Turning a blind eye.

As I explained in my last post, there are powerful incentives for Christian men to turn a blind eye to the sins of women.  As we saw previously, Glenn Stanton of FotF explains that wives usurping headship is not a sin, but part of God’s design, something required for civilization:

We have America, one of the greatest nations, the greatest nation in the world. Why? Because women showed up, and got men doing what men are supposed to do. That is what marriage does.

This embrace of wives usurping headship is a very common theme in modern Christianity.  But it doesn’t stop there.  Stanton also makes the outrageous claim (H/T Hermes) that women’s sexuality does not require social control:

While there have been rare examples – such as the Flapper of the Roaring Twenties – female sexuality remains largely stable from culture to culture and age to age, requiring little cultural control. This is not true of the human male. His requires consistent control.

It is ironic that Stanton would point to the Flapper era, because modern women would (as a group) make Flappers look like prudes.  Yet despite being surrounded by proof of women’s sinful nature, Stanton chooses not to see it.  All he can see is the sinful nature of men.

We can see the same blindness in more traditional Christian groups as well.  I hesitate to bring up Doug Phillips and his Vision Forum, because there has already been so much piling on after his affair became public.  See Cane Caldo’s excellent posts here and here for background on Phillips and the scandal.  You can also see an example of how Phillips’ personal sins are being used to discredit the idea of biblical patriarchy here.  My intent isn’t to pile on further.  As Cane Caldo explains the man has repented.  Part of his repentance appears to be the removal of his vision forum from the web.  Not only is the site no longer active, but more than a decades worth of writing by Phillips and others has been removed.  Fortunately the content is still available on the internet archive.

I mention Phillips and Vision Forum, not to pile on, but because one day another Christian leader will hopefully pick up the mantle and defend biblical patriarchy.  When they do, the temptation to turn a blind eye to the sins of women will be as strong as ever.  Phillips wrote passionately about headship and the biblical structure of the family.  But in his writing on the importance of following the biblical structure of the family, he tended to overlook the elephant in the middle of the room.  The articles on Vision Forum focused on the need for men to accept their role as head of the family, but the articles didn’t focus on the widespread usurpation of this role by Christian wives.  Likewise, the tools of usurpation were left out of the discussion almost entirely.

Back in October of 2012 I did some research on Vision Forum at the request of Sunshine Mary.  As I’ve explained in detail, divorce and threats of divorce are one of the primary tools in a rebellious wife’s arsenal.  Modern Christians actually celebrate the power of wives threatening divorce to assume headship, which is most visible in the movie Fireproof.  In the search I did of Vision Forum back in 2012, only 16 articles referenced the word divorce in the previous ten years.  Nearly all of these were generic references to divorce as a social problem, with only one that I could find referencing divorce as a tool of feminism.

For comparison, in the same search I found 318 articles on Vision Forum with the word “military”.  In fact, women in the military was an area of primary focus for the Vision Forum.  But even here, the sins of women were largely if not entirely ignored.  Here is one of the easiest issues to see women usurping the position of men.  Women are acting out of envy for the position of men, demanding to be allowed to usurp men’s role as protector.  Yet Vision Forum framed this not as women sinning by usurping men’s roles, but men forcing women to become protectors due to men abdicating their role.  The description of the issue on the Vision Forum issues page sums this perspective up:

Women in the Military

It is biblically impermissible for men to abdicate their role as protectors and warriors by perpetuating the practice of women in the military.

The page devoted to women in the military re emphasized this perspective:

If certain federal lawmakers have their way, your eighteen-year-old daughters will be registered for selective service and drafted for combat by the next war. Many women’s rights advocates claim that Christians have long since abandoned the issue of women in the military. Sadly, far too many pastors and politicians were embarrassingly silent on this issue in the days leading up to the war against Iraq. In this special forum of key theologians and Christian thinkers, we throw down the gauntlet of God’s Holy Word, to proclaim that it is biblically impermissible and a profound judgment upon our nation for men to abdicate their role as protectors and warriors by permitting and perpetuating the practice of women in the military.

Women aren’t trying to usurp men’s roles (no matter how plainly they tell us they are), men are failing to protect women.  As a result of the bad actions of men unwilling to fight for their country, women are at risk of being drafted.

Not surprisingly the same tone permiates the articles on the subject as well.  America the Barbarous: New Pentagon Policy Sanctions Women in Combat brushes close to calling out women’s rebellion and usurpation with:

It represents an abolition of womanhood and the perversion of God’s design. It represents a deeply-rooted rebellion against the natural roles and functions by which God has distinguished manhood from womanhood.

But having come so close to calling out the usurpation, the article quickly recovers and reframes the issue back to men forcing women to usurp men’s roles:

Women are to be cherished as the weaker sex, not exploited to fill the roster of an army. Combat is the province of men, and God calls on men to protect women and children. Men fight when their homes and communities are threatened by wicked regimes and lawless rogues who would despoil their loved ones. When necessary, men carry weapons into battle and give their lives to preserve the liberty and sanctity of those they hold dear.

It is barbarians who place their women in the midst of war’s brutalities to fight as men.

The article closes with a call to action:

It is high time that we as a people repent of our barbarism — that we cherish our women as women, and call on our men to act as men.

What is so noteworthy in this denial of the very obvious feminist usurpation of men’s roles is that this should have been an extremely easy group of women for Vision Forum to call out.  The target audience is a very traditional group of Christian families.  Calling out wives using threats of divorce, denial of sex, emotional outbursts, etc. to usurp (de facto) headship would no doubt have created the kind of extended emotional outburst we see elsewhere.  But women joining the military is an overt feminist act, something that one would expect would be safe to call out in such a traditional space.  That Vision Forum feared calling out even this is very telling.

This isn’t an easy question.  Calling out the sins of women has no doubt always been harder than calling out the sins of men.  But now that we have gone so far down this road, despite the most obvious feminist rebellion all around us, calling it out will be harder than ever.  Yet this needs to be done.  There is no kindness in denying reality, and by failing to call out the sins of women we abdicate our role as leaders.  It will take great courage to turn this around, but I have faith that there are Christian leaders out there who are up to such a difficult task.

This entry was posted in Cane Caldo, Denial, Envy, Focus on the Family, Glenn Stanton, Military, Rebellion, Turning a blind eye, Wake-up call. Bookmark the permalink.

399 Responses to Turning a blind eye.

  1. Pingback: Turning a blind eye. | Neoreactive

  2. Pingback: Turning a blind eye. | Manosphere.com

  3. Lol, they need to stop shaming men and start getting out there and putting their words to action. They can ‘lead’ women and fight for them, I’m out of this one..

  4. Dalrock, I really think you need to stop using Stanton, he’s an obvious beta and will say anything his wife and master tells him to.

  5. thedeti says:

    Dalrock:

    According to the original source you linked to, this quote:

    “While there have been rare examples – such as the Flapper of the Roaring Twenties – female sexuality remains largely stable from culture to culture and age to age, requiring little cultural control. This is not true of the human male. His requires consistent control.”

    is actually Stanton quoting George Gilder, a 1970s-1980s era economist and Republican Party operative. He wrote a book or two about men, women, sex and civilization. I think he’s most famous for “Wealth and Poverty”. The quoted material is probably from “Men and Marriage” (1986).

    Gilder’s ideas about intersexual relationships and their role in civilization are solidly blue-pill. They fit a “traditional” Western society that last existed in the US in the immediate post War period from 1946 to about 1960. But Gilder’s idea that women naturally sexually restrain themselves and gravitate to marriage and motherhood seem to originate from his own limited experience rather than any sort of historical overview.

  6. Dalrock says:

    @feministhater

    Dalrock, I really think you need to stop using Stanton, he’s an obvious beta and will say anything his wife and master tells him to.

    Just like with the Kendrick Brothers movies, what Stanton is saying is less telling than the reaction to it. Stanton, FotF, the Kendrick Brothers, etc. are all telling conservative Christians exactly what they want to hear. As a result, they are a barometer of Christian culture.

  7. Dalrock says:

    @thedeti

    According to the original source you linked to, this quote:

    “While there have been rare examples – such as the Flapper of the Roaring Twenties – female sexuality remains largely stable from culture to culture and age to age, requiring little cultural control. This is not true of the human male. His requires consistent control.”

    is actually Stanton quoting George Gilder, a 1970s-1980s era economist and Republican Party operative. He wrote a book or two about men, women, sex and civilization. I think he’s most famous for “Wealth and Poverty”. The quoted material is probably from “Men and Marriage” (1986).

    I don’t think so. If it is, he wasn’t very clear. Here is the context of the quote. The one sentence is in quotes and is from Gilder. The other sentences are not in quotes and therefore should be Stanton’s words, not Gilder’s:

    George Gilder opens his book Men and Marriage (one of Dr. Dobson’s favorite books on marriage) with this huge-thought sentence: “The crucial process of civilization is the subordination of male sexual impulses and biology to the long-term horizons of female sexuality.” While there have been rare examples – such as the Flapper of the Roaring Twenties – female sexuality remains largely stable from culture to culture and age to age, requiring little cultural control. This is not true of the human male. His requires consistent control.

  8. The crucial process of civilization is the subordination of male sexual impulses and biology to the long-term horizons of female sexuality.

    Yea, says his world view in a nutshell… and men just won’t go along with it… I wonder why? That sentence basically says that men are nothing and women do it all with their vaginas… and he wonders why men won’t ‘man-up’. Well, Stanton, if women are so great and their vaginas so powerful.. why don’t they just work it out themselves and then men won’t get in the way..

  9. thedeti says:

    Dalrock:

    Ah. All right. You’re correct. In any event, it appears that a lot of conservatives from the 1970s-80s era drew on Gilder’s ideas. I recall my dad talking about Wealth and Poverty, and attributing similar ideas to Gilder — that marriage civilized men. Unmarried men are prone to roam aimlessly and without direction; and need a wife’s stabilizing influence to keep grounded and even-keeled.

  10. Deti, they also seem to forget that they were born in a time of maximum wealth creation in America. The world had just been through devastation and death, which means that those rebuilding get to live during an upturn of new production with fewer competitors…

  11. Frugal Nerd says:

    There are two ways to resolve the usurpation of headship by feminists as I see it:

    1. Don’t allow the usurpation in the first place. This would involve not only recognizing the problem for what it is but actively fighting to keep women in their God defined role as helpmeet. This is easiest when the usurpation is just beginning but gets much more difficult as time goes on. I think we are past the point of this working in the western world.

    2. Give the feminists what they want, withdraw from society, and watch the collapse (i.e. going MGTOW). This, I believe, will be the much more effective strategy at this point. Women’s usurpation has been allowed to go on for so long and go so far in what has been usurped that most women and blue pill men are blind to it. I know I certainly was until I started taking red pills. We are already seeing major cracks running through the foundation of western society. When the collapse happens the wimminz will come back to men and attempt to convince men to come back by allowing men to have headship again due to not having any resources for themselves or their offspring and their desire for a man. One problem will be that not all men will come back even with the promise of headship as most MGTOW I have listened to are as anti-traditionalist as they are anti-feminist. I also have yet to hear a MGTOW alternative to traditioinal gender roles.

  12. Unmarried men are prone to roam aimlessly and without direction; and need a wife’s stabilizing influence to keep grounded and even-keeled.

    Which explains the abundance of women wanting to get married to a man when he is young and starting out…

  13. thedeti says:

    FH:

    The immediate postwar era was also the last time in the US when prevailing Judeo-Christian mores were in place, i.e., a more or less properly functioning sexual marketplace where assortative mating ruled the day, hypergamy is restrained, and both men and women are expected to marry if they want sex.

    As has been oft-stated, the rules changed with the Sex Rev, but conservatives and Churchians kept right on going talking about “morality” and “woman good, man bad” and “man up and get married” while the second set of books were quietly codified into law, thus providing effective cover.

  14. l jess says:

    When I hear of this sayings being Christian culture, it wants to make me throw up — It is twisted and has no standing in the Bible – ( Eph 5:21-33) Men were the head of the house and women respected them – fornication is an automatic foul which if not rectified would mean no entrance into God’s Kingdom. Women were to accept the husband sexually and husbands were to accept the wives sexually – no playing silly games for control – Much of what modern Christianity declares now is foolishness –

  15. donalgraeme says:

    “The crucial process of civilization is the subordination of male sexual impulses and biology to the long-term horizons of female sexuality.”

    This quote is so horrifically wrong as to be terrifying. If the modern age had taught us anything, it is that female sexuality is anything but focused on long-term horizons. The truth is that civilization is built on the subordination of female sexual impulses and biology towards long-term horizon goals, coupled with reasonable restrains on male sexuality. Alas, convincing most Christians or conservatives of this is nigh-well impossible.

  16. an observer says:

    Black knight the feminists. Support equal opportunity and selective service for women.

  17. Dalrock says:

    Moderator’s Note: I removed a comment referencing a recent speech by the Pope. This is an area which tends to hijack threads, and given the early stage of the discussion of this post I decided to remove it. However, I invite Catholic bloggers who wish to discuss this (or even Protestant bloggers) to feel free to link to their own post on the topic if they wish to host such a discussion on their own blog.

  18. thedeti says:

    Conservatives and churchians see a problem with marriage and societal breakdown. The correct way to think about it is to know that all people, men and women, are sinners and have sin natures. When left to their own devices they will ruthlessly pursue their own interests: women will sex up hot and exciting men for a chance at the brass ring. Men will sex up as many women as they can as quickly and cheaply as possible. Feminists saw a chance to grab power and took it, claiming the mantles of “equality” and “fairness”.

    Conservatives and churchians want a systemwide solution to the problem. They want to return to “the way it used to be” but without rolling back any of the “gains” that feminists made. And they want that solution to be built on men’s backs.

    The dirty little secret is that conservatives and churchians, and mainstream Christians too, LIKE feminism. The problem is men “screwing feminism up”. The problem is men not continuing to do what they have always done — getting educated, getting good paying jobs, and then waiting a decade or more while the women around them do what they want (usually having sex with the most attractive men they can find). But they want it to be a systemwide solution focused on finger wagging and shaming men.

    THey think it’s a shortage of marriage. They claim that if guys would just marry all these women, we wouldn’t have problems like divorce, bastardy, welfare mamas, rampant porn, and premarital sex. All these problems are laid at men’s feet: We wouldn’t have divorce if men would be nice to their wives and give them what they want. We wouldn’t have bastardy and welfare queens and premarital sex if men would just keep their dicks in their pants. Porn would be eradicated if bad men wouldn’t use it. They gloss over the real causes, like women initiating the vast majority of divorces, women making poor sex partner choices. And one has to point out that the reason most men use porn is because they’re not attractive enough to attract even a homely or plain woman; even after trying. These men are a decade behind because no one ever taught them about intersexual attraction or even told them they needed to learn about it or work on it.

    At this late date, you’re not going to get a systemic solution, because even its advocates don’t want to do what it will take, and that’s complete nationwide overhaul of family law. Abolition of no fault divorce. In the event of divorce, children go to the father. If the divorce is the woman’s fault, she takes no assets other than her personal belongings. Of course, none of this will happen. So conservatives and tradcons and Christian activists like Stanton are left with agitating for systemic solutions which cannot possibly be instituted. So they agitate, and make it look like they’re doing something about the problem without actually doing something about the problem.

  19. Cane Caldo says:

    Appreciate the links and kind words.

    I think the key is getting VF-friendly people to accept a fuller definition of “weaker vessel”.

  20. thedeti says:

    What I meant to say is that after men wait a decade or more for women to finish having sex with the more attractive men in their midst, these men are then expected to offer marriage cheerfully and unreservedly to one of these women.

  21. easttexasfatboy says:

    MGTOW and Black Knightery! There’s no real way to fix this society. We’re gonna have to have a hard reset. That means war or insurrection. The types of situations that are truly life and death. Scripture mentions that by their fruits you will know them. It also makes plain that many are called, but few chosen. Actual outright apostasy seems to be the order of the day. This too is biblical. Think about it…..Suppose we don’t defend the feminists……and let them be slaughtered…..kinda like the Jews who went out to the Babylonians. Churchy people ain’t christian. Again, we are bluntly warned about being followers of men. Something about misleading and being misled. Tickled ears, right? The book of James has a lot to say about this situation. Bottom line is this…..apostates are usually very reasonable.

  22. The Brass Cat says:

    Unmarried men are prone to roam aimlessly and without direction; and need a wife’s stabilizing influence to keep grounded and even-keeled.

    Ah, yes. I still wistfully recall my youth as a hunter-gatherer on the plains of North America. I ambushed bison with nothing but a short spear and fashioned crude shelters from their hides. Life was harsh on the plains. My feet were thick with calluses and my skin was bronzed from the sun and wind. I roamed aimlessly–with only the North Star to provide rudimentary guidance–on a sea of grass that stretched endlessly in all directions. For all I knew the entire world was as such. Wife? I knew no one of that name. There was only the sky and the earth, the bison and the grass.

  23. tz says:

    It was technological, followed by social. Women in an era without the pill or abortion would face the consequences when they sinned, so there was a good and almost immediate source of negative feedback. Men didn’t have the same. And when women weren’t providers, and divorce required evidence (usually of bad enough behavior to include alimony), there was no “frivorce”.

    What the church has completely mistaken is that contraception and no-fault divorce is what made women equal in the worst possible way. Now women don’t suffer temporally the results of their unrighteousness. Whereas they behaved better because they had to, today they can behave just as badly as men and get away with it, at least if not held accountable by the Church.

    If there was a pill that could be taken to make someone invisible or unremembered, there would be a lot more lying, fraud, and theft. Perhaps a woman who has violated the prohibition against Adultery go to the church and Steal, and see if they are just as – I can’t say forgiving since that requires recognition of the sin.

    Before, because few women would give into temptation, it kept the men from going beyond their minds (but note how pornography is a far worse problem today than it was before).

    Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection. – Humanae Vitae.

    Before, Women were either supposed to become Nuns (a virgin bride of Christ) or Mothers. Try finding “mother” in any of these discussions. Of course they are trying to usurp fatherhood – they’ve rejected their own role as being motherhood. It misses much of the point to try to discuss this as men v.s. women or even husband v.s. wife (as a barren business partnership or something, not as the foundation for a family).

    1 Tim 2:15 – But women will be saved through childbearing–if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. (The oft quoted passage begins at verse 8, but many don’t continue through this verse)

    One of the really harder verses. Probably the mirror of what our Lord said to men that it is better not to marry. Why marry a woman that doesn’t want to be saved, at least not by following this scripture?

  24. Frugal Nerd,

    When the collapse happens the wimminz will come back to men and attempt to convince men to come back by allowing men to have headship again due to not having any resources for themselves or their offspring and their desire for a man.

    No they will NOT. They will just continue to do what they are doing NOW.

    They will continue to elect politicians like POTUS Obama who thinks nothing of borrowing $1,000,000,000,000 form China annually to spend on entitlements now to financially prop up women who have no husband or any of his resources. So long as women vote, the debt will pile higher and higher. In their mind, it is not their responsibility to pay for it. Its men’s fault fo rnot marrying them and putting up with their crap in the first place.

  25. While there have been rare examples – such as the Flapper of the Roaring Twenties

    Good grief. Examples are rare because societies insane enough to remove limits on female behavior are rare! The flappers prove that women will push the envelope as far as they’re allowed. Now we’re seeing what happens when you burn the envelope.

  26. Gunner Q says:

    “The crucial process of civilization is the subordination of male sexual impulses and biology to the long-term horizons of female sexuality.”

    So, civilization began in the 1960s?

  27. BradA says:

    IBB,

    What cannot continue, won’t. It may take longer than anyone thinks to collapse, but collapse it will. I am sure many thought the Roman empire would go on forever. Remember the saying about the sun never setting on the British Empire? It does now.

  28. Cane Caldo says:

    @The Brass Cat

    Ah, yes. I still wistfully recall my youth as a hunter-gatherer on the plains of North America.[…]

    Haha! Well done!

  29. In any event, it appears that a lot of conservatives from the 1970s-80s era drew on Gilder’s ideas. I recall my dad talking about Wealth and Poverty, and attributing similar ideas to Gilder — that marriage civilized men.

    I haven’t read Gilder, so I don’t know exactly how he put it. But I think this is one topic where there’s a fine distinction to be made, and honestly I think it’s too fine for people to grasp if they haven’t been studying this stuff closely.

    It may be true that “marriage civilizes men” in the sense that it grounds them, gives them responsibilities to live up to, and generally makes them think more about the future of the community that their kids will grow up in. A man with a wife and kids wants a civilized place to keep them.

    But many people jump from that to say it’s women who civilize men, as if marriage is incidental except that it forces a man to spend time listening to a woman so he can absorb her superior ways. (This version appeals to tradcons, because they can still offer lip service to the idea of male headship, while setting him up as a puppet king with a woman behind the throne.) But it’s not the woman who civilizes him, as we can see in the way civilized behavior dwindles where men and women shack up instead of marrying. They’re pairing off and having lots of sex, even lots of kids, but somehow the guys aren’t picking up civilized values in the process. Quite the opposite.

    So marriage (and more so fatherhood) potentially civilizes men because of what the task brings out of the man from inside himself. His wife may be an inspiration in that, but not a cause, and certainly not a teacher.

  30. JDG says:

    Stanton, FotF, the Kendrick Brothers, etc. are all telling conservative Christians exactly what they want to hear. As a result, they are a barometer of Christian culture.

    If this is true, then the “Christian culture” isn’t all that Christian when it comes to Bible based family values.

  31. JF says:

    The real Christian men out there will only heard, and their women only return to their proper roles, after this civilization goes through its own epoch of subjugation and Lamentations.

  32. Hypergamy doesn’t care about Christianity.

    So long as feminine-primacy is the ascendant social order it will always be a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ prospect for men. Modern Christianity is just along for the ride.

    http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/18/the-honor-system/

    Man Up or Shut Up – The Male Catch 22

    One of the primary way’s Honor is used against men is in the feminized perpetuation of traditionally masculine expectations when it’s convenient, while simultaneously expecting egalitarian gender parity when it’s convenient.

    For the past 60 years feminization has built in the perfect Catch 22 social convention for anything masculine; The expectation to assume the responsibilities of being a man (Man Up) while at the same time denigrating asserting masculinity as a positive (Shut Up). What ever aspect of maleness that serves the feminine purpose is a man’s masculine responsibility, yet any aspect that disagrees with feminine primacy is labeled Patriarchy and Misogyny.

    Essentially, this convention keeps beta males in a perpetual state of chasing their own tails. Over the course of a lifetime they’re conditioned to believe that they’re cursed with masculinity (Patriarchy) yet are still responsible to ‘Man Up’ when it suits a feminine imperative. So it’s therefore unsurprising to see that half the men in western society believe women dominate the world (male powerlessness) while at the same time women complain of a lingering Patriarchy (female powerlessness) or at least sentiments of it. This is the Catch 22 writ large. The guy who does in fact Man Up is a chauvinist, misogynist, patriarch, but he still needs to man up when it’s convenient to meet the needs of a female imperative.

    Glenn Stanton is just another Beta male, gender loathing tail-chaser, hoping churchy women will give him the social proof he needs in order for his wife to want to bang a symp like himself. When Marxism comes to Christianity it will have a skrillex haircut, wearing spanx and carrying a copy of Our Bodies, Ourselves.

  33. Lyn87 says:

    Cail,

    Good point at 4:58. I was having a similar thought earlier today – specifically about how this relates to Mark Driscoll’s analogy wherein he compares men to trucks, with the idea that a truck drives better under a load. He’s right to a degree: trucks are designed to be stable under a load, and family men are generally more stable and productive than single men. But that only takes the analogy about a quarter of the way to where it needs to go. The other three quarters are: 1) Trucks only have one set of controls. 2) The driver operates the controls, not the cargo. 3) The load has to be firmly lashed down to prevent it from shifting and overturning the truck.

    Stanton’s message about marriage as a civilizing force is also only partially true – hordes of unattached young men cause problems. But like Driscoll’s analogy, what Stanton leaves out is more important than what he puts in: marriage civilizes men (and men civilize women) because real marriage is patriarchal, and patriarchal marriage gives men incentives to build civilizations, and civilization provides incentives to curtail female sexuality, which would run rampant otherwise (look no farther than any college campus or ghetto, or the flapper years, for that matter).

  34. Brad,

    What cannot continue, won’t. It may take longer than anyone thinks to collapse, but collapse it will. I am sure many thought the Roman empire would go on forever. Remember the saying about the sun never setting on the British Empire? It does now.

    Rome (whether it was the Republic from say 500BC to just prior to our Savior’s birth) or the empire (from Christ to about 476 AD) is 1000 years. Then we had Islam and the dark ages. England? That was from 1588 to 1945 so, almost 360 years. We didn’t hit our prime until 1957. Ours will be short lived, I grant you, but yes its going to go on as long as feminism goes on and as long as there is someone to borrow from…

  35. Focus on the Family is part of the feminine emotional self-discovery industry along with most churches, Oprah Winfrey, Eat Pray Love, Dr. Phil, marriage counseling, motivational speakers, and self-help books. Like all those things, Focus on the Family is a product for women. I would be surprised if more than 35% of the listeners of any of that FOTF shit on the radio were men. But I bet more than 90% of their donations come from men, even if it is indirect (i.e. wives donating with hubby’s cash). Time for men to wake the hell up and start using the power of the purse.

  36. infowarrior1 says:

    @thefeministhater
    “The crucial process of civilization,” says George Gilder, “is the subordination of male sexual impulses and biology to the long- term horizons of female sexuality. The overall sexual behavior of women in the modern world differs relatively little from the sexual life of women in primitive societies. It is male behavior that must be changed to create a civilized order.”

    Untrue. There is a striking difference in the behavior of males in civilized and in primitive societies–the difference between motivated, productive, stable males in the former and disruptive or idle or macho or narcissistic drones, or at best hunters and warriors, in the latter. However the most essential difference between the two societies is one less conspicuous but more pivotal: In the civilized society the females accept the regulation of their sexuality on the basis of the Sexual Constitution–monogamous marriage, the Legitimacy Principle, the double standard and female loyalty and chastity; in the primitive society the females reject sexual regulation and embrace the Promiscuity Principle, a woman’s right to control her own sexuality. The female behavior is more basic, since it determines whether the males can be motivated to accept a stable and productive lifestyle. The key issue is not, as Gilder imagines, whether men can be induced to accept the Sexual Constitution which he imagines women try to impose, but whether women themselves can be induced to accept it. What causes women in civilized society to accept it is the knowledge that the economic and status rewards bestowed by patriarchal civilization can be obtained in no other way.

    Sexual regulation may take unsubtle forms–enforced wearing of veils and chadors, the confinement of women to gynecia, mutilation of female sexual organs, wearing of chastity belts and so forth. In more sophisticated societies the control is internalized and leads to feminist complaints such as the following from Peggy Morgan:

    We’re really out of control of our sexuality when we see our desires as dirty and troublesome….This leaves us open to being controlled from the outside–letting others (especially men) convince us that we want what they want us to want.
    Here, from John Dollard’s Caste and Class in a Southern Town, is an example of such manipulative regulation “from the outside”– males persuading females that they are really regulating themselves:
    One of the rituals of the university dances is that of a fraternity of young blades entitled the Key-Ice. During the intermission the lights are turned out and these men march in carrying flaming brands. At the end of the procession four acolytes attend a long cake of ice. Wheeled in on a cart it glimmers in the torches’ flare. Then the leader, mounted on a table in the center of the big gymnasium, lifts a glass cup of water and begins a toast that runs: “To Woman, lovely woman of the Southland, as pure and as chaste as this sparkling water, as cold as this gleaming ice, we lift this cup, and we pledge our hearts and our lives to the protection of her virtue and chastity.”
    For “protection” Peggy Morgan would (correctly) read enforcing.
    There can be no civilization without the regulation of female sexuality. As Dr. Gerda Lerner says in discussing the creation of the system of patriarchal civilization, “The [ancient] state had an essential interest in the maintenance of the patriarchal family….Women’s sexual subordination was institutionalized in the earliest law codes and enforced by the full power of the state. Women’s cooperation in the system was secured by various means: force, economic dependency on the male head of the family, class privileges bestowed upon conforming and dependent women of the upper classes, and the artificially created division of women into respectable and non-respectable women.” Dr. Lerner’s wording acknowledges the fact, unrecognized by Gilder, that the Sexual Constitution is a male idea imposed upon females. “Social and ethnological facts,” says Robert Briffault,

    afford no evidence that the influence of woman has ever been exercised in the direction of extending sexual restrictions and tabus, and of imposing chastity on men….Feminine morality consists in unquestioning assent to established estimates and usages….Feminine conservatism defends polygamy and sexual freedom as staunchly as it does monogamy and morality.

    What is true of the Sexual Constitution is true of civilization itself:
    Those achievements which constitute what, in the best sense, we term civilization [says Briffault] have taken place in societies organized on patriarchal principles; they are for the most part the work of men. Women have had little direct share in them.

    Precisely the opposite of Gilder’s view that “civilization evolved through the subordination of male sexual patterns–the short-term cycles of tension and release–to the long-term female patterns.” “In creating civilization,” says Gilder,

    women transform male lust into love; channel male wanderlust into jobs, homes, and families; link men to specific children; rear children into citizens; change hunters into fathers, divert male will to power into a drive to create. Women conceive the future that men tend to fell; they feed the children that men ignore.

    Why, if so, didn’t civilization precede patriarchy and the regulation of female sexuality? This regulation was the precondition enabling males to create stable families from which they could not be expelled. The earlier matriarchal pattern is this: “The women are not obliged to live with their husbands any longer than suits their pleasure or conscience….” In such a society women, including married women, are sexually autonomous and the men can do nothing about it. That’s the way women prefer things. When Ann Landers asked her female readers whether they would, if they had the chance over again, make the decision to become mothers, 70 percent said no. Alexandre Dumas, in Les Femmes Qui Tuent, writes that a distinguished Roman Catholic priest had told him that eighty out of one hundred women who married told him afterwards that they regretted it. These women were not trying to impose the Sexual Constitution upon men; they were trying to escape from its control over their own lives. “In the most primitive human societies,” says Briffault,

    there is nothing equivalent to the domination which, in advanced societies, is exercised by individuals, by classes, by one sex over the other. The notion of such a domination is entirely foreign to primitive humanity; the conception of authority is not understood. The ultimate basis of the respective status of the sexes in advanced patriarchal societies is the fact that women, not being economically productive, are economically dependent, whereas the men exercise economic power both as producers and as owners of private property….The development of durable private property, of wealth, the desire of the constitutionally predatory male to possess it and to transmit it to his descendants, are, in fact, the most common causes of the change from matriarchal to patriarchal institutions.

    In primitive societies the loose bonds of matrimony permit much sexual freedom and women outside of these loose bonds enjoy total promiscuity. Briffault again:

    In all uncultured societies, where advanced retrospective claims have not become developed, and the females are not regularly betrothed or actually married before they have reached the age of puberty, girls and women who are not married are under no restrictions as to their sexual relations, and are held to be entirely free to dispose of themselves as they please in that respect. To that rule there does not exist any known exception.

    No exceptions. Women are promiscuous unless male-created social arrangements compel or induce them to be otherwise. The truth about the creation of civilization is the opposite of what Gilder imagines it to be. Despite his belief that “greater sexual control and discretion–more informed and deliberate sexual powers- -are displayed by women in all societies known to anthropology,” American women are today more adulterous than their husbands. 77 percent of the female readers of Glamour magazine approve of women having children out of wedlock.

    http://www.fisheaters.com/gb7.html

  37. Frugal Nerd says:

    IBB,

    No doubt women will still be hard wired as they are now, but when the cash flow stops and all the debts are called in then the entitlements will have to be stopped cold turkey. All of them. It may take a century or two but it will happen. The Dark Ages saw the nuclear family reclaim its place as the cornerstone of society because there were no more bread and cercuses in what had been the Western Roman Empire. Hypergamy will become the survival mechanism it was originally intended to be, granted it will need to be tightly controlled by a benevolent patriarchy.

  38. Stanton’s message about marriage as a civilizing force is also only partially true – hordes of unattached young men cause problems.

    Thinking about it a bit more, I might put it this way: hordes of single men tend to cause problems, whether or not they have girlfriends. So the presence of females doesn’t civilize them; it’s marriage and the opportunity to claim a woman and get children on her that does the trick.

    In fact, I think you could make the case that men alone, without women, are more civilized than men with girlfriends. Look at the monasteries that preserved civilization through the Dark Ages. Look at the military, where discipline is essential (and breaks down when you add women). Men do civilization just fine without women’s help.

  39. ballista74 says:

    In any event, it appears that a lot of conservatives from the 1970s-80s era drew on Gilder’s ideas. I recall my dad talking about Wealth and Poverty, and attributing similar ideas to Gilder — that marriage civilized men. Unmarried men are prone to roam aimlessly and without direction; and need a wife’s stabilizing influence to keep grounded and even-keeled.

    James Dobson drew heavily on Gilder’s ideas in 1980. I wouldn’t doubt that Focus on the Family Female was entirely built based on Gilder’s ideas.

    Great post by @thedeti January 19, 2015 at 4:09 pm. Feminism is the obvious cause, yet they are so tied in with subjugating themselves to the women (proxy authority), that they can’t move on eliminating it, especially when the events that caused this are so clearly known.

  40. Infowarrior1, that entire Fisheaters page is excellent; thanks for the link. Here’s a quote from it that sums it up pretty well (my emphasis):

    [Gilder] fails to explain that where women run things, as in the ghettos, little attention is paid to marriage or to long-term cycles of sexuality, and instead there are so many one-night stands, so many children having children. Where men run things, as in Oriental families, the long-term cycles extend backward to ancestor worship and forward to education, careers, the family’s good name, and care for the hereditaments and the patrimony. The women Gilder writes about have long-term sexual horizons because men have socialized them to have them.

    It looks like one of those situations where guys like Gilder and Dobson look around in their own families and social circles and see good women being good wives and mothers, and assume that’s the norm, and that women just naturally turn out that good. They don’t. Those women were good wives and mothers because patriarchal society guided them that way. Take away that guidance, and you get mud huts, not cathedrals and vacuum cleaners.

    That page also has some quotes from feminists that make it clear that they know that putting women in charge of their own sexuality eventually breaks down all sexual mores and taboos. They consider that a feature, not a bug.

    If you want civilization, the thing you have to have is patriarchy. It so happens that patriarchy has been modeled around the traditional marriage with male headship. It seems unlike that just any sort of marriage will do.

  41. infowarrior1 says:

    @Frugal Nerd

    The nuclear family is such a fragile entity. Why not a more extended family?

    http://henrymakow.com/nuclear-family-need-larger-loy.html

  42. Frugal Nerd says:

    infowarrior1,

    Very interesting article – I will have to give that more thought. Thank you.

  43. Dalrock writes, “Calling out the sins of women has no doubt always been harder than calling out the sins of men.”

    Ummmm, not if you read the Great Books for Menzlzlzlzzzlzzlzzl.

  44. PuffyJacket says:

    I’m at a loss for words at how Stanton can seriously believe the 1920s were a rare moment of out-of-control female sexuality. If he truly accepts that some women of the 1920s were less than chaste, then logically he must declare nearly all young women today to be total skanks. Statistically and logically there’s no way around this conclusion.

    It’s scary to think how warped his brain must be, to consistently hold views so starkly different from everyday reality. If I had to guess, he’s probably the sado-masochist type. Every bit of beta rage he accumulates from being unable to get his wife to a) look pretty, and b) put-out, he bottles up and spews at younger men for fucking up the system. But he’s still not going to laid.

    From the perspective of my generation, guys like this are terrifying assholes. He’s not just a white knight hold-out, which unfortunately many men of the boomer generation continue to be (at the expense of younger men). He’s the equivalent of a traitor. Someone that rigs the game, kicks you while you’re down, high-fives the opposing team, and does it all before a cheering audience with a self-satisfying smirk on his face. The fact that his views on marriage are considered “mainstream” in the church is equally terrifying.

  45. RichardP says:

    Or you could look at it this way. Consider that there are different personalities and ego states. In that context, consider guys at two extremes: alpha on one end and beta on the other. Alpha doesn’t mind living in the weather, but does not like being confined in a house. Beta likes living in a warm room with a roof over his head, and really dislikes living in the weather. Which of these two extremes of men are actually going to create the creature comforts that define a group of people as a civilization? Probably not the group of guys who don’t mind living in nature with little more than his own wits and a few tools.

    Now consider the world before oil and mechanization. In most instances, if a woman was going to have “things” (including a roof over her head) a man had to give them to her. Which “type” of man was most likely going to have “things” – the alpha wildboy who likes to live in the woods, or the beta civilized boy who does his best to create or acquire “things” that will make his life more comfortable?

    Ya’ll can take it from here. In the real world of the past, it was the guys who had “things” that attracted the women. And in order to be allowed to stay with that fellow, she needed to put some brakes on her feral nature. Otherwise he could kick her out, and she would be back to being without. You can think through who had the civilizing affect on whom. And you can think through what happened to this arrangement as women became more able to earn “things” by themselves and no longer needed the beta good-guys to give them to her.

  46. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev
    In fact, I think you could make the case that men alone, without women, are more civilized than men with girlfriends. Look at the monasteries that preserved civilization through the Dark Ages.

    No need to look back into the past, look to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Athos which would seem to be a most civilized place. Parts of it are forbidden entirely to women, and yet…

  47. Boxer says:

    I’m at a loss for words at how Stanton can seriously believe the 1920s were a rare moment of out-of-control female sexuality. If he truly accepts that some women of the 1920s were less than chaste, then logically he must declare nearly all young women today to be total skanks. Statistically and logically there’s no way around this conclusion.

    You’re making a big mistake assuming that any of these high-profile religious types “seriously believe” anything. You need to get that out of your head. To them, it’s just a business. They are showmen, and they’re psychologically similar to the guys you find at the big top, down at the circus.

    You guys who are serious about reading the bible and living a good life would be much better off just getting together with other solid people, and starting a church in your basement. As the USA is completely secular by decree, you are absolutely free to do this. People in other places often get fined and jailed for it, so you have no real excuse for not at least exploring the option.

    Whatever else you guys do or don’t do, you should quit giving these scroungy fuckers your money and energy. The minute your preacher starts AMOGing the fathers and husbands in the congregation from the pulpit, or starts inserting feminism into the service, you need to walk out.

    Boxer

  48. Renee Harris says:

    “calling out the sins of men”
    Male sin does not exist and therefore are easily to make up. I mean woman are sinful an Christ can’t save is, right.
    Why should a man repent ?
    In judge 19 rape is celebrated. In Deuteronomy God said that a woman must die if she is rape, but guys gets to free.
    Darlock, do you really care if man like Stanton get in heaven? No. Do you care any woman get in heaven ? No. Will you laugh as they drown in wine of wrath of god? Yes.
    Why do you spend talking about non-citizens of heavens?
    I mean Matthew 3:12 man. Is Christ a white knight or son of man?

  49. JF says:

    You know what, Dalrock. As I am thinking about it now, I’m not so sure it has “always” been harder to call out women for their sins than it is to do against men. I don’t find the Hebrews in the Scriptures having too much difficulty with this. They seemed to call women on their crap at least as much as the men.
    Are we sure this isn’t just another idolatrous vestige of medieval asinine chivalry?

  50. JF says:

    Speaking of 3:12’s, Renee, you sound a lot like an Isaiah 3:12 type of gal.
    You go, girl. Nevermind where you might be going. You just go.
    Better yet: Go to somebody who can proofread for you.

  51. JF says:

    Boxer said:
    “You’re making a big mistake assuming that any of these high-profile religious types “seriously believe” anything. You need to get that out of your head. To them, it’s just a business. They are showmen, and they’re psychologically similar to the guys you find at the big top, down at the circus.

    You guys who are serious about reading the bible and living a good life would be much better off just getting together with other solid people, and starting a church in your basement. As the USA is completely secular by decree, you are absolutely free to do this. People in other places often get fined and jailed for it, so you have no real excuse for not at least exploring the option.”

    JF:
    You nailed it, Boxer. Again. Why is it that the only people I ever encounter who actually can see and understand reality and the facts are those who are not fellow believers in the Messiah of the Scriptures? Again, beyond tragic.
    My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. For they have rejected knowledge.

  52. infowarrior1 says:

    @TFH
    ”Those two words are synonyms, and always have been. Patriarchy = Civilization.

    In the future, unless greater-than-human AI is in charge (in which case, women will be in a far lower position than they ever were in any patriarchal human society), that will continue to be true.

    Anyone who opposes ‘patriarchy’ opposes civilization. This, of course, is no secret to anyone of a red-pill bent.”

    Patriarchy although essential for civilization is not the only factor that results in civilization and its continual advancement.

    Its the combination of patriarchy, agriculture(which makes patriarchy possible in the 1st place) and the lack of metaphysical obstacles to science(which the christian religion provides as well as an impetus to scientific discovery stemming from a belief in a Rational God who does not arbitrarily monkey with his creation creating natural laws which nature follows).

  53. JDG says:

    In judge 19 rape is celebrated. In Deuteronomy God said that a woman must die if she is rape, but guys gets to free. – courtesy of Renee.

    This is yet one more example of why women should not be teachers of the Word. Let me share a little something with you Renee.

    If it were true that the all powerful Creator of the universe condoned rape, then not only would rape not be wrong, but it would still be true that any who oppose Him are fools. They would be fools for at least two reasons:

    1) He is the source of our knowledge of what is good and what is bad.
    2) He can destroy not only your body, but also your soul.

    You may as well try arguing with gravity about falling off a cliff. You can try to further understand what you have been told about the laws of gravity and respect the “law”, or you can scream all the way down about how you think it’s wrong that gravity works the way it does.

    Still the fact remains that feminists (is this you?) do not under stand the Bible, the laws of God, the world of the ancient Hebrews, nor the world you live in now.

  54. JDG says:

    Darlock, do you really care if man like Stanton get in heaven? No. Do you care any woman get in heaven ? No.

    Really? How do you know? Are you upset because Dalrock doesn’t echo the rest of the western world in focusing on the short comings of men? So no corner of the world must be left to criticize the short comings of women and those who enable the sins of women?

    You should be ashamed of yourself Renee (Yes I went there, and I’m near the point of requesting a sammich).

  55. MarcusD says:

    Working out, Women’s Dress, and Modesty (Just imagine what the thread will be like…)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=939468

    Female friend coming on to me
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=939292

    Why are married people healthier?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=939584

  56. MarcusD says:

    I was looking up a word today (in a physical dictionary…), and I came across this word:

    frauendienst (n.)
    “excessive chivalry toward women”

    Pronunciation: https://translate.google.com/#de/en/frauendienst

    I think it really describes what’s going on.

  57. hoellenhund2 says:

    The one conclusion to draw from all this is that Christianity is a crap, useless religion. I’m sorry, but someone has to say it. I applaud this post, and all the others you have written, and will undoubtedly write, about this issue, but it’s time to openly state the one basic reason for such misandric, gynocentric attitudes on the part of tradcons.

    Christianity is just rubbish for the same reason Islam is rubbish, namely that both are religions that are too easily exploited for the service of the Female Imperative. They are hopelessly corrupted by gynocentrism and misandry, because of their theological focus on female virtue and moral superiority, which are bogus concepts divorced from the reality of human biology.

    These was a time when Christianity was just a pragmatic tool in the hands of sane men, used to keep women and children in line. But it has outlived its usefulness. Now it’s used, and has been used for a long time, to exploit and victimize men en masse, nothing else. Islam is even worse, because it’s used to promote the sacrificial suicide and massacre of men for an imaginary purpose.

    The Bible and the Quran are plainly dangerous as sacred texts, because the forces of gynocentrism can easily use them as justification.

    Sane, thinking men will not support such rubbish creeds. There’s a reason why Christianity is turning into a lame, useless female ghetto as men abandon it in droves. As long as these religions exist, misandry will continue.

  58. greyghost says:

    Cail

    In fact, I think you could make the case that men alone, without women, are more civilized than men with girlfriends. Look at the monasteries that preserved civilization through the Dark Ages. Look at the military, where discipline is essential (and breaks down when you add women). Men do civilization just fine without women’s help.

    Right you are on that one. That is why I cannot find one study on the children of single fathers. Nobody wants to see men in such a way. The church damn sure doesn’t.

  59. hoellenhund2 says:

    Just to illustrate how delusional these tradcons are, ask yourselves the following questions:

    Think of all the men throughout history who were builders, fixers, inventors, workers, thinkers. The men who created and improved human civilization. How many of them were rewarded by women for their acts in any way?

    Now think of the men who didn’t create but destroy. Murderers, thugs and other criminals of any sort, louts, abusers, swindlers, adulterers, cads and generally those who undermine morality social stability in any way. How many of them were rewarded by women for their acts in any way?

    Camille Paglia famously said that we’d all be living in grass huts if the fate of civilization was left in female hands. Well, can anyone show me a real grass hut anywhere on the planet, either today or in the past, that was actually, you know, built by a woman, or a group of women?

    Or wait…let’s not go that far. Just show me a wooden cradle that was put together by a single mother for her child anywhere, anytime. With her own hands, using tools. It can be a very simple one for all I care, with no decorations whatsoever.

    Anyone?

    Look…let’s cut the crap. Women don’t build shit. Never did, never will. And when left to make their own choices, they reward male acts of destruction, barbarism and vice, not male acts of construction, creation, virtue and honor.

    Tradcons have yet to admit that female hypergamy has caused and enabled human suffering, destruction and bloodshed on an unimaginable scale throughout history.

  60. hoellenhund2 says:

    Hordes of unattached young men don’t cause problems. Hordes of unattached young women do.

  61. earl says:

    Also in Judges 19…it was a concubine that faced that wrath. Perhaps that should be a lesson to women to NOT be a concubine. They don’t have the same protection privildges as a wife.

    Today being a concubine is celebrated.

  62. earl says:

    ‘Women don’t build shit.’

    Well the one thing they do build they are being told to forgo that for a career.

  63. BradA says:

    Boxer,

    They are showmen, and they’re psychologically similar to the guys you find at the big top, down at the circus.

    Some may be charlatans, but I would argue that most are merely products of their lives and culture. They really do believe what they say, they as just stupid. The idea that “most people are idiots” is very true in any age. Trying to completely separate people from their culture, and judge them that way, is dangerous.

    hoellenhund2,

    The one conclusion to draw from all this is that Christianity is a crap, useless religion.

    And you are full of crap. Who has it all together? What human institution is perfect? Will you cease eating at all restaurants, or even all Chinese restaurants, because you got a really bad egg roll?

    People are a product of their culture and your point would only have validity if you had a viable alternative that worked. You do not.

    There’s a reason why Christianity is turning into a lame, useless female ghetto as men abandon it in droves. As long as these religions exist, misandry will continue.

    It has been around much longer than you and I and will continue long past us. You really need to open your eyes more if you honestly believe these claims. The idea of no one to be responsible to is more a feature of atheism and that is the guiding principle today, even though most may dispute it.

    Also note that much of Western Civilization was built on men with a strong Christian faith. It may have been subverted, but that doesn’t make it wrong.

    What is your alternative proposal?

  64. hoellenhund2 says:

    Religions come and go, BradA. It’s a staple of human history. There were ancient polytheistic religions in the past, and today all that’s left of them are ruins used as tourist destinations. Christianity and Islam will also pass in a similar manner. There will be some major crisis in the future, after which new religions will take their place, hopefully not as prone to gynocentrism and gynonormativity.

    And the situation we have today is not where a really bad egg roll was once accidentally served in an otherwise excellent restaurant. What we have is a restaurant chain that consistently offers really bad egg rolls, and the management dismisses you as a small-dicked, bitter loser if you object.

  65. Opus says:

    I see that Dalrock has acquired the Nelson touch.

    It is odd that that expression [the title] should become common American currency, yet I say things (without having the faintest idea what they mean) such as that I would bet my bottom dollar or bob’s your uncle, neither of which originate over here. I fear that us british baby-boomers were subjected to a lot – far too much – Americana, largely by way of Television; I had a cowboy outfit – I am not at all sure that I would be happy with any son of mine assuming the posture of a hero of the wild west – how many American dress as if they represented The Raj on the North West Frontier.

    I think we must have lost the war.

  66. infowarrior1 says:

    @hollenhund2

    The Atheist plus debacle should tell you that even in the absence of religion misandry will still exist.

  67. hoellenhund2 says:

    infowarrior1, everyday petty misandry will always be around, but it’s fairly easy to see it for what it is. But when your spiritual leaders pander to misandric impulses, and actually convince people that those impulses are aligned with the will of the Almighty God, and are thus sacred and unquestionable, then it becomes really dangerous.

  68. Dalrock says:

    @Renee Harris

    “calling out the sins of men”
    Male sin does not exist and therefore are easily to make up. I mean woman are sinful an Christ can’t save is, right.
    Why should a man repent ?
    In judge 19 rape is celebrated. In Deuteronomy God said that a woman must die if she is rape, but guys gets to free.
    Darlock, do you really care if man like Stanton get in heaven? No. Do you care any woman get in heaven ? No. Will you laugh as they drown in wine of wrath of god? Yes.
    Why do you spend talking about non-citizens of heavens?
    I mean Matthew 3:12 man. Is Christ a white knight or son of man?

    I just double checked and in all of your previous comments you have presented yourself as a Christian woman seeking a godly husband. Now you come with a list of indictments against Christianity.

  69. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    yet I say things (without having the faintest idea what they mean) such as that I would bet my bottom dollar or bob’s your uncle, neither of which originate over here.

    You are right on bottom dollar, but bob’s your uncle is from the UK, not the US. In fact, most Americans would never say bob’s your uncle.

  70. James Rogers says:

    I left the church h years ago. I tried to get them to see make suffering. They just won’t do it. To them any man who complains is a loser and whiner. Your job as a man is to let women pick the top 20% and give them sex for free while the other men work hard at soul destroying jobs waiting for these women to get run thorough by 50 plus men and get a few womb turds in tow before she is ready to just drop into a home the beta owns. They assume the economy is good and that men are even able to provide and man up. . It’s putting your head in the sand and hoping men can fix this mess and act like 50’s dad while still letting women keep all the spoils of feminism. They are bashing the very men they need for society and their religion to survive. Tell a trad con eve committed the first sin and they get mad and say Adam did because he didn’t control his wife. This is the problem. Women have no agency and are thus free of any responsibility. . On mothers day I hear pastors tell all single mom’s to stand up and then he says it front of all that God will send a man to be her kids father and help her pay. . On father’s day the same pastor told men to man up and work harder and listen to women and to date single mom’s. . I’m out. . I just won’t sit and listen to these people. Men who married church virgins at age 20 and then sit there in a nice secure church job bashing men to marry fat single mom’s.

  71. Dalrock says:

    AT: Not here. Advance your pet theory on your own blog if you like.

  72. James,

    Men who married church virgins at age 20 and then sit there in a nice secure church job bashing men to marry fat single mom’s.

    I have never attended even one church where I witnessed one of these men of which you speak, not one. I wasn’t married at 20 (or even 25) and I could have been “shamed” in church the same way you are claiming, but never was. I’m not saying these men of which you speak do not exist (Stanton exists, even though he left that church he worked at in Seattle) but I am saying that these men are of such small number as to be insignificant in their ability to shape any narrative for men. And more to the point, if every man in America is yelling at you but none of them have any authority to actually do anything to you, then what do you care what people like Driscoll or any of them say?

  73. AT: Not here. Advance your pet theory on your own blog if you like.

    Dalrock, AT?

  74. easttexasfatboy says:

    Artisan! The Bible is replete with the stories of rebellion. Remember that Eva was completely fooled by the serpent. We’re at the point that destruction of this society is the best we can hope for. As for the discipline that can’t be named, well, that really was only for those women who were salvageable. The real kicker was that all the man had to say was “I divorce you” three times. As for Malachi, that was referring to women who were divorced unjustly. There’s always been precedent for getting rid of the trash. Folks can say that they’re christian all they want, but there’s that pesky scripture that mentions fruit. So, as I’ve mentioned before, feminism in the church is rank apostasy. Nope, leave those churchy slots alone. Silk from a sows ear, right? Consider biblical examples……If you knew the high priest was corrupt, all you could do back then was to continue to honor God. MGTOW isn’t that radical when you truly see what is happening. As in biblical times, it’s been pointed out that rebelliousness is the same as divination. Eternal truths, or as its become popular again, “The God of the Copybook Headings”. Essentially, the point is that these women today aren’t salvageable. Rebelliousness and Jealousy….rottenous to the bone. The bitter fruits of apostasy bring forth destruction. Millstone around the neck and all that.

  75. Novaseeker says:

    Women have casual sex for fun, Ottawa study finds — the mushy emotional stuff comes later

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/19/women-have-casual-sex-for-fun-ottawa-study-finds-the-mushy-emotional-stuff-comes-later/

    It’s amazing that this is news, really. Hey, women like to have casual sex with sexy men that they are sexually attracted to, and they do it for fun and pleasure. Who knew?!?!?

    As for the main topic, the core problem, it seems to me, is the tendency to look at the historical behavior of women as being “how they naturally are”, rather than “how they behaved given the constraints imposed”. Historically, women were hemmed in sexually by a set of belts and suspenders realities: economic dependency, disproportionate and unavoidable consequences of sexual activity, religious principles, moral rules, social mores. All of these held the expression of women’s sexuality in check. So when you look at how women behaved historically, in different cultures, you have to see this in the proper context of the belts and suspenders constraints that existed on women in all of these cultures. The behavior you see is not “innate”, but rather how they behaved given the restrictions, constraints and limited options they had. And even in those eras, you had women who rebelled, often rather famously referenced in literature, against this “supposedly innate” “long term sexuality”. Bottom line: women had to have a longer term perspective because they could not support themselves, couldn’t avoid pregnancy via sex easily, and couldn’t get the support of men unless the man was certain of paternity. It’s really that simple.

    When you remove all of that — i.e., women can support themselves, women can avoid pregnancy (or terminate it) thereby avoiding sexual consequences, and remove moral rules about pre-marital sex and illegitimacy, well *then* you see how women are *innately inclined* to behave, rather than how they behave when they have limited options. Now, it’s true that some of these constraints are, indeed, natural (sexual consequences), but it’s also true that these have been removed due to technology, law and culture permitting that removal. So what you see today is how women behave when they don’t have these restraints and limitations. And of course that’s much more relevant than how women behaved in eras where these restraints were all in place.

    The reason why they are reluctant to do this? It’s the pain of accepting reality. If they accept this truth about women, they experience the trauma of the red pill — the realization that their fabric of reality, in sexual terms, has been ripped to shreds. Understandable why they are reluctant to do that. But it takes a most seriously jaundiced eye to look at the situation today, and yet still assert that women are *innately* as they were under the old set of rules. It takes extraordinary effort to maintain that illusion over the course of time unless one insulates oneself from generational realities that are quite obvious to anyone who has a single child.

  76. easttexasfatboy says:

    Novaseeker! I can remember just how painful the red pill was. Learning that everything I had done before was destined to fail. That’s bitter. As for the church leaders, I truly believe that feminism is the way they pay their bills.

  77. ETF,

    As for the church leaders, I truly believe that feminism is the way they pay their bills.

    It IS the way they pay their bills. Towing the feminist imperative line in church gets the women in the pews which drags their husbands to the pews which brings in the money. Wives pick the churches, not the husbands. If the husbands had their ways, there would be no pastors like Stanton or Driscoll. There would be no FotF. But husbands do not have their way spiritually because the wives WILL divorce their husband if insists that his children attend a church that is red pill or patriarichal, truly Biblical. Women don’t want to hear that because they don’t believe it and it hurts them as much as Ann Coulter was hurting all the women in that audience in the youtube I posted up thread.

  78. easttexasfatboy says:

    IBB, here we are at the threatpoint. Rebelliousness personified. The Bible indicates that rebelliousness was the original sin. So, Yeppers, it’s still around. Rebelliousness, feral behavior, destruction of families……I believe that the only cure is a hard reset as I said. Yeah, they will expect us to protect them. I believe I’ll pass.

  79. Gunner Q says:

    hoellenhund2 @ 5:01 am :
    “[Christianity is] hopelessly corrupted by gynocentrism and misandry, because of their theological focus on female virtue and moral superiority, which are bogus concepts divorced from the reality of human biology.”

    Christianity is uniformly and unquestionably patriarchal. Never once in the Bible are women given a place of leadership over men (it’s explicitly forbidden even) and the women who came close tended to be utter disappointments. You’ll never hear a Churchian speak about Solomon going wrong by listening to his wives, Esther refusing to save her own people from genocide or why God used Whore of Babylon instead of Pimp.

    This is why I hate the Glenn Stantons and Mark Driscolls of the Church. They drive men away from Christ by teaching lies in His name. Christianity is not what these people teach.

    “These was a time when Christianity was just a pragmatic tool in the hands of sane men, used to keep women and children in line. But it has outlived its usefulness.”

    No man is a Christian because Christianity is useful. He’s Christian because he believes Christ is real. I cannot fathom choosing a religion based on what you want to be true instead of what actually is.

  80. Lyn87 says:

    Not picking a fight, IBB, I’m trying to reconcile what you just wrote… perhaps you could clarify. You posit that women will divorce men who take the lead in their marriages by picking non-feminized churches… but we all know that women are attracted to men who take the lead. (Huh?)

    Methinks you’re giving the average pew-sitting man too much credit – he’s about as blue-pill as his wife is. Otherwise he would reject feminized churchianity and take his family to a different church – and his wife would respect him for it. If he stays in a feminized church it’s more likely because he’s internalized the idea that women are naturally closer to God than men are. He may not ever think that consciously, but it’s there, all right.

  81. ETFB,

    ……I believe that the only cure is a hard reset as I said.

    Nothing will get done to rid this world of that poisonous toxin known as unilateral divorce, until a conversation is begun to discuss the possibility of dismantling it. That conversation has never begun. And I know what needs to happen to begin it.

    What we need is a powerful bachelor celebrity who is willing to risk his career to speak the truth for fear of alienation of his audience. We have such a man. A pot-smoking, hedonist, liberal, atheist, pro-abortion Bill Maher is what the MGTOW movement needs to start to conversation. If Bill Maher (on his show) ever said the following publically…

    “….I am never going to get married. I have far too many financial assets that I have worked too hard to accumulate. The state laws of California stipulate that if I were the marry, the instant after I said I do she would be able to instantly divorce me, take my house, and take half my future earnings. And she could move her new lover into the house that I bought prior to our marriage and have to continue to pay for…. so no, marriage offers me nothing but minuses, no pluses. Change divorce laws….”

    …now we have a conversation. He had already gone on the record saying he hates feminism, he might as well go ALL-IN and stipulate what we here already know about marriage and make it official. Maher has been eating red pills for a very long time, longer than there has been a MRM. He might be the original true MGTOW. And he has a little bit of personal experience with a woman trying to use government authority to extract resources from him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Maher

    Maher has never married.[95][96] Regarding marriage, Maher is quoted on his website as saying, “I’m the last of my guy friends to have never gotten married, and their wives — they don’t want them playing with me. I’m like the escaped slave — I bring news of freedom.”[97]

    In 2003, he began dating former Playboy Cyber Girl Coco Johnsen. In November 2004, at the end of their 17-month relationship, she sued him for USD $9 million for “pain and suffering” for alleged “insulting, humiliating and degrading racial comments.” Her suit stated that Maher promised to marry her and father her children, support her financially, and purchase a Beverly Hills home. Her suit also alleged that she quit her job as a flight attendant and occasional model to be with him. Maher’s lawyers in their response filed on November 23, 2004, in Los Angeles Superior Court said Maher is a “confirmed bachelor, and a very public one at that” who “never promised to marry [Johnsen] or to have children with her.” Maher’s filing stated that, after the relationship had ended, Johnsen “launched a campaign to embarrass, humiliate, and extort ridiculous sums of money from Bill Maher.” Johnsen had previously accused another former boyfriend of rape and kidnapping in 1997, and the charges were later dismissed for lack of evidence. The lawsuit was dismissed on May 2, 2005.

    It was dismissed ONLY because he lived with her and never said “I do.”

    I mean, he is one of the very few people on this planet that could get a conversation going. The National Organization of Women already hates him. He’s already been fired by ABC and lost his Politically Incorrect show for his comments about the 9-11 hijackers so what does he have to lose, from a publicity standpoint? He knows how come back from all that.

  82. Striver says:

    “The Bible and the Quran are plainly dangerous as sacred texts, because the forces of gynocentrism can easily use them as justification.”

    Women can use anything as justification. You don’t understand how they work.

    “Tradcons have yet to admit that female hypergamy has caused and enabled human suffering, destruction and bloodshed on an unimaginable scale throughout history.”

    Cuts both ways.

    Hypergamy is also probably responsible for all of the good stuff in society too. I agree that humans do not naturally pair bond. In the wild state the average woman gets to pass on her genes and the average man does not. So the average man has to take action to breed. He can kill other men, he can rape women, or he can work with other men to build a cooperative, organized state.

    I’m not going to lay WWI or WWII on women because I don’t think they were fought for access to women. Unchecked patriarchy does not work either.

    Men are naturally more violent. Women are hypergamous. A prosperous society needs to hold both tendencies in check. Hold the violence of men in check while rewarding the urge to build and compete. Right now society is out of balance in the West because the violence is held in check while hypergamy is allowed to run amok.

    I don’t think removing women from the society will help men because the underlying reason societies become productive is the “prize” of women. Men who disdain women aren’t as productive. It’s been said many times here. Maybe a valid short term response, but not something that works in the long term. The women are needed.

  83. Laura says:

    Opus: Probably boys in all countries liked to wear cowboy outfits during the decades when lots of cowboy movies, TV shows, and books were a big part of what was available. Boys everywhere in the 60s & 70s probably wore space suits & played astronaut even if their own country had nothing to do with space exploration. My brother had toy soldiers from various armies, including Nazi troops. I’m pretty sure that he had, at one point, one of those British desert army hats with flaps that cover the back of the neck. In the mid to late 70s, he went to Rhodesia and fought in their army after his asthma got him thrown out of the US Army and Marine Corps officer training programs. He said that the climate in Rhodesia was perfect for him, and that his time there allowed him to experience everything he had ever wanted in a war.

    Let your son have the cowboy costume — it will do him no harm whatsoever, and there are certainly far worse things that he could be emulating.

  84. Lyn87,

    Not picking a fight, IBB, I’m trying to reconcile what you just wrote… perhaps you could clarify. You posit that women will divorce men who take the lead in their marriages by picking non-feminized churches… but we all know that women are attracted to men who take the lead. (Huh?)

    Alpha fux, beta bux. When he gets married, the entire concept about what church to attend might not even be part of the equation. He is thinking with his penis. She is thinking about his money and financial security. It has nothing to do with her attraction to him. She is hypergamous.

    Okay so they get married. Now it comes time to pick a church (Protestant thinking, not Catholic or LDS where you get what you get and you don’t throw a fit) and the two of them attend a small one with a fire-and-brimstone pastor. The church is pretty empty (just a few old people, a couple young families) and the pastor is a lay pastor (has work outside the church, the building he actually OWNS) but it is very Biblical, very red pill. She says to her husband, “…no. I will not attend that church again. I don’t like what he said about me following your headship. That will never happen. We are co-equals in marriage. We will find a different church.” He says to her, “I like that one. I want to raise our family in that one. He speaks truth to power.” She says to him “… no. No children of mine will attend that church. And if you don’t let me pick the church then I will divorce you.” And so it goes Lyn87.

    Methinks you’re giving the average pew-sitting man too much credit – he’s about as blue-pill as his wife is. Otherwise he would reject feminized churchianity and take his family to a different church – and his wife would respect him for it. If he stays in a feminized church it’s more likely because he’s internalized the idea that women are naturally closer to God than men are. He may not ever think that consciously, but it’s there, all right.

    Don’t tell me you actually beleive the average pew-sitting man actually buys into this blue-pill crap that he hears in church? I will argue that they are there in that building listening to the bile not because they want to, but because they have to. It does not matter what he believes consciously. His sub-conscious tells him that we already know to be true, but he doesn’t want to risk losing his marriage over it.

  85. @Dalrock
    From the OP:
    The articles on Vision Forum focused on the need for men to accept their role as head of the family, but the articles didn’t focus on the widespread usurpation of this role by Christian wives. Likewise, the tools of usurpation were left out of the discussion almost entirely.

    In keeping with the tone of the OP, I tried to take on the elephant in the room from the husband’s perspective. While women have tools for usurpation and you pointed out that they don’t get discussed as such, I believe the Bible provides husbands with tools to hold their wives accountable. I wasn’t trying to hijack your thread, I could have sworn I was strictly on point. You replied:

    AT: Not here. Advance your pet theory on your own blog if you like.

    Fair enough; your blog, your rules. While I don’t see a literal interpretation of Scripture as a theory, I have written about this on my own blog and will continue to do so.

    You have quite a few posts that discuss women’s refusal to be held accountable for virtually anything and everything, and have repeatedly called out major trad-con Christian leaders in their appeasement of such attitudes and their open misandry. Thus, a few questions:

    If a Christian man is married to a professing Christian woman who nags, whines, complains, refuses to obey, refuses to submit, refuses him sex and engages in all manner of passive-aggressive behavior, how is the husband to hold her accountable for her rebellion?

    But, perhaps that presumes something that isn’t there. If the husband has the authority to hold his wife accountable (Ephesians 5:22-24), does that mean the husband has the responsibility to do so?

    Ultimately I suppose it’s a question of whether the husband has a responsibility to hold his wife accountable for her rebellion. How do you see that?

    Some hold it as an article of faith that divorce is forbidden to two believers (I’m one of them) while others hold that adultery is the only grounds for divorce. In either case, if one assumes that the rebellious wife isn’t committing adultery then there are no grounds for divorce and the man is stuck with her.

    What solutions do you see for a man in such a position?

  86. Lyn87 says:

    IBB,

    Thanks for clarifying your position – we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

  87. DeNihilist says:

    Marcus D @ 2:20

    “In a survey of 510 mostly Canadian women, “the person’s physical appearance turned me on” was rated as the number one reason heterosexual respondents had opted for casual sex.” – from the article.

    in the top ten reasons, 3 were about appearance (1, 5, and 8), and 4 could be construed as appearance also.

    None were about, ” I thought he was an alfalfa.”

    Save your money lads, go to the gym, get a nice haircut, wear nice clothes and have a bit of backbone.

    The number one reason sluts want one night stands with you is your appearance!

  88. easttexasfatboy says:

    Artisan Toad! The Bible permits separation. In fact it mentions being called to peace. You don’t have to live with a rebellious woman. You can go your own way. Just understand that if she’s rebellious, then there’s really no hope for change. If she involves the church, leave them all behind. Do not for an instant believe that the church official is there to help you. Not hardly. He’s there to maintain the feminist line. As Revelations points out, it really is all about the money and a Jezebel influence. MGTOW is the rational response.

  89. earl says:

    ‘Women have casual sex for fun, Ottawa study finds’

    All that fun and it turns them into bitter shrews. So apparently the appearence of casual sex is fun and the essense is bitterness.

  90. AT,

    If a Christian man is married to a professing Christian woman who nags, whines, complains, refuses to obey, refuses to submit, refuses him sex and engages in all manner of passive-aggressive behavior, how is the husband to hold her accountable for her rebellion?

    This is a question that single men need to ask of people in authority before they marry. And unfortanately the answer will probably remain the same. Consider the following discussions.

    Dad, if I marry a professing Christian woman who nags, whines, complains, refuses to obey, refuses to submit, refuses sex and engages in all manner of passive-aggressive behavior, how am I supposed to hold her accountable for her rebellion?

    Nothing. You have to guess right. And if you guess wrong, your life is over. So be oh so careful my son.

    Mom, if I marry a professing Christian woman who nags, whines, complains, refuses to obey, refuses to submit, refuses sex and engages in all manner of passive-aggressive behavior, how am I supposed to hold her accountable for her rebellion?

    Shut up with that patriarichal crap. I don’t want to hear it. (walks out of the room)

    Pastor, if I marry a professing Christian woman who nags, whines, complains, refuses to obey, refuses to submit, refuses sex and engages in all manner of passive-aggressive behavior, how am I supposed to hold her accountable for her rebellion?

    You can’t. There is nothing you can do. If she is really like that I would suggest you pray. There is nothing I can do for you.

    Policeman, if I marry a professing Christian woman who nags, whines, complains, refuses to obey, refuses to submit, refuses sex and engages in all manner of passive-aggressive behavior, how am I supposed to hold her accountable for her rebellion?

    You can’t do anything. In fact if you do anything, I might have to arrest you.

    Family ourt judge, if I marry a professing Christian woman who nags, whines, complains, refuses to obey, refuses to submit, refuses sex and engages in all manner of passive-aggressive behavior, how am I supposed to hold her accountable for her rebellion?

    You can’t. There is nothing you can do. If she is really like that I would suggest you not marry her or better yet, examine yourself to identify why you feel you need to have such a subordinate wife. Your problem is you. There is nothing I can do for you.

    Male politician who sets man’s laws that I must follow, if I marry a professing Christian woman who nags, whines, complains, refuses to obey, refuses to submit, refuses sex and engages in all manner of passive-aggressive behavior, how am I supposed to hold her accountable for her rebellion?

    Look I need to run for re-election. There is no way I am touching this question. (leaves room)

    Female politician who sets man’s laws that I must follow, if I marry a professing Christian woman who nags, whines, complains, refuses to obey, refuses to submit, refuses sex and engages in all manner of passive-aggressive behavior, how am I supposed to hold her accountable for her rebellion?

    F-ck you!

    Fact is AT is that there is nothing you can do. You can not in anyway discipline your wife to get her to obey, ever. Talk about following your lead, your headship, is just cheap talk. Its meaningless.

  91. Boxer says:

    I agree that humans do not naturally pair bond. In the wild state the average woman gets to pass on her genes and the average man does not.

    Feminists like to trot out the “monogamy isn’t natural” argument because it backs up their looney idea that marriage is “oppression” (or whatever nonsense they sputter these days, I can’t keep track). In fact, human beings have a well-established proclivity for pair-bonding.

    This is a pretty good place to start:
    http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v7/n10/full/nn1327.html

    It’s sorta obvious. Human society isn’t structured the way chimp or lion society is, and hasn’t been through history. We behave more like Prairie Voles.

    Evolutionary biologists explain this as an adaptation to having helpless young that take a long time to develop. Humans don’t hit the ground running, and they need two parents to take care of them for years after birth if they hope to survive. Religious types explain it as “God created us this way”. Whichever side of the fence one is on, it’s clear that the pair-bonding instinct is there.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  92. earl says:

    ‘Save your money lads, go to the gym, get a nice haircut, wear nice clothes and have a bit of backbone.’

    I read something similar recently…only with an added characteristic.

    ‘It’s not all the hard to lay a lot of women. Be pretty good-looking, stay in shape, dress well – and more than anything else – lie through your teeth. You just have to be a lowlife, one willing to ruin your life just to get a lot of pussy. ‘

    http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2015/01/how-to-get-laid-lot.html

    All that casual sex turning men and women into liars.

  93. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    You nailed it, Boxer. Again. Why is it that the only people I ever encounter who actually can see and understand reality and the facts are those who are not fellow believers in the Messiah of the Scriptures? Again, beyond tragic. My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. For they have rejected knowledge.

    Eh, the ones who are destroying themselves aren’t really your people, or mine. They’re feminists — losers who don’t plan for the future. They are life’s failures, and deserve to disappear (and they’ll disappear without any help from us).

    It really doesn’t take a literal believer in the scripture as history to see the value in it. There’s a lot of useful stuff in the wisdom of the ancients.

    Some may be charlatans, but I would argue that most are merely products of their lives and culture. They really do believe what they say, they as just stupid. The idea that “most people are idiots” is very true in any age. Trying to completely separate people from their culture, and judge them that way, is dangerous.

    There’s a lot of merit to that theory. You can see the cultural shift in the 1960s. Before then, everyone wanted to be a scientist or engineer. Kids grew up dreaming of building rocket ships. By the late 1970s, people just wanted to be rich without working. Pop culture is a good barometer. Television shows went from idolizing astronauts and cowboys to featuring attorneys, drug dealers and salesmen.

    So, people aren’t really materialists any longer. They can’t really be said to be hedonists either. They have reverted entirely to an animal existence, where they simply want to be entertained and fed without any productive output of their own. You’re right, in that it’s not just preachers and priests. They’re part of the trend, but they aren’t the trend entirely.

    Best, Boxer

  94. Gunner Q says:

    “Don’t tell me you actually believe the average pew-sitting man actually buys into this blue-pill crap that he hears in church?”

    We don’t call it “The Matrix” for nothing. I remember in my twenties, reading one depiction of marriage in the Bible but a competing one from every Church authority I ever met backed up by modern culture, and being confused by who to trust. Despite being an independent-thinker type, it took finding the Manosphere to accept that my entire reality was lying to me.

    To this day, I take it on faith that women have sexual instincts at all. I’ve never seen or heard differently in real life.

  95. DeNihilist says:

    Earl, thanks for the link to Bob’s place.

    Interesting!

  96. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    The reason why they are reluctant to do this? It’s the pain of accepting reality. If they accept this truth about women, they experience the trauma of the red pill — the realization that their fabric of reality, in sexual terms, has been ripped to shreds. Understandable why they are reluctant to do that.

    The irony in this is inescapable. The Bible is clear on women’s capability for bad behavior, and even evil behavior. Proverbs alone makes that clear, and as others have pointed out this can be found throughout the old Testament. So to keep up the neo-Victorian “women are more moral” myth, Stanton, Mohler, et al have to contort themselves more and more, by more and more convoluted readings of Bible quotes. To do that they must chase away men who have clear vision, who see women as they are not as some neo-Victorian pedestalizing soft-focus fantasy paints them.

    The same is true of the SJW / feminist /progressive axis. They claim to be pro-science, but science continues to find physical, definable, testable differences between men and women.

    Self delusion is never out of style, ditto rationalization. But any group that comes to essentially deny all of reality is eventually going to fail one way or another. Driscoll fell from his perch for reasons that aren’t germaine to the OP, but suffice to say part of his problem consisted of deliberately alienating church going men who served under his authority, as AMOG’s tend to do, to pick one example. As the boomers age out, Focus on the Feminine may find it more and more difficult to stay funded, for another example.

    But it takes a most seriously jaundiced eye to look at the situation today, and yet still assert that women are *innately* as they were under the old set of rules. It takes extraordinary effort to maintain that illusion over the course of time unless one insulates oneself from generational realities that are quite obvious to anyone who has a single child.

    I believe this quote has been posted before:

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his income depends on his not understanding it. – attributed to H.L. Mencken

    When Focus on the Feminine starts seriously losing money, perhaps things will change.

  97. Anonymous Reader says:

    DiNihilist
    in the top ten reasons, 3 were about appearance (1, 5, and 8), and 4 could be construed as appearance also.
    None were about, ” I thought he was an alfalfa.”
    Save your money lads, go to the gym, get a nice haircut, wear nice clothes and have a bit of backbone.

    In other words, don’t learn that Game stuff, just be yourself (and practice Game by a different name).

    Funny stuff.

  98. pukeko60 says:

    Up thread this comment was written after the meme that post collapse the women will become moral was mentioned, and it is half correct.

    No they will NOT. They will just continue to do what they are doing NOW.

    They will continue to elect politicians like POTUS Obama who thinks nothing of borrowing $1,000,000,000,000 form China annually to spend on entitlements now to financially prop up women who have no husband or any of his resources. So long as women vote, the debt will pile higher and higher. In their mind, it is not their responsibility to pay for it. Its men’s fault fo rnot marrying them and putting up with their crap in the first place.

    I cannot see the US buck remaining a reserve currency if you keep on borrowing that much. As with the euro, it will be seen as of little value, and Switzerland will not be the only country that will uncouple from using the US buck as a reserve. And when you have to pay back your loans on OZ bucks, rembi, or swiss francs, you wil not be able to inflate (or devalue) your way our of a debt hole.
    There are two current situations to look at if you want an endgame: Argentina and Russia. One has elected a twit (Kircher) who promises much but cannot deliver, and has gone full moron liberal. The other has installed an ex KGB operative, who overtly encaurages orthodoxy. In Russia women compete for providers. In Argetina, less so: you will be lucky if these situations are the ones you have. What is more likely is Greece: robbing the pensions of the prudent to prop up the feckless. And that will cause you to default or shatter.

  99. Eidolon says:

    I hadn’t considered this before, but someone mentioned how much of this is a result of technological progression and such. Obviously that’s true, since contraception and other things change the nature of sexual relations.

    It occurs to me that this is another instance of what Christ meant when He said that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

    Our richness as a society relieves most of the pragmatic necessities for right conduct, at least on an immediate basis. A woman who gets pregnant out of wedlock does not starve to death on the street; prostitutes or regular johns don’t die of disease in a relatively short time.

    Unlike earlier times, there are few immediate and dire consequences for evil behavior. We are left with our consciences (and the reality of future judgement) as the main motivation for right action, rather than necessity. Unfortunately we see that our consciences were probably never as strong as we thought, and that when the practical consequences are removed, a great many of us will choose evil every time.

    If the Israelites were like young children, with God taking a stern hand to guide them, perhaps we’re the grown-up children, given free rein with the capacity to do much good or much evil. The consequences of what our society has done will come — as when a rich man eventually realizes that he’s broke and has acquired vicious diseases from all his conquests. I only hope that we can equip our sons and daughters to live well in the bad times that seem sure to follow.

  100. Pingback: We need to name bitter truths to mature, or the problem of proxy measures. | Dark Brightness

  101. DeNihilist says:

    AR, as Red Green would say, “if women don’t find you handsome, they better find you handy”

    The omegas who “founded” game codified a small subset of sexual inter-relations, that have been known since Adam and Eve, that happen to have a strong effect on sluts. Big Whoop. But what they conveniently leave out, is that physical appearance is still the main priority that attracts the sluts in the first place, as so well documented in the study. So yes, if you want to up your notch count, first up your appearance as much as possible, then learn what sluts like.

    If you are looking for a marriage minded woman, again, the main key is to up your appearance, then learn to be masculine, which is an ocean compared to the puddle of game.

  102. DeNihilist says:

    TFH, like Deti, keep banging the false drum, as my Uncle use to say, “throw enough shit against a wall, some of it is gonna stick.”

    Keep heaving the shit my friend. Of course women would lie in a study like this. A study about one night stands. Of course they are going to say that appearance is the key to getting them into bed, when what they really mean is that it was that these guys have some magic mojo, only known to PUA’s, that temporarily made them want to bang that ugly guy. LOL!

    Keep saying that I deny game, when I have stated as plain as day that this subset of sexual inter-relations seems to work great on sluts, after they become attracted to you.

    And mostly keep up the false Krauser stat. Throw away the inconvenient detail, that to bang 20 odd women, he had to approach 1000. Keep lying to yourself TFH if it makes you feel good.

  103. puke,

    I cannot see the US buck remaining a reserve currency if you keep on borrowing that much. As with the euro, it will be seen as of little value, and Switzerland will not be the only country that will uncouple from using the US buck as a reserve. And when you have to pay back your loans on OZ bucks, rembi, or swiss francs, you wil not be able to inflate (or devalue) your way our of a debt hole. There are two current situations to look at if you want an endgame: Argentina and Russia. One has elected a twit (Kircher) who promises much but cannot deliver, and has gone full moron liberal. The other has installed an ex KGB operative, who overtly encaurages orthodoxy. In Russia women compete for providers. In Argetina, less so: you will be lucky if these situations are the ones you have. What is more likely is Greece: robbing the pensions of the prudent to prop up the feckless. And that will cause you to default or shatter.

    All of that may be true. But it is irrelevant. Women are not going to change the way they vote. Romney/Jeb Bush/Paul Walker/Chris Christie do not stand a chance against the feminist imperative and Hillary Clinton in 2016. What you have described (although entirely true) means absolutely nothing to women who are living the “Life of Julia.” They are living that life specifically because of the poor choices they have made in their life. You can not expect responsible, moral decisions from a gender that (by its very nature) exibits amoral behavior and lives irresponsibly.

    You and I can write horribly dystopia novels about what will happen the moment the planet refuses to buy our bonds at the price we are selling at the interest rate we are willing to pay, but women (who feel justified in taking all they can get from government) are never going to read it. Or if they do read it they’ll never understand it. Or if they do understand it, they will never allow that sudden understanding change their ways or their priorities. Ask a homeless man what his opinion is on the Federal Debt and you’ll understand how completely moot your point is.

  104. Mychael says:

    Submission is becoming easier as time goes on, to be honest, and guys like this are just sabatuers.

    Two recent stories:

    Last week, I had some errands (I wanted to run) and go to lunch with a friend. That morning, Scott reminded me that I has fallen behind on some things, and as per our SAHM agreement, it was not his responsibility to do these things when he gets home in the evening. So I called my friend, who is also trying to learn good help meet skills and I was explicit in WHY I was canceling–Scott informed me I was behind on my housework. I was afraid she would put up a team woman fight, but she did not. She said I should stay home and catch up.

    Second incident: a couple nights ago, I put on one of Scott’s favorite skirts and a sweater while I cooked and served dinner. While I was putting the food out, our 6 y/o daughter asked “mommy, why are you wearing that skirt?

    “Because daddy likes it,” I explained.

    Her face turned a little red and I could also see how pleased Scott was with this response. (He doesn’t think I notice when he looks down and grins).

    I do not need mr Stanton or any other church “leaders” whispering the same “doormat” routine I can get from the gossipy princesses I am already surrounded by.

    [D: Welcome.]

  105. Escoffier says:

    FWIW, Gilder’s book went through two editions. The first one had a different title (I can’t remember what it was) and was kind of proto-red pill. It was basically ignored. After Wealth and Poverty was such a huge hit, his editors encouraged him to do a second edition, which they heavily publicized and made into a hit. Why he revised it so much, I don’t really know, but I know people who might know.

    Another completely forgotten anti-feminist classic is Why Men Rule, pubilshed by a CUNY prof in the height of the ERA-Helen Reddy 1970s. Ah, tenure …

  106. easttexasfatboy says:

    IBB, the life of Julia! When I say hard reset, I’m not talking about trivial change. I’m talking about such a severe correction that most people perish. In fact, the Bible mentions repeatedly that a generation had to die off before things HAD A CHANCE to get better. What that implies is that some types of conduct are irretrievable. That’s what is on our plate here. Outright rebellion. Is this the time of armeggedon? Not sure. I’m aware that the God of the Copybook Headings requires that the land pay the blood guilt for the innocents slaughtered. Considering just how many have perished thru abortion, I expect Hell to come visit and stay for a while. Literally. Just imagine if that blood could cry out?

  107. DeNihilist says:

    TFH – keep on eating your red pills baby!

  108. @IBB

    Fact is AT is that there is nothing you can do. You can not in anyway discipline your wife to get her to obey, ever. Talk about following your lead, your headship, is just cheap talk. Its meaningless.

    My original comment (that Dal has removed) was in the context of ETFB’s assertion that none of this will change without a hard societal reset. I am in complete agreement with him and I truly believe it’s coming a lot sooner than most think.

    However, if there is to be a re-establishment of patriarchy in the aftermath of a major civil war, economic collapse or some other form of catastrophic destruction, a new set of rules has to be applied. That requires a discussion of issues that cannot be discussed here. Your response to the questions I asked of Dal indicate that you buy into the modern frame of feminism without any regard to the immorality involved with respect to your answers That saddens me.

    In keeping with the OP, you are turning a blind eye toward what the Bible says about husband-wife relations in favor of the modern feminist paradigm we live in today. It is one thing to say “this is the situation we’re faced with and you’re screwed” and quite another to say “we need a discussion on how to reinstate the patriarchy when the opportunity presents itself.” See the difference? The point I’m trying to make to you is the opportunity could come far faster than you can possibly imagine. If you know anything at all about economics, social dynamics, geo-politics and history you’d know that the US Empire cannot continue. We are at the breaking point. The US has never been weaker, its infrastructure has never been more fragile, its population has never been more ignorant and deceived (especially the church) and never more susceptible to destruction.

    If you did a wiki search on Cumbre Vieja and read through that, you’d see that the US could be taken down in a matter of 6 hours with the whole eastern seaboard destroyed. What happens if the Yellowstone Caldera goes *BOOM*? The breadbasket of the US gets covered with enough ash that there won’t be any crops for a long, long time. What about a major earthquake on the New Madrid fault? There goes the infrastructure all across the midwest. The San Andreas and a couple of other faults are triggered on the west coast and parts of California slide into the sea while southern California no longer has a water supply (broken aqueducts).

    It doesn’t happen too often, but occasionally there are official mentions of scalar weapons. Sec. of Defense Donald Cohen mentioned them in a press conference in 1997 and there are other official mentions here and there. Scalar weapons are electromagnetic in nature and capable of causing earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Policy in the US is to respond to WMD’s with WMD’s but a scalar attack would be viewed as an act of God. Take the US off the map and you take the US Dollar off the map. Such a move would cause a world-wide derivatives meltdown. Blowing out the US grain-belt would cause a worldwide shortage of cereal grains. Who wins? Major exporters like… Russia. Why would they want to do something like that?

    You probably didn’t know it, but the US has doubled it’s production of oil in the past 7 years or so, yet Saudi Arabia has maintained production. This, in combination with gradually lowering worldwide demand has caused the price of crude to drop drastically. This is a major geopolitical problem because the Obama administration stabbed the Saudi’s in the back and reneged on our long-standing agreement with them by deciding that Iran would be the major power in the Middle East. The Saudi’s are now trying to drive the price of crude low enough to put the shale oil companies out of business. The major victim in this cat-fight is Russia, which depends heavily on crude oil exports to finance its social programs. In other words, we are engaging in economic warfare with Russia and Putin has already announced we will not be allowed to get away with this.

    Economic warfare is usually followed by physical warfare, but nobody needs to toss WMD’s our way to destroy the US. It could be as simple as some sophisticated hacking of Wall Street computers that crashes our financial system and causes a derivatives meltdown. If you look at what happened when the EBT card system got shut down in 17 states, you’ll see that after 12 hours the panic was setting in and police were being stationed in stores. Want to guess what would happen in a nation-wide shut-down on all plastic that lasted a week or more? Riots, looting and the beginning of a civil war. You see, according to FEMA, the average home only has about 3-5 days worth of food on hand. When people get hungry they panic… and they’ve got guns.

    What about a shut-down of the electric grids? Yes, you read that right, “grids” plural. The US is no longer on a single national power grid because a couple of years ago the power grid was broken up into three separate grids each running at a slightly different frequency. That may not mean much to you but power plant management is all about load balancing. The difference in frequencies means that each individual grid is no longer able to send or receive power from other grids in a major emergency. No power, nothing works. Trucks don’t roll. Shelves at the grocery store are emptied and people panic. Again, they may not have food but they’ve got guns.

    I could go on and on, but suffice to say that instead of bitching about the way things are I think it would be profitable to discuss how to solve the problems when everything falls apart. You might find it profitable to read “Reinventing Collapse” by Dmitri Orlov, which is available for download if you know how to use Google. His blog is here:

    http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/

    This article is particularly interesting if you want to understand the geopolitical situation vis-a-vis the US and Russia:

    http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/2015/01/peculiarities-of-russian-national.html

    All empires have a life-cycle and the US is at the end of its life-cycle according to any metric you want to use. Unstated (or barely stated) in your comments is that there is no political will to make the changes necessary to revive this empire which is now on life support. This is correct. You also said Women are not going to change the way they vote. You are assuming that women will have a vote in the aftermath of what’s coming. That may be wishful thinking on your part.

    Enjoy the decline, but do give thought to what comes next…

  109. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier: is this the book you reference above?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inevitability_of_Patriarchy

  110. AT,

    Your response to the questions I asked of Dal indicate that you buy into the modern frame of feminism without any regard to the immorality involved with respect to your answers. That saddens me.

    Don’t let it sadden you. I only gave direct answers that people would likely have given YOU if you had asked that question. I didn’t say that I agreed with them.

    Neither did Dalrock.

    In keeping with the OP, you are turning a blind eye toward what the Bible says about husband-wife relations in favor of the modern feminist paradigm we live in today. It is one thing to say “this is the situation we’re faced with and you’re screwed” and quite another to say “we need a discussion on how to reinstate the patriarchy when the opportunity presents itself.” See the difference?

    I see the difference but your difference is meaningless. Its meaningless because of WHOM (in authority) are you going to offer the following: “we need a discussion on how to reinstate the patriarchy when the opportunity presents itself.” Who has the power to act on that and what do you expect them to do? The majority of the world would tell you to return to your momma’s basement, to go play xbox, to eat your doritos, and to go f-ck your bong.

    You want what I want what Dalrock wants what Elspeth wants what SSM wants what we all HERE want. But we are the tiniest of minorities AT, even if that minority is ever growing. And your predicting a disasterous calamity to befall us in a sort of “I told you so…” moment should we not correct our behavior and return to the patriarchy, will only further marginalize the MRM in the mainstream. Don’t do that. We want to take away/discredit/dismantle our opponents outright opposition to our thoughts and beliefs as nothing more than misandric (which is ALL they see when they read your screed), NOT give them more weapons and ammunition with which to continue to marginalize us. You do that by repeating the same claim I repeat (in championing the MRM) when I post on other forums….

    We love women. We hate feminism.

    If you say that to women, you give them a little bit of a win. You tell them that you love them, but that you hate with the buring fire of 1000 suns going supernova, the feminist imperative. Get the conversation going in that direction, NOT in the direction of what can we do to reinstate patriarchy. The majority of the world is not even the least bit interested in what it means to support the patriarchy. But everyone knows what feminism is.

    Enjoy the decline, but do give thought to what comes next…

    Unlike our Captain Capitalism who suffers from a never-ending case of short-man’s-syndrome, I have children AT. This “decline” is no fun for me.

  111. JDG says:

    hoellenhund2 says:
    January 20, 2015 at 5:01 am
    The one conclusion to draw from all this is that Christianity is a crap, useless religion.

    Sorry but that is a crap conclusion. At best you are looking at the small picture. Do you really think that the plans of the eternal Creator are the least bit hindered by yet another group of people that have gone off the rails? God knows who are His and who are not, and nothing happens that is beyond His reckoning.

    Those who are His yet are in error will be corrected: “…For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” Heb 12:6.

    Those that are not His will be judged: “And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’” Matt 7:23.

    All of us will answer, one way or another: “He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury.” Rom 2:6-8.

    The apostate teachings in western society are not representative of true Christianity. As I’ve said before, any fool can pick up a hammer and claim to be a carpenter.

  112. Escoffier says:

    yeah, that’s the one, confused it with the follow-up, sorry.

  113. jonadabtherechabite says:

    A disclaimer:
    I met Doug Phillips for the first time in 1999 and have spoken to him many times over the years. His famous fall has been used to silence “Bible Patriarchy” and to lampoon it as the wet-dream of hyper-sexual men seeking to victimize women. Many that were close to Doug, now refuse to use the “patriarchy” term, because they believe Doug’s fall made the word radioactive.

    If we lived in a just world, it would be known as the ‘Slut Lourdes Torres affair’. She has borne non of the shame, the abuse or loss that Doug has, yet she was an adult woman who made herself sexually available to a man who she knew was married. Yes, he was alpha, remarkably so, but that is why she wanted to seduce him. Sluts want to have sex with powerful men! I do not believe that DP was looking for women to seduce, but Lourdes Torres was looking for a alpha-man to bed. She leverage her own vulnerability to extract acts of comfort from DP culminating in sexual activity. In the OT Hebrew civic law Lourdes Torres is guilty of a capital crime, where Belle Phillips throws the first stone.

    I am not justifying Doug’s lack of self-control or poor judgement, but it was not patriarchy that lead to his failure, but the lack of Biblical patriarchy. Doug did not always incarnate his own views well. In other words he did not always practice what he preached, in that way his pride was greater than his piety. Yet, had Doug been sexually satiated by his wife Belle or had he called Lourdes Torres to repent of her sin as a just patriarch should, Vision Forum might still be in operation today.

  114. Spacetraveller says:

    Eidolon,

    “I hadn’t considered this before, but someone mentioned how much of this is a result of technological progression and such. Obviously that’s true, since contraception and other things change the nature of sexual relations.

    It occurs to me that this is another instance of what Christ meant when He said that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

    Our richness as a society relieves most of the pragmatic necessities for right conduct, at least on an immediate basis. A woman who gets pregnant out of wedlock does not starve to death on the street; prostitutes or regular johns don’t die of disease in a relatively short time.

    Unlike earlier times, there are few immediate and dire consequences for evil behavior. We are left with our consciences (and the reality of future judgement) as the main motivation for right action, rather than necessity. Unfortunately we see that our consciences were probably never as strong as we thought, and that when the practical consequences are removed, a great many of us will choose evil every time.

    If the Israelites were like young children, with God taking a stern hand to guide them, perhaps we’re the grown-up children, given free rein with the capacity to do much good or much evil. The consequences of what our society has done will come — as when a rich man eventually realizes that he’s broke and has acquired vicious diseases from all his conquests. I only hope that we can equip our sons and daughters to live well in the bad times that seem sure to follow.”

    I love how you think!
    I agree with you here. It is almost as if God has given us a long rope and is sitting back to see if we will hang ourselves with it.
    He keeps saying, ‘surely they won’t! surely the won’t!
    And we do…

    In no other era in history has there been such scope for sin as this one. We have all the ingredients at our disposal to fall off the cliff of righteousness into the abyss of sin.
    The longterm question for every individual is…will it be worth it in the end?
    But for sure, in the short term it is oh so easy to fall into sin and not be remotely in danger of suffering an immediate setback. As you correctly point out, that is a big problem for our current époque.
    The ‘softly, softly’ approach does not seem to work for most. We need a hard line to fall in line. We are not as mature as we collectively believe ourselves to be.
    (Current company excepted, of course!)

    I especially take heed of your last sentence. This is key!
    Those of us who actually know the Truth – what are we going to do with it?
    Answer: correctly educate the next generation.
    Otherwise, what a waste of our existence…

    Thank you Eidolon. I have learned something magnificent today because of you.

  115. JDG says:

    Christianity and Islam will also pass in a similar manner.

    Many a fool has made this boast. God remains and always will. His way is the only way, and His way is through Christ (hence Christianity). In other words, Christianity is going nowhere until the return of the Christ Jesus. There may be only a few left that faithfully bear His wondrous name, but the faithful few will be Christians (Christianos – Followers of Christ).

  116. thedeti says:

    DeNihilist:

    You’ve got me convinced. Like I said before: In today’s SMP, most men have no chance. They might as well hang it up and forget it. They will NEVER be able to elevate their sexual market values to a sufficient level to attract and maintain even a passing interest from even a middling, plain woman.

    Take your average male 5. At best with diet, a haircut, not fat and good clothes, he’s a 6. Most women don’t want him even at his best. And he should want a woman who wants to have sex with him, because her sexual attraction to him is the only thing that will keep her with him.

  117. hoellenhund2 says:

    His way is the only way, and His way is through Christ (hence Christianity). In other words, Christianity is going nowhere until the return of the Christ Jesus.

    Dream on.

  118. JDG says:

    No man is a Christian because Christianity is useful. He’s Christian because he believes Christ is real. I cannot fathom choosing a religion based on what you want to be true instead of what actually is.

    This!!!

  119. hoellenhund2 says:

    Never once in the Bible are women given a place of leadership over men

    Hah! Tradcons aren’t arguing that women should be put into positions of leadership over men. They’re basically arguing that men should be the leaders of their families, as long as the wives approve of everything they do, in a sacred union of mutual submission and holiness, or some crap like that. Besides, being a leader kind of sucks, doesn’t it? You actually have to assume responsibility, make decisions and, you know, it’s, like, actually work. Surely it’s not something women, our better halves, should be implored to do, right?

    And you can count on them to find the Bible verses to justify their rubbish.

    You’ll never hear a Churchian speak about Solomon going wrong by listening to his wives, Esther refusing to save her own people from genocide or why God used Whore of Babylon instead of Pimp.

    Yeah. There are many Bible verses that are never preached. Nothing new.

    No man is a Christian because Christianity is useful.

    But there have been men in positions of authority who professed to be Christians and upheld the Christian faith because they knew it’s, or was, socially useful. I’m not sure Christianity would still be around without them.

  120. JDG says:

    Dream on.

    I have the Bible to tell me that you are wrong. What do you have that tells me I should believe you instead of the Bible?

  121. hoellenhund2 says:

    He’s already been fired by ABC and lost his Politically Incorrect show for his comments about the 9-11 hijackers so what does he have to lose, from a publicity standpoint?

    He has his audience to lose, most of whom are dedicated liberals. He has a TV show, and I’m sure he doesn’t want it cancelled due to social pressure from millions of enraged furies. On a different note, he’s probably just a run-of-the-mill misandrist.

  122. Escoffier says:

    Not that I need to get into this, but part of me wonders, what is in the mind of a person who comes to a Christian blog to attack other people’s faith? Can’t you see that this is, at the very least, extremely bad manners?

  123. hoellenhund2 says:

    I have the Bible to tell me that you are wrong.

    The Bible is a bunch of chronicles and written fantasies translated from one language to another, thrown together and then canonized by a bunch of Church officials to be presented to the masses as the divine source of their authority.

    All I need to prove you wrong are the lessons of history. Take a look at the ruined temples of bygone ancient religions, now used to milk tourists for cash. That’s the future of your religion too. It won’t happen otherwise. History repeats itself.

  124. JDG says:

    I’m not sure Christianity would still be around without them.

    This is probably because you don’t believe that God is real and actively working to make His will come to pass. Did it ever occur to you that what is happening is exactly according to His plans?

  125. hoellenhund2 says:

    Not that I need to get into this, but part of me wonders, what is in the mind of a person who comes to a Christian blog to attack other people’s faith? Can’t you see that this is, at the very least, extremely bad manners?

    It is. But I don’t care. I stand by what I said, which are simple conclusions. Dalrock is free to delete my comments or ban me, it’s his blog. I liked this article because it also throws light on the corruption we see around ourselves.

    I’m not attacking anyone’s faith. I’m willing to support organized religion as long as it’s used for purposes that I find laudable. I’m not a theologian, but the evidence seems to be clear that Christianity as it exists today has hopelessly become something monstrous and pathological.

  126. DeNihilist says:

    So Deti, as I have relayed, I have been married for close to thirty years now, so have not been in the SMP for that long as an active participant. Is it your belief, that in 30 years woman have become, by percentage that much more slutty?

    Say back in my day 10 – 20% of women were slutty and fell for the alfalfa tactics of back then, where the rest of the women kept their notch count very low before marriage. Do you think that the percentage of slutty women has grown exponentially over this past 30 years? say 70 – 80%?

    If you could find some data backing this up, then I would quite happily stand in front of Dalrock’s congregation and admit that I am out of date and that game is king for if the majority of women are now sluts, then of course game would be an advantage in this world, if all you want is notch count.

    Been reading from this site lately, very interesting take on PUA game –

    ” Remember, one of the control patterns listed above in the list of Codependency traits is “I attempt to convince others what to think, do, or feel.” This is why NLP hypnotic patterns, tightly scripted routines and excessive steps and contingency plans that PUAs like Neil Strauss and Mystery do so much of are even more signs of codependent thinking.

    You learn to filter out sane, whole, emotionally healthy people with enthusiasm for you in exchange for learning how to better filter in the worst women, the ones you have to strategically game to death. You have to pass the tests of bitchy girls who need to be gamed and have their “attraction switches flipped” in order to bang hot women, and ignore or devalue the women who are naturally attracted to you and willing to validate you without being gamed. And you have to assume from the beginning they have higher value than you do and make it your mission to display your value to her by bragging and humblebragging. And if after all that you still don’t get the girl, it’s all your fault because if you were a true alpha that met her unconscious evolutionary womanly needs, you’d have made her attracted to you and had sex with her. Thus you obsess over doing whatever you have to do to control what others think, do or feel at all times to save your ego from more bruising. You may want to reread that list of codependency patterns again right about now.”

    http://therawness.com/reader-letters-1-part-4/

  127. DeNihilist says:

    Deti – ” And he should want a woman who wants to have sex with him, because her sexual attraction to him is the only thing that will keep her with him.”

    Wow, sounds like a line from an Eagles song – “they had one thing in common, they were both good in bed”

    If relationships have devolved this far, which by the way, I do not see in my sons’ relationships, then may God have mercy on our society.

  128. hoellenhund2 says:

    Women can use anything as justification. You don’t understand how they work.

    Except that it’s pretty easy to use as justification a book in which the saviour of the human race is the son of a single mother, to mention one thing.

    Hypergamy is also probably responsible for all of the good stuff in society too.

    Really? How? Call me back when computer programmers, engineers and researchers working on scientific projects get their dicks sucked and sandwiches made by nubile girls while thugs, gang members, criminals, serial killers, psychopaths, drug dealers and bikers live as ridiculed, denigrated incels in their mother’s basement. Then we’ll have something to talk about.

    I agree that humans do not naturally pair bond.

    They actually do – for a while.

    I’m not going to lay WWI or WWII on women

    I don’t think removing women from the society will help men

    Did anyone argue otherwise?

  129. JDG says:

    The Bible is a bunch of chronicles and written fantasies translated from one language to another, thrown together and then canonized by a bunch of Church officials to be presented to the masses as the divine source of their authority.

    All I need to prove you wrong are the lessons of history. Take a look at the ruined temples of bygone ancient religions, now used to milk tourists for cash. That’s the future of your religion too. It won’t happen otherwise. History repeats itself.

    What happened to bygone religions doesn’t mean a thing, and you don’t know about the Bible or history. The Bible is not just one book, but a collection of ancient texts and letters. 66 writings in three languages by 40 different witnesses spanning 1500 years all converging on the single theme of the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ as a sacrifice for sins that God’s people may be redeemed. 23,000 archaeological digs have found nothing contradicting the facts laid out in the scriptures.

    The men who were used to write the scriptures were witnesses who wrote down what they observed and were told lived at different times, in different places, and did not speak the same languages. Yet they all agreed throughout the centuries. How is that possible without divine intervention?

    Those councils you refer to were to settle matters of doctrine based on what was already written, and the writings chosen were the writings that were already being used throughout Christendom. Also, editing would have been impossible as there where thousands of copies of these letters already spread throughout the region. The divine authority being presented was the divine authority everyone already was aware of.

    You want to use history? Here is some historical evidence:
    There are less than 12 copies of Julius Caesar’s Gallic Wars.
    There are less than 10 copies of Aristotle’s Poetics.
    There are 0 copies of the writings of Socrates (what we have was written by Plato)
    Yet there are over 6000 existing manuscript and manuscript portions of the New Testament alone. And the earliest of these are within 25 years of the originals.
    Gallic Wars – over 1000 years after the original.
    Poetics – over 1400 years after the original.
    Homer’s Iliad- over 2100 years after the original.

    You got nothing.

  130. Darwinian Arminian says:

    “. . . there are powerful incentives for Christian men to turn a blind eye to the sins of women.”

    As bad as Stanton’s delusions are, what you get from the pulpits on Sunday is even worse. Don’t know if you needed any more evidence of how bad the decline is . . . but just in case, I thought I’d pass this your way. The following is a link to a sermon series run by a mega-church in Dallas:

    http://www.thevillagechurch.net/resources/sermons/a-beautiful-design/

    The preacher is Matt Chandler. He’s one of the so-called “complementarians” who supposedly promote a model of marriage that seeks to be faithful to Biblical teaching. Largely regarded as a theological conservative. Was a good friend of Mark Driscoll’s before his recent implosion. He recently set out to preach a series of messages on what the Bible says about the roles of men and women, and the structure of the family. In the process, he manages to set a prescription for marriage that aspires to the almost all of the flaws you pointed out in the “Fireproof” couple. There’s even one sermon on the fallen nature of women in which the chief sin of the ladies turns out to be (surprise!) perfectionism and a tendency to be too hard on themselves.

    But the most revealing moment comes at about six minutes into the third message of his series titled “Man’s Purpose.” I know a lot of people on this blog have talked about preachers being much harder on the men, but I don’t think I’ve seen a pastor acknowledge this himself so bluntly:

    ” . . . a friend of mine and I were talking in the foyer . . . When women go to women’s retreats, they just get encouraged. “You guys are awesome. You can do it! All right!” But men . . . we get blown up! You go to a man thing and you’re just going to hear how much you’ve failed, and how bad you stink and why the whole world is broken because you’re so worthless. Yeah, that’s kind of how we do it, and it’s the right way to do it!”

    They know what they’re doing, they know that it’s driving men away, they probably even know there isn’t any biblical justification for it . . . and they still admit they don’t have any intention of changing anytime soon.

  131. RichardP says:

    Some perspective: From a percentage standpoint, what is many? What is few? Is 51% many? Is 49% few. In your own mind, how low does the percentage have to go to count as “few”?

    In the end, few find the narrow gate. Many find the path to destruction. In all the talk about fail and start over, or calling people/wives to accountability, the end-game is going to be that only a “few” get it right. Why waste your efforts on the “many”, when it will come to nothing. If you want to be one of the few, you cannot mimic the behavior of the many.

  132. Mychael says:

    Silly! You don’t have to welcome me, I’ve posted here before. I’m Scott’s wife (from the courtship pledge). Thanks for letting comment out of moderation, sir.

    [D: Ha. Got it.]

  133. new anon says:

    @DeNihilist,

    You were out of date in 1985 (which was 30 years ago) if you thought only 20% of women were involved in one night stands and sleeping with multiple men. The late 70’s and 80’s was the heyday of “anything goes” and “do whatever makes you happy.” This was the disco era, which glorified drugs and casual sex.

    I lived through that era (as an adult). If you think that ONLY 20% of women were “slutting it up” then you went through the era with your head in the sand.

  134. thedeti says:

    @ Denihilist:

    “Say back in my day 10 – 20% of women were slutty and fell for the alfalfa tactics of back then, where the rest of the women kept their notch count very low before marriage. Do you think that the percentage of slutty women has grown exponentially over this past 30 years? say 70 – 80%?”

    I doubt I’d say 70-80%. I would say at least 50%, and probably more like 60 to 65%.

    And they don’t have to be “slutty”. (You’re falling for the trap that game/masculine behavior only works on sluts.) They just have to live in a society where their hypergamous instincts and feeeeelings are constantly indulged and their wants and desires unleashed and encouraged.

    That’s why I say the male 5 who jacks himself up to a 6 with your suggestions of “just be yourself” and “don’t get fat” and “get a good haircut” is still out of luck. He doesn’t look like Channing Tatum or Brad Pitt, and he never will no matter how much he improves. Hell, even the young single women at my church won’t give the good men there a second look. They all want and expect men with Brad Pitt’s looks, Channing Tatum’s body, Warren Buffet’s money, George Clooney’s charm, and Billy Graham’s spirituality. As I’ve been saying, there isn’t a man alive anywhere who could possibly satisfy any of these women.

    These guys ought to just forget it – get a decent enough job to support themselves and forget about marriage, fatherhood and trying to become a patriarch.

  135. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier
    yeah, that’s the one, confused it with the follow-up, sorry.

    Have you read the book? I have not and Wiki reviews / reports / analysis that involve feminism are always suspect. I’m interested in part because taking the “nature trumps nurture” position in the 1970’s was quite radical, so Goldberg must have been quite sure of himself. I wonder if he and Margaret Mead ever had a little chat? Heh.

  136. Lyn87 says:

    JDG, you beat me to it. The Bible is an anvil that has worn out many hammers. Like I wrote in another thread yesterday: there’s a feeling I get whenever I hear some non-believer who trots out an argument that I have heard and crushed a thousand times as if I had never thought of that. Christianity (and the Old Covenant(s) that preceded it), have been around since the dawn of time, and most of the best thinkers throughout the ages were believers. Then some kid like hoellenhund2 comes along, makes absurd statements that fly in the face of thousands of years of recorded history and scientific discovery, and gets butt-hurt when his crap is shown for what it is.

    hoellenhund2 coming here to declare that Christianity is false is like some junior high school kid going to the Army War College to explain to them that they don’t understand military tactics and strategies… because of something she heard in her Social Studies class last week.

    By any legitimate standard of historicity (I should know – I have an advanced degree in History from a top-notch secular university), there is a lot more support for the Gospel narrative of the birth, life, ministry, death, and bodily resurrection of Jesus than there is for the details of the life of Julius Caesar. But some ignorant people who view “The Battle For Gaul” as being essentially correct (as we all should), deny that Jesus existed at all (which is historically absurd). In fact, I can say that our knowledge of the Crucifixion of Jesus is more reliable and comprehensive than what we believe we know about the assassination of Caesar… and no-one has any reason to suspect that our knowledge of the events of 15 March, 44 BC is substantively incorrect.

    hoellenhund2 is just another troll made uncomfortable by truths he would rather not face.

  137. thedeti says:

    Denihilist:

    According to the CDC, the average woman has 3 sex partners before marriage. That means half of those women have had more than 3 sex partners.

    So if your definition of a “very low” female premarital N is 2 or less, then you are talking about FULLY HALF of all American women meet the definition of a “not very low” female N, and are therefore “sluts”.

  138. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dinihilist
    Keep saying that I deny game, when I have stated as plain as day that this subset of sexual inter-relations seems to work great on sluts, after they become attracted to you.

    Cute reframe. Doesn’t work because too many married men have found the applied psychology of Game to be useful. Unless you want to argue that all married women are sluts?

  139. Dalrock says:

    @jonadabtherechabite

    A disclaimer:
    I met Doug Phillips for the first time in 1999 and have spoken to him many times over the years. His famous fall has been used to silence “Bible Patriarchy” and to lampoon it as the wet-dream of hyper-sexual men seeking to victimize women. Many that were close to Doug, now refuse to use the “patriarchy” term, because they believe Doug’s fall made the word radioactive.

    I’ve seen a bit of this. What seems clear is opponents of biblical patriarchy are much more comfortable going after the man (Phillips) and not challenging the veracity of the biblical principle. There is a sort of acknowledgement in that.

    I am not justifying Doug’s lack of self-control or poor judgement, but it was not patriarchy that lead to his failure, but the lack of Biblical patriarchy. Doug did not always incarnate his own views well. In other words he did not always practice what he preached, in that way his pride was greater than his piety. Yet, had Doug been sexually satiated by his wife Belle or had he called Lourdes Torres to repent of her sin as a just patriarch should, Vision Forum might still be in operation today.

    I’m not aware of any claims by Phillips that his wife was denying him, and absent that I think we shouldn’t speculate. She has certainly suffered a great deal. A wife denying will increase the temptation, but temptation will always exist, especially with a younger attractive woman. What I will say though is that had Phillips and the movement in general not turned a blind eye to the sins of women, they would have been in a far better position to deal with the affair and move on under different leadership. The young woman would have also been better served by a community which could see her sin as well, and thereby help her towards her own repentance.

  140. Spacetraveller says:

    “These guys ought to just forget it – get a decent enough job to support themselves and forget about marriage, fatherhood and trying to become a patriarch.”

    This is so depressing. There are surely ways to combat this seemingly bleak outlook, no?
    I know Game is only one of them, but there has to be other ways…
    If I were a man, I would find it unacceptable to ‘just forget it’, if I wasn’t so inclined naturally, as some people are.

    I know you are trying to be realistic, Deti, but…

    So depressing!

    OT but related:
    There is a day in January that is said to be the most depressing day of the whole year…are we there yet?

  141. Dalrock says:

    @Spacetraveller

    If I were a man, I would find it unacceptable to ‘just forget it’, if I wasn’t so inclined naturally, as some people are.

    Very few men will truly “just forget it”. For a Christian man marriage is the only moral path to having sex and children. Giving up on marriage means giving up a great deal. So while some Christian men will truly walk away from marriage, realistically I think this number will be a very small percentage.

    With that said, I think two things should trouble us:

    1) There are very few women who are in a position to be good wives, especially under our current laws and culture. While very few men will likely boycott marriage, there is a shortage of women whom a wise Christian man should marry.

    2) While few Christian men (or even non Christian, at least today) will likely boycott marriage, the lack of a marriage culture is already lessening the signal for men to work hard in their youth to prepare to be providers. Women are waiting until their late 20s or early 30s to marry without considering what this is doing to the men they intend to marry. While men aren’t likely to drop out, many will see their older brothers, etc. going through their 20s without a prospect of marriage, or even a girlfriend. Some of these men will work just as hard, but as we can see in the stats a significant number won’t. When the carousellers finally go to look for husbands, even though they can probably coax the men into wanting marriage many of the men simply won’t be prepared to be a husband. A man in his 30s with no real education and/or career history is in a very different position than such a man in his early 20s.

    Of the two, from a practical perspective the second issue is the real limiter in my estimation. Realistically I don’t see Christian men being very picky in selecting a wife, and I don’t see that changing dramatically in the next few years. The second issue is also more problematic from a social policy perspective, because you can’t fix it with a marketing campaign. No matter what you do, that decade is lost.

  142. “These guys ought to just forget it – get a decent enough job to support themselves and forget about marriage, fatherhood and trying to become a patriarch.”

    Well, do what God has called you to do… regardless of marriage is in the cards.

    Of course, decent job will most likely cut it since you don’t need the extra money to support a family. But whatever it is that a man is going to do to serve God they can go after it whole heartedly at least… and have room for recreational activities too. That’s currently the course I’m on.

  143. thedeti says:

    .
    @ Dalrock:

    “the lack of a marriage culture is already lessening the signal for men to work hard in their youth to prepare to be providers. *** When the carousellers finally go to look for husbands, even though they can probably coax the men into wanting marriage many of the men simply won’t be prepared to be a husband. A man in his 30s with no real education and/or career history is in a very different position than such a man in his early 20s.”

    All this is very true. But, there’s a hell of a lot more to being a husband than just providing and earning money. Today, he’s got to be well versed in masculinity. He’s got to be secure in it, he has to have good frame, and he has to be willing to walk away.

    Can you imagine one of these clueless men trying to exercise husbandly headship in a marriage to an ex carouseller? She’s married him because no one else would have her after she banged her way through a bar full of men. He’s a consolation prize at best, the caboose on her man train. She’s accustomed to using, and being used by, men with orders of magnitude more masculinity than he has. She’s accustomed to hot sexy sex with hot sexy men. She’s acclimated to fun times and partying down. The only trump card he has is that he’s the sole breadwinner in his middle management job.

    He has NO IDEA what’s about to happen to him.

  144. infowarrior1 says:

    @Gunner Q

    ”Never once in the Bible are women given a place of leadership over men (it’s explicitly forbidden even) and the women who came close tended to be utter disappointments. ”

    Does Deborah qualify?

  145. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    When the carousellers finally go to look for husbands, even though they can probably coax the men into wanting marriage many of the men simply won’t be prepared to be a husband. A man in his 30s with no real education and/or career history is in a very different position than such a man in his early 20s.”

    Does that matter, though? Since women increasingly are their own beta and can provide their own “beta bucks”, all they need once they are done riding the carousel in their 20’s is a reasonably suitable sperm donor who is willing to live in for a few years and then depart gracefully when shown the door. The Female Imperative is served fairly well in this model. Long term civilization not so much, but the FI doesn’t care about that. (Cue Rollo Tomassi).

    So what’s infeasible about it? Does something like this already exist, perhaps in some Western subculture? Hint: what percentage of children in the US were born to unmarried parents?

    Anecdote: I had some medical lab work done a couple of weeks back. This lab also provided glucose tests to pregnant women. Of the 6 pregnant women I saw enter, stay or exit the waiting room over the course of an hour, including one who worked there, guess how many had wedding rings? Zero. Nada. Not one.

  146. @ Info

    Does Deborah qualify?

    Actually, this was mentioned in the 10 women Christian men should not marry post by NYCpastor:

    http://nycpastor.com/2014/12/29/10-women-christian-men-should-not-marry/comment-page-1/#comment-102

    If you read the narration of Judges 4 carefully, you will see that Deborah is the helper and a man (Barak the son of Abinoam) is the leader. Deborah, who had the gift of prophecy, acknowledges Barak’s male leadership and instructs him to lead (she, being a godly woman, does not lead):

    She sent for Barak son of Abinoam from Kedesh in Naphtali and said to him, “The LORD, the God of Israel, commands you: ‘Go, take with you ten thousand men of Naphtali and Zebulun and lead them up to Mount Tabor’” (Judges 4:6).

    It is also important to note that Barak’s (not Deborah’s) leadership in Judges 4 is recognized and solidified centuries later in the NT by the writer of Hebrews who in the famous 11th chapter, omits Deborah’s name but clearly mentions Barak:

    And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets (Hebrews 11:32)

    So your point about Deborah actually supports the case for biblical male headship and complementing female support.

  147. donalgraeme says:

    @ spacetraveler

    This is so depressing. There are surely ways to combat this seemingly bleak outlook, no?
    I know Game is only one of them, but there has to be other ways…
    If I were a man, I would find it unacceptable to ‘just forget it’, if I wasn’t so inclined naturally, as some people are.

    Dalrock has hit on the crux of the matter: the lack of marriageable women. This is part of why Deti was telling average men to prepare to live (and die) alone. Frankly, it doesn’t matter how much self-improvement men engage in, if there is no prize at the end for them. In fact Dalrock has sagely pointed out that lack of a prize (just look at the average American woman) has convinced many men not to work to better themselves. I mean, why bother when the best you can get is a woman who wasted the best years of her life on other men and other pursuits, who brings nothing but debt (and maybe STDS and illegitimate children) to the marriage, has no incentive to be a good wife and can blow up your life whenever she feels like it?

    Most men will not opt for MGTOW, at least, not in its pure form. The question is how far they are willing to go to settle. I’m in a similar position to Deep Strength- I am not boycotting marriage but have set hard limits on what I will settle for. This will likely mean that I won’t marry. Its not what I want, but it is what the world has given me.

  148. infowarrior1 says:

    @Jonadabtheracabite
    ”His famous fall has been used to silence “Bible Patriarchy” and to lampoon it as the wet-dream of hyper-sexual men seeking to victimize women. Many that were close to Doug, now refuse to use the “patriarchy” term, because they believe Doug’s fall made the word radioactive. ”

    Many “Christians” abuse Christianity. Should people stop calling themselves Christian.

  149. pukeko60 says:

    IBB said.

    All of that may be true. But it is irrelevant. Women are not going to change the way they vote. Romney/Jeb Bush/Paul Walker/Chris Christie do not stand a chance against the feminist imperative and Hillary Clinton in 2016. What you have described (although entirely true) means absolutely nothing to women who are living the “Life of Julia.” They are living that life specifically because of the poor choices they have made in their life. You can not expect responsible, moral decisions from a gender that (by its very nature) exibits amoral behavior and lives irresponsibly.

    You and I can write horribly dystopia novels about what will happen the moment the planet refuses to buy our bonds at the price we are selling at the interest rate we are willing to pay, but women (who feel justified in taking all they can get from government) are never going to read it. Or if they do read it they’ll never understand it. Or if they do understand it, they will never allow that sudden understanding change their ways or their priorities. Ask a homeless man what his opinion is on the Federal Debt and you’ll understand how completely moot your point is.

    Mate, you. are. so. wrong. You have not lived through a near national bankruptcy. So shut up and hearken to experience.
    I graduated medical school in 1984, when NZ elected a Labour gov’t (David Lange). It was full liberal: increase social welfare, abolish poverty, legalize gay activity, anti nukes. Think Berkely: the NZ left is way further gone than the Democrats or Hilary (who won’t be the candidate, methinks: she’s too old).

    But the country was bankrupt. There was enough money in the gov’t coffers to pay the civil servants for one week. We had borrowed, foolishly, to make steel out of ironsand, and we were being undercut.

    So… the government — a socialist government — had no alternatives. They devalued and then floated the dollar. They broke the unions. They sold assets: the Post Office, the railways, the national airline — anything that made money. They cut benefits. They disestablished whole ministries.
    And broke even.

    At the same time, they allowed the liberals to win on all social issues (which is why NZ is nuclear free). The activists needed some wins. The consequences were that a large number of people died, generally by their own hand, because their farms and businesses failed (Did I mention that all agricultural subsidies were abolished?) and the country became much more unequal. Our current PM made is first fortune as a currency trader during that era.

    And that government, which did “unelectable” things, was returned to power, for the country recovered. Fast. We had some advantages: we do not have a consitution, a bill of rights, and a federal government: we could change quickly.

    Lativa and Estonia have had similar experiences. But you need to understand, in the USA, that continuing down the same path is not a viable alternative: it is only because your politicians and elite are deluded by your size and appearance of wealth that they do not see this.

    A small country does not have that luxury.

  150. thedeti says:

    @ donal:

    “it doesn’t matter how much self-improvement men engage in, if there is no prize at the end for them.”

    I agree with this, but I was saying something different. I was saying that it doesn’t matter how much a man improves; he still will not be attractive enough to attract and keep the interest of a a woman of even middling attractiveness.

  151. JDG says:

    According to Judges 2:16, 18, a judge was a person whom God raised up to deliver the people militarily from oppressors—judges saved out of the hand of those who plundered them; they saved from the hand of their enemies.

    Some interesting questions about Deborah:

    Why is she not introduced as one whom Yahweh had raised up?

    Why is there no reference to her inspiration and empowerment by Yahweh’s spirit?

    Why does she need Barak to accomplish the deliverance?

    Why is the verb yasa, “to save,” never applied to her?

    Why does she say, “The Lord will sell Sisera into the hands of a woman,” instead of “into my hands?”

    Why does the author observe that “she went up with Barak,” (4:10) but avoid placing her at the head of the troops?

    Why does Deborah announce to Barak, “This day the Lord has given Sisera into your hands,” (4:14) rather than into “my hands?”

    Why is she absent from the description of the actual battle (4:15-17), and why does she never meet Jabin or Sisera?

    Why did the poet prefer the title “mother in Israel” (5:7) over “savior of Israel?”

    Why does the poet avoid the root qum, “to rise,” let alone referring to Yahweh as the causative subject, when he speaks of Deborah’s rise? (The word translated “arose” in 5:7 is what Block calls “an awkward variant,” not the typical verb).

  152. JDG says:

    Many “Christians” abuse Christianity. Should people stop calling themselves Christian.

    +1000

  153. donalgraeme says:

    @ deti

    I was saying that it doesn’t matter how much a man improves; he still will not be attractive enough to attract and keep the interest of a a woman of even middling attractiveness.

    Ah yes, toxic hypergamy. Definitely a problem these days. If I remember I will try and include it on my next Attraction post.

  154. Laura says:

    Anonymous Reader: I’m assuming that the women you saw being tested for glucose levels were far enough along to be visibly pregnant. If so, they have probably been advised by their OB/GYNs to remove their wedding rings for the last few months of the pregnancy in case they have a sudden onset of swelling in the extremities. When this occurs, you have to go to the ER to get your rings cut off, if you are still wearing them. I took my rings off at 6 or 7 months of pregnancy, and I was definitely married. So did all the other married women that I knew.

  155. @IBB
    I see the difference but your difference is meaningless. Its meaningless because of WHOM (in authority) are you going to offer the following: “we need a discussion on how to reinstate the patriarchy when the opportunity presents itself.” Who has the power to act on that and what do you expect them to do? The majority of the world would tell you to return to your momma’s basement, to go play xbox, to eat your doritos, and to go f-ck your bong.

    You ask who has the power to act on that, but the answer is simple. The winners in the fight to come. The whole concept of 4GW is the most committed and capable are the most likely to be the winners if they play the game right. I truly couldn’t care less about your opinion of what the rest of the world would tell me because the whole concept of “broad is the gate that leads to destruction and narrow is the gate that leads to life and few find it” means (in general) that if you’re in the majority you’re probably in the wrong.

    You also said:
    You want what I want what Dalrock wants what Elspeth wants what SSM wants what we all HERE want. But we are the tiniest of minorities AT, even if that minority is ever growing. And your predicting a disasterous calamity to befall us in a sort of “I told you so…” moment should we not correct our behavior and return to the patriarchy, will only further marginalize the MRM in the mainstream. Don’t do that.

    Please stop assuming you know me well enough to speak for me. I have learned that even the most tenacious supporters of patriarchy fall back on their catechism in the end, regardless of what the Bible actually says if they come to an issue that falls far enough outside the mainstream. Your argument is “Toad, you’re being politically incorrect. Don’t do that.” Consider that the Pharisees were the ‘Orthodox’ of their day. What did Stephen say about them when they were about to kill him for his faith in Christ? “And what prophet did you not murder?”

    Numerous people report that where the Catholic Church is most orthodox and traditional, their congregations are growing. I remember reading a book called “Evangelical Isn’t Enough” which described how the original leaders of Campus Crusade for Christ sat back years later and after looking at the thousands of conversions for Christ didn’t see any church growth. In other words, they viewed their ministry as a failure. They wound up joining the Orthodox Church, citing an innate need on the part of mankind for liturgical worship and the sense of “awe” that should accompany it.

    I have my doubts about that because my observation is people want to be both challenged and led. Another direct observation of various religious groups from the Amish to the Church of Rome is the leadership cautions the laity against study of the Bible in favor of listening to the leadership’s views on what the Bible says, lest they receive a “private interpretation.” In other words, there can be no individual leading of the Holy Spirit. [Toad makes a rude noise to show his disfavor with that idea]

    This battle will not be won in this current political arena because the devolution must continue until the end. Look at what God told Abram… That his descendents would return in 400 years and inherit the land, but they had to wait because the sin of the Ammorites had not yet reached its full measure. God is a God of justice and the sins of this people will be punished. When their sin had reached its full measure God told the Israelites to kill all of them. 50 million murdered babies have their blood crying out from the soil of this land. Think God will ignore that forever? No. When the sin of this land has reached its full measure, judgment will fall.

    ETFB made a reference to the end times a bit upthread. I believe that one of the beginnings of the birth pains is the removal of the United States from the world stage. The end goal of the end times (I’m talking the AntiChrist) is a one-world government, a cashless society, everyone with a chip in them (the mark of the beast) and total control of the population. We have no idea how long the “birth pains” might last. Perhaps up to generations. However, what I described upthread dovetails perfectly with the Mount Olive discourses.

    If you read the 7 Epistles of Christ in Revelation 1-3, you’ll see that one of the seven Churches is told that they will be sheltered from the persecution that is to come. I think that some part of what is left of the US will be a part of that church and will be sheltered. Everybody else (most of them, anyway) will die. Call me crazy if you want to, but I’m willing to bet I have an order of magnitude more study on this subject than you do. That by no means makes me right, but I know what I believe.

  156. Gunner Q says:

    infowarrior1 @ 5:53 pm:
    “”Never once in the Bible are women given a place of leadership over men (it’s explicitly forbidden even) and the women who came close tended to be utter disappointments. ”

    Does Deborah qualify?”

    1 Samuel 12:11 also confirms Barak as the Judge, not Deborah.

    Judges 4 records how people simply went to Deborah to have disputes settled. As a prophetess, Deborah could settle them through discernment without actually being a governor. (I doubt she had any authority to enforce her decisions with.) When God wanted a leader for Israel’s army, Deborah was told it was Barak and passed the message along.

    Deborah was a wise girl who knew the limits of her position, well worth respecting. Unfortunately, Churchians love to reinvent her as a formal ruler instead of a humble housewife given wisdom from God. Note that if she had been a formal ruler then, under patriarchal Mosaic Law, her husband would still have had authority over her and been the true power anyway. She could not have been Israel’s leader.

  157. greyghost says:

    Dalrock
    How many actual Christian men are there? The only actual men I have seen even speak of even trying o live biblically are the men here. Article after article of churches not even concerning themselves with scripture calling themselves Christian. Where are these Christian men coming from? and who is teaching them?

  158. honeycomb says:

    Huh … really?!?!?!

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/11357201/Nearly-50-per-cent-of-Japanese-adults-not-having-sex.html

    Nearly 50 per cent of Japanese adults ‘not having sex’

    Tired and can’t-be-bothered couples are failing to reproduce, worsening the nation’s population decline

    Maybe this goes along with American wimminz not remarrying … or with the sexless couple problem we don’t talk about in America.

    At any rate .. sorry for being off topic.

  159. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anonymous Reader: I’m assuming that the women you saw being tested for glucose levels were far enough along to be visibly pregnant.

    Yes.

    If so, they have probably been advised by their OB/GYNs to remove their wedding rings for the last few months of the pregnancy in case they have a sudden onset of swelling in the extremities. When this occurs, you have to go to the ER to get your rings cut off, if you are still wearing them. I took my rings off at 6 or 7 months of pregnancy, and I was definitely married. So did all the other married women that I knew.

    Well, that is very interesting, and useful to know. Bit of a relief as well. Thanks.

  160. I hadn’t considered this before, but someone mentioned how much of this is a result of technological progression and such.

    Yep. I have my doubts that a widespread return to patriarchy will be possible as long as modern technology makes women feel like being independent is a safe and sensible thing. There seems to be a cycle:

    1. Men set up patriarchy.
    2. Patriarchy brings things like the rule of law, productivity beyond individual sustainability, innovation, extra wealth, and leisure time.
    3. Too much of that makes it possible for women to live comfortably without a man.
    4. Women (with the help of admiring men) begin rejecting/delaying marriage and being promiscuous.
    5. Patriarchy is dismantled and eventually replaced by matriarchy.
    6. Civilization falls, innovation stops, law breaks down, and life becomes hand-to-mouth again.
    7. In tough times, women need men for survival and can’t afford to make demands.
    8. GOTO 1.

    Now, in theory, the men in step #1 could set things up so that steps #3-4 can’t happen. Make it illegal for a woman to own property or engage in trade, for instance. But I doubt that would be any more than a delaying tactic, because the well-off men a few generations down the line would forget the reasons for it, the same way male suffragettes forgot the reasons women shouldn’t vote. Before long, some guy is going to say, “Come on, guys, let’s be nice to the chicks. I bet they’ll be nice in return, if you know what I mean. Plus, my mother was a saint, so it’s not right that she couldn’t blah blah blah.”

    Once the luxury is there, men will soften (so to speak) and remove limits on women — either to be nice, or intentionally for ideological reasons — and steps #3-4 will proceed.

    Right now, we’re between steps #5-6, with the lower classes well into #6 while the upper are still finishing #5. So the question is, how long will it take to get to #7, and how long will we have to spend there before the cycle can start at #1 again?

  161. greyghost says:

    donalgraeme
    In your reply to spacetraveler you were absolutely right. todays women bring nothing to marriage by law. I suggest MGTOW for all men and MGTOW surrogacy for fathers (thanks for the link DeNihilist ) Christian men are truly being tested. I just don’t see marriage in the cards for any of those good men. When my son (9) hits 12 (the age when males have full agency on par with any woman. The age boys go to juvenile hall because they are not allowed in batter women’s shelters with their mother) he is getting the full hard truth. I will tell him not to marry and explain why as I explain biblical marriage and then show him the penal code. If he chooses a family I will suggest a surrogate over marriage. The incentive to take care of his own will help motivate him to be productive.
    There is no reason for a man to be in a relationship with a woman. In fact married men and guys shacked up will be seen as jokes to a large number of men. Being a married man doesn’t carry the respect that a marriageable man that is single and never married. He is legally and culturally treated as a criminal and idiot as soon as he says I do. (Look how the church sees him)
    Giving up is depressing spacetraveler I just go another way that doesn’t require trusting a woman. There is no wife by law, and now religion.

  162. Gunner Q says:

    greyghost @ 7:21 pm:
    “How many actual Christian men are there? The only actual men I have seen even speak of even trying to live biblically are the men here.”

    Damn good question. This is why I post here despite technophobia, because there’s nobody in my corner of California to talk with about Christ.

    To infer from Elijah, however, God likes to keep the census of his remnant a secret. I suspect the death of the Church has more to do with God sabotaging our ability to organize rather than a complete lack of devout believers. It isn’t like there are any male spaces we can meet up at.

    Maybe we should organize a “Christian Manosphere Vacation” of some kind. Good idea for the new year?

  163. Mychael says:

    GunnerQ-

    My husband would probably volunteer to help organize something like that.

    His idea for the courtship pledge revolved around his basic assumption that an Internet community must morph into a real life, flesh and blood one. Then, that sub culture and all it’s members will “faces to the names” which sociologically must happen to move forward. A million people spread out all over the country sitting in front of computers is not enough.

    (if I may speak for him)

  164. jonadabtherechabite says:

    @Dalrock
    “I’m not aware of any claims by Phillips that his wife was denying him, and absent that I think we shouldn’t speculate.”

    I have also not heard of any claim that Belle was denying and I do not wish to defame her either by accusation or inference. In this case she is the victim!

    My point, and it is a minor one, is that he was not satiated if he still thought he could get more or better. It very well could be that he was going to his own cistern to satisfy his thirst even though the water was good an available. (Metaphor in reference to Prov 5:15-19)

  165. Buck says:

    RE:
    thedeti says:

    January 20, 2015 at 4:52 pm

    Denihilist:

    According to the CDC, the average woman has 3 sex partners before marriage. That means half of those women have had more than 3 sex partners.

    So if your definition of a “very low” female premarital N is 2 or less, then you are talking about FULLY HALF of all American women meet the definition of a “not very low” female N, and are therefore “sluts”.

    Deti,
    I find it difficult to believe that 3 +/- stat for the average woman’s N count. Maybe it’s the company I keep or perhaps the city I live in, but I think the real number is WAY higher.

    Quick story, at a wedding over the summer, a 50 something bitter divorcee single mother is telling the table of her daughter’s engagement and impending wedding “finally!”: (picture showed, cute 25yo Latina). Mom goes on to report that daughter has had 18 serious boyfriends since college, and when Mom presses daughter on that, daughter admits that Mom didn’t even meet 1/2 the guys she dated (2015 speak for banged). Mom then says that daughter works a cubical farm drone job she got right out of college with her freshly minted degree in worthlessness from Party U. So, being a man of the world, I start running probable numbers in my head; out of school 3 years, 36 guys (at least) from age 22-25, went to Party-U, hummm, 4 years of beer bongs and gang bangs, I’m thinking snowflake probably has a triple digit notch count.
    Point one, Mom is shameless about this, in fact, somewhat proud/jealous. (jaw hit floor time).
    Point two, I’m the only person at the table shocked by this story, all the rest, mostly women, are congratulating Mom on daughter finding Mr Right (read Mr Sap).
    Point three, I’ve repeated this story quite a few times and almost no one is appalled by it, and several report similar stories of their “dating life” or that of people they know.
    I know a small few “one off” women, you know, the boring type who met and married their high school sweetheart and claim to have been faithful. Most feel they missed out on “something” by only being with one guy. Most are jealous of the free wheeling millennial sluts and worse, are encouraging their daughters to “play the filed” before settling down.
    The irony is the former sluts who found Mr Sap are the biggest advocates for chaste conduct in their own daughters. They know the heart ache, worry over late periods and possible pregnancy, waiting for VD test results, the shame walks, the rude cat calls, etc and they want to save their children from that hell.
    We live in a society in moral collapse, prayer might not be enough!

  166. easttexasfatboy says:

    Toad! Political correctness is a cancer. It kills our souls. Every time a person agrees with what he knows is wrong, he pays a price. Semantics and euphemisms hide the blood guilt in plain sight. If a man thinks that women are saints on earth, he clearly hasn’t read the Bible. God knows every one who loves Him and the word. It is becoming increasingly clear that Churchiness is replacing small c christianity. Biblically, religious apostasy and money and I’ll gotten power are linked. Since there’s nothing new under the sun, we shouldn’t be surprised. It takes a lot of money here in Texas to support these mega churches and the doctors of divinity. IBB pointed out that it’s all about the money. In the Revelation, it speaks about the great where that sits on many waters. It doesn’t say she’s broke. It suggests that she sells herself to her many suitors, as it were. CC brought up something I read a little while back…..that women go feral when they have it easy. I believe that. For a christian man to seek a wife nowadays is similar to Russian roulette. You might get lucky, and you hope for the best. But unhapppppiness lurks around the corner. Think about the women who survived the fall of Jerusalem. Remember, the ones who were really dressed up? How haughty they were? I figure most met up with a Babylonians sword. Remember, the choice was slow famine or to go out to the maltreating sword? You see, I reckon that most of those women were slaughtered. It’s going to happen again. The scale is going to be so much greater. I was raised reading the Bible. One of the major themes is that a man is responsible at the level of his understanding. That’s why most men shouldn’t shepherd the flock. Nowadays, I think of the 7,000 men who hadn’t bent the knee to Baal. His prophet was convinced he was alone. God knew who was his. Baal worship back then was what all the merchant class and business men used to unite different cultures. They literally killed small infants by throwing them in the fire. To ensure good business and good crops. Think Phoenicians, if you will. Same thing today. Feminism presents many faces. So, behind those many faces is a death cult.

  167. DeNihilist says:

    Dalrock, here is one aspect where the Catholic Church was right on. Following through from Deti’s description of the SMP of 2015, and applying it backwards, Monastaries may be back in vogue big time real soon!

  168. DeNihilist says:

    Deti, thanks for the CDC info.

    I hereby stand corrected.

  169. PuffyJacket says:

    Deti:

    According to the CDC, the average woman has 3 sex partners before marriage. That means half of those women have had more than 3 sex partners

    Does anyone actually believe these numbers? Women have a tendency to rationalize past sexual encounters as never having really happened. Like that random dude she blew in Europe, except she didn’t really enjoy it and there wasn’t any emotional connection. Hence the so-called multiplier “rule-of-three.” I would be genuinely be shocked if the number isn’t at least twice what you stated in reality, particularly in the West.

    To simplify things, standard operating procedure should be to assume the chicks you encounter in today’s dating scene are total whorebags, unless they can “qualify” themselves as a marriage potential in a relatively short period of time. Frankly, the overwhelming majority will disqualify themselves in only a few minutes.

    One of the more unusual findings is that the “average man” has more sexual partners than the “average” women (although New Zealand has reported the opposite). But mathematically this is impossible, even taking into account the “apex” fallacy.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/weekinreview/12kolata.html?_r=0

    Imagine a make-believe town with a population of 3 men and 3 women. Also assume that only 1 man manages to have sex with each of the three women. The average sexual partners amongst men and women are the same in this scenario. And logically, in this fictitious town, this must always hold true, regardless of who fucks who (assuming a relatively equal ratio of males to females). The fact that females consistently report lower partners than men, on average, can only be due to “underreporting” by women and “overreporting” by men. Long story short, don’t ever trust the reported numbers.

  170. DeNihilist says:

    AR, I was actually in the eye of the hurricane in the late seventies, bartending in the most popular night club in the city. Yes, I would agree that probably 90% of the woman in the club were there for a ONS.

    I just happened to know a lot of other girls that were not into that scene, married early or were in LTR’s. Thus the number that I came up with.

    Now of these good women, very few were still virgins. You are right that in that time, the dam had burst and everyone easily jumped into bed. Where I think that I have lost knowledge is in the depiction of the tastes of women in the 2000’s as portrayed by Deti. I do not see this in my sons’ girlfriends or their friends, but that could be because they were raised in an upper middle class area by 2 parents and I was strict with them. Also in my youth, the women seemed to not be chasing alfalfa’s as again so aptly described by Deti.

    As I said earlier, if Deti’s description is true for greater then 50% of the population in the West, then God have Mercy on this society!

  171. PuffyJacket says:

    DeNihilist :

    As I said earlier, if Deti’s description is true for greater then 50% of the population in the West, then God have Mercy on this society!

    Relax. The reality is only much, much worse than you think it is.

  172. DeNihilist says:

    Puffy, there was a study done recently where they attached lie detectors to both women and men and asked the N count number, surprisingly, the women’s average went up and the men’s went down.

    Of course this is only one study, so don’t take it as Gospel.

  173. PuffyJacket says:

    DeNihilist:

    Nothing shocking about that study. It simply verifies what we already know to be mathematically true.

  174. infowarrior1 says:

    @Cail Corishev
    ”Yep. I have my doubts that a widespread return to patriarchy will be possible as long as modern technology makes women feel like being independent is a safe and sensible thing. There seems to be a cycle:”

    Technology is not going to go away:

    However women that does not subscribe to patriarchy in urban environments will suffer sub-replacement fertility rates while those who do subscribe to patriarchy will have replacement fertility. This may result in a significant selections pressures favoring patriarchy.

  175. Pingback: Late January Mini-Linkfest | Patriactionary

  176. Andros says:

    Dalrock, I honestly have no idea how you can keep up your excellent commentary which requires you to research information that would have had me pulling out my hair already in chunks. As a single christian guy, I had to pull myself away from the manosphere because it was just too damn frustrating to read about things a good christian guy has no control over. I have no idea how you can handle it.

  177. Dale says:

    @donalgraeme

    “I’m in a similar position to Deep Strength- I am not boycotting marriage but have set hard limits on what I will settle for. This will likely mean that I won’t marry. Its not what I want, but it is what the world has given me.”

    +1

  178. MarcusD says:

  179. Spacetraveller says:

    @ Dalrock,

    I agree with all your points!
    Yes there is a shortage of marriageable women, and yes, if a man has no incentive to marry, he just won’t prepare for this. I get that.

    And by the way this is why I do believe that the FIRST thing that must happen in the SMP is that WOMEN return to normal femininty standards. The current display of errant behaviour is getting on my nerves and is making me feel ever so sorry for the young men out there who may never get a wife as a result. This is not right!

    @ Dalrock/Deti/Donalgraeme (all the Ds, lol),
    How can the situation be improved?

    The first meme that has to go is that ‘women have no moral agency’.
    It astonishes me that some men in The Manosphere continue to push this agenda, and yet, are surprised when this plays out. Moral agency is crucial, because it is the source of accountability. Without it, a person is ‘lost’.

    To some extent, yes, the current generation is unsalvageable. The key to the widespread correction of the rotten SMP is perhaps the next generation? This is why Eidolon’s comment (the last sentence) resonates so much with me.

    If more parents taught their kids well (and um, sorry Greyghost, pushing for the single parent agenda is NOT what I consider ‘a good thing’ for your son (but of course what you teach your son is your own business, not mine)).

    As you know I live in the Alps of Switzerland. To my delight, I found out a few months ago that there is a ‘finishing school’ for girls (remember those?) very close to where we live. My husband and I passed it on a train journey, and I asked if it was a castle. He replied, ‘no, it’s a finishing shool for girls, and our daughter(s) will go there.’

    Those schools were designed for girls to hone their home-making skills. In the 40s and 50s, high class English girls were shipped off to the mountains of Switzerland, to places like this, at age 16-18 and they later returned home to be ‘presented’ to high society at the debutante ball. Perhaps Opus can confirm…

    I am thrilled that my husband said what he did. Other than covertly signalling to me that he was ready to be a father, it also tells me that our daughter(s) will be lucky girls, much like Elspeth’s daughters, because they will have a father who cares about them and their futures.

    (Yes, we also talked about what happens to the boy(s), but that one’s easy. Despite Switzerland being a war-‘neutral’ country, we still have compulsory military service for boys. And for Catholic boys, we also have the unique option of the Papal Swiss Guard. This is a family tradition in my husband’s family, so it will be inevitable…).
    Both military service and Swiss Guard service help boys to establish their masculinity. A ‘finishing school’ helps establish femininity in girls.

    About this Manosphere club thing that Mychael and others talk of, where do I sign up? I would be very much interested in joining such a group. Are women allowed?

    AR,

    “Of the 6 pregnant women I saw enter, stay or exit the waiting room over the course of an hour, including one who worked there, guess how many had wedding rings? Zero. Nada. Not one.”

    I see Laura beat me to this. I concur with what she says. Pregnancy causes everything to swell up, especially fingers. For this reason it is advised/encouraged for pregnant women to remove their wedding rings by the end of the first trimester as they begin to ‘show’, especially if they are pregnant in the summer months, to avoid the unpleasant situation where their wedding rings would have to be cut off because it is causing their finger circulation to be cut off.

    But I take your general point that most likely those women you speak of were indeed unmarried if we are to go by today’s statistics.

  180. Elspeth says:

    Mychael said:

    Submission is becoming easier as time goes on, to be honest

    This is very true. It’s like all other things that become habits. It also helps when you distance yourself from acquaintances, friends, and sadly even female relatives whose words are subversive to the stand you’ve taken.

    I do not need Mr Stanton or any other church “leaders” whispering the same “doormat” routine I can get from the gossipy princesses I am already surrounded by.

    What exactly makes one a doormat anyway? And who truly believes that any man worth anything wants to be married to one?

    The idea is that a woman’s submission leads to the temptation for her husband to abuse it. Does that mean the reverse is also true; That a submissive husband leads to the temptation for his wife to abuse it? I think the latter is more likely than the former frankly.

    Good to read that you’re doing well Mychael.

  181. Elspeth says:

    “Of the 6 pregnant women I saw enter, stay or exit the waiting room over the course of an hour, including one who worked there, guess how many had wedding rings? Zero. Nada. Not one.”

    When I was pregnant with our twins and with our fourth, my rings got too small. I simply couldn’t abide the idea that I looked like a walking stereotype so I bought a cheap gold plated cubic zirconia ring (sized 8.5) to wear through the latter part of the pregnancies. My husband laughed at me.

    But yes, to assume a pregnant woman with no ring isn’t married can in many cases be a faulty assumption.

  182. earl says:

    ”And he should want a woman who wants to have sex with him, because her sexual attraction to him is the only thing that will keep her with him.”

    Sexual attraction is the ONLY thing?

    There is more to people than just their bodies…there is the emotions, the mental, and most importantly the spiritual. Reducing it to sexual is turning humans into one trick pony objects.

    Besides…you dig deep enough and come to find a woman even with plenty of sexual attraction to a guy can eventually leave. There will always be a guy that triggers more sexual attraction in her…what would stop her from jumping ship?

  183. earl says:

    ‘The first meme that has to go is that ‘women have no moral agency’.
    It astonishes me that some men in The Manosphere continue to push this agenda, and yet, are surprised when this plays out. Moral agency is crucial, because it is the source of accountability. Without it, a person is ‘lost’.’

    Exactly. Frankly it’s quite insulting when people keep saying women have ‘no moral agency’. I say weaker moral agency…and that it is her father’s and then husband’s responsibility to show an example of stronger moral agency for her to aspire to.

    Because if men believe women have no moral agency…how long before they rationalize that they can get away with having no moral agency either.

  184. Novaseeker says:

    Yep. I have my doubts that a widespread return to patriarchy will be possible as long as modern technology makes women feel like being independent is a safe and sensible thing.

    This I agree with, both in terms of technology required to avoid the consequences of sex, as well as technology dominating work, which makes work much more accessible (including high paying work) to women (ass compared with work requiring hard manual labor, as in the past). Technology facilitates the independence of women from specific men (fathers, husbands), and it isn’t going away.

    However women that does not subscribe to patriarchy in urban environments will suffer sub-replacement fertility rates while those who do subscribe to patriarchy will have replacement fertility. This may result in a significant selections pressures favoring patriarchy.

    I’m skeptical of this, because the people who are in power, the elites, are going to be
    tech-heavy, power-heavy, and kids-lite. Perhaps a future like Elysium is what we are looking at? Not necessarily a floating city of the elites in the sky, but some kind of separation like that between the plebs and the elites seems likely — it’s already started, really. So you can conceive of an ongoing divide between kid-heavy have-nots and kid-lite have-alls. It doesn’t seem sustainable, but, again, technology is here a wildcard as well, because it provides means of maintaining power and separation that were unavailable in prior “collapse” scenarios. I think our elite can hold on for a long, long time as long as it maintains a monopoly over the development of technology, more or less.

  185. infowarrior1 says:

    @Novaseeker

    Intriguing. Could you expand on the Elysium like scenario.

  186. BradA says:

    hoellenhund2,

    Religions come and go, BradA. It’s a staple of human history. There were ancient polytheistic religions in the past, and today all that’s left of them are ruins used as tourist destinations. Christianity and Islam will also pass in a similar manner. There will be some major crisis in the future, after which new religions will take their place, hopefully not as prone to gynocentrism and gynonormativity.

    Perhaps, but your perspective is flawed in your hatred of religion. You are hiding more behind that than you admit and that foundation is giving you a perverted perspective. Read the letters Jesus wrote to the churches in the Book of Revelation and you will see a progression that has happened. Yet the church survived and continues to thrive in many parts of the world.

    Wasn’t it Nietzsche who proclaimed God is dead, yet had a tract society operating out of his house now, long after he was dead? You confuse human beings with true Christianity. They do have to walk it out, but the Truth is far more foundational than the people who walk it out.

    I would also ask for your great examples of secular societies that have done so well. You are good at throwing rocks, but have yet to proclaim how we get to this good state that would be there if only not for the religions you hate.

    Note that I hate religion too, but my relationship with Jesus Christ is not a religion.

  187. Novaseeker says:

    Intriguing. Could you expand on the Elysium like scenario.

    Basically a different version of what is depicted in this film: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium_(film)

    In that film, the elites have decamped to a luxurious space station in the sky, while the masses on the planet surface languish in poverty and poorly-paid labor. I think that the creator was using that as a metaphor for the ultimate “gated community”, in this case protected by expensive and high-tech military grade weapons.

    It’s also another take on the “burbclaves” of Neal Stephenson’s novel “Snow Crash” — essentially a future where the elite finds its own oasis and lives there, while the masses, who outnumber them, slave on in increasingly poor conditions, and it’s sustained by technology and the “violence muscle” that technology provides.

    Of course in both fictions there is an upstart that upsets the entire applecart — otherwise you wouldn’t have a story. But the part which I think is interesting is the ability of the elite to perpetuate itself for quite some time given the power of technology to provide the kind of “super police” needed to maintain that divide.

  188. BradA says:

    IBB,

    Don’t tell me you actually beleive the average pew-sitting man actually buys into this blue-pill crap that he hears in church? I will argue that they are there in that building listening to the bile not because they want to, but because they have to. It does not matter what he believes consciously. His sub-conscious tells him that we already know to be true, but he doesn’t want to risk losing his marriage over it.

    I know from experience that many of them believe it. I have done very little in life because someone forced me to do it. I do what I believe in and I was predisposed to that message a long time ago. A wide range of factors played into this, but I enjoyed FotF and FLToday for years because I thought they were accurate. I can see the errors now, but I would have left them long before had I been convinced of their wrongness then. Some of us really do walk with conviction.

    Earl,

    All that casual sex turning men and women into liars.

    Humans are already liars, it is just drawing out and letting what is already there thrive.

    Boxer,

    [Jdg 21:25 KJV] 25 In those days [there was] no king in Israel: every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes.

    That is where we are today, with the mess it brings along.

    hoell,

    Except that it’s pretty easy to use as justification a book in which the saviour of the human race is the son of a single mother, to mention one thing.

    You clearly know nothing about what you speak. Study the reason for a virgin birth a bit more and realize Mary was not a single mother when she gave birth. Though believe what you will.

    Lyn87,

    like some junior high school kid going to the Army War College to explain to them that they don’t understand military tactics and strategies… because of something she heard in her Social Studies class last week.

    Or my son telling me I don’t know how things work in my field of work because he wrote a college paper about that recently. Immaturity has a way of clouding the mind.

  189. BradA says:

    Dalrock,

    Have you heard the teaching that Bathsheba shares some of the blame on what happened in that situation? I suspect that has more merit than what many think, though I don’t know I have ever heard a sermon preached on it.

  190. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    This I agree with, both in terms of technology required to avoid the consequences of sex, as well as technology dominating work, which makes work much more accessible (including high paying work) to women (ass compared with work requiring hard manual labor, as in the past). Technology facilitates the independence of women from specific men (fathers, husbands), and it isn’t going away.

    I don’t think this is quite right. What we are seeing isn’t so much “sisters doing it for themselves”, but women taking advantage of laws which reward them financially for being single mothers. The group of women best placed to earn for themselves and their children (the UMC) are also the group least likely to divorce or have children out of wedlock. In the case of the UMC, this is largely because they understand (at some level) the huge advantage first securing the commitment of the father and then keeping him around gives to their children. Women’s intra-sexual competition is all about their children (or potential children), so this is a powerful force. By the time you get low enough down class wise that this isn’t a significant part of the competition, the women have very low earnings ability.

    While tech and economics exacerbate the problem, they are not the fundamental issues. The fundamental problem is we have turned law and culture (including the church) around so that instead of working to keep families intact, they work to promote single mothers. Stop promoting single motherhood with welfare, child support, moral cover, etc. and the bulk of this problem goes away.

  191. BradA says:

    (I note that in the context of your recent comment.)

  192. Dalrock says:

    @BradA

    Dalrock,

    Have you heard the teaching that Bathsheba shares some of the blame on what happened in that situation? I suspect that has more merit than what many think, though I don’t know I have ever heard a sermon preached on it.

    I haven’t studied the question or seen formal teaching on it, but it seems to me that her strategic advertising worked exactly as desired. I referenced it in this post.

  193. BradA says:

    GunnerQ,

    Note on Elijah that he was told several faithful prophets were being hidden and protected by one of the king’s servants. He just ignored that and claimed he was alone. He truly was a man with “like passions to ours.”

  194. BradA says:

    That should have just said “faithful” as they were not all prophets that were hidden. (Or any as far as I know.)

  195. Escoffier says:

    AR:

    I read Why Men Rule about 15 years ago. My wife actually bought it for herself. I was under the impression, from the intro, that it was the same book as his ’70s book, only a new cover and some updated information. But according to wiki, it’s more than just a 2nd edition but a re-working of the original, especially in the cited evidence.

    It’s interesting in that it has this tone throughout of non-judgemental “value-free” social science. The pose is, I make no judgement on any of this, I’m just explaining to you why men–or certain men or types of men, but always men–always dominate the commanding heights of society in all times and cultures.

    His argument is very simiar to Machiavelli’s in Prince 9 and Discourses I 4, so it seemed very familiar to me.

  196. Wealth and riches enable societies to do this very thing. See: the decadent periods of the Roman empire and its fall. Women are merely acting the same way they did back then.

    http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/library/TynBull_2000_51_2_05_Winter_NewRomanWife1Tim2.pdf

    I. The New Roman Wife

    It is well-known that the sexual propriety demanded of the wife contrasted starkly with the culturally acceptable unfaithfulness of her husband with female household slaves and female dinner companions. The rationalisation of the husband’s behaviour is presented by the early second-century AD writer, Plutarch, in a speech traditionally delivered in the nuptial bedroom. It demanded of the wife faithfulness to her husband’s gods, and the acceptance of his casual sexual liaisons. The latter activity was defended on the grounds that they were a means of gratifying his lust, for it would be inappropriate for him to find sexual release with the wife he loved.7

    Many brides were married in their early or mid-teens to men who were some ten years
    older than they were.8 Such a speech only re-enforced her expectations of her husband’s sexual dalliances. Around 44 BC a ‘new’ type of wife emerged in certain circles in Rome.9 ‘Both in ostensibly factual texts and in imaginative writing a new kind of woman appears precisely at the
    time of Cicero and Caesar: a woman in high position, who nevertheless claims for herself the indulgence in sexuality of a woman of pleasure.’ 10 What could have given rise to such a change in the traditional behaviour of married women? They brought to marriage the all important dowry and could hold property in their own name. It was also possible for them to terminate the marriage, and receive back portion or all of the dowry.11

    Along with this measure of financial independence came social freedom for some. ‘To judge from our sources in the last years of the republic, the more independent women of good family were
    beginning to decide for themselves what kind of social occasion they enjoyed.’12 Roman wives began to compete with those from whom they had been traditionally differentiated viz., foreign women and freedwomen. The latter plied their charms as hetairai during the banquets and provided sexual pleasures in the ‘after dinners’ for their individual dinner companions. Among their clients were the husbands of Roman wives. The revolt by wives of social status against these
    totally inequitable moral values is explicable.

    The ‘realistic prose reportage and the emerging genre of thepersonal love elegy offer glimpses
    of glamorous and assertive women, living a life of parties and self-gratification and choosing their own lovers. They are portrayed both inside élite society and in a more shadowy undefined half-world.’13 At least two of these women named by Cicero and Sallust where historical figures. Of the women celebrated by love poetry Catullus’s beloved has been identified with the historical Clodia, wife of Metellus’, and so has Sempronia.14 The evidence we possess is threefold—the views of contemporary writers covering the late Republic and the early second century AD, those of
    the poets, and finally the evidence from a Roman constitution and criminal law.

    And that, my friends, is the backdrop of this Scripture:

    1 Timothy 2:9-15

    9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, [a]modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first [b]created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, [c]fell into transgression. 15 But women will be [d]preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with [e]self-restraint.

    Sexually liberation, sexual gratification, choosing their own lovers, no fault divorce receiving back everything, can hold property, financial independence, rebellion against moral values. Check, check, check.

    Sounds like a modern liberal arts university to me.

  197. According to the CDC, the average woman has 3 sex partners before marriage. That means half of those women have had more than 3 sex partners

    Math nerd interjection: that’s not what “average” means. What you describe is the “median,” the number which half are above and half are below. The average (or “mean”) is when you sum the total and divide by the number of samples. So nine virgins and one woman with N=30 average out to N=3.

    If that number seems low, keep in mind that it only counts sluttiness before a woman’s first marriage. If a girl gets married fairly young to her second guy, then divorces 7 years later and makes up for lost time with 25 guys over 4 years, then remarries, divorces again, and has three more boyfriends by the age of 40, she’s up to 30+, but she’s still N=1 for that study.

    But your main point is correct — women are far more promiscuous than even one generation ago. Most people can’t see that because most people assume things are basically as they were in their formative years. Maybe a bit worse, but not drastically so. If N=2 was the norm when they were in high school, they figure it might be N=4 now, but surely not N=12! It’s the same thing that keeps people sending their kids to the public school they attended, figuring it might be a little worse than they experienced, but not a completely different world.

    Female promiscuity goes with matriarchy and women-led families. They can’t be separated; you can’t have a society where mothers lead the families and women are chaste outside marriage, any more than you can draw a square circle.

  198. I suppose the largest irony of it all is that this Scripture is purportedly “outdated” to modern churchians because it was in a different period a long time ago and because progress.

    But it was written exactly for the contextual situations that we are in now.

  199. jbro1922 says:

    “Have you heard the teaching that Bathsheba shares some of the blame on what happened in that situation? I suspect that has more merit than what many think, though I don’t know I have ever heard a sermon preached on it.”

    Yes, I’ve heard ministers in the past reference Bathsheba’s role. Mostly wondering why she is bathing on the roof during the day when she can be seen. I remember a collective sucking in of breath, but it is the truth. She could have bathed at any time; not in plain view of the king. Black preachers don’t shy away from this. And black churches are mostly women (I think the last stat I saw was about 70%). Bathsheba is often cast in the same lot as Potiphar’s wife, Job’s wife, Eve….but not on the same level as Jezebel. Yes, the men may have sinned (not Job) or come close to it (Joseph), but the women certainly helped things along.

  200. Dalrock says:

    @Deep Strength

    I suppose the largest irony of it all is that this Scripture is purportedly “outdated” to modern churchians because it was in a different period a long time ago and because progress.

    But it was written exactly for the contextual situations that we are in now.

    Even aside from this, the “dated” argument is particularly weak. 1 Pet 3 makes it clear that wives submitting to their husbands is timeless in two ways:
    1) This is what is beautiful/pleasing to God. God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, and doesn’t fall into the fads of the day.
    2) Explains that it has been this way from the beginning, referencing Sarah from Genesis.

    But even aside from this, the claim of context should actually work the other way. During a time of male dominance it was still important to repeatedly tell wives to submit to their husbands. If repeated admonition was needed even in ancient times, it surely must be needed even more now, during the most feminist period in human history.

  201. Boxer says:

    Dear Hoellenhund:

    But there have been men in positions of authority who professed to be Christians and upheld the Christian faith because they knew it’s, or was, socially useful. I’m not sure Christianity would still be around without them.

    On that same point, those of us who hate feminism, who hate what it has done to our fellow men and women, who hate what it has done to our society, should be glad that there’s something that motivates other people to fight it along with us — even if we don’t partake in the mystical aspect of their catalyst.

    There’s a difference between atheists. Some of us are just not that interested in religion, and others feel the need to be implacably hostile to it. The latter have more in common with evangelical fundamentalists than with those of us who have just shed the idea of the supernatural and moved on with our lives.

    In all my life, I can’t think of a single time that Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. have overtly come after me to bother me in the name of religion. Feminists intrude into my life sometimes several times a month, in contrast. Who should I dislike more?

    Regards,

    Boxer

  202. Does anyone actually believe these numbers? Women have a tendency to rationalize past sexual encounters as never having really happened. Like that random dude she blew in Europe, except she didn’t really enjoy it and there wasn’t any emotional connection. Hence the so-called multiplier “rule-of-three.”

    Right. N=9 (partners before marriage) is completely believable, considering delayed marriage. My own rough rule of thumb that I’ve offered before is to assume one sexual partner for each year she’s older than 18, and then adjust up or down (usually up) based on circumstances and red flags. So if I meet a single 27-year-old, I’m assuming N=9 right from the start. N=3 at that age would be surprisingly low, unless she got married at 18 and just divorced yesterday.

  203. new anon says:

    @Dalrock,

    Interesting that you mention UMC (upper middle class) as being the least likely to divorce.

    There’s a related stat in the most recent edition of “The Myth of Male Power.” Among couples where the wife has a college degree, the wife initiates the divorce 90% of the time.

    If you make the assumption that there is a higher level of college educated women among UMC marriages than the general population, then what does that say about the nature of those marriages?

    In the general population, the husband initiates the divorce about one third (33%) percent of the time. But, when it comes to marriages with college-educated-wives marriages the husband only initiates the divorce 10% of the time. Is the lower divorce rate for UMC marriages due to both parties being less likely to divorce, or is due to the husband being so much less likely to divorce than men in general, that it creates the illusion that UMC wives are less likely to file for divorce.

    Does the husband initiated divorce number dropping from 33% to 10% account for ALL of the difference in divorce rates between non-UMC and UMC marriages?

    Admittedly, there is a hole in my logic, as I am linking college educated women and UMC marriages. I don’t know for sure thqat women in UMC marriages are significantly more likely to have a college degree, but my guess is it is true.

  204. “This isn’t an easy question. Calling out the sins of women has no doubt always been harder than calling out the sins of men. But now that we have gone so far down this road, despite the most obvious feminist rebellion all around us, calling it out will be harder than ever. Yet this needs to be done. There is no kindness in denying reality, and by failing to call out the sins of women we abdicate our role as leaders. It will take great courage to turn this around, but I have faith that there are Christian leaders out there who are up to such a difficult task.”

    Not an easy question, indeed. I speculate that if this occurs it will be through a start-up church created for this purpose. Almost all currently established churches are women-majority and/or they run by white knights and beta males who won’t defy feminist attitudes; they are also headed by pastors who don’t want to be out of a job. If Mark Driscoll got accused of being a misogynist – after he screamed at men during sermons and blamed all young men for women’s promiscuity – then any pastor who actually holds men and women to biblical standards is certain to get far worse treatment.

    If this start-up church does come about, it would be wise for its members to keep below the radar, have numerous leaders of equal standing, and remain small by splintering off when it grows large, because as soon as word gets out, society and culture will do everything possible to destroy them. As Mars Hill demonstrated, it’s easier to destroy a big church that’s a one-man show than a group of small churches with numerous, equally competent leaders.

  205. thedeti says:

    @ earl:

    “Sexual attraction is the ONLY thing?

    There is more to people than just their bodies…there is the emotions, the mental, and most importantly the spiritual. Reducing it to sexual is turning humans into one trick pony objects.

    I think you missed my point.

    Let me refine this a bit. A woman’s sexual attraction for her husband is the only thing in current American society that gives that husband reasonable assurances that his wife will stay with him. The only assurances he has that he can keep her is that she believes he is the best man she can get, then, now and in the foreseeable future.

    What else will give him that assurance? His money/provision? She can earn her own or simply take his. His physical strength? She has at her beck and call blue-uniformed men with guns for that. His “help around the house”? She can use the money she earns or takes from him to hire it done; or wail to the church for the men there to do it for her. His status as father? Pffft. She doesn’t need him for that. She can force him to pay child support at the behest of said men with guns, and that’s good enough. Religious considerations? Heh. His church will HELP her leave him and blame HIM for the marriage’s failure. When the North American Christian Church has a divorce rate that isn’t nudging 40%, then we can talk.

    Marriage is a SEXUAL relationship. It’s the one thing married people do with each other that they aren’t supposed to do with anyone else. So, yeah, sex is vital to that relationship. It’s why men get married in the first place. Men do not marry women they don’t want to have sex with.

  206. ballista74 says:

    Have you heard the teaching that Bathsheba shares some of the blame on what happened in that situation? I suspect that has more merit than what many think, though I don’t know I have ever heard a sermon preached on it.

    I haven’t heard it, because traditionalist feminism. You’ll even see Bathsheba’s role glossed over in the commentaries too. Women just don’t sin, and wouldn’t tolerate hearing about it. As it mentions above, it’s much like Potiphar’s wife or Job’s wife. You just never hear anyone directly mention it, let alone preach it.

    That said, the whole thing with Bathsheba is simple. “Why should I stick with this plebeian solder when I can have the king himself?” (the idea of hypergamy illustrated even though it’s a fame thing and not the traditional feminist cast it has in most discussions) It’s pretty well accepted that she was using the mikvah (which is simply a bathtub) for her ceremonial uncleanness (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/what-is-the-mikvah-all-about/2014/11/07/cdff0784-6696-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html) which would explain her state. The idea as the article explains is that she would have to be completely naked. So we know what she was doing and what her physical state would have been. There’s a view of the mikvah expressed in the article: It’s a big no-no to talk about another woman you saw at mikvah, because it’s the same as saying, “I know who’s gonna get some tonight!” There’s a certain sexual connotation of revealing it or talking about it.

    So in other words, Bathsheba was nude and washing herself and probably needed to do it. She didn’t have to do it on the roof in plain sight of everyone, especially the king. She knew what she was doing in giving David a pornographic peep-show. But somehow it’s all on David.

  207. Dalrock says:

    @new anon

    Does the husband initiated divorce number dropping from 33% to 10% account for ALL of the difference in divorce rates between non-UMC and UMC marriages?

    Admittedly, there is a hole in my logic, as I am linking college educated women and UMC marriages. I don’t know for sure thqat women in UMC marriages are significantly more likely to have a college degree, but my guess is it is true.

    It doesn’t, because the drop in divorce rates is much larger than change you reference. The exact numbers will vary by study/source, but the change swamps the number you are asking about. The Marriage Project released stats recently showing that for women with a HS degree, divorce rates were 37% within 10 years of marriage. For women with a college degree, the rate dropped to 11%.

    Divorce by education

    Starting with the HS rate of 37%, if we remove 20% of those divorces (7%) this takes it down to 30%. But the actual rate for college educated women is 11%, which is roughly a third of what you would have predicted if the change was wholly driven by men.

    When you look at the data one thing jumps out. Women overwhelmingly drive divorce rates across races, class, education levels, and even age groups. This is of course the exact opposite of the assumptions Stanton and others are working under.

  208. ballista74 says:

    She knew what she was doing in giving David a pornographic peep-show. But somehow it’s all on David.

    And I neglect to mention before, she was at the most fertile part of her cycle, too, which would have given her the best chance of having a kid with David. I don’t think I need to explain the implications of that to most here.

  209. Dalrock says:

    @Libertarian Anarchist

    Almost all currently established churches are women-majority and/or they run by white knights and beta males who won’t defy feminist attitudes; they are also headed by pastors who don’t want to be out of a job. If Mark Driscoll got accused of being a misogynist – after he screamed at men during sermons and blamed all young men for women’s promiscuity – then any pastor who actually holds men and women to biblical standards is certain to get far worse treatment.

    I think Driscoll’s problem was he secured his power by taking it from the men in the congregation. He demoted all of the heads of household to underlings, with the wives reporting directly to himself. This actually worked great, not for a church, but for Driscoll having power. It only seems to have fallen apart when Driscoll got soft. I don’t know if you saw the pictures of him the church started publishing just before this all blew up, but they were very soft and weak. Here is one cached from Internet Archive. This isn’t the picture of a man who can continue to stand on the necks of the men in the congregation (that would be this guy). Once he was seen as weak, it all blew up on him.

    The lesson for pastors in this case would be not to build your church by usurping other men’s headship. This is harder initially but more stable long term.

  210. thedeti says:

    Cail Corishev:

    Thanks for your last two comments, because they set out pretty much what I was saying.

    Additional thoughts:

    First, I don’t for a minute believe that the average, median or “typical” woman has 3 sex partners before she gets married. I think it’s easily double that, and I’m being quite conservative and extending all sorts of benefits of the doubt here.

    Second, given current sexual mores, it’s quite easy for the average, typical woman to get to N=9. And importantly, millenials don’t consider N=9 to be slutty at all. The reason it’s not considered slutty is because it’s a result of the “typical” woman’s dating and sex trajectory. The reasoning is that everyone does this, it’s just the norm. I’ve seen Nova explain this and I’ll paraphrase.

    Consider the average girl growing up in mid-America. Rate her HB6. She’s attractive enough to get boys and men to notice her, but she’s not a cheerleader or the prom queen. She’s not a scumbag but she doesn’t run with the Mean Girls.

    She has a couple of boyfriends in high school. She gives up her virginity to the second one she’s serious about at the beginning of her junior year. She’s 16, and stays with him until the start of her senior year. At 17 she has a one night stand on a date with one of the really popular, good looking guys in her class. She’s N2 at high school graduation.

    At college she makes a mistake and gets pumped and dumped in a couple of months. She then has a first College Boyfriend and they have an active sex life. She breaks up with him at the end of her freshman year when she comes back home for the summer. When she gets back to college in the fall for her sophomore year, she goes on a few dates. She has a fling with a frat guy; that’s about two months. Another one night stand, then meets a great guy around Christmas of her sophomore year. They move rapidly to sex and she thought he might be The One, but that too fizzles out at the end of the year. Midway through college at age 20, she’s at N6.

    Back for junior year, she takes the year off dating and becomes a voluntary celibate. For her senior year, she wants to get serious about finding a guy for marriage, so she starts “intentionally dating”. She meets yet another great guy and makes him wait a couple of months before they finally have sex. He graduated with his MBA and moved to NYC; she didn’t want to go with him though she really loved him. They break up. She graduates college with her Mass Communications degree and an N of 7.

    On to work and moving to the Big City for her job as a copywriter at a small ad agency. She meets a few guys at church but none of them really trip her trigger. In two years at the ad agency, she seriously dates a lawyer she met through friends (1 year) and a mid level sales manager for a big pharma (about six months).

    At age 24, she’s N9.

    This isn’t “slutty” in today’s thinking . (It’s actually pretty conservative.) This is just the natural course of a typical middle class woman’s dating and sex life. It’s considered not slutty because most of the sex was in the confines of “relationships”. Sex that happens in relationships is considered in today’s parlance as “legitimate” sex. Only some of them were ONS or a result of rapid sex due to poor judgment or feelings. It’s common understanding that every woman will have (and be forgiven) a few “dating mistakes” like a ONS that “just happened” and “flings” that “didn’t work out” with hot guys because of his “immaturity” or he “moved for his job” or “we wanted different things”. This is all de rigueur, it’s all normal, it’s just the way things shake out over the long arc of an individual woman’s life.

  211. ballista74 says:

    First, I don’t for a minute believe that the average, median or “typical” woman has 3 sex partners before she gets married.

    Rule of Three. Women don’t want to be thought of as sluts, so they under report when they self-report sex partners. Multiply whatever they say by 3 to get a number approaching the real count. The average, median, or typical woman has more like 9 sex partners.

    The same applies to men to a lesser extent, though you have to divide instead of multiply as the typical man wants to be seen as the stud. Hence, why I tend to take most “Game” reports with a grain of salt (the stud thing added to the marketing thing).

  212. ballista74 says:

    And to go beyond that using my Christian Mingle account as confirmation, a lot of women are seeing things like the manosphere and driving down even further. I’m seeing a lot of them lately that are obviously lying (they just aren’t covering it up well in a variety of ways) with regards to their marital status and number of kids on the summaries..

  213. jbro1922 says:

    To add to thedeti’s remarks, a lot of women consider that a requirement. I remember my mother telling me I would have to kiss a few frogs before finding a prince. I thought that sounded terrible. Can’t I just pray for God to send my mate? I guess now the logic is women have to sleep with a few frogs. Sounds like a really inefficient way to get a husband if you ask me.

  214. Amazing. I never thought of that before. I attended the church a few times. The first sermon of his I heard was his “men on marriage” lecture in which he screamed at the men, albeit I never felt attacked because none of the stuff on women applied to me as a single man not in a relationship. Looking back at it with your observation in mind, it seems he was, in a sense, ripping the men’s “head of household” insignias off their chests and keeping them for himself until he felt they deserved it.

  215. The Churchianity ‘born-again virgins’ are just like bottles of urine disguised as bottles of vintage wine; simply because the urine once was vintage wine, these Churchianity women believe that the wine and the urine are worth the same.
    But I’m not buying.

  216. Opus says:

    So, a few years ago, I was talking by phone with a woman I had not seen for a few decades, and she was telling me how terrible her husbands had been. She casually let slip that she had by now slept with sixty guys (was she counting and what was she excluding?) so let us say that that number was 0ne Hundred (it’s going to make my maths easier). She told me that most of these guys had not been any good, indeed only ten per cent had been any good (maybe they recognize a cum-dump when they see one). I apologized for my poor performance. You were one of those in the ten per cent, she explained. You might think I would be flattered, but should I be? Let us suppose that I had wanted to get back together with her (I didn’t); I know I am in the top ten, but where in the top ten? The best? Unlikely and she certainly did not say I had been. I may have been the worst in the top ten but the median would put me at about number five or six. That would mean that every time I had sex with her and even if performing at my very best, there would be four or five other guys who she would feel were better lovers and to that extent I would be a disappointment. If her husbands – the men she had married – had so dissatisfied her, what chance then might I have?

    This is very different from when I was still a teenager, when most girls married and wanted to marry their first boyfriend.

  217. Dalrock,

    The Marriage Project released stats recently showing that for women with a HS degree, divorce rates were 37% within 10 years of marriage. For women with a college degree, the rate dropped to 11%.

    Uh oh. I think I might have found a flaw with red pill thinking.

    I think we can all agree that women who get married younger have a smaller N-count than women who get married older. I think that is generally true. Given the above statisitics provided by Dalrock (stats I don’t dispute for a second) and the fact that women no longer wear chasity belts, one could argue that if a good Christian, red-pill man wants to decrease his likelihood of being frivorced, he needs to marry a woman who is college educated and (thus) with a presumably much higher notch count than the girl just out of high school.

    I know it drives the guys here crazy with me, but these exact statistics are the main reason why I keep harping on women getting married from age 25 to (say) 29, regardless of her notch count. By that point, (using Dalrock’s statistics) she should already have her degree and will be much less likely to frivorce. What is the ultimate goal here for the Christian man who wants to stay married until death, for her to (maybe) pair bond as she will know fewer penises (or maybe no other penises at all) OR to dramatically reduce the likelihood of her ever frivorcing? Which is more important to you? I’m sure you want BOTH but life is short gentlemen….

  218. Elspeth says:

    I know it drives the guys here crazy with me, but these exact statistics are the main reason why I keep harping on women getting married from age 25 to (say) 29, regardless of her notch count. By that point, (using Dalrock’s statistics) she should already have her degree and will be much less likely to frivorce. What is the ultimate goal here for the Christian man who wants to stay married until death, for her to (maybe) pair bond as she will know fewer penises (or maybe no other penises at all) OR to dramatically reduce the likelihood of her ever frivorcing? Which is more important to you? I’m sure you want BOTH but life is short gentlemen….

    I find you generally entertaining but this is one of the more absurd comments you have offered, IBB. Christians have a different standard. Or at least we should.

  219. BradA says:

    Ballista,

    I know that her family had a history directly with David as well, as her grandfather (Ahithophel?) went with Absolom in his rebellion, probably because of this issue. She is also left out by name in the genealogy of Jesus. The latter is something that makes me think God is telling us more than we general talk about.

    I had not thought of the purification aspect. Something to think about there.

  220. I find you generally entertaining but this is one of the more absurd comments you have offered, IBB. Christians have a different standard. Or at least we should.

    And we are off the races. Elspeth, I didn’t think it would be you… first.

    Yes, absolutely, you are positively right, Christians most certainly should have different standards here. No argument. Alas, for good Christian men the pickings are mightly slim Elspeth. It is so slim for some of these guys as to be…. non-existant. Thus MGTOW.

    I’ll tell you what, I love being married but I never want to be frivorced. I think I’d rather be dead, than frivorced. Being a single man was good, a married man is better, but frivorced is hell on earth. That said, I am real happy that you find my posts entertaining. So glad that I “entertain” you. 🙂

  221. BradA says:

    Is education the controlling factor or an outcome of the type of individual?

    Correlation does not prove causation.

  222. While tech and economics exacerbate the problem, they are not the fundamental issues. The fundamental problem is we have turned law and culture (including the church) around so that instead of working to keep families intact, they work to promote single mothers. Stop promoting single motherhood with welfare, child support, moral cover, etc. and the bulk of this problem goes away.

    That’s true, but my opinion is that that will never happen in a society that can afford those things (whether they come from ordinary productivity, tech innovation, or outright borrowing). Men are just too nice, too anxious to make women happy. Now that we have matriarchy, we’re going to have it as long as we can afford it.

    Individual families and very small communities will buck that trend, of course. I don’t see it happening on a wider scale until economics forces the end of those support programs (which probably means civil war), and then women start feeling financially pinched without a man around.

  223. First, I don’t for a minute believe that the average, median or “typical” woman has 3 sex partners before she gets married.

    You’re right, that’s ridiculous. N=3 might have been the average when I was growing up 25 years ago, and girls were both less slutty and marrying younger. There’s no way it’s that low today, unless they did the study in a rural county where half the residents are Amish. It’s really just confirmation of the Rule of 3, as others mentioned, although it might be stretching even that.

  224. Is education the controlling factor or an outcome of the type of individual?

    That’s debatable Brad. I only know what I saw personally. And I think it has more to do with money than anything else.

    Growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, all my parents friends were married. By 1985, it seemed like everyone my folks knew had more money than we did. Then the 1990 recession hit and the ones who didn’t go to college (or even finish high school for that matter) they all saw their small businesses fail. When that happened, the majority of the wives frivorced their husbands. The husbands and wives that had higher education, they kept working and they stayed married. Religion had nothing to do with it (at my much younger self’s glance.) At least that is what I noticed.

  225. ballista74 says:

    @BradA

    I had not thought of the purification aspect. Something to think about there.

    I may do a more thorough job of preaching Bathsheba’s sin later on my blog (only a tangential mention on mine). Especially since I’m sure that’s the first, last, and only time a lot of comment readers here would have seen it, let alone a general audience.

    Anyway, the purification aspect is indicated by 2 Samuel 11:4: ” And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness: and she returned unto her house. Pair that mention (irrelevant otherwise to the story) with the culture and the rarity of being able to take regular baths (no plumbing then), and it becomes pretty evident what she was doing and why (Leviticus 15:19). Hauling that much water to immerse an adult woman is a lot of work, to be certain.

    The main point is that the purification would have implied that she was completely naked, and with no modesty whatsoever in exposing herself. If it had to be outside, she could have had curtains or drapes up, and I’m sure Uriah would have insisted upon it if that were the case. Adam Clarke is the closest in his commentary (2 Samuel 11:2) to preaching what Bathsheba was doing:

    How could any woman of delicacy expose herself where she could be so fully and openly viewed? Did she not know that she was at least in view of the king’s terrace? Was there no design in all this?

    She got naked, and she WANTED to be seen (no matter how a few commentators might spin it).

  226. earl says:

    ‘Marriage is a SEXUAL relationship. It’s the one thing married people do with each other that they aren’t supposed to do with anyone else. So, yeah, sex is vital to that relationship. It’s why men get married in the first place. Men do not marry women they don’t want to have sex with.’

    It sounds like men and women will have sex with they people don’t intend to marry though.

    Everything is so complicated because the confines of sex from marriage were removed. Being in a relationship or tingles or feelings doesn’t make the sex ok in God’s eyes.

  227. Tam the Bam says:

    “Those schools were designed for girls to hone their home-making skills. In the 40s and 50s, high class English girls were shipped off to the mountains of Switzerland, to places like this, at age 16-18 and they later returned home to be ‘presented’ to high society at the debutante ball. Perhaps Opus can confirm…”
    SInce m’Lud has wisely declined to opine, ma’am, perhaps the overexcited ejaculations of the nearest rude mechanical might suffice?
    ‘Er Indoors was a product of such an establishment, but in the apple-scented County of Kent, rather than rude and barbarous Helvetia. (Evesham’s fair vale, if I err not in the recall).

    But as to mad home-making skillz, why tish and indeed pish.
    Couldn’t boil an egg, not one of ’em. The square root of handless and useless, but lazier.

    I am the only one trusted with a clothes-iron or a diddly (boots etc., perhaps the “gels” should have a short (and short-tempered) corporal to guide ’em in those tender years, it certainly sticks) and my curry inc. naan, chapati, and Chinese repertoire (less broad based, although hot-pot and all sorts of dim-sum are available given short notice) are admired by all. All from scratch. Although given a choice I prefer scouse, porridge and gin. Or a wee fry, incl. black pudding and potato bread. And I’m the only fool I know who can sew, or darn socks (the only Swiss thing I know). Her pals think I’m some sort of fossil, left over from Sharpe’s days, they can’t believe such things are even possible. Repairing? lolwut!!?
    Although fair play to the old girl, she taught herself to be a demon knitter (can’t abide it myself) and do a full-on Sunday Roast Dinner, with Yorkshires and her own gravy.

    The intended destiny was to become a District Officer’s wife in Tangyanika, or a medic’s in New Guinea, or some such nonsense. All riding around on ostriches, being brought huge slices of tropical fruit by insufferably cheery, immensely smackable native children, Daktari-style.
    At worst, she could hope to die an Army wife, starting with lieutenants.
    Mau-Mau, Smithy, UDI, Nkomo, Mad Bob and his Five Brigade, even Samora Machel were a world away.
    Or if unlucky, a vet’s wife/assistant in Tobermory, or marry a demented remittance-man with a (gifted) farm in the Fens or somewhere equally ghastly, c.f. TV prog, “The F******g Fulfords”, I think some eps. may be on the Toob.

    Either way, the only training they received (rather expensively, I understand) was how to boss servants about, and stop them robbing you blind when ordering supplies, or even when accompanying them to market in Djakarta (un-British, and therefore extemely suspect) or Honkers (unpossible). And how not to get excessively drunk at socials, even Scottish Country Dancing ones (compulsory, and actually a valuable life-skill, although I say it myself. The dancing, not the chugging.)

  228. Opus says:

    You can tell Tam the Bam has never ventured south of the Firth of Forth: only a Jock could place Evesham in The County of Kent (the east side of the country) rather than The Shire of Worcester (the west). There’s only one decent girls school in the county and that is Benenden (where the Princess Royal went). Most of the decent schools (Roedean) are on the south coast.

  229. new anon says:

    @IBB,

    Median age of women’s first marriage:

    High school degree = 24
    College degree = 28

    https://www.bgsu.edu/content/dam/BGSU/college-of-arts-and-sciences/NCFMR/documents/FP/FP-12-07.pdf

    By the time they reach 24, the odds are that BOTH of the women above have high N counts. As I recall, the N-count/divorce-risk charts I’ve seen are logarithmic curves. The first few N’s shoot the divorce risk up, but then the line flattens out. Or to put it another way, the divorce risk between a N=2 and a N=7 is huge, but the risk between a n=7 and a n=14 is not as much. So the N’s a college woman has between 25 and 28 years old doesn’t create as much of a risk as the N’s she acquired before she was 25.

    There is probably some common attribute that contributes to both the ability to obtain a degree and avoid divorce.

    Obtaining a college degree is an exercise in delayed gratification. Something also required to keep a marriage together in the long run.

  230. JDG says:

    IBB – I know it drives the guys here crazy with me, but these exact statistics are the main reason why I keep harping on women getting married from age 25 to (say) 29, regardless of her notch count.

    Did you forget that the higher the notch count the more likely she is to nuke the marriage? Are you off your meds or is there really two of you?

    Women like this should not marry at all. Most women in the US and UK are unqualified for a real marriage (even if it was legal).

    Elspeth – Christians have a different standard. Or at least we should.

    Absolutely!

  231. earl says:

    ‘Or to put it another way, the divorce risk between a N=2 and a N=7 is huge, but the risk between a n=7 and a n=14 is not as much. So the N’s a college woman has between 25 and 28 years old doesn’t create as much of a risk as the N’s she acquired before she was 25.’

    From the tone it sounds like 7 to 14 is meh risk. I’d put it like this….the divorce risk between 2 and 7 is huge and any number after that STAYS huge.

    Women need to guard their purity more than seeing how much they can get away with while still maximizing a reward.

  232. The first few N’s shoot the divorce risk up, but then the line flattens out. Or to put it another way, the divorce risk between a N=2 and a N=7 is huge, but the risk between a n=7 and a n=14 is not as much. So the N’s a college woman has between 25 and 28 years old doesn’t create as much of a risk as the N’s she acquired before she was 25.

    I think it is really dark that we are even having this level of discourse about women and what they will or wont do based on how old they are and how many men they f-cked, but yes…. I’ll buy this.

    Obtaining a college degree is an exercise in delayed gratification. Something also required to keep a marriage together in the long run.

    I never looked at it that way but… yes. YES! I agree.

    Okay so…. does the point I made about marrying women from 25-29 with a slightly higher notch count provided they are college educated in an effort to avoid needless frivorce still stand? From a computer sceince standpoint, I see a bunch of nested If-Then-Elses here.

  233. JDG,

    Did you forget that the higher the notch count the more likely she is to nuke the marriage?

    new anon addressed this better than I could. See above.

    Are you off your meds or is there really two of you?

    I just wanted to see if Dalrock’s stats show a gap in red pill thinking. I think they might. I think I found a bug in the system.

  234. Tam the Bam says:

    @Opus. Oh bugger. Geog. Fail. How’s about the valley of the Stour then, m’learned friend?
    F*****g Englandshire, all the same. Thank guid we’ll soon be shot of yez. Wee Bristly-Chinned Nicola girt duin bi kwine, as they say in Hopeman. (That is actually “English”, they assure me, not the ghaidhilig. The deluded fools.) I give it five years.

  235. JDG says:

    new anon – Or to put it another way, the divorce risk between a N=2 and a N=7 is huge, but the risk between a n=7 and a n=14 is not as much. So the N’s a college woman has between 25 and 28 years old doesn’t create as much of a risk as the N’s she acquired before she was 25.

    Dude! The results linked to below are from a study done by the Heritage foundation, and they are generous compared to others I’ve seen.

    I don’t know about you and IBB, but to me 27% + is a huge risk when we are talking about marriage (especially with kids and in this society). That’s where the 5 to 9 and 10 to 20 partner women fall according to the 2006/08 data charted in the graph.

    Other studies have results with harsher consequences. According to this report, the break down is more like the following:

    0: 20%
    1: 46%
    2-4: 56-60%
    5-15: ~70%
    16+: ~80%

    Lots of partners in women is bad news for everyone involved. Don’t marry a slut.

  236. Novaseeker says:

    While tech and economics exacerbate the problem, they are not the fundamental issues. The fundamental problem is we have turned law and culture (including the church) around so that instead of working to keep families intact, they work to promote single mothers. Stop promoting single motherhood with welfare, child support, moral cover, etc. and the bulk of this problem goes away.

    That’s true, but my opinion is that that will never happen in a society that can afford those things (whether they come from ordinary productivity, tech innovation, or outright borrowing). Men are just too nice, too anxious to make women happy. Now that we have matriarchy, we’re going to have it as long as we can afford it.

    Dalrock, Cail —

    I agree with the comments. I do think, though, that as long as we can afford it, tech is going to drive things further from patriarchy than closer, because it facilitates all kind of things that otherwise are not possible for women. I’m not a Luddite, by the way, but just observing.

    There is probably some common attribute that contributes to both the ability to obtain a degree and avoid divorce.

    Obtaining a college degree is an exercise in delayed gratification. Something also required to keep a marriage together in the long run.

    @ new anon —

    They weather the storm because they have a stronger overall bag of tricks. They tend score higher in drive, ambition, discipline, focus and so on. It correlates. Not in every single person of course, but it correlates and the divorce number goes down with higher (post-graduate) degrees for the same reason — the correlation gets stronger, because those characteristics are even more common in the people getting the advanced degrees than they are in college-educated (and even more so for “harder” degrees than a masters degree, for example). So these people can “weather the storm” of significant pre-marital sexual activity much better due to the rest of their bag of tricks — at least better than individuals who score lower in those traits can. That is, unless they make the mistake of being too picky, or betting on the wrong horse for an extended period — which usually means, in each case, some personal failing of judgment that makes them score, individually, lower in one or more of those traits than their similarly high-traited peers do. Bottom line: these are society’s winners, so we should expect to see them win at marriage. However, building an institution around what works for people with well above average traits is obviously pointless to everyone who is not a member of the well above average traits club (which people tend to think it should be the model for everyone else, of course!).

  237. Exfernal says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bogus_pipeline – I guess this method was used already to test the accuracy of reported N.

  238. Spacetraveller says:

    @ Tam the Bam,

    Hahahahahahahahha, hilarious!
    Well played. Very well played.
    Well, ‘er indoors shudda gone to a finishing school in Switzerland…
    Is it too late now? I can arrange it if you want.🙂

    Hey ho, Opus, I didn’t know Evesham was in Worcestershire either. Apparently not a great county for a finishing school, but at least they have Lea and Perrins Worcester sauce.🙂

  239. JDG says:

    Forgot the initial link:

    http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/promiscuity-data-guest-post.html

    And here is another chart from the Heritage study courtesy of The Social Pathologist.

  240. JDG says:

    By the by, both links were from Heritage studies. Still, no matter how you break down the data, marrying a promiscuous woman is a high stakes gamble that has little chance of paying off.

  241. Gunner Q says:

    Spacetraveller @ 5:07 am:
    “@ Dalrock/Deti/Donalgraeme (all the Ds, lol),
    How can the situation be improved?”

    I see a three-part solution.

    One, marriage must be legally reclaimed. It’s supposed to be permanent (especially with kids around) and cannot include perversions like sodomy.

    Two, men need external confirmation as the head of household. This allows him to discipline his wife, be in charge of finances and so on. The State doesn’t have to do this formally so much as respect private agreements. (Not to mention generally permitting the practice of Christianity as required by the First Amendment.)

    And Three, for Christians specifically, women need to be taught to be dependent on their husbands. This is an important part of representing the Christ/Church relationship. No good Christian wants to be independent of Christ; no good wife wants to be independent of her husband, barring atrocious conduct. This also facilitates the good wifely attitude of investing in her husband and wanting the marriage to succeed, just as Christ’s success is our success.

    “About this Manosphere club thing that Mychael and others talk of, where do I sign up? I would be very much interested in joining such a group. Are women allowed?”

    Why not? We would only talk about you girls anyway. Whoever organizes it picks the venue but I can’t afford Switzerland.😉

    innocentbystanderboston @ 1:06 pm:
    “Okay so…. does the point I made about marrying women from 25-29 with a slightly higher notch count provided they are college educated in an effort to avoid needless frivorce still stand?”

    No, because expecting men put their gonads in a jar for a decade for the convenience of women is cruel and unChristian.

    Women can avoid needless frivorce by not frivorcing.

  242. new anon says:

    @JDG,

    Perhaps I’m missing something here, but it seems to me that the numbers you provided confirmed my earlier statement.


    0: 20%
    1: 46%
    2-4: 56-60%
    5-15: ~70%
    16+: ~80%

    If I’m reading your numbers right, a N=4 increases the divorce risk by 60% over a N=0. A N=15 increases it by 70% over a N=0. While 70 is larger than 60, the difference between 0 and 60 (60) is larger than the difference between 60 and 70 (10). It’s the first few N’s that shot the divorce rate through the roof. The latter ones increased the already high rate.

  243. Escoffier says:

    Maybe it would be worthwhile for the sake of argument to take the challenge posed by IBB seriously and see what we come up with. I’d be particularly interested in Dalrock and Nova’s take.

    IBB claims to have spotted a paradox. One the one hand, that study first popularized by Social Pathologist and Heartiste shows that divorce risk rises almost vertically with N. Once you get beyond about 3, IIRC, it shoots way up and stays there, so that additional penises are almost irrelevant to the risk.

    On the other hand, he also notes that the stats Dalrock quotes show by far the lowest divorce risk among college (and beyond) educated women. We don’t seem to have reliable data that correlates N with education, but it’s reasonable to bet that educated women have higher Ns at marriage simply because they tend to marry older. Plus, most of us are familiar with life as it is lived today and it seems laughable to expect a college educated woman not to have had several partner in school and then several thereafter.

    I am not sure the data tells us whether it is the later age, the education itself, or the underlying traits that make getting the education more likely, which lead to a lower divorce rate. That is, do these women divorce less simply because they have a stronger character overall—at least in the sense of FTO, discipline, moderation, etc.? And even if they never went to college they would divorce less, but of course given their attributes most do go to college? Similarly, even if these same women went to college but married at 23 rather than 29, would they still divorce less for the same reason? IBB seems to take for granted that a college woman simply won’t get married before 28 or 30, which seems true in practice. But he also seems to think that the late age of marriage itself contributes to a lower divorce rate. This latter claim seems dubious or at least “not proved.”

    In any event, is there a genuine paradox here? Divorce risk rises with N, but the most stable marriages appear to be with women who have a non-trivial N at marriage (college-educated and late 20s). IBB thinks he has found the bug in the sphere code, but has he?

    Clearly, one way out of the paradox is pointed to above. It’s probably true that this low divorce rate is caused more than anything else by traits such as future-time orientation, moderate habits, disciple, and so on. Hence if such women could somehow find their way toward getting married earlier and staying off the carousel, they would presumably divorce at low rates. And likely even lower than they do now, since we know that more partners ups their risk. So, if a college gal has an 11% risk in the current environment she would presumably cut that risk further by staying off the carousel.

    For IBB, apparently, this is simply unrealistic. And surely he is right that, in this climate, the man who holds out for a 23-y/o virgin college grad will have a gravely difficult time finding one. But IBB goes on to argue that men should accept this situation and, further, make the choice to marry the 29-y/o “experienced” woman so as to lower his divorce risk.

    He does not see this, apparently, as a “Damned if I do, damned if I don’t” situation. He tries to frame it, weakly, as the choice between a lesser of two evils, with a great good at the end (no frivorce). But this is, and must be, because he places no value on female chastity.

    However, IBB, what you apparently will not allow yourself to understand is that some men do. Hence the Hobson’s choice you are urging is unattractive in and of itself. It is certainly no solution to the problem.

  244. new anon says:

    JDG says:

    Still, no matter how you break down the data, marrying a promiscuous woman is a high stakes gamble that has little chance of paying off.

    I wouldn’t disagree with that, but it seem that according to the numbers marrying someone who by “modern standards” is not a promiscuous women (but merely “slept with a few guys”) is also a high stakes gamble.

  245. Laura says:

    I had a college professor say that the only thing that a college diploma proved to other people was that you were able to start a long-term project and bring it to completion. My personal theory is that at least 15 % of both men and women are incapable of forming lasting, mutually-satisfying relationships with ANYBODY, and another 15 % struggle to do so. People who are able to complete a four-year degree are, AS A GROUP, less likely to be complete basket cases.

    A male or female who has serious mental or emotional problems is probably going to end up divorced in a society with no-fault divorce, as they won’t be capable of holding down a job or raising children, regardless of their sexual history. And even if their spouse is a true gift from God, their sense of entitlement will cause them to “trade up” at some point. That being said, the women that I have known who grew up in foster care, or had other very adverse social histories were the ones who also had the highest N counts. Lookin’ for love in all the wrong places.

    When I was in college in the deep South in the late 70s, virgins were a majority in the freshman class, at least among the white women, and most women who arrived as virgins either married as virgins, or married having only slept with their future husbands. Most of my friends growing up in the midwest would NOT have even considered having sex with anybody while living under their parents’ roof. Even if they had no religious beliefs at all (fairly unusual amongst my acquaintances) they knew that their parents were terrified of the prospect of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy, so they behaved themselves at least until they got to college. Also, the slut shaming at the high school level was MUCH worse than at the college level. The girls that I knew in my freshman year of college who were not virgins had slept with men, not high school or college boys.

    High school girls who lived in an intact home with both their parents generally did not have sex in my day, and the ones who did tended to be highly impulsive, unable to weigh costs/benefits effectively, and sneaky/dishonest, since they had to lie about where they were going, etc. By the mid-80s, sexual mores seemed to have changed entirely except for the relatively small percentage of the truly devout.

    My guess is that Opus’ old flame who reported N = 60 was probably telling the truth. For a woman of my generation, if N = 60, you are an outrageous slut, so it simply wouldn’t matter at that point if N= 90 or 500. And when she said that only 10% of the men were worthwhile, was she speaking strictly in terms of sexuality? Surely out of 60 partners there would have been several who were talented in bed but had some disqualifying personality or character flaw that made any sort of long-term relationship impossible?

  246. Escoffier,

    IBB thinks he has found the bug in the sphere code, but has he?

    Maybe. Again, I am just using Dalrock’s statistics. Either way, this gives Dalrock and awesome thing to discuss in his next post.

    But IBB goes on to argue that men should accept this situation and, further, make the choice to marry the 29-y/o “experienced” woman so as to lower his divorce risk.

    I don’t think I said that. What I said is that IF you decide to marry and you are AMOG enough to actually have a choice of 19 year old pretty girl with an 85 IQ, no work history, and N count of 2 OR a 29 year old woman with a bachelor’s in business administration, an IQ of 112, 5+ years of solid stable work history, and an N count of (say?) 9, if the goal is to avoid frivorce (but you MUST MARRY), marry the later and not the former?

    That is if you MUST MARRY (and only you know if you must)…

    …and you actually HAVE that choice to make (one OR the other)….

    ….and there are no N-count-zeroes to be had (not without you breaking the law anyway.)

    However, IBB, what you apparently will not allow yourself to understand is that some men do. Hence the Hobson’s choice you are urging is unattractive in and of itself. It is certainly no solution to the problem.

    Granted. I just think I might have found a bug in the code.

    If avoiding frivorce is more important than anything (and for some men, it is) then the only choice (regardless of her N count) is to never marry her. ALL our marriages (whether we like it or not, no matter the N count of our wives the day before we marry them) is marriage 2.0.

  247. Escoffier says:

    I am not sure you have found a bug in the code. You seem to assume, but never quite say, that older age at the time of first marriage is what drives down divorce risk. But it’s just as likely, if not more likely, that what actually drives down the rist are the traits which Nova and I have identified In the current climate, women with those traits tend to wait longer to get married. There is no essential reason why they must. In the culture didn’t encourage it, but encouraged the opposite, they might not.

    And, let’s be honest, part of the reason why they wait is because they want to–because they have been encouraged to see their 20s as “party time.” It’s natural to want to have fun, but wise for society to place limits on that natural impulse. We now decline to do so. That’s yet another concession to modernity you make without seemingly realizing it or wishing to acknowledge it.

    You’re trying to spin the higher N into a plus–a “postive good” to borrow from Calhoun–and it’s not working.

  248. Laura says:

    The chart that JDG posted did NOT appear to differentiate between pre-marital sex and adultery. Obviously, with adultery the marriage is already dead the moment the wife decides to commit adultery.

    Women with high premarital N counts are more likely to commit adultery than those who married without sexual experience, but non-virginity should not be lumped in with adultery in calculating divorce risk.
    .

  249. Escoffier,

    One more point…

    For IBB, apparently, this is simply unrealistic. And surely he is right that, in this climate, the man who holds out for a 23-y/o virgin college grad will have a gravely difficult time finding one.

    If I sit down at the poker table to play Texas Hold’em and I decide (before I play a hand) that I will ONLY bet (and bet all my chips) when I get dealt pocket Aces before the flop, most likely, I will be blinded off of all my chips before I play a hand. Its that rare for pocket rockets, just one in four-hundred-and-fourty-two shot or….

    6 / (51 * 52)

    If ONLY a 23-y/o virgin college grad will do, then good. Hold out for her. I hope you find her. I hope she says yes. I hope your odds are better than one in four-hundred-and-fourty-two.

  250. donalgraeme says:

    And surely he is right that, in this climate, the man who holds out for a 23-y/o virgin college grad will have a gravely difficult time finding one.

    Hence my previous comment. While Deti and I don’t see eye-to-eye on a lot, I find his pessimism well-placed. The Millennial generation is hosed, save those who come from families in very traditional and devout communities/circles. The rest are placing a game with the odds stacked against them tremendously.

    Regarding age of marriage, N-count and divorce rates, what I have seen (and others can no doubt back me up) is that women who marry later with higher degrees tend to have, on average, a lower N-count than a woman without that background. Now, its not objectively low, but subjectively lower than her less-educated peers. Unlike many other women their age, they are also more likely to go for longer periods of time without a boyfriend or male “companionship.” They also tend to have cats when younger, too.

  251. Escoffier,

    You seem to assume, but never quite say, that older age at the time of first marriage is what drives down divorce risk.

    I didn’t say that. I said a college education (going by Dalrock’s statistics) drives down frivorce risk. Go find your 23-y/o virgin college grad to maximize your odds at a lifelong marriage.

  252. donalgraeme says:

    @ IBB

    If I sit down at the poker table to play Texas Hold’em and I decide (before I play a hand) that I will ONLY bet (and bet all my chips) when I get dealt pocket Aces before the flop, most likely, I will be blinded off of all my chips before I play a hand. Its that rare for pocket rockets, just one in four-hundred-and-fourty-two shot or….

    6 / (51 * 52)

    If ONLY a 23-y/o virgin college grad will do, then good. Hold out for her. I hope you find her. I hope she says yes. I hope your odds are better than one in four-hundred-and-fourty-two.

    I think most of the men who are “holding out” like that do in fact know the odds. They are probably worse than 1/442 too. But they, and I suppose I should say we, as I include myself in this, accept those odds. To us, not marrying is a preferable alternative than to being forced to settle for what we consider, for one reason or another, is unacceptable. As long as a man understands this, and is willing to make that kind of gamble,then more power to him in my book.

  253. Escoffier says:

    IBB, yours is a counsel of surrender. Worse, actually, of self-sacrifice (not to say of self-immolation). Your are counselling men to accept sluthood forever. Perhaps it will take a generation or two of men saying “No thanks” to turn this around. I agree, that’s not realistic, for many reasons, not least the inability of most men to think this through.

    But for those few who have, and who actually do value female chastity, your counsel is worse than useless.

  254. Opus says:

    Since Laura asks, I will answer: the 10% of worthwhile men applied entirely to their sexual skills. She did not see herself as a slut – far from it – she thought she was a victim and explained that the high N (if 60 is indeed high – I have another ex who happily confessed aged twenty-seven to an N in excess of 300, – most of the N acquired in a two year period – ‘it is after all what all men do’ she explained to me, and as we know men and women are now equal and to deny that makes you a misogynist, sexist, chauvinist, bigot) was ratcheted-up in periods between stable relationships and that she only slept with random men when she was feeling insecure unloved and undesirable, or so she said.

    I must say (though I have not spoken to her for a long while now) her life – sadly – did seem to have turned into a self-inflicted train-wreck. So much for attending and reading hard science at a top New England Liberal Arts College.

  255. Escoffier,

    IBB, yours is a counsel of surrender. Worse, actually, of self-sacrifice (not to say of self-immolation). Your are counselling men to accept sluthood forever.

    I am not suggesting anyone here do anything that they don’t want to do. But they need to understand what is most important for them.

    If your goal is to avoid frivoce at all costs, my “counsel” would be never marry ANYONE. MGTOW is the ONLY way. Yes, even that 23-y/old virgin college grad can frivorce your @ss. You bet she can. All marriage is marriage 2.0 until they amend the Constitution of the United States outlawing all unilateral divorce at the state level.

    If your goal is to minimize the risk of frivoce, but you MUST marry (as you are “burning”, desire children, and jerking off to free pron just doesn’t do it for you anymore) my “counsel” would be marry a college grad with a SL-count (that is a student loan count) of $0. That might even be MORE important than her N-count.

    If you must get married and you don’t care about frivorce, my “counsel” would be to see a professional counselor as you are medically insane.

  256. Renee Harris says:

    I just double checked and in all of your previous comments you have presented yourself as Christian woman seeking a godly husband. Now you come with a list of indictments against Christianity.
    @ darlock I was being sarcastic. And I. Apologize. I do have a question: why feminism not called idolatry on this blog? Is that not what it is?

  257. JDG says:

    I wouldn’t disagree with that, but it seem that according to the numbers marrying someone who by “modern standards” is not a promiscuous women (but merely “slept with a few guys”) is also a high stakes gamble.

    Of course. I suppose I should have clarified considering the climate we live in.

    N > 1 = promiscuous. Modern standards are worthless in this matter.

  258. Escoffier says:

    You never have a single word to say to, or even about, young women and their indulgences. Does that topic even enter your head as a consideration?

    There’s probably not much that any of us in blog comments can do to affect the situation one way or the other in any case. Whatever we say, most men will still get married, owing to a combination of ignorance, wishfull thinking (“That won’t happen to me!”) and burning desire. But, to the extent that you encourage them to do so, while saying absolutely nothing to the girls about getting their own desires under control, you are part of the problem.

  259. Escoffier,

    You never have a single word to say to, or even about, young women and their indulgences.

    Sure I do. Here let me repeat these words for you loud and clear:

    Women have NO moral agency.

    There you go. From the moment Eve told the Lord our God to go f-ck himself because damn-it she WOULD be eating that apple, women have doing whatever the hell the wanted to do from time in all memory. You are dreaming if you think it is in a woman’s nature to respect any kind of authority. The authority she respects is her ‘gina and butt tingles. And it is feminism that says this one and only respect of theirs is A-Okay!

    I love women. I just hate feminism.

    There’s probably not much that any of us in blog comments can do to affect the situation one way or the other in any case.

    No that’s not true. There are people here who say you need to use GAME. You use GAME to use feminism to work for you because with GAME you get her ‘gina and ‘butt to tingle FOR YOU. I’ve never said use GAME, but it has been said.

    Whatever we say, most men will still get married, owing to a combination of ignorance, wishfull thinking (“That won’t happen to me!”) and burning desire. But, to the extent that you encourage them to do so, while saying absolutely nothing to the girls about getting their own desires under control, you are part of the problem.

    I’m not the enemy Escoffier.

  260. BradA says:

    Definitely OT, but seems relevant to the blog:

  261. Escoffier says:

    “Women have no moral agency” is false–contradicted equally by scripture, philosophy, observation and experience. You assert it all the time without support or argument. It’s your “get out of contradiction free” card.

    I agree you are not an enemy, at least I don’t think you are, but I couldn’t prove that either way. Anyway, I didn’t say you were an enemy. I said you are part of the problem. You excuse women’s wantonness and exhort men to foolishness. You may not do so out of malicious intent, but doing so is still to be part of the problem.

  262. JDG says:

    If I’m reading your numbers right, a N=4 increases the divorce risk by 60% over a N=0. A N=15 increases it by 70% over a N=0. While 70 is larger than 60, the difference between 0 and 60 (60) is larger than the difference between 60 and 70 (10). It’s the first few N’s that shot the divorce rate through the roof. The latter ones increased the already high rate.

    Yes and no (unless I misunderstood you). I took your point to mean that your average Joe may be less at risk marrying a woman with N = 15 than a woman with N = 4. My response is that 70% at risk is worse than 60% and 80% is worse than 70%, and that even at a 27% percent failed first marriages rate (as shown in the graph below where N = 3 seems to have the highest incidents of failure), it would still be too high.

    Even if the guy didn’t end up in the family court grinder he is highly more likely (70% for N = 15) to be living in an at risk nightmare.

  263. Pingback: Let us be trapped in marriage. | Dark Brightness

  264. BradA says:

    IBB, you ignored my point.

    The question is often raised if college makes people successful (outside this discussion). Some argue it does, but I am leaning more and more to the idea that the successful go to college (on the whole, exceptions abound now) and pushing too many to go to college is not necessarily productive.

    That is the context of my question of whether those with a degree are less likely to divorce. Is the degree the cause or is it other factors? I suspect the latter.

    You do completely ignore the cost of even a single sexual partner outside of marriage (or even inside a past marriage for that matter). Dalrock’s numbers would need to be a lot more comprehensive to prove your point:

    – How many in that category married at all?
    – Why not if not?
    – What other factors played a role in those individuals?
    – When did they get their degree? Immediately after high school? Later in life?
    – What kind of job did they work after they earned their degree?
    – What kind of general life experience did they have?
    – How much were they into the party scene? (All women are not, contrary to the claim.)

    I am sure I could generate other questions, but this would be a good start.

    A women can be young and stupid, but that does not mean all are young and stupid. Men can be too, especially at that time. The lack of “for life” really meaning that today likely plays a huge role. How much generational difference is factored into the numbers?

    It is not good for a man to spend his prime years burning with passion with no legitimate outlet. The risk is there, but a godly man will find a way to at least try.

    Your poker analogy falls short as it assumes a man would be stupid enough to keep paying the ante to be in games until he hit the hand that goes against the odds. Most would chose to use their time for something far more productive, not work within a flawed system (flawed in the sense that it is unlikely to reach their goals). Play a different game! Quit advocating others merely do the best they can under the existing game.

    You moral agency argument has huge holes, but that has been beat up plenty before and likely will again. It is just an excuse to let women act foolish. Sin is sin and should be confronted as such. True transformation and heart change is the answer, not claiming predestination in the sexual area.

  265. BradA says:

    Escoffer,

    I agree you are not an enemy, at least I don’t think you are, but I couldn’t prove that either way. Anyway, I didn’t say you were an enemy. I said you are part of the problem. You excuse women’s wantonness and exhort men to foolishness. You may not do so out of malicious intent, but doing so is still to be part of the problem.

    I would tend to feel that his reasoning that lacks holding women accountable is as much to blame as any message someone like Stanton preaches. Both are damnable heresies and should be opposed.

    I also find his blind faith in “conservatism” to be quaint but dangerous. I no longer want to conserve any of this mess, even things I thought worthwhile in the past. We have had a horrid foundation for many years and we need a drastic overall that will not easily come. I will continue to do the best I can within the system and help others along the way, but I no longer see much to conserve.

    The political figures he lauds just want to ruin things a bit slower, when viewed in their entirety. We won’t have the transformation we need with a single political party that holds two names.

  266. JDG says:

    Women with high premarital N counts are more likely to commit adultery than those who married without sexual experience…

    They are also more likely to nuke their marriages.

    , but non-virginity should not be lumped in with adultery in calculating divorce risk.

    It absolutely should be considered when factoring divorce risk to any man considering marriage. Higher N means more problems, and no matter how you sparse the data, it means a higher divorce risk than N = 0.

  267. Spacetraveller says:

    Gunner Q,

    Well, I personally like your 3-point plan to improve the situation.

    Number 1 may be out of our hands. If homosexual unions are called ‘marriage’ by the law, then ‘sodomy cannot be included’ is unenforceable!
    But in all seriousness, I take your point very seriously, because *language* is very important here. If two men can be in a ‘marriage’ same as a man and a woman, the ‘sacredness of marriage’ factor is lost, right there.

    I agee with you about financial dependence on husband which goes very closely hand in hand with husband as head of home.

    I noticed a big difference personally, in the way I viewed my husband the minute I stopped working (at his request) and became financially dependent on him.
    I now understand why it is impossible to be a truly submissive wife if a wife has an independent source of income for the entirety of a marriage. (Externuating circumstances are a separate issue, eg. if a woman needs to work because husband is injured, ill, etc.).

    So yes, I am with you…
    I am still observing how this works. Remember I have only been married a year and a half. I don’t know much, but what I see so far is that things work much better when there are no divided interests. I think my attention (which is currently fully on husband/home) would be diverted if I were working at my job at the same capacity as I was before marriage. This is unquestionably true.

    For sure, it is not easy to achieve Numbers 2 and 3 without appealing to the ‘herd’. Being financially dependent on a husband is simply not ‘fashionable’ especially for someone like me who had a well-established career before marriage. I shared here the reactions of people a generation above me, who were shocked at my decision to stay at home and be a ‘hausfrau’.
    I think it was you who speculatd that I had violated latent sensibilities of theirs that they may not even be aware of?
    Violà, I think you are so right. And this will be the biggest stumbling block in enacting your good solution. People just cannot fathom the idea of a husband only-income family anymore, for various reasons, the main reason being it’s just not ‘fashionable’. (Another is the economic crisis, sure, which I understand).
    But if large numbers of families can successfully negotiate this step, then I think it could be very good for all concerned.

    I also have a solution for IBB’s ‘paradox’.
    By all means a woman should get an education whatever that may be – hey, it may be a ‘finishing school’ type education or a college degree. Whatever it is, no matter, as long as her mind is occupied somehow, whilst she is single, and she learns a little about life in the process, and (importantly!) she is not left idle – the devil finds work for idle hands…
    But…she must keep chaste whilst doing so.
    Is this so hard for a woman??

    (There are men who are still (voluntarily) virgins well into their thirties, and sometimes forties. I find it astonishing that we simply cannot accept that a woman – who has one-twentieth the level of testosterone running through her veins compared to a man – cannot keep chaste and must be married off at 18 lest she ‘fall’).

    Is this a variation on the ‘women have no moral agency’ argument?

    If so, it is a flawed argument. If a woman is quickly married off at 18 just so she avoids temptation, (and is not taught to *manage* the temptation), all that is going to happen is that she will ‘fall’ at a later age, when there is more at stake – marriage, children, everything in her life.

    Let’s not dance around the bush. The correct way is for a woman to be chaste as a single woman (i.e. celibate) however long this singleness lasts and as a married woman (in which case, ‘faithful for life’, which is a form of ‘chastity’).

    Trying to circumnavigate the crux of the matter (morality) by a hasty ‘quick fix’ is bound to fail. Instead of marrying her off at 18, make her demonstrate that she is ready for marriage by staying chaste for at least two more years (but supervise her, lol).

    Is this too much to ask of your daughter?? Am I being too ‘catholic’ here??
    If this was possible when Laura was a girl in the 70s, why can’t we recreate this in 2015?
    Why are we so afraid to ‘call a spade a spade’?
    Why have we become so spineless, as a society?
    (Present company excepted. :-))

  268. Brad,

    I only made the poker analogy to explain how difficult it is to play the I-want-to-get-married-but-I’m-holding-out-for-23-year-old-college-educated-virgin game. Play it or don’t play it, I don’t care.

    You moral agency argument has huge holes, but that has been beat up plenty before and likely will again. It is just an excuse to let women act foolish. Sin is sin and should be confronted as such. True transformation and heart change is the answer, not claiming predestination in the sexual area.

    It is not an excuse to act foolish. It is merely an explaination. I don’t think it is okay that women rebel, I just understand that they do it and I can’t control it. You are right Brad, sin is sin and should be confronted as such and you can confront a woman with her sin. Likely her response will be to tell you to go f-ck yourself as you are NOT a person in authority to “judge” her (infact, she’s likely to find someone who is in authority OVER YOU and have that person exact her wrath at your confrontation), but feel free to confront her. People generally do NOT change (never really have) because in order TO change you either have to WANT to change (and I haven’t really known a whole lot of people who did that, personally) OR someone in authority over your life/career/future/wealth threatens you with an ultimatum and you have no choice. This concept of not changing is doubly true for women.

    I would tend to feel that his reasoning that lacks holding women accountable is as much to blame as any message someone like Stanton preaches. Both are damnable heresies and should be opposed.

    Stanton is a married man who must be PAID for his counsel (unlike any of us here.) So of course, he is going to say to men whatever is going to make his wife happy because she has threat point.

  269. new anon says:

    @JDG said: “I took your point to mean that your average Joe may be less at risk marrying a woman with N = 15 than a woman with N = 4.”

    No, that’s not what I meant.

    I meant that marrying a N=15 is MARGINALLY more risky than marrying a N=4.

    Being shot in the heart 15 times is MARGINALLY more worse than being shot in the heart 4 times (because 4 times is enough to be fatal in almost every instance.)

    Sleeping 15 hours a day is MARGINALLY more restful than sleeping 7 hours a day (because 7 hours is enough for most people to rest).

    Reminding someone of an appointment 15 times is MARGINALLY more effective than reminding them 4 times (because 4 times is enough to make most people remember something).

    A N=15 count is worse than N=4–marginally worse–because most of the damage is done by the N=4. This doesn’t mean N=15 is better.

  270. IBB, yours is a counsel of surrender.

    Guys….

    IBB is writing for an over-educated carousel rider who wants/wanted to be able to hop off the carousel at 29-ish and bag an alpha provider. Whether IBB is the girl, or one of her parents, or his invisible friend, I don’t know and don’t care. (For the sake of pronoun sanity, I’ll assume he’s her father.) Likewise, I don’t know whether the girl is 22 and looking forward to the carousel, or 32 and starting to fear it’s too late. Doesn’t matter.

    But that’s where IBB is coming from — where he’s always been coming from during his tenure here: how to get that girl married to a great guy when she’s ready. He’s terrified that she has lost (or will lose) her chance if too many men get clued in. So he can go with us and contribute on many red pill points, but he’s always going to stop short of anything that “denies” that girl a husband, and he will always look for ways to get back on his “broken-in girls are better” hobby-horse. That’s his mission. He will even go so far as to portray her as little more than an animal, with no moral control over herself, if that’s what it takes to remove the responsibility for her actions so she can claim she didn’t choose to be a slut.

    So yes, he wants us (men) to surrender, so she can get married. This will not change. We’ve shot down his pet claims numerous times, but he just keeps coming back and asserting them now and then as if they’re settled. Don’t waste your time.

  271. JDG says:

    new anon – Okay I get it. I can be a little slow sometimes, but I’m not a complete dunce. One example was enough. Only I have to quibble over one more thing. 8 hours sleep is WAY more restful than 7 hours for this ol’ pot of clay.

  272. Laura says:

    JDG — I agree that high N count means high divorce risk. I was just commenting on the fact that the chart does not distinguish between fornication and adultery. Lots of men are willing to deal with an N > 0, but adultery by the female is pretty much a guaranteed divorce. Perhaps not immediately if the children are little, but I don’t think that most men can or should forgive it.

    Opus — My guess is that the second woman you mentioned came of age in the late 80s or later. The attitude that women were “entitled” to the same amount of premarital sex as men simply didn’t exist in my world in the 70s, even among the “fallen women” of my acquaintance. But by the late 80s/early 90s, that attitude was not at all unusual. All of my friends definitely wanted children, and even if they had not considered premarital sex to be a sin, they would have been afraid of getting a venereal disease, as well as afraid of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy. Also, nobody in my generation would have trusted the university health service not to reveal to angry/curious parents what services had been provided.

  273. Spacetraveller,

    I also have a solution for IBB’s ‘paradox’.
    By all means a woman should get an education whatever that may be – hey, it may be a ‘finishing school’ type education or a college degree. Whatever it is, no matter, as long as her mind is occupied somehow, whilst she is single, and she learns a little about life in the process, and (importantly!) she is not left idle – the devil finds work for idle hands…
    But…she must keep chaste whilst doing so.
    Is this so hard for a woman??

    All sorts of social parameters used to exist because (yes indeed) it most certainly was hard for a woman to remain chaste.

    Why were chastity belts created? All girls schools? All girls dormitories at Co-Ed institutions? Why was it common for unmarried girls never to be unchaparoned? The majority of these social parameters and institutions were created not just for culture but also because they served some purpose, that being, to prevent a girl from ever being in any possible situation where she could be “ruined”, where she might possibly give away her “virtue.” Society simply denied her the right to give it away by preventing her from being in any situation where she could! Feminism has largely removed all these parameters and well, you know where we are today.

    In places where there is no feminism (as they can’t afford the cost of feminism), we have this barbaric/horrid practice that exists in sub-Saharan Africa where infant girls have their clitorous cut off from their body. Disgusting! But there is a purpose. The purpose being that she (as a growing girl or young woman) will have sexual “desire” for a man should her clitorous remain. In effect, this is a cheap chastity belt given to all girls by removing all sexual pleasure from their bodies in an effort to help them remain “chaste.”

    That is where we are. Horrible isn’t it?

  274. Boxer says:

    Dear IBB:

    Sure I do. Here let me repeat these words for you loud and clear: Women have NO moral agency.

    Agency is well defined in philosophy. It means a directedness, implying the ability to choose from a series of candidates (whether those be things to eat, or places to visit, or things to do).

    Are you saying that women lack the ability to choose? If so, what is compelling them to act when they appear to choose?

    Or are you saying that women possess the ability to make choices, but they have no innate sense of right and wrong? (I assume that’s the “moral” qualifier that’s tacked on the front).

    Or is it something else?

    I’d honestly like to understand this argument we all keep having, and the first step toward that end is to understand what we’re all meaning when we bandy about the phrase, so we can (finally) quit talking past one another.

    Best, Boxer

  275. Pingback: The only real man in the room. | Dalrock

  276. Boxer,

    Are you saying that women lack the ability to choose? If so, what is compelling them to act when they appear to choose?

    Or are you saying that women possess the ability to make choices, but they have no innate sense of right and wrong? (I assume that’s the “moral” qualifier that’s tacked on the front).

    Or is it something else?

    Men do not always do what is in the best interest of men. Men typically put the needs of their wives and their children, first. Hence, men voted for conscription (ie: their own possible death of which they have no control.) Women and children to the lifeboats first, men stay on the Titanic and drown. That is right, and just, and MORAL. And it explains the patriarchy.

    Women do not have this parameter, God did not give it to them. Women typically put their own personal needs ahead of those whom they love. What is in HER best interest, the hell with her husband and children (which explains why women will frivorce her husband even if her children tell her not to.) That is wrong, and unjust, and AMORAL. But it does explain feminism.

    These differences between men and women go back to Eve. I can’t control women. God won’t control them, gave them “free will” just like men. That said, God commanded them to obey their husbands, thus establishing the patriarchy. That was all that He could do to control them. Feminism took that control away by destroying the patriarchy. So now, we’re f-cked.

  277. Boxer says:

    Dear IBB:

    Women do not have this parameter, God did not give it to them. Women typically put their own personal needs ahead of those whom they love. What is in HER best interest, the hell with her husband and children (which explains why women will frivorce her husband even if her children tell her not to.) That is wrong, and unjust, and AMORAL. But it does explain feminism.

    What I think you are saying is that you believe that women lack the ability to choose between right and wrong. Am I correct in this interpretation?

    Boxer

  278. JF says:

    James Rogers said:
    “I just won’t sit and listen to these people (these pastors). Men who married church virgins at age 20 and then sit there in a nice secure church job bashing men to marry fat single mom’s.”

    JF replies:
    This EXACTLY describes the personal lives and marriages of BOTH of the hireling shepherds who Stantonized me. Bingo. These two old trad-cons who live these insular bygone lives, they married the church virgin at age 20 at a time when there still was such a thing, and now they sit parasitically in a nice, secure, Church Incorporated job with a nice, secure, rectory, bashing men to exhonerate all the rebelliousness of their wives because these idiotic old trad-con hireling shepherds have moronically incorporated all of the “wisdom” of their horrid “Christian radio” station which has addled their brains into blaming men for everything, women for nothing. It is truly shocking when you encounter such a radically communo-feminist ideology emanating from the thick skulls of old, gray-haired, self-proclaimedly “conservative” men.

  279. Renee Harris says:

    Darlock – if women can’t be saved my heart on it. Well I do apologize for my cool words and my bitchy attitude. If I have no moral agency then how can I be held accountable to God ? I believe you think that women do sin more than men and that’s true but if the blood of Christ not able to clean us or no ?
    @jdm I was always told a i’m not smart enough to be a feminist, By my feminist prof. I am ashamed of myself and what I wrote. What kind of sandwich do you want?

  280. Novaseeker says:

    It is not an excuse to act foolish. It is merely an explaination. I don’t think it is okay that women rebel, I just understand that they do it and I can’t control it. You are right Brad, sin is sin and should be confronted as such and you can confront a woman with her sin.

    If they lack moral agency, they can’t sin.

    Moral agency, as a concept, means the ability to discern right from wrong and choose on that basis (either way) — that is the ability to grasp moral rules and make choices to obey or not.

    A person who does not have that cannot sin, because sin is not possible where someone cannot tell right from wrong and can’t make that decision. Case in point — animals. Animals do not sin because they lack moral agency. They act on instinct, not moral judgments (including the judgment to rebel, which is itself a moral judgment).

    I think what you are really saying is that women are very tempted to rebel. Yes, they are. But they know they are rebelling, which makes it a moral issue. God certainly saw it as a moral issue in Genesis, and didn’t spare Eve judgment for her sin. If she had no ability to not rebel, if God had not even given her the capacity to choose anything other than to rebel against his wishes, then punishing her would make God a whimsical monster — one who creates an entire sex to disobey him and then punishes them for their disobedience. This is not what the church has ever taught about women, sin, moral agency or God, to be honest. I’m sure there are some Christians who hold to views like that, but there are some Christians who hold to all kinds of crazy views that are not what the Church has ever taught.

    TL;DR: It’s fine to say that women have a particular temptation to rebel. That is suggested strongly from Genesis and is backed up in the NT and subsequent Church teachings admonishing women to submit (precisely because this is a core temptation of women). Women, however, despite that temptation, still have moral agency to choose what to do — they can choose to rebel, or they can choose to obey. It is a choice, and a moral one, because they have the same moral agency men do.

  281. Norvis says:

    It seems strange that if men ogle women we’re creeps, yet if a woman chooses dress differently as a means of helping men avoid sexual temptation she gets attacked by other women. Feminist logic remains a mystery.
    http://veronicapartridge.com/why-i-chose-to-no-longer-wear-leggings/

  282. Striver says:

    Women and moral agency?

    I have a question as to how often they are referred to with moral agency in the Bible. We can infer that Bathsheba knew what she was doing, but does Nathan/The Bible/God really call her out the way David was called out? I don’t remember that she was.

    Is there a woman in the Bible that is really portrayed in the same warts and all method as the men are? Jezebel wasn’t Jewish, as I recall. Where the woman is the lead character, does some good stuff, then sins and is called into account?

    I guess I can think of a few. Solomon dividing the baby. Some of the Jesus stories. If you’re trying to use the Bible to counter feminism, is there something in there involving women that is going to resonate? Or are they just going to complain that it’s a book written by men for men?

  283. JDG says:

    Renee – @jdm I was always told a i’m not smart enough to be a feminist, By my feminist prof. I am ashamed of myself and what I wrote. What kind of sandwich do you want?

    All is forgiven. One of these would be just great:

  284. Dalrock says:

    @Striver

    Is there a woman in the Bible that is really portrayed in the same warts and all method as the men are? Jezebel wasn’t Jewish, as I recall. Where the woman is the lead character, does some good stuff, then sins and is called into account?

    Sarah is busted by God for denying she laughed when God said she would bear a child (Gen 18:10-15). She is also held up as an example for Christian women to emulate in 1 Pet 3.

  285. Dalrock says:

    @Renee Harris

    Darlock – if women can’t be saved my heart on it. Well I do apologize for my cool words and my bitchy attitude. If I have no moral agency then how can I be held accountable to God ? I believe you think that women do sin more than men and that’s true but if the blood of Christ not able to clean us or no ?

    Either you are very bad at communicating, or you are a troll. I’m still trying to decide.

    Either way, you appear to have me confused with IBB. He is the one making the absurd claim that women have no agency. Of course women’s sins are cleaned by the blood of Christ. This post isn’t about women being fallen (like men), it is about men turning a blind eye when they have an obligation to lead. This post isn’t calling out women, it is calling out men.

  286. Isa says:

    @Striver Bathsheba lost her child. That’s about the worst punishment in the bible for women, so I would say yes, she was quite called out.

    I would say Esther is also a pretty good example. She was initially inclined not to help save the Jews, called out by saying she herself would die, then aided her uncle.

    New testament, lets go with the woman at the well and the prostitute in Luke 7.

    The question really is, who are the gatekeepers (enforcers) of morality not who should be preaching ( biblically clearly men). I would say women are gatekeepers, merely because women are more likely to listen to other women and as for men, only listen to men they want to impress. So, if there is a strong matriarch to keep the young women in line, things go well. If not… see the west. Baby mamas left and right and a bunch of women so bothered by what they and 99% of men don’t have they spend all their time making a nuisance of themselves.

    Oddly enough, in Arabic countries it’s largely social pressure from other women to veil past the minimally accepted level. A chastity contest if you would. So if women are to compete with each other, far better to compete in virtue contests that @$%% sucking contests.

  287. jonadabtherechabite says:

    @Striver

    The book of proverbs is chock full of warnings against the harlot whose steps lead to hell, bitch wives who are dripping faucets, wives that make it better to sleep on the roof; even the intro to prov 31 king Lemuel’s mother warns not to give strength to women and that a woman of character who can find.

  288. JDG says:

    @Striver

    Is there a woman in the Bible that is really portrayed in the same warts and all method as the men are? Jezebel wasn’t Jewish, as I recall. Where the woman is the lead character, does some good stuff, then sins and is called into account?

    Sarah is busted by God for denying she laughed when God said she would bear a child (Gen 18:10-15). She is also held up as an example for Christian women to emulate in 1 Pet 3.

    There is also Miriam. She was credited with hiding Moses in by the river to save him from the Pharaoh’s decree (Exod 2:1-10) and with singing a victory song after Pharaoh’s crushing defeat at the Red Sea (Exod 15:20-21). Then she is rebuked along with Aaron for disrespecting Moses (Num 12:1-16).

  289. JF says:

    Striver, anybody who would write the slapdash phrase “some of the Jesus stories” is pretty much tipping their hand and revealing themselves to not be very interested nor knowledgable in the Scriptures. But, if I was going to ignore the earmarks and pretend to assume that you have indeed studied the Scriptures, then I would pose the very serious question: Which Bible are you reading?
    Here. I’ll start you off with one. You go have fun with it, if you are diligent enough:
    Numbers 12.
    Now you go find some more.
    I can.
    If you can’t, then try harder. Or just try.

  290. Gunner Q says:

    Sounds like you’re on the right track, Spacetraveller. It takes real faith these days for a woman to deliberately reject all her “independence” options and fully trust her man. It’s similar to what men like Donal do when they constantly push away all the porn & one-night stands, insisting upon God’s will no matter the cost. That kind of voluntary submission is something even God cannot create for Himself; He must be given it freely.

    @Striver,

    Romans 3:23 and 1 John 1:10 for the quick win. Another example is Jezebel, Ahab’s wife. Why did God punish her if she wasn’t responsible for her actions? Ditto Saphira, Ananias’ wife in Acts.

  291. PuffyJacket says:

    Why were chastity belts created? All girls schools? All girls dormitories at Co-Ed institutions? Why was it common for unmarried girls never to be unchaparoned? The majority of these social parameters and institutions were created not just for culture but also because they served some purpose, that being, to prevent a girl from ever being in any possible situation where she could be “ruined”, where she might possibly give away her “virtue”.

    Not sure what you’re getting at here, but I somewhat agree. What you are demonstrating is that women are the morally “weaker” sex. We know this from Genesis. Feminists are repulsed by the so-called “sexism” of that story, but that’s irrelevant. The story is arguably sexist, yet it’s also fundamentally true.

    However, that’s not the same thing as saying that women have “no moral agency” whatsoever (i.e. inability to discern right from wrong). They are not amoeba aimlessly floating around with zero comprehension of the consequences of their actions. They are simply the morally weaker sex. The same way children are morally weaker than adults.

    This is why patriarchal societies are more likely to be fair and just, and matriarchal societies are more likely to be total shitholes full of stupid apes killing each other over food. As society has moved in the direction of becoming more feminist over the past 30 years or so, it has also moved in the direction of becoming less fair and just. This is by no means a coincidence. It’s harsh, but true.

  292. PuffyJacket says:

    Also to add to my point, the reason women are the morally “weaker” sex is because they are also the biologically “stronger” (i.e. more “valuable”) sex. For women, a strongly functioning moral compass gets in the way of pursuing an Alpha fux Beta bux strategy. The same way it gets in the way of a biologically valuable Alpha trying to wildly spread his seed. It’s not a mere coincidence that Alphas are more likely to possess “dark triad” personality types.

  293. Pingback: The Real Sexism in Modern Christianity | Something Fishy

  294. Striver says:

    “Also to add to my point, the reason women are the morally “weaker” sex is because they are also the biologically “stronger” (i.e. more “valuable”) sex. For women, a strongly functioning moral compass gets in the way of pursuing an Alpha fux Beta bux strategy. The same way it gets in the way of a biologically valuable Alpha trying to wildly spread his seed. It’s not a mere coincidence that Alphas are more likely to possess “dark triad” personality types.”

    Women just have less incentive to be moral. Unless they are barren their genes are going to be passed on I guess in a peaceful society they also get to choose which of the males get to pass their genes on.

    Men don’t always get to pass their genes on and have to compete. They compensate with violence, killing other men and raping women. Even the alphas find the violence unproductive, so a more peaceful society is better. Men are the ones that need the morals, the society. Women will always be there. To even things out between the genders, women are usually required to give up some of their ability to choose. So yeah, societies are mostly patriarchal and women are “forced” to mate with men in a distribution pattern the women find sub-optimal.

  295. donalgraeme says:

    @ Spacetraveller

    I also have a solution for IBB’s ‘paradox’.
    By all means a woman should get an education whatever that may be – hey, it may be a ‘finishing school’ type education or a college degree. Whatever it is, no matter, as long as her mind is occupied somehow, whilst she is single, and she learns a little about life in the process, and (importantly!) she is not left idle – the devil finds work for idle hands…
    But…she must keep chaste whilst doing so.
    Is this so hard for a woman??

    The answer would seem to be yes.

    (There are men who are still (voluntarily) virgins well into their thirties, and sometimes forties. I find it astonishing that we simply cannot accept that a woman – who has one-twentieth the level of testosterone running through her veins compared to a man – cannot keep chaste and must be married off at 18 lest she ‘fall’).

    The thing is, you cannot simply compare male and female sex drives and be done with it. There is much more at stake. And I say that as one of those men. Or at least, a man heading in that direction.

    Keep in mind that most men do not receive the kind of sexual attention that women receive, even average women. Only the highest value men receive anything near that amount. While there are some female “predators” out there, they are a small minority (although mayhaps not as small as once thought). The temptation a man might experience who is choosing to be chaste will be, in most cases, quite different from the temptation a woman faces. She will have men making moves on her, especially if she is on the right side of the attraction curve. Probably a lot of men, and perhaps even good ones. Men, on the other hand, rarely if ever have that kind of direct attention. Furthermore, you discount the natural female desire to submit (yes, there is a desire to rebel there too, but part of them wants to submit… to the right kind of man- at least sexually, anyways).

    If so, it is a flawed argument. If a woman is quickly married off at 18 just so she avoids temptation, (and is not taught to *manage* the temptation), all that is going to happen is that she will ‘fall’ at a later age, when there is more at stake – marriage, children, everything in her life.

    Let’s not dance around the bush. The correct way is for a woman to be chaste as a single woman (i.e. celibate) however long this singleness lasts and as a married woman (in which case, ‘faithful for life’, which is a form of ‘chastity’).

    Trying to circumnavigate the crux of the matter (morality) by a hasty ‘quick fix’ is bound to fail. Instead of marrying her off at 18, make her demonstrate that she is ready for marriage by staying chaste for at least two more years (but supervise her, lol).

    No offense, but it is your argument which is flawed. First off, no one is suggesting that you marry off a young woman and not teach her to manage temptation. Bit of a strawman.

    Second, you are making a mistake that the purity movement often makes. They equate suppression of sexuality before marriage with faithfulness during marriage. In the former situation you are basically telling a woman to suppress her sex drive completely. In the latter, you are telling her to embrace it, but to reserve it for her husband. Those are two different things. The common link is moral discipline, but that can be taught, encouraged and built up by any number of things. Keep in mind that women have a sex drive just as men do. It may not be as strong, but its there. And that drive will lead them to find a way to sate that impulse. Finding them a licit and proper outlet for that drive is a perfectly acceptable long term solution. And dare I say it, a better long term solution.

    Waiting two years does what, exactly? Demonstrate that she can suppress her sex drive? Yes, it involves moral discipline and such, but that is what you are actually asking for. The temptation to seek sex is not the same as a desire to seek out additional sex partners. Keep in mind that the women who sleeps with a man for a while could potentially be either. Only if she merely has a high drive and failed to resist temptation she might stick with that man if married, whereas the “roaming woman” wouldn’t. There is no way to tell at first.

    Also, keep in mind that by encouraging a woman to suppress her sex drive for a while, then you are setting her up, and her husband up, for trouble inside the marriage. She will have a history of resisting sex- dumping that overnight (literally, on her marriage night) is going to cause problems. The older the woman, and the longer she has been celibate, the more problem this will likely cause.

    Is this too much to ask of your daughter?? Am I being too ‘catholic’ here??
    If this was possible when Laura was a girl in the 70s, why can’t we recreate this in 2015?
    Why are we so afraid to ‘call a spade a spade’?
    Why have we become so spineless, as a society?
    (Present company excepted. :-))

    I mean no disrespect to Laura, but I strongly suspect that many of her female peers were not as “pure” as they let on. They just didn’t let it on. That isn’t to say all were like that, of course. Also, keep in mind that the recent development (within the last century, and especially the last half-century) of sending young women away from their families and centers of moral support, to get an education or job, is a relatively recent development. At least, recent in how it is encourage and promoted. It did happen in the past, to young women who were often forced by circumstances to do so- and the results usually didn’t lend themselves to chastity.

    All of which is to say that simply teaching women to, and pardon the crudeness, shut their legs, is no more effective than telling kids “just say no” to drugs, has proven.

  296. KP says:

    While there are some female “predators” out there, they are a small minority (although mayhaps not as small as once thought). [emphasis added]”

    Indeed, and it seems they all teach in secondary school.

  297. Laura says:

    Donal: I agree that the unchaste in my day had a huge incentive to cover up indiscretions, because a large percentage of young men at that time were looking for a bride where N = 0. But there was a sea change in sexual attitudes between 1975 and 1985. The number of women willing to have sex without first having an on-going relationship expected to lead to marriage simply skyrocketed.

    When I was 21 or 22 (1980/81?), and working as a flight attendant, I realized that another flight attendant was expecting an out-of-wedlock child. As soon as the company management learned of her condition, she would have been forced to take a leave of absence without pay, and would have had no way of supporting herself. I knew her only slightly, but I did ask her if the baby’s father was willing to get married. I was stunned when she told me that he WANTED to get married, but she wasn’t sure if she really wanted to marry him or not . . . . In my middle-class Christian worldview, it was way too late to be picky — she needed to marry him before the situation got any more embarrassing. And if she didn’t want to be married to him, why did she sleep with him??? But other flight attendants were much more supportive of her in terms of taking her time to make her decision, etc.

    And the sexual revolution only got crazier as time went by. By the mid 1980s, even Southern & Midwestern girls from fairly conservative two-parent middle-class homes were behaving very badly once they went off to college, and were rather open about it, although not as open as the young girls these days. There is nothing new under the sun, and pre-marital sex has always been with us, but in the mid 1970s, it really was a different world.

  298. Spacetraveller says:

    *sigh*

    This will be a long post…even for me.

    @ IBB,

    Yes, I would very much agree with you that all the examples you give (chastity belts, etc.) are indeed necessary to aid a young woman keep her chastity. I never suggested that these measures be done away with. By all means keep her under supervision. This is good. Once she is used to being supervised in this way, she will one day supervise herself. Have you not heard people say, ‘I heard my father’s voice in my head telling me to…’
    If Pa or Ma has been harping on at you all your life not to do X, or to do Y, one day when Pa or Ma is not there anymore, and you want not to do X, or you want to do Y, you will hear Pa or Ma’s voice in your head. Their voice becomes your conscience.

    From what Boxer and Puffy Jacket have been able to tease out from you, (painfully and slowly, lol), it seems like you may indeed be persuaded that women DO have moral agency, albeit a weaker one than men.
    Is this an acceptable ‘halfway point’ for you? That the moral agency of women may be weaker than men’s, but it is not ZERO?

    See, with your argument, a woman can do whatever she wants. Surely that’s what has led to the events repeatedly described in this blog.
    Men like Stanton and others keep harping on at men because they want to indeed turn a blind eye to the sins of the other half of the equation. We all know that men sin. I know that, you know that. But it is not helpful to deny the sins of women. Men, children, and indeed women themselves suffer as a result. We need not be too harsh when talking about the sins of women, but that doesn’t mean it must never be discussed at all. The problem we face now is that many women don’t even know when they are sinning because no-one is ready to point it out to them. This is bad.

    Gunner Q,

    Yes it is very hard to be ‘swimming upstream’ seemingly alone (although I know there must be thousands of others trying to do what my husband and I are trying to do and are similarly isolated, so I don’t know about them – yet, but I am sure we will seek each other out, somehow, and give mutual support).

    But anyway, that’s OK, who says life must be a popularity contest?

    I have, by the way found a parallel between what I am going through and what some men are going through. It is the same principle, but with differences that reflect our respective genders:

    So I ‘complain’ (I don’t really, of course – more like ‘report’) that outwardly traditional people are irked that I live their exact same traditional lifetsyle, a generation after them.

    JF and James Rogers have a similar problem!

    James Rogers said:
    “I just won’t sit and listen to these people (these pastors). Men who married church virgins at age 20 and then sit there in a nice secure church job bashing men to marry fat single mom’s.”

    JF replies:
    This EXACTLY describes the personal lives and marriages of BOTH of the hireling shepherds who Stantonized me. Bingo. These two old trad-cons who live these insular bygone lives, they married the church virgin at age 20 at a time when there still was such a thing, and now they sit parasitically in a nice, secure, Church Incorporated job with a nice, secure, rectory, bashing men to exhonerate all the rebelliousness of their wives because these idiotic old trad-con hireling shepherds have moronically incorporated all of the “wisdom” of their horrid “Christian radio” station which has addled their brains into blaming men for everything, women for nothing. It is truly shocking when you encounter such a radically communo-feminist ideology emanating from the thick skulls of old, gray-haired, self-proclaimedly “conservative” men.

    These men married women who were their ideal, but are now advising men a generation down the line to go for the non-ideal.
    See? Similar to my situation. One rule for us, one rule for you.

    Whilst Deti’s advice to said young men is unbelievably depressing (‘just forget it!’), (and I am reassured somewhat by Dalrock’s assertion that many young men – at least the christian ones – just won’t heed this advice. Thank God for that! I say. It seems ‘just forget it!’ is asking someone to give up a great deal, *too* much in fact – I STILL prefer this to ‘man up and marry the ‘high N’ woman, because we all know how lethal *she* can be…with only a few exceptions.

    So as JF and James Rogers and I are seeing, the rules have been changed by our elders, even though those same rules worked for our elders.
    So we have been shown, without a shadow of a doubt, that our elders can be…unreliable.

    Another depressing revelation.🙂

    Donalgraeme,

    I am not sure what you are getting at. Is your argument one or the more of the following? Or are these strawman arguments of mine (that I have picked out from nowhere) that in no way reflect your thoughts?

    1. I am a chaste man, but that’s only because no woman is chasing me. I do not expect a woman (who has many men chasing her at any given point) to be similarly chaste. It is just impossible.

    2. Women have a natural desire to submit. So pre-marital sex is just another form of submission. So there…

    3. Premarital chastity does NOT translate into post-marital faithfulness. All that rigorous moral training that young women used to have pre-marriage is unnecessary. All the data which shows that high pre-marital N-count is a risk factor for a woman commiting adultery because she is unable to stay faithful to one man …doesn’t count.

    4. Asking a woman to suppress her sex drive before marriage leads to frigidity within marriage. All that self-control pre-marriage will just ensure that she continues to ‘control’ herself in her marital bed. (This one is my personal favourite).

    5. ‘Keep your chastity’ is just as non-effective as ‘just say no to drugs’. It doesn’t work, so don’t even attempt it.

    Donalgraeme, thank you for showing me the enormity of the problem we face in trying to correct the wrongs of the current SMP.
    If a righteous man like yourself cannot fathom the idea that it is even remotely feasible for a young girl or woman to exercise some self-restraint before marriage, we are truly and totally lost as a generation.

    You, like many well-meaning men are being hampered by the ‘women have no moral agency’ bug.
    Whilst it is alright to note that many women are not doing the right thing with all the promiscuity that is going on, you seem to be resisting me for suggesting that we try to stop this. Because you see it as a ‘mission impossible’.
    You make too many excuses for women. I am one, and I can tell you that we really do not need quite so many excuses, especially when it comes to sex. We are the sex that have the God-given ability to stave off sexual temptation more successfully than men (OK, I grant you, this becomes infinitely more difficult at ‘fertile time’, or ‘ovulation time’ when sexual drive in women approaches that of men…did someone say Bathsheba was in her fertile time when she decided to bathe in full view of King David? Um…if she had been in her non-fertile time, I am sure she would have bathed in a different place, away from prying eyes :)).

    I am now convinced more than ever, that until this meme of ‘women have no moral agency’ is let go, things will remain as (rotten as) they are.
    Which is another depressing thought.

    I have just one more question: how does it benefit you to hold the views you do, Donalgraeme? Is it a self-preservation thing (‘it is impossible for women to be morally upright, so I accept that I can therefore never marry one’). Or is it a comfort to you to feel certain that you as a chaste man are morally superior to all women??

    If either is the case, hey, that’s fine. I am however intrigued as to how this helps, in real life.
    This level of ‘white-knighting’ is neither desired nor warranted though.
    Because it gives you and other men more of the same as what you are getting – undesirable women.
    I wish for you and others, that you get a better quality woman. I don’t have a younger sister (I am a ‘last born’). So the best I can do is make sure my daughter is a good one. And for that matter my son too. That is how I can contribute to the betterment of the SMP.

    But it seems I shan’t be getting any help from you.
    Shame, that is…
    But no matter, I plough on regardless, with like-minded people.
    If you change your mind in the future, please feel free to join us…

  299. Novaseeker says:

    And the sexual revolution only got crazier as time went by. By the mid 1980s, even Southern & Midwestern girls from fairly conservative two-parent middle-class homes were behaving very badly once they went off to college, and were rather open about it, although not as open as the young girls these days. There is nothing new under the sun, and pre-marital sex has always been with us, but in the mid 1970s, it really was a different world.

    @Laura —

    Indeed, things proceeded apace. I think there was some “cultural lag”, especially away from the bigger cities on the coasts, still in the 1970s, because we were only a few years out from the revolution at the time (taking 68 as the “ground zero” of the revolution), and cultural trends also spread more slowly then. For those who are younger, this was not just before the internet, it was before cable television as well. In this era, there really still *were* lots and lots of local differences culturally which were very significant – not only as between different areas of the United States, but also between the US and other Western countries.

    When I attended college in the second half of the 1980s, there were plenty of women who were having ONSs after parties and so on, but the hook-up culture was not yet in full swing. Dating was not a big thing at my college (I think we were an outlier for that age, or a harbinger, take your pick — perhaps because we were stuffed with very ambitious, very intelligent kids who didn’t want to be tied down at all, which was not the case at all campuses during that time). Most of my female classmates were feminists, but most of them were also feminine. It was a transitional period, still, because we were still only around rev+20 on the timeline.

    In the 1990s, feminism took on a sharper edge. This was the era of “Reviving Ophelia” and when the schools were feminized en masse. It’s also when the sex market began to take on the 80/20 character we see today. Again, this started slowly at first, and focused on the coastal cities, and then spread, just like other social trends. But the beginnings were there in the 1990s. It was still possible to marry well in the earlier to mid 20s in the mid 1990s, and I knew plenty who did so, but there were also plenty who did not, and the tide was beginning to change as the 20s were morphing into the new “late adolescence” where you got to act like a teenager (but one who could drink and was getting paid decently well) for an extended period without people calling you irresponsible.

    These trends continued in the 2000s and in the same direction — more stratification of the 80/20 principle, more norming of female promiscuity (especially among women as the script began to shift to prude shaming), even later marriages and more screwing around in general. This has only continued in the twenty-teens.

    Really, as with all cultural trends, it takes a couple of generations for the changes to really take root and blossom, and what we see in the young people of today is really the true fruit of the sexual revolution. The problem is that many people who are my age and older, and especially many who are of the boomer generation, find it impossible to believe that this is how things are today, because it wasn’t like that in the 1970s, and their frame of reference is what it was like in the 1970s. This creates a significant amount of misunderstanding, I think.

  300. Scott says:

    “Really, as with all cultural trends, it takes a couple of generations for the changes to really take root and blossom, and what we see in the young people of today is really the true fruit of the sexual revolution. The problem is that many people who are my age and older, and especially many who are of the boomer generation, find it impossible to believe that this is how things are today, because it wasn’t like that in the 1970s, and their frame of reference is what it was like in the 1970s. This creates a significant amount of misunderstanding, I think.”

    I am a little behind you, generationally. And I have at several points tried to square the 80/20 (or alpha/beta/game paradigm) with my own personaly experience on several occasions. I did so as a gues post at SSM, and in a few other places.

    I “dated” from about 1986-1994 (first marriage) then again from 2000-2008 (current marriage) and although I found SOME differences in what is called the SMP between those two eras, it is still very difficult for me to peg where I fit into that paradigm. In the late 80s, I was in high school (16 y/o in 1987) and the basic, unspoken target you were shooting for was sex on or around the thrid date. If it went past around 4, you were probably in th friend zone. HOWEVER, for guys like me who had some scraps of morality left that sex was supposed to be the signal that you were now “boyfriend and girlfriend” and you did what you could to hold on to it. I can’t recall anyone ever looking at a girlfriend in that scenario as a “slut.” It was just part of the natural cycle of serial monogamy.

    Occasional ONStands were awkward, and usually happened at drunken high school (and right after high school parties). They resulted in the standard “I’ll call you” thing, both parties knowing this wasn’t true. No big deal.

    Then I was married for 6 years. Totally faithful, etc.

    Re-entered the dating scene at 29 years old, and the rules were basically the same, with about the same amount of luck. However, this was the first time in my life I had encountered the concept of “f*** buddy.” This seemed weird to me, but most people around my age, divroced were doing this, including me. But these were temprorary, in between “girlfriend” arrangements. If sex occured on the very first date, you knew this was a F-buddy. Also, no big deal.

    But the “ideal” was three dates–>sex–>girlfiend–>”see what happens” and this was the norm for me as well.

    What I DONT remember is feeling like I was in some grand bell-curve struggle or game/competition with “alpha” males. I didn’t meet girls at bars either. Just, causual, normal day to day interactions would usually lead to a girlfriend or whatever. Unless, I was in a funk and trying to work on myself (which I also thought was pretty normal after a break up).

  301. Novaseeker says:

    Scott —

    Likely you are in the group of men who is more successful with women naturally. The number of people you are describing there doesn’t reflect my own experience or the experience of any of my closer male friends in HS or college, just a few years before you. In HS I had 2 GFs, no ONSs. In college, 2GFs, no ONSs. And no sex with any of them, by choice — this cost me 2 of the GFs, but I had moral issues with pre-marital sex. My two closest male friends — none of either. First GF for one was in college, lasted a couple of years. Then went celibate for another 3-4 years and met second GF who became his wife. Other closest HS male friend was celibate until well after college (he was the worst off, but also the least attractive, candidly).

    As for my college male friends. Let’s see. I would count, say, 5 of them who were in my closer circle. One of them was the sex king (natural) — he had one GF but many ONSs in college, and after college continued apace. He was briefly married, and then divorced and returned to his antics — he’s now in his mid-40s and regularly with women in their late 20s and early 30s — all cute LA girls. Now, he is very good looking AND very religious about the gym (has been since he was 18), AND very suave with women. So he’s in the top 5% when it comes to sex access. Of the others, one came into college with a HS GF. That lasted about 6 months or so. After that, no GF for him in college and also no ONS (also a Catholic, he didn’t do ONSs). Roommate was admittedly less attractive at that age — no GFs, no ONSs, no nothing in that area for him. Other two guys in the circle — also no GFs in college, although one of them would get the occasional party situation ONS (he was short, but well toned because he was a fencer, and he was able to deploy that at least some of the time, and his abrasive/cocky persona helped as well).

    Law school was similar, too. My two closest LS buddies: one came in with a college GF, which lasted about a year. After that broke up, he was celibate the other two years. The other one was celibate, no GFs (and I’m pretty sure he never had one in college, either, although he was cagy about that). The third, and less close, buddy was a tall, tanned guy from LA who did well with women, and I’d say during law school’s three years he had something like 5-6 different women in his bed. Nothing completely extreme, of course, but more than most (and none of them were law students, it should go without saying).

    My experiences afterward in NYC, Germany and DC as a young lawyer before my first marriage were similar. For me, I was never at the top of the pack, nor at the bottom (I was the kind who got a GF once every few years, and in between was celibate — of course I didn’t seek out ONSs, either), but well below where you seem to have been. Overall, my own experiences do very much reflect the 80/20 experience, and this was replicated in various settings, and with rather different types of guys from different backgrounds, families and parts of the country.

    My guess is you’re more attractive to women than you think you are, and this reflects your experience.

  302. Scott says:

    Reminds me of one of my favorite movie lines from the 80s movie, “Better off Dead”

    “I think it would be entirely beneficial if you were to re-enter the sociological mainstream by re-engaging in the ritual act of dating members of the opposite sex.”

    –Lane Myers dad.

  303. Novaseeker says:

    Heh. Opportunities aren’t equal for that, which is the point. In some ways that’s fine — it’s a free market, and some participants have more market power than others and that is that. But it does reflect my experience and that of most of the guys I grew up with and was educated with (not all, as noted).

  304. Escoffier says:

    Nova,

    My recollection or impression or whatever was that the late-’60s through mid ’70s were a wild time, and then there was a lull for say 10-15 years, and then the SR picked up again and has not abated.

    But look at the movie Dazed and Confused. It happened to be on last night and I re-watched maybe 20 minutes of it. That was Texas, but Northern California at that time looked almost exactly the same. Lots of drinking, drugs and casual sex, plus a lot of “relationships” too–all of which included sex, at a fairly young age. By the time the 80s arrived, kids still drank, drug use among the MC and UMC seems to have declined, and the sex was not as prevalent. Basically, you had to have a GF, and even that was no guarantee, and a ONS branded a girl with the “scarlet S.” And this was in a liberal, secular area.

    I was too old and out of it to witness the relapse and regression but it happened I suppose under my nose. Tom Wolfe wrote the essay “Hooking Up” in 2000 and by then the corruption was total.

  305. Scott says:

    Nova-

    Of course, the next line is “but I don’t want to date other girls dad, I want to date Beth.”

    He was broken hearted over “the one,” so there’s that.

  306. Novaseeker says:

    @Escoffier —

    I think the “lull” in the 1980s at least had to do with AIDS, especially after 1985 when straight people began to get more paranoid about it. That eased up in the early 90s, and the sex party then resumed in full.

    I do think things have gotten worse. One set of anecdotal data points is here: http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2t4n7d/the_reddit_sex_partner_count_thread_a_case_study/

    Lots of the usual nonsense you’d expect from something on reddit, but still interesting.

    Now, note, these are admissions by *women*, who have “traditionally” tended to downplay their Ns. It’s possible that these are *all* from the “small percentage” of women who are sexually adventurous, but that seems less likely than that things have fundamentally changed in the culture and behavior of young women and sex, and that this really, really picked up momentum in the last 10-15 years,

  307. Novaseeker says:

    @Scott —

    An early onset of one-itis!

  308. Scott says:

    Here’s one thing I DO remember about my second round with “dating.”

    At that time, online dating sites had come into their own as a valid way of meeting people. I was stationed at Fort Bragg at the time and I remember browsing through the profiles and I was taken aback by how often, and with NO SHAME women would write “do not contact me if you are not E-7/0-3 or above.”

  309. Novaseeker says:

    Scott —

    It makes sense, because online dating is really a numbers game and a lopsided one — women get inundated and so are looking for ways to filter men. If they don’t want someone below that “grade” (or other things — height, etc.) it makes sense for them to ask to screen. Doesn’t always work, but it makes sense given the overwhelming number of replies any decent looking woman on an online dating site gets.

  310. @Dalrock

    Renee Harris has cerebral palsy, which explains her particular locution of the English language. She’s also the child of immigrants. Her ability to communicate is something similar to the GBFM and it takes some time to get used to it. In my opinion she is sincere and teachable, she’s not a troll. I’d have sent you a private email but you don’t have a “contact” page and I didn’t find an email contact for you on your blog. Consider deleting this comment after reading.

  311. Scott says:

    Yep, I am tracking. Of course at the time I was still very blue pill. I believed it when I was told sutff like that didn’t matter in our new egalitarian world. I believed a male, plain looking, paunchy garbage truck driver could marry a hot, tight bodied millionare brain surgeon female 10 years yonger than him if they really loved each other n stuff.

    Maybe the reason I didn’t have a lot of trouble dating/getting a girlfriend is because while I was willing to SAY I BELIEVED things like that, I never really did.

  312. When I attended college in the second half of the 1980s, there were plenty of women who were having ONSs after parties and so on, but the hook-up culture was not yet in full swing.

    Same here, in the Midwest. Yeah, people were having sex, but mostly in the context of a relationship or the hope that one was starting that night. Girls weren’t proudly having ONSs yet. A confident, decent-looking guy willing to approach girls and run some game (natural or learned) could get laid a lot, but most guys weren’t.

    It wasn’t until the 90s, around here, that you started hearing feminists push girls to be “sex-positive,” and girls started saying things like, “Well, I didn’t like him enough to sleep with him, so I just gave him a blowjob.” Not coincidentally, that’s when we had a US Surgeon General who had promoted the idea of teaching mutual masturbation in schools to prevent pregnancy and disease.

  313. Opus says:

    @Laura

    Interesting guess, but if by came-of-age you mean, say, twenty-one, then you are out by a decade or so, as she would have been twenty-one in 1976. I wonder what happened to her?

    Shocking as it is to read of what Novaseeker writes, I suspect that English women have always been somewhat more easy-going. Religion here, is, like gravity, a weak force, where according to a recent survey only one in six of male members of the Church of England have no doubts as to the existence of the deity.

    How though, does one correlate this rampant promiscuity with the Puritanism that now stalks my home country, where Femin-Nazis (including The Girl Guides and the government Ministeress for equality) are (prematurely) celebrating the ending of Page Three (a topless model) in each edition of The Sun and where we are told one in three females at University is sexually assaulted, even as we celebrate the engagement of thespian Stephen Fry to his toy-boy lover and when I enquired of my nephew now in his third and final year at University as to the females in his class, he said that he largely avoided them, as they were insane. It certainly was not like that when I was at college; the females were then beyond reproach (as were the men).

  314. Novaseeker says:

    Maybe the reason I didn’t have a lot of trouble dating/getting a girlfriend is because while I was willing to SAY I BELIEVED things like that, I never really did.

    Could be.

  315. Cail,

    It wasn’t until the 90s, around here, that you started hearing feminists push girls to be “sex-positive,” and girls started saying things like, “Well, I didn’t like him enough to sleep with him, so I just gave him a blowjob.” Not coincidentally, that’s when we had a US Surgeon General who had promoted the idea of teaching mutual masturbation in schools to prevent pregnancy and disease.

    Yes, I agree. I also agree with novaseeker that the reason we had the lull of ONS and hooking up in the mid to late 1980s was the AIDS scare. The department of public health had me convinced that if I had s-x, I was going to get AIDS. It was only when the truth came out with the 1993 book “…and the Band Played On…” that the reason why AIDS was so rampant in the male homos-xual community was their cultural belief in promiscuity. Patient Zero claimed to have 150 different s-xual partners in a single year, not difficult if you fly internationally for a living.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ga%C3%ABtan_Dugas

    His situation (with all the bath houses in San Francsico) was not all that unique, apparently.

    Add in a few pre-marital-s-x positive movies for young people in the mid-to-late 1990s like “Boogie Nights”, “Go”, “American Pie”, and tv programs that targetted young women like “S-x in the City” and a few others, and it was liek the 1970s were back in full-swingers-swing.

  316. But look at the movie Dazed and Confused. It happened to be on last night and I re-watched maybe 20 minutes of it.

    Classic Wooderson/Matthew McConaughey in full pedophile mode….

    That’s what I love about these high school girls, man. I get older, they stay the same age.

  317. Gunner Q says:

    Spacetraveller @ 6:06 am:
    “These men married women who were their ideal, but are now advising men a generation down the line to go for the non-ideal.”

    Feminism is good for the top man in every social context. One of the ways it was able to infiltrate the Church is because it works for Church leaders at the expense of Church laity. Many pastors fend off attractive women with sticks in seminary then, later on, hear women complaining they can’t find a nice man. Because most pastors gain their position through credentialing instead of real-life experience, it’s an easy trap to simply take those women at their word and assume lower-SMV men are being unreasonable.

    Should the pastor come to realize his wife married him for PastorWife status instead of love then he cannot teach about women’s behavior without exposing his own wife’s behavior. Much easier to turn a blind eye to the problem.

    This is also why Protestants fell to feminism more quickly than Catholics. The RCC’s celibate priesthood is immune to this particular threatpoint.

  318. Gunner,

    Because most pastors gain their position through credentialing instead of real-life experience, it’s an easy trap to simply take those women at their word and assume lower-SMV men are being unreasonable.

    This is an excellent observation. You are right of course, credentialling. And the fact that these credentials are often required before a pastor could even take a job AS pastor, we could legitimately call it a form of spiritual rent-seeking.

    That said, it is pretty much impossible to measure “life expereince” from an objective standpoint. As a result, credentialling is all the church laity is left with when evaluating who would make a good pastor. Alas, without that “life experience” the pastor will have a very difficult time understanding that perhaps, some of the problems in the marriage between a man and his wife in the church body, are problems that SHE created. The pastor has been white-knighting all his secular life, to put on the temporal hat and defer to the Bible in personal counseling matters becomes very difficult.

  319. thedeti says:

    Regarding sex and college hooking up in years past, I’ve written on this:

    http://www.justfourguys.com/love-dating-and-sex-in-the-1980s-setting-the-stage-for-the-casual-sex-culture/

    I was in high school in the early to mid 1980s, then college in the late 1980s and law school in the early 1990s, all in the Midwest, at the same time as Nova and probably a little after Cail. I can concur with their sentiments.

    Hookup wasn’t in full swing. Among the college women, about half were looking for husbands and the other half weren’t, at least “not yet”. Most of my male college friends had girlfriends and occasional ONS and flings here and there. My experience mirrored most of theirs. Girls would have a ONS but not proudly, not even with a “top guy”. Most of the time ONSs were with girls you already knew from a class or on-campus group. She was someone you had interacted with before you ran into her at the party or bar you were at.

    But no one dared judge a girl for having an ONS, at least not publicly. If you knew she had slept with a guy and nothing came of it, none of the guys ever said anything about it in public. There was a pervasive sense of nonjudgmentalism on campus about girls having sex. Girls could do what they wanted sexually and any outward judgment was quickly crushed. I surmise a lot of women discovered quickly that they’d be forgiven for “mistakes” with men.

    The time when Nova and I were growing up in was rather singular, and in a lot of ways we were subjected to something of a “perfect storm”. First, we were coming up when there were really rapid and profound changes in sexual mores. Women were learning of and exploiting these changes. Men were kept almost completely in the dark, unless they were figuring it out through observation or other more knowledgeable men were teaching them about it.

    Second, we, like a lot of guys, had parents with firmly entrenched Judeo Christian morals and ideas about sex. We were trained for a 1940s-50s style SMP and MMP that had nearly vanished by 1990. Our parents had no idea at all what was happening while we were in junior high and high school. The sexual world had changed literally overnight. Our parents had no idea how to prepare us for it, and they didn’t.

    Third: AIDS. We started hearing about it in high school, and by the time I arrived on campus in the mid 1980s the epidemic was really ramping up. The media trumpeted scare tactics. Doctors theorizing that on a campus of 20,000 students, there were probably at least 1000 HIV positive people. We were told that being firmly hetero wouldn’t save us – AIDS was unstoppable and it was going to make serious inroads into the hetero population and kill millions of us unless we used condoms or abstained. They were talking about 50 million people in the US alone infected by 1995, or something. So that really put a heavy damper on at least some sexual activity for a while in the late 1980s. But that had died down by the early 1990s when it became clear that AIDS had not and would not infect straight people by the millions through P in V and oral sex.

  320. Escoffier says:

    “no one dared judge a girl for having an ONS”

    This is weird. In liberal NorCal, they were judged. Quite openly. That is, not in front of adults. No one talked about sex in front of any adults. But among ourselves, we judged and we talked. Girls’ reputations could be questioned without any fear. Few did ONSs (that anyone found out about) and those who did, and it became known, suffered.

    In college, it was not much differnt. The most elite girls were the prettiest girls at the top sororities (DG, KKG, DDD, etc.). This girls did not sleep around. They could get kicked out of their houses if they did. It was acceptable to grab a high status BF (althete or frat guy or both) and sleep with him. Though never at the sorority itself, which were chaperoned and guys could not go to girls’ rooms (even at that late date). But a sorority girl with a BF was assumed to be sleeping with him and no one held that against her, it was treated like a marriage.

    There were a few houses where the girls had reputations as sluts (Alpha Phi, for instance, got the nickname “All for Free”). Typically these were less elite houses with girls not quite so hot, who needed to offer something to get the hot guys’ attention.

    Then, outside the Greek system was a whole mish-mash of subcultures. I don’t recall any being outrageously promiscuous but I might have missed it. Everyone I knew found a GF within a year or two (it was close to impossible for a freshman boy to interest any girl, even other frosh) and stayed with her at least until graduation, some longer. A few even got marreied.

  321. Scott says:

    “But no one dared judge a girl for having an ONS, at least not publicly. If you knew she had slept with a guy and nothing came of it, none of the guys ever said anything about it in public. There was a pervasive sense of nonjudgmentalism on campus about girls having sex. Girls could do what they wanted sexually and any outward judgment was quickly crushed. I surmise a lot of women discovered quickly that they’d be forgiven for “mistakes” with men. ”

    I hate seem like I am trying to put such a fine point on this, but it is at this point that my experience seems to divert from the usual manosphere narrative. If it matters, I grew up in southern California.

    In the late 80’s, even in high school, it wasn’t even considered a “mistake.” Having sex with your boyfriend/girlfriend was like going to have a chocolate malt. It’s what you did. I remember asking my 3rd girlfriend of this (1989ish) about her past and she was furious. “Those were people I was dating before I met you, and you have no right to even ask about it.”

    Distinguishing morally sexual relationships between boyfriend and girlfriend had absolutely no value on the gender dimension. It was bizarre for a guy to ask a girl this question, because she would turn around and ask you about yours, which in an egalitarian worldview made perfect sense.

  322. Escoffier says:

    Scott, I recall a bright line between “casual” and “BF-GF” sex. The latter: not judged. More than that, approved among peers (m&f alike), though kept hidden from Mom&Dad. The former: not approved. Guys would snicker about such girls and maybe try to get a piece for themselves, but it was definitely a sign of low status if you made one your GF. Your peers would ridicule you.

    Yeah, you were not really supposed to ask. But part of that was for this reason. Certainly in HS (less so at a big college), any girl you were likely to date, you knew her and you knew her circle. Hence you knew who her past BFs were (if any). And it was assumed that if she dated some guy long term, they were having sex. So if you start dating Jane, and you (and everyone) knew that Jane had previously dated Steve and Robby, then asking “How many?” was tantamount to asking “How many OTHERS?” This was considered an affront.

    Now, it was possible that a girl had had prior, public BFs with whom she had NOT had sex. A girl would typically tell you that without being asked. If she didn’t, then the operating assumption was that she banged him. You were expected to deal and not bring it up. Otherwise, you were “immature”, “insecure” and so on. It was no-win, really. If you asked and there actually were others, she would be doubly defensive and get really angry. If you asked and there weren’t, you were just a loser. If you didn’t ask, you were doing the correct thing according to the etiquette of the time, but possibly (speculating here) instilling a little contempt for being unmanly. That’s leaving aside the wear and tear this question imposes on one’s own soul.

  323. Novaseeker says:

    It’s interesting that our experiences, even though we are all around the same age, differ, either slightly or massively. I can’t help but think that this is probably based on a combination of (1) location/market (cultural geography of an area and/or school), (2) social class and/or (3) personal attractiveness. Probably a mix of all three.

    In the Catholic high school subculture I grew up in in the “bridge and tunnel” region of the NYC area in the early 1980s (which was very MC, not UMC), girls did get reps for being slutty or easy. And they were talked about. In the college I attended this was much less the case, although I was not privy the elite sorority scene at all. I did observe cases of what people now call hookups after dorm parties, and people knew what was going on, but there was no shaming or discussion about it afterward — maybe a few jokes or eyerolls — it was markedly different from the culture I grew up in and the first 3-6 months there were a very, very rough transition for me to say the least.

  324. There are probably some variations here, even within regions from one school to another. Things were changing fast at that time (say 87-93). My dorm at college was in a building with separate floors for men and women. You couldn’t get into the girls’ floors after 10pm without a key — or pounding on the door until someone came to open it. So there were trysts happening, but there was still a sense that you were expected to keep it behind closed doors. The appearance of propriety still mattered, even if it was flaking away.

    On the other side of campus, one dorm was experimenting with co-ed arrangements. At that time, it only meant boys and girls on the same floor; they didn’t share the same rooms or bathrooms. (How naive we were!) Most parents would never have signed their kids up for that then, so those kids had parents who were extremely libertine or weren’t involved. I’d guess there was a lot more open fooling around there, and so a fair amount of variation even on a single campus, or from one year to the next as things changed.

    I remember asking my 3rd girlfriend of this (1989ish) about her past and she was furious.

    There’s a good clue to how alpha you were, by the way. A weaker beta would be too afraid to ask that question, lest he offend her delicate sensibilities.

  325. thedeti says:

    Re: Girls not judged for sluttiness.

    I grew up in a small town in the Midwest. Girls who gave it up too easily in and around town were quickly branded as sluts. Everyone talked about it and everyone knew it. That’s just part of living in a small community — it’s tight knit and everyone knows everyone else’s business.

    It was different in college. You didn’t judge a girl for her sluttiness, not publicly. The talk was not public in any way, at least not among guys. I lived in a set of dorms, and sex positivity was the norm in the residence hall culture, so that was one major reason why there wasn’t a lot of talk about slutty girls.

    Like Esco, I remember a bright line between ONS sex and BF/GF sex. The latter was “officially sanctioned” and it was presumed there were various levels of sex going on among BFs and GFs. The former, ONS sex, was frowned on, but there wasn’t overt public shaming going on.

    Like Nova I think this must be a result of regional differences, social class and attractiveness levels of the men experiencing them.

  326. Escoffier says:

    At my school, housing was VERY hard to get, and there wasn’t enough dorm space even for all the frosh. You took what you could get, assuming you even got anything. There were (among others) three complexes of four 8-story high rises each. I don’t remember if this was the case at all of them, but in my building there was one all girl floor, one all male, and the other six were co-ed. I don’t recall a lot of dorm sex, except for the very few who paired off early. I certainly didn’t get any … frosh boys were almost all incels at that point. Not quite sure about the girls.

    As for asking “the question,” I dunno about that being a sign of alphaness, necessarily. I was pretty beta but I had a terrific row with my college GF about that. I had to have it out, it was just too important to me.

  327. Novaseeker says:

    Re: dorms.

    We had all kinds of arrangements. My frosh dorm had one floor of guys, one floor of girls and one mixed floor, with separate lavatories. The one next door had three mixed floors.

    My dorm the next three years (well the two that I was on campus at least) was fully mixed — coed floors and a choice of single sex lav/shower or coed lav/shower. Yep, that’s right. And that was 1986.

  328. Scott says:

    “…lest he offend her delicate sensibilities.”

    Interesting. I remember she came clean (I was 19, she was 18 so there wasn’t too much to come clean about yet) and I was not required to also come clean. The relationship lasted about 2 years.

  329. Escoffier says:

    According to Wolfe, the first co-ed dorms were introduced in 1970 or 71, I forget where. By the 80s, they were common.

  330. Scott says:

    “According to Wolfe, the first co-ed dorms were introduced in 1970 or 71, I forget where. By the 80s, they were common.”

    This is also pretty variant by school/region/etc.

    In the early 1990’s, Pepperdine University (nominally “Christian”) was seperated by building “sections” with a “no boys in the girls rooms after 10” rule.

  331. Escoffier says:

    I think BYU will still expell you for pre-marital sex, but that’s got to be extremely rare at this point.

  332. DeNihilist says:

    I spent a few years in the commune of Osho (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh) in the early eighties. Sex was vigorously promoted as a way to go beyond oneself. In a lot of cases, it was the women picking up the men. It appeared at times, that they were making up for lost time. But again, this being in a small pool of the whole movement, I did not, at that time, see the SMP being played out as described by many here. This 20/80 thing, as I saw it, did not exist. What existed, and to this day still is a very focused memory for me, was how ravenous women’s desire for unfettered sex was/is.
    Trust me, women, when given the freedom to fuck whomever and whenever, are far more thirsty then most men could ever believe.

  333. DeNihilist says:

    As regards the AIDS scare of the late eighties, it definitely was one of the points I considered when I decided to marry.

  334. Novaseeker says:

    According to Wolfe, the first co-ed dorms were introduced in 1970 or 71, I forget where. By the 80s, they were common.

    The coed dorms were not uncommon but the coed showers were.

  335. Scott says:

    Nova-

    How does one do the italicized quoting of someone elses comment?

  336. Escoffier says:

    In my dorm, as I recall, there was only one very large bathroom per floor, whether the floor was co-ed or not. If they were co-ed, then people typically wore robes or towels or whatever into and out of the shower stalls, which were individual and private, it wasn’t like a single sex gym shower.

    There is a rather memorable scene of Charlotte’s first encounter with a co-ed bathroom in I Am Charlotte Simmons (2004).

    DeNihilist, have you ever read about Sandstone, the former “sex farm” in the Santa Monica Mountains? It was the principal subject of Gay Talese’s Thy Neighbor’s Wife, among other works.

  337. How does one do the italicized quoting of someone elses comment?

    Use HTML tags, like this (hope this works):

    <b>This will be bold.</b>

    <i>This will be italicized.</i>

    <blockquote>This will be quoted (indented and italicized, on this blog).</blockquote>

  338. DeNihilist says:

    Escoffier, no I have not, am googling now.

  339. DeNihilist says:

    Sounds hippie like, Osho’s foundation is still running and doing well, though the man himself died years ago.

  340. Scott says:

    Thanks Cail.

  341. Novaseeker says:

    To italicize, use the tag to open the italics and to close the italics.

  342. anonymous_ng says:

    Coming late to things. I was both devoutly minded AND shy as hell in college. I lived off campus and thus didn’t see the dorm antics, but in the ROTC sub-culture, things were basically like you’ve all described. I can’t think of anyone else who was even nominally devout. The guys who were incel were because their SMV was so horribly low.

    It was absolutely assumed that if you were dating for more than a month, you were sleeping together.

  343. Opus says:

    I attended an all-boys boarding school. In my last year the head master decided (in the spirit of equalism) that he would introduce four girls. I have to say I did not fancy any of them and so I took little notice, however, within a week or so and of course contrary to the rules, one of them had found her way back to one of the dormitories (which were of course all-boy dorms).

    I continue to puzzle at the naivety; much as if a zoo-keeper in the same spirit of equality decided that his Gazelles should share an enclosure with the lions – and then waxes outraged at the inevitable result.

  344. Laura says:

    Escoffier: I have a female cousin my age — my aunt and uncle had a rule when she was in high school that she could date a guy twice, but before she could go out on a third date, there had to be an intervening date with somebody else. Not a problem for her, as she was beautiful, popular, and head of the cheerleaders. It was actually a good way to prevent her from having any serious boyfriends before graduating from high school. She never had to figure out how to “break up” with a guy who was pushing too hard, because her parents had arranged things so that the break ups were built into the system.

    Novaseeker/Scott/Cail Corashev: After I got married, I transferred to a college on the East Coast where the dorms had gone co-ed. The women ended up being furious, because at the end of the year, the school assessed damages for each dormitory, and split the costs among all of the students residing in the dorm. It didn’t affect me because I lived off-campus, but I’ll never forget reading in the campus paper the wail of a female student whose dorm had assessed the highest fines on campus. “Does anybody REALLY believe that the girls were the ones who threw a refrigerated water fountain out of the seventh floor window?” According to her account, the boys were responsible for virtually all the damage, and I am actually inclined to believe this, as my sister and brother lived in a modern dorm that had a boys’ wing and girls’ wing with a shared cafeteria. According to my sister, when she first visited my brother’s room after unloading her stuff into her room, it was nearly impossible to believe that the entire complex had been built as one project. Although both dormitories were seven years old, the girls’ dorm looked brand new, while the boys’ dorm had lots of damage and deferred maintenance.

    I also remember reading that when coed dorms were first introduced, the boys and girls on the same floor tended to form brother/sister type relationships, with the girls ironing the guys shirts and the guys jump-starting the girls’ cars. The boys would ask girls on the floor above them or below them for dates, but did not like to approach the girls that they lived near. Sort of a temporary incest taboo.

    Opus: A man of your taste and refinement should read the Times, and be completely indifferent to the editorial decisions of the Sun. If you find yourself glancing at a copy of the Sun that the charwoman left behind, you must regard it as a guilty pleasure, and a very rare one at that.

  345. I also remember reading that when coed dorms were first introduced, the boys and girls on the same floor tended to form brother/sister type relationships, with the girls ironing the guys shirts and the guys jump-starting the girls’ cars. The boys would ask girls on the floor above them or below them for dates, but did not like to approach the girls that they lived near. Sort of a temporary incest taboo.

    Yeah, not buying it. Sounds like propaganda designed for parental consumption. Kids that age don’t work that way.

  346. Novaseeker says:

    Yeah, not buying it. Sounds like propaganda designed for parental consumption. Kids that age don’t work that way.

    By the time I was there, there was no taboo against people sleeping with other people on the same floor, or in the same coed dorm. It wasn’t *that* common, probably because of the numbers game (relatively few people per dorm — my school’s dorms were small — meaning less likely to have mutual attraction in that small context), but it still happened.

    I’m not talking about freshman dorms. Freshman dorms, regardless of whether coed or not, have mostly incel male freshmen, I think in most places — women are not attracted to the men who are the lowest on the totem pole (gee … what a surprise). I think the incel aspect to the freshman male experience leads to a lot of drinking and alcohol relationship problems that can spill over to later college (and even later than that) years, but nothing much can be done about the incel issue, really — it’s just a status thing.

  347. Laura says:

    Cail: You’re probably right. I can’t remember what year I saw the article, or where it was published.

    I do that the theft rate in girls’ dormitories skyrocketed when the dorms went coed. Prior to the change, a girls’ dorm was something of a minor fortress, complete with battleaxe housemother. Afterwards, male students AND male residents of the nearest town could walk straight into the dorm and walk down the halls looking for unlocked rooms to burglarize. These days, you probably need some kind of magnetic-strip card key to get through the main entrance, and I’m sure that there are CCTVs everywhere, but initially that wasn’t the case.

  348. Opus says:

    So, basically, having co-ed dorms is like living in a brothel where sex is free.

  349. Novaseeker says:

    So, basically, having co-ed dorms is like living in a brothel where sex is free.

    No, it wasn’t my experience. There was some sex happening, but it wasn’t all over the place or anything like that in my time (which is now around 30 years ago, of course).

  350. Opus says:

    @Nova

    How did the guys who were not getting sex feel about those that were? Were there unrequited crushes which made living cheek-by-jowel difficult? Did the women flaunt it?

    … and what of the women – those who were of no interest to the boys – did they have a hard time?

  351. Novaseeker says:

    How did the guys who were not getting sex feel about those that were? Were there unrequited crushes which made living cheek-by-jowel difficult? Did the women flaunt it?

    … and what of the women – those who were of no interest to the boys – did they have a hard time?

    The guys who were not getting sex (and this was most of them, most of the time) were either focused on their studies very intensely (I went to the kind of school where plenty of people lived in the library studying), or were partying with male friends and getting drink (or wasted or what have you). Partying/drinking was much more common among the men than getting sex was (this is outside the fraternity system, of course).

    The women did not flaunt it that much, at least not most of them. These were mostly deeply feminist, equalist, ambitious, very smart women who were as dedicated, in most cases, to getting ahead with their studies as any of the men. Yes, there was the “hot” contingent, but most were not hot and rather average looking. T shirts and sweat pants and flip flops were common place at that time for many of the women (not all, but many), no makeup or heels, subdued look. So I wouldn’t say many were flaunting.

    The women who were overlooked had as hard a time as they do in all settings, i think. Difficult for them, of course, but that’s how it is for a woman in that position, just as it is hard for a low status men (like almost all freshman men).

  352. By the time I was there, there was no taboo against people sleeping with other people on the same floor, or in the same coed dorm.

    By the time I was there, girls and boys were not only sleeping with each other on the same floor, but where LIVING with each other in the same room (albeit unofficially, the RA couldn’t know.) Of course the RA DID know but because she kept her stuff in her own room (or he kept all his stuff in his own room) they pretended not to notice.

  353. Novaseeker says:

    By the time I was there, girls and boys were not only sleeping with each other on the same floor, but where LIVING with each other in the same room (albeit unofficially, the RA couldn’t know.)

    I knew one situation like that, one year in my upperclassman dorm. It was the house manager (it was a coop dorm, so the students basically ran it) with a girl who was one year younger. She basically lived in his room. The RA didn’t care — he was a cool math major type — genius, but when not doing his math stuff he was often stoned. And because it was a coop dorm and small (two floors, about 50 people I think altogether) he didn’t really get involved in anything at all as long as there was no property damage or injury involved (which there generally was not).

  354. So, basically, having co-ed dorms is like living in a brothel where sex is free.

    Depends who you are, because you still get the same hypergamy action — maybe more so. Like Novaseeker said, most freshman are too low-status to get any. (It’s like the old saying: he couldn’t get laid at an orgy.) Your average, somewhat naive, nice-guy freshman sees girls running in and out of other guys’ rooms in their underwear, and wishes he knew how to ask one out.

    Hyper-sexualizing the environment means more total sex, but it’s still going to be concentrated on the men at the top the social totem pole. They get laid about as often as they like with their pick of the girls. The guys in the next tier down get a date or fling now and then, maybe a girlfriend for a while. The guys in the bottom 60% or so get lucky at a party with a girl with drunk goggles, and otherwise spend their college years on the outside looking in.

  355. Escoffier says:

    Regarding “dormcest,” in Charlotte Simmons one of the RAs tells a horrified Charlotte not to worry, it’s frowned on; things are not as bad as they look. Of course she is lying through her teeth, as Charlotte soon learns.

  356. Anonymous Reader says:

    I also remember reading that when coed dorms were first introduced, the boys and girls on the same floor tended to form brother/sister type relationships,

    Yeah, not buying it. Sounds like propaganda designed for parental consumption. Kids that age don’t work that way.

    No offense intended to anyone, however….
    Rewrite that to read “men and women on the same floor” and “adults that age…”.

    Anyone believe this now? 18 year old humans are adults. Maybe young adults, but adults.
    Part of the problem is referring to people fully able to reproduce as “boys and girls” and “kids”.

  357. Laura says:

    My elder daughter lived in a coed dorm for her freshman year (2001). What I remember from taking her there and staying for about two days while we shopped for things and organized her room was that her roommate had a boyfriend who was in the room all the time. This dorm had down-the-hall bathrooms, so if my daughter wanted to change clothes, etc., LoverBoy was always in the way. (The female roommate and Loverboy had attended the same co-ed boarding school, while my daughter had attended a different boarding school. I think that my daughter and the other girl were matched as roommates because they had both attended a boarding school and they were both planning to attend medical school.)

    I also wondered how it was going to be possible for my daughter to study in the room with Roommate and Loverboy having a non-stop conversation. The room itself was small, with all the cabinets and dressers built in. I knew that it was going to be very uncomfortable to have a third person of the opposite sex there off and on throughout each day, but I left my daughter to figure it out.

    I always recommend to other people sending kids off to college to pay the extra premium to get a private room, if they can possibly afford it, and if the school allows freshmen to have private rooms. My parents did this for each of their three children, and it sure beats the luck of the draw. It may have been different back in the day when everybody who went to college was white, Christian & middle or upper class, but these days you could easily end up with someone who is selling and/or using drugs, or has a serious mental health issue, or a Muslim who prays five times a day and wants the furniture in your tiny room arranged to permit this, etc. Some schools deliberately match up roommates who are from completely incompatible backgrounds so that the students can have a learning experience. The freshman year of college is stressful and educational enough — a private room is an oasis of comfort.

    Opus: Even in the olden days when I was in school, the socially conservative students weren’t usually overly envious of the partiers, because they knew that they couldn’t party hard and end up with a decent grade point average. Lots of partiers didn’t last for more than a couple of semesters, and if they did eventually graduate with a 2.5 GPA in Underwater Bubble Blowing they had to deal with that for the rest of their lives. Among the girls I knew, there was probably as much envy over cars and clothes as there was over boyfriends. But for an 18 year old boy to be forced to live cheek by jowl with a hundred 18 year old girls when none of the girls are interested in him at all is probably extremely frustrating. Especially if a handful of the freshman boys ARE able to form relationships with the girls.

  358. AR, I know what you’re saying, but I can’t bring myself to call them adults either. When I was in college, I’m not sure there was an “adult” in the entire building. Maybe we need a new term for people in their 20s who are still living on their parents’ dime and spend their free time getting ready for parties, going to parties, or sleeping off parties.

    The universities do carefully always refer to them as “men” and “women,” and that doesn’t seem to be spurring maturity.

    Escoffier, I had to quit that book about halfway through; it was just too depressing. I didn’t think my opinion of higher education could get much lower, and that book was still able to surprise me.

  359. But for an 18 year old boy to be forced to live cheek by jowl with a hundred 18 year old girls when none of the girls are interested in him at all is probably extremely frustrating.

    Think of your favorite dessert. Now, imagine that for the next five years, every time you step outside your room, you see/smell someone walking by with a piece of it on a plate. Going back to your room at night, you see other guys in their rooms digging into a piece. Every time you turn on the TV, someone is devouring a piece with great delight. At work or in class, there’s a piece of it sitting on a desk ten feet away. You see dozens of pieces, each fresh and enticing, every day.

    But you can’t eat, or even touch, any of them, because none of them belong to you. If you try, (you think) someone will yank it away from you, and then everyone will yell at you for trying to take a piece that wasn’t yours, or (worse) laugh at you for thinking you deserved a piece. A few times you asked nicely for a piece that didn’t seem to be claimed, and you were told that that piece was being saved for someone else, but a nice guy like you would be sure to get a piece any day now. So you resigned yourself to waiting, trying to ignore all those delicious pieces around you every day, waiting for a piece with your name on it to come along and announce itself.

    Yeah, “extremely frustrating” starts to describe it.

  360. Novaseeker says:

    @Laura —

    Some schools deliberately match up roommates who are from completely incompatible backgrounds so that the students can have a learning experience.

    Yes. Mine did that. My roommate was an interesting fellow. Coke spoon on the table between the beds. He was kind of the “grungy alpha male” — naturally good looking and good with women, but unkempt and wild. Hobbies included getting drunk and driving around with his HS buddies (he was from a local elite academy) “collecting” (i.e., stealing) people’s lawn ornaments, which eventually formed quite the collection in our dorm room. It wasn’t as annoying as his habit of bringing underage women into the room to have sex with (from the nearby HS — not the one he went to) when I was in there sleeping. That was a “learning experience”, certainly, and he was far from “lower class”.

    Even in the olden days when I was in school, the socially conservative students weren’t usually overly envious of the partiers, because they knew that they couldn’t party hard and end up with a decent grade point average. Lots of partiers didn’t last for more than a couple of semesters, and if they did eventually graduate with a 2.5 GPA in Underwater Bubble Blowing they had to deal with that for the rest of their lives.

    Yeah that’s not the case everywhere. I did LOTS of partying, and sometimes hard partying, in college and graduated with highest honors, thesis medal, etc. Not bragging, but saying that partiers don’t *always* end up losing out academically. It depends on what is brought to the table, and raw abilities in other areas, in my experience.

    But for an 18 year old boy to be forced to live cheek by jowl with a hundred 18 year old girls when none of the girls are interested in him at all is probably extremely frustrating. Especially if a handful of the freshman boys ARE able to form relationships with the girls.

    It is, and it leads to the partying cycle.

  361. Novaseeker says:

    Note — at this point in my life, I don’t condone college partying. And don’t encourage my son to go down that way. My point was just that the partiers don’t always end up dropped out and with screwed up lives. It depends on other things, often.

  362. infowarrior1 says:

    @Cail Corishev

    There is a reason that they do not act like adults:

  363. Laura says:

    Novaseeker — Congratulations on gaining such impressive academic distinctions while living a dissolute life! In my day, the girls who were living life in the fast lane generally paid a price for it at some point. I am a worrier, and I was always a worrier, even in high school and college, and I never felt that I was “lucky” and wouldn’t get caught if I did something wrong. I couldn’t have dealt with the stress of life in the fast lane.

    Even if I had been an atheist at that time and had thought that there was no problem at all with premarital sex from a moral point of view, I still would not have engaged in it as I would have been terrified of pregnancy and venereal disease and the obloquy of my peers, etc. Any screw-up of any kind that came to the attention of my parents would have been the end of my world. They would have forced me to move back home to attend the local Catholic girls’ school for the remaining years of college (even though we weren’t Catholic.) They had a different set of standards for my older brother, and certainly didn’t expect him to abstain from drinking, partying, or premarital sex. But I was a pretty straight arrow, and all my friends were straight arrows, so I wasn’t up to much.

    My closest friend freshman year started having female problems her second year of school after I had already gotten married and moved away. She went to the campus infirmary, and the idiot doctor running the place told her she was pregnant. She told him that there was simply no way that that could be possible because she hadn’t had sex, and he told her that his diagnosis was correct, and based on his years of experience, etc. Another girl from the Atlanta area drove my friend to Atlanta ( hours of driving) and took her to the medical center there for a second opinion. They did an ultrasound (cutting edge technology in 1977) and found an ovarian cyst and a nurse or social worker from the hospital encouraged her to call her parents in the Midwest and get them to authorize surgery. She called them, and they were terribly upset that she had driven all the way to Atlanta and checked into a hospital without even talking to them about her symptoms, etc. But she hadn’t wanted them talking to the infirmary doctor and hearing his bogus diagnosis of pregnancy. Her parents assured her that they would have believed her and not Dr. Jerk, but my friend was very doubtful about that. I would have driven to Mars to avoid telling my parents that the local doctor thought that I was pregnant.

    You just can’t imagine how different things were then. For one thing, helicopter parenting was not in vogue at that time, and the cell phone didn’t exist. You talked to your parents once per week on the hall phone at a prearranged time, and you told them that everything was fine. Nearly all the girls/women in my dorm were from two-parent families, and few of them would have allowed their daughters to go away for college if they had thought that any part of the “Charlotte Simmons” experience was likely. I don’t know how much the high percentage of students from broken homes has altered the level of control that parents attempt to exercise from afar, but I can tell you that my father had an explosive temper, and I was terrified of him. He always made it very clear that all funds could be shut off at any moment. Female college students in the 70s were just on a much shorter leash than their present-day counterparts.

  364. Escoffier says:

    Cail, it’s a great book. I’ve now read it three times and studied it with much care. There is so much in it … it’s reputation may never recover from the early reviews, but it is a masterpiece and it anticipates–really spells them out–many of the themes we talk about. He was there first.

  365. Novaseeker says:

    Even if I had been an atheist at that time and had thought that there was no problem at all with premarital sex from a moral point of view, I still would not have engaged in it as I would have been terrified of pregnancy and venereal disease and the obloquy of my peers, etc.

    Oh, understood. I never had pre-marital sex either. I partied a lot, though, but never had sex (even Bill Clinton “sex”) before marrying. The partying generally involved drinking, but there wasn’t sex (for me at least). Maybe a different definition from the mid 70s to the mid 80s, perhaps, don’t know.

    Yes, things have gotten progressively worse, I agree. Even when I was in college in the mid/late 80s things were different, although they were slightly closer to what it is now than it was ten years earlier. The pace of change accelerated over time.

  366. Novaseeker says:

    Wolfe is an early bell weather, pretty consistently, really.

  367. donalgraeme says:

    I am going to respond to Spacetraveller in depth when I can, but before I do, is there anyone who came to the same conclusions about my argument/comment that she did?

  368. Novaseeker says:

    I am going to respond to Spacetraveller in depth when I can, but before I do, is there anyone who came to the same conclusions about my argument/comment that she did?

    No, and particularly not in terms of the moral agency bit toward the end.

  369. donalgraeme says:

    Thank you Novaseeker. I think I will actually reply in a post that I hope to have tomorrow. My Tradition post tonight will set the ground for it.

  370. Escoffier, I know, that’s why it’s hard to read. I’ll have to finish it one of these days. If it were pure fiction, it’d be easier to take. After I quit reading, I thought he had to be exaggerating, so I went looking for opinions about it. Most people who had gone to those schools said something like, Yeah, it was pretty much just like that, although he whitewashed it a bit. Yikes.

    And yet we have parents like Laura (not to pick on her, but she shared) who drop their own Charlottes off at these dens of iniquity, letting them “figure it out.” In a sane society, such parents would take one look around, do an immediate about face, and get their daughter the heck out of there.

  371. Laura says:

    Cail: Both of my daughters are devout Christians, and as far as I know they have always tried to live chaste lives. What I left my daughter to “figure out” at college, was how to deal with the boundary issues that were obviously going to surface in her roommate situation. The situation turned out to be manageable — maybe Roommate and LoverBoy broke up early in the school year.

    My daughter was a great kid, and she was legally an adult at that point. It was not my place to tell her roommate that Loverboy was wearing out his welcome, because it wasn’t MY room, it was my daughter’s room. She needed to speak up and work out a compromise on study hours, privacy, etc., and that was her problem, not mine. She had attended a boarding school for high school, so she already had decent negotiating skills, and was already familiar with the standard issues that come up.

    I made huge sacrifices to keep my children out of public school (that means “state school” for Opus, Boxer and a few others), and I tried to set a decent example for them by living a chaste life myself. I failed in a thousand ways as a parent, but both of my children fully understood Biblical standards of morality long before they ever went to college. I was concerned for them, of course, but from what I have seen, the kids who don’t go off to college tend to get into more trouble than the ones who do.

    In fact, my children were ahead of where I was at the same age, because my parents were probably what you would have considered to be nominal Christians. Their ideas of “Biblical integrity” were so conflated with “neighborhood respectability” and “risk avoidance” that I could have easily made some serious mistakes the moment that I got out from under their direct supervision. The only ethics we were taught at my public high school were Values Clarification, which pretty much boiled down to “it’s up to you to decide.” The churches that I attended intermittently during my childhood did not impart much Biblical knowledge, because they focused instead on social justice. (“On a map of your city, mark where church members live. Are there members living in both rich and poor neighborhoods?”) In contrast, my children had studied both the Bible and a surprising amount of theology both at school and at church.

    Our entire world is a “den of iniquity”, Cail. I didn’t “drop her off” in the den of iniquity, because she was born into it. Our entire society is sick, and there is nowhere to hide.

  372. Mark Citadel says:

    It should be said men fear their wives now, as any corrective action taken against sin can result in severe judgment, loss of standing, and ultimately legal penalties as the female sex has acquired dominion of every courtroom in the West.

    I think therefore it is important for Christian men to let their wives be informed of their role and position within the relationship often, and of course emphasize the infusion of God into their union, that He is the ultimate endorsement of male headship, and secular government have absolutely zero legitimate authority over the lives of Christians.

    As I briefly mentioned in my own article on the two manifestations of true manhood, the contrasting manifestations for women are in the lover and the mother. No Christian wife should dare threaten to abdicate her womanhood in either area as a redress of some perceived grievance, especially in response to the husband’s sincere examination of his wife’s moral failings. Do not let your woman be a petulant child.

  373. Laura, like I said, I don’t want to pick on you. I don’t know you or your particular situation. But the “there’s sin everywhere, so there’s no point in trying to avoid it” reasoning doesn’t hold water, as you showed by keeping her out of public school.

    It sounds like you’ve done everything you can. I don’t blame you, really; I blame the people who have torn down civilization to the point where a girl having to share a room with another girl whose lover visits regularly is seen as a reasonable thing by normal people, and not something that could only happen in a bordello. It’s not normal; it’s twisted and harmful, and we have to be able to start saying that again, even if it offends some decent people.

    Telling parents to get their college-bound kids a private room is good advice. Even better would be to tell them not to send their kids away to college at all.

  374. Hollis says:

    Escoffier made the comment about male social hierarchy. I had just commented about female social hierarchy on another post.

    We consider men to be low-value if the best they can do is a slut. On the same token, women consider a woman to be low-value if the best she can do is a notorious beta orbiter. So, for a woman to pay attention to an orbiter is to both devalue herself in her peer group and to get a reputation for sleeping around among men. She’s actually reducing her possibility of marrying by allowing attentions from a beta guy.

    Yet with so many loose women around, the amount of beta orbiters increases, and the likelihood of an equal match decreases.

  375. DeNihilist says:

    TFH, Deti, here is another routine to help guys gain confidence.

    http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.ca/2015/01/overcoming-fear-of-rejection.html

  376. Isa says:

    @Cail Corishev

    I lived co-ed for 4 years (no coed bathrooms, thankfully). The only issue I ever had was once a through the bathroom’s roommate had her boyfriend living with her who would always be in the bathroom naked and drunk. Throwing up. Just… gross. Of my personal roommates, the final n counts were 0, 0, 0, 0, 2, 4. So really we weren’t hooking up en masse…

    To be frank, the coed halls really really made those men unattractive to the girls. Seeing guys wander around with their toiletry kits and nail clippers isn’t particularly sexy, let alone throwing up. Also, students couldn’t move dorms and tended to live there for all 4 years, so the 200 or so students knew Everything about each other, and if there was a hookup… Everyone would know. Then a hookup web was traditionally made at the end of the year with Initials. Printed out and posted on on the doors. You can imagine the girls had no desire to be on that.

  377. Laura says:

    Isa: You have revived the idea of a situational incest taboo after Cail Corishev talked me out of it!

  378. Isa says:

    @Laura
    It was more like not wanting to be the small town slut. The web of depravity on the 8.5 x 14 sheet of paper was also a likely culprit…

    Also, I can’t really speak for the guys as per the girls down the hall, but they seemed to do just fine snagging pretty Asian freshman from other dorms who didn’t didn’t know their nickname was, lets say, “Nape the Rape”.

    I would say that my experience was quite unique though with the whole live with the same people 4 years thing… My littlest sister lived in a coed room dorm in college (mixed sex common room/kitchen/bath shared by 8 people). She eventually didn’t like it as the boys were too messy, but since it was again a situation where everyone lived in the dorm for 4 years and you couldn’t switch… People dated out.

  379. Laura says:

    Isa: These modern-day dorm arrangements are absolutely depraved.

  380. BradA says:

    Striver,

    Note that Bathsheba is not listed by name in the geneology of Jesus. That is an indirect indictment right there. God held David responsible because he had the power there and definitely should have known better.

    God did hold a few women directly accountable, such as Jezebel. You don’t see lots of stories of their brashness connected to a specific individual, which I would argue is why they are not often called out.

    I think Renee said:
    women do sin more than men

    Nope. They sin just as much, at least in the manner that any sin is too much. They tend to have different things they are pulled by than men and a strong society is needed to keep their base desires in check, but that is true of sinful man on the whole. The idea of making either sex “better” is a root problem. ALL have sinned and fallen short of God.

    Dalrock,

    I am betting on troll for Renee at this point. Too much inconsistency in spelling and such in posts. The one you replied to was quite readable while others are worse than the worst students in my classes. Perhaps it makes sense, but that is a pretty big shift.

    Spacetraveller,

    We are lost, but we need to keep pushing the Truth anyway. I agree that #4 is a huge danger that I have no seen addressed in Christian circles. Encouraging younger committed marriages would definitely help.

    Laura,

    Marrying the father was the right thing to do, but it didn’t guarantee a good outcome. I caused my parents to be married, but they only made it a bit over a decade, ultimately because my mother got unhappy and my father was not faithful. (I have my speculations on all the details, but I believe I have a pretty good feel what really went down due to my own experiences in life since then. Neither are here to ask nor was my mother up much for working out the truth anyway prior to her death.)

  381. BradA says:

    Completely OT, but I tried to pick a slightly older thread to respond to IBB’s ongoing claim of the need to support Republicans:

    http://pjmedia.com/davidsteinberg/was-strange-cantor-event-prelude-to-cantor-for-virginia-governor-2017/

    It seems they are quite content blowing away such support. Blocking out even more supporters is not likely to work well.

    Sorry for the hijack Dalrock, hopefully this thread is old enough and I will try not to argue the topic.

  382. Pingback: Miscommunication And Further Thoughts On Moral Agency | Donal Graeme

  383. @ibb and college divorce rates

    What percentage of college grad married women are under age 40???

    Maybe 10%?

    Most college grad married women went to college back when college was self bought.

    Most college grad married women went to college back when you had to be smart to get into college.

    Most college grad married women went to college back before the government paid for fatherless girls to go to college.

  384. @ibb and college divorce rates

    What percentage of college grad married women are under age 40???

    Maybe 10%?

    Maybe 35 or 40%. For younger and younger people, a college degree is increasingly becoming a pre-requisite, a “credential” required for marriage.

  385. Pingback: Yiayia and the empress’s new clothes | Dalrock

  386. Pingback: Custody of the heart. | Dalrock

  387. technovelist says:

    Man, things have really changed since I went to college in the late Devonian period (1965-1969)!

    We had no co-ed dorms, and men and women couldn’t be in each other’s rooms other than on specific “visiting” evenings, with the door open and four feet on the floor.

    I’m not going to say there was no sex, because that would be a lie. But at least we had the decency to pretend!🙂

  388. Pingback: Fantasy Land | Dalrock

  389. Pingback: Is “The Force Awakens” too feminist? | Dalrock

  390. Pingback: Collective delusion | Dalrock

  391. Pingback: It isn’t insincerity, but fear losing women’s approval. | Dalrock

  392. The fierce White Knighting for this consenting non-copulative adulteress (serial, as events later showed) is hilarious and pathetic, a hussy aiming at high-status males is suddenly a victim?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s