Single men with jobs are becoming a scarce commodity.

The new Pew study has gotten a great deal of attention. Suddenly everyone is noticing that as women continue to delay marriage their prospects are getting less rosy. One finding which should come as no surprise (but nevertheless surprised many) is that women strongly prefer to marry men with jobs. The problem is, single men with jobs are getting more and more scarce.  Now that we’ve moved from a marriage based family structure to a child support based family structure, unmarried men are now working like women.

To understand the real world impact of this on the marriage market, check out this interactive chart Pew put together showing the ratio of 25-34 year old single men to 25-34 year old single women in different metro areas.  Click on the tab for the number of employed men for every 100 women and then hover over the metro area of your choice.  According to the chart here in DFW there are only 85 employed single men for every 100 single women.

The obvious flaw in the chart is the age ranges examined.  It would make more sense to have different age ranges for men and women given the differing realities of fertility and attractiveness.  Still, opening the age range to include older single men wouldn’t help all that much, since older single men are less likely to have any earnings than younger single men are.  Also, there tends to be a reason a man with a decent job reaches a certain age without marrying.  For the most part, they either weren’t attractive or they weren’t interested in marriage.  Lastly, feminism has convinced large numbers of women that it would be weird for them to marry a man who was more than a few years older than them.  My own purely anecdotal observation is that by the time a woman starts to expand her search to include potential husbands ten years older than her, her fertility window is all but closed.

There is also a great deal of foolishness still circulating around the modern marriage market.  Pamela Engel at Business Insider looked at Pew’s interactive chart and rationalized that women have the upper hand, since men must value the same traits in a wife that women value in a husband:

Men are going to have a much harder time than women in finding a partner who’s employed. There doesn’t appear to be a single metro area that’s shown on Pew’s map where employed, unmarried women outnumber employed, unmarried men.

See also:

This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Data, Finding a Spouse, Foolishness, Rationalization Hamster. Bookmark the permalink.

209 Responses to Single men with jobs are becoming a scarce commodity.

  1. Pingback: Single men with jobs are becoming a scarce commodity. | Manosphere.com

  2. zodak says:

    i can’t believe some of them still think we care about their career or their job. so clueless

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    This news will come as a surprise not just to blank-slate feminists, but to those men who can’t quite believe that men and women are different. It should come as no surprise that many men are essentially dropping out, since anything less than total, utter success is punished. The ordinary man with some skills, maybe skilled craftsman, maybe small business owner, maybe mid level manager – these men were certainly “alpha enough” 40+ years ago, but two generations of rampant feminism has programmed a whole lot of women with the Apex fallacy, and thus they simply can’t “see” the averge middle class man any more. Well, shucks, why not work a few odd jobs and go fishing? There have always been men who value their time more than money, but when valuing money enough got a wife to sex up and children to raise, then those men were willing to go along. Now that “wife” means something very and horribly different, and the odds of actually seeing children all the way to adult hood are bad and getting worse, what’s the point, again?

    That quote from Ms. Engel at Business Insider is a clear as crystal example of the feminist blank slate myth at work. Most likely she simply would do the blank stare at anyone who suggested that men and women do not have identical attraction triggers, and if that statement was supported with science from biology she’d probably get angry. Because biology is sexist and misogynous, doncha know.

    Here’s the problem in a larger sense – restoring the incentives even if done overnight would not really change much of anything. The men who have walked away from marriage are not likely to come back, because every argument, every tantrum, every moment of childishenss on the part of a woman will simply remind those men of past danger, and lost personal choices.

    On the job, or in a man’s personal life, it takes a whole lot of “atta-boy” moments to make up for one “aw, shucks” incident. At the societal level it is going to be even worse.

    There’s more than one path for a man to go his own way…

  4. Crank says:

    And, as always, when analyzing the results of such a survey, they ignore the fact that, for most single women, a “man with a good job” really means a man whose job pays him at least as much (and for most women substantially more) than her’s does. Otherwise, they’d have to come to grips with the fact that the so-called “wage gap” exists because of this enduring preference among women for men who make more money than they do.

  5. earl says:

    I really wish I could feel woman’s pain in their desperate search to find a man with a job, really I do.

    But as a single man with a job…I don’t.

  6. deti says:

    “One finding which should come as no surprise (but nevertheless surprised many) is that women strongly prefer to marry men with jobs.”

    (Rhetoric and snark alert)

    Why? Why in today’s society do women strongly prefer to marry employed men? I’ve been hearing for years from certain quarters that women don’t need men anymore. They don’t need men’s money. Women have their own jobs and their own money. Women have economic independence. A third of women will marry men less educated than they. Women outearn many men.

    So why is it so important that a woman marry an employed man?

  7. bluntobj says:

    @anon:

    The ratio was 10 attaboys to 1 aww F in the oilfields, typically. Inflation might have kicked in since I last worked there.

    Not to mention that it’s only the attaboys from men that count. An attaboy from a woman is typically manipulation, and the safe rule is to ignore it.

  8. bluntobj says:

    @deti:

    Better results from their planned babyjack and 5 year frivorce?

  9. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    So why is it so important that a woman marry an employed man?

    For a chuckle, watch one of the women at Jezebel’s hamster knock itself out on this question.

  10. Rudolph says:

    I wanted to chime in complete agreement with Anonymous Reader above. I don’t think of it so much as “going my own way” but as “not worth the trouble.” Utter success is required and still doesn’t insulate you from all of the bad.

    And as long as I’m singing in the choir, I agree with Earl as well. It is tough to muster up any sympathy for them.

  11. TMG says:

    Yet, there are still thousands of single men with good jobs running around who can’t even get a woman to hold their hand because they’re insufficiently thugged-out.

  12. Wilson says:

    This just shows that women need more help from the government. The need has never been greater!

  13. earl says:

    Ah yes while she is out fornicating and procreating with men who are deadbeats and jailbirds…she can still complain about how there are no more good men out there.

  14. deti says:

    TMG:

    My choice of words was deliberate, as were those in the Pew study and Dalrock.

    Women want to MARRY a man with a job. MARRY.

    Women are happy happy happy to date (i.e. have sex with) a thugged out punk, so long as he’s hawt. Hence, Harley McBadboy, Alpha McGorgeous, and F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer.

  15. earl says:

    That’s probably what would happen if you seperate sex from marriage.

  16. Fred Flange, hint of minty freshness says:

    What I am saying here is totally congruent with the above. I give you: additional reasons why single men with jobs are scarce, and must “work like women”. What follows is not an “up the workers” screed; I am playing on Charles Murray’s ballfield. I am simply reporting WHAT IS, not what should be.

    Millennial men have, in addition to their Matrix indoctrination, likewise have had the following drilled into their skulls:

    You are not entitled to a full-time job. Employers have carte blanche to limit you to 30 hours or less because they can.

    You are not entitled to a job in your chosen field, unless it’s STEM or personal service which can’t be outsourced.

    You are not entitled to a job that stays where you live. If the job moves, you move. Assuming it stays in the USA.

    You are not entitled to a career at any company, or any promise of longevity. Even if you got such a promise, a future owner/boss might not wish to honor it, or be able to.

    You are not entitled to a raise, even if you do good work; other forces will govern that.

    You are not entitled to health care, Obamacare or otherwise. You get sick, go to the emergency room. Or set up a medical savings account with your spare pennies if you can.

    If you want to have a family, you are on your own.

    If you do have a family, and things don’t work out, you are on your own – but we all knew that. Ask your divorced folks, at least the one you still talk to.

    You will never own real estate – unless you inherit (see below). Nor should you, if your job(s) are the kind which are likely to move. You need to be mobile, to go where the work is at the drop of a pink slip. So you will need a car.

    In fact, even the Cathedral cognoscenti are waking up to the fact that the typical tract-house All-Amurrican suburb is dying and will never come back. Empty subdivisions are now dens for coyotes and mountain lions. Them folk as still live there are dying or planning moves to places like the Villages. The houses can’t be bought; the money is too tight and incomes aren’t high enough to get a mortgage, even for foreclosed empty shells.

    And of course, the two-parent and two-income family units capable of snapping up those houses like in the good old days are getting scarce too. Which means the house values, which set the real estate tax base, and the municipal services they fund, will weaken and weaken.

    Men are staying in their folks’ house because they have to – there’s no rental housing or what there is exceeds their income range. Maybe they will inherit their folks’ house if it stays in the family.

    So add this into the demand that the only marriageable man is the fully employed man, ready to wife up single mom and her brood on demand, and you have a splendid Gordon Ramsay-style gourmet recipe for MGTOW.*

    And we are surprised?

    *I am not MGTOW myself – but I know some who play one on TV.

  17. anybody remember the movie Murder In The First with Kevin Costner? It’s all action and reaction.

    Action: women no longer need men
    Reaction: Not a single one of them will ever get me…..and I will most gladly take my last breath basking in the glory of their lamenting at a life alone because they wanted to ride the piece of shit alpha loser cock carousel!

  18. Phillyastro says:

    Jobs are becoming redundant. When robots finally take over all the jobs, we will have to make robots who consume the products manufactured by robot labor.

  19. feeriker says:

    Pamela Engel at Business Insider looked at Pew’s interactive chart and rationalized that women have the upper hand, since men must value the same traits in a wife that women value in a husband:

    Zodak sole my thunder.

    They never learn, do they?

  20. tz2026 says:

    “Also, there tends to be a reason a man with a decent job reaches a certain age without marrying. For the most part, they either weren’t attractive or they weren’t interested in marriage”.

    Single as in never married, or single as in divorced, or single as in (to use the old but accurate) “living in sin”?

    I’m single as in “saving myself for marriage”, and am probably past those ages. My category:

    Or they weren’t interested in marriage … with the pushbutton strip the assets and children divorce and family court system. The ads for ADAM and other such lawfirms have been on the whole time I’ve been in the market. Even if you find a woman who claims to want to be faithful now, will she stay that way, if there is a financial reversal, will she go to work? If she gets bored or otherwise unhappy, will she either leave or make the family miserable? Go to work each day and hear the sad discussions of the divorced men and women and the problems and pain.

    Rational people might have trouble with the fires of hell, but the hell of divorce is daily flashing its neon sign. I wasn’t about to take any chances, and even then the average MMV of women crashed like it was 1929 and is still making new lows.

    I also learned by example. I was going through some old papers since I really never asked my father about his first marriage. It wasn’t taboo, but it was painful enough that I didn’t want to have him relive it (or his WW2 experience which he finally started talking about in his late 70’s).

    From my father’s decree of divorce to his first wife (1949! and complicated his Catholic faith, this was long before he met my mother):

    “… it satisfactorily appears to this Court that the material facts charged in the bill of complaint are true, and that the defendant [his wife] has been guilty of the several acts of extreme and repeated cruelty toward the said plaintiff [my father] as therein charged;…”

    He also had to pay her “dower rights” – exactly one dollar, and then she had no rights to any of his property.

    That was 1949 when it was far less likely. By the time I entered the marriage market, things were already crazy stupid.

  21. Honeycomb says:

    The error in this thinking is that … A employed man is looking for a employed woman.

    I am in one of the area’s not included in the chart. But, I have lived recently in an area that is represented in the study. This study doesn’t include the variables I look for in a woman. I am a very discriminating man.

    At 45 years old and making >175K a year this really doesn’t apply to me anymore .. Sorry ladies I am no longer available for cash and prizes .. I guess I am only good for statistics .. lol

  22. earl says:

    Single and waiting for marriage…is the best option for a man with a job if you want to have some sense of peace with the most options for how you choose to live your life.

    Cohabititon can change who you are on a dime (common law marriage).
    Divorce has been made known a 1,000 times over what that does to a man.

  23. tweell says:

    That link is sad, ballista. All that rationalization, projection and multiple strawmen, but not one quote from the Bible. Not even one out of context quote, nothing. Her argument boils down to ‘this is what I feel’, and has no room for the Holy Spirit.

    On the secular level, she doesn’t have any refutation of Dalrock’s points. Admittedly that would be hard to do, but there isn’t any attempt to do so. It’s all ‘he’s mean’ and ‘it isn’t that way because I say so’. Her herd and white knights were busy reassuring her, and that’s even more sad.

  24. HawkandRock says:

    http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/09/30/mras-jesus-look-inside-christian-manosphere/

    Oh, the lies! *shaking head*

    The older I get and the more I am exposed to people like the author of this piece and her supporters, the more I am convinced that there is absolutely no chance of ever reaching some sort of peaceful common ground with these people. These are two groups (i.e., feminists and followers of Christ) that are completely talking past each other.

    The reason is simple — they are at war with God. Period.

    Then again, I am “white, straight, and cisgender” so you should probably not trust anything I say…

  25. feeriker says:

    (Rhetoric and snark alert)

    What am I missing here, deti? Your (rhetorical) question seems spot-on to me. Why the hell would any StrongIndependentEmpoweredWoman[TM] NEED (operative word here) an employed man? Wanting one is one thing, but we shouldn’t encourage today’s SIEWs to continue confusing “want” with “need,” as they are so adept at doing.

    I’m reminded of the old expression “wants in one hand, [fecal matter] in the other. See which fills up first.”

    The bigger question that no one in the mainstream will ever ask, let alone answer, is why any chronically un(der)employed man with even a shred of self-respect remaining would ever want be shackled to some arrogant, self-centered harpy who will never cease reminding him that he is her inferior in every way.

  26. djz242013 says:

    If you notice, the first link (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2014/09/ST-2014-09-24-never-married-03.png), says that women in general have more qualifications than men. On every item, men either tie, or care less. Discreetly missing is the qualification of physical attractiveness, which I image would be slightly in the male favor, but who knows with the modern woman.

    As if we needed more evidence that women are entitled/picky.

  27. MarcusD says:

    (This reminds me of a post I need to finish on this topic.)

    The interesting thing to note about the Pew findings is that about 78% of women want a man with a job, but only about 46% of men want the same in a women. This has been found in research for decades, and now we finally get to see what ignoring reality will bring.

    The Left shall reap what they sow.

  28. donalgraeme says:

    @ MarcusD

    The Left shall reap what they sow.

    It isn’t just the left. We are all reaping what has been sown for generations.

  29. The Brass Cat says:

    From Jezebel:

    It turns out, according to the survey responses, that our desire for a man with employment didn’t have much to do with money; rather it was that the women were interested in being with a man who was “engaged in an activity,” and the women thought working was about as good an activity as there is to keep you busy.

    Doing meth is an activity. It’ll keep you busy. How ’bout that one, ladies?

  30. Honeycomb says:

    Donalgraeme .. “It isn’t just the left. We are all reaping what has been sown for generations.”

    Yep’per .. in fact over 100 years worth.

  31. “Doing meth is an activity”

    So is video games!

  32. feeriker says:

    The reason is simple — they are at war with God. Period.

    This. Period. Everything else discussed here ultimately boils down to this. What the average rebellious woman really believes, if only subconsciously or because she can’t bring herself to say it (give her time), is that she rejects the message of the Scriptures that concerns godly behavior for wives – because God is masculine, the Bible was written by men, from the male perspective, and is therefore inherently oppressive to women. This is really just another variation of Eve’s original sin, one that has been dominant since the beginning of time, and certainly since the birth of the Christian church. “Patriarchy,” in the form of exclusively male leadership in the church, was the only thing that held that in check. Now that this is gone, we see the inevitable results.

  33. The Brass Cat says:

    @The Real Peterman

    At least with meth you’ll burn more calories and the house will be clean.

  34. Zorro says:

    Every time a woman comes to believe Daddy Gov’t (democrats) will support her and her bastard offspring, another nail goes into Western Civilization. Here’s the formula for terminal cancer of an entire culture:
    1. Let women tell other women how the world works (they have no idea because they’ve never made the world work, but now get paid to do this at the college level).
    2. Convince them that they don’t need a man, but, of course!, can have all the kids they biologically desire (see Baby Rabies + Welfare = FEMINISM)
    3. Let these idiots vote.

    I give the US another 75 years before it looks like a Brazilian slum, and Planet Earth 150-200 years before it’s one big Muslim caliphate.

    We are on the cusp of another 1,000-year Dark Age. Drink up and be merry boys. Your grandchildren are going to be the slaves of muzzies.

  35. desiderian says:

    “It isn’t just the left. We are all reaping what has been sown for generations.”

    +1000

  36. Larry J says:

    It’s interesting to look at the other side of the equation. I clicked on the tab for the number of single employed women per 100 men and then scanned a couple dozen cities. In every one I checked, the number of employed women per 100 men was less than the number of employed men per 100 women. While not an exhaustive study by any means, my initial conclusion is that there are a lot of unemployed single women looking for a meal ticket.

    Don’t be that guy.

  37. Panzer101 says:

    Here’s my story: I married my wife a year into the Marines, when I was making like 30k. She already had her Masters and was about to start making 60k. We start having kids and she drops out of the workforce. I eventually earn my bachelors but am still behind her in education. This year I was making over 70k in the Marines and on the fast track to reaching the highest enlisted rank. My wife declares me “abusive” and dangerous, that I have an alcohol problem, reports me to my command, ending my career in the process, and files a protection order to take away my rights to see kids. Later she files for divorce. Now she is having to go back to work on her own to make ends meet despite me paying her 1/3 of my income in support. What is she going to do when I get out and am on unemployment? How was this good for the kids or even in HER self-interest? Her life ahead consists of barely scraping by to make ends meet and having to raise four small children largely on her own. Initially I was devastated, but now I see that after I get re-stablished I am going to get to still father my children (imperfectly) and be doing just fine with the ladies. She, on the other hand, in her early 30s with four small children who can barely scrape by, is only going to be able to find a schlub who will take her. Oh well, it’s only these innocent children who suffer, whatever it takes to accomplish the feminist revolution! God help us.

  38. Sorry to hear that, Panzer101.

  39. Lyn87 says:

    That interactive chart is awesome, Dalrock. When I first looked at it I thought it was saying the opposite of what you were saying, then I realized it had four tabs and I was looking at the generic men-women ratio. In almost all areas shown, men outnumbered women, often by a wide margin. Yet in the vast majority of those areas, woman outnumbered working men, sometimes by a lot. Years of fem-centric public education and government initiatives like AA created that map.

    So what’s a Yugo-grrrl nearing the Wall to do? Well… complaining about men seems to be popular. I’ve started to notice something a lot more than I used to: women are endlessly going on about finding a worthy guy, but they never – ever – talk about what they bring to the table themselves. As the Jezebel piece makes clear: unemployed is one of those factors that makes a man unworthy of consideration. They lie to themselves when they say that it’s about him being busy – yet they only seem to care how busy a man is if he’s busy making money. And it’s even worse than that, because female surgeons aren’t going to pair off with male shelf-stockers, because employed is a euphemism for “makes more money than I do.” Even if we concede the 77-cents-on-the-dollar schtick, that still means that a lot of the employed men are below their income threshold for serious consideration… so the chart actually understates the problem many of these women face.

    This is a smack in the chops to these women – there are men everywhere, but the prevalence of men economically “worthy” of consideration is bad news for women who spent their best years chasing “careers” rather than husbands, since the men they want now have their pick of younger and less jaded versions of themselves.

  40. Gunner Q says:

    TMG @11:52 am:
    “Yet, there are still thousands of single men with good jobs running around who can’t even get a woman to hold their hand because they’re insufficiently thugged-out.”

    I wasn’t going to mention this before now, but I just had my driver’s license picture re-taken. The guy on my new license… he really does look like a thug. Yikes! Even allowing for the DMV hens not being paid to take GOOD pictures, I hate to think this is the effect Game is having on me. Christ wouldn’t want me to present myself to the world as an ex-con.

    Although it suggest a Halloween costume experiment. I sleeve my arms and neck in temporary tattoos… white tee shirt, maybe leather pants or something… big wallet chain… then hit the bars and snarl at the women. There’s a risk it might work. I hate to think that the difference between me being shunned and me fighting off hotties is gang membership (or the appearance of it).

    Or, I could take the experiment to one of the fallen-to-feminism churches I used to attend. If they ban me on sight from their family-oriented event, there’s hope. If I come out with a chick on every arm instead, what a letter I could write to the pastor.

  41. The real irony is that women’s innate solipsism prevents them from understanding cause and (future) effect of their actions and ideologies. It’s not even considered that men might be smart enough to read the tea leaves that women are triumphantly pushing in their faces.

    When feminists and non-identifying feminists alike are actively broadcasting women’s sexual strategy, loudly and proudly flaunting the message that they retain Plan B men, and self-confirming for all who’re paying attention that Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks Hypergamy is how they’ve always operated is it any wonder that the ‘successful’ men they want to wife them up might be wise to them?

    “When looking for a life partner, my advice to women is date all of them: the bad boys, the cool boys, the commitment-phobic boys, the crazy boys. But do not marry them. The things that make the bad boys sexy do not make them good husbands. When it comes time to settle down, find someone who wants an equal partner. Someone who thinks women should be smart, opinionated and ambitious. Someone who values fairness and expects or, even better, wants to do his share in the home. These men exist and, trust me, over time, nothing is sexier.”
    ― Sheryl Sandberg, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead

    When this is the public message to the next generation of women from the spokeswoman for feminist triumphalism is it any wonder that men might think they’re getting a raw deal from marriage?

    It’s not about buying the cow when the milk is free anymore – it’s about the cow milking itself for the Alpha bulls during its best years and expecting you to buy it after she’s gone dry.

    http://therationalmale.com/2014/08/07/open-hypergamy/

  42. Who the heck cares? Modern women have their dildos so far up their feminist assholes, believing so thoroughly in their own moral and intellectual superiority, that it has become a Herculean task to disabuse them of this notion – I doubt even Jesus himself could do it..

  43. Is there slogan going to change from “Where have all the good men gone?! Why is my butt sore?!” to “Where have all the good men with jobs gone?! Why’s my butt still sore?!”

    lololzllzlzozlzlllzozlzozlzozlz!

  44. The Brass Cat says:

    TFH said:

    Note how quickly things shifted from women wanting to do jobs that existed, to demanding that the jobs created be ones women *want* to do, itself tainted by the assumption that if a male job is created, somehow a female job failed to be created.

    We need to start a social movement to fix this problem. It will be #SlobsForJobs and SlobsForJobs.org. SFJ will teach men not to steal jobs from women! For too long men have been oppressing women by stealing and hording all cool, sexy, high-pay dream jobs. Men need to learn how to share jobs with women because helping men help women in the end helps men and women who help men.

    Don’t be a slob, give women your job!

  45. That should be “their slogan”.

  46. So let me get this straight, they wanted to go chase unemployed thugs, losers and criminals and now they are concerned with getting a dude who is employed so that he can fund their past sins? Let’s not forget that even when supply is drying up of “marriagable” men, they will do nothing themselves to make themselves more “marriage-worthy”. Hence, I will continue to rail against any fool thinking to marry in this day and age. Even in the realm and context of marriage, you are only worthy by pedigree of employment. You are never seen as a creature created by God in His Image and saved by His Son because of His Merciful Grace, at least not in the eyes of most modern women. The only skill modern women have picked up that they seem to excel is to whine and grip over the most trivial of inconveniences.

    If women, as a group, have failed to make themselves marriageable, then they need to quit whining about the lack of marriageable men because it’s simple law of supply and demand. If the supply of marriageable men has gone down, the value of the ones who are “marriageable” obviously goes up, hence their cost goes up since demand has now increased. Thus, the currency that women pay in order to receive matrimony with one of these chaps is virginity and submissiveness. These are qualities that don’t just magically appear overnight. It takes a lifetime to cultivate and hone. So many of them will find themselves without the safety, protection, and provision that marriage (godly marriage) would provide them. Why..cause the moral and spiritual cost would be too high as they have done nothing to prepare for the responsibilities of the office of wife and mother. There’s only one guarantee in this life, if you place your faith in Jesus, repent of your sins, you will be saved. Marriage is NOT guaranteed and therefore is NOT an entitlement from God.

  47. Hugh Mann says:

    From Dalrock’s jezebel link about professional women not dating unemployed men

    “I’m not sure it’s so much about the traditional belief that men should be the financial providers so much as it is about believing that a man who doesn’t have job and doesn’t have a solid plan to get one probably isn’t as desirable as a mate because he lacks ambition or intelligence or some other mysterious quality that we perceive as being necessary in our boyfriends”

    Could the ‘mysterious quality’ be money, by any chance ?

  48. Casey says:

    Looking at the map, if you click on ‘number of employed men for every 100 women’ as well as ‘number of employed women for every 100 men’ you see very quickly that women still lead the charts in unemployment.

    Undoubtedly of their on choosing.
    The yellow end of the spectrum on the map is overwhelming female based.

    What is really needed is a map that shows ‘number of employed women for every 100 EMPLOYED men’.

    Unemployed women looking for employed men is nothing new.
    Shack up with a WIC recipient if you dare.

  49. Joey says:

    @Hugh Man: Could the ‘mysterious quality’ be money, by any chance ?

    Sure. If a prize winning economist like Paul Krugman* doesn’t know how money works, I don’t know why you’d expect the average woman to have a clue.

    *In fairness, his shrill little harpy of a wife ghostwrites his bitterly partisan ad hominem-flinging columns. So it may be her that is economically illiterate. But he lets her do the writing so the point stands.

  50. Dal, you should really listen to this interview or at least read the highlights. Truth and statistics caffeinates the hamster.

    http://www.npr.org/2014/09/30/352661280/marriage-pattern-shifts-seen-by-some-as-destabilizing-society

  51. Just Saying says:

    men must value the same traits in a wife that women value in a husband

    What a maroon… Men value youth, attractiveness, and inexperience – women value men who have experience, money, and confidence – age doesn’t matter when it comes to sex, it does when it comes to marriage – usually. But then I have a 20 yo who has taken me home to meet her family, and I started to worry when I found her father is 35 years older than her mother. Not good, since family opinion means a lot to women when it comes to marriage.

    For a meaningful chart you have to factor in what each find attractive… One of the reason I have no women older then 25 in my core group is that is when they start thinking of marriage rather than fun… Of course, the ones that start looking early are the dangerous ones… By the time they are in their mid-30’s – only guys in their late 50’s and 60’s who already have raised one family start looking, mostly because the younger ones aren’t available to them… If they are – those guys aren’t looking to marry… It is that simple…

  52. beta_plus says:

    And that’s before you even factor in female obesity.

  53. Buck says:

    I have a one year bible, you know, the kind that takes you through the book in a year with an old/new testament then psalm and proverb per day. Well it’s Isaiah time of the year and check out September 9th, Isaiah 4:1, “and in that day (end times) seven women shall take hold of one man, saying we will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach” Interesting is it not?

  54. earl says:

    Honestly considering the quality of man these women are fornicating with…I’d consider it beta fux, beta bucks.

    What is so alpha about a guy who doesn’t produce anything of value to society except keeping the police employed or a spawn of bastards?

  55. Earl, you and I don’t get to define “alpha”; the women happily having their bastard spawn do.

  56. Honeycomb says:

    earl .. “beta fuxs and beta bucks” ..

    If a woman thinks it’s true. It’s true. Woman’s logic 101

    If she says he is an Alpha .. he is an Alpha.

    It doesn’t have to make sense.

    Believe me I know to well the depths of a woman’s self-deceit.

  57. To put it another way, “alpha” isn’t a moral judgment. It’s not about whether a man is good or bad, Christian or heathen, law-abiding or criminal, productive or a wastrel. It’s about whether women want to belong to him. That’s all.

  58. Crank says:

    @earl
    I think it’s important to distinguish between the alpha within intra-male heirarchies and the alpha male that generates the most tingles. While there is sometimes some overlap (because status is among the tingle generating traits), they are not one and the same.

  59. Oblivion says:

    this is off topic, but any guy who squashed the beta out of himself will get a chuckle.
    in my 20s i didn’t understand why woman dated complete losers, now that im in my 30s i realized the af/bb strategy. the problem is now that the word got out to most men. I visited my parents the other day and my mother asked if i was dating. I told her about the nice 22-23yr olds that ive been dating. she said “dont u want a woman your own age?, they are really young” I told her that women my age were all used up at this point and i wasnt giving my best years to a woman unless i got hers” she looks at me kinda horrified and i said with a smirk ” mom if u want any more grandkids, your going to have to get behind this idea” she shook her head and smiled.

  60. earl says:

    “If a woman thinks it’s true. It’s true. Woman’s logic 101”

    Oh I know…truth to them is all subjective.

  61. earl says:

    “I think it’s important to distinguish between the alpha within intra-male heirarchies and the alpha male that generates the most tingles. While there is sometimes some overlap (because status is among the tingle generating traits), they are not one and the same.”

    Yeah one is a true alpha (produces for all)…and the other is a subjective alpha (produces something only in her).

  62. Honeycomb says:

    earl .. buddy .. pal ..

    You’re a smart guy. It wasn’t a slight. Just a chance to convey a thought to our readers / non-posters .. ie lurkers that needed the point made.

    (re: woman logic 101)

  63. earl says:

    I didn’t take it as a slight…just today a woman on twitter thought I was unemployed, therefore I must be unemployed.

  64. earl says:

    I even had a woman tell me I didn’t have the right to clear cut boundaries when it comes to consent. So the idea that if a woman thinks it is true, it must be true should be something every man knows.

  65. Honeycomb says:

    lol .. don’t worry .. I make all the girls scream too ;@D

    I liked it better when I knew how women acted and they played dumb. Now they are so obnoxiously and overtly mouthy about everything I would rather not be in the same room with any of that gender.

  66. Alpha is a state of mind, not a demographic.

    There are Alpha leaders-of-men and there are Alphas incarcerated in prison. Alpha is not a value judgement, Alpha is as Alpha does.

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/20/alpha/

  67. The Brass Cat says:

    What do you call an alpha male stranded alone on an island with no water?

    Crabfood in a few days.

  68. earl says:

    Well then…if a guy who spends his days eating Cheetos, playing video games, and lives in his mother’s basement thinks he’s alpha, he must be alpha.

    Alpha is a value judgement and a state of mind. Anyone can think they are alpha…fewer can actually cash that check.

  69. greyghost says:

    I checked out that MRA’s for Jesus link and had some fun.
    Well Dalrock I guess the unemployed guy can just be up front and say. “I not working right now so marriage is out of the question. That being said I would sure love to ride that phat body of yours. Yo shit would be hurtin when I got through tearing that ass up”
    We have got to go get us a beer one day Dalrock

  70. Earl,

    “What is so alpha about a guy who doesn’t produce anything of value to society except keeping the police employed or a spawn of bastards?”

    Evil begets evil, my friend. When they choose to sleep with these sorts, it demonstrates the moral and spiritual choice they make in following their own sin instead of being lead by the Holy Spirit. Truthfully, it also demonstrates the deplorable state of their spiritual being. It’s hard for me to believe a girl claiming Christ when she is UNREPENTANTLY screwing every thing with a tattoo that knows how to swear and spank ass. Sure you can make the case with men doing the same, but the vast majority of men learn and learn quickly, hence the reason why see fewer and fewer marriages and all the lamenting women are doing with the lack of marriages and opportunities to get married. They will never be able to put two-and-two together to figure out why marriageable men are scarce, at least according to the metric of employment. In truth, what they see is a result of the choices they collectively made. They went after the thug, they collectively called “wolf” and now that the “wolf” is all that there is, they are lamenting. The problem being, they believe that crying “wolf” even louder through their Feminist mantra’s and their abysmal choices in loser men is going to solve the problem. I recall the definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

  71. earl says:

    Yes.

    Try telling these women their responsibility for their actions and you get insults, blame shifting, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

    So let them have their thugs and eat it too.

  72. Interesting how the wailing and gnashing of teeth is also described of another key group of people in the Bible…those in the Lake of Fire. Food for thought.

    Accountability and Responsibility Cram It Into Women’s Thick Heads – brought to you by the The Foundation for a Better Life

  73. The Brass Cat says:

    earl says:

    Well then…if a guy who spends his days eating Cheetos, playing video games, and lives in his mother’s basement thinks he’s alpha, he must be alpha.

    Alpha is a value judgement and a state of mind. Anyone can think they are alpha…fewer can actually cash that check.

    The value is being judged by women. Ultimately it is women who decide if you are alpha or beta. But, alphaness can also be defined as a state of mind that influences behavior in such a way that the behavior is arousing to women. Most alphas are naturals but betas can learn some tricks from them. A woman will assess your status (binary: Alpha, yes/no?) within the first moments of social interaction and she is unlikely to change her mind. It is harsh but efficient.

    In the unlikely event that your basement guy is getting action on the regular then he is probably alpha.

  74. earl says:

    So a man is either useful and worked to death…or useless and starved to death.

    Give what curse God gave man…I’d take the first.

  75. The Brass Cat says:

    TFH says:

    What do you call an alpha male stranded alone on an island with no water?
    Crabfood in a few days.

    Yes. And what do you call a beta male with a highly useful but unglamorous job in a society where women are 94 years into suffrage?

    Coal for the furnace.

    I think “pack mule” would also be an acceptable answer.

  76. earl says:

    “The value is being judged by women. Ultimately it is women who decide if you are alpha or beta.”

    Men can’t judge this?

  77. The Brass Cat says:

    earl says:

    So a man is either useful and worked to death…or useless and starved to death.

    Give what curse God gave man…I’d take the first.

    Or, a man can be useful to himself. No need to starve.

  78. JDG says:

    The value is being judged by women. Ultimately it is women who decide if you are alpha or beta.

    I suppose I don’t really have a dog in the alpha beta debate (don’t know or care what I am), but I think that if these terms are so subjective as to be decided by women then they are effectively meaningless. One woman’s alpha will then be another woman’s beta. Meaningless.

  79. Honeycomb says:

    Brass Cat said ..
    “In the unlikely event that your basement guy is getting action on the regular then he is probably alpha”

    I can’t link the article for some reason .. But it’s about a homless man getting regular sex from women who give him shelter / sleep-overs.

    No excuses. Alpha or not he get regular sex as a drug addict, avg looking homeless man.

  80. The Brass Cat says:

    earl says:

    “The value is being judged by women. Ultimately it is women who decide if you are alpha or beta.”

    Men can’t judge this?

    They can and do, but women are the deciders. If you convince some men that you are alpha, then they see a woman judge you as beta, then the men will downgrade your status at least temporarily.

    In a group of betas a leader can emerge but he isn’t automatically going to be considered alpha by men or women.

  81. earl says:

    “Or, a man can be useful to himself. No need to starve.”

    The whole starve thing comes when a man decides not to put in work.

    It doesn’t matter if a guy works hard for a woman, a family, a company, or himself…he has to work to not starve.

  82. The Brass Cat says:

    Working for himself = being useful to himself

    Speaking of starving, it’s dinner time for me. Later.

  83. earl says:

    “If you convince some men that you are alpha, then they see a woman judge you as beta, then the men will downgrade your status at least temporarily.”

    Well yeah…because you couldn’t cash the checks your mouth was writing. Convincing men you are alpha should be done through actions and not words.

    With women…you can convince them you are alpha only with words, hence how game was born.

  84. Robin Munn says:

    @Joey –

    Re: your assertion about Paul Krugman –

    In fairness, his shrill little harpy of a wife ghostwrites his bitterly partisan ad hominem-flinging columns. So it may be her that is economically illiterate. But he lets her do the writing so the point stands.

    This is the first time I’ve heard this assertion. I’m easily biased towards believing it, which is one good reason to be suspicious and double-check. (If New York Times reporters actually understood that “too good to check” means “I’d better check this one twice just to make sure”, it might still be the paper of record.) Where did you learn this? What’s the evidence for this assertion? Has Krugman ever admitted to having his articles ghostwritten by his wife, or did someone discover this, or is it a rumor that may or may not have any truth behind it?

  85. desiderian says:

    Robin,

    The voice is noticeably different. People who don’t want to notice pass it off as the difference between scholarly and popular writing, but the difference wasn’t there before he got married.

    In the 80/90’s, when he earned a name and Nobel for himself, Krugman was an interesting, iconoclastic read. I enjoyed and appreciated his work, and I’m less than 0% prog, especially on economics. There was a definite and dramatic change around the time of Lewinsky. Later I realized it was also about the time he got married.

  86. chris says:

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/pop-psych/201409/understanding-male-investment-in-children

    Some investment that men do in children is mating effort by men to keep the women. Thus as men don’t get to keep the woman, that mating effort goes to zero for that women meaning less investment in children proportionate to the amount that was mating effort.

  87. Men are going to have a much harder time than women in finding a partner who’s employed. There doesn’t appear to be a single metro area that’s shown on Pew’s map where employed, unmarried women outnumber employed, unmarried men.

    Almost perfect. Let me alter a few words (that no woman would ever type about her own gender) and make the phrase truly perfect.

    Men are going to have a much harder time than women in finding a partner who’s not in debt. There doesn’t appear to be a single metro area that’s shown on Pew’s map where unmarried men with a negative net worth outnumber unmarried women with a negative net worth.

  88. MarcusD says:

    Advice on divorce & joining the church
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=912525

    How much should Christian mothers intervene in dating lives of children?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=912543

  89. MarcusD says:

    It amazes me how people try to smear Christian men: https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/118155556571044663221/wm/4/110612591265514958522/posts/9PGgsrjSoUc

    I came across it randomly, but it’s still interesting to read. You can tell they’re having a hard time restraining themselves.

  90. oldfashionedfellow says:

    Meanwhile, in two completely unrelated stories…

    IT HAPPENED TO ME: I Donated My Eggs So I Could Travel The World
    http://www.xojane.com/relationships/egg-donation

    Study Says Women Feel Free to Bang ‘Like a Man’ on Vacation
    http://www.xojane.com/sex/study-says-women-feel-free-to-bang-like-a-man-on-vacation

  91. Robin Munn says:

    @MarcusD –

    After reading that piece you linked, I came to two conclusions:

    1) Josh Fredman (the author of the piece) is having a hard time getting past his preconceptions (“Christians bad, Christians anti-intellectual, Christians dumb”) when confronted with someone who blows those preconceptions out of the water. Oh, and I don’t believe his characterization of his high-school philosophy teacher, Mr. Pontier, for one second.

    2) Destin (the subject of the piece, no last name given) sounds like someone I would instantly like on meeting him, and all I know about him is from this biased piece. I’m definitely going to check out his science videos on Youtube at some point.

    Thanks for linking that article: I not only gained more insight into how anti-Christians think, but I also learned about a very cool Youtube video series which I hadn’t yet heard of.

  92. Robin Munn says:

    For reference, Destin’s video channel, titled “Smarter Every Day”, is http://www.youtube.com/user/destinws2.

  93. The Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    Ah yes while she is out fornicating and procreating with men who are deadbeats and jailbirds…she can still complain about how there are no more good men out there. Says Earl

    There are lots of good men out there, they just are not interested in women with high N counts and who are not virtuous. Their mojo is working, it just won’t work on you gals. Enjoy your cats.

  94. Opus says:

    What is wrong with the word ‘received’? ‘Got’ is an awful word, and your American usage of this German import ‘gotten’ is even worse and really grates, though oddly ‘forgotten’ seems entirely normal.

    Having pondered the Pew study I would expect the effect to be Soft Harems, Gigolos, Unwed mothers and much Involuntary celibacy – rather like the sub-Saharan model – the cause being, rather than any innate collective effort attributable to the fair sex, female privilege.

    Sheryl Sandberg’s advice seems to me to be the career plan of choice for Courtesans. When I was younger, more or less most women married their first boyfriend but that did not mean they were settling or were operating under Hobson’s choice – far from it, I would say: those who dithered lost out, as will those who listen to Sandberg.

    Women undoubtedly feel, whilst on vacation, away from prying eyes, free to bang like a man – unfortunately most men, whether on vacation or not, (the 99%) do not bang like men are fabled to do any more than because men run faster than women all men run as fast as Bolt; thus women emulating men turns women into unpaid whores. If it were otherwise we would not have the phenomena of the girl from Northern Ireland, whilst vacationing in Majorca, going in for speed-fellatio. Amazingly (as I have observed) women really do believe that it is as easy for men, as for women, to have sex at will and thus a woman finding a man attractive but on learning that he has not been scoring, will, in her eyes, convert the man into one showing choice and self-control – saving himself for her, in fact. Ye gods.

  95. Johnycomelately says:

    A flat birth rate means two things;
    1) A man shortage as men tend to marry down, effectively creating a sex ratio imbalance.
    2) Women will either seeking to marry younger men, share or go without.

    Since 1975 the birth rate has been relatively flat so the 1980 and onwards cohorts will only begin to feel the pinch now, the numbers are pretty much cooked into the books and there is no ‘solution’.

    As the 80s and onwards cohorts are only now currently in the process of hitting the wall, the gnashing of teeth is only in the infancy stage. The next 15 years will show the gravity of the situation.

  96. deti says:

    “women really do believe that it is as easy for men, as for women, to have sex at will”

    I can attribute this only to solipsism and the apex fallacy. In truth it’s the attractive men, the men women actually notice, who can have sex at will. Most women believe that all men – ALL MEN – are out there doing what she’s doing, which is working, traveling, buying cool stuff, looking for The One, but on the way, occasionally having sex with an attractive member of the opposite sex. But if a man cannot or will not do this, then he is not a man. He is just a male, a sexual “blank”.

    Women really do see the world in terms of three sexes or “genders”: the Masculine (attractive men they want to have sex with); Feminine (themselves and all other women); and Neuter (males; men they don’t want to have sex with; men they eventually marry).

  97. deti says:

    Said it on the other thread, I’ll say it here, Opus.

    Any woman at a 4 or above in attractiveness has sex available to her any time she wants it, 24/7/365. All she has to do is go to a bar and announce she is DTF, and would the men who are willing please line up so she can pick the best one to have sex with right now. All she has to do then is select the most attractive one who presents himself.

    I remember being a single guy in the SMP in the mid to late 1980s. At its easiest, getting a girl to have sex with you was like purchasing a firearm and then suffering the waiting period. At its toughest it was like building the Great Pyramids at Giza. (H/T Delicious Tacos for that quote.)

  98. Casey says:

    @ Opus

    Sheryl Sandberg is a damn poor excuse as a role model for women.
    She comes across as a snide, careerist bitch attempting to get as many women as possible to follow in her footsteps.

    There is ONE problem.
    Not ALL women can be the COO of Facebook. Nor men for that matter.

    There simply are NOT a significant number of these types of positions that everyone can have one.

    Even more to the point, not everyone has the CAPACITY to be in these high level positions (assuming they were plentiful in the first place).

    The average person is going to wind up at an average job, paying an average salary.

    So, with that said: Do women want to postpone childbirth (or go without altogether) for the sake of a $ 30,000 a year call-centre job?

  99. Casey says:

    I recall being at a company conference a few years ago where a woman was asked to speak to the attendees.

    She was a V.P. from one of our suppliers, and she was in her early 40s at the time.

    She was a feminist to the bone, and cawed about how she had to prove herself over and over, and with a higher degree of scrutiny than men in similar positions.

    It was utter BULLSHIT.

    The men in the audience tried to refrain from rolling their eyes, as they all knew she was quotaed into the position; and was undoubtedly the last one they would ever fire……as she had all the necessary skillsets needed by current recruitment requisites. A vagina.

    Next up, once the men had been thoroughly painted as sackless layabouts, was the ‘you go girrlllll’ address to the females in the audience.

    She held herself up as a model for the women in the audience in the ‘I did it, so you can do it’ genre.

    Next, she derailed marriage & children as a goal (again holding herself out as the example)…….as she never had children, and didn’t get married until she was 40.

    I couldn’t refrain from my eyeroll. Give me a break, you aren’t fooling anyone sister…..you hit the WALL and you got SCARED!

    I have no doubt her husband is a neutered bitch.

    I believe after being subjected to her feminst tyrade, I excused myself and promptly through up my lunch.

  100. “with a higher degree of scrutiny than men in similar positions”

    I don’t suppose she had any objective facts to back up that assertion.

  101. Boxer says:

    Any woman at a 4 or above in attractiveness has sex available to her any time she wants it, 24/7/365. All she has to do is go to a bar and announce she is DTF, and would the men who are willing please line up so she can pick the best one to have sex with right now. All she has to do then is select the most attractive one who presents himself.

    Any man has sex available to him at any time he wants it, 24/7/365. He just has to do the equivalent, and hit up a disgustingly ugly fattie, or 40-something single mom. Or, he could pay a crack-addled, herpes infested street prostitute. For 20 bucks, you could find several such to spread their well-worn meat flaps for you.

    It’s the equivalent, you see? A woman at 4 on the SMV scale doesn’t want to be blowing a wino in the metro, any more than you want to sex up an acne scarred, morbidly obese baby mama. Aspirations are important, and nobody likes mediocrity.

    Boxer

  102. Hank Flanders says:

    In fairness, his shrill little harpy of a wife ghostwrites his bitterly partisan ad hominem-flinging columns. So it may be her that is economically illiterate. But he lets her do the writing so the point stands.

    Doesn’t Krugman go on TV and say the same stuff mentioned in his columns, though? For a long time, I just assumed Krugman was a shrewd capitalist (conman?). In his case, he sells to leftist media outlets (somewhat redundant I know), academics, government elitists, and just gullible leftists in general. Whether he believes what he’s selling is irrelevant, and I don’t believe he does. With his level of education and experience, he should know better, but in order to stay relevant, he tells people what they want to hear about government being the answer to society’s problems, including and especially, economic problems. Like any good capitalist, he’s found a niche where he can sell his product.

  103. Hank Flanders says:

    FYI: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/09/30/mras-jesus-look-inside-christian-manosphere/

    Is “masculinist” even a thing? I’ve never heard that anywhere except for in her article (and maybe from a Tim Allen stand-up bit many years ago).

  104. Any woman at a 4 or above in attractiveness has sex available to her any time she wants it, 24/7/365. All she has to do is go to a bar and announce she is DTF, and would the men who are willing please line up so she can pick the best one to have sex with right now. All she has to do then is select the most attractive one who presents himself.

    I think you’re being generous with an HB4:

    http://imgur.com/17mezL6

  105. Tam the Bam says:

    “2) Women will either seeking to marry younger men, share or go without.”
    Don’t know about that, Johny. Unless in the sense “younger men than they do at present”, i.e. that they will attach themselves to men of almost the same age as they are, but at a younger age?

    I can’t see the pitch “Hey boys! Do you like the whiff of kipper? Step right up and grab yourselves a slice of the finest cask-aged ‘tang we’ve been saving, just for you!” going anywhere soon, or it already would be. Not going to happen. Unless you’re Norman Bates, I suppose.

  106. It’s the equivalent, you see? A woman at 4 on the SMV scale doesn’t want to be blowing a wino in the metro, any more than you want to sex up an acne scarred, morbidly obese baby mama. Aspirations are important, and nobody likes mediocrity.

    No, it’s not. You’re comparing a woman (4) being able to have sex with 5, 6 and 7 type men, which is socially acceptable, to a man (4) having to visit a prostitute because he cannot get a 3 or 4 to commit to him for marriage.. and society will shame men for doing so..

    Anyway, if there are women out there with morals and standards that make them refuse advances from men who want them just for sex and not marriage, we wouldn’t have the issue we have no and a man (4) would be able to get commitment from most women (4).

  107. Boxer says:

    No, it’s not. You’re comparing a woman (4) being able to have sex with 5, 6 and 7 type men, which is socially acceptable, to a man (4) having to visit a prostitute because he cannot get a 3 or 4 to commit to him for marriage.. and society will shame men for doing so..

    You don’t know what you’re talking about, and your response is a good example of the male apex fallacy. You assume women can have sex with any man they want, any time they want, because you don’t know the reality of the female social structure.

    A woman (4) being able to have sex with a man (7) only happens if the man (7) is falling down drunk in the subway station — and after the act he beats a hasty retreat, hoping no one in his inner circle witnessed his slumming.

    Best, Boxer

  108. deti says:

    Rollo:

    I suppose I might be generous with a HB4. That said, the ladies depicted would be able to get sex with a male 5 or 6 any day of the week and twice on Saturdays.

  109. Fine, leave it at 5 to 6, she is still getting sex, not marriage, from men above her on the SMP scale, which no man could do. It’s not comparable.

  110. Crank says:

    @casey

    Yeah, it’s one thing to accept that you married a woman who gave the best of her youthful sexuality to bikers and bad guitarists (and openly states that she considers them “sexier” than you), so long as you get a billion dollars out of the deal. It’s another thing to marry a woman with the same history who brings nothing but a mountain of debt, career burnout and personal neurosis.

  111. Shouldn’t say ‘no man’ but most men.

  112. I didn’t assume anything. There might be men who refuse her advances, but she will eventually find men above her SMP for sex but not marriage. No one, not any person on this planet, can get sex from every person.

  113. Crank says:

    @deti
    “That said, the ladies depicted would be able to get sex with a male 5 or 6 any day of the week and twice on Saturdays.”

    At closing time, she could get it from an 8 if he’s horny and doesn’t mind a little extra meat (so long as his friends don’t know). The terms “dumpster diving” didn’t come about for no reason.

  114. deti says:

    Boxer:

    I’m with FemHater on this one. The issue is who can get sex, really. A female 4 can get sex from male 5s and 6s by just showing up with a pulse and a minimum of consciousness. We all know this.

    A man getting sex from a female 2 or a prostitute is either grossly undesirable and below his attraction floor in which case he will not do it; or risky and illegal. So the scenario with the man isn’t even remotely comparable to the one in which the HB 4 shows up and takes home a male 5 for some validation/affirmation or because she just feels like it.

  115. Boxer says:

    As usual, the 2 Live Crew got here before the manosphere.

    (Warning: Very rough language, definitely not safe for work.)

  116. Casey says:

    @ The Real Peterman

    “I don’t suppose she had any objective facts to back up that assertion.”

    No, no she did not.
    Just the standard feminist fare of: “I am a woman, therefore I must be getting discrimated against.”

  117. deti says:

    Boxer:

    The HB 4 won’t be blowing a wino in the subway. She’ll be starfish screwing a hapless “got lucky” beta male 5 or 6 with a job and an apartment who doesn’t know, and will probably never figure out, what he did right to get sex that night.

  118. Boxer says:

    I’m with FemHater on this one. The issue is who can get sex, really. A female 4 can get sex from male 5s and 6s by just showing up with a pulse and a minimum of consciousness. We all know this.

    C- (argvmentvm ad popvlvm)

    In my experience (cruising the nightclubs looking for easy women, while working at a large public university for the past several years) this almost never happens. People generally care more about their ingroup social status than sexual availability with a mediocre chick. The competition for men, even for sex, is actually pretty fierce among women, which is why they dress and act as provocatively as possible.

    Best, Boxer

  119. http://news.yahoo.com/feminist-government-green-tinge-sweden-105640149.html

    Sweden really going down the crapper. How much more anti-rape laws can Sweden implement? I’m sure we’ll find out..

  120. As a South African, the supposed ‘Neutral’ Country of Sweden, which funded terrorists that killed many people in my country and allowed the ANC’s socialist and communist rot to rule, I now applaud their downward spiral and don’t pity them one bit. Fuck Sweden!

  121. deti says:

    Boxer:

    Yes, competition for desirable men is fierce. But that’s not the point I’m making. The point is that if the HB 4 wants it, she will always, always be able to get sex from a more desirable man, a man above her in SMV.

    The average man doesn’t have any such luxury. He cannot get sex unless he goes below his attraction floor (which he won’t do, even if he’s pent up and hard up) or goes to a hooker (which most men won’t do because it’s illegal in most cases and risky in all cases, and most can’t afford the decent ones).

    The male 5 doesn’t go to a female 1 or 2 or to whores. He’ll fap to porn before he does that.

  122. deti says:

    Looking atain at the pic Rollo linked to: Where I’m from, that’s the “average” girl. overweight to obese, heavily made up, acts promiscuous and sexually forward. I see girls like this at work, at the mall, at shopping centers, walking around downtown. Sexually, they get whatever they want. Most are married and have at least one kid. If they’re not, they’re in “serious relationships” or looking. They can easily get sex if that’s what they want.

  123. Opus says:

    I hesitate to suggest that the reason for Boxer’s views as to the ease of availability of females is because he is or was in the habit of slumming it with the 4s, 3s, and 2s – but, if he did, then it was surely for the purposes of academic research of which, we all, of course, approve.

    Rollo Tomassi’s linked fatties are not really 4s because when judging the female SMV we assume that they are neither old nor fat – fatties, like oldies, are, for some, an acquired taste. One reason that no one ever mentions as to why there is a shortage of females is this: men and women tend to keep their lives separate and apart; the only time they meet is if a woman invades a male space – the very fact that she is in your local bar is that she is DTF. Men do not invade female spaces but if they do are generally made to feel unwelcome, so men have to wait for the proverbial fish to swim by. Some, of course have women to deal with at work but that is a minefield of frustrations and false-accusations and thus best avoided, which thus leaves Church (I don’t know anything about Sunday Morning Night-Club, baby) or the Street, and we know from Krauser what the chances of success are there – and of course you have to choose the right street, enjoy approach and have a thick skin.

    Boxer is correct to say that there is a social element about these things and that a man will not want to be seen to be slumming it – as ones standing with males will then deteriorate, lowering ones already precarious SMV. It has to be said that one of the best ways of attracting women is to ignore them, for women do not have the same fear of rejection that men have and will approach you or hang-around until it slowly dawns on you that one is of interest to them.

    If Boxer were correct in suggesting that sexual availability of women was of the same ease as sexual availability is of men, then one would not have the phenomena of the women of average looks and figure who pull every night and without appearing to exert any form of game save to make her intentions clear – a lively personality of course helps – and Hetero men would be exchanging as many partners as their Homo counterparts – they aren’t – and that is not because Homo men are better at Gay Game.

  124. Exfernal says:

    @feministhater:

    In other news, white-knighting could get you killed. Anybody, would you expect a citywide riot over his death?

  125. Boxer says:

    I hesitate to suggest that the reason for Boxer’s views as to the ease of availability of females is because he is or was in the habit of slumming it with the 4s, 3s, and 2s – but, if he did, then it was surely for the purposes of academic research of which, we all, of course, approve.

    No legitimate field research was done in the course of my slumming. Sadly, I can’t even blame desperation. Mere laziness was the culprit, as often as drunken stupors.

    The novelty of such exploits wears off quickly. Hell, even the memories are painfully humiliating if I delve too deeply. The trauma, I tell you…

  126. Lyn87 says:

    I recall an incident from my college days, one which I only heard about rather than witnessed (thankfully) that bears on the topic under discussion. As I have mentioned before, I attended a military academy, which was, naturally, overwhelmingly male. And not just generically male, either, but mostly fit, traditionally masculine young men who did well enough in high school to be admitted to the place.

    One of the “sports” some of the guys used to do was called “pig hunting.” The idea was that whoever had sex with the ugliest girl was the “winner.” It took decades before I figured out the point: it’s like the dumb-asses who get themselves killed trying to one-up each other doing “extreme” challenges. “Hey, Bill! Watch while I grab that bear cub!”… or “Hey, Marty! Record me while I slide down this glacier on a garbage can lid!”… or something from “Fear Factor” where the contestant who drinks the biggest glass of pureed cockroaches wins a prize. Those guys would joke about it – nobody lost status by being the most extreme “pig hunter.”

    Then one night one of the other companies in the battalion had a party. There was one girl known to all who was widely acknowledged to be the lowest of the low. Apparently much alcohol was consumed, and the next morning one of the guys woke up surprised to find “lipstick on his dipstick.” He was even more surprised when it turned out that the grotesque fat chick had grass stains on the knees of her pants – although perhaps mortified would be a better description. No cookie for him – because it wasn’t part of a competition, though. He just got teased about it.

  127. @Lyn87
    pighunting…

    I personally witnessed a “no pride night” display that involved a 300+ pound woman that required two men, one to hold her belly up far enough that the other could penetrate her. It brings new meaning to the word “gross.” I lost a lot of respect for a few guys that night. Lost my cookies too, at the sight of that.

  128. mikediver5 says:

    Lyn87

    I have a feeling that I attended one of the other military academies (not the one on the Hudson), and long before you did. Back in my day they were not mostly male, but all male. In my venue it was not pig hunting but being awarded the “Brick”. This was an actual gold painted brick, which came with a dollar from each of the other members of a particular group on the outing.

    Let me say to Boxer that you must never have been in the military. Try a few months at sea not seeing a woman and you will be surprised how low you will go (and without realizing it). All women look beautiful when you haven’t seen one in a long time. And I have seen sailors, reasonably normal looking ones, with some 2’s and possibly some 1’s (I can’t be sure because I couldn’t look long enough to make a judgment, somethings are just too horrible.) If a female 1 wants to get laid by a male 5 all she has to do is go where the ratio of men to women is skewed in her favor. This is not true for men. Women will just do without if they can’t get what they want, while guys will take what they can get; if you don’t believe this then you have never been thirsty.

  129. MarcusD says:

    @Lyn87

    One of the “sports” some of the guys used to do was called “pig hunting.” The idea was that whoever had sex with the ugliest girl was the “winner.”

    I didn’t attend a military school, but engineering is close enough in terms of the culture (or so I’m told). Anyhow, they had a word for it, too: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Warthogging

  130. MarcusD says:

    @Robin Munn

    Destin’s channel is very interesting, and I’m quite impressed by his energy and knowledge.

    Some good came from that post.

  131. Boxer says:

    Dear Mikediver:

    Let me say to Boxer that you must never have been in the military. Try a few months at sea not seeing a woman and you will be surprised how low you will go (and without realizing it). All women look beautiful when you haven’t seen one in a long time. And I have seen sailors, reasonably normal looking ones, with some 2’s and possibly some 1’s (I can’t be sure because I couldn’t look long enough to make a judgment, somethings are just too horrible.)

    OK.

    If a female 1 wants to get laid by a male 5 all she has to do is go where the ratio of men to women is skewed in her favor.

    The problem with this proposition is that it is directly refuted by what you wrote, immediately preceding it (in the same paragraph, no less).

    There are lots of places women can go where they’re outnumbered by men, one of the most obvious being the nightclub. Ugly women almost never get picked up regardless, by a sober man. They’re almost always there as a cockblock for a group of non-ugly friends, if they go at all.

    The reason that the <6 women go down to the dock, and wait for the fleet to come in, is that they're untouchable anywhere else, unless they get very lucky.

    Best, Boxer

  132. “Ugly women almost never get picked up regardless, by a sober man. ”

    True, but what people are saying (I think) is that if that ugly woman at the club throws herself at enough men, one of them will say “hey! why not?”

  133. Kate says:

    “So why is it so important that a woman marry an employed man?”

    It is very hard for women to go against society’s conventions. And both men and women expect that men will work for women and not the other way around. The idea of man as breadwinner is very deeply ingrained, and even members of the manosnear betray their deeply help beliefs that men should pay for women. No matter how much they rail against having to do it, it is an essential part of their identity as men. But there is a difference between “breadwinner” and “provider.” A man can be a provider without being a breadwinner. And in that respect, a woman who earns money but who still feels provided for by a man can marry an unemployed man, especially if she has an enlightened view of what actually constitutes wealth and a healthy skepticism for its material symbolism in the form of money.

    I found the title of this post very interesting because I have long held the belief that the end result of feminism will be women as breadwinners. And it won’t be out of desire (as our mother’s generations thought going to work and being like a man would be so much fun!). No, it will be out of necessity. By creating a world that is hostile to men, women will begin to feel the yoke of slavery men have borne for so long. Women will pay men alimony. Women will pay men child support. And then we’ll see just how strongly they believe in feminism.

  134. Boxer says:

    True, but what people are saying (I think) is that if that ugly woman at the club throws herself at enough men, one of them will say “hey! why not?”

    If people were saying that, they’d be agreeing with me.

    Many’s the time I’ve seen a woman leave the club at closing with a man who has no front teeth, who smells funny, whose pants don’t fit, etc. These are the women that supposedly can date up, 3 or 4 points above their SMV, according to you all, but never seem to get the attention of such men long enough for a random sexual encounter.

    The reality is that you guys have an apex fallacy. Go observe some actual women and you’ll find that it’s much more difficult for them to have sex than you think, unless they’re willing to slum it like we do, when we’re desperate.

    Boxer

  135. I had an odd experience in the late 80’s. I was in Olangapo City (the one right outside of Subic Bay for those who don’t know), and a ship pulled in that had an all female crew. Some kind of supply ship as I recall. Musta been at least 500 female sailors cut loose in a town in which at that time the men could have all the female attention they wanted (the fleet wasn’t in) for little or no money.

    I believe what Mikediver5 said above about being at sea for a while has the same effect on women as men. I literally saw women sailors dragging guys out of bars. Rape! They had to, because all in all, the Philippina’s were a lot better looking than those girls. But, there is something to be said for getting piece that moans in English. I did well with the air force women in the Philippines, whereas there is no way I could have had much chance hooking up with them on Okinawa. Supply and demand.

  136. earl says:

    “The reality is that you guys have an apex fallacy. Go observe some actual women and you’ll find that it’s much more difficult for them to have sex than you think, unless they’re willing to slum it like we do, when we’re desperate.”

    I’m curious as to the difficultly of women having sex or willing to do it when it comes to being sober versus being on a mind altering chemical of choice. Drunken hookups for both genders seem to increase the slum factor. Girls I wouldn’t touch with a 10 ft. pole would only hook up because both parties involved had plenty of liquid courage.

  137. ballista74 says:

    @tweell

    That link is sad, ballista.

    Yeah it is. Basically, that blog post was something so utterly ridiculous at every point that it was hillarious. Kind of like some of the political stuff (Sarah Palin especially). I’d just want to laugh my a** off until I realize that a substantial number of people believed that stuff, or just was going to go along because of the party, and that there was a real chance that she would get to be Vice President. It’d be uproarious comedy, if the author wasn’t trying to be serious and people actually believe this stuff.

  138. embracing reality says:

    Kate says:
    “members of the manosnear betray their deeply help beliefs that men should pay for women.”?

    Screw that, men should pay for women, and therefore labor for them, in exchange for what? Sex? Thats not enough, it never was. Men should labor while women are doing what? Pretending to be doing “the hardest job in the world” turning dials on appliances, watching TV while their kids are in school 7 hours a day? Like a lot of men I have a deeply held belief that women have been using and taking from men greedily for decades, most men have been getting the short end of the stick in relationships with women for at least the last 50 years.

    Unlike the jobless or under-employed single men the article here refers to I’m a single never married man who has become financially independent as a result of looking out for myself. I’ve dated many Christian women, I always gave vastly more in those relationships, my generosity was 50:1. I HATE myself for that generosity now. To be honest it’s difficult for me to see women as much more than parasites in their relationships with men, especially “traditional” women and twice so if they’re attractive.

    Did I enter into this world in debt to women? How did I incur this debt?

    Do women enter into this world entitled to my generosity simply by virtue of being born female?

  139. herecomestheLIGHT says:

    Dalrock,

    Here’s an UNDER reported problem in our community: The spousification of a child by a widowed parent (i.e. mother of a wife spousifies her daughter after losing her husand thereby creating problems in a marriage).

    Any chance you can create a post on that?

  140. Gunner Q says:

    embracing reality @ October 3, 2014 at 8:43 pm:
    “To be honest it’s difficult for me to see women as much more than parasites in their relationships with men, especially “traditional” women and twice so if they’re attractive.”

    I’m getting there, too. A guy can take only so much rejection before deciding the problem isn’t on his end.

    As an employed single man, I have yet to receive the “scarce commodity” treatment. Not that I doubt the economic trend, I doubt women actually care. This is just part of their “where have all the good men gone” show.

  141. Kate says:

    “To be honest it’s difficult for me to see women as much more than parasites in their relationships with men, especially “traditional” women and twice so if they’re attractive.”

    Why twice so if they are attractive?

  142. Dave says:

    Men have always been the workhorses in society, and they have always been happy to be workhorses. Men worked hard, and got rewarded with a measure of societal respect and authority in their households. Women also did their part: they were virtuous, desirable and truly helpful at home. Women of yonder years knew how to manage a home, and were a positive influence on the children, both boys and girls. In this setting, everyone was happy, and the society was good for it.
    Then came Feminism, which taught women that they could “take up what they did not lay down and reap what they did not sow”; that actions did not have consequences; that only masculine virtues were the only desirable virtues; that femininity meant weakness; and that rebellion against nature and against God is the fastest route to happiness and fulfillment.

    The result is this unsustainable shipwreck of a society which we now have.
    But I am somewhat optimistic that men are waking up, and addressing this ugliness head on. I won’t be surprised if politicians running for office are made to sign a pledge to reform our family courts, just as some of them have been forced to commit to tax reform.

    It took me a while to arrive at the realization, but America is still worth saving, and it can be saved. And it is the men that will save it. The feminists are too selfish and shortsighted to be entrusted with such a task.

  143. JDG says:

    Women will pay men alimony. Women will pay men child support. And then we’ll see just how strongly they believe in feminism.

    Color me skeptical that the FI would ever permit such a thing. Still, the lunacy of the left in general and feminists in particular is incredibly self-defeating. I wonder…

  144. Pingback: Dark Brightness | Storm coming

  145. Kevin says:

    Two random things
    First from the link about the slut Christian. I think anyone who uses the word cisgendered non ironically is either too stupid to even engage with or too unskeptical or critical about the reality they are presented with in college to engage with. Its like a banner saying, “I’m retarded.”

    Second, the guy Destin someone linked to from Smarter Ever Day is awesome. My kids watch his channel every day. He is the type of person people on the coast seem to have a hard time imaging – the genius hick. He is clearly scary smart and seems to a typical flyover kid that enjoys the simple things in life. People on the coast think everyone like him left his home town, went to college and found out his parents were disgusting retrograde people, and should now be residing on the coast just like their enlightened selves.

    On topic. My wife made more money in our lives than I did for the first 10 years, I finally made as much as her the last 6 years (she was finally able to stay home), and now I finally make a bit more. Do the articles count school as a job? Lots of women getting masters in stupid subjects for vanity.

  146. Spawny Get says:

    Who starts these rumours about the death of marriage?

    Marriage is doing perfectly fine, thank you lot very much

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/04/Woman-who-married-herself-admits-friends-found-wedding-a-bit-narcissistic

    Prepare for a festival of face palmage, enjoy

    “An Englishwoman has taken self-love to its ultimate extreme by marrying herself in an “incredibly empowering” ceremony attended by almost 50 of her friends.
    Grace Gelder married Grace Gelder earlier this year at an “idyllic farmhouse in rural Devon”. Her parents were not present – “mainly for logistical reasons” – but, according to an interview in the Guardian, they did send “supportive texts throughout the day.”
    Some of Ms/Mrs/Mr Gelder’s friends suggested “in a light-hearted way” that perhaps the exercise was “a bit narcissistic”. But she herself decided that she was “completely comfortable” with her “motivations.”
    It helped that she had recently been “on a journey of personal development using meditation, dance and performance” to increase her “self-awareness,” especially a Shakti Tantra programme “focused on sexuality and how this was bound up with making agreements with yourself and other people.”
    Furthermore, she benefited from the support of her close friend Tiu, a “truly wise and wonderful woman” who put her mind at rest when ever she harboured thoughts like “[is] it just some vainglorious stunt.”
    Gelder proposed to Gelder on a park bench on Parliament Hill in London last year, inspired by a line from a Bjork song she had heard at university while studying performance art. The song, called Isobel, went: “My name’s Isobel, married to myself.” She thought: “crazy as it sounds, I totally get that. It’s about making this pact or promise to yourself and then somehow enacting that in how you live your life from that day on.””

  147. Kevin says:

    @Casey

    I have always wondered why women take such lame jobs. A lady paid my wife to watch her 2 year old. She paid my wife $3 an hour, the lady made about$10 per hour. After taxes and paying my wife she probably made $3 an hour. And her job was just some secretarial nonsense. Like another said, an average job in the world for average people – which most of us are. Sure lots of women are doctors and lawyers – not disputing that, my wonder is why women bother with to be away from their children for so little pay.

    I think some women blinded by feminism actually loath being mothers. I have seen it alot. They just don’t like taking care of children. Some men cannot tolerate children more than a few hours at a time as well. The other reason is social engagement and an easy path. Sure, being a mother is not the hardest job but its harder than shuffling papers and hanging out with the office girls because it is a long term payoff. It is thankless to be a mother until your children are like 20. And teenagers generally hate you for awhile. The girls at the office – its all fun and gossip and a little work. Changing diapers, sacrificing yourself for little children, its not coal mining but can be hard.

  148. Spawny Get says:

    “manosnear”
    I am SO stealing this word, thanks Kate. It’s hilarious.

  149. James Rogers says:

    Women are hypergamous gold diggers. It comes down to women dropping their panties for the bad boys and making us work for something they gave away to some other dude that we don’t like or respect. This is destroying society and I weep for the future. I for damn sure won’t work to fix this mess. These strong independent women can do it themselves. Let their thugs in prison get jobs and take care of them. Not my sperm, not my concern.

  150. embracing reality says:

    Kate asks, “Why twice so if they are attractive?” In response to- “To be honest it’s difficult for me to see women as much more than parasites in their relationships with men, especially “traditional” women and twice so if they’re attractive.”

    Are you being serious right now? I mean you must at some point in your life experienced or have seen the way attractive women are treated by men, and sometimes by women, in comparison to how average and below average women are treated, surely?

    The short, obvious, answer is simple biology of men (God made that). For example we could start with what science calls a healthy hip/waste ratio as attractive to nearly all heterosexual men. In the US 70% of women are by medical standards overweight and over half are obese. Biologically this is not remotely attractive… Rather it’s totally disgusting. Incidentally the average woman in the US gains 40 pounds in marriage. However In Italy, just for example, the obesity rate is in the single digits! American women are the fattest women in the modern world. For triggering mens desire of women there’s no getting around that. Women that would be satisfactory in attractiveness and average all around the world are queens in the US simply by not being overweight.

    Point? The tiny minority of attractive women have all the power in the dating pool. So why are attractive women parasitic? Lets call it self entitlement. If I am not generous in every way to an attractive woman, even attractive in my own physical league, she’ll just find someone who is. Her dance card is always full so she feels entitled to take, not give. Princess hypergamy. I thought everyone knew this. Go watch “Gone With The wind”, Her name is Scarlett Ohara. In 2014 just imagine her surrounded by the Women of Walmart.

  151. earl says:

    “It comes down to women dropping their panties for the bad boys and making us work for something they gave away to some other dude that we don’t like or respect.”

    If men would stop wifing up these whores because of a dry spell they can’t handle and held women to a higher standard instead of white knighting their bad behavoir…this would end pretty quick.

    Flip side…women need to quit giving it up to any passing fornicator that makes their limbric system go. If they decide to do that…they reap what they sow. Don’t marry them, don’t listen to their sob story, don’t bail them out, and constantly berate these whores for what they are doing to themselves, their family, and society. Evil men started this confilct and women followed this false power…but good men can damn sure stop it with real power.

  152. shammahworm says:

    Since the same false doctrines are being posted in these comments regarding divorce, I feel compelled to respond. It needs to again be pointed out that divorce and remarriage has always been biblical in cases of sexual sin(at least for men).

    Matthew 5 and 19 make this clear. And yes, Jesus is without a doubt referring to adultery as well as other forms of fornication in these passages. This is clear because the same word Jesus uses in Matthew 5 and 19 is used to refer to adultery in 1 Corinthians 5: 1(KJV), “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.”

    Any member of any church who refuses to accept biblical divorce and remarriage is disobeying the direct words of Christ.

  153. John Nesteutes says:

    @shammahworm

    Is there any fellowship of believers which permits divorce and remarriage exclusively in the case of sexual sin?

    The current doctrine I see is that looking at pornography = lusting; lusting = adultery; adultery = OK to leave your husband.

    Somehow, I don’t think this is what Jesus intended when he preached the sermon on the mount.

  154. earl says:

    “The current doctrine I see is that looking at pornography = lusting; lusting = adultery; adultery = OK to leave your husband.”

    Especially since Jesus never mentioned anything about a wife instigating a divorce. A man however can divorce if his wife goes out and fornicates (which is becoming all too common these days).

    “but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Matthew 5:32

  155. Kate says:

    @JDG: “Color me skeptical that the FI would ever permit such a thing.”
    Maybe they will when they figure it out, but, as yet, they haven’t thought it through. lol At the moment, the only advantageous marriage for a man is to marry a woman who earns more than he does. Now *she* has the incentive not to divorce. And she doesn’t have to outearn him by a lot. Just enough to give her pause. It still may not end divorce, but it might help.

    I’m not sure if the audience here is aware of this, since this example is bandied about so freely, but the divorce that is at the center of Eat, Pray, Love was one in which the wife made more than the husband. In order to agree to the divorce, the husband wanted a percentage of her FUTURE earnings from her books. Its hardly the typical example of divorce in which the man pays the woman. But I do think it is the future of divorce.

  156. Kate says:

    @embracing reality: Yes, I was being serious. I see your point now: that attractive women are even more exploitative because they have become more rare.

  157. shammahworm says:

    @John Nesteutes
    I agree that porn usage doesn’t appear to be grounds for divorce. Neither for men or women.

    I think 1 Corinthians 6: 15-19 is key here.
    “15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?”

    The distinction between lust and physical sexual sin is that physical sexual sin joins the two together. Hence, the earthly consequences are different. The same way hating someone in your heart is murder, but it doesn’t warrant earthly prosecution. I’m not really well versed on the specific stances in regard to this among denominations. But there do seem to be conservative protestant denominations which discourage divorce for porn usage while maintaining the Matthew 19 doctrine.

    Another problem I see with divorcing for pornography is that lust isn’t exclusive to porn and one can very easily sin just as much without it. Focusing on porn instead of lust, while warning about porn is a disservice to many in the body.

  158. shammahworm says:

    BTW, lusting does = adultery when we stand before God. But the earthly ramifications are different from a physical act.

  159. @Earl
    Genesis 2:24 gave the man the authority to initiate marriage, not the woman. The woman, not having the authority to initiate marriage, likewise had no authority to terminate a marriage. The only exception is in 1st Corinthians 7, in cases of an unbelieving husband who refuses to dwell with her and leaves. In that case, she is free to remarry, but only a believer.

    I’ve argued this before, and just like with that guest post I did on SSM’s blog last year, everyone just winds up arguing their catechism instead of looking at what Scripture says. Everybody wants the option of divorce, so the context of Matthew 19 versus the context of 1st Corinthians 7 is completely ignored.

    Is God the same, yesterday, today and forever?

    Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was a judgment of Moses, not an ordinance of God.

    Directly on point about divorce, Jesus said “what therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Who was speaking? Jesus, the man, in His earthly ministry. Who was he speaking to? The Pharisees, the judges and keepers of the Law.

    When the Pharisees brought up the judgment of Moses, Jesus acknowledged it, but said “but from the beginning it was not this way.”

    He then upheld the judgment of Moses, interpreting it in the strictest of terms. Matthew 23:1-3 is clear that Jesus (in His earthly ministry) did not have the authority to overturn a judgment of Moses. He was a man, born into the tribe of Judah, of the line of David. He was under the authority of Moses.

    However, in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11, men were told they must not divorce their wives. The “except for immorality” part got left out. Who was speaking? The risen Lord, seated at the right hand of the Father. Who was He speaking to? Believers, His bondservants. Christ, speaking to His believers, was at that point no longer under the authority of Moses and we no longer see a divorce loophole. Marry it and you’re stuck with it.

    The law says divorce is OK. The Lord says it isn’t, because from the beginning it was not this way. What God has joined together, let no man separate.

  160. Ugly women almost never get picked up regardless, by a sober man.

    I’d say that’s more because women are rarely looking for just sex. The disagreement here seems to be due to confusing what women can do with what they do do.

    The claim Deti and I and others have made is that any woman can get sex pretty much anytime she wants it, and with a man of about her SMV. She can walk into a bar and let her intentions be known, and some guy will take her home, or at least out to the parking lot. If she’s a 5, she can probably get a 6. If she’s a 3, she may only get a 3, or have to settle for a drunk 2, but she’ll be able to get someone.

    That doesn’t mean women do that, at least not often, because a woman typically wants more than just sex; she wants other things that she’s not going to get by walking into a bar and saying, “Someone do me now!” Also, being ugly doesn’t mean having less self-respect.

    A man, on the other hand, who goes into a bar looking for sex, is going to go home alone most nights unless one of two things: he has very tight game, or he lowers his standards and takes someone a few points lower than himself in SMV. So a 7 can take home a 3, sure — although even that’s not a sure thing, because the 3 will be wary that she’s being used in a pig-hunting game or something. Unless a man is the best-looking guy in the place and has good game — the closest thing the bar has to a 10 that night — there’s no guarantee he can get sex with anyone even close to his level.

    That’s all we’re saying. A woman can get sex pretty much any time she wants, with a guy in her SMV range. A guy cannot. Now, there may be outlying circumstances, like 100-1 sex ratios in military contexts or something, that skew these results, but we’re not talking about those.

  161. embracing reality says:

    Earl says: “If men would stop wifing up these whores because of a dry spell they can’t handle and held women to a higher standard instead of white knighting their bad behavoir…this would end pretty quick.”

    Right on. Withholding their commitment, financial provision and DNA is where men’s power with women is at. Men are still, mindlessly, giving their power away to unrepentant, low class sluts. Women once had real power too, now they’ve given it all away to single men, especially badboys. Older men have told me of a time when sex was pretty much off the table for men unless they were willing to marry or go across the wrong side of the tracks to meet the dirty girls. Now most girls, even at church, are dirty girls. I’ve never been with a hooker, I’m certainly not going to wife one up.

    “a dry spell they can’t handle”

    This is about men’s lack of understanding the reality right in front of their faces. Like so called ‘marriage’ can very easily be a dry spell anyway. whats the point? Marriage for most men represents the chance to ‘get lucky’ while being the last man in a potentially long line of a woman’s previous sexual partners. This woman will have given her best to various other dudes. Now that she’s gained 40 pounds and you’re giving more than anyone else ever gave, well, you might just get lucky occasionally son. woo.. No thanks. I will not buy used tires, I certainly won’t pay a premium for *balled* tires…

  162. “The reality is that you guys have an apex fallacy”

    This has nothing to do with the apex. No one is saying that an ugly woman can spend the night with Brad Pitt if she wants, jus that because women are so much pickier than men an ugly woman has a much easier time than an ugly man.

  163. embracing reality says:

    Gunner Q says: “I’m getting there, too. A guy can take only so much rejection before deciding the problem isn’t on his end.”

    I can relate as in my early 20’s I felt some rejection, often from women I actually dated as a result of my cluelessness (thank God I was rejected!), but also from women I approached that just weren’t interested. I’ve refined considerably since then and can not only date moderately attractive women fairly easily but can tell where the opportunities with them are before I approach. My problem now is I know way too much about women and marriage. I could marry in a heartbeat now but I might then live under the black cloud of doom, awaiting my destruction from my Darling Succubus the minute she got bored with being married.

  164. earl says:

    “a dry spell they can’t handle”

    This doesn’t mean just sexually…attention and nuturing from a woman is a need a man has. It comes from our mothers. Some may call that need the ‘beta’ part of us but it is there.

    Point is some men are swimming in it…others are in a desert looking for anything that represents water. No matter how fat, angry, or promiscous that water is.

  165. earl says:

    “No one is saying that an ugly woman can spend the night with Brad Pitt if she wants, jus that because women are so much pickier than men an ugly woman has a much easier time than an ugly man.”

    Lots of thristy men out there would drink an ugly woman. Even decent looking or successful guys.

    How many thirsty women are there out there? Sure she may not have the alpha she desires to be with but one picture onto her favorite social media can keep her attention need going for a week. And the whole wall thing doesn’t matter much I’ve noticed if men are thirsty…they’d still take a 35 year old if they can get it.

  166. The distinction between lust and physical sexual sin is that physical sexual sin joins the two together. Hence, the earthly consequences are different. The same way hating someone in your heart is murder, but it doesn’t warrant earthly prosecution.

    Lust does not equal adultery. Hating does not equal murder. You’re so far gone into crazy land, it’s not worth debating.

  167. JDG says:

    Kate – At the moment, the only advantageous marriage for a man is to marry a woman who earns more than he does.

    This is why sometimes I suspect that such laws (ones that manipulate men into non-traditional roles and hinder the use of his God given authority) were written and passed deliberately to aid in the destruction of traditional marriage / families in general (and Christian marriage / families in particular).

    It’s as if someone wants things completely flipped around. Someone on another web sight is convinced that the ultimate goal of feminism is a sort of reversed patriarchy where men and women exchange roles. In all fairness to him we see a lot of that type of thing being attempted.

    However, even if such a goal is what law makers and other feminists are aiming for, there are some obstacles that they must contend with:

    1) A reversed patriarchy would be impossible because men and women are vastly different. Simply exchanging the roles of men and women will not produce strong families and a civilization building society.
    2) The result of such an attempt would be matriarchal in nature, and so it wouldn’t be patriarchal (patriarchy) to begin with.
    3) Matriarchies tend to decay into societal dysfunction and chaos (such as what we are seeing around us).

    Also, I’d like to point out (for newbie lurkers) that although the man marrying a woman who makes more than himself may benefit in case of divorce, The marriage may still suffer in other ways. Women are generally not attracted to men that make less then themselves in the long term. Sure she may be happy with the thug in the short run, but in the end she wants to feel protected in spite of tingles.

    She will likely think less of him, or at least have to deal with the temptation to think less of him if she out earns him. He may likely think less of himself (depending on his beliefs). Though she may be less likely to hurt him financially, she may still be inclined to nuke the marriage due to hypergamy, which would hurt any children involved.

  168. earl says:

    “Lust does not equal adultery. Hating does not equal murder. You’re so far gone into crazy land, it’s not worth debating.”

    Would you debate this?

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A21-28&version=NASB

  169. ” the ultimate goal of feminism is a sort of reversed patriarchy where men and women exchange roles”

    Except that feminists don’t want a single iota of the responsibility that comes with the male role.

  170. JDG says:

    Except that feminists don’t want a single iota of the responsibility that comes with the male role.

    Exactly. Women are not men and never will be men. We often don’t even have the same faults and weaknesses. There can never be a reversed patriarchy.

  171. embracing reality says:

    Earl says: “attention and nuturing from a woman is a need a man has.”

    This must be missing in me, likely do to the fact that I’ve come to see through women’s “attention and nurturing” in romantic relationships as merely hollow and completely insincere means to an end. Manipulation, it’s nearly everything they say and do in romantic relationships with men. Women have no empathy for men, I thought that was established here long ago?

  172. shammahworm says:

    “Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was a judgment of Moses, not an ordinance of God.”

    This is naked heresy. Read chapter 1 of Deuteronomy.

    Matthew 19 is referring to all sexual immorality. The passages in 1 Corinthians aren’t referring to divorce in cases of sexual sin because Jesus already told us what was what. God doesn’t need to bring up the exception clause every time He talks about divorce. This was clear to those in the church already. Also physical separation =/= divorce.

    AT is a liar. Everything he’s saying about divorce has been thoroughly discredited over a month ago between him and myself, He continues to repeat the same falsehoods over and over again. If anyone cares they can go read the exchange between him and myself on my blog in my post titled “Yes, There Is Biblical Divorce and Remarriage.”

    I will not repeat myself in the same walls of text which have already been written.

    @Earl – In case you can’t already tell, AT has no intention of changing his false doctrines. He’ll just repeat the same thing whenever you discredit it.
    @JDG and embracing reality – Big business and big government are some of the main beneficiaries of modern feminism. Read up on Edward Bernays and you’ll see that many of the men in power have been acutely aware of the power of propaganda targeting women for decades.

  173. Don Quixote says:

    shammahworm says:
    October 5, 2014 at 7:22 am

    It needs to again be pointed out that divorce and remarriage has always been biblical in cases of sexual sin(at least for men).

    Nonsense. Church history shows the divorce apologetics you peddle are a recent phenomena. For the better part of almost 1900 years divorce and remarriage was not accepted in christian churches. They got it right. You got it wrong.

    I get the impression you are heavily invested in this. Are you able to declare your interest in this subject?

  174. shammahworm says:

    @Don Quixote
    I’ve never at any point in my life been married. Nor have any of my friends or family been in situations where they divorced for this reason. But I will not accept heavy burdens which the scriptures tell me I have no obligation to bear.

    Matthew 19 makes it clear that divorce for cases of sexual sin is biblical. 1 Corinthians 5: 1 uses the exact same word to describe adultery as Jesus uses in it. Case closed.

    A simple Google search shows that biblical divorce and remarriage have been taught for centuries. Even if it wasn’t, it’s wholly irrelevant if early denominations and “denominations” of Christianity taught otherwise. The earliest church history is the scripture I just cited. Matthew 19 got it right. Everyone who disagrees got wrong.

    If you disagree with this. The first thing you have to do is throw out the King James Version of the Bible because it uses “fornication” to refer to both adultery and premarital sex. Porneia has NEVER EVER meant only premarital sex. While you’re at it, you’ll need to throw out the original Greek manuscripts as well. I checked the manuscripts and unless there’s been some horrible error on the website I used, porneia is used in both Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 5: 1.

    Jesus gives the right to divorce for adultery and deception about one’s sexual history. That’s why He uses a broad word for sexual immorality. Every single believer has a duty to conform to the direct teaching of Christ.

  175. Sure Earl. If you really think that murder is akin to hate and that lust is akin to adultery, rather than merely seeing that thinking of those things being akin to living in sin is what is being talked about, then I don’t know what else to say. Two are the actual acts of sin, whilst the other are thoughts of sin.

    Therefore if you are presenting your [i]offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, 24 leave your [j]offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your [k]offering.

    Purge your thoughts of sin before you can enter heaven, easy enough to understand. To live in grace as it were. The others actually require you to repent of your sins for you have actually sinned against God and another person. Everyone equates a thought of sin to the sin itself, which is madness. Then everyone is guilty of murder, adultery, stealing, what have you, even though they haven’t done any of those, which is contradictory. I don’t believe it should be contradictory, do you?

    I get that everyone is a sinner, but to make thoughts akin to acts is simply a step too far.

  176. Don Quixote says:

    @ shammahworm

    I *strongly* recommend you read the following book. You will not agree with some of it, but it documents a long history of what was taught and believed throughout church history. Beginning with the Early Church Fathers and then the Roman Catholic Church, and finally the Reformers. It is a valuable tool for anyone interested in the subject of divorce and remarriage:
    http://www.amazon.com/Divorce-Remarriage-Trojan-Within-Church/dp/1604773308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1412623992&sr=8-1&keywords=joseph+webb+trojan+horse+in+the+church

  177. The girls at the office – its all fun and gossip and a little work.

    I’m sure that’s a big part of it. If “working women” were all digging in the field or swinging a pickaxe, feminism would have never gotten most of them out of the home. But they’ve turned the office into a high school environment where “work” is mostly socializing and competing over fashions. It’s the socializing that seems more exciting to them than raising children, not the paper-pushing.

  178. Tom C says:

    Women get sex when they want and get married when they can.
    Men get sex when they can and get married when they want.

  179. shammahworm says:

    @Don Quixote
    Matthew 19 is what the earliest church fathers believed. The scripture is the history. Unless Webb addresses what I wrote regarding Matthew 19, every word of that book(apart from scripture) is irrelevant to the matter at hand. Porneia has never at any point meant only premarital sex. Sexual sin has always been grounds for divorce. This is clear from the usage of the word porneia itself. I listened to an interview of Webb and he parrots the same falsehood that most of the “no divorce ever” party does. Webb’s explanation of Matthew 19 cannot be reconciled with 1 Corinthians 5: 1.

    Every single early church father who taught otherwise is wrong. And anyone who still teaches otherwise is wrong today.

    Also, I checked and your representation of church history is just not true. There were those who said divorce and remarriage were biblical centuries before Webb claims(again, it was said in the interview). The teaching on biblical divorce and remarriage was present well before the 8th century.

    “First, none of the writings of the early Church Fathers, in spite of their strong belief in their own correctness, is directly associated with the teaching of either Jesus or one of his disciples.”
    https://bible.org/article/divorce-teachings-early-church#P2541_1012958

    Your appeals to tradition are secondary to the scripture itself. Webb’s other claims about 1 Corinthians 7, etc. have been thoroughly discredited in my other posts. There’s an attitude among the “no divorce ever” crowd that’s remarkably similar to the “no one goes to hell” crowd in that both groups like to hold up scriptures as absolute apart from teachings which were already given.

  180. John Nesteutes says:

    @shammahworm

    There is no community of believers left who allow divorce for only adultery/in chastity. None. Exceptions work their way in for wife-beaters, criminal husbands who end up in prison, etc

    Eventually any misdeed by the husband is “abuse” and you end up with Marriage 2.0.

  181. joshtheaspie says:

    @shammahworm
    Everyone equates a thought of sin to the sin itself, which is madness. Then everyone is guilty of murder, adultery, stealing, what have you, even though they haven’t done any of those, which is contradictory.

    In the old testament:
    Exodus 20:17
    17“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”

    Paralleled in the New Testament
    Matthew 5:27-28
    27“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    If you would take an action without temporal punishments or risks in place, be it adultery or murder, but do not, because you desire to do so, you have already sinned within yourself. It’s just that your outward actions are restrained.

  182. Steve H says:

    As with the above post “Fewer men are working…”, I quote Edward Kowalczyk 17 years ago:

    People should not be afraid / We came to the earth to graze

    The void of purpose exacerbates rote, heartless consumerism. Because why try.

    Tom – accurate axiom. To that, I offer this amoral equation/solution:

    Money = Access to Prostitutes at will = Men have sex when they want

    That’s too easy, too soulless, too Sodom + Gomorrah. So we have religion. And marriage. And ‘work’, which as Cail notes, is now often 90% gossip/high schoolish status whoring/coffee/social media perusal + 10% work.

  183. shammahworm says:

    @joshtheaspie
    I DID NOT say what you quoted me as saying.

    Reread the thread. That was another guy. I agree that lusting after a woman in my heart is the same sin before God as the physical act. I actually said something to the effect of that in this thread. However, lust doesn’t join you together in one flesh to a woman the way the physical act does(1 Corinthians 6: 15-18). So the worldly consequences and implications are different even though both will be judged the same.

    This is why I said I don’t believe porn usage(male and female) is grounds for divorce, while physical sexual immorality clearly is. Lust is as bad as physical sexual sin when we stand before the white throne. The same way hating someone in my heart is as physical murder.

    “If you would take an action without temporal punishments or risks in place, be it adultery or murder, but do not, because you desire to do so, you have already sinned within yourself. It’s just that your outward actions are restrained.”
    It’s still a sin even if you have no intention of acting on the thoughts. Jesus’ teaching on the matter is actually stricter than this.

    @John Nesteutes
    I haven’t read up on the formal doctrines of various denominations. But there a non-denominational protestant churches which discourage divorce besides the biblical reasons. I don’t know all their formal doctrines, etc. My focus is the scriptures themselves.

  184. Steve H says:

    So much discussion/debate about which gender can get sex at will.
    If that’s the matter at hand, age has been left out of the discussion.
    Many of you may be referring to 45+ or even 55+ y/o women when you state that any woman under a ‘5’ in looks cannot get sex at will at any crowded urban hotspot bar or club.
    Oh, but if they are under age 30, they sure as hell can. If they are 30-40, they probably can unless they are closer to a ‘2’ than a ‘4’.
    Men who are ‘7’ or ‘8’ can and do hook up with female ‘3s’ and ‘4s’ in their 20s/30s.
    Prostitutes aren’t risky or undesirable if you utilize a reputable agency or are a repeat customer with an attractive pro (and you have to have decent money because yes, at the cheap end you are more likely to get disease-addled crack whores and uglies).
    I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: if it’s merely procuring casual sex with a reasonably attractive youngish woman that you seek, and you have money and the capacity for shrewd interpersonal interaction, you have the best of all worlds: go out, meet women, maybe you meet one for sex, and if you don’t by later in the night, just pick up your phone….or go home and get some sleep, whichever you choose. The choice is yours.
    Now, where does that leave women with respect to their supposedly ‘superior power’ over men in such social settings…?

  185. Don Quixote says:

    shammahworm says:
    October 7, 2014 at 6:33 am

    The teaching on biblical divorce and remarriage was present well before the 8th century.

    Ok, now the burden of proof is on you. Please provide some evidence to support this claim. Don’t bother quoting white knight William Luck. You must quote someone from before the 8th Century.

    William Luck shows his bias with the following statement: “But the reference to “human law” is in the context of the verses quoted, none of which unequivocally prohibits the remarriage of an innocent woman after her divorce” emphasis mine.

    This type of thinking is typical of a drowning man [cleric] clutching at straws. He foolishly thinks that a woman could be “innocent” if her husband was unfaithful. This type of thinking is the foundation of threat-point marriage. I am not too bothered if you disagree with my interpretation of the exception clause, but to those [e.g. William Luck] who extend the exception clause to women are the enemies of men everywhere. They are the enemies of marriage.

  186. shammahworm says:

    @Don Quixote
    “I am not too bothered if you disagree with my interpretation of the exception clause, but to those [e.g. William Luck] who extend the exception clause to women are the enemies of men everywhere.”
    It’s not an “interpretation.” You’re objectively wrong based on the usage of the word porneia throughout the New Testament. It’s used by Jesus to describe acceptable grounds for divorce and this same word is used to describe adultery. That’s the main point and it makes your claim about church history irrelevant even if what Webb said about church history were true. This simple fact makes any of Webb’s or your appeals to tradition irrelevant.

    I only linked that article for the purpose of the summaries it gives of the various men before the 8th century. I never meant to imply that I agreed with Luck’s conclusions on a woman’s remarriage, etc. But, these conclusions don’t in themselves make his citations false. You didn’t provide any specific quotes of the early church fathers so I frankly don’t feel the need to reciprocate. I also need to remind that Matthew 19 is a specific quote.

    You also made no attempt to explain or address the fact that porneia clearly refers to adultery. What does Webb say about that? Not just on porneia, but on 1 Corinthians 5: 1. Every single extra-biblical source is moot if Webb doesn’t address the issue of porneia.

  187. Don Quixote says:

    shammahworm says:
    October 8, 2014 at 5:19 am

    I only linked that article for the purpose of the summaries it gives of the various men before the 8th century. I never meant to imply that I agreed with Luck’s conclusions on a woman’s remarriage, etc. But, these conclusions don’t in themselves make his citations false.

    You failed to support your previous claim that: “The teaching on biblical divorce and remarriage was present well before the 8th century.”
    I had hoped you would show something. But as far as I know there were no divorce apologetics before the reformation. And you have produced nothing at all from the 1st millennia. Can anyone reading this show something that pre-dates 1500 A.D. in regard divorce apologetics?

    You didn’t provide any specific quotes of the early church fathers so I frankly don’t feel the need to reciprocate.


    I asked you to support your claim, you failed. You didn’t ask for any quotes so I didn’t provide any. Here are some you might enjoy:

    Justin Martyr wrote 151 A.D.
    “According to our teacher, just as they are sinners who contract a second marriage, even though it is in accord with human law,…”

    Basil the Great wrote 375 A.D.
    “The man who has deserted his wife and goes to another is himself an adulterer because he makes her commit adultery; and the woman who live with him is an adulteress, because she has caused another woman’s husband to come over to her…The woman who lives with an adulterer is an adulteress the whole time.
    The woman who has been abandoned by her husband, ought, in my judgment, to remain as she is. The Lord said, “If any one leave his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, he causes her to commit adultery;” thus, by calling her adulteress, He excludes her from intercourse with another man. For how can the man being guilty, as having caused adultery, and the woman, go without blame, when she is called an adulteress by the Lord for having intercourse with another man?”

    Ambrose of Milan 387 A.D. wrote:
    “But what shall I say about chastity, when only one and no second union is allowed? As regards marriage, the law is, not to marry again, nor to seek union with another wife. It seems strange to many why impediment should be caused by a second marriage entered on before baptism,…”

    There are plenty more quotes around but you know what I noticed? At least one of the early church fathers interpreted ‘porniea’ as adultery, but he absolutely forbade remarriage. And guess what, I’m not telling you who it was, you can do your own homework.

    You also made no attempt to explain or address the fact that porneia clearly refers to adultery.


    No it doesn’t. We have already been through this. We disagree get used to it.
    My views are listed here: http://oncemarried.net/various-objections.html

  188. joshtheaspie says:

    @shammahworm
    I DID NOT say what you quoted me as saying.

    Reread the thread. That was another guy. I agree that lusting after a woman in my heart is the same sin before God as the physical act.

    You are indeed correct. My sincere apologies. I have done that a couple of times in this thread. Obviously I need to catch up on sleep.

    “It’s still a sin even if you have no intention of acting on the thoughts. Jesus’ teaching on the matter is actually stricter than this.”

    I have never been convinced of this stance. Given the Greek used in the original admonition, and the original meaning of “lust” which has been expanded over time, it seems clear to me that the passage talks about “a strong desire to possess” something, the same way one would lust after power, or lust after a car, or lust after a diamond necklace. It seems clear in this passage that Jesus is reminding people of the pre-existing law against coveting.

    I see no evidence other than claims about early church tradition that the admonition is against “appreciation for the qualities there of”, or even “considering what it would be like if x”, be it idly considering what it would be like to be the PotUS, or have a Farari, or what it would be like to be with a given woman. And even then, I’ve yet to see those claims of early church tradition substantiated.

    There are a number of skilled apologetics on this subject.
    One of them can be found here: http://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/
    Annother here: http://mychainsaregone.org/sexual-desire-and-lust-are-they-the-same-part-2/
    (this post is mid-way through a series of posts on the subject)

    Now, where Jesus does seem expand the previous teaching on the law, in the same general area of scripture, is regarding those who show or feel contempt for another. Those that call another “fool”, for example… but I think again, this is calling us back to the commandment to love our neighbor, and the call to charity. Love, do not scorn. And here, obviously, is the core of sin that all of us fall victim to — our failure to love God above all, and our neighbors as ourselves.

    I trust you will forgive me if I will need convincing that it was Jesus expanding the law, rather than after-the-fact expansion, placing a heavy yolk on the brethren. If you’d like to attempt to convince me, I am open to evidence from scripture, or use of logic, and I’m even curious to see evidence of early church teaching on the matter, as evidence of this not being a recent corruption.

  189. joshtheaspie says:

    As a further note, if I am wrong, I do hope that I will be corrected.

  190. shammahworm says:

    @joshtheaspie
    No worries regarding the misquote. I believe my position about lust is correct because of Jesus’ teaching on murder when He says that hating someone in your heart is murder. In this situation, it seems like He’s talking about someone who’s hatred hasn’t necessarily turned into a desire to kill the person. I haven’t studied the Greek on it, but it seems like this would definitely apply to lust.

    It also seems like we could get into a whole discussion on what constitutes coveting and that would then influence our discussion on this topic. It seems like the “having” someone else through the act of sex is itself a type of possession. So whenever a person fantasizes about having sex with someone else, they are desiring to posses them and are therefore guilty of lust.

  191. shammahworm says:

    “No it doesn’t. We have already been through this. We disagree get used to it.
    My views are listed here: http://oncemarried.net/various-objections.html

    Why does 1 Corinthians 5: 1 use porneia to describe adultery? We haven’t been through that. I keep mentioning it and you keep ignoring it. Porneia is used to describe adultery and premarital sex and is therefore a word used for all sexual immorality. We don’t “disagree,” you’re objectively wrong. Do you want to throw out the KJV and the Greek manuscripts it was translated from? Your unwillingness to address that forces me to write this:

    IF YOU CONTINUE TO SAY PORNEIA MEANS ONLY PREMARITAL SEX AND CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY IT’S USED TO DESCRIBE ADULTERY IN 1 COR 5:1, YOU’RE A LIAR.

    “But as far as I know there were no divorce apologetics before the reformation.”

    As I mentioned in the last post, I’ve been giving you the earliest quote the whole time:
    “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.” Matthew 19: 9.

    Before I get into church history. Let me just say that any “early church father” who can’t address my point about porneia is as wrong as you.

    I’ll give you one quote from a commentary on Matthew. Origen is dated from the late second century through the third. If you want to dismiss him for what ever reason you may say, keep in mind many of the early “no divorce ever” party members held teachings which were clearly contrary to the scriptures. I’m talking about things like the concept of required disciplinary divorce(not separation, formal divorce and remarriage) or taught that marriage lasted after death. I only quote Origen to show that there were indeed positions which recognize divorce for sexual sin well before the 8th century.

    “For confessedly he who puts away his wife when she is not a fornicator, makes her an adulteress, so far as it lies with him, for if, “when the husband is living she shall be called an adulteress if she be joined to another man;” [6233] and when by putting her away, he gives to her the excuse of a second marriage, very plainly in this way he makes her an adulteress.”
    http://biblehub.com/library/origen/origens_commentary_on_the_gospel_of_matthew/24_jewish_criticism_of_the.htm

    I probably could find more. But all of this history and “history” is secondary to the actual words of Jesus. Porneia is used to describe adultery in 1 Corinthians 5. This same chapter refers to the adulterous relationship as “of a kind” indicating that there were in fact many types of porneia and the word wasn’t referring to a specific act.

    I checked your site and you don’t address this. Either reply here and update it with the answer explaining why I’m wrong or take down your false teachings. Porneia has NEVER EVER meant only premarital sex. ANY “early church father” who contradicts the words of Christ is wrong.

  192. Don Quixote says:

    shammahworm says:
    October 9, 2014 at 4:14 am

    IF YOU CONTINUE TO SAY PORNEIA MEANS ONLY PREMARITAL SEX AND CANNOT EXPLAIN WHY IT’S USED TO DESCRIBE ADULTERY IN 1 COR 5:1, YOU’RE A LIAR.

    There is no need to yell, or call names.
    I have not said that: “porneia means only premarital sex”. You are trying to put words in my mouth. In fact had you bothered to read my stuff you would know that I said the following:
    1) “While it is true that porneia can be interpreted in other ways, I don’t believe that sexual misconduct breaks the marriage covenant…”
    2) “Used the example of God divorcing Israel because of her adulteries.”

    There are multiple examples of divorce [and some remarriage] in the Old and New Testaments. My opinions are formed based on New Testament teaching and examples found in the Bible. If you have different opinions I’m cool with that. Our common bond is Christ and that is more important than any religious pissing competition. I hope you’d agree.
    There are 2 examples of pre-marital sex as grounds for divorce [and/or death] in the Bible being Joseph and Mary and Deut.22:13-21 respectively. There is one example of God divorcing because of adultery, so that is possibly the best argument for your interpretation of ‘porneia’. Score 1 the worm. My contention is with those who build upon that foundation and allow divorce and remarriage for all and sundry including women. This is where I have a problem. I noticed on your page you are happy to allow women to divorce and remarry based on 1Cor.7:15. I strongly disagree with you on this. You’re wrong, deal with it.

    Your time might be better spent chiding with William Luck who thinks a woman can divorce her unfaithful husband, and be called innocent.

  193. shammahworm says:

    @Don Quixote
    “Our common bond is Christ and that is more important than any religious pissing competition. I hope you’d agree.”
    Absolutely agree. I don’t know if you read my earliest entries, but rejection of Christ as God is far more pressing than divorce and remarriage in society.

    “‘In fact had you bothered to read my stuff you would know that I said the following:
    1) While it is true that porneia can be interpreted in other ways, I don’t believe that sexual misconduct breaks the marriage covenant…
    2) Used the example of God divorcing Israel because of her adulteries.’”

    I did read it and the implication of what you’re saying is porneia must mean unchastity aka premarital sex. Your trying to give a context and definition that isn’t there. Your position is contradicted by the usage of the word porneia. It cannot mean what you say it means. 1 Corinthians 5: 1 uses the word to describe adultery and I haven’t even gone to the Septuagint translations of the OT. What you say on your site speaks as if it’s merely some academic issue without addressing the fact the scriptures themselves use the word to describe adultery and premarital sex. Furthermore, the KJV translators translated the words the same which further indicates the meaning of both words is the same.

    “I noticed on your page you are happy to allow women to divorce and remarry based on 1Cor.7:15. I strongly disagree with you on this.”

    Where do I do this? I only mention 1 Corinthians 7: 11, not 1 A woman may remarry if she’s a new convert and she’s divorced by an unbelieving husband. That’s it. That’s pretty clear from 1 Corinthians 15 because it says both brothers and sisters.

    Though I’d never marry a divorced woman for many different reasons. If it didn’t say both “brother” and “sister” I think a much stronger case could be made.

  194. shammahworm says:

    EDIT: Regarding the bit about the KJV translators, the words are the same(in Greek and English). They aren’t different like the sentence may have implied.

    I accidentally hit post before I finished writing.

    I don’t see where I cited 1 Corinthians 7: 15 on my blog entries. Let alone where I said a woman could divorce or remarry based on that. I only believe a woman can remarry if she’s divorced by an unbelieving husband, not initiate a divorce as you claimed. Also it’s “brother” and “sister” in the passage, not plural which I typed. Please give me the quote on this.

    “My contention is with those who build upon that foundation and allow divorce and remarriage for all and sundry including women. This is where I have a problem.”

    This is a problem. But it in no way takes away from the Biblical grounds. I’ve focused on a man divorcing for porneia on my blog and comments. Divorce and remarriage in cases of porneia is biblical for a man. I don’t see how my writing falls into the category you mention above.

    I agree with you about frivorce. But you should really change the part of your site which says a man can’t divorce for adultery(a type of porneia). I haven’t checked your site today.

  195. Don Quixote says:

    shammahworm says:
    October 10, 2014 at 4:08 am

    I did read it and the implication of what you’re saying is porneia must mean unchastity aka premarital sex. Your trying to give a context and definition that isn’t there. Your position is contradicted by the usage of the word porneia. It cannot mean what you say it means. 1 Corinthians 5: 1 uses the word to describe adultery and I haven’t even gone to the Septuagint translations of the OT. What you say on your site speaks as if it’s merely some academic issue without addressing the fact the scriptures themselves use the word to describe adultery and premarital sex. Furthermore, the KJV translators translated the words the same which further indicates the meaning of both words is the same.

    I am convinced that Jesus introduced a new school of thought with the exception clause. Your insistence that porneia must translate to marital unfaithfulness puts Jesus in the same school of thought as Rabbi Shammai. Ostensibly making Jesus a disciple of Shammai, you must concede this point.
    Secondly, every single apologist I have read always takes it the next step and allows women to divorce their husbands based on your interpretation. Can you name a single author [from that genre] who forbids divorce and remarriage to women? Just one? I would like to read his book. The army of divorce apologists you support are the feminised white knights that are currently choking the life out of the protestant churches. And they all stand firmly on the interpretation you have espoused.
    These are just two reasons why I will not be convinced by your interpretation. The others are listed on my page. Once Married Always Married http://oncemarried.net

  196. Don Quixote says:

    shammahworm says:
    October 10, 2014 at 5:41 am

    I don’t see where I cited 1 Corinthians 7: 15 on my blog entries. Let alone where I said a woman could divorce or remarry based on that. I only believe a woman can remarry if she’s divorced by an unbelieving husband, not initiate a divorce as you claimed. Also it’s “brother” and “sister” in the passage, not plural which I typed. Please give me the quote on this.

    Here is a cut ‘n paste from your blog:
    He recognizes divorce and remarriage in these cases the same way He recognizes divorce and remarriage of a new convert who was abandoned by an unbelieving spouse.

    Warning!
    1stly) I see the word “spouse”, whenever I see the use of the words party, spouse, or partner I know that the document is flawed. The Bible doesn’t take this approach when dealing with divorce and remarriage. Often this approach is to appease feminist sensibilities deeply ingrained in christianity and western psyche. This type of document has been produced to maximise appeal and minimise offence.

    2ndly) I would encourage you to get your head around the following statement:
    Who. So. Ever marries a divorce woman commits adultery.
    Any man, anywhere, anytime who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Period. Please spend some time on the quote from Jesus whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Until you understand this point DO NOT PROCEED.
    I don’t care why she was divorced, I don’t who initiated the divorce, I don’t care if her name is Joyce Meyer, or Camilla Parker Bowles, and I don’t care when the divorce and remarriage occurred, I don’t care if Jay Adams personally signed her copy of his book. WHOSOEVER marries a divorce woman commits adultery. Get it?

  197. shammahworm says:

    @Don Quixote
    “I am convinced that Jesus introduced a new school of thought with the exception clause. Your insistence that porneia must translate to marital unfaithfulness puts Jesus in the same school of thought as Rabbi Shammai. Ostensibly making Jesus a disciple of Shammai, you must concede this point.”

    1) It’s not my “insistence” that porneia translates to marital unfaithfulness. It’s the fact that it’s used to describe all manner of sexual sin throughout the Bible. Even if Jesus were in the same school of thought as Shammai(which He wasn’t), that in itself means nothing. In fact it’s demonstrative of Jesus’ harsh rebuke of the Jewish leaders. He often rebukes them because they should already know what God wants and instead are teaching falsely.

    2) Jesus wasn’t in the same school of thought as Shammai because from what I know of Shammai, he taught that a man could divorce his wife for a “serious offense.” The reason why Jesus’ disciples were shocked is because Jesus’ teaching was even stricter than Shammai’s in this matter. You can find multiple “good” reasons for divorce in the OT like idolatry, betrayal, etc. I think it would’ve been very hard to say idolatry wasn’t grounds for divorce based on the Tanakh at the time of Jesus.

    Since Moses allowed for divorce and executed sexually sinful women, it would be very easy for someone to think there were other horrible occasions for divorce. This is why Jesus’ disciples were so shocked at Christ’s teachings. I’m not conceding this point because your position is just not true.

    The definition of porneia is sexual immorality. It’s that simple. A man has the right to divorce for sexual immorality. This includes both adultery, premarital sex, etc. Sodomy, oral sex, etc. are sex even if they aren’t technically intercourse. For example, a married woman who gives oral sex to another man is an adulteress as much as one who’s had intercourse with another man.

    “Secondly, every single apologist I have read always takes it the next step and allows women to divorce their husbands based on your interpretation. Can you name a single author [from that genre] who forbids divorce and remarriage to women? Just one? I would like to read his book. The army of divorce apologists you support are the feminised white knights that are currently choking the life out of the protestant churches. And they all stand firmly on the interpretation you have espoused.”

    If this isn’t a straw-man, it’s very close to one. I don’t “support” the army of divorce apologists if their positions are contrary to the scriptures. All I’ve done is discuss biblical divorce and remarriage. Show me in my writing where I do this(I’ll get to the quotes you’ve already given). My position is based on the scriptures. I don’t care what the other authors say.

    I’m not giving you an “interpretation” regarding porneia. I’m giving the definition of the word as used in the scriptures themselves. Jesus is without a doubt referring to all manner of sexual sin in Matthew 19. Notice how in this verse porneia is understood to mean multiple sexual acts.

    1 Corinthians 5: 1, “It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.”
    “Such fornication” – meaning there were other forms of it as well. But in both Greek and English we’re given the broad term for sexual sin and more specific terms for what you claim it actually means are left out.

    A man may divorce his wife for porneia. It’s wholly irrelevant what other guys say about porneia because I look at the scriptures themselves. This is the exact same word Jesus uses to give grounds for divorce.

    Your position treats porneia as some waterless cloud blown around the scriptures by winds that cause it to change it’s definition from passage to passage when there’s no such indication. That’s what would be required for your position to be true.

    So I’ll repeat myself. You need to update your site to include the actual definition of porneia and biblical grounds for divorce and remarriage. I don’t care about the “white knights” you mention. The scriptures should be what determines your doctrine and nothing else. Some white knights would say amen to the fact “Jesus is God.” That doesn’t make the fact Jesus is God false. So to say just because some guys whose names I may not even know have positions on some passages which may or may not be in line with what I believe makes my position wrong is false.

    Sola scriptura.

  198. Don Quixote says:

    shammahworm says:
    October 11, 2014 at 3:25 am

    If this isn’t a straw-man, it’s very close to one. I don’t “support” the army of divorce apologists if their positions are contrary to the scriptures. All I’ve done is discuss biblical divorce and remarriage. Show me in my writing where I do this(I’ll get to the quotes you’ve already given). My position is based on the scriptures. I don’t care what the other authors say.

    Here is a quote from your page where you support the army of divorce apologists contrary to the scriptures:

    “God recognizes divorce in the case of fornication. He also recognizes remarriage of the wronged party in such cases.”

    Here is another example where you are using the word “party” to sanction divorce and remarriage. The word “party” implies husband or wife, and all your readers will know that. The “wronged party” could only be the husband. It could never be the wife, yet you imply it could be. You have upheld the threat-point marriage that has become the model for western christianity, and aligned yourself with the feminists in the process.

  199. shammahworm says:

    @Don Quixote

    Onto your other post.

    “1stly) I see the word “spouse”, whenever I see the use of the words party, spouse, or partner I know that the document is flawed.”

    If it’s flawed, you’ll have no problem showing via the scriptures why it’s flawed. Writing “spouse” is easier than writing “husband or wife” each time. Spouse, party and partner aren’t in themselves bad words which disqualify a position. Saying a document is flawed just because those words are present is a problem in your mind and not in reality.

    “The Bible doesn’t take this approach when dealing with divorce and remarriage.”

    I’m not entirely sure what you mean by this. But the Bible definitely distinguishes a right party and wrong party in cases of sexual sin. If a girl falsely represents her virginity, she’s wrong and must face the consequences. The scriptures give the man the right to divorce even after the marriage is consummated for this. If a woman commits adultery and her husband divorces her. She was the wrong party and he was the right party.

    “Often this approach is to appease feminist sensibilities deeply ingrained in christianity and western psyche.”

    The biblical position infuriates both fundamentalist Baptists and radical feminists alike. Telling feminists that a woman lying about her past follows her for the rest of her life is one of the most rage inducing things a man can do. The Bible doesn’t just do this but it says a man may divorce a woman who’s lied about her sexual history or been unfaithful to him even decades after the fact.

    “This type of document has been produced to maximise appeal and minimise offence.”

    See above. My position is one which infuriates Catholic, fundamentalist Baptist, tradcon and feminist alike. It simultaneously throws “man up and marry those sluts,” “no divorce ever” and female hypergamy back into the faces of those who peddle it.

    All of it by simply pointing out what Jesus actually says.

    “2ndly) I would encourage you to get your head around the following statement:
    Who. So. Ever marries a divorce woman commits adultery.
    Any man, anywhere, anytime who marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Period. Please spend some time on the quote from Jesus whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Until you understand this point DO NOT PROCEED.”

    1) Recall, I did say I would never marry a divorced woman.
    2) I’m assuming you mean a divorced woman who’s ex(in an earthly sense at least) is still alive. If a woman’s ex(es) dies she can absolutely remarry(unless it’s to a man who divorced her previously).
    3) I NEVER EVER said a woman can initiate a divorce. When I said God recognizes divorce and remarriage of a new convert, I meant divorces which are initiated by the man. I only brought up that passage in my entry to point out that in certain cases God indeed separates a married couple.
    4) You need to explain what the following passage means if you think a woman cannot remarry if she’s abandoned by an unbelieving husband.

    1 Corinthians 7: 15, “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.”

    This suggests the marriage is severed by God. Yet, if the marriage isn’t severed by God, how come “a sister is not under bondage in such cases?” This is why a believe a woman who’s divorced by her UNBELIEVING husband can remarry. Please explain what it means if it doesn’t free a recently converted woman to remarry. I really want to know this. The scripture specifically mentions “a brother or a sister” and that indicates that neither male nor female is under the bondage to which the passage is referring.

    What is this bondage if not the marriage? And how can a woman not be under bondage but still be forbidden to marry?

    Matthew 19: 6, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” Based on Paul’s language, it seems like God is separating the man and woman in cases of 1 Corinthians 7: 15.

    Out of everything we’ve talked about, this is the closest I’ve come to conceding a point. If it didn’t specifically say “sister,” I’d probably already agree with you.

    It needs to be said that even if I’m wrong on this point, it in no way changes what I’ve pointed out concerning divorce for sexual sin. A man has the right to divorce his wife for sexual sin and marry another.

    “I don’t care why she was divorced, I don’t who initiated the divorce, I don’t care if her name is Joyce Meyer, or Camilla Parker Bowles, and I don’t care when the divorce and remarriage occurred, I don’t care if Jay Adams personally signed her copy of his book. WHOSOEVER marries a divorce woman commits adultery. Get it?”

    Woman aren’t to teach. I make a point of ignoring women who think they’re pastors. I don’t know why you’re referencing those two women and I have no idea who Jay Adams is. I look to the scriptures.

  200. shammahworm says:

    @Don Quixote
    “The word “party” implies husband or wife, and all your readers will know that. The “wronged party” could only be the husband. It could never be the wife, yet you imply it could be.”

    Thank you for pointing that out. A wife can be the wronged party, but she doesn’t have the right to divorce. I will reiterate that the right of divorce and remarriage is only for men in cases of sexual sin in a new post ASAP. Below is the full paragraph. I do say in a number of places within the piece that a man has the right to divorce.

    “These passages demonstrate that in cases of sexual sin A MAN has the right to divorce his wife. HE also has the right to marry another wife. It’s not adultery. God recognizes divorce in the case of fornication. He also recognizes remarriage of the wronged party in such cases. He recognizes divorce and remarriage in these cases the same way He recognizes divorce and remarriage of a new convert who was abandoned by an unbelieving spouse.”

    I do stand by everything I’ve said concerning a man’s right to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual sin. You should change your site in regard to this if you haven’t already.

  201. Don Quixote says:

    shammahworm says:
    October 11, 2014 at 5:12 am

    Before I begin I should mention that I checked your page and I applaud you corrections. Praise God for some progress.

    “If it’s flawed, you’ll have no problem showing via the scriptures why it’s flawed. Writing “spouse” is easier than writing “husband or wife” each time. Spouse, party and partner aren’t in themselves bad words which disqualify a position. Saying a document is flawed just because those words are present is a problem in your mind and not in reality.”

    This is a benchmark I use when dealing with Statements on Divorce and Remarriage. They always use words like ‘spouse’, ‘partner’ and ‘party’, and they are almost always wrong. The Bible is always gender specific when dealing with divorce and remarriage, it never uses words like spouse, partner or party. If you want to contradict me by quoting 1Cor.7:15 you will notice that ‘spouse’ is implied but the actual greek doesn’t contain an equivalent word.
    The problem with using words like spouse, partner and party is the implication that women can divorce and remarry. Hamsters love this type of white knighting. Congratulations on taking the first step away from white knighthood.

    Here is a quote from your corrections that I believe needs some more work:

    “Upon further study, it appears the only occasion where a woman can remarry while her ex is still alive is in the case of a new convert who’s divorced by her unbelieving husband.


    Whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. It would appear you haven’t grasped this important point yet. In our current feminised church let that verse underscore your thinking, it will help your understanding. I will say it again: It doesn’t matter who initiated the divorce, or why she is divorced. Whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. It doesn’t matter when the divorce occurred, it doesn’t matter how pretty she is, it doesn’t matter if the Pope personally issued her annulment, whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. You must understand this.

    And last but not least. Consider how the New Living Translation interprets 1Cor. 7:15 
But if the husband or wife who isn’t a Christian insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is not required to stay with them, for God wants his children to live in peace. 
Holy Bible, New Living Translation, (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, Inc.) 1996. This verse is not giving grounds for divorce and remarriage. It is addressing the issue of a believer and unbeliever trying to live together in an impossible situation. There are other Bibles that present it in that light, please consider The Living Bible [paraphrase]
    But if the husband or wife who isn’t a Christian is eager to leave, it is permitted. In such cases the Christian husband or wife should not insist that the other stay, for God wants his children to live in peace and harmony.

    If ever there was an example of looking for loopholes 1Cor.7:15 is the most abused verse in the Bible.

  202. shammahworm says:

    @Don Quixote

    I’ve thoroughly demonstrated that a man has the right to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual sin. I checked your page and you haven’t updated it with the correct doctrine. If you’re just busy or forgetful my apologies. But if you don’t make the necessary changes, you’re a liar knowingly peddling false doctrines. Either fix your page and make it clear that it’s biblical for a man to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual sin or remove your page entirely. Let me post in all caps for emphasis –

    IF YOU CONTINUE TO SAY A MAN CANNOT DIVORCE IN CASES OF SEXUAL SIN, YOU’RE A LIAR.

    Using the words “spouse,” “party” and even “partner” are not in themselves unbiblical, let alone “white knight” like you pretend. Dismissing what a person wrote just because those words are present is a problem in your mind and not in reality. The ONLY reason why I posted that correction was to make it clear what my position was and to keep anyone from twisting it.

    For over a month you made the false claim that there’s no divorce in cases of adultery and that’s just not true. Until you fix this on your page, DO NOT PROCEED. That’s what we’ve been talking about over the past month or two. Not this new topic which I’m going to address anyway.

    “This is a benchmark I use when dealing with Statements on Divorce and Remarriage. They always use words like ‘spouse’, ‘partner’ and ‘party’, and they are almost always wrong.”

    Your “benchmark” has no meaning in itself and I’ve every intention of using the words “spouse,” “party” and even “partner” again if the situation warrants it. To write off a position as false simply because those words are used is wrong(I could be wrong, but I don’t think I ever used “partner”). You showed the specific cases of how my writing could be interpreted by divorce apologists to mean a woman has grounds for divorce. I changed them for the sake of sound doctrine and to remove any ambiguity. If there’s anyone reading this who thinks the Bible does give women grounds for divorce, by all means show via the scriptures how it’s so.

    “The Bible is always gender specific when dealing with divorce and remarriage, it never uses words like spouse, partner or party.”

    But it often means those things. I gave you an example of the correct use of the word “party” and I stand by it. 1 Corinthians 7: 15 is one such example where it’s correct to use the word “spouse” because a specific verse refers to both brother(Adelphos) and sister(Adelphe). More on this in a second.

    “The problem with using words like spouse, partner and party is the implication that women can divorce and remarry. Hamsters love this type of white knighting. Congratulations on taking the first step away from white knighthood.”

    I took special care to post a correction in order to make clear to anyone who comes across my blog that there are no confusions that Matthew 19 applies to men. Again, the usage of the words you mentioned don’t in themselves make a position wrong or cause it to have “white knighthood” like you suggest. I’ve never held “white knighthood” to begin with, so I just can’t accept your congratulations.

    “Whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. It would appear you haven’t grasped this important point yet. In our current feminised church let that verse underscore your thinking, it will help your understanding.”

    I don’t take 1 Corinthians 7: 15 lightly. But you need to recall that Matthew 19: 6 must underscore our thinking as well.
    “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” God can still give conditions where a husband and wife can be put asunder. Based on Paul’s language, it seems like God is separating the man and woman in cases of 1 Corinthians 7: 15.

    Onto 1 Corinthians 7: 15 itself. We have to use the KJV because both of the versions you referred to are false. They translate adelphos and adelphe wrong. Switch to the ESV and/or KJV.

    Adelphos means brother not husband: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/adelphos.html
    Adelphe means sister not wife: http://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/kjv/adelphe.html

    Look at the usage of the words in other passages in the NT. Also, I didn’t bother checking the other words. There might be more problems with the translations that I haven’t even mentioned. So,

    1 Corinthians 7: 15, “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.”

    Here are the facts:
    1) It refers to converts who are married to unbelievers that divorce them. A lot of classes of people at that time had no formal marriage and divorce.
    2) The second sentence uses sex-specific language for both the man and the woman.
    3) The second sentence says that both men and women aren’t under bondage in such cases aka they are both free from said bondage. It uses sex-specific language to make clear it’s referring to both men and women. This means whatever the man is freed from the woman is also freed from IN THIS CASE.

    What bondage is a woman freed from if her husband has already divorced her according to your position? She’s already forced to do the things you’re saying she’s free to do.

    “This verse is not giving grounds for divorce and remarriage. It is addressing the issue of a believer and unbeliever trying to live together in an impossible situation.”

    This cannot be because it’s clear that the unbeliever has already departed. They aren’t “trying to live together.” The whole point is the unbelieving husband or wife has already made the decision to NOT live with the believer. This was divorce to most classes of people at that time.

    Your position says a believing woman is still married to an unbelieving husband who’s left.
    Like I said, she’s already living alone regardless of any choice she makes, so how can she “not be under bondage” when her lot in life is already established and she’s living it anyway? Your position gives no distinction between these two.

    I’ve NEVER said a woman can initiate a divorce. My position is that a woman can remarry only if she’s divorced by an unbelieving husband who was married to her prior to her conversion. Let me say to anyone else reading this, if you think it’s biblical for a woman to initiate divorce in some way, by all means show via the scriptures how that’s so.

    I have to remind you that the main issue we’ve been discussing is biblical divorce and remarriage for a man in accordance with Matthew 19. You said adultery wasn’t grounds for divorce. I showed you how it was. If you care about sound doctrine, you’ll make the necessary corrections on your site or just remove it. If you don’t, you’re a liar.

  203. Don Quixote says:

    shammahworm says:
    October 13, 2014 at 12:42 am

    Based on Paul’s language, it seems like God is separating the man and woman in cases of 1 Corinthians 7: 15.


    Perhaps God is rejoining them back again in the next verse…?
    16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
    Or perhaps you don’t understand what is being said?

    The Living Bible fixes it for ya:

    15 But if the husband or wife who isn’t a Christian is eager to leave, it is permitted. In such cases the Christian husband or wife should not insist that the other stay, for God wants his children to live in peace and harmony. 16 For, after all, there is no assurance to you wives that your husbands will be converted if they stay; and the same may be said to you husbands concerning your wives.

    Your position says a believing woman is still married to an unbelieving husband who’s left.


    Correct. Just as it is stated in the above verse.

    My position is that a woman can remarry only if she’s divorced by an unbelieving husband who was married to her prior to her conversion.


    So Jesus got it wrong huh? whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery You need to get on the same page as Jesus. Until you understand that marrying a divorced woman equates to adultery you do not know what Jesus taught on this subject.
    Paul said as much in Rom.7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Jesus dumbed it down to one sentence, Paul spells it out in Romans 7:2&3. But it means the same thing. You seem so determined to set the bar much lower than the New Testament authors.

    I have to remind you that the main issue we’ve been discussing is biblical divorce and remarriage for a man in accordance with Matthew 19. You said adultery wasn’t grounds for divorce. I showed you how it was. If you care about sound doctrine, you’ll make the necessary corrections on your site or just remove it. If you don’t, you’re a liar.


    I will be honest and admit I’m having trouble taking you seriously on this subject. If I make any changes I will only do it after all my boxes are ticked. Boxes not listed here.

  204. shammahworm says:

    “Perhaps God is rejoining them back again in the next verse…?”
    Nope, when read in context it’s crystal clear there comes a point when they are separated for good. Otherwise there would be no need for Paul to mention that they are free from bondage. What bondage is he or she free from with your understanding? I really want to know and you can’t or won’t answer.

    “The Living Bible fixes it for ya:”

    The Living “Bible” is a false translation that doesn’t even translate “brother” or “sister” properly. You ignore this fact. Start by using a Bible that’s actually a translated Bible. I’m not a KJonlyist, but some versions are just garbage. Stop using the versions arranged with what you want to hear and start using versions that actually say what the Greek says.

    In 1 Corinthians 7: 15-16, it’s clear that the believer has ALREADY LEFT. You’re garbage translation adds “should not insist that the other stay.” This falsely translates brother and sister and adds new portions that actually alters the situation which the brothers and sisters are in.

    THE BROTHER OR SISTER IS ALREADY LEFT. There’s no insisting that the other stay because the unbeliever is gone.

    For these reasons it’s neither living nor a Bible.

    I give you the real verses,

    1 Corinthians 7: 15-16
    “15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?”

    It asks the brother or sister in question how they know they will save their spouse(*gasp, another correct usage of this word) and is pointing out he or she may never repent and turn to Jesus. And so when a brother or sister’s spouse divorces them, it’s okay for the brother or sister to remarry.

    “So Jesus got it wrong huh? whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery You need to get on the same page as Jesus. Until you understand that marrying a divorced woman equates to adultery you do not know what Jesus taught on this subject.”

    Are you saying Jesus didn’t speak through Paul and that Paul’s writings aren’t scripture? I showed you exactly how the verses breakdown. Deal with what God actually said. The first step to that is actually reading what God actually said.
    ESV – https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1&version=ESV
    KJV – https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1&version=KJV

    “Until you understand that marrying a divorced woman equates to adultery you do not know what Jesus taught on this subject.”

    1) Then you’ll have no problem showing how Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 5: 1 don’t mean what I’ve demonstrated they mean.
    2) If I’m so terrible at “understanding” what Jesus taught on this subject, what does it say about you if you can’t even demonstrate me wrong over days of us discussing Matthew 19?

    “Paul said as much in Rom.7:3 So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.”

    You’re confusing physical separation with an unbelieving husband who divorces his wife. A man who does that isn’t considered the woman’s husband anymore per 1 Corinthians 7: 15.

    “Jesus dumbed it down to one sentence, Paul spells it out in Romans 7:2&3. But it means the same thing. You seem so determined to set the bar much lower than the New Testament authors.”

    See above and while you’re at it, explain what I pointed out concerning you’re so-called understanding of 1 Corinthians 7: 15. If a woman is divorced by her husband and living alone, how can she be set free from bondage to do the exact same thing? I really want to know.

    “I will be honest and admit I’m having trouble taking you seriously on this subject.”

    1) That’s totally irrelevant when I’ve given you the scriptures to take seriously. Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 5: 1 which shows Jesus is undoubtedly referring to many types of sexual immorality – including adultery. You’ve literally spent days talking to a guy you’re “having trouble” taking seriously.
    2) You can crazy make all you want. If you don’t make the proper changes to your site OR answer the facts I’ve pointed out concerning the scriptures you’re a liar. You could be right about 1 Corinthians 7: 15 and it would mean absolutely nothing in our overall discussion that men indeed have the right to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual sin.

    “If I make any changes I will only do it after all my boxes are ticked. Boxes not listed here.”

    If you’re unwilling to make the proper changes without showing via the scriptures how I’m O so wrong, then you’re boxes mean nothing and you have bigger problems than this discussion.

    Sola scriptura. If you can’t answer the FACTS I’ve demonstrated then you’re a liar. Crazy-make and try to spin what I’ve said all you want. I showed via the scriptures that a man has the RIGHT divorce and remarry in cases of sexual sin. You ignored that and refuse correction. Then you move onto another topic which I’ve also answered and are now using a false translation of the Bible to fit your false doctrine on this as well. I have to write this again.

    IF YOU DON’T CHANGE OR REMOVE YOUR FALSE TEACHINGS ON YOUR SITE, YOU’RE A LIAR.

  205. Don Quixote says:

    shammahworm says:
    October 13, 2014 at 6:52 am

    1 Corinthians 7: 15-16
    “It asks the brother or sister in question how they know they will save their spouse (*gasp, another correct usage of this word) and is pointing out he or she may never repent and turn to Jesus.”


    Now you are saying that divorce in these circumstances is the unforgivable sin, and the initiator is damned forever. But Paul asks the question that the estranged spouse* may actually repent and get saved. NO mention of damnation in this verse. And NO implication either.
    *Using the word spouse. {{{{joy!}}}}

    “And so when a brother or sister’s spouse divorces them, it’s okay for the brother or sister to remarry.”


    BZZZZT wrong! You have added that to the text. Jesus and Paul both expressly forbid remarriage for the wife, and neither [Jesus and Paul] forbade a man to have a second wife if it is necessary. For either party* to initiate the divorce is a sin.
    *Using the word party. {{{{more joy!}}}}
    See Twice Married Always Married:
    http://oncemarried.net/twice-married-always-married.html

    Until you understand that marrying a divorced woman equates to adultery you do not know what Jesus taught on this subject.

    The New Living Translation also fixes for ya:
    1Cor. 7:15:
 But if the husband or wife who isn’t a Christian insists on leaving, let them go. In such cases the Christian husband or wife is not required to stay with them, for God wants his children to live in peace.


  206. shammahworm says:

    @Don Quixote

    IF YOU DON’T TAKE DOWN THE FALSE TEACHINGS ON YOUR SITE CONCERNING PORNEIA, YOU’RE A LIAR. You’re not going against my position in this, you’re going against scripture itself.

    If I’m so wrong you’ll have no problems answering these points.
    1) Matthew 19 is without a doubt referring to all manner of sexual sin. Hence a man has a RIGHT to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual immorality.
    2) What “bondage” is a woman free from in 1 Corinthians 7: 15 if not marriage? She’s living alone already. There’s no distinction from how she’s living and her life without bondage according to your position. The unbeliever has already departed. There’s nothing left for the believer to do.
    3) If I’m so wrong, why are you completely unable to expose my errors? You’ve been ignoring the matter of porneia for a few days now.

    “Now you are saying that divorce in these circumstances is the unforgivable sin, and the initiator is damned forever.”

    No, I’m not. You’re twisting my words either because you can’t comprehend this passage or because you’re a liar. And it’s looking increasingly likely that it’s the second. See below.

    “But Paul asks the question that the estranged spouse* may actually repent and get saved.”

    Nope, he questions how a husband or wife can guarantee that they can sanctify a spouse who refuses to believe. See, “16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?”

    The answer is they can’t. This is because ultimately a person who won’t accept Jesus is damned regardless of his or her spouse being a believer. Obviously God can give grace to a person after he or she has been divorced, but this in no way changes what Paul is saying because God is telling us through Paul the point at which a spouse is freed.

    “NO mention of damnation in this verse. And NO implication either.”

    YES there is an implication. A person who doesn’t repent and turn to Jesus is %100 guaranteed to go to hell. It doesn’t matter if his or her spouse is a believer. Paul is saying that there comes a point where if an unbeliever rejects Christ and divorces the believer is free to remarry.

    Here’s the actual verse from an actual Bible. 1 Corinthians 7: 15,
    “15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?”

    The unbeliever has already departed. There’s no choice left for the woman. Your fake “bible” translates “depart” into “insists on leaving.” You’re clinging to the false translation because it gives you a way of avoiding my second question I’ve asked you over and over. But the actual Greek makes it clear that there’s no decisions which is available to the believer.

    “*Using the word spouse. {{{{joy!}}}}”

    Congratulations.

    “BZZZZT wrong! You have added that to the text. Jesus and Paul both expressly forbid remarriage for the wife, and neither [Jesus and Paul] forbade a man to have a second wife if it is necessary.”

    Wrong, Jesus speaks through Paul and gives both a man and a woman the right to remarry if they’re divorced by an unbelieving spouse in 1 Corinthians 7: 15. You’ve made no attempt to answer my question which is below. All you’ve done is quote a fake “bible” with an altered verse that doesn’t even describe the fact that the unbeliever has already left.

    ANSWER THIS: How can a woman be freed from bondage if she’s already doing what you claim she’s free to do? The unbeliever HAS ALREADY LEFT.

    “For either party* to initiate the divorce is a sin.”

    A man has the right to divorce in the case of sexual immorality aka fornication. SHOW IT FALSE or FIX YOUR SITE. You’re a liar if you don’t.

    “See Twice Married Always Married:”

    There comes a point where two people are irreconcilably separated in the eyes of God. First I need to remind you of another abomination. Notice how in this verse God isn’t decreeing homosexuality a sin, but simply prescribing a punishment for a sin that already exists. In other words, homosexuality was an abomination even before God gave Moses the law and it is to this day.

    Leveticus 20: 13, “If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

    Now look at what God says concerning divorce and remarriage. God is also decreeing a law for something which is already an abomination.

    Deuteronomy 24: 3-4, “3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the Lord: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.”

    It’s an abomination for a man to take back a woman who’s been divorced by him and then marries another. Jesus says NOTHING about a man taking back a divorced wife in the NT. David and Michal are different because Michal was forced to marry another man.

    What’s my point in this? It’s that a marriage can be severed before God. And your title “Twice Married Always Married” is wrong. A man can indeed be separated from the woman who was formerly his wife before God.

    A person who says a man has to take back a wife who’s left him and married another man may as well advocate homosexual “marriage.” Both are abominations before the Lord.

    “Until you understand that marrying a divorced woman equates to adultery you do not know what Jesus taught on this subject.”

    The scripture says it. The scripture has discredited your site’s false teachings on Matthew 19. Not me. You’d have no problem discrediting it if what I quoted were false. But it’s not.

    1 Corinthians 7: 15 says all you need to know about an occasion for a believing sister to remarry. It’s very important to read an actual Bible when studying the scriptures.

    “The New Living Translation also fixes for ya:”

    It’s neither “living” nor a “translation.” I showed you how the actual Greek doesn’t say what that “translation” says. Also, this bit, “insists on leaving,” is altered from “depart” in the actual Greek. This means it’s not a question of whether the unbeliever is leaving, but that the unbeliever HAS ALREADY LEFT.

    If you don’t fix or remove your site regarding Matthew 19, you’re a liar. This is the scripture. It’s not me or my “position.” When we started talking you seemed level headed and now you’re acting just like that guy from another thread. I don’t know what’s going on with you and you’re in my prayers regardless. But by posting that site, you’re taking on greater responsibility for doctrine and there are greater consequences for we who publish these things(even as obscure as us).

    If I were as wrong about Matthew 19 as you say, you’d have no problems debunking it. But you can’t and now you’re trying to rationalize why you can keep it up. Even if what you say about 1 Corinthians 7: 15 were true, it would in no way change the fact that Matthew 19 gives a man the right to divorce and remarry in cases of adultery. That’s scripture, not me.

    P.S.
    That means if you take down your site or alter it where necessary, you’re losing to scripture, not me.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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