explicit contract with others to behave in a particular way in exchange for certain benefits, and then discarding the conditions of the contract after one has secured the benefits. How can players have sinned when they made no agreement or contract with society or women in society to behave in a certain way ? The benefits they reap is sex with multiple women, having put little investment in these women or contributed much at all to society. But where have they explicitly or tacitly agreed to conditions under which they have sex with women ? If there are men who want to impose these conditions on themselves, they are free to do so, although many in the manosphere may deplore their decision without mutual reciprocity. However, unless these conditions are accepted by everybody universally as a condition for survival and civilization, no one has the right to demand these conditions on some, but not others.

  74. deti says:

    “Examples, please, of women in the main stream society who suffer any social penalty as a result of frivorce.”

    The worst I’ve ever seen happen is that the frivorcing woman left the church she attended with her ex husband. I’ve seen it happen once, a couple of years ago. Ex hubby stayed; his frivorcing wife left. She was getting heat from the other ladies, and was complaining of “devastating judgment”. No worries, though. She was received with open arms at another church, where she is the beneficiary of endless affirmation and validation of her worth and value as a SIW and child of God.

    Don’t judge, AR. Yoooooouuuu cannnnnn’t JUUUUUUUUDGE meeeee; you pinch-faced moralistic bastard, you.

    About, oh, 20 years ago at the church I grew up in, a woman frivorced her husband. She stayed at her church. She endured the bluehairs looking down their noses at her, the pastor’s clucking at her. All she had to do was outlast it. Eventually, the harpies and the gossips found something (someone) else to titter and hemhaw about.

    But any woman receiving any lasting, meaningful social or cultural or monetary sanction because she torpedoed an otherwise intact, functional marriage? Nope. Not seen it.

  75. BuenaVista says:

    Deti, I am exercised at the idea that any man would target another man, and declare himself superior — while being Christian. No true Christian believes he is anything but a sinner. Evidently Dalrock has been anointed to do pre-screening for Jesus. So color me surprised. And in dispute with his superior Godly judgment.

    But then I am astonished that people think following Christ means singing soft-rock ’70’s bubblegum jingles. “Oh Lord, hold me close to Your bosom”, etc. (Jesus as wet-nurse for women and pussies who miss their mommies.) And I am astonished that they would assert their godly virtue — vis a vis another man — by outlining “hey, shit didn’t happen to me, must be butthurt.” When one or two of your friends off themselves because you didn’t take them seriously, perhaps you will wake up.

    Marriage is a profoundly self-destructive act for 50% of the population. Until you confront the facts of this, you are advocating self-sabotage and self-destruction. Tradcon marriage is a joke, inasmuch as women care more about society (her friends) than any pastoral rebuke. As though pastoral rebukes occur, any longer.

    Meanwhile, ad hominems and country-club social positioning with respect to people like Yohami. Claiming sola scriptura, these people deny that we’re all in the wilderness.

  76. greyghost says:

    Lyn87 is not a MGTOW advocate. That is my thing. Also Just gong away was meant as not getting into the marriage in the first place and not going along with the frivorce terms if you happen to get married anyway. Nothing to do with just being unseen leaving the frivorced man with the hopelessness of killing himself. .

  77. oldfashionedfellow says:

    A Christian has one chief concern in his or her life, the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Good works on both an individual and collective basis are God honoring in themselves and may be a vehicle to spread the Gospel, but feeding the poor, stopping an abortion, or bringing about/saving a marriage will not bring those souls to Christ. A married person is just as bound for damnation as someone who isn’t, while either lack remorseful belief in their sinful depravity and a faith in Christ’s sacrifice as substitutionary atonement for it. If social stability is the goal, then remember that while you can plug a single hole in a dyke, you can’t repair a full breach of the levee. The reason for this is simple. There is no longer a general belief in the West that restraint is necessary. We have fully embraced Rousseau’s liberal view that people are generally good, and that restraint is bad. This is a beautiful, infatuating illusion that no one will willingly give up without a fight. That is, without collapse.

    This is true even on the Right, which is now a motley collection of “socially liberal/fiscally conservative” low-tax Marxists, classical Jeffersonian liberals, modern JFK liberals, and keep the world looking as it did when I was a kid 30,40,50 years ago “traditionalists.” Not a one of them would be willing to restrain humanity in the manner necessary. Not just legally, but in other capacities as well. Societies have always availed themselves of different tools to restrain human depravity in order to make civilization possible. Religious belief, Cultural standards, Social Institutions and the Law all play a role in restricting bad behavior and channeling good behavior in a socially beneficial direction. The fear of legal punishment was only one weapon in the arsenal. It works, to a degree, on the element of society that will not be restrained by any other means. But it was never the sole check. Laws against murder would be useless, if most of the society accepted it as tolerable. Classical liberals (so-called conservatives and libertarians) have taken this for granted, and suppose that it was only ever a small element that needed to be restrained, not everybody, and only that by legal not social means, forgetting the role that religion, culture and social institutions played in restraining the selfish wicked nature in ALL of us. To one degree of another, the state played a role in supporting the faith, the culture and the social institutions, in performing their socially beneficial mission. Less so in Anglo-Saxon countries than others, but not entirely absent either.

    By placing the focus on maintaining a semblance of marriage across the whole of society, we fool ourselves into believing that there remains some belief beneath it all, waiting to be supported. But the rot is deep. The old timbers require more than just a new coat of paint. They need to be torn out and replaced. That process will not be comfortable, and too many married men, I think are too concerned with the happiness of their daughters, than the duty they owe to God. It is up to the unmarried to do what our fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers and before did not have the courage to say. Just as Adam did not in the beginning. Where they failed, we must not.

    We must say “No.”

  78. BuenaVista says:

    Greyghost, unlike you I don’t do internet mind reading. I only respond to text.

    Lyn87 explicitly advised a life philosophy of “disappear!” if a tradcon marriage didn’t workout. 99.9% of America does not have that option.

    So go back to whatever you use to distract yourself. You are not qualified for didactic discussions. Didactic discussions require abstract thinking ability. You have the same likelihood of making a relevant point here as the Yankees do of overtaking the Orioles.

  79. Boxer says:

    Thanks for writing this.

    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.

    The manosphere is generally pretty good at minimizing the damage a man can do living a hedonistic life. It does give one some cheap thrills, in the beginning, to treat women the way they treat men; but this is outweighed by the subtle wear on one’s own psyche.

    I’ve beat this horse to death before, so I’ll spare y’all who are enjoying the lifestyle. Be well, brothers…

    Boxer

  80. greyghost says:

    Now you are talking BV and I agree. I would never tell a man that didn’t marry he is less of a man. In fact if a man is happily married he is just lucky by law he is lucky. he bought a broken clock and every time he looks to see what time it is it is right. He has no place to brag about his superior clock shopping abilities. I didn’t the take from lyn87 that he was holier than thou because his marriage is good. A good marriage is good for civilization but those marriages today really do not exist for any man by law.

  81. greyghost says:

    BV my take when he said disappear was to just break the law and bail out. You are right that option is not available to all.

  82. deti says:

    Buena Vista:

    Dalrock can speak for himself, and I’m certainly not going to mediate any disputes. But speaking for myself:

    First, I think you misunderstand Dalrock’s post and the purpose behind it. Dalrock is setting out the Christian position on sex outside marriage. It is sin, whether it’s men or women committing the sin. And sin is harmful to all involved – the sinner and the sinned against. Now extramarital sex might not be AS temporally harmful to the men committing it as to women (I think this is a true statement), but the level of harm doesn’t determine whether the source of the harm is a sin.

    There’s no statement of judgment here, no condemnation of Yohami or others. I also didn’t detect any statement of moral superiority by anyone. It’s really nothing more than a simple statement of what extramarital sex is in the Christian context. God prohibits it because it is sinful and harmful.

    I also don’t think there’s a statement by Dalrock here that marriage is necessary, or that men have a moral duty to marry, or that they have a societal obligation to marry. It isn’t, and they don’t. A huge part of the problem is that what passes for “marriage” in today’s society isn’t really marriage at all. It’s really just state-sanctioned boyfriend-girlfriend status, until one of them wants to break up. The difference is that THIS kind of breakup is a whole lot more expensive, time consuming, and life-altering.

    That having been said, and second, consider the context in which the post was offered. Yohami was self-identifying as a (formerly?) promiscuous man. He identified this site as one which discusses red pill from a predominantly Christian worldview. He wondered why promiscuous men were allowed to comment at this site. Yohami suggested, well, isn’t there some hyprocrisy in letting promiscuous men comment here if male promiscuity is bad? The implication was male promiscuity isn’t viewed in the same light from a Christian perspective as sluthood. Hence, Dalrock’s response.

  83. orion2 says:

    Well, I had a long reply describing the last 3 women I “knew” in a biblical sense, but, how shall I put this, “me, doing further harm to them”, I would not know how to.

    Seriously, what comes beyond “utterly ruined” ?

    I am open to the suggestion that I might harm myself….

    As for this Roebuck guy and his statement that not marrying will ultimately doom a nation…..

    Yes….

    Is that a bad thing?

    One would think that a civilization that utterly depends on my cooperation would treat me accordingly, apparently this is not so, because still too many men are taking the deal that is offered.

    I am aware that I am an agent of destruction, not necessarily evil, but destruction, it is just, if I am bringing Sodom down, should I really feel bad about it?

  84. orion2 says:

    @ Deti

    As far as I am concerned, Dalrock can judge me all he wants, not only is he right from his perspective, I would also have to open my wrists if I ever complained that someone was too “judgy” towards me.

    I would also do it like Petronius in Quo Vadis, which is a character I understand so much better now, because in an amoral cesspit, at least let us have some aesthetic standards.

  85. Gouv says:

    It’s not a sin for an unmarried man to have sex with an unmarried woman. It wasn’t banned by Jesus, who only condemned adultery, nor was it even banned by the OT.

    Stop making shit up, Dalrock.

  86. BuenaVista says:

    Orion2, then you are on a very inappropriate blog, for you just declared yourself agnostic at best, and deserving of imperfect judgment, always.

    Deti, Jesus marched across the desert with the Magdalene whore. Pharisees where disturbed. The comments today on Yohami, which are way beyond the pale, are those of Pharisees.

  87. BuenaVista says:

    errr “… were disturbed.”

  88. JDG says:

    Phillyastro – I agree that marrying your average modern woman is the equivalent of marrying a slut or a prostitute. However, if you are arguing that since we live in a society where most women are sluts and we (Christians) are therefore free to engage in fornication, then I must disagree with you for the reasons given in the passage I presented.

  89. JDG says:

    The Bible doesn’t lie and neither do the stats. Sleeping around hurts the participants, especially the females. For every new partner she takes on, she becomes less able to bond with a future husband and is more likely to divorce if she marries. And there appears to be no shortage of suckers who will marry her. Any kids unfortunate enough to be born into this type of union are more likely to have their family nuked by their dissatisfied mother.

  90. JDG says:

    The above comment was meant for Emma.

  91. JDG says:

    Dalrock’s orthosphere essay doesn’t offer *any* opinion on modern marriage, other than the (More at 5!) institution and its defenders are confused, and he is “offended” when men refuse to subject themselves to the same risk of parental, financial, social, professional, and ecclesiastical obliteration that he has chosen.

    1) – he is warning fornicators to flee from their sin.
    2) – what is practiced and referred to as marriage today really isn’t marriage at all.
    3) -Where has Dalrock indicated offense when men refuse to subject themselves to this farce that you are referring to as marriage?

  92. Escoffier says:

    BV, unless I am missing something in what you have written, you seem to exclude any way for a man to legitimately say “X is sinful so stop doing X,” even when the man in question directly asks “What am I doing wrong?”

    I don’t really see how this is in the final analysis distinguishable from relativism and “non-judgementalism.” Yes, Christ spoke with and walked with a whore. But he never shrank from telling the moral truth to her, or to others.

    I don’t see what you would have Dalrock or anyone else concerned about morality do. Are we all somehow obligated to remain perpetually silent on the content of morality, even when directly asked?

  93. JDG says:

    Let’s take your statement and add to it what today’s Church says. Today, the player’s sin is not against God or himself, but against women.

    The Bible says that when a man does this he sins against his own body.

    1 Cor 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

  94. Dalrock says:

    @BuenaVista

    Dalrock’s orthosphere essay doesn’t offer *any* opinion on modern marriage, other than the (More at 5!) institution and its defenders are confused, and he is “offended” when men refuse to subject themselves to the same risk of parental, financial, social, professional, and ecclesiastical obliteration that he has chosen.

    I’m not sure what you mean by the first part, but on the “offended” part, you didn’t read it correctly. I wrote the exact opposite.

    Edit: Here is the specific quote:

    There is no functional support for a traditional married man. The law, the culture and even the churches are now outright hostile to the traditional view of marriage. I don’t see a man who carefully weighs his true options and elects not to accept modern marriage as a coward. Nor do I see my own marriage and children as a terrible burden, something which causes me to be offended that another man would refuse to suffer a similar fate alongside of me. The man who doesn’t accept modern marriage as a suitable substitute for the real thing isn’t failing me, and he isn’t failing traditional marriage. The heart of the damage to our culture has been done by modern churches in their abandonment of biblical marriage.

  95. JDG says:

    No true Christian believes he is anything but a sinner.

    A sinner saved by grace.

    Q. What are we saved from?
    A: The coming wrath of God.
    Q. Why is God’s wrath coming?
    A. Because people are sinning and won’t stop.

    Warning people of the destructiveness of their sins is not equivalent to “declare himself superior”.

  96. The only way to win is not to play the game according to their rules

    One of the major reasons prenups are thrown out is because SHE wasn’t represented by her own lawyer when negotiating the prenup. In the 41 equity states we have the “void as contrary to public policy” excuse. Let’s say a couple gets married in a community property state and both agreed that certain assets were specifically not community property and in the event of a divorce would stay with the original owner. They move to someplace like Indiana, where years later Cupcake files for divorce. Indiana throws out the prenup as contrary to public policy because in Indiana *all* assets are part of the “marital pot” and everything gets divided “equitably” in the opinion of the judge.

    Trusts and other arrangements subject to the courts’ jurisdiction can and will be invaded if there are children involved. Offshore asset protection trusts are a justification to jail you, possibly for years.

    Covenant marriages are likewise unable to provide any serious protection for a monogamous marriage, although I love the concept. The problem is even in a state that recognizes covenant marriage, if Cupcake wants out, all she has to do is pick up the phone and accuse Hubby of DV. She automatically gets the kids and a restraining order against him. She then “flees” (that sounds so much better than jurisdiction shopping) to another state and establishes residency (3 to 6 months). If she’s smart she’ll have researched the best states to get the kids, cash and prizes award because by switching states she neatly avoids having to obey the contract. If she moves to a state with truly draconian divorce laws such as California, your only choice is to immediately file for divorce under the terms of the Covenant where you are or leave the country.

    The reason its so much easier to get out of a marriage than a cell phone contract is because the state isn’t party to the cell phone contract. However, it must be realized that if a woman wants out, she gets out.

    The only way to get Marriage 1.0 rules is to go the polygynous route. It’s a marriage that cannot be deemed anything other than a cohabitation scheme because the state only recognizes monogamous marriage as a matter of public policy. Note that even the concept of “gay marriage” and “domestic partnerships” is monogamous. Biblically a polygynous marriage is a legitimate marriage, but the state currently cannot recognize it as such and thus the state’s rules regarding marriage don’t apply and the marital contract is determined as a matter of equitable contract.

    With a very well-written contract, cash and prizes are almost eliminated and if one of the women wants out the father would have a very good chance to get custody (especially if all lived in the same house and other kids are present). If she got custody of her children she would only qualify for child support based on his income (although some states like California are trying to change this). Incentives count and a polygynous marriage sets up all the incentives to stay in the marriage, both for the man and the women.

    I have argued this as the solution that meets the Biblical requirements of marriage in order to legitimately have sex within a marriage structure that organizes the incentives toward staying in the marriage and avoids the divorce drama completely. The structure empowers the man and removes one of the most potent weapons of women within marriage: denial of sex. Since the wives are competing for his time and attention, it’s more valuable and he has higher value. They can meet their own emotional needs and he can stay aloof. He gets all the sex he wants and they get far more resources than they’d get individually or in monogamous marriage. The children get a more stable structure and more resources. Win-win-win.

  97. orion2 says:

    @BuenaVista

    But he makes sense.

    I like to read people who make sense.

    In his own paradigm, and so further and so on, but to read what people write who make sense is soothing, it is.

    Also, to only read things from people who agree with you and who flatter your delicate sensibilities is beta!

    There, I threw down the most offending gauntlet the manosphere has to offer!

  98. JDG

    Q. Why is God’s wrath coming?

    A. It’s already here.

    Romans 1:18-32 started in the 1960’s and God gave them over to impurity. Then came depraved passions and finally a depraved mind. That’s where we are today with each phase of this seeming to represent a generation. If you can handle the idea that New York City is the physical modern-day Babylon (the fiat-currency usery and debt is the Babylon system), then there’s a good case to be made that the “fallen, fallen” at the beginning of Revelation 18 was talking about 9/11. At some later point the great rock goes into the sea and in a single hour the great city is destroyed. Google Cumbre Vieja to find the great rock.

    Think also about what God said to Abraham, that it would be 400 years before Israel went into Canaan, because the sin of the Amelekites had not yet reached its full measure. We’ve already got the wrath of abandonment, it will be followed by destruction.

  99. I would also do it like Petronius in Quo Vadis

    amazing

  100. theasdgamer says:

    Very interesting comments. Much to ponder.

  101. Escoffier asks BV: I don’t see what you would have Dalrock or anyone else concerned about morality do. Are we all somehow obligated to remain perpetually silent on the content of morality, even when directly asked?

    I wondered the same. He is also responding to a conjured image of what he thinks Dalrock or others would write, rather than what they have written. He bounces between pseudo intellectual insults and declarations of his strong objections to certain things others embrace as dogma. Oddly, the dogma he eschews is not here to be found.

    From those nonexistent objectionable things he moves to declaring this house filled with churchians and followers of The Personal Jesus.

    I sense, but could be wrong, that he is a shrouded angry atheist who cannot tolerate the notion of fastened moral codified by God. The references to how Dalrock and others must be fluffy churchians coupled with the vehement not so well veiled angry defense of game and PUAs while hinting that he is a hard core real Christian believer in comparison…when those things are mixed in the blender, no matter how long and with how many horsepower you mix it it takes only seconds for the meniscus to return. Because they cannot coexist, let along make something homogenous.

  102. BradA says:

    > No true Christian believes he is anything but a sinner.

    BS.

    [2Co 5:17 KJV] 17 Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

    I am no longer a sinner. I was a sinner and I still do sinful things. But no amount of righteous acts before my rebirth could change me and no amount of bad acts after my rebirth can kill my spirit again.

    I am sure others will disagree with the theology, but it is clearly there (and elsewhere). Either we are no longer sinners or we are headed to hell. The idea that we can never judge others is a bunch of hokum. I may not be able to tell where your ultimate destination will be, but I can tell which direction your actions will lead you.

    greyghost,

    I would disagree that a father can ever properly raise children any more than a mother can ever do so. They can try and may to a fairly good job, but no individual can be both parents.

    God made us to need the input of both, which is why he made Adam and Eve, not just Adam. We have fallen far from that, but a single father can still not be a good mother.

    I cannot recommend a solution, but the answer doesn’t lie in claiming the opposite extreme as good. It may seem good for that father, but it is ultimately selfishness in my view. He cares about himself more than his children, purposefully depriving them of any chance of having a mother active in their life.

    Will they think they sprung from nothing? What happens when they want to know that mother? Biology has a STRONG pull, which is one of the reasons I am now childless in spite of raising 4 children.

  103. Snowy says:

    I don’t know if this is OT or not. It occurs to me that women with children don’t care a darn where the provider-ship side of their lives comes from. They’ve got a pretty darn good life under the nanny state provider-ship model. And we all know that that provider-ship ultimately has it’s roots in the compulsory redistribution of men’s wealth/productivity to women. Women don’t give a darn that it comes from men. In fact they resent men and have contempt for men. They don’t give a darn about men. As long as they’re getting their provider-ship from somewhere (the nanny state), that’s all they’re worried about. And it’s not really only women with children; it’s women in general. They’re ungrateful for the wonderful lives they have, courtesy of men (via the blessings of God that He made men the way He made them [us]).

  104. BradA says:

    BV is full of it. He comes in proclaiming everyone else is wrong and wonders why everyone won’t agree with him.

  105. orion2 says:

    @ empathologism

    Amazing?

    Petronius stands for a lot of things.

    Dont get me wrong, I wanted the bundle, but what are you zeroing in on?

  106. JDG says:

    Q. Why is God’s wrath coming?

    A. It’s already here.

    I stand corrected. It’s the judgement that is coming.

  107. Phillyastro says:

    @JDG

    I applaud you that you found a husband who you met while you were young and virginal, but for most men that is not an option now. So according to your reading of Paul and others, the choice for a devout Christian is:

    A. Find a chaste woman to marry (as Paul says in your quote, don’t unite with a harlot)
    B. Engage in fornication and be damned
    C. Become celibate

    Since the faithful Christian in the Western world cannot choose A or B, C must be the default choice. Therefore, Christianity in most of the U.S. and Europe is a religion of celibacy. By all means, go with that to maintain or add followers to Christ’s message. I predict Islam will grow by leaps and bounds just to pair off the involuntary celibates of the West with wives (and sex slaves depending upon the sect).

    Fornication covered all sexual immorality (including adultery, rape, and child molesting). But throughout Leviticus and other OT verses, the worst you could do ruin a woman’s virginity before she was married. The virgin was the Be All End All of all women until they were married. If one caused a virgin to play the harlot, he was a fornicator whether it was a by a PUA or pimp. She was considered from that point damaged goods and that’s hurtful.

    No, I am not saying being with whores is the way to avoid sin. @Deti gets it right when he considers the pitfalls of being a whoremonger from the 19th Century perspective. Although, I don’t think St. Paul was talking about STD when talking about “sin against the body.” I think he meant the Christian being a member of the body of Christ like being a member of the Church, which is the body of Christ.

    Maybe Origen had it right all along…

  108. Lyn87 says:

    BV is intent on reading things into my comments that are not there, then persisting in believing they are there even when I explain my position in greater detail… such as this, “Lyn87 explicitly advised a life philosophy of “disappear!” if a tradcon marriage didn’t workout.” That is about 180 degree off from everything I have ever said about marriage my entire life, including in this thread. I’ve never even hinted at that sort of extreme position, must less explicitly advised it. I could tolerate the occasional gross misunderstanding if – in that very same post – he had not written this to greyghost, “So go back to whatever you use to distract yourself. You are not qualified for didactic discussions. Didactic discussions require abstract thinking ability.” Basic reading comprehension is a precursor to didactic discussions on the internet. One mischaracterization is excusable, but to continue the mischaracterization after explicit clarification… well, let’s just say that I will now disengage from him.

    Believe what you want, BV… just leave me out of it, please: your characterizations of my position are inaccurate.

  109. Orion, I am zeroing in on what seems to be (if i am wrong, I apologize) a reference that serves primarily one purpose, a dash of intellectual peacocking. How many readers will know what you mean? Is your intent to write a comment for one person’s understanding, one that you happen to somehow know will get it right away? Or was it to be in discussion with the ever-in-flux group we have here… lots of disparate men, disparate in intellect, in faith, in age, in station, perhaps in physicality, etc.? If the latter, maybe it is better to spell out how Petronius “would do it”.

    Call me Cynicus, if the sandal fits

  110. JDG says:

    Phillyastro – I guess I need to check in my man card.

    A. Find a chaste woman to marry (as Paul says in your quote, don’t unite with a harlot)
    B. Engage in fornication and be damned
    C. Become celibate

    It’s not according to me, you read the same scriptures I did. I admit that chaste women are hard to find, but I believe that with God all things are possible.

  111. JDG says:

    Since the faithful Christian in the Western world cannot choose A or B, C must be the default choice.

    Again I must disagree. There are chaste women out there, but sometimes you must go WAY out there. Mine was on the other side of the world.

  112. JDG says:

    Although, I don’t think St. Paul was talking about STD when talking about “sin against the body.” I think he meant the Christian being a member of the body of Christ like being a member of the Church, which is the body of Christ.

    There may be a dual meaning here, but I’m pretty sure Paul is referencing the individual’s body in the passage below.

    1 Cor 6:18 Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 20 for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

  113. Phillyastro says:

    @JDG

    My apologies. I just assumed from your previous posts you were someone you were not. Still if you are going to suggest that Christians become celibate or find a Ukrainian mail-order bride, we aren’t really getting anywhere.

    I have never heard a good explanation of what St. Paul meant in 1 Cor 6:18. Other than getting an STD, how does a man sin against his body? Is gluttony a sin against the body too? It might be a way to fat shame women back into shape.

  114. Boxer says:

    It’s not a sin for an unmarried man to have sex with an unmarried woman. It wasn’t banned by Jesus, who only condemned adultery, nor was it even banned by the OT.

    Stop making shit up, Dalrock.

    Leviticus 18.

    Happy to help…

    Boxer

  115. Fusion:

    Game teaches all men that they need to recognize the inherent issue of hypergamy of women and do something about it. In other words, man up and be the best you can be (NOT an endorsement to join the Army!). Develop skills. Improve your looks (work out). Find your mission and pursue it. Learn and practice sound financial habits. Reject the feminist frame and implement your own frame instead. From the age of 20 to 23, I packed on 45 pounds of muscle by religiously hitting the gym. I trained, I studied, I applied. I gained the respect of men and then the desire of women. In that order. Somewhere around the age 24 I made the decision to live my life according to my rules. It didn’t work. At age 27 I gave up and accepted that God was the only one qualified to make the rules. WITHIN those rules, I flourished, but according to my own desires.

    A dedicated program of self-improvement over a period of years will yield results. Choose to live an interesting life. Don’t follow the herd. Make your mantra “Education, not entertainment; tools, not toys.” Learn, grow and expand. Find a sparring partner who can clean your clock in less than thirty seconds and train like there’s no tomorrow. You learn a lot of lessons when getting knocked on your ass on a regular basis. Never stop taking risks.

    It’s very easy for Christians to say “God will provide.” Right. I’m not disputing that the Scriptures say “Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart.” Far from it. However, if you have the faith and the discipline to be a zealot, you have the discipline to be a standout. That’s Alpha.

    Essentially, polygyny is the judo-move against a woman’s own hypergamous instincts. If you’ve done the things you needed to do to ensure you’re a high-value mate, they’ll have no objections at all. They’ll not only accept it, they’ll enjoy it. Not many women get to marry the apex-alpha. The rest of them have to settle, and modern monogamy degrades the perception of the man with the simple act of commitment. Polygyny doesn’t. Polygyny is a Biblically legitimate form of ‘spinning plates.’ Women don’t have a problem with this IF the man is of sufficient value. Why otherwise would we see men with enough value able to have girlfriends who arrange three-somes for their boyfriend?

    Any rejection of this is not of the Bible. It’s feminist church policy that in some cases dates back hundreds of years.

    Want a wife? Want a stable marriage that has a high probability to survive? Learn game. Improve yourself. Go polygynous and avoid the (LEGAL) definition of marriage. Nothing else works in this day and time.

  116. orion2 says:

    @empathologism

    That was not the idea.

    After two drafts which had their problems, this is what remains.

    Folks could watch Quo Vadis?

    Its on Youtube?

  117. Gouv says:

    Boxer:

    Leviticus nowhere bans sex between an unmarried man and unmarried woman who are not related.

    Happy to correct you.

    Gouv

  118. Steve H says:

    Ra’s Al Ghul @ 2:36 nails it. I’m not interested in encouraging men to throw themselves into a self-destructive binding legal contract that emasculates them. And no religious or merely spiritual reason will ever change that. Ever.

    Dalrock – I wonder if you’re considering the *opposite* lifespan path of someone like Rollo. What about the guy that grew up in a Christian home, and absolutely would have gotten married to the first woman he ever slept with around age 19-22, but literally could not find a remotely attractive woman who was remotely interested in him sexually….and years later, as 30 approaches and passes, he finds himself with ample sexual opportunities, but with women who are damaged, hypocritical, and wouldn’t have looked at him 8-12 years prior because of their pure narcissism.

    Yeah, that guy eschewed Christianity somewhere around age 20. And once he moved beyond it, he couldn’t go back. He couldn’t unlearn the lies it taught him. Lies not specifically tangential to theology, but rather – lies regarding the availability of life opportunities he could’ve and should’ve rightly expected as a young man righteously walking in the faith. So he throws it all away, and cannot honestly re-acquire it.

    That’s me in a nutshell. Now I’m in my mid-30s, dating a woman 10 years younger, and I would NEVER exclusively date (let alone marry…and I’ll never marry at least in the USA) a woman my age, period.

    BTW – to another stated point here – It’s not treating a woman the way modern women treat men if you’re honest with them. Modern women aren’t honest with men. Why minimize honesty?

  119. Steve H says:

    Oh another thing – If you got married at age 21, you got to have sex for about 5 years longer than I did. It matters not whether or not you wrap up your sexual indulgence in Biblical doctrine – as being morally/Biblically justified – or not, the point is you had ideologically-transcendent biological urges that you could and did satisfy while people like me did not enjoy those indulgences. So the notion that anyone would claim moral or ethical superiority to (atheist, for the past 15 years) me, is quite questionable. You did what you needed to do to have sex with maximum peace of mind. Some of us, as we entered into and negotiated an independent adulthood, did not and could not have that same sex that you enjoyed for years. And when we speak in terms of years – in our collectively-shared experience of having an incredibly short life in the grand scheme of the universe – that’s nothing to minimize either. Good for you, but no justifiable rebuke for me. Or possibly for Yohami (though I don’t know him).

  120. John Nesteutes says:

    Joshua told the people, “Consecrate yourselves, for tomorrow the Lord will do amazing things among you.” (Joshua 3:5, NIV)

    Glad to see Dalrock willing to take active steps for our consecration.

  121. Robin Munn says:

    @Gouv –

    However, Exodus 22 says that if a man sleeps with an unmarried woman, he has to marry her unless her father utterly refuses to allow the marriage. (Exodus 22:16-17). After which, sleeping with another woman would be adultery.

    By the way, you never responded to my response at http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2014/09/20/she-does-what-she-wants-guest-post-by-deti/. Here’s another chance to defend your extraordinary claim (“before you throw the apostolic letters at me, they aren’t binding on us”), for which you offered zero evidence. You do have evidence to back up your assertion, right?

  122. John Nesteutes says:

    I go to church with a reformed playa; sometimes, he and I compare notes on just how bad the depths of our whoremongerings, fornication, and adultery had been. But what matters is that both of us were once sinners, but now walk in righteousness, and we fully believe that an act of fornication or adultery on our part will separate us from God. We don’t do it.

    We are busy winning souls for Jesus’ kingdom, which is not of this world. We are busy discipling young men; his wife is busy discipling young women. We tell these people to turn away from fornication. When they don’t do so, we tell them they aren’t Christians and tell them we will treat them like unbelievers when they show up at our fellowship. Some of them repent from their sins. Others decide following Jesus is too hard, and choose the pleasures of the world in exchange for an eternity of hellfire.

    Come and join us and labour with us. There’s a world full of playas and loose women in need of Jesus. These people are getting saved. I watch it with my own eyes every day.

    (And while all this is going on, the people in my church who have followed God for as long as they can remember… they’re busy with the work of the kingdom, they’re married, they’re busy popping out a new baby every other year or so. God’s church will continue to grow.)

  123. Lyn87 says:

    Obviously Gouv does not have the slightest idea what he’s talking about. The New Testament alone condemns fornication 20 times. We had this discussion a few weeks ago and explored it from every angle. There is simply no possible way to come to the conclusion that sex between unmarried people is not prohibited in both the Old and New Testaments.

    Gouv is either a troll who says wildly incorrect things to stir up trouble or else he is displaying an ignorance of Scripture so profound as to call his literacy into question. Here are three links to a thread from last month where I lay out the scriptures that categorically condemn sex between unmarried men and women:

    here, here, and here.

  124. John Nesteutes says:

    @Gouv

    “It’s not a sin for an unmarried man to have sex with an unmarried woman. It wasn’t banned by Jesus, who only condemned adultery, nor was it even banned by the OT.”

    Leading women into sin places you on par with the serpent in the garden. Turn from your wicked ways and repent.

    Fornication eventually leads to pregnancy and either bastardy or an abortion. I do not plan to stand in front of the judgment seat of God and armchair-lawyer my way out of how I led a woman to commit acts of murder. Nor do I plan to explain how I led one of these littles ones astray; it would be better for me to have a millstone tied around my neck and be drowned in the sea.

    “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord’, will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’ And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

  125. John Nesteutes says:

    @Lyn87

    Be encouraged. I deal with fellows like Gouv all the time. Some of them are repenting of their sin and seeking righteousness.

  126. Mark says:

    @Zelcorpion

    “”Is the Player-lifestyle more virtuous than the conventional Family Man’s? Probably not – on the other hand feminists are only reaping what they have sown,””

    Exactly! Getting ripped off for half of everything that I have worked for as well as alimony,CSP’s,legal bills and having my family’s name dragged through the mud is not worth my time.Booty calls are much less expensive without the BS.

    “”you will be hard-pressed to find a Player who does not believe that traditional relationships are the best way to go for humanity and civilization.””

    Of course! To think otherwise is delusional!

  127. John Nesteutes says:

    @Mark

    Out of curiosity, why do you not marry within your own Orthodox community?

  128. Phillyastro says:

    @Robin Munn @John Nesteutes @Lyn87 – Exodus 22 refers to virgins. Please see my post above about the OT value of maidenhood for unmarried girls. Seducing virgins without marriage was considered a grave sin. Most of the OT’s proscriptions against being with loose women have to do with leading a man to ruin. Just ask many pro athletes about the folly of sleeping with coochie mamas who turn into baby mamas.

  129. John Nesteutes says:

    @Phillyastro

    The New Testament talks about sexual immorality, fornication, adultery, and homosexual acts over and over, and rarely makes any distinctions about whether it’s a man or a woman engaging in the sin. 1 Corinthians speaks gravely about how a man who has sex with a prostitute sins against his own body.

    I, too, spent quite a while convincing myself that my rampant whoremongering was not really a sin in the eyes of God.

    Then I repented.

  130. John Nesteutes says:

    @Phillyastro

    So according to your reading of Paul and others, the choice for a devout Christian is:

    A. Find a chaste woman to marry (as Paul says in your quote, don’t unite with a harlot)
    B. Engage in fornication and be damned
    C. Become celibate

    Since the faithful Christian in the Western world cannot choose A or B, C must be the default choice.

    I know plenty of chaste women and plenty of chaste men. Some of them are busy dating each other right now, but won’t be for long, since they usually end up married within 6 – 12 months of meeting each other.

    Perhaps you would do well to look for faith communities were chastity is valued and where the unchaste are admonished to repent, or else face 1 Corinthians 5.

    A faith community where the men expect their women to uphold 1 Timothy 2:9 and 1 Corinthians 11 would be an excellent place to look. (But watch out – the men will expect each other to uphold Matthew 5.)

  131. Dalrock,

    There is no functional support for a traditional married man. The law, the culture and even the churches are now outright hostile to the traditional view of marriage. I don’t see a man who carefully weighs his true options and elects not to accept modern marriage as a coward. Nor do I see my own marriage and children as a terrible burden, something which causes me to be offended that another man would refuse to suffer a similar fate alongside of me. The man who doesn’t accept modern marriage as a suitable substitute for the real thing isn’t failing me, and he isn’t failing traditional marriage. The heart of the damage to our culture has been done by modern churches in their abandonment of biblical marriage.

    100% agree with all of this…

  132. Mark says:

    @AnonReader

    “”The prenup escape hatch doesn’t exist, it’s been discussed to death here and elsewhere multiple times, some comments have been provided by attornies (at least one of them divorced). Divorce is rare among certain groups in the US – Amish and Orthodox Jewish come to mind – because to do so brings shame onto the man and woman involved, and potential shunning. “”

    The prenup is useless.The judge can overturn them at will.Thanks for mentioning that our divorce rates are lower among us Jews.I would have to agree that the biggest threat is “shunning”….as I stated in my above post about “my family named being dragged through the mud”.I would never let that happen!

    “”Orthodox Judaism has other social and theological controls that keep divorce very low.””

    Yes they do!…….they are called “threats”!

    I see things a lot differently than the Christians posters here.I was raised to respect 2 things.Money & Power.This might seem a bit cold to most people but, to me it is not.My father is one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in Canada.Our family yearly income with interest accrued,investments etc. is equivalent to a “PowerBall Lottery” winning. My point..”to whom much is given,much is required”.This has been drilled into me as far back as I can remember.All of my friends are wealthy beyond most people’s scope of reality…..and they are all single? Imagine that? We all know how family court works.We have seen it first hand and discovered that the best way to win at the game…is not to play it.The only way to collapse the current family court laws is to starve the system.To give you an example of what I am speaking about.Let me introduce you to a good friend of mine.The “most eligible billionaire bachelor in the world””. …….http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Ayre. What do you think his alimony & CSP would be? Would it be worth it? Not in North America! He might get married someday as I might also.But,I will guarantee you it will not be to a Canadian,American,British,Aussie or Kiwi woman.The Anglosphere women can all go straight to hell.There is no reward.It is all risk.A woman could take myself or friends for tens of millions of dollars….and why?……because she has a poosey….she is entitled to it?…..What a crock of shit! Guys like myself understand risk VERY VERY well…..and we also understand stupidity! I have said this on prior threads,and will say it again.If some c*** ever tried pulling this shit on me.She would not make it to court.I would go see some Jewish Mob friends of mine and she would be going for a swim in the Toronto Harbour.That is called justice!….Shalom!

  133. Mark says:

    @JohnNesteutes

    “”Out of curiosity, why do you not marry within your own Orthodox community?””

    Most Orthodox Jews do….or at least they have in the past.I would say that 90% of my Jewish males friends want nothing to do with Jewish women.Since the time I was young,16 or so,I have been constantly paraded by a barrage of Jewish women.That is the way our community works.You want to learn how to network?….learn from a Jew.I do not like Jewish women.Jewish women always want to wear the pants in a relationship.I have tried dating them for years….NO THANKS!

  134. Edwin says:

    Would you whiny bitches stop trying to claim pre-nups are useless? Alright, we get it, you’re all losers who can’t get women, and you want everyone to be as gloomy as you are on the situation, so you try to claim there’s NO way to engage in marriage.
    But the reality is PRE-NUPS CAN LIMIT ALIMONY. The only ways they can be deemed invalid is if not all the money was disclosed or if they’re grossly unfair. Yeah, they don’t effect child placement or child support, but they DO effect alimony. That is important. Being able to prevent a $2,000 a month reward for divorce makes a difference in the marriage/power/commitment equation. Sure, maybe you’ll still have to pay the child support, which could be another $2,000, but just lowering the rewards for divorce by those high amounts make a big difference

  135. desiderian says:

    daniel,

    “Rebuking them does little–just men responding to incentives.”

    If that were true, Yohami would not have requested one.

    The most powerful incentive men respond to is the guidance of a better man.

    Our best men have been negligent in their duty to provide that guidance with courage and truth, most pressingly to women, but also to men.

  136. desiderian says:

    “No true Christian believes he is anything but a sinner.”

    An insight much missed in these Godforsaken days.

    The beginning of wisdom; but not the End.

  137. Mark says:

    @Lyn87

    Great comments fellow Canuck!

    “”Men withdrawing resources en masse is a great danger, especially to women””

    Ah yes! There is a “New” type of female predator that is swinging through the concrete jungles of major Canadian & American cities.She is nothing more than a parasite who preys on the wealth of successful men.With men withdrawing en masse,these women cannot get a date…let alone a husband.No husband,means no alimony or CS.So what is a woman to do? Simple,find a successful sucker and have him charged with “false” sexual assault or rape.Then after he is found guilty you launch a civil lawsuit for legal fees,pain & suffering etc.etc. I am starting to see this happen.It has been going on before but,now it is a “retirement plan”.The new trend in hiring women for secretarial/receptionist work(my new recept.is a 25 yr old man) is to hire the most butt ugly mongrel of a woman to be found.This way when you stand up in front of a judge on a false sexual assault charge you get to plead your case,which is very easy….”Your honor.Seriously would you f*** that”….Judge…”I wouldn’t fuck that with my worst enemies dick….DISMISSED”

  138. desiderian says:

    “(And while all this is going on, the people in my church who have followed God for as long as they can remember… they’re busy with the work of the kingdom, they’re married, they’re busy popping out a new baby every other year or so. God’s church will continue to grow.)”

    Yes, my guess is that this tide will fully turn when keeping up with the Joneses requires it, and enough time has passed and ignorance sown that the horrors of the 20th Century are forgotten.

    The turn against fecundity, and all that engenders it, was an allergic reaction to Hiroshima and Auschwitz and the too teeming masses of humanity thought to have caused them. Old memories fade to make room for new.

  139. desiderian says:

    Rollo,

    “I’d rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.”

    Considering that neither of us managed to die young, it does look like we have much choice, now does it?

  140. oldfashionedfellow says:

    Looks like the inevitable has begun.

    Why 25% of Millennials Will Never Get Married: A new report from Pew Research predicts that more folks under 35 will be single forever. Here’s why…

    http://time.com/3422624/report-millennials-marriage/

  141. oldfashionedfellow says:

    Oh, yes.

    lzozozlzlozzlozzzloozlozolzozo

  142. Dave says:

    @BradA:

    But no amount of righteous acts before my rebirth could change me and no amount of bad acts after my rebirth can kill my spirit again.

    Not true! Not true!

    As a Christian, you are still required to live right:
    Therefore as you have received Christ Jesus the Lord [in humility, in repentance], so walk in Him, Col 2:6

    You are to work out your salvation daily:
    “So then, my beloved, just as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your salvation with fear and trembling” Phil 2:12

    Failure to live right will land you in perdition:
    “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think someone deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God underfoot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified them, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace?”
    Hebrews 10:26-29

    Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will land you in perdition:
    “Whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”
    Mark 3:29

    “If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that.”
    1 john 5:16

    People who were previously saved ended up losing their salvation:
    1. Demas backslid and never recovered:
    “Demas, having loved this present world, has deserted me and gone to Thessalonica;…” 2 Tim 4:10
    [Demas later became a judge in Thessalonica, and probably judged the Christians of those days]
    Before he forsook Paul, Demas was in the ministry with Paul (Philemon 1:24)

    Those who love this world are enemies of God:
    “You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God.”
    James 4:4

    2. Judas also backslid, and was lost:
    “While I was with them, I protected them and kept them safe by that name you gave me. None has been lost except the one doomed to destruction [i.e. Judas] so that Scripture would be fulfilled.” John 17:12

    The so-called “eternal security” is not in line with Scripture.

  143. Gouv says:

    Robin Munn:

    So, even in the case of Exodus 22, there’s no punishment involved, he just has to take responsibility for her.

    It’s ultimately irrelevant anyway, since the OT law isn’t even binding on us to begin with.

    Neither are the apostolic letters, for that matter. Only Jesus’ teachings apply. Something most Christians fail to realize.

  144. Gouv says:

    John Nesteutes:

    For all your dire warnings, you didn’t cite a single line of Jesus’ teachings that condemned sex between an unmarried man and unmarried woman.

    The apostolic letters don’t apply, since they aren’t binding on us, and neither does the OT law.

    And Robin Munn: the other commenter was right in that Exodus 22 only deals with virgins. Hardly applicable if I’m going out and banging girls riding the carousel.

  145. Gouv says:

    Lyn87: read my two comments above. They’re for you too.

  146. earl says:

    “Neither are the apostolic letters, for that matter. Only Jesus’ teachings apply. Something most Christians fail to realize.”

    So I guess during all that time Jesus was with the apostles he didn’t teach them a thing.

  147. Gouv says:

    Teaching them things and their letters being on par with Christ’s teachings are two different things. Besides, nowhere in their commandments to the churches (and the letters, it should be noted, were addressed only to those churches) do they say, “Hey guys, by the way, all that stuff I just told you, Jesus told me to pass it along while He and I were having a chat.”

    Absent such citations, there’s no reason to believe that their letters are on par with Christ. To believe otherwise is stupid, and to be blunt, borderline (if not outright) blasphemy.

  148. desiderian says:

    “Blessed are you when people revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

    You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its taste, how can its saltiness be restored? It is no longer good for anything, but is thrown out and trampled under foot.

    You are the light of the world. A city built on a hill cannot be hid. No one after lighting a lamp puts it under the bushel basket, but on the lampstand, and it gives light to all in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father in heaven.

    Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.

    Matthew 5:11-20

    Gouv, peddle your cheap grace nonsense elsewhere.

    We’ve had our fill and seen the damage done.

  149. @Gouv
    Absent such citations, there’s no reason to believe that their letters are on par with Christ. To believe otherwise is stupid, and to be blunt, borderline (if not outright) blasphemy.

    What happened to 2 Timothy 3:16-17? “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

    You should also take a look at John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

    What about the first three chapters of Revelation? That’s some heavy-duty teaching and it’s obviously the Risen Lord speaking, but with a far different tone than in the synoptic gospels. And then there’s 1st Corinthians 7:10-11. You might try to claim that illustrates your point, but to say that is to create an antinomy with 2nd Timothy 3:16-17.

  150. Gouv says:

    Let’s do this one at a time.

    Earl: if you can establish a relationship between those references to the Holy Spirit and the apostolic letters being binding on all Christians for all time, let me know.

    desiderian: considering that no Christian, my kind or your kind, conducts animal sacrifice and otherwise adheres to the Mosaic law, that’s not exactly an argument you should be using.

    Artisanal Toad: 2 T 3:16-17 is a) written by an apostle, not Christ, which means you’re assuming what you’re trying to prove and b) refers to the OT anyway, since the NT was generations away from being compiled.

    If you can establish John 1:1 as referring to the 66 books of the Protestant canon, let me know. You won’t be able to, since, again, the NT was many years away from compilation. Furthermore, those are John’s words anyway, which means you have to prove why they’re on par with the words of Jesus.

    As for the Revelation reference, remember I said that Jesus’ words counted. It’s the apostles and the OT that don’t.

  151. Steve H says:

    You all can continue this tit for tat yet interesting theological debate wherein you swap scripture citations which burnish your paradigm, and I’ll read it. Y’all have got my attention. But nothing in this discussion will speak to the still sizable, if dwindling, cadre of young men being raised in conservative Christian households who literally cannot avail themselves of the scriptural ‘out’ for burning with lust, and marry, any halfway decent looking woman of commensurate age as they venture into early adulthood (18-23 years old more or less).

    If the culture is this ‘damaged’ for Christians, you really have to parse where a rebuke would and would not be appropriate. I didn’t ‘have’ to do this (because by my late 20s I had gotten it enough together) but when you occasionally see, as I do, a guy in his late 20s or early 30s who could never find a woman who was interested in being a Christian wife, and had never had sex – would you really rebuke him for seeking out a prostitute?

    The theology on the scriptural foundation and/or Christian morality of the matter is largely beside the point.

  152. YOHAMI says:

    Thanks Dalrock, that was the kind of response I was looking for.

    This shy feminist “friend” is a fan of yours and likes to call you an hypocrite on the basis that you attack female promiscuity but remain silent about males. That plus your association with male manwhores, looks to her as an endorsing of male promiscuity, aka patriarchy, aka males who enjoy abusing their sexual power while controlling the female body. Aka rape culture, aka BS.

    Shes too shy to come troll herself and get exposed to a dialogue (harassment in feminist tongue), so I wanted you to provide her proof that there´s no such endorsement from you, or proof that she was right if you had endorsed it. But when is a feminist right?. That sounds like the beginning of a joke.

    Anyway, Im sure she still thinks youre an hypocrite, probably for completely different reasons. WIth Fs the outcome is the same regardless of facts.

  153. earl says:

    “would you really rebuke him for seeking out a prostitute?”

    Yes.

    But I also understand this culture and the damage around. Even still that doesn’t hamster seeking a prostitute as acceptable behavior.

  154. desiderian says:

    Steve H,

    A young Christian woman looking for marriage is rare, but manliness among young Christian males is rarer. Those young Christian women are longing for that powerfully enough to change their tune on marriage to get it. Those young males would be better served to seek out older men who can guide them to manliness than prostitutes who will sour them on women.

    The problem is that those older men, like yourself, mistake the purpose of “rebuking” the younger, and so fail in your vocation to guide them. It is as if a patient went to a doctor complaining of chest pain and the doctor was afraid to diagnose the heart disease since it was likely caused by faulty nutrition advice from the USDA.

    A rebuke is not a judgement of personal value. We all fall short of the Glory of God and stand in need of His Grace. Our value lies not in worldly perfection, indeed it is impeded by imagining one has achieved it in any sense.

  155. Robin Munn says:

    @Gouv –

    I still have seen no evidence from you of your claim that the apostolic letters aren’t binding on us.

    The same church councils that established that these Gospel accounts were Scripture also established that the apostolic letters were Scripture, so you have no logical leg to stand on to argue that the gospels should be treated differently than the apostolic letters.

    So where’s your proof? You’re asserting that the apostolic letters are not binding on us, which flies in the face of two millennia of Christian practice. So you owe us evidence of your assertion; your mere word stating that it’s so is not remotely enough. Please cite evidence, or else if you have no evidence, then stop arguing a logically untenable position.

  156. desiderian says:

    Steve H,

    “The theology on the scriptural foundation and/or Christian morality of the matter is largely beside the point.”

    The church has gone off track before. Ad fontes.

  157. Robin Munn says:

    @Gouv –

    There’s also the 2 Peter 3:15-16 argument to contend with, which you haven’t addressed. This is the apostle Peter saying “Paul’s writings are to be considered on par with the other Scriptures.” Not his own writings — he’s making that claim about Paul, not himself, so it’s not a circular argument. How would you refute the apostle Peter’s claim?

  158. desiderian says:

    “while controlling the female body”

    Would that we were.

    We have failed in our calling to do so.

  159. Lyn87 says:

    Gouv,

    What it boils down to is this: in your view the only parts of scripture that are binding on you are the passages printed in red ink (many Bibles put quotes from Jesus in red). Since you reject everything in the Old Testament and anything written by the apostles, there is really nothing more to it than that. It is pointless to have a theological discussion with someone who rejects 99.999% of what is written in scripture. You can believe what you want, but you are wrong: Jesus himself declared that other portions of scripture were binding on believers. You can continue to call darkness light. You can continue to rationalize fornication. You can pretend that everything that is not specifically condemned in red ink is acceptable. In short… you can play armchair lawyer with us – but when the time comes, you won’t play it with God. You need to stop spreading heresy and repent of it.

  160. Lyn87 says:

    Steve H writes,

    The theology on the scriptural foundation and/or Christian morality of the matter is largely beside the point.

    Scripture and Christian morality are never “beside the point”… THEY ARE THE POINT.

  161. desiderian says:

    gouv,

    “desiderian: considering that no Christian, my kind or your kind, conducts animal sacrifice and otherwise adheres to the Mosaic law, that’s not exactly an argument you should be using.”

    I should be using? It’s right there in red letters. You’d best take that up with the Man Himself.

  162. @Steve H
    when you occasionally see, as I do, a guy in his late 20s or early 30s who could never find a woman who was interested in being a Christian wife, and had never had sex – would you really rebuke him for seeking out a prostitute?

    Yes, because of 1st Corinthians 6:16. Choose you this day whom you will serve and if you’re going to call yourself a Christian, act like one. 1st John 2:3-6 applies. If you call yourself a Christian but don’t keep His commandments then you’re a liar and the truth is not in you.

    You’re talking about guys growing up in conservative Christian households, but there’s nothing to stop them from improving themselves and becoming more attractive to women. Learning game is all about understanding women and what works and what doesn’t. Being successful is all about maximizing what you’ve got and improving over time. Many of the young Christian boys/men I meet are simply not attractive to young women.

    In my family, four of my nephews are being raised (with very dominant mothers) to be hard-corp omegas who will, in all likelihood, never find a wife worth having. Why? Well, who would want them? All of them are at least 40-50 pounds overweight and they’ve had a blue pill stuffed down their throats every day of their lives. Interestingly, both of their mothers have a degree in psychology. All conservative Christians, they fill their spare time playing computer games and (probably) fapping to porn. Their parents are all at least 50 pounds overweight, at least one is 100 pounds overweight. Both the fathers were Deltas before they blimped.

    (All four of them have been warned about me and told not to listen to any advice I give them)

    Are these the kind of lads you’re talking about? Or are you decrying the carousel riders who will be unsuitable for marriage? Or is it the feminist infection that means the woman won’t want to do what the Bible tells her to do?

    It doesn’t matter: none of that gives one the right to call themselves a Christian and then be a whoremonger. This kind of logic is worthy of a woman.

  163. greyghost says:

    A young Christian woman looking for marriage is rare, but manliness among young Christian males is rarer. Those young Christian women are longing for that powerfully enough to change their tune on marriage to get it. Those young males would be better served to seek out older men who can guide them to manliness than prostitutes who will sour them on women.

    Me personally those Christian men are only being taught churchianship. Think about where they are coming from the same church the “christian” women are coming from getting the same message they are. The feminine imperative fully implanted into their being. I agree that some education on the nature of women with some uncensored red pill including the feminine sermons the pastor of the very church they attend has been giving them.

  164. Lyn87 says:

    Mark,

    Thanks. However… I’m not Canadian, although I have been to Canada many times.

  165. earl says:

    As far as Christian men not being attractive to women I see it too. They degrade themselves, are overweight, have slumped shoulders, and don’t have anything resembling a spark in them. It’s not the fact they are Christian which makes them unattractive…it is the fact they aren’t masculine. If they embraced the Holy Spirit and acted more like the true man, Jesus, they would be masculine.

    Much like a female that isn’t feminine…a male that isn’t masculine is unattractive.

  166. greyghost says:

    Earl

    As far as Christian men not being attractive to women I see it too. They degrade themselves, are overweight, have slumped shoulders, and don’t have anything resembling a spark in them. It’s not the fact they are Christian which makes them unattractive…it is the fact they aren’t masculine. If they embraced the Holy Spirit and acted more like the true man, Jesus, they would be masculine.

    This comes from the idea that to be Christian is to be meek and nice. Throw in feminism and churchianship and you have a well conditioned fairy nobody respects. The sad thing is these men are sociable types that will behave with masculinity if it is taught because those guys are beta nice guys that aim to be seen as good men. We just need to redefine “good” in a way that incorporates red pill reality.

  167. Phillyastro says:

    @John Nesteutes – Where in my posts did I once consider “rampant whoremongering was not really a sin in the eyes of God?” I have mentioned many times the pitfalls of consorting with harlots. One doesn’t need the Good Book or St. Paul to know this fact. Nevertheless, my only point in commenting here was that marrying a harlot is a sin and stupid too (See St. Paul in 1 Corinthians and Hosea).

    Too many commenters here get so tied up in the letter of the Scripture they commit the faults of the Pharisees following the law to a fault.

  168. earl says:

    The idea of a Christian being nice is a false one for sure. In fact telling the truth to others is usually not very nice when you get down to it.

    Meek can have different meanings if you look it up. There is the submissive, non-arguing part. There is also this.

    “enduring injury with patience and without resentment”

    Which is the type of meek Jesus showed.

    Good means treating others like you want to be treated. Be polite but don’t kiss ass and rebuke falsehoods whenever they come.

  169. Lyn87 says:

    AT,

    That’s too bad about your nephews. Their parents are hobbling them from the cradle. Domineering mothers? Check. And not only domineering, but dumb: Christianity and psychology are fundamentally incompatible, and you know which one they’re going to default to when they are in conflict. So it’s not only that they think they know a lot about what makes humans tick, but they don’t realize that nearly everything they “know” is wrong. Not just useless, but worse than useless.

    Obviously their fathers aren’t up to the job either, since they are blue-pill wimps who married domineering women… and the entire bunch is morbidly obese. Yikes. Those dudes don’t stand much of a chance. I see something similar playing out with one of my own nephews-in-law, although he gets some occasional prodding by the rest of us. Otherwise he has most of the markings of a “failure to launch.” However, he met a gamer-girl in Azeroth (some of you know what that is), and she’s apparently very nice and responsible. She has to be: she’s caring for two disabled relatives full-time. She’s also a Christian, and they have met in person a couple of times. It has caused him to come out of his shell a bit, too. So despite all the damage his parents did to him, he may have the last laugh after all.

  170. Bee says:

    @AT,

    “In my family, four of my nephews are being raised (with very dominant mothers) to be hard-corp omegas who will, in all likelihood, never find a wife worth having.”

    This is a very important point. When Christian wives are non-submissive or “mutually submissive” the kids get damaged. All the more reason church leaders need to start speaking out against female rebellion.

  171. @Greyghost, @earl

    Earl, the question wasn’t about whether Christian men are nice, but rather masculine. The culture has defined masculinity in terms of the bad boy and the thug, so by definition, the Christian can’t be the bad boy or the thug and therefore can’t be masculine. Lack of masculinity means lack of gina tingles. Even the most committed of Christian young women want the tingles.

    Dozens of times I’ve gamed women (just playing with them), but it was difficult in the beginning because I didn’t want things to go too far. Now, I can play as rough as I want because I have discovered the secret to triggering a womans anti-slut defense is to announce I’m a Christian and ask if they are. Bang! Instant attraction killer, gina tingles terminated instantly. You can see it in their eyes and in their body language as they cease contact and open the space between you.

    In terms of this culture, announcing you’re a Christian is to say “I’m not the man you’re looking for.”

    I encourage anyone who doesn’t believe me to try it for themselves. Be careful though, because this technique guarantees you a LJBF position, instantly. If I had to describe it, I’d call it the ultimate anti-game. At the same time it’s amazing how much interest I get from married women in church who are terminally bored and contemptuous of their husband. This is where the hysterical pushback to teaching red-pill knowledge comes from, that and the about-to-be cuckolded husband that’s in denial.

  172. Lyn87 says:

    Earl and Greyghost,

    I was thinking along those lines but you both beat me to it. Churchianity has taken good concepts like meekness, kindness, and turning the other cheek, and turned them into a generalized command to be wimpy… to never make anyone uncomfortable – which is not the point at all. Jesus made plenty of people uncomfortable. In fact, if you encounter Him and He doesn’t make you uncomfortable there’s probably something seriously wrong with you. John the Baptist blasted the hypocrites of his day (Matthew 3: 7-12 is blistering), and Jesus Himself declared, “Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist” (Matthew 11:11a).

    A young Christian man ought to be ready to throw down on doctrine, engage in spiritual warfare, and be a strong leader to a wife and children by the time he’s an adult. But churches demand the opposite: don’t be a “Pharisee,” “spiritual warfare isn’t real,” and “mutual submission” are the order of the day. I have encountered all three. If I go more than a few months without somebody calling me “pharisee” or “unloving” I start to worry about whether I’m doing my job as a Christian man. Even most hard-line Christian denominations don’t really believe in spiritual warfare (a story for another day, perhaps), and you can find entire shelves full of books at “Christian” book stores that tell men to prostrate themselves at the feet of their wives… or even women in general.

    “We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise.”
    – C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man

  173. earl says:

    Well do you serve God or gina tingles?

  174. Novaseeker says:

    Why so much whining about Dalrock’s rebuke (notably not whining by Yohami, of course)? Dalrock has simply stated Christian teaching on the issue, full stop. People who claim to be Christian need to follow it … lest they cease being Christian. For those who have put sex and women before following Christ, of course you will think the rebuke is stupid or silly or mean — it isn’t. If you are a young man who isn’t getting traction with women, then, yes, you must be celibate if you wish to claim to be a Christian. Yes, you may make a mistake and so on but you must repent of it and seek to not repeat it if you claim to be a follower of Christ. That’s Christianity 101 — it surely can’t be controversial (other than for oddballs who consider only the Gospels to be “binding”, and therefore put themselves squarely outside Christ’s Church and following their own heretical pseudo-religion).

    ——

    As for pre-nups and whiny bitches bitching about fucking pre-nups, because I’m not a whiny bitch man .. and similar comments.,

    I am a lawyer. Pre-nups are generally most likely to be enforced when it comes to pre-marital assets — that is, a pile of valuable stuff you have prior to the relationship. If you have such a pile, look into a pre-nup and do it right with a full, arm’s length business negotiation, cold-eyed and nothing personal, many months in advance of the wedding and with full and vigorous representation of counsel on both sides. If you don’t have such a pile, a pre-nup likely won’t be of much value to you at all. In some states, it may save you some on alimony if alimony is an issue for you, but in most cases alimony is not a key issue because of one or more of the following: (1) the state you are in limits alimony or only awards rehabilitative alimony, (2) husband and wife have similar incomes and wife isn’t a SAHM. If, however, you live in a punitive alimony state (say California or Massachusetts), and your wife is a SAHM and/or you blow her out in terms of income, then, yes, try a pre-nup for that, but be aware that it is questionable that such a state would enforce a pre-nup which excludes or severely limits alimony precisely because it runs entirely counter to the public policy of the state. The risk of non-enforcement decreases if you make the agreement more “reasonable” — meaning you don’t exclude all alimony, but you use an alternative formula which has a reasonable basis, and that basis is disclosed and explained in the pre-nup — worth a try, probably, if you have a big income, your future wife has a much smaller income (or you plan to SAHM it after getting married), and you live in a punitive alimony state.

    Most guys aren’t in the situation where they have a big old pile of valuable assets prior to marriage, and if we are honest most guys aren’t blowing out their wives income-wise either. For most guys, the biggest hits in the divorce are from CS and the property settlement (i.e., division of marital property, which is often heavily influenced by child custody rulings). That stuff is not really variable in an enforceable way by a pre-nup: the court does what it thinks is in the best interests of the children, regardless of what a pre-nup may say.

    Note, although I am a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and anyone seeking legal advice should consult a lawyer admitted to practice in the jurisdiction where they live.

  175. earl says:

    @ Lyn

    He offended Pharisees constantly…but it didn’t matter to Him for speaking the truth is more important.

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+15+%3A+1-14&version=NASB

  176. Novaseeker says:

    when you occasionally see, as I do, a guy in his late 20s or early 30s who could never find a woman who was interested in being a Christian wife, and had never had sex – would you really rebuke him for seeking out a prostitute?

    Yes, because it is sinful to do so, and avoiding sin is more important than satisfying your lust. Of course, everyone makes mistakes and sins. But the proper course there is to recognize the sin and repent of it, not justify the sin because of the circumstances in which it was committed.

  177. earl says:

    “Lack of masculinity means lack of gina tingles. Even the most committed of Christian young women want the tingles.”

    You know how I get tingles out of feminists…telling them the God honest truth. Stuff some weak kneed mangina, smooth talking serpent, or white knight won’t say. I keep thinking they’ll hate me for it and leave me alone but they keep coming back for more.

  178. hurting says:

    TFH says:
    September 24, 2014 at 5:12 pm

    Excellent observation that few fail to appreciate.

    In Marriage 2.0, there is no longer a distribution of quality of marriages, just a dichotomy of 1.)heaven on earth – just like in the movies – soulmates forever 2.) any and everything less than #1; every instance of #2 is grounds for divorce regardless.

  179. earl says:

    “But the proper course there is to recognize the sin and repent of it, not justify the sin because of the circumstances in which it was committed.”

    Correct…one is facing the problem head on, the other is unleashing the hamster.

  180. @earl
    Well do you serve God or gina tingles?

    As Rollo puts it, “Desire cannot be negotiated.” She’s either attracted to the guy or she isn’t, and she can’t control her limbic system. The question is not between serving God or gina tingles, the question is how to *faithfully* serve God and still be able to generate tingles in the women you might be interested in. Perhaps your problem is you spend your time communicating with feminists.

    I made the observation that due to what I believe are cultural issues regarding how masculinity and masculine dominance are perceived, announcing one is a Christian is tantamount to clearly stating one is incapable of providing the masculine dominance the woman wants and craves. How does one solve that problem?

    Perhaps the solution is to develop an open source training manual for teaching churchian young men how to become Godly, Masculine Christians. Aim it specifically at the problems described on this blog. I’m quite sure there are enough people here with the experience and wisdom to do so. Forget about bringing the women into line, as somebody pointed out upthread, if there’s enough attraction they’ll change their tune. There’s certainly enough information available for free in virtually every area (bodybuilding, PUA, Game, Skills Development), to the point the problem is there’s no way to cut through the chaff.

    The red-pill can be very, very bitter if one has thoroughly internalized a blue-pill worldview. Best to start them young with quality material right about puberty. By the time they’re sophmores in HS, they’ll have been able to see the red-pill truths too many times to deny them and they’ll actively reject blue-pill teachings after that. Wise counsel at that time would encourage them to focus on developing their mission and working toward it with a program of self-improvement. By the time they’re 22-23 they should be ready to get married and easily pull a high-quality 18-19 year old girl, marry her and start putting buns in the oven. Or not.

  181. earl says:

    “the question is how to *faithfully* serve God and still be able to generate tingles in the women you might be interested in.”

    From what I can ascertain about women…the minute you become interested in them is when the tingles go away.

    Stay interested in serving God, doing a mission, hanging out with the fellas, and getting good at a hobby…and she can climb aboard the train if her limbric system is telling her she is interested.

  182. Don says:

    All I can say as far as feminism goes ” HERE COMES HILLARY WATCH OUT”!!!

  183. desiderian says:

    Artisanal Toad,

    “I made the observation that due to what I believe are cultural issues regarding how masculinity and masculine dominance are perceived, announcing one is a Christian is tantamount to clearly stating one is incapable of providing the masculine dominance the woman wants and craves.”

    This is known as disqualification, a common game tactic. As with any disqualification, if delivered with a gleam in the eye, it will enhance attraction, not detract from it. Agreeing and amplifying her intellectually lazy bigotry can have a similar effect.

    “Perhaps the solution is to develop an open source training manual for teaching churchian young men how to become Godly, Masculine Christians.”

    Good. This promptly proactive turn of thought is a prime example of the manliness required. This is what Tradcons are trying to convey in their advice on the matter. Unfortunately, in all but the best, their actions have betrayed their words.

    “Forget about bringing the women into line, as somebody pointed out upthread, if there’s enough attraction they’ll change their tune.”

    Well, the bringing women into line is part of the manliness. It is what they’re seeking. The manner is all important. Observe the tone with which Dal rebuked Yohami, or Novaseeker the thread. Cool, in control, superior*. With women, the latter satisfies the hypergamy; the former, the preselection/social proof**, and generates the attraction.

    *- note how they accomplish this without snark or arrogance. Those are accidental, not essential, to the dominance women seek.

    ** – the control of the emotions only comes with experience or socio/psychopathy

    “The red-pill can be very, very bitter if one has thoroughly internalized a blue-pill worldview.”

    At this point, their experience with the blue-pill worldview is apt to have provided plenty of bitterness for them already. In our day, it still retained some of its promised effectiveness. Not so for the rising generation. There is no saltiness left in it.

    “Best to start them young with quality material right about puberty. By the time they’re sophmores in HS, they’ll have been able to see the red-pill truths too many times to deny them and they’ll actively reject blue-pill teachings after that.”

    As a (part-time) teacher, I see this already happening. It has been for some time.

    “Or not.”

    Those are in God’s hands. There is plenty of fertile soil to till.

  184. desiderian says:

    “considering that no Christian, my kind or your kind, conducts animal sacrifice and otherwise adheres to the Mosaic law”

    There is only one kind. We are commanded to offer up our very animal bodies as a living sacrifice to our Lord and Savior; to surpass the Mosaic law* as the Holy Spirit empowers us to do so, but never to knowingly fall short of it. If we do, to repent; not to continue living in sin, let alone to advocate it.

    * – see the six antitheses from Matthew 5 for examples Jesus Himself provides.

  185. Leonidas says:

    And what is really funny is that in Gods version there is no contract any where. What contract did Adam have with Eve? Or Abraham that with Sarah? Or Solomon with his wives? We need to go back to what the men in the bible where doing, have a wife if need be a concubine. If not we have what ewe have now, promiscuity, “swinger lifestyle” etc. All because the example in the bible are not uhm “good enough” or “relevant” according to this godless western standard that pretends to be “civilized” and “progressing”.

  186. Leonidas says:

    Higher standards… You mean be “fruitful and multiply and fill all the earth”? Because that is Gods standard. We forget that that is the primary function for sex above all else. But now we have added our own complications to it. So yes you are right, God’s standard is needed indeed.

  187. Leonidas says:

    Oh but its okay for us to get into contracts with banks that have one sided and extremely lopsided contracts where we can practically lose everything. Okay I see who the courts are working for.

  188. Leonidas says:

    Why should there be contracts in the first place? Seriously, did you get into a contract with your friends? No, but you know them longer and have relationships which are easier to manage, but with the spouse now we sign papers? Cmon people, the bible says we should not make any promises. I just don’t get why people have been so blind to the marriage contract and the “vows”…. Mentioned no where in the Bible

  189. Leonidas says:

    And it serves the man right, why get into a contract with a woman over sex?… Isn’t that the definition of prostitution? Just because it is sanctioned by the “church” doesn’t mean it is biblical.

  190. Leonidas says:

    There should be no marriage vows, women will only behave when they no that the man has no obstacle stopping him from leaving her when she is being a nuisance, but give her a guarantee and she will drive him insane. If you told a criminal that there would be no consequences for their crimes what do you think will happen to the crime rate? It will increase.

    BTW there is no such thing as “biblical wedding vows”. Please show me where that scripture is.

  191. Leonidas says:

    Finally someone who gets it.

  192. Leonidas says:

    A nation that has forsaken God is doomed anyways, like team ‘Murica’. So sleep easy.

  193. Leonidas says:

    Gouv you have find the source of this marriage carousel. It is funny that no where is sex between unmarried people condemned. Literally no where.

  194. Lyn87 says:

    Leonidas says, “You mean be “fruitful and multiply and fill all the earth”? Because that is Gods standard. We forget that that is the primary function for sex above all else.”

    To which my reply is, [Source?] The Bible certainly doesn’t say anything of the kind. And it’s funny that you mentioned Abrahams’ wife Sarah in your post a mere five minutes earlier. It seems that you may have been the one to forget something… Sarah was barren her entire life until God performed a miracle to open her womb (and the two of them had sex while knowing she was barren). My wife has been barren her entire life, should I pick up another one? Got any cute daughters who want to be a concubine?

    As for “Be fruitful and multiply” – God said that exactly twice. Both times were in Genesis: the first time the world’s population was two and the other time was right after the flood and the world’s population was eight.

    As for solemnizing a marriage with an exchange of promises… I don’t see a problem with it. The Bible declares ongoing obligations for both spouses anyway, so a ceremony to declare a state of matrimony entails promises whether anyone likes it or not, and even whether the promises are spoken or not. But such an exchange serves the useful purposes of differentiating marriage from shacking up, and eliminating any ambiguity as to what was agreed to.

  195. Gouv says:

    desiderian:

    No matter how much you try to spin it, the simple fact is that you, like every other Christian, don’t follow the Mosaic Law. When was the last time you performed a Temple sacrifice? Exactly. Are you willing to admit, then, that you’re not doing the right thing either?

    It’s all irrelevant anyway, since the OT doesn’t ban sex between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman. The closest it comes to doing so is in Exodus 22, where if a man slept with a VIRGIN, he had to marry her. Nothing there about non-virgin females.

  196. Gouv says:

    Regarding your last comment, the above post still applies.

    As you said, it’s right there in red letters, so if Jesus meant for us to adhere to the Mosaic Law, then this ‘offering up our bodies as sacrifices’ is not a substitute. Where did Jesus say it WAS a substitution.

    Also, I only used sacrifices as one example. There are hundreds of laws in the Pentateuch. And you (undoubtedly) follow next to none of them.

    Like I said, it doesn’t matter regarding the subject at hand, since sex between two unmarried, unrelated people is not banned in the OT, especially if the girl is not a virgin.

    I only quibble with you on this because it’s annoying to see you attempt to act like you’re not being an utter hypocrite here, sanctimoniously talking about following the Mosaic Law when you yourself don’t fucking follow it.

    Get some fucking integrity, bitch.

  197. Lyn87 says:

    Gouv continues to be obtuse. Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law, which is why we no are longer bound by its rituals. But the Law is a teacher, and Jesus was very clear that the morality it pointed to was still binding. The words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount leave no ambiguity, (unless one is looking for an excuse to try to out-lawyer the Lawgiver of the Universe):

    “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven – Matthew 5: 17-20

    Got it yet? The Law can be fulfilled, and there is no indication that it was all going to be fulfilled at once. Jesus fulfilled those portions of the Law that pertain to sacrifices and rituals, but the moral aspects of the Law remain unfulfilled – and thus currently binding – because immorality still exists (which is why Jesus stipulated that the Law would eventually end when all of it was fulfilled at the end of time). So not only has Gouv rejected everything not in red ink in his Bible, but he’s now taking his bottle of white-out to some of the red ink as well.

  198. Pingback: Monomania, projection, and goggles | Something Fishy

  199. John Nesteutes says:

    @Gouv

    Since fornication is acceptable in your worldview, what should be done with the children of these unions?

    North America has a culture where 80% of babies are born out of wedlock. According to you, this is a wonderful, non-sinful thing.

    I think you might be a feminist.

  200. Mark says:

    @Lyn87

    Sorry,I thought you were Canadian..

    “”Christ fulfilled the Mosaic Law, which is why we no are longer bound by its rituals””

    You are referring to the 10 Commandments?……Correct? When I walk into a Pastor friends Christian Church,he has the 10 Commandments framed and hanging on the wall in his office.I am under the assumption that Christians(most) try to adhere to the Commandments on a daily basis.I am not sure that I understand your post.

  201. desiderian says:

    “When was the last time you performed a Temple sacrifice?”

    Week ago Sunday, roughly 11:50. We had some baptisms so were running behind.

    “Exactly.”

    Your best bet is probably the organist there. She keeps a pretty close eye on the time.

    “Are you willing to admit, then, that you’re not doing the right thing either?”

    Aye. I am a sinner standing in need of the grace of God. I often fail to do the right thing. I’m not so solipsistic, however, as to imagine that my behavior changes the thing itself.

    “the OT doesn’t ban”

    Bans never have done much other than, it seems, served as a challenge to defy them.

    The example of better men… now… that, that has power.

    Christ is the best.

  202. Lyn87 says:

    Mark,

    Gouv is offering his “learned” opinion that failure to follow the rituals of the Old Testament Law (which includes not only the 10 Commandments, but more than 600 items – mostly rituals and pertaining to sacrifices), while adhering to the moral aspects of the Old Testament Law makes a Christian a hypocrite and a “bitch.”

    it’s a common tactic/mistake among people who know little of the Bible or Christianity who are looking for a loophole to sin. Most Christians run into this sort of thing on a regular basis by people who think that they have discovered some “flaw” in Christianity that we can’t explain. It’s just Freshman-level reasoning… dorm-room bull-session philosophizing. I can’t count the number of times I’ve heard someone throw this out as if they thought it was a trump card. In fact, it is easily refuted. I suspect even Gouv knows how weak his “argument” is from a Biblical perspective, so he attempts to insulate his point-of-view by declaring that only the words of Jesus Himself (often printed in red ink in Bibles) are worthy. That’s why I explained it as I did.

    My point was not that the 10 Commandments are not binding – they are. But what neophytes like Gouv try to do is to lump the parts of the Law that have been fulfilled and are no longer in force (like Temple rituals and animal sacrifices) with the parts of the Law that have not yet been fulfilled (moral laws) and are thus still binding. Then they accuse Christians of being hypocrites for obeying the parts of the law that apply to them and not the parts that do not.

    But since Gouv claims to accept the authority of Jesus, I was showing him that his “argument” is invalid by quoting what Jesus Himself said about the subject. Jesus Himself claimed to be the fulfillment of the Law. He fulfilled the ritual/sacrificial part the first time He was here two millennia ago (by His death and resurrection), and He’ll fulfill the rest the next time He comes (when the moral books will be balanced in the final judgement).

  203. pancakeloach says:

    D&C abortions are not specifically forbidden by the Bible either. Since the Bible doesn’t say anything about the various modern abortion methods, is it fine for pregnant women to visit the abortionist as long as he doesn’t kill the infant by getting into a fight and accidentally striking the pregnant woman? Jesus doesn’t personally forbid women from getting a poisonous saline solution injected into their wombs, you know! So there’s the solution to Gouv’s fornication-produced bastards: just abort them, because Jesus never said you couldn’t. /sarc /disgusted

    Mark, I will leave Lyn87 to write a more thorough explanation if he wishes, but you’d do well to look up the difference between moral law, ceremonial law, and civil law. Mosaic Law includes all three types, and it’s the moral law of the 10 Commandments that is binding on Christians today. Ceremonial law and civil law are case studies and precedents to be used when trying to figure out how to apply the big principles of the moral law to life in general. Such as: put a railing on your deck, so that people don’t fall off it and die. Pitched roofs that aren’t used as living spaces don’t need railings, since nobody goes up there; and in fact, railings on pitched roofs actually make it MORE dangerous for repairmen to work, because they have to access the pitched roof via temporary multistory ladder rather than from inside. Snow isn’t a big issue in Palestine, so we don’t have an example of “sand/salt your shoveled sidewalk after it snows” in the Bible either, even though it’s obviously a safe extension of the moral principle of “don’t set up accidents waiting to happen” that’s seen in Israel’s civil laws.

  204. pancakeloach says:

    Haha, typing at the same time… what he said.😉

    Ditto on having seen that tactic over… and over… and over… and over again, usually used by people who think they’re cleverer than they are and who don’t realize that they’ve just taken a great big sparkling sticker labeled “IGNORAMUS,” stuck it to their own foreheads, and then paraded smugly around like it’s some kind of amazing accomplishment. Their “amazing insight” has usually been refuted for roughly 1800 years.

  205. Lyn87 says:

    I suppose I ought to add that I did not have to answer Gouv as I did. His accusations are invalid anyway. The Bible is clear about the fulfillment of the ritual aspects of the Law – the Apostle Paul wrote about it quite a bit in Romans, among other places… and he wasn’t alone in doing so. In general, Protestants accept the doctrine of “sola scriptura” (only scripture): we accept that the Bible contains everything needed for Christianity, and that everything in it is true, and that some things in it are conditional (which is clearly spelled out in the case of the Old Testament Law).

    But Gouv only accepts one of those three statements – he thinks that the Bible contains everything pertaining to Christianity, but he also thinks that 99.999% of it is unreliable. Then he calls people hypocrites who accept all of it, because we accept that the conditional parts are… well… conditional, while he thinks we should only accept the 0.0001% that he approves of. Obviously he’s no scholar, nor does he understand the definition of the word “hypocrite,” or he would realize how absurd his use of the word was.

  206. Gunner Q says:

    Gouv @ September 25, 2014 at 6:40 am:
    “[Apostles] Teaching them things and their letters being on par with Christ’s teachings are two different things. … Absent such citations, there’s no reason to believe that their letters are on par with Christ.”

    You must have been a riot in school, Gouv. “You can’t call this math! These are not the words of Isaac Newton and Rene Descartes! You didn’t invent math, teacher, so math and what you say is math are two different things! Time for history class…”

    Look, if you don’t want to be a Christian then just walk away. Don’t twist the Bible by claiming Christ’s chosen apostles didn’t know what they were talking about. You damn yourself by simultaneously acknowledging God and denying his sovereignty.

    Gouv @ September 24, 2014 at 5:45 pm:
    “It’s not a sin for an unmarried man to have sex with an unmarried woman. It wasn’t banned by Jesus, who only condemned adultery, nor was it even banned by the OT.”

    Gouv @ September 25, 2014 at 6:02 am:
    “John Nesteutes:
    For all your dire warnings, you didn’t cite a single line of Jesus’ teachings that condemned sex between an unmarried man and unmarried woman.”

    Would this be the Jesus quoted in Matthew 5:28 saying, “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart”?

    Let’s bring your heresy into the open, Gouv. Ephesians 5:3… did God mean that, did He change His mind afterwards or was it slipped in against His omniscient, omnipotent will?

  207. retrophoebia says:

    Zelcorpion early on was right on the money.

    “@Crowhill – you will be hard-pressed to find a Player who does not believe that traditional relationships are the best way to go for humanity and civilization. In fact the entire Manosphere – from the Traditionalistis, MGTOWs, MRAs to the PUAs agrees on that point. Most Players are just rejecting it in current times and embarking on a different route – at least for a while.”

    I won’t claim to be a player or a MRA or a PUA. Maybe more of a self-improvement-inclined guy, with self-improvement oriented around social interactions.

    I would be happy – ecstatic in fact – to find a woman who
    1) isn’t and won’t get fat
    2) lowish N, attractive – say early-to-mid 20s
    3) is somewhat feminine and caring
    4) intelligent to the point of having moderately interesting conversations now and again
    5) wants to get married

    But I haven’t run into one yet. Not a one, since High School, less one that’s actually interested in me. I know they must be out there; I see them, and they’ve got rings on. Maybe my game just sucks and I need to spend more time at bars and clubs approaching, and building rapport, and being a great guy, right?

    I have run into women who are really into me, but are risky bets. Talented 19yos observant Christians who recoil at the thought of a relationship. So now I don’t tell them I want a relationship. 24yo atheists who have the future ghosts of their moms’ huge asses. But I’ve learned that a serious discussion about religion is not something most women can handle, and they can’t change genetics or ingrained lifestyle habits. Charming, caring 26&27 yos… who have a history, a few tats, and looking to upgrade the boob implants. The 25yo professional woman who said she was pro-choice… and then later bore that out by murdering the child of her fiance against his wishes. 28,29,30 yos who are well past their prime, showing the beginnings of desperesignation.

    Maybe I’m an outlier. Maybe it’s me. Maybe my situation is my due for living a somewhat transient (mostly work-related) lifestyle. Maybe it’s my obviously repulsive personality. But I make money, am regularly compared to a couple A-listers (for looks), and have a top Ivy business education along with some interesting experiences. One might be forgiven for asking ‘why isn’t this guy married?’

    It’s not for lack of looking. I believe in the old model, but it just doesn’t exist for me. Maybe I blew my 20s. Who knows.

    But whatever the cause, it means that my options, according to Dalrock, are now:
    1) Living a life of sin
    2) Having no relationships with the opposite sex; e.g. social subsistence coming from casual and superficial male relationships. Tried local dancing; tried Church; tried some other meet-up groups, gyms… coffee shops are the best places to meet someone. But that’s a grab bag, because you don’t know what you’re getting. Just hope the pheromones match up.

    It’s not a happy place to be in. I’d go so far as to say I hate it, but looking around, the odds are that I will never marry. In this case I’ll take the occasional (though sincere) embrace over the moral high ground. The alternative is coming home alone all the time, spending too many nights drunk, staring at the walls of my apartment, and contemplating the 9mm in my nightstand.

    And to the ladies left heartbroken or disillusioned behind? Sorry. I told you early I wasn’t going to get married to you. But you didn’t listen because it felt so good.

  208. I’ve been thinking about the original post and the underlying problems it reveals with respect to the modern sexual market and marriage market. I’ve never seen a discussion of this before with respect to the Christian perspective, so here goes.

    The dating pool I deal with is typically 35 to 40. We aren’t talking about women who might be virgins. In that cohort, everything is damaged goods and the only question is how damaged (I’ll make an exception for chaste widows and unicorns). The younger guys who are able to pull the late-teen to early twenties women might have a chance at getting a virgin. In both cases I’m going to assume the man in question has done what he could to maximize his SMV and MMV.

    When I first started learning game I quickly found the women expect a dominant, high-value man to find and push their boundaries. It’s a lethal shit test for Christian guys because the Christian women expect it too. Refuse to play the game and you’ve just disqualified yourself. The way it works is you’re supposed to push to find their boundaries and then test those boundaries. Once the game starts it has to be the woman who shuts it down or the guy loses his frame. Two traps here for those who choose to play the game: First, what if they don’t have any boundaries and it gets out of hand? Second, when you hit a hard boundary you have to handle it like a boss, not a beta.

    One never knows when the woman will say no and if the guy wants to keep his frame he has to keep pushing. What happens when the clothes come off? About the only way I know of for the *guy* to shut it down at the last second while still retaining his frame is to go nuclear: Once enough of the clothes are off, back off, shake the head and say “I can’t do this. You’ll need to lose at least (minimum 10, adjust to the woman’s body) pounds first. I’m sorry, but I have standards.” That’s rough, right? (Better be filming it, boy!) Well, there’s a good chance she’ll come back in a few months xx pounds lighter, but it might go the other way and she’s so offended she files a false rape charge. So, how to get the *woman* to shut it down even if she wants to have sex, without breaking frame? Ask her if she’s a Christian.

    Once I’d learned enough game I was flat-out amazed at how far and how fast I could take things, especially with reasonably attractive women in the 35-40 range. I didn’t want to have sex with them but I wanted to practice getting them to the point where I knew it would be on the menu. I was far more interested in the process of getting there than the prize for getting there. The younger generation is learning game and internalizing it. Up in the middle-aged cohort most of the women have no clue.

    The thing about boundary hunts is they have to be sexual in nature. Kissing her, putting the hands in the hair for a little controlling dominance, Suggestive touching. Active participation? Now we ramp it up and slowly slide the hand up her back under her blouse. She knows what’s coming, she just wants to find out if you’ll do it. Good so far? Unhook her bra while making strong eye contact and the smirk slowly starts. If they don’t object they’re probably OK with a little breast-play. The smirk grows as you put your hand inside their sleeves and grab the straps off their shoulders. Their eyes go wide as they realize that instead of just getting underneath the bra, you’re removing the bra.

    About half the time it works for me, but in my experience that’s the Rubicon. If they let me pull their bra off, sex is on the menu. It’s pure crack for the hamster to pull the bra off while keeping the shirt on. If she won’t take the bra off, she’s indicating a boundary. If she immediately re-hooks the bra it’s a victory for you. Shit test passed with a hard boundary that got pushed. If she leaves the bra unhooked it means she wants the escalation to go slower but she still wants an attempt made on the boobage which she can either allow or slap down. How far will you go? In that case start slowly unbuttoning or pulling up the blouse. If they won’t allow that, victory. No means no, she called it, so end it there and tell her you’ll be in touch. For those who allow you to expose a loosened bra barely containing the goodies, proceed as if they’d taken off their bra. It’s the same thing.

    For those that no longer have a bra, pull them onto your lap. Strong eye contact, hands suggestively on her waist, serious expression, “Before I dive in, just one question. Are you a Christian? I’d hate to violate your beliefs or anything like that.”

    My experience is it’s an instant system shutdown, every single time.

    I figure it’s the nuclear ASD button with a bit of slut-shaming thrown in for good measure. After they react, look at them and smirk. Now you’ve confirmed her desire and attraction to you and can proceed with a program of teasing within the frame of sexual tension. It’s a dominant bad-boy frame she can’t crack and now she’s the one that has to chase you. Hopefully you’ll have enough time to decide whether to wife it up before it falls apart. Tease, tease, tease. Maintain frame.

    One critical point is you have to decide what *your* boundaries are, prior to. I find it depends on your level of self control. What I described above is a convex slope of physical desire. The further you go the faster you go in terms of desire. I’ve had women put my hand under their skirt to show me how wet they were and hold my hand there. I’ve had women start to get undressed and put my hands where they wanted them (breasts, usually). Got the strength to handle that? Set your boundaries where you can handle them.

    For you younger guys, if the attraction and sexual tension is there but she has some hard boundaries at anything past kissing, you might seriously have a keeper. Test the boundaries, she’s expecting it. For the younger cohort that’s a serious “GO” signal. For the older cohort, if you perceive the boundaries are there because she just isn’t that into you, next. Nobody needs to become a beta provider if they have options. NEXT.

    However, what if she doesn’t have any boundaries *FOR YOU*?

    Maybe she’s so into you that she’s willing to throw caution to the wind; she’s lonely, she’s ovulating and her hamster convinced her it’s going to work out doing it this way. (See This Comment) That, or she’s just confirmed her slut status. The problem is there’s no way to know which one it is. No way to believe a word she says.

    If the relationship is going to work there has to be attraction and desire… and the process of confirming that attraction might create as many problems as it solves, but what are your standards? For a guy dipping into the middle-aged pool, what’s an acceptable N-count (which simply cannot be confirmed)? What about a divorcee? Single mom? Once you get past all those issues and we all know what kind of problems they represent, the single greatest advantage you have for a successful marriage is finding a woman that’s highly attracted to you.

    In the middle-aged cohort, if the woman is highly attracted and you punch their buttons, most will put out on the first or second date, hoping against all hope it will work out “this time.” Conversely, if she’s highly attracted and you haven’t banged her by the fifth or sixth date (or made serious effort to try), you get dumped (he must be gay). If she’s beta-hunting with no real attraction and a background in using sex for control, she’ll play games and love the fact you aren’t pushing the boundaries. If you’ve never had a woman displaying serious attraction to you… you probably won’t know what to look for. It’s a recipe for sexual starvation down the road while she holds you by the financial balls.

    In the middle-aged Christian market where we’re talking about women who are sexually experienced, the only way out of this dilemma is to use a form of sexual judo and slam them with their own desire. On the lower end, I have no advice, being too far out of that market. I leave it to others who are actively in that market to inform us.

  209. Boxer says:

    Dear Retrophobia:

    You must have been a riot in school, Gouv. “You can’t call this math! These are not the words of Isaac Newton and Rene Descartes! You didn’t invent math, teacher, so math and what you say is math are two different things! Time for history class…”

    Right. Arguing with hamsterbators (male, female or tranny) is futile. People will always excel at contorting their own behavior in a lame attempt to lie to themselves. The idea that Jewish/Christian religious texts allow people to have unmarried sex is laughable at best, and pathetic to boot.

    As a non-Christian, non-Jew, secular fornicator, I try not to pass too much judgment; but, I imagine these self-deluded liars would be especially tedious to you religious fellas. I find them annoying for secondary reasons, namely that they claim to be men, but they don’t approach religion as men. They seem to see religion as a status thing, or as a “lifestyle” (god I hate that concept). Men see religion as a discipline to be lived, in contrast, and they try to follow the discipline. For women and manginas, religion is a label to adopt to make yourself feel “special”. Rules are made to be broken, and mouthing the platitudes is all that is required for these types.

    Regards, Boxer

  210. Don Quixote says:

    Tell me Toad, are you a Christian’?
    I get the impression you’re more interested in manipulating women for sex than keeping the commandments of the Lord. And if you don’t close the deal and bang the ho what’s your point?
    Wouldn’t it be better to teach biblical masculine principles just from the Bible rather than the erotic adventures of the Toad?

  211. @Don Quixote
    Tell me Toad, are you a Christian’?

    Yes.

    Actually, I was more interested in finding out whether what I’d learned by studying game was real or not. Especially within the church. The point is getting the data before writing the report, and the so-called “masculine principals just from the Bible” have to be presented within the frame of how the world works today.

    Believe it or not, it’s a lot of work to maintain self-control while gaming a woman into a drooling idiot. It turned out that the vast, vast majority of women I’ve met in the church (but most of them married) are raging sluts. I’ve had wives throwing IOI’s at me with their husbands standing right beside them. Trust me, we both knew what was happening, every single time.

    Do you condemn the soldier who shovels the shit out of the stable because his boots smell like shit? Or is it better to leave the stable uncleaned because that way nobody has to acknowledge the stench of the mountain of shit?

    Now… either refute my assertion that the boundary-hunting shit test exists, or in the alternate, provide Christian men a way to defeat it. Personally, I don’t consider limited contact above the waist to be a problem for me if it’s done for good reason. Motives count. I don’t go below the waist willingly. (I mentioned a time a woman put my hand under her skirt to show me how wet she was. When I got my hand back I stuck it in her mouth and made her lick it clean with a scowl on my face. Major mistake. Turned out to be crack-fuel for her hamster). I have friends who won’t do anything but kiss, and if the woman tries to escalate they spank them. Super-charged hamster-fuel.

    The women want to be taken in hand but the culture only gives them certain sexual venues for such to happen. You said:

    And if you don’t close the deal and bang the ho what’s your point?

    How do you know she’s a ho until you test her? We all know the maxim “Don’t listen to what women say, watch what they do.” So. How do you know whether she’s a ho? Do you look at her pretty outfit and demure smile while listening to her platitudes, or do you find out what she’s willing or unwilling to do in private? Wisdom says test them because the boundary hunt shit-test is designed to do the same thing to you and any other man who tries to develop a relationship with her..

    So. In the interests of fairness, please provide the top 10 “Biblical masculinity” traits with appropriate cites and explain how they function within our modern SMV and MMV.

  212. desiderian says:

    “the boundary hunt shit-test is designed”

    More likely vestigial. There now exist more effective means to the same end with less deleterious side effects. Women who exhibit some facility with those, and consciousness of the limitations of pure instinct, are the keepers.

  213. desiderian says:

    I might add that one will not come across the opportunity to keep them if one does not oneself exhibit a similar facility, and consciousness; which can lead one to imagine that no women do either. Some do, just not to you.

    Not the best tell.

  214. @desiderian
    More likely vestigial. There now exist more effective means to the same end with less deleterious side effects. Women who exhibit some facility with those, and consciousness of the limitations of pure instinct, are the keepers.

    Please expand on this. I and my friends limited our study (for the most part) to women we met in church or in Christian groups. I’m not sure what you mean. “Effective means” for the women or the men? For the secular women, anyone who was gaming them as high-value dominant was *expected* to try to lay them. Period. If it didn’t happen, there was something wrong. To a somewhat lesser degree the same applied to purportedly Christian women. A guy who upheld Biblical morality was automatically flushed.

    Keep in mind the cohort I’m referring to, which is women (for the entire group) 30 to 45. For the most part they’re completely unaware of game. Yet, a few of the children (late teens to early twenties) report the same findings as far as the boundary hunt. It’s unspoken, a test to see what the supposedly dominant alpha will do when given the chance.

  215. Don Quixote says:

    Artisanal Toad says:
    September 25, 2014 at 11:46 pm

    Believe it or not, it’s a lot of work to maintain self-control while gaming a woman into a drooling idiot. It turned out that the vast, vast majority of women I’ve met in the church (but most of them married) are raging sluts. I’ve had wives throwing IOI’s at me with their husbands standing right beside them. Trust me, we both knew what was happening, every single time.


    I would encourage you to man up and ignore a married woman’s sexual interests in you. It could only end badly.

    Now… either refute my assertion that the boundary-hunting shit test exists, or in the alternate, provide Christian men a way to defeat it. Personally, I don’t consider limited contact above the waist to be a problem for me if it’s done for good reason. Motives count. I don’t go below the waist willingly.


    Women that hint at, or display “the boundary-hunting shit test” are not marriage material. Avoid them. If your making their panties wet and running away I would say you’re going too far with them. If you’re looking for a wife then I suggest you’re looking in the wrong places.

    How do you know she’s a ho until you test her? We all know the maxim “Don’t listen to what women say, watch what they do.” So. How do you know whether she’s a ho? Do you look at her pretty outfit and demure smile while listening to her platitudes, or do you find out what she’s willing or unwilling to do in private? Wisdom says test them because the boundary hunt shit-test is designed to do the same thing to you and any other man who tries to develop a relationship with her..


    Wisdom says: Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Prov.6:27
    I just think you should read the body language long before the undressing begins.

    So. In the interests of fairness, please provide the top 10 “Biblical masculinity” traits with appropriate cites and explain how they function within our modern SMV and MMV.


    Personally I don’t care much for the modern sexual market or marriage market. Paul said; Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. And if your quest for a wife is desperate I would encourage you to look elsewhere. Forget the westernised world.
    There are many who would benefit from a basic understanding of SMV & MMV, but I would use a different approach than working a woman into a lather, just for shiggles. The Bible teaches men about women, and nothing has changed concerning the sexes, only the current feminized culture makes marriage very dangerous. Some examples:
    #10) Don’t follow your wife’s bad example as in Adam and Eve.
    #9) Warnings about sluts in Prov.5:3 – 8 Prov.2:16 – 19 Prov.6:24 – 29 My favourite Prov.7:7 – 27 #8) Or learn what happens when you marry a whore from Hosea.
    #7) The story of Samson. Very masculine dude, he didn’t marry her but she brought him down.
    #6) Ahab and Jezabel.
    #5) David and Bethsheba
    #4) Women should not be in the pulpit.
    #3) The polygyny of the patriarchs. <== please don't start with this again
    #2) whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

    And last but not least….drumroll……


    #1) The returning Bridegroom and his wise virgins [multiple virgins] not like in Islam

  216. I weap for our future….

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-09-09/single-americans-now-comprise-more-than-half-the-u-s-population.html

    All I see here is MEN responding to the disincentives of becoming married men. Without marriage, society has no stable building block to form a civilized foundation. Instead, you have a feral culture of cave dwellers ushering in a new dark age.

  217. BradA says:

    Dave,

    > Not true! Not true!

    Show me where a spirit dies again. Judas was never reborn as that did not come until after Jesus’ resurrection. Then show me where it is reborn again, dies again, etc.

    You need to better study what happens when someone is reborn, which is built on what died in the Garden of Eden.

    We do not have to live in constant fear of losing our salvation. Blow that out your ear.

    We should live as holy as we can for a wide number of reasons, benefits here and in the next life, but the state of our spirit determines our destination, not the last sin we commit.

    You have made our works as important as what Jesus did and you are way off base on that. Any work I could do is filthy rags. It is 100% Him, but He is there. We can’t make ourselves righteous with enough good works or do you believe we can? Why is the reverse true?

    Live well, but don’t live in fear.

  218. BradA says:

    AT,

    > Once the game starts it has to be the woman who shuts it down or the guy loses his frame.

    You are not always correct. You can keep your frame without being worldly, but it requires a very strong will. I suspect few have that.

    Having to compromise to push ahead is not good and violates the righteousness God commands of us. Next anyone who doesn’t respect that.

  219. Dave says:

    @BradA,

    I am not living in fear. Far from it. I love God, and I strive to live in obedience to Him on a regular basis. Perfect love casts out fear. But I am not living in delusion either. I can still be lost!
    I noticed that you did not quote a single verse of scripture to support your beliefs. You will have to do better than that. Show me from the Bible that “once saved, always saved”, and I will be more inclined to believe you. I can’t go by your words alone, because they sound like “cunningly devised fables”. 2 Peter 1:6.

    And, no, I have not made our works as important as our faith. True faith must produce the right works. Without this, there is no true faith.

    Faith [in Christ,] without works [i.e corresponding lifestyle], is dead [or nonexistent].
    James 2:17

  220. Dave says:

    @BradA,

    And, I forgot to add: spirits don’t die in the sense of ceasing to exist. As a matter of fact, no human being will ever die, whether saved or unsaved, we’ll all live forever. That is part of being created “in God’s image”. He is eternal and so are we. Originally, Adam and Eve were holy just like God. Then they sinned.

    When scripture talked about death, it often means permanent “separation”, either from God or from among the living, not cessation of existence.

    So, everyone who has ever walked the earth will live forever, some in everlasting punishment, and some in everlasting bliss (Daniel 12:2). We may not all have everlasting life, but we all have everlasting existence. So, the idea that a spirit “dies” has no basis in scripture in the way that you used it.

  221. desiderian says:

    AT,

    “Keep in mind the cohort I’m referring to, which is women (for the entire group) 30 to 45.”

    Well, that was ground zero of the nonsense. Things have improved since in my necks of the woods.

    “For the most part they’re completely unaware”

    = missing the “consciousness” I mentioned. Not uncommon among those of us that reached our thirties without the benefits of a good marriage. Lots of false consciousness running around for our particular cohort.

    “of game. Yet, a few of the children (late teens to early twenties) report the same findings as far as the boundary hunt. It’s unspoken, a test to see what the supposedly dominant alpha will do when given the chance.”

    Indeed it is. It’s the default; the base. Lacking anything better, test-wise or contestant-wise, its what all women will default to. Some women were raised above that growing-up. They had a good upbringing. Likewise men.

    Ask yourself what the test is “designed” to determine. That’s the first key to passing it on your terms – not her’s or Mother Nature’s.

  222. John Nesteutes says:

    @Retrophobia

    Seek Christian fellowship with other godly men. Ignore women for now. Pursue Jesus Christ and pursue acting like he did on the earth.

    He never married and knew no feminine embrace once he outgrew being his mother’s son at home. Join him in the fellowship of his sufferings. (Phil. 3:10)

  223. BradA says:

    Dave,

    If you can still be lost you have no assurance of salvation because it can be overturned at any moment.

    You really should study a bit more exactly what “died” on the day Adam and Eve sinned. This then leads to what is reborn and makes salvation more than doing enough right things.

    In your view, exactly what or how many bad things will disqualify you? What exactly could you do to earn that disqualification? Why does it only work one way, assuming you don’t believe people can do enough good things to earn salvation.

    What exactly is “spiritual death” as well?

    >So, everyone who has ever walked the earth will live forever, some in everlasting punishment, and some in everlasting bliss

    How is this related to what I noted in my previous post? Adam and Even were told they would die the day they ate of the forbidden fruit. Either they did or God is a liar. Something died that day. That something is what is reborn. Plenty of evidence both ways for that, none for the idea that it dies again if we do enough bad things after we are reborn.

    We are also told that some may get to heaven and have everything burned up yet they will still be there, just with no rewards. You don’t seem to know your own salvation well and your own security is purely built on your own abilities. I think I will trust His abilities instead. I will also not over glorigy whatever things I might be able to do. Kind of prideful to do otherwise!

  224. @Desedrian
    @BradA
    I don’t think you guys understand what I’m saying.

    1) My reference is specifically women within the church. They claim to be Christians and in most cases are demonstrably actively living out their faith. Yet… they are subject to this culture.

    2) I’m not talking about average women of any particular cohort, I’m talking about women one would truly want to marry. Women who get a lot of attention. Market value 7+

    3) I find no difference between the mating instincts of these women and women of the secular community. They are female and understand that men want sex.

    4) In my cohort, basically they’re all damaged goods. They’ve had previous sexual relationships and their desires in that area have been awakened. They want sex too, to one extent or another.

    5) The ones who have a high libido and are least likely to cut their husband off (incel) are the most likely to have a high N. Some of them have a relatively low N due to being in long term committed relationships, but at 35 years plus, nobody expects to find a virgin and who would believe it?

    6) They demonstrably want a man they’re attracted to. With that bar passed, they want a man they are very attracted to and the prospect of a significant improvement in their standard of living and quality of life in order to contemplate marriage.

    7) The dilemma for the man is he needs to be perceived as alpha and she has to be attracted to him (desire cannot be negotiated) in order to maximize the odds of a successful marriage. At the same time, if he desires to be obedient to the Word, he needs to remain chaste until marriage, even though she *expects* him to demand sex (and if she’s attracted enough she’ll put out because she has needs too).

    8) The impact of these two issues is if the guy hasn’t made a serious effort to nail her within 5 to 6 dates, her alarm bells are going off and he gets dumped.

    9) I came up with a method to circumvent this issue, which I’ve described. It’s a social reset that reframes the situation such that the couple can remain chaste while deciding whether to marry.

    @Don Quixote

    I would encourage you to man up and ignore a married woman’s sexual interests in you. It could only end badly.

    Nowhere did I say I followed up on their interest, I simply stated that I get a lot of attention from married women. Such is the church today. To be perfectly clear, I don’t do married, in thought or deed. It’s disappointing that the married women indicate their interest in cuckolding their husbands while the single women throw massive shit-tests at the single men.

    Women that hint at, or display “the boundary-hunting shit test” are not marriage material. Avoid them

    You aren’t paying attention and you don’t appreciate the dichotomy of attraction. The desirable ones ALL do it. If she’s seriously attracted to you and giving you the signals that she’s attracted, 5 to 6 dates and if you haven’t made a serious effort to get in her pants, you get dumped. You must be gay. The women WANT the man to make the effort so they can say no and feel righteous or put out because they want to get laid, or it’s a matter of wanting him to prove he’s dominant enough to plough through their resistance.

    If she isn’t seriously attracted to you and she’ll put up with a LTR in which you don’t push her boundaries or even find out if she has any… this is a woman with a very low sex-drive. This is a recipe for sexual starvation in marriage, because the woman who displays no libido when dating isn’t very likely to suddenly grow one after marriage. This is the woman looking for a beta provider. Don’t go there thinking her supposed chaste behavior means she’s a good catch.

    Your Scriptural examples are laughable and it’s obvious to me this isn’t something you’ve studied. You should have gone straight to Job for Biblical masculinity. If Proverbs 31 is the ideal wife, then Job 29 is the ideal husband. Samson was a Nazzerite that violated the law by marrying a foreigner. You really should put in more time studying.

    @BradA
    You are not always correct. You can keep your frame without being worldly, but it requires a very strong will. I suspect few have that.

    Having to compromise to push ahead is not good and violates the righteousness God commands of us. Next anyone who doesn’t respect that.

    In the example I provided, how did I compromise? All I did was kiss her. Everything else was misdirection to convince her it was a seduction. The question was how she would respond. In blunt language,, it’s called a TEST. I also outlined the problems with applying such a test. In my cohort, there are serious problems because of the prior sexual history of virtually all the individuals involved.

    At this phase in life, I believe the greatest predictor in a successful marriage (i.e. broken people uniting) is attraction. Strong attraction. Yet, there are many women who are willing to marry a man they are not attracted to. Bad move for the man, because such a woman is a ticking time bomb.

  225. desiderian says:

    “I don’t think you guys understand what I’m saying.”

    I dont think you understand the depth of my understanding and very much first-hand experience with that exact demographic.

    I’ve in fact advocated your exact approach. I ended up finding a better way, and was (very) successful with it.

  226. desiderian says:

    yikes, html tag run wild

    As for married women flirting, much of the church has abdicated her core function of the cure of souls. Rampant sinfulness is the historical result of such churches. It is incumbent on men in-the-know (the ones women are looking for, by the way) to do better than those before us who did the abdication.

  227. @Desiderian
    I’ve in fact advocated your exact approach. I ended up finding a better way, and was (very) successful with it.

    Please elucidate. Give me an example of how it works. How does one either dodge, overcome or defuse the boundary-hunt test?

  228. matador says:

    no one is responsible for anyone else’s happiness. All humans are selfish and self interested. You must always do what is best for YOU as others will always do what is best for THEM. Do not be guilted by society, the “church” or any of that Bullshit. They seek to control you for their purposes.

  229. matador says:

    Religion is great for controlling the masses and society in general. For Men who aspire to be great it is something to use to control others, but don’t follow the silly rules yourself.

  230. “the question is how to *faithfully* serve God and still be able to generate tingles in the women you might be interested in.”

    Here’s one way…
    http://gawker.com/blessed-are-the-swingers-christian-couple-share-partne-1639309734

    heheh…

  231. JDG says:

    I say follow Christ, and tingles can take a hike.

  232. @Rollo
    You disappoint me. The question was serious.

    I seriously doubt you would question the fact the boundary-test exists, and as you’ve said, desire cannot be negotiated, so how would you deal with it from the perspective of a Christian man who desires to remain chaste until marriage? Teacher, what do you say?

  233. earl says:

    Men can’t negotiate desire…but men can negotiate how much responsibility they take on.

  234. Lyn87 says:

    Oh great… another clown arrives to tell us yokels that religion is the opiate of the masses. /yawn.

    Matador is a few thousand years behind the times – God’s existence and the truth claims of Christianity have been amply establish. Do some homework, Matador… you’ll look like less of a pompous douche-nozzle, and the knowledge might do you some good.

  235. Don Quixote says:

    Artisanal Toad says:
    September 26, 2014 at 2:52 pm

    Your Scriptural examples are laughable and it’s obvious to me this isn’t something you’ve studied. You should have gone straight to Job for Biblical masculinity. If Proverbs 31 is the ideal wife, then Job 29 is the ideal husband. Samson was a Nazzerite that violated the law by marrying a foreigner. You really should put in more time studying.

    King David fell into sin by being in the wrong place at the wrong time, and having an eye for women. How will you escape?

  236. desiderian says:

    AT,

    “Please elucidate. Give me an example of how it works. How does one either dodge, overcome or defuse the boundary-hunt test?”

    Already did:

    Ask yourself what the test is “designed” to determine. That’s the first key to passing it on your terms – not her’s or Mother Nature’s.

    You need neither dodge, overcome, or defuse the test.

  237. @Desiderian
    *Bullshit*

    The test serves multiple purposes and is applied in multiple ways. I asked for an example and you’re giving me some Socratic questioning bullshit.

    Some women use it in order to take the “righteous” upper hand.
    Some women use it in order to screen out lovers that aren’t up to their standards
    Some women use it simply to screen out unwanted suitors.

    With such a diversity of uses, I’d love to hear your solution. The problem for Christian men is the test cannot be passed without violating their desire for chastity.

  238. Lyn87 says:

    I’ve refrained from the kerfuffle about “Christian” women and sexual testing, but I think this discussion misses at least part of the point, since everyone seems to have accepted the faulty premise that declaring oneself chaste is a turn-off for a woman. It need not be.

    I was always adamant with all my girlfriends about saving sex for marriage. Every serious girlfriend I ever had knew that I was a virgin… because I told them. Sometimes it was when I was turning down a proposition. I’ve told this before, so I’ll be brief – I dated two sisters (not at the same time), both had done some modeling (nothing serious, but they were both pretty enough to earn a little money at it) and both were hot-to-trot for me. The first one was a total slut (long story – don’t ask, or go back and scroll through old threads if you really care about the details), and she flat-out offered herself to me… on her back, on a bed. We knew a lot of the same people and so I was surprised that she didn’t know about my virginity, as I made no secret of it. But it wasn’t some omega-like “I can’t get laid” kind of thing. I looked her in the eyes and told her no, and I told her why, and I told her in a way that brooked no argument. She thought I was Sir Freaking Galahad after that. My SMV/MMV skyrocketed in her estimation because of that. Confident self-mastery is VERY alpha. She actually proposed to me a few months later. I declined, of course.

    Later I dated her sister, a 20-year-old widow (another long story). She was sexually aggressive while we were together, and she was very frustrated because I always told her no, but she stuck around for a long time, and she brought up the idea of marriage as well. We eventually drifted apart – distance was a contributing factor, but the relationship was doomed anyway because of religious compatibility (she was Catholic).

    When I was dating my wife she asked me if I was still a virgin and I told her that I was. That was actually one of her deal-breakers. She’s a unicorn by any reasonable standard, and she would have dropped me like a handful of live eels on the spot if I hadn’t saved myself for marriage as she had done.

    It’s one thing for a man to save himself if he projects “incel” – that might turn any woman off. It’s another thing if a man saves himself and projects mastery. Game-boys talk about being aloof to get women interested… how much more aloof can you get than to look a woman in the eyes – an attractive woman who is already on her back – and deliver a stone-faced declaration that your self-mastery is so much stronger than her charms that the matter is not even up for debate?

    Any woman who would skip out because of that either 1) isn’t really into you, because that’s the ultimate alpha move, or 2) she’s a total slut and you’ve just dodged a bullet.

  239. desiderian says:

    Lyn87,

    “everyone seems to have accepted the faulty premise that declaring oneself chaste is a turn-off for a woman”

    Not everyone. The usual Churchian advice isn’t any better, however. The women are testing whether you know more than that.

    “projects mastery”

    “look a woman in the eyes”

    “your self-mastery is so much stronger than her charms”

    Now you’re getting somewhere.

  240. desiderian says:

    AT,

    “With such a diversity of uses, I’d love to hear your solution. The problem for Christian men is the test cannot be passed without violating their desire for chastity.”

    You can say bullshit all you like, but I passed with flying colors (after failing several times – the best way to learn, btw), then ended up with a line of candidates after figuring it out.

    The figuring it out for yourself allows you to make the knowledge your own. That shows through.

    Your answers don’t address the question.

    “to take the ‘righteous’ upper hand.” –> She can’t take what you’re not giving.
    “to screen out lovers that aren’t up to their standards” –> what standards?
    “to screen out unwanted suitors” –> why are they unwanted?

    As an added note, once the male escalates, he’s not the one being tested any longer. You’ve also got to give her that opportunity in some other way. No decent woman wants a man who will settle for a common floozy.

  241. Lyn87 says:

    Des says, “Not everyone.

    Glad to hear it. I saw AT’s statement that a woman will ALWAYS be turned off by a man who stands fast on the issue of his own chastity, and although he was criticized for his approach, I didn’t see anyone challenging that basic assumption.

    I think it’s just the opposite for any decent Christian woman, and even on some sluts. It’s not the chastity itself that’s the turn-off (unless the girl is just looking to hook up, in which case she is best avoided); it’s the attitude that usually goes with it. I can think of three ways a chaste man can present himself:

    1) As a incel who can’t get sex – huge turn off.
    2) As a coward who won’t try because he’s afraid to break a rule that he would like to break – moderate turn off.
    3) As a man who can get sex (from her even) who confidently shows that he has mastered his passions – HUGE turn on.

  242. Novaseeker says:

    3) As a man who can get sex (from her even) who confidently shows that he has mastered his passions – HUGE turn on.

    Obviously. You want to be the “good alpha”.

    Unfortunately most men are not going to be alpha, good, bad or otherwise, in terms of being able to get sex on demand. But for guys who can get sex on demand (sexual alphas), if they can demonstrate that kind of self-mastery, they get the hottest chaste church girls. Like you did.

    You realize that isn’t very replicable for most men, though, don’t you?

  243. Boxer says:

    You realize that isn’t very replicable for most men, though, don’t you?

    I dunno. I’m nothing special, but I’ve used this crap since I was a teenager. You just flip the script somewhat, and interrupt the makeout session with “I don’t fuck on the first date” (or a less explicit equivalent). This drives women completely nuts.

    I think sometimes we overanalyze such stuff. Women aren’t equipped with ESP, and “alpha” is an illustrative concept that doesn’t really equate to the complexities of the actual social universe. If a woman is wasting time in your presence, it’s a fair bet she already wants to have sex with you. All you have to do is not be a completely repulsive dork to seal the deal.

  244. desiderian says:

    Novaseeker,

    “You realize that isn’t very replicable for most men, though, don’t you?”

    What is replicable for most men is understanding how women actually act and why.

    The confidence that naturally flows from that is what the women (at least the ones worth having) are ultimately after in the first place. There are of course all sorts of serious issues on the female/parenting side of the equation, but a lot of the male side comes down to confidence and being able to act in the ways that legitimately earn it.

  245. Lyn87 says:

    Nova says, “You realize that isn’t very replicable for most men, though, don’t you?

    I’m not so sure. Christianity is a very masculine religion – it would be worthwhile to follow it even if it wasn’t true (fortunately, it is true – even better). I was pretty dorky until I got to college, and even then it took a while for that to wear off.

    The game-boys are always saying that self-confidence can be projected, even if it’s not truly felt. I agree to a large degree – I wasn’t a wizard with women, but I’ve always been confident, and I didn’t have to fake it. My point is that any man can project confidence, and when that confidence attracts female attention – particularly sexual desire – the stuff I did makes a guy go from “Somebody I want to have sex with” to “The most amazing guy in the Universe – I want to have his babies!” in their eyes… unless she’s just a tramp looking for a hook-up. But that assumes the guy has the courage of his convictions, which is nothing more than a matter of choosing to do what’s right, unashamedly owning it as his personal standard, and then doing it. And while not everyone will garner a high level of free-range female interest (I’ve never been the guy that women flock to either), any man can do that.

    Think about it: I was with an attractive young woman who had been riding the carousel with utter abandon for a couple of years. She was genuinely proud of her promiscuity. She laid down on a bed and offered her body to me… and I told her, “No.” I am sure that never happened to her before. I did not project a lack of physical desire (no chance for her to rationalize that “He must be gay”), but I did project that I was the “Captain of my own ship.” Essentially, I disqualified her – a woman who knew very well how to inspire male sexual desire… already on her back for me – and I told her that she had not earned access to my body. That makes PUAs and their barroom “negs” look like amateurs… and it wasn’t even a put-down, just a statement of fact delivered without equivocation.

    I’m absolutely sure that any man can say, “No.” And I’m pretty sure that most men can learn to project confidence. It’s mainly a matter of being willing to.

  246. Lyn87 says:

    I need to make a clarification. Nova wrote to me,

    “Unfortunately most men are not going to be alpha, good, bad or otherwise, in terms of being able to get sex on demand. But for guys who can get sex on demand (sexual alphas), if they can demonstrate that kind of self-mastery, they get the hottest chaste church girls. Like you did.”

    At that time of my life I wasn’t the sort of guy who could have gotten “sex on demand” in the sense that some of the “ladies men” I’ve known could. I’ve just never been “that guy.” The only time in my life that I got a lot of blatant interest from a lot of different women was when I joined a Christian dating service. It was a small operation and I was probably the most promising candidate in the files, so most of the girls flagged me. In other words, I looked really good on paper and the fact that the competition didn’t was helpful, so I got to briefly experience what it was like to swat away candidates like flies at a picnic. In a social setting like a club or party I was usually overshadowed by other guys when it came to what I’ll call “free-range female interest.” I’m a very odd guy and my “alpha-tude” manifests itself in odd ways – and usually that had very little to do with generating “Give-it-to-me-right-now” sexual interest in female acquaintances.

  247. @Lynn87

    Your story about the two sisters doesn’t back up the point you’re trying to make.

    If a Christian Man has “self-Mastery”, then why would he have dated women who obviously had loose morals? It seems that doing so did manage to boost you’re self confidence, but the side effects to society was that it also boosted the confidence of the two sisters also. So your gain came at a cost to society at large. If their promiscuous behavior had been a turn off for you from the beginning (before dating), then your standards would have made you seem to be an “incel” Social interaction boosts your alpha, but being a hermit with standards makes you the biggest beta.

    Your “Game” seems to be just as selfish a Game as the pick up artist crowd. It actually enabled at last two hamsters, which in turn bred hundreds of more hamsters in the next generation.

    As far as solutions? I have none so long as men continue to rationalize dating the sluts. Even the so called Christian men will date the sluts, as you have shown. I don’t know who does more damage…you or the PUA?

  248. Lyn87 says:

    L,F,&M,

    Perhaps you missed the part where I wrote, “long story – don’t ask, or go back and scroll through old threads if you really care about the details.

    I’m not going to clutter this thread with a lot of irrelevant details of my dating life. Short answer – my girlfriend flaked and I needed a date for a function. The first one was a ton of fun and we hit it off, but I never got serious and I actively discourage her from doing so.

    In any case, the slutty one rebounded from my dumping of her and quickly got married and had a kid. The last I heard was several years later and they were doing okay – so probably a net gain to society. I don’t know what happened to the other one, but she was a widow who had, as far as I knew, only ever had sex with the guy she had been married to – so not a raving slut to begin with, although she wanted me pretty bad. And after I told her “No” she did bring up the idea of marriage.

    You are drawing conclusions without evidence.

  249. Lyn87 says:

    P.S.,

    I don’t think I ever said that dating either of those girls was a good idea. I would classify them both as “mistakes I learned from.”

  250. Yes Lynn, I hear you loud and clear. Your message to the Christian men out there: “You’re doing it all wrong! The problem is that you’re not dating and gaming enough sluts! By holding out and mastering your time that God entrusts to you, you are actually sinning, because a real man will game the sluts into wanting sex with you. Women naturally want a good Christian man, and you men out there aren’t making the women wet, thus you must not really be good Christian men.”

  251. Boxer says:

    Liberty Family etc.:

    I admire idealism and like a good argument, but you’re way out in left field…

    you are actually sinning, because a real man will game the sluts into wanting sex with you

    That’s actually not what he’s saying. He’s encouraging everyman to become as attractive as possible, while simultaneously denying skanks his money, time or cock.

    This is actually sound strategic advice. If more attractive men would broadcast “I don’t fuck sluts,” then average female behavior would probably improve. Even if it didn’t, it’d still result in better men, who had less chance of coming down with herpes and a child support bill, so what’s the problem?

    Boxer

  252. Lyn87 says:

    Boxer,

    L, F, & M is just looking for a reason to act butt-hurt. I’m not sure why he’s projecting onto me… I guess it’s just my turn. Let’s take a look. My comments are in bold:

    Your message to the Christian men out there: “You’re doing it all wrong! The problem is that you’re not dating and gaming enough sluts! Nope. I point out the shortcomings of “game” on a regular basis, and I’ve never advocated dating sluts. I specifically said that dating these girls was a mistake.

    By holding out and mastering your time that God entrusts to you, you are actually sinning, because a real man will game the sluts into wanting sex with you. I’m not sure what that means. What is “mastering your time” mean? English, please.

    Women naturally want a good Christian man, and you men out there aren’t making the women wet, thus you must not really be good Christian men.” I have never said that… ever.

    So what’s your issue, L, F, & M? Are you upset that I dated a couple of semi-pro models and they wanted to have sex with me? Sour grapes? (See? I can put words in your mouth, too.) The only point of the story was that I disagreed with AT that male chastity was an automatic turn-off for women. I think women are attracted to Godly masculinity, even sluts. Are you suggesting that behaving in a Godly manner is wrong? If so, why don’t you trust God rather than chase tingles? If not, why are you arguing with me when that was my only point?

  253. Avern says:

    That’s a shame, I was enjoying this site till I saw the religious (ghost, spirits and other metaphysics) talk on that comment. Still the subjects being addressed here are very good.

  254. Don Quixote says:

    Liberty, Family, and Masculinity says:
    September 27, 2014 at 4:01 pm

    “Yes Lynn, I hear you loud and clear. Your message to the Christian men out there: “You’re doing it all wrong! The problem is that you’re not dating and gaming enough sluts! By holding out and mastering your time that God entrusts to you, you are actually sinning, because a real man will game the sluts into wanting sex with you. Women naturally want a good Christian man, and you men out there aren’t making the women wet, thus you must not really be good Christian men.”

    Please excuse me if I am wrong but I think you have confused Lyn87 with Artisanal Toad. Where has Lyn said or implied the above?

  255. @Don Quixote, et al…
    Please excuse me if I am wrong but I think you have confused Lyn87 with Artisanal Toad. Where has Lyn said or implied the above?

    Pardon me, but where have *I* said or implied the above?

    1) I clearly stated the cohort of women involved is 30-45 for all the guys I know dealing with these issues and mine is roughly 35-40. Virgins and unicorns have an equal distribution through this cohort, the point being we’re talking about women with sexual histories.

    2) I pointed out that the boundary-hunt test is a problem for Christian men because the women expect it and if it doesn’t happen it’s a disqualifier for the men.

    3) Without attraction the relationship will fail. How do you know she’s attracted to you? Do you listen to what she says or do you watch what she does?

    4) I asked Desiderian to elucidate, and as far as I can tell his answer is “amused mastery.”

    @Lynn87
    I disagreed with AT that male chastity was an automatic turn-off for women.

    This is a classic case of trying to reframe the argument with a focus on the top 1%, ignoring the very real issue the bottom 99% face. The fact is, male chastity *is* an automatic turn-off for women unless the man can frame it as I won’t have sex with *you*, implying that if she were of higher value, he would have sex with her.

    Women do not value male chastity. Period. If you want to argue that, let’s see some data from somewhere. Or… perhaps you’re listening to what women *say* rather than what they do? You said:
    I can think of three ways a chaste man can present himself:

    1) As a incel who can’t get sex – huge turn off.
    2) As a coward who won’t try because he’s afraid to break a rule that he would like to break – moderate turn off.
    3) As a man who can get sex (from her even) who confidently shows that he has mastered his passions – HUGE turn on.

    You’re setting up a game of 3-card Monte. In #2, who made the rule he would like to break? God did. You have the gall to call him a coward because he fears the Lord? Fool. The same guy could be #2 or #3, but you are trying to take the fear of God and make it irrelevant, but you double down and call it cowardice. The #2 guy fears God and wants to obey him and YOU identify him as a moderate turn-off. You support my position (not that he’s a coward, but that women find it a turn-off). The #3 guy does it all himself. Gods requirements are not part of the equation. FAIL

    You offer no observable data, no repeatable behavior that would help the vast majority of men who have to deal with this.

  256. Don Quixote says:

    Artisanal Toad says:
    September 27, 2014 at 5:48 pm

    @Don Quixote, et al…
    Please excuse me if I am wrong but I think you have confused Lyn87 with Artisanal Toad. Where has Lyn said or implied the above?

    Pardon me, but where have *I* said or implied the above?


    You didn’t.
    But the reference made by Liberty, Family, and Masculinity to not, “making the women wet” made me think he might have confused you with Lyn. I would be wrong.

    1) I clearly stated the cohort of women involved is 30-45 for all the guys I know dealing with these issues and mine is roughly 35-40. Virgins and unicorns have an equal distribution through this cohort, the point being we’re talking about women with sexual histories.

    2) I pointed out that the boundary-hunt test is a problem for Christian men because the women expect it and if it doesn’t happen it’s a disqualifier for the men.

    3) Without attraction the relationship will fail. How do you know she’s attracted to you? Do you listen to what she says or do you watch what she does?

    4) I asked Desiderian to elucidate, and as far as I can tell his answer is “amused mastery.”


    I have enjoyed all the contributions to this thread although, including yours. I am amazed at your self control. I do not posses such abilities, and would try to avoid any sort of situation that goes as far as you do. BTW I am in my 50s and not interested in an marriage/relationship.

  257. desiderian says:

    AT,

    “I asked Desiderian to elucidate, and as far as I can tell his answer is ‘amused mastery.'”

    And I asked you a question first, which you have thus far failed to answer. I can’t answer yours’ until you answer mine.

    You are correct that male chastity is not a female attractor any more than female intelligence is a male attractor. Just as female intelligence often becomes a turn-off in the way it is expressed, so too male chastity.

    Generations of men, and women, were able to avoid those pitfalls better than the current one. They have much to teach.

  258. Lyn87: “I think women are attracted to godly masculinity, even sluts”

    It’s how you frame it Lyn. You imply that women being attracted IS THE litmus test for “Godly Masculinity”.

    There are many members to the body, can the hand say to the ear that the ear is not needed? There are many unpleasant truths that women don’t want to hear. When men speak those truths, it doesn’t generate any tingles. And yet those men are still exhibiting “Godly Masculinity”.

    I’m sorry to break this news to you, but you simply won the lottery when you found your wife. Finding your wife doesn’t make you somehow superior to those men who haven’t. There simply weren’t enough good women to go around. If I had hit the lottery and you hadn’t, then I’d be the one ranting “man up” instead.

    And on a side note: In my early twenties I had a Victorias secret underwear model want to date me. We went out as friends and she asked me to date her. I knew her history and turned her down. I was super shy and quiet. Does that mean men need to be more shy in order to exhibit “Godly Masculinity”? Does that make me the guru of game?

    Christian Men don’t need to strive to be more attractive to women. Women need to strive to be more attracted to Godliness. We don’t become more Godly by reverse engineering ourselves to suit what women want. And that right there is confidence.

  259. Lyn87 says:

    AT says, “You offer no observable data, no repeatable behavior that would help the vast majority of men who have to deal with this.

    And neither do you. Like you, I just related my experiences, which match up well with the experiences of countless others – that women are attracted to masculinity.

    AT also calls me a fool for something I didn’t say or even imply, ” In #2, who made the rule he would like to break? God did. You have the gall to call him a coward because he fears the Lord? Fool.

    I did not say he was a coward, I said such men sometimes project an air of being cowards – which is a turn-off. It’s not Godliness to say that you really want to do something but you’re afraid to. That’s not owning the principle – it’s grudgingly obeying a rule you don’t like for fear of the consequences. One should obey the rules whether one has internalized them or not, but these two ways of presenting oneself are not the same AT ALL. By the way, Matthew 5:22 says, “But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” Are you sure you want to put your soul in jeopardy of hell-fire to criticize a point I wasn’t even making?

    Then L, F, & M continues to double-down, “It’s how you frame it Lyn. You imply that women being attracted IS THE litmus test for “Godly Masculinity.

    I implied no such thing. You continue to infer meanings that are not supported by my statements. Why would I imply that, since I don’t believe it?

    …and…

    I’m sorry to break this news to you, but you simply won the lottery when you found your wife. Finding your wife doesn’t make you somehow superior to those men who haven’t. True, that’s why I never said that it does make me superior. There simply weren’t enough good women to go around. If I had hit the lottery and you hadn’t, then I’d be the one ranting “man up” instead.Then you would be a jerk. Which is why I do not tell guys to “man up.”

    And on a side note: In my early twenties I had a Victorias secret underwear model want to date me. We went out as friends and she asked me to date her. I knew her history and turned her down. I was super shy and quiet. Does that mean men need to be more shy in order to exhibit “Godly Masculinity”? Huh?Does that make me the guru of game?I have no idea what that makes you. What does this have to do with chastity being a turn-off to women?

    Christian Men don’t need to strive to be more attractive to women. Women need to strive to be more attracted to Godliness. We don’t become more Godly by reverse engineering ourselves to suit what women want. And that right there is confidence.Excellent! You finally understand the point I was making all along!

  260. @Lyn87
    The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. Instead of calling you a fool I should have said that your comment was foolish. I do apologize for that.

    Women demonstrably want the alpha, and while only a small percentage of men are alpha, men can adopt alpha behavior and be more appealing to women. Anthol Kay, Rollo Tomassi and others advocate men developing themselves to their potential in all aspects of their lives. Nobody wants to be the guy from Saving The Best (and if you haven’t read that, I highly recommend it, although some of the comments are brutal).

    As Rollo is fond of saying, desire cannot be negotiated. Thus, it behooves the man to be sure the woman is genuinely attracted to him before putting a ring on it. Problem is, how does one know the desire is there if one can’t test the waters? While Dalrock is right to rebuke Yohami (2nd Tim. 3:16-17), I believe it’s just as important to be able to identify the things that maximize the probability of a stable marriage for those who marry damaged goods (in that age cohort they’re all damaged goods to one or another extent). Attraction and desire feature prominently here.

    So, what will women only do with men they’re attracted to and want to have sex with?

    When in conversation with a woman (after developing some rapport) I’ve been experimenting with looking at the phone and commenting about another woman that just sent me a pic of her boobs, then show them the pic of 40yo boobs with stretchmarks. They always ask questions and want to know if I’m dating her. “No, but she wants me to” and “I don’t kiss and tell” to any other questions. On two occasions they demanded my phone number within moments of me saying I wasn’t dating miss boobs. Much teasing followed. Apparently, a woman sending me a pic of her boobs is pure preselection crack for her hamster and if she’s attracted to me enough she’ll send a pic of hers.

    There are many reasons she might be very attracted to you and refuse to send a pic of the girls, but I think I can safely say a woman will not send any form of nude pic to a guy unless she’s attracted to him enough that she wants to have sex with him. As to how much of a disqualifier this would/should be, I leave that to the individual. Some might think it a sign she’s a raging slut, but what if she just wants to be *your* raging slut?

  261. Lyn87 says:

    AT,

    Okay… consider it forgotten, although I don’t know why you thought my comment was foolish, either, since you made essentially the same point yourself.

  262. Rum says:

    If Heartiste/Roissy is not an ordained Priest of the Old Faith he is doing the work of one.
    See, NO One has ever come to real Understanding who did not first experience the inhospitability of the pit of absolute despair. And the most efficient short-cut to authentic despair has always been to take the Red Pill regarding the nature of women.
    Then.. get over yourself. Like, mens nature is pure and holy? It is to laugh. Why should womens must be so?
    All you have to do to bring harmony back to the world is to un-learn the lies told you by fools and reptile-people.

  263. BradA says:

    Liberty,

    Not being attractive to your wife is utterly stupid and being a poor steward of what God has given you. Being godly is not exclusive of being attractive. Motivation and focus matter, but staying in shape, carrying yourself well, etc. are all traits that will be both attractive to females and can often open up a door where you can share your faith with others.

    Being a “wimp” in the name of being godly attracts no one.

    AT,

    > The ones who have a high libido and are least likely to cut their husband off (incel) are the most likely to have a high N.

    And I would argue they are the most likely to cut their husbands off when they equate that past looseness with sin. An older virgin may have serious challenges, but an older slut will as well, even if both are fully committed to the Lord in fact, not just in claim.

    Lyn87,

    I didn’t date out of principle prior to finding my wife and pursuing her. I found that it is too much divorce preparation (the other side of Dalrock’s position that modern marriage is just boyfriend/girlfriend). God gave my wife to me, though I still had to pursue her.

    Ironically the most “romantic thing” I did when proposing to my wife was a complete waste. She has not been easy and I sometimes wonder why God connected me with her, but I am convinced He did (as is she).

    I would not have married her if I had the advice her and had not felt the clear leading of God. She was older (past 25), didn’t really want marriage (had to have God tell her to not let me go), and several other things.

    We have been married 26 years now, so things can work out. I did not date a lot, so I didn’t have to worry about having to try to get a girl in bed after a date. I would not have pursued such a girl either, even though I might have been tempted at the time.

  264. @BradA
    > The ones who have a high libido and are least likely to cut their husband off (incel) are the most likely to have a high N.

    And I would argue they are the most likely to cut their husbands off when they equate that past looseness with sin. An older virgin may have serious challenges, but an older slut will as well, even if both are fully committed to the Lord in fact, not just in claim.

    You stated you’ve been married for 26 years. I’ll assume you’re faithful and perhaps even take pains to ensure that you’re faithful in your marriage. However, that was one of the most fantastic white-knight excuses I’ve ever seen.

    I’m in reasonably good shape (nothing like I was 25 years ago), but for my age group I’m almost always the most fit guy at any gathering. I have to actively game the single women, but I get everything from IOI’s to outright being hit on by married women at church. Frequently in front of their husbands. On more than one occasion I’ve had married women stick a piece of paper with their phone number in my pocket. Maybe you think I’m making this up, but I’m not.

    The situation is so bad (keep in mind I’m talking about professing Christians) that if one is looking to marry it behooves one to forget about all the niceties of “commitment” and “faith” and fall back on desire/attraction. It’s a damaged goods market (widows and unicorns excepted) and one has to view the market with the assumption that *everyone* has a sexual history. Like handing out machine guns to idiot children, the women have been given the power to destroy without accountability. It’s reached the point that the only thing one can do is put the woman in a place where she doesn’t want to destroy.

    High testosterone co-relates to high libido in both men and women. If you think high-libido women are seriously repenting of previous sin and then cutting their husbands off, you’re smoking crack. If a wife cuts her husband off it means she simply isn’t attracted to him, not that she’s now suffering regret from past sin. The wife who cuts her husband off is IN SIN, not reacting to past sin. Any claim that “Oh, I just don’t feel comfortable having sex with my husband because I have all these memories of joyfully being gangbanged by guys with huge cocks and now I realize it was a sin” is absolute BS. She’s no longer attracted to him.

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