What is closeness?

Much of the objection to my last post stems from a misunderstanding of what constitutes closeness between a husband and wife.

What closeness is

Cane’s description of the laugh he shared with his wife after church is a perfect example of closeness.

Today, after church, I was sitting on the edge of the bed and staring into the closet. I was thinking on how better to foster peace among my sometimes unruly children. Mrs. Caldo, seeing me, inquired again what I was thinking about. I replied, “I’m calculating the cost to cover the entire house in 1’2″ steel plating.” We laughed. Together.

He was thinking of something which concerned him. His wife no doubt had a pretty good guess what it was;  they have been married for many years, not to mention that parenting is a shared concern. When she asked, he joked about something he wasn’t concerned about, and they shared a moment of closeness. Closeness doesn’t come from the sort of over talking Opus notes as a distasteful American habit. Husbands and wives share the ultimate closeness, the mystery of one flesh, and this doesn’t require a single word.

It isn’t that talking isn’t important, but that we have elevated talking and especially emoting to perverse levels. Part of this is the misconception that communication means talking, instead of talking merely being one of many ways to communicate.  Part of this is the absurd notion that marital sex needs to be purified through various oprahfications.  Closeness can be talking non stop about the funny or fascinating things the two of you experienced during your respective days, or is can be two words bringing back a shared memory about something one of the children did long ago. At times closeness can also be feeling perfectly comfortable not saying a word. Closeness can mean walking up and silently rubbing your spouse’s shoulders because you know that this is something they need. It can mean all of these things, and more.

What closeness is not

This entry was posted in Beautiful truth, Book of Oprah, Closeness, Game, Manliness, Manosphere Humor, Marriage, Romantic Love. Bookmark the permalink.

159 Responses to What is closeness?

  1. Pingback: What is closeness? | Manosphere.com

  2. sandals with socks says:

    “Closeness doesn’t come from the sort of over talking Opus notes as a distasteful American habit. Husbands and wives share the ultimate closeness, the mystery of one flesh, and this doesn’t require a single word. It isn’t that talking isn’t important, but that we have elevated talking and especially emoting to perverse levels. Part of this is the misconception that communication means talking, instead of talking merely being one of many ways to communicate. ”

    We live in a therapy culture.

  3. Ang says:

    Game recognizes game
    Female 101 states never give a straight answer when glib is available

    I don’t know why it works it just does accept it

  4. Pingback: What is closeness? | Neoreactive

  5. Boxer says:

    That was the most cringeworthy video I have seen in a while.

    Judgy Bitch has a series of articles laying out all the reasons (normal) women find male feminists unfit for relationships of any kind.

    http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2014/11/9-reasons-you-absolutely-do-not-want-a-feminist-to-be-the-father-of-your-children/

    Most women probably don’t mind their husbands occasionally getting scared/sad/angry, they just don’t want to constantly be cleaning up after an emotional basketcase who seems unfit for life.

  6. DeNihilist says:

    Agreed Sandals. The big push to have everything discussed to make couples “closer” is the worst thing evah! SS of Had Enough Therapy covers this quite often and how it wreaks more havoc then makes us closer.

    As per Dalrock and Cane, when the 2 of you are laughing together, you are closer.

  7. sandals with socks says:

    Some people use humor to hide conflict though.

  8. I think closeness comes from the deep-seated belief that the other one will be there for you, come what will, come what may. Women typically know that their husband will be there for them. Husbands, OTOH, if they have any red pill knowledge, know their wives are only a few steps away from filing at any moment. The system, as currently constructed, prevents closeness even in intact families. That is the tragedy.

  9. MarcusD says:

    how to reassure my wife another child would be ok
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=949885

    Practical example of holy family with young children
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=949895

  10. amstrat says:

    Baby don’t hurt me, don’t hurt me, no more.

    It had to be done.

  11. “Husbands and wives share the ultimate closeness, the mystery of one flesh, and this doesn’t require a single word.”

    This is so true!
    I notice a correlation between our physical oneness and our emotional closeness. When we are intimate regularly, there is a warmth to the relationship, laughter comes easily, we can share jokes with just a look. On the other hand, when we haven’t been intimate for a while, we seem to get on each others’ nerves a lot and be more selfish in general.
    God really knew what he was doing on that one…

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Husbands and wives share the ultimate closeness, the mystery of one flesh, and this doesn’t require a single word.”

    Tie that back to Gregoire’s teaching that women should refuse sex with men as a means of control.

    Not sure how close a man would care to be, under those circumstances. What would be the point?

  13. Obfuscation..

    Husbands and wives share the ultimate closeness, the mystery of one flesh, and this doesn’t require a single word. It isn’t that talking isn’t important, but that we have elevated talking and especially emoting to perverse levels.

    You didn’t say ‘perverse levels of emoting’ in your previous article. You didn’t even state what emotions you meant. You just said.. ‘feelings’. That could be anything a man would share with his wife. Women are not more emotional than men, they just display it differently. If you said that men should display their emotions in a masculine way and solve them instead of being feminine over it, it might have had a better response. Instead, you simply started to tell men that they should dabble in telling the truth of their emotions here and there, lightly involve their wives in them and then get the real help, advice or support from friends, family and therapists. Which is completely against the idea of being of one flesh with your wife.

    It is true that a husband shouldn’t just dump his feelings on his wife, but the concern here can also be overstated. The first thing I would suggest is changing the way you view the situation from one of frustration/disappointment towards women to one of empathy towards them. Imagine working for a small firm and having the boss/owner tell you all of his fears for the business. If you are relying on that job to support your family this could very quickly become unsettling. The same is true if your surgeon, dentist, or airline pilot doesn’t communicate confidence and a command of the situation.

    Your wife (and even your girlfriend) wants you to be her rock, especially if her own emotions are storming over her. This is a profound gift a husband can give his wife, and should not be seen as something negative. A wife also relies on her husband for protection and financial support of the family. For these reasons there is a limit as to what kinds of things and more importantly how, how much, and how often you talk about these things with your wife. This isn’t because there is something wrong with women, it is due to the difference between men and women, and more importantly the nature of the roles of husband and wife.

    Furthermore, define what you mean by ‘perverse levels’. Are you comparing a crying, emotional Elliot to the stoic captain of the Titanic going down with the ship? I don’t see most men acting like Elliot, I see most men completely normal and in the middle of those extremes. Context is extremely important. If you are stating that most men are Elliots in need of manning up and becoming stoic rocks to support their ever childlike wives.. we’re just going to have to disagree.

  14. Splashman says:

    Relationship = shared values (including the value of shared experiences). The more significant the shared values, the closer the relationship can be.

    When a wife refuses to value masculinity, or a husband refuses to value femininity, that makes a close relationship impossible.

  15. empathologim says:

    Since we are now getting into the marrow of this group hug, lemme say something completely pedestrian.
    Even couples who are presently distant for whatever reason can have these closeness moments. Like the Germans and Allies on Christmas having a game of futbol.

  16. Scott says:

    Always loved that scene from Bedazzled. Its one of those moments when a little truth leaks out of a mainstream source.

  17. theasdgamer says:

    What can inhibit closeness? A wife who isn’t warm and sweet. An ice witch. A man may eventually stop caring.

  18. Dalrock says:

    @Feministhater

    Obfuscation..

    Husbands and wives share the ultimate closeness, the mystery of one flesh, and this doesn’t require a single word. It isn’t that talking isn’t important, but that we have elevated talking and especially emoting to perverse levels.

    You didn’t say ‘perverse levels of emoting’ in your previous article. You didn’t even state what emotions you meant. You just said.. ‘feelings’. That could be anything a man would share with his wife.

    I didn’t use that specific phrase, but it isn’t true that I could have been talking about anything. From the question in the OP:

    I’m asking because I go to a church that is real big on being “vulnerable” and that if you are not constantly talking to your friends and especially your wife about all your struggles and weaknesses, then you are being sinfully self-protective and “un-spiritual.”

  19. Opus says:

    I was in California with a male friend (we were there for a wedding) and we were sharing the same room (but not the same bed) in a Motel. I was somewhere else, but when I came in, my friend said to me that through the paper-thin walls he had heard an argument between a man and a woman where the man was expressing his views and saying that he was feeling such and such and the woman was likewise feeling this and that. My friend was amazed. He said that he had heard such conversation in the movies and in T.V. episodes of shows like Dallas but had always assumed this was dramatic licence never really imagining that was how Americans really talked to each other.

    The English are just as bad but in the opposite direction: crippling inability to express any opinion or show any form of feeling or emotion. The joke as to two English people on a desert island relates that on being rescued the captain of the rescuing vessel asked the man what it was like to be alone on a desert island for with just one other person – a beautiful woman. The man replied that he could not say as they had not been introduced. As long ago as Rossini’s Journey to Rheims an opera from 1830 where a disparate group of international travelers get stranded, the English man behaves in exactly the same way as the Englishman in the joke, so this is nothing new nor does it seem that it can be altered.

  20. bradford says:

    @AT

    I think you’ve put your finger on it. Most men have no desire to emote all over their wives. However, they would like to feel confident that if something really bad happened, the sh*t hit the fan, their wife would be there by their side. I think it’s called trust. Women today appear to lack trustworthiness. If I know, as you say, my wife is only a few steps away from filing for divorce at any moment and therefore I have to game her to keep her from blowing up my marriage, then how trustworthy can she be?

  21. Dalrock says:

    It turns out that oprahfication is in fact a real word, and it means pretty much what I had in mind when I coined it:

    (informal) the perceived increase in people’s desire to discuss their emotions or personal problems, attributed to the influence of confessional television programmes

  22. Earl says:

    Closeness is whatever the husband and his Bible says it is.

  23. Scott says:

    informal) the perceived increase in people’s desire to discuss their emotions or personal problems, attributed to the influence of confessional television programmes

    When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing. They believe in anything. (I think this was Chesterson).

  24. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Opus: “The English are just as bad but in the opposite direction: crippling inability to express any opinion or show any form of feeling or emotion.”

    I don’t think that’s been true for at least a generation. I remember seeing English women’s mass hysteria on TV during the Diana funeral. They were openly blubbering, emoting, sharing their feelings for the TV cameras. Desperately trying to make Diana’s death their OWN personal tragedy, in that mentally disturbed way that fans always try to co-opt and “own” celebrity deaths.

    England has long had its Oprah clones. They may even have Oprah herself. America has exported its therapeutic psychobabble, infecting other countries and cultures.

  25. theasdgamer says:

    Interestingly, I find that my recent, growing estrangement from Mrs. Gamer has led to me feeling more comfortable being physically close to women when we dance. Women get to choose the distance from their partner and some of them dance closer to me than others. Before my estrangement, I would mentally close off if they got too close. Last Sat. a very pretty ex-cheerleader 20-something danced with me just beyond belly-buckle-polishing distance and I felt quite comfortable with the distance (maybe a foot away); I chatted her up while we danced three dances consecutively, which is probably what she wanted. I’ve read that men committed to relationships tend to put more distance from other women than men who are single. Likely this is due to wanting more comfort from distance and being closer makes them feel a little uncomfortable.

  26. theasdgamer says:

    @ Opus

    I’ve observed a few times where two Englishmen were at the same social gathering but ignored each other until they had been introduced. Sometimes for an hour. It’s comical.

  27. Novaseeker says:

    Women today appear to lack trustworthiness. If I know, as you say, my wife is only a few steps away from filing for divorce at any moment and therefore I have to game her to keep her from blowing up my marriage, then how trustworthy can she be?

    For women, it depends on their moral compass and upbringing and so on. They are not “wired” to be loyal in that sense because in evolutionary-relevant history, it was advantageous for women to be more flexible in terms of loyalty (e.g., be accepting of the conquering tribe, so she can remate with one of them and save her and her kids’ lives, etc.) So the wiring is there to seek to remate if the current mate is weak — this was mere survival when these things got wired up (the ones who were inclined to do so were the ones who reproduced, while the other ones did less so, etc.) However, this, like other “inclinations” can be overcome with recognition and effort — that is, women are not robots, nor are they uniquely enslaved to their inclinations. They can overcome them with effort. The problem, however, is that this can’t happen if the inclination is not realized/recognized as such, and the behaviors are not seen as arising from a problematic impulse, but rather are justified as being normal, right and just (i.e., “it was good of her to leave him, he was a weak man”., etc.) This is the core problem. It isn’t that women can’t overcome this wiring, it’s that the wiring isn’t recognized for what it is — and without being recognized, of course it can’t really be overcome. Still, there are women who are raised to overcome these behaviors, and they can and should be sought out by men who are looking for a wife. They are just not very common — both inside and outside the church.

  28. chokingonredpills says:

    Sigh. I see so much of myself in that Elliot clip. I am sensitive man by nature and can get emotional very easily. It’s been a steep learning curve trying to keep them in. I count the number of weeks we’ve been together. I am perplexed at how she (my girlfriend) is not as curious about me as I am about her. She rarely asks questions about me while I’m always asking about how her day was. Because she’s a teacher and had sore throat two weeks ago, I’ve been making a honey-lemon drink just for her so that I could pass a bottle of that to her when we met (which is similar to Elliot’s dolphin-free tuna salad…).

    Now, I’m worried that she’ll do an “Allison” on me.

  29. Dalrock says:

    @chokingonredpills

    Sigh. I see so much of myself in that Elliot clip. I am sensitive man by nature and can get emotional very easily.

    One thing the clip does a good job of showing is that what we culturally think of as “sensitive” really isn’t sensitive at all. Elliot is oblivious the entire time, missing very obvious communication from her from the very beginning. Even the man who kicks sand in his face is communicating very clearly, but Elliot is oblivious and wants to “start a dialog” as if one hasn’t been occurring. The only person Elliot is sensitive to is Elliot. He is sensitive to his feelings about sunsets, dolphins, etc. He is fully inwardly focused, yet he has convinced himself that he is really sensitive to others.

  30. Sigh. I see so much of myself in that Elliot clip. I am sensitive man by nature and can get emotional very easily. It’s been a steep learning curve trying to keep them in. I count the number of weeks we’ve been together. I am perplexed at how she (my girlfriend) is not as curious about me as I am about her. She rarely asks questions about me while I’m always asking about how her day was. Because she’s a teacher and had sore throat two weeks ago, I’ve been making a honey-lemon drink just for her so that I could pass a bottle of that to her when we met (which is similar to Elliot’s dolphin-free tuna salad…).

    Now, I’m worried that she’ll do an “Allison” on me.

    Perhaps you should try not talking to her, let her talk to you instead. Don’t open up unless she expressly asked about something. Let her make the effort. Try it for a week or two, see if she reacts differently. Give her a bit of ‘cold shoulder’ treatment and try and fill your days doing other things without her. Clear your mind of her, make her the outlier to your life, not the main part.

  31. c-o-r-p,

    Sigh. I see so much of myself in that Elliot clip. I am sensitive man by nature and can get emotional very easily. It’s been a steep learning curve trying to keep them in. I count the number of weeks we’ve been together. I am perplexed at how she (my girlfriend) is not as curious about me as I am about her. She rarely asks questions about me while I’m always asking about how her day was. Because she’s a teacher and had sore throat two weeks ago, I’ve been making a honey-lemon drink just for her so that I could pass a bottle of that to her when we met (which is similar to Elliot’s dolphin-free tuna salad…).

    The most “red-pill” relationship I had (prior to meeting my wife) I didn’t even know I was being red pill. But looking back (more than 20 years ago) it was plainly obvious why it worked so well for me and why she loved me wayyyy more than I even liked her. Here is how it worked for me.

    Don’t do “friends things” with your girlfriend. Just don’t. Spend most of your time hanging out with your friends, fill your time with them. Your girlfriend, just like fh said, you shouldn’t be expressing your feelings to her. That is what your friends are for (tell them when you are happy, angry, pissed, frustrated, confident, etc.) Your gf is there to do the things that you can’t do with your friends. She is there for your need for intimacy, that is what she needs from you. And she needs to have her OWN friends (that are not your friends) that she can hang out with when you hang with your friends.

    Let her call you some times. And don’t always be available. When the two of you are building your relationship (to decide whether to take it to the next level or not) absence makes the heart grow fonder. It really does.

    Don’t ask your gf how her day went. You ask your wife how her day went, not a gf. Your gf is not yet entitled to that level of concern yet. I’m being semi-serious here, do not ask her about her day until she is your Mrs. You don’t ask because (in the end) the outcome is not going to help you in anyway. Either your gf had a good day and she’ll start to grow annoyed with you for Ellioting her. Or maybe she had a bad day because she needs something done and the next thing will be your asking her what you can do to help and she will grow to expect that behavior of a bf (when that is the role of a husband.) She might start to friend-zone you as her beta orbiter instead of her alpha-stud. Which do you want to be?

    What the hell are you doing making her honey-lemon-drink? Do you two live together? If not, she can make her own honey-lemon-drink.

  32. earl says:

    ‘What can inhibit closeness?’

    Yes a cold heart is probably the biggest thing that can inhibit closeness or for that matter…change. And the thing is only the person with that heart can make the choice to keep it that way or change.

  33. I watched the Elliot clip, it’s actually quite funny. It’s obviously over the top but it does have a point. Too much emotion way too fast… three weeks?! Yea, she obviously loses any attraction she has for him. However, I do think the clip is an overboard example of what really isn’t that much of an issue. I just don’t see many men like that, instead, I keep hearing the chorus of women that men are not romantic enough, not sharing enough, nor caring enough.

    One other thing, kind of bothers me really. What do you do if someone comes and kicks sand in your face again and again? I suppose you can choose any one sided conflict scenario here though, doesn’t need to be sand. Is a violent confrontation inevitable, remember it is a three on one fight.. and Elliot could have sure used some backbone and stood up for himself more but I don’t see any other proper tactic that he could have done differently to avoid such a confrontation.

  34. Cane Caldo says:

    @feministhater

    One other thing, kind of bothers me really. What do you do if someone comes and kicks sand in your face again and again? I suppose you can choose any one sided conflict scenario here though, doesn’t need to be sand. Is a violent confrontation inevitable, remember it is a three on one fight.. and Elliot could have sure used some backbone and stood up for himself more but I don’t see any other proper tactic that he could have done differently to avoid such a confrontation.

    In the moment you just withstand it. Afterwords, you go to family and friends.

  35. Yes a cold heart is probably the biggest thing that can inhibit closeness or for that matter…change. And the thing is only the person with that heart can make the choice to keep it that way or change.

    Have to admit, that’s true.

  36. Scott says:

    FH-

    I guess it kind of depends on whether avoiding a confrontation is your primary goal.

    When I was in 2nd grade, I tried to get a bunch of guys together to beat up the lunch-money taking bully. They all agreed at first and said they would join me out in front of the school for a confontation. I figured 20 to 1, we couldn’t lose. They all no-showed and it was me against him (and he had his usual 2 friends).

    I just started swining at him as hard as I could. The other 2 ran. It wasn’t exactly a victory, because was bigger and meaner. But he left me alone after that and kept picking on all those guys who no showed.

  37. earl says:

    ‘What do you do if someone comes and kicks sand in your face again and again?’

    Stand up…look at the alpha of the group in the eyes and keep your eyes on his.

    I believe Mike Tyson called that skullduggery.

  38. Thomas says:

    feministhater,

    Outnumbered? Smile and giggle.

  39. BradA says:

    theadsgamer,

    I would bet that your dancing is part of the problem in your situation. It seemed to work for a while, but that kind of intimacy with other women does not seem like a good thing for any marriage.

    General Note: I am in the middle of moving, so I may be lighter here than normal. Some of you may be glad, but I thought it worth noting. I wish you could beam stuff directly into your new house!

  40. JAY WILL says:

    I find myself wanting to “let it all out”, all those thoughts emotions etc and yet at the same time I’m somewhat aware that doing this is not the right thing to do. There may be a place for me to do this, but you end up invading other peoples spaces through a false sense that those feelings and thoughts are special and warrant lots of attention. This applies even more to women, and in relationships, where they are not going to be interested in all that specialness and may well be repulsed or made to feel uncomfortable by it. At the moment I’m seeing avoidance as a solution, even if its unhealthy for me. I can’t get my head around what normal healthy loving relationships are, indeed the words themselves if said out loud in the presence of other people would result in a crushing emotional sensation inside me. I have an impending sense of doom, that the bubble will burst.

    I also sense that this post itself may be crossing that boundary, meandering selfishly off and being too long. I feel compelled to say it though, and better this than more damaging ways of pushing boundaries.

  41. Scott says:

    Elliot is oblivious the entire time, missing very obvious communication from her from the very beginning

    http://www.theonion.com/articles/courageous-man-overcomes-womans-body-language-to-c,38152/

  42. jsr says:

    “The only person Elliot is sensitive to is Elliot. He is sensitive to his feelings about sunsets, dolphins, etc. He is fully inwardly focused, yet he has convinced himself that he is really sensitive to others.”

    A very good point. Perhaps worthy of a post or further development.

  43. thedeti says:

    Elliot is a quintessential gamma male. Vox Day put up a good series on why gammas are the way they are. Mostly it’s because they live in a fantasy world of their own making. They are encouraged by well meaning but clueless parents and other adults in their lives who foster the gamma by reinforcing how “special” he is. They coddle his emotions, they encourage his fantastical delusions, they help him rationalize his failures.

    The gamma series starts here. http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2015/02/graduating-gamma-1.html

  44. theasdgamer says:

    @ BradA

    theadsgamer,

    I would bet that your dancing is part of the problem in your situation. It seemed to work for a while, but that kind of intimacy with other women does not seem like a good thing for any marriage.

    I figured out an important fact about Mrs. Gamer. She is projecting her past onto me where an ex-bf was unfaithful. She withdraws when she has relationship problems. I merely exposed her problem. Wasn’t anything intentional on my part, except to put distance between me and the “other woman” once I realized that the low-intensity bonding was becoming a problem. Mrs. Gamer keeps coming back to the issue and prying and looking for a reason to find a problem. Nothing to find there, but she invents something. The “other woman” does general pings on fb which I just ignore. Stuff like liking comments about events that she will and did attend (which she ordinarily doesn’t do) and I used to attend and signing up on fb for an event at a time that I previously attended and won’t again because I want distance. I’m walking the walk, despite Mrs. Gamer acting like an ice witch.

    Haven’t asked for any numbers or isolated anyone. Haven’t danced too much with any woman. Last Sat. I danced with a group of five 20-somethings, including a very pretty ex-cheerleader who danced within intimate convo range and we chatted for three dances. She’s a smoker, so she wouldn’t be on my menu in any case, but it was fun to chat with her. She remembered me and where we had danced together before, but I didn’t remember her.

    You seem to still have a lot of Blue Pill in you, but I appreciate your effort. Mrs. Gamer needs to submit and line up to support my mission and be warm and sweet and welcome me home after a night of me out working getting material for my book.

  45. Novaseeker says:

    Does this bring you “closer”?

    http://sukofamily.org/how-to-make-your-wife-submit-to-your-authority-6-tips/

    Ugh. It’s disgusting to see such protestant missionaries in a Christian country like Ukraine which has a long established church. That’s bad enough. It’s even worse when they are peddling this North American Churchian guff when the Eastern Churches have this stuff much better figured out than your typical American protestant church does. Get out, go back to the Pacific NW and help people there — God only knows the Pacific NW needs it, and there are thousands of actual priests in Ukraine who are already doing God’s work there and not peddling this kind of Churchian feminist nonsense. Ugh.

  46. I left a post on that blog.

  47. earl says:

    ‘Does this bring you “closer”?’

    Become her best friend

    Bill Cosby once pointed out the difference between a friend and a wife. A wife is a very different type of friendship.

    Take responsibility for your mistakes and hers
    I’d agree on the taking responsibility part…but if it is her mistake she should be told what not to do next time instead of you quietly trying to fix the mess.

    Become a man worthy of her respect

    I agree that a man should be working on becoming a respectable person.

    But If we are going to put worthiness into the mix then the flipside is she should become a woman worthy of his love. This is stuff that should be done before marriage and then grows in a marriage.

    Pray for her
    A million times yes.

    Give her time with God
    Ditto

    Serve her
    If you are married to one another that’s already part of the deal.

  48. Dalrock says:

    @Rollo

    Does this bring you “closer”?
    http://sukofamily.org/how-to-make-your-wife-submit-to-your-authority-6-tips/

    In other words, win her over without a word. Modern Christians love headship and submission, they just don’t like God’s ordering of the roles. Who’s up for some crossdressing?

  49. JAY WILL says:

    @theDeti

    “Elliot is a quintessential gamma male. Vox Day put up a good series on why gammas are the way they are. Mostly it’s because they live in a fantasy world of their own making. They are encouraged by well meaning but clueless parents and other adults in their lives who foster the gamma by reinforcing how “special” he is. They coddle his emotions, they encourage his fantastical delusions, they help him rationalize his failures.”

    Spot on. Whats interesting is how normal well-adjusted adult males don’t all see the nature of the gamma, his self-deception doesn’t mean he can’t also deceive others. It also means they won’t necessarily know how to deal with them, for example some of the well adjusted betas and particularly deltas (on Vox scale) may see gammas as normal well adjusted people who just don’t know whats best for them. When gamma/narcissistic rage comes seemingly out of the blue they will be completely blind sided. They also may wrongly diagnose the problem as “he’s got problems” further enabling him. He has low self-esteem etc. The problem is undeserved high self-esteem. The antidote would be traditionally to hit it out of him, break him down army style. It would hurt but he would benefit from it, particularly if the raw material/potential is there.

    Alpha types do not have this problem, they see right through it. The reason being they are conflict seekers, and sense that the gamma secretly wants power but is too weak to get it. A cruel alpha can play with a gamma like a kitten with a disabled mouse. You also see this in the wild, the killer whale will throw the killed seal in the air. In times where the community/society is most healthy the (good) alphas continually burst the gamma as if playing whack-a-mole, as and when gamma force rises, which is maybe inevitable and can’t be eradicated from any group completely. In current times leaders, I’m not sure if they are alphas as such but certainly have power, are enabling the gammas. In fact it appears they are using them as a weapon against the majority of well adjusted healthy adults to consolidate their power. Marxism/Leftism/SJWism being the enabling of the parasitical and destructive gamma and necessarily a top down force.

    There is no way any healthy well adjusted successful man could believe in feminism or leftist thinking (genuine social justice is a real thing just hard to deliver in a world of competition). So therefore it as at best the product of stupidity, self- deception, selfishness or maybe simple economic forces (I make money so who cares if they are all fat, unhealthy, and unproductive) or lies by genuine dark evil alphas who seek power and not simply wealth.

    I’ve got this from reading up on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Vox’s blogs, and general reading of related sites including this one. You need to be aware that while the above is probably on the right track that a huge part of the drive for me is NOT to exchange value with like minded people, which is what normal well-adjusted adults do, its to reinforce my sense of specialness by repeating what is already out there as if its mine.

    I think the value of me writing for others is to see what gamma type behaviour is like so you can identify it quickly in all its skulduggery. For example here, length of post is too long, talking about ideas as if they are yours, attention seeking even if quite subtle. Normal people need to be educated about deceptive gamma to protect themselves, too root it out where necessary, reign it in etc. Its very helpful for me to say it on here though, out loud much harder.

    I would like to change though, I’m not sure at the moment whether that will be managing what I am better so I have some peace of mind and don’t damage myself and others, or whether I can break this lifelong bubble and graduate to a grounded fulfilled potential. The only thing is I don’t trust the modern psychological community to deliver what I might need if I can’t achieve it on my own. I suspect theres lots of them who are deluded about women and I will expect them to be knowledgeable about things If I am to take their advice.

  50. Gunner Q says:

    Novaseeker @ 4:09 pm:
    “Ugh. It’s disgusting to see such protestant missionaries in a Christian country like Ukraine which has a long established church.”

    Yeah, I regret my final year of missionary funding because of this sort of thing. It hurts to realize you’ve been funding the bad guys.

    Even when a church does local evangelization, it looks suspiciously like headhunting. They target the people who don’t go to church anymore without asking why they don’t go to church anymore, and meanwhile have little to say to the unbeliever.

    I don’t want to start a new church without God’s assistance, if I even have the skills, so for now I just let the church die. Nothing else to do in California until I get either allies or opportunities.

  51. Dalrock, Jeannie and Molly don’t like me over there. One of them said I should join Isis. LOL! Anyway I responded to them. I don’t think they have any hope of understanding anything of what I said.

  52. greyghost says:

    This is what submission looks like

  53. Molly is almost hysterical now. She’s falling to pieces over there.

  54. I think Caleb just closed the blog to comments. Wow…..

  55. nathanjevans says:

    @IBB: I was RightWingNut over there. I am really not certain of those poor women can read at this point. Molly confused me for you, and then thought that my assertion that the Law of Moses was of abiding validity meant that it shouldn’t apply.

  56. greyghost says:

    You have ruined it for every body IBB

  57. JDG says:

    Yep they’re closed. I was sexist pig. Borrowing from Dalrock I posted this in response to the essay:

    The advice is sound, but only if the roles are reversed. The husband is the authority in the home, not the wife. No one wants to hold women accountable for anything anymore.

    molly then wrote this to sexist pig:

    It should be fun for you then, on judgment day, when you get to answer for all her sin and yours. That is what you get when you place yourself above her as her “God,” which is what you are claiming this verse means. Do you not know that submission must be freely offered, it cannot be taken or it loses its essence all together and becomes enslavement. No man can make his wife submit, he can enslave her, or he can love her as HE is commanded to do. She gets to decide whether she submits or not, and he gets to decide whether he loves her or not and each with answer to God for their own choices.

    I tried to respond with the following (but comments are closed):

    Putting words in my mouth won’t help your errant position. My being in authority over my wife does not make me like her “God”. My supervisor at work is in authority over me. Does that mean he is like my “God”?

    As you say submission must be freely given. If a wife then refuses to freely give what God has instructed her to give, is she not in the wrong? Everyone gets to decide whether or not they are going to obey God. What she doesn’t get to do is decide whether or not it’s okay to disobey her husband, because God has already made it clear that is not okay.

    I’m not saying the husband should force her to submit if she chooses to rebel. I am saying that anyone who calls himself a brother should call out such behavior for what it is, rebellion.

  58. JDG says:

    Looks like Mr. Suke went through and removed all the disagreeing posts.

  59. greyghost says:

    I wonder if he is going to remove mine?

  60. JDG says:

    Who were you?

  61. Looks like Mr. Suke went through and removed all the disagreeing posts.

    I suppose we should pray for him too…. now.

  62. greyghost says:

    greyghost1

  63. JDG says:

    Sorry, I didn’t see greyghost1. Molly is gone as well.

  64. greyghost says:

    They need to rebuild the mound you bible thumpers kicked over. Imagine that reading straight out of the bible to “Christians” (churchians) gets you banned.

  65. Imagine that reading straight out of the bible to “Christians” (churchians) gets you banned.

    Standard operating procedure. Feminism trumps Christianity. Feminism is endorsed by satan. Banning and purging of red pills, this is just man doing satan’s work.

    Hell is full of souls, but there is an infinate amount of space available down there. I pray for everyone. Feminism has truly d-mned a few billion souls.

  66. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    These terms are new to me. I thought there were only Alpha and Beta males, though I’d heard about Omega. Now a Gamma? And a Delta?

    What do these other terms mean?

  67. These terms are new to me. I thought there were only Alpha and Beta males, though I’d heard about Omega. Now a Gamma? And a Delta?

    Alphas and Betas are pretty straight forward. Omega male, we are in red pill dispute. Some in manosphere would say Omega males are the lowest of the low. I would categorize Omegas as more a PUA’s hybrid of MGTOW. Consider:

    Alpha male deer pulls female deer away from beta male deer who is helpless to watch.

    Alpha male deer #2 sees this and rams alpha male deer #1 in the head for supremacy over the female deer.

    While this happens beta male deer sulks off and cries, longing for the deer he was providing for. Meanwhile OMEGA male deer comes along humps/f-cks said submitting female deer while she waits with baited breath as the two alphas are challenging each other. To me that is the “omega.”

  68. Novaseeker says:

    These terms are new to me. I thought there were only Alpha and Beta males, though I’d heard about Omega. Now a Gamma? And a Delta?

    What do these other terms mean?

    Blogger Vox Day has the more detailed approach of Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma and Omega … and then Sigma.

    Alpha = leader, top dog. Do great with women.
    Beta = next in line. These are your BBs.
    Delta = Average, AFCs. Do badly with women but still get laid from time to time.
    Gamma = Below average. Do badly with women, seldom get laid.
    Omega = Dregs. Never get laid. Socio-sexual lepers.

    Sigma = Independent, does well with women, not a leader/joiner.

  69. Novaseeker says:

    Oh, and in his taxonomy there’s also “Lambda” for gay guys — get laid a lot with almost no effort, but only with other men.

  70. Dalrock says:

    @IBB

    Dalrock, Jeannie and Molly don’t like me over there. One of them said I should join Isis. LOL! Anyway I responded to them. I don’t think they have any hope of understanding anything of what I said.

    I just checked, but don’t see any new comments. Did they delete all of the recent ones when they closed the post? What is interesting from what you guys shared is it sounds like they went two years pretending to support submission while having a good laugh about how men aren’t worthy of submission. Then some of you pointed out the actual Scripture, they threw a fit, and closed the post and deleted all challenging comments. Do I have that right?

  71. SirHamster says:

    Blogger Vox Day has the more detailed approach of Alpha, Beta, Delta, Gamma and Omega … and then Sigma.

    To help distinguish between his system and the Roissy one, he suggests lower-case for his categories: alpha/beta vs. Alpha/Beta.

    beta in his system is actually a lesser Alpha in the Roissy one. Able to sex up the ladies; but not the top-dog. Delta/gamma/omega roughly fit into the Beta term.

  72. Boxer says:

    beta in his system is actually a lesser Alpha in the Roissy one. Able to sex up the ladies; but not the top-dog. Delta/gamma/omega roughly fit into the Beta term.

    The next logical step will be to throw out all the greco-iberian letters and just call things as they are. This whole “alpha beta gamma” nonsense may have served a purpose at one time, but today it is asperger speak. As an aside, if someone uses it in my presence (IRL) I find it safe to assume they’re gay.

  73. SirHamster says:

    The next logical step will be to throw out all the greco-iberian letters and just call things as they are.

    And those words would be … ?

  74. @feministhater

    “Perhaps you should try not talking to her, let her talk to you instead. Don’t open up unless she expressly asked about something. Let her make the effort. Try it for a week or two, see if she reacts differently. Give her a bit of ‘cold shoulder’ treatment and try and fill your days doing other things without her. Clear your mind of her, make her the outlier to your life, not the main part.”

    Am inclined to just back off and let her do the work. It’s just that we can only go out once a week (on Saturdays). I don’t know how she’ll react to a cold shoulder treatment. She mentioned that she does not like talking on the phone and she does not initiate conversations (via text messaging). So, in terms of conversations and reaching out, I am doing all the work and it is frustrating.

    @IBB

    “She is there for your need for intimacy and that is what she needs from you.”

    I don’t understand this. What is this intimacy? How does it build comfort and closeness in a dating relationship?

  75. sandals with socks says:

    ” It’s disgusting to see such protestant missionaries in a Christian country like Ukraine which has a long established church. That’s bad enough. It’s even worse when they are peddling this North American Churchian guff when the Eastern Churches have this stuff much better figured out than your typical American protestant church does. Get out, go back to the Pacific NW and help people there”

    Washington, Oregon and Nor Cal? Maybe. But I always wondered why our missionaries never go to atheist majority countries like the Scandanavian ones. They always seem to go where people already believe in God and have developed morals, never to godless feminist countries that are bereft of spirituality. Go figure.

  76. Dalrock,

    Then some of you pointed out the actual Scripture, they threw a fit, and closed the post and deleted all challenging comments. Do I have that right?

    You have that right.

  77. greyghost says:

    Washington, Oregon and Nor Cal? Maybe. But I always wondered why our missionaries never go to atheist majority countries like the Scandanavian ones. They always seem to go where people already believe in God and have developed morals, never to godless feminist countries that are bereft of spirituality. Go figure.

    Another pop culture theme to go along with feminism is straight up cowardice. Christians have adopted the sin of nice. They can’t even read the actual bible in church to not offend the worthless Christian women in the church. The last social issue homosexuality is now getting the make over. Christians are jokes now. There are people including some commenters here think Islam is the fix for the feminine imperative. Even the really good Christians have this too righteous to sin thing going. Don’t want to fight in this world less they get their souls dirty. It is too the point that we here have termed that here as Churchian rather than Christian.

  78. pukeko60 says:

    Grey,
    The real Christians are not putting up with the crap that the churchians are trying to poison the committees of the clergy with. They know chluthu swims left, and decieves many. The better approach is to live a sober, godly and righteous life, and let that be a witness.

    Boxer,
    Men should be divided into those who are leading their wives, or living in holy celibacy, and the broken. Speaking as one of the broken, we have no part in the leadership of the church: and if a man could not (a) keep his dick inside his pants (b) lead his wife — which includes caring for her but also not pandering to her emotions (c) be prepared to call out falsity among the brothers he is not, in my mind, qualified to lead. The Roissysphere are rightly called cads, and are beneath the broken.

    IBB:
    Keep up the witness, even if you are accused of Trolling.

  79. The Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    Here is a recent comic strip from Shoe which fits in with this discussion.
    http://www.shoecomics.com/comics.php?sel_dt=2015-03-09

  80. The Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    The strip in question is the March 7 one. You may have to click the back arrow to read it.

  81. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    SirHampster: “beta in [Vox’s] system is actually a lesser Alpha in the Roissy one. Able to sex up the ladies; but not the top-dog. Delta/gamma/omega roughly fit into the Beta term.”

    Yes, that seems to be so. Vox’s Beta’s get an “above average” amount of sexual partners. Which if true, negate terms like “thirsty Beta” or “Beta orbiter.”

  82. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    BTW, Vox talks about first tier women, second tier women, third tier women. Has anyone bothered to categorize, label, and define the various tiers of women?

    I can think of terms like Trophy Wife, Plain Jane, etc., but nothing official in the manosphere.

  83. Novaseeker says:

    I don’t really know much about his tiering system beyond what the words themselves seem to suggest. The manosphere tends to follow the more broadly used classification scale of 1-10.

  84. earl says:

    ‘Has anyone bothered to categorize, label, and define the various tiers of women?’

    The labels are there to simplify complicated human behavior. But essentially they only really apply to the animal kingdom.

  85. freebird says:

    What is closeness?
    I have no idea,I have never had the money to buy it.

    “Alpha” = omega with a fatter wallet.
    I despise these categorizations.
    It’s just free license to discriminate.
    The same old story of men justifying slamming the boot down on another man’s neck to get at the ONE thing that gives meaning to his life:
    Inserting his penis into any old vag.
    Talk about low standards.
    I got your beta/gamma hanging right here between my legs,come and get it boys.

  86. Pingback: The Link Between Laughter and Intimacy | Girls Being Girls

  87. Scott says:

    Freebird and Boxer–

    “I despise these categorizations.”

    “The next logical step will be to throw out all the greco-iberian letters and just call things as they are. This whole “alpha beta gamma” nonsense may have served a purpose at one time, but today it is asperger speak.”

    While I occasionally use them myself (because of the short hand/face valid/proximal utility of them) I am kind of with you in spirit here. Not sure what the exact answer is, but I think there is a correlation between their strict dogmatic use and the risk of Dalrocks “Fragging Headship” idea. It is fraught with the potential to go all Mark Driscoll on everybody else.

  88. Gunner Q says:

    The categorizations make sense when you recognize the behaviors underlying the simple “success with women” metric. Vox has done a lot of work that way, enough that his original classification is mostly obsolete. Of course, it wouldn’t be the Internet if his system wasn’t misapplied by a lot of guys thinking “Alpha” is a synonym for “ideal man”. Vox’s Alpha is a conflict-seeking, drama-making, narcissistic jerk… who therefore gets a lot of sex.

    By contrast, I self-identify as a Delta, guys with little experience or natural talent with women who make it up by relying on training and traditions to get a girl. (Probably only one girl but that was good enough for Marriage 1.0.) Unfortunately for me, the Churchians trained me very badly and there aren’t any courtship traditions left.

    It’s fascinating and repulsive to me how much of human behavior can be explained by the sex drive. I thought people were rational. Oops.

  89. earl says:

    ‘ Of course, it wouldn’t be the Internet if his system wasn’t misapplied by a lot of guys thinking “Alpha” is a synonym for “ideal man”.’

    The problem with that thinking is that they think ‘ideal man’ is the guy who has the most sex with the most women. And then the less you have the lower you are on the scale. It is certainly far from the truth as there is more to a man besides how many women he can fancy.

    Jesus pointed out what an ideal man is.

  90. PokeSalad says:

    Har har….go all the way to spread the Gospel in Ukraine…and then can’t handle a few comments on their blog. Pathetic. They are really “suffering for Christ” there. /sarcasm

  91. IBB:
    Keep up the witness, even if you are accused of Trolling.

    I do. And no one has.

  92. feeriker says:

    Get out, go back to the Pacific NW and help people there

    Amerikan churchians from the Pacific Northwest “helping” people?

    Mouth-vomit alert …

  93. craig says:

    The problem with that thinking [“Alpha” as synonym for “ideal man”] is that they think ‘ideal man’ is the guy who has the most sex with the most women. And then the less you have the lower you are on the scale. It is certainly far from the truth as there is more to a man besides how many women he can fancy.

    Of course there is more, but you can’t stop people from equating greater ability with greater manliness. It’s hard-wired into the conceptual definition of manliness in anything. Renunciation of some particular desire is not a manly act unless that desire is something one has the ability to realize if one wants. Otherwise it comes across as a childish attempt to reframe inability as virtue, a face-saving boast of the “I didn’t want to go to your stupid party anyway” variety.

    Even Jesus exemplifies manly self-sacrifice precisely because He willed Himself to submit to what He could have stopped at any time.

  94. Novaseeker says:

    Otherwise it comes across as a childish attempt to reframe inability as virtue, a face-saving boast of the “I didn’t want to go to your stupid party anyway” variety.

    Yes, but with the caveat that if some guy is going to be celibate anyway (not by choice), if he decides to use that state to give his life to God (like monks do), that is honorable. It isn’t “sacrificial” in the sense that he is giving something up which he has ready access to, but what he is doing is taking a bad situation and making it positive by giving his life to God and accepting the cross of involuntary celibacy in that vein. It isn’t “manly” in the sense of being an alpha male, but it is still an honorable path for involuntary celibates who can’t change their state.

  95. JDG says:

    I’m not sure what category I would fall into. I’ve seen different definitions for alpha, so I’m not even sure what it means. If these catergories are only measured by the girls you can get, then I don’t see them as very useful for Christians (who would be wise to confine there marriage prospects to women who have been brought up correctly). I’m not saying a use isn’t there, just that I don’t see it.

  96. nathanjevans says:

    @Gunner Q

    …and there aren’t any courtship traditions left.

    I’m not exactly sure what you mean by this, but one place you can find “courtship” is in small conservative Presbyterian churches. If you have no particular denominational commitments, for some reason conservative Presbyterians are on top of this more so than any group I’ve found. Seriously, if you have a decent job and aren’t a total wastrel otherwise, then you will be able to find a girl to marry. Furthermore, she won’t have much of a family to fall back on if there if she desires to blow up your marriage because they just won’t put up with that.

  97. Opus says:

    I enjoy reading Vox. I note that, including Lambdas, he has constructed seven categories of men: Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Omega, Sigma and Lambda, “and one man in his time plays many parts” at least according to a writer who also divided men into seven groupings: All’s Well That Ends Well, Act II Scene vii.

  98. nathan,

    Seriously, everything you said here is entirely subjective. This is the manosphere. That doesn’t play here in the world of objective absolutes.

    Seriously, if you have a decent job

    Please quote book, chapter, and verse in the Bible where a man is required to have a decent job to get a wife. He must being willing to work. But what if there is no work or he loses his “decent” job? Does he also lose his “decent” wife?

    More to the point, what is a decent job? Is that being a medical doctor or driving a truck? Both can be fired. Is only a teacher or a college professor a “decent” job because once they get tenure they can’t be fired? You need to define “decent” entirely objectively. If you refuse to, don’t argue with GunnerQ.

    and aren’t a total wastrel otherwise

    What is a wastrel? Is that an alcoholic, drug user, or some kind of criminal? Or is that just a “short guy?” Or is it just an “ugly guy?” Or is it just a “stupid guy?” Are Christian guys who want to work hard but can’t find or keep a job because they are short, ugly, and stupid, undeserving of Christian wives? Does being short, ugly, or stupid make one a “wastrel?” You need to define “wastrel” entirely objectively. If you refuse to, don’t argue with GunnerQ.

    …then you will be able to find a girl to marry. Furthermore, she won’t have much of a family to fall back on if there if she desires to blow up your marriage because they just won’t put up with that.

    Who us “they?” The conservative Presbetarian church? Who cares? Certainly not the men here on Dalrock’s site. What we care about are objective measurements and government absolutely positively DOES put up with it if she blows up the marriage. Government will see to it that she gets cash and prizes from him. Even if that church shuns her because “they don’t put up with it” so what? What else can “they” do about what she did other than shun? Nothing. She just finds another church that WILL put up with it. Or she doesn’t go back to church. Either way she gets cash and prizes. That is not in dispute.

    And don’t tell me that her family will not support their daughter if she blows up the marriage. I have known many women who have blown up marriages. In ALL cases, her family supported their daughter’s decision to do so. So now not only are you entirely subjective, I am also calling you a liar.

  99. I mentioned the movie “The Quiet Man” on a related topic over at Vox’s, and I got to thinking about this. For those who haven’t seen it (go do so now), the conflict of the movie is that John Wayne has to fight his wife’s brother for her dowry, and he refuses to do it or to tell her why he won’t. Even though she’s crazy about him, she’s humiliated by what she sees as his cowardice, to the point of leaving his house. Eventually he establishes his dominance by (literally) dragging her home, then goes and fights.

    So I got to thinking, a modern audience would be bound to think: why doesn’t he just tell her the reason he doesn’t want to fight? He has a perfectly good reason. From the modern, “talk out your feelings” perspective, he’s making things worse for no reason by being so close-mouthed. It probably seems like a big plot hole to moderns. But to audiences of the time, keeping your fears to yourself was just part of being a man, so a real Manly Man would take that to the limit.

    I don’t know that it’s necessary to go to that extreme — seems to me he could have said, “Hey, the last guy I punched died, and I don’t want the next to be your brother,” without getting sappy and sobbing about it. But we could stand to move a long way back in that direction from the modern pressure to emote all over the place.

  100. Cail,

    Movies like that are beautiful because they record the “history” of what was important to people back in the day, important to understand what made men, men. But for people who don’t understand the actual concept of dowry, men not sharing their feelings, and husbands who have authority to correct rebelling wives, not only would the movie make no sense to them, it is completely unwatchable nonsense. That is because they lack the most basic skills necessary to understand that men are women are different. And (most importantly) WHY they are different. And that is a shame.

  101. Cail,

    I enjoy the movie “It’s a Wonderful Life” for many of the same reasons. Here is a man (George Bailey) who (perhaps for nothing more than a Christian sense of loving thy neighbor) sacrificed his entire life for the betterment and enrichment of others. He put everyone else’s needs ahead of his own. In all cases. All throughout his life. And he did it because he knew that he was the ONLY one who COULD do it. And taking care of his mother, his brother, his late father, his uncle, his wife, his children, the entire town (by saving a savings and loan that he loathed to work for), gave him purpose. These kinds of men are a rare breed today. And what is even rarer are the women who find husbandly value in marrying and obeying these men (men who have little to no wealth of their own for their self-sacrifice) because to do so would mean some sacrifice on her own part. You are NOT going to find anyone making a movie like that today because so few would want to watch something that they (themselves) could never relate to NOR does it create any kind of “fantasy” for those whose sole prupose in watching a movie is nothing more than their temporary entertainment.

  102. Scott says:

    In ALL cases, her family supported their daughter’s decision to do so.

    I would have to agree here. In my divorce from my first wife, which I rarely discuss on these sites, this exact thing happened. We were members of the very conservative church of Christ, which upon hearing what was happening promissed they would practice church discipline if she didn’t repent and return to me. They heard both sides of the story and determined there were no grounds for divorce. But in the end they caved in the face of her crying.

    Her parents, also members of the same faith tradition, through several conversations during the ordeal said the same thing. They knew the truth of the situation and seemed very displeased with her. In the end, they did not stick to their guns.

  103. JDG says:

    Some memorable quotes from The Quiet Man:

    “There’ll be no locks or bolts between us, Mary Kate… except those in your own mercenary little heart!”

    “Sir!… Sir!… Here’s a good stick, to beat the lovely lady.”

    “He’ll regret it till his dying day, if ever he lives that long.”

    “Is this a courting or a donnybrook? Have the good manners not to hit the man until he’s your husband and entitled to hit you back.”

  104. nathanjevans says:

    Please quote book, chapter, and verse in the Bible where a man is required to have a decent job to get a wife.

    Yes, that was very subjective. However, what I meant by “decent job” was being on any sort of path that will lead to a career to support your family. The father probably won’t let his daughter marry someone who does not appear to have any sort of future. I can’t see any problem with that at all: It is perfectly within his right, and I would do likewise if I was a father. However, “decent job” included almost anything above minimum wage.* Furthermore, a lot of these people have companies where they would hire you themselves if they liked you. In my personal experience, they were also very generous with men who were out of work and struggling to support their families.

    *All of the people involved in the Churches I was involved in were middle class or above. They were not too keen on their daughters marrying anyone below that, at least from what I could tell. However, once couple I know got married while the guy was a supermarket assistant manager and had literally no prospects. And he was pretty fat too.

    Is that an alcoholic, drug user, or some kind of criminal? Or is that just a “short guy?” Or is it just an “ugly guy?” Or is it just a “stupid guy?”

    It might include stupid guys, as Presbyterians tend to be a relatively intellectual group of people in my experience, though YMMV. I mostly was referring to people involved in some kind of sin. Expect to have the father of the girl you are courting to keep tabs on what you look at on the internet, for example (actually, he probably won’t directly, but have one of the Church Elders do it for him). Even ugly and short guys will get a chance here, though. In fact, the shortest guy in my little age group in the Church was one of the first to get married, and the only job he had was doing something at some phone bank somewhere.

    And don’t tell me that her family will not support their daughter if she blows up the marriage. I have known many women who have blown up marriages. In ALL cases, her family supported their daughter’s decision to do so.

    To be honest, in the 7 years I have been involved and known people in this group, I haven’t once seen a woman even try to leave her husband (one husband left his wife), so I can’t truthfully say for certain.* What I can tell you, for certain, however is that the fathers of the daughters I’m talking about were in absolute control of the Church, and they were very specific that divorce would not be tolerated save under the exception clauses. Furthermore, they had the full and complete support of their Presbytery. Any family that would have tolerated that would have been excommunicated, but I never even saw a necessity for that.** In fact, I haven’t heard about it through the grapevine. This is a relatively small group of people, however. Numbering in the tens, maybe low hundreds, of thousands of people in the United States.

    Is any of that an absolute guarantor of anything? No, of course not. However, it is the closest to what many here seem to be looking for. And don’t think I’m just shilling for Presbyterianism, as I’m now an Anglican.

    *Isn’t this itself a relatively good sign? Accusing me of lying about it won’t change that it’s true.

    **I actually found a post from a prominent Presbyterian pastor of the type I’m referring to, Douglas Wilson, from 2005 saying 9% (4/64 on record) of the marriages he has performed have ended in divorce: http://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/divorce-rates.html. Admittedly, this is a non-random and relatively small sample, but ~10% is relatively good for this day and age. I’ll attempt to collect more data on this if I can.

  105. Megan wont delete it but here it is….

    You want less prisoners? Simple. You must reduce the rate of children born out of wedlock. Because children born illegitimately represent a disportionately large percentage of our current prison population.

    You want to reduce our ever growing b-stard rate? Simple. We need to start shaming single motherhood. Perhaps do away with (entirely) government support for women who have children illegitimately, remove the financial incentive for her to do so. Marriage needs to be encouraged as the SOLE method of supporting and raising the next generation, and NOT taxpayers funding a woman’s Life of Julia. But how can we do that with an ever plummetting marriage rate? Only 49.2% of adults over age 18 are married. Marriage has been destroyed in the inner city and has all but vanished for those who are not college educated.

    You want more marriage, not just for the suburban UMC? Simple. You must eliminate state sanctioned unilateral divorce laws (by federal Constitutional Amendment) to re-encourage men to marry. Give men a purpose to marry, give them “carrots” and less “sticks.” Make the marriage contract “binding” such that you can’t simply end it ” at will.” And while we are at it, make the marriage contract such that it is impossible (legally) for women to accuse their husbands of rape. What is marriage if not consent to having s-x with your spouse for the rest of your life? If you are NOT willing to do that, ask yourself why you married that person in the first place? If you aren’t married but WANT to get married (and the whole concept of your spouse getting s-x on demand from you, you find repulsive) then why would you want to marry that person? These kinds of conversations need to be had for people to analyze what has happened to marriage and why it has nearly disappeared.

    Make these changes, your marriage rate will skyrocket (as ALL men will want to get married under these conditions and will work hard to get themselves marriage worthy), your b-stard rate will drop like a rock, your divorce rate will plummet to near zero, and our prisons will gradually start to empty. Just altering laws and putting the needs of others ahead of our own selfishness will fix the problem of the prison industrial complex.

  106. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Remember Dalrock’s post on ugly feminist ‘singers’ screeching their pain? The video he posted was so awful people started posting classic music videos to cleanse their soul of the feminist filth.

    We should do the same with this latest Bedazzled feminist horror. Come on guys, can we get some John Wayne at least?

  107. Boxer says:

    A bit of healthy masculinity for all you brothers.

  108. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Also let me cite myself as an authority having written a book chapter on Alphas, Betas and Omegas (without even reading Vox’s post). I define them similar to Athol Kay (MPBUH) but use the terms to describe behaviors. It is not correct to say one person is Alpha or Delta, or Gamma or whatever. A person is merely a collection of his behaviors. If his behaviors are mostly Alpha then people consider him “Alpha.”

    I use a 3 category system- Alpha, Beta and Omega. I define them in terms of behaviors in part because Beta has a really bad reputation and lots of manosphere guys miss the fact that some Beta is necessary for a happy LTR or marriage.

    Alpha: Strong, confident, masculine, leadership. Alpha behaviors make the ladies wet. Think silverback gorilla.

    Beta: Sensitive, caring, loving behaviors provide necessary comfort in a relationship. Importantly, Beta can give girls the warm fuzzies but it doesn’t make them wet- which is a particular problem when Beta behaviors are done with a Covert Contract (see also “Choreplay”).

    Omega: Unattractive behaviors that repel a girl.

    So far as I can tell, “Sigmas” are some type of subcategory of “Alpha.” They just don’t play very well and don’t lead the same way Alphas do. Gammas are well within my definition of “Omega.” There is something about the number 3 that makes sense.

  109. Dalrock says:

    @Blue Pill Prof
    Good idea!

    @Boxer
    I thought of the St Crispin’s day speech when watching Blue Pill Prof’s video. Good call.

    Here is my own contribution:

  110. For manly spiritual inspiration, I like this video by Catholic Mountain, with quotes like:

    To be men of God…
    To live honorably…
    To leave a legacy…
    And to yield only to Christ.

  111. nathan,

    I appreciate what you said. Your comments were thoughtful. But your comments don’t change anything in the world of reality.

    Fact is that having that “decent” job is entirely subjective. A “wastrel” is entirely subjective. And your comment about the church not standing for daughters frivorcing their husbands is entirely irrelevant. Father has NO POWER to prevent daughter from frivorcing him. None. Zero. It doesn’t matter if he (and other men like him) run your Presbetarian church. She can just leave the church and tell her father to “screw” if she is displeasing him for frivorcing her husband. She is not haaaaappppy and that is all that matters to her (and to government which would grant said divorce and bestow upon her cash and prizes.) More to the point, could you imagine that dad being told by the other church members that now he is forced to “cast her out” (his own daughter) because she did this? Most dads would tell those other people to go f-ck themselves because that is HIS DAUGHTER and he WILL be empowering her behavior (even though he knows, her actions are the curse of Eve.)

    So I guess what I’m trying to say is, your points are all just rhetoric. Fact is (and it is a fact) that many of the single men here could never ever, in their entire lifetime find a virginal Christian wife because they don’t have enough brains, aren’t good looking enough, aren’t tall enough, don’t have enough education for a meaningful career (nor do they have the money or the brains to get that education), and even if they did, their wife could still frivorce them (even in your Presbetarian church) for no reason at all. That is a fact. And that is not in dispute. So when you write crap like this….

    Seriously, if you have a decent job and aren’t a total wastrel otherwise, then you will be able to find a girl to marry. Furthermore, she won’t have much of a family to fall back on if there if she desires to blow up your marriage because they just won’t put up with that.

    ….expect people like myself to call you out on it. Because its bullsh-t nathan. We have no time for that here.

  112. Cane Caldo says:

    @BPP, Boxer & Dalrock

  113. Gunner Q says:

    nathanjevans @ 2:17 pm:
    “If you have no particular denominational commitments, for some reason conservative Presbyterians are on top of this more so than any group I’ve found.”

    My final church was an Orthodox Presbyterian. I remember they actually did run an occasional shindig for young adults though I never went myself. It wasn’t much but was still more than any other church ever cared to do. I left after about a year when I realized the leadership was actively avoiding the Great Commission. They weren’t teaching anything wrong but they weren’t teaching anything right, either. In California today, there’s no excuse for that. (An effort to redpill the pastor failed quietly.)

    “Seriously, if you have a decent job and aren’t a total wastrel otherwise, then you will be able to find a girl to marry.”

    If you knew my job, you’d respect and probably envy me. If you knew my paycheck, you’d realize I make only one-third of what I’m worth and therefore can’t afford a family. Few quality women will give up on kids so I have a good job & good character & not much chance, like IBB said.

    Best to not even try. I do have a life to live and, frankly, am glad to not have kids anyway. Appreciate the advice, though.

  114. JDG says:

    Bold talk from a one eyed fat man (1969):

    Bold talk from a one eyed fat man (2010):

  115. [embed]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VXD8yOxIPB0[/embed]

  116. Let’s try that again.

  117. Dban says:

    IBB said: “And don’t tell me that her family will not support their daughter if she blows up the marriage. I have known many women who have blown up marriages. In ALL cases, her family supported their daughter’s decision to do so. So now not only are you entirely subjective, I am also calling you a liar.”

    People like that are out there I’ll give you three examples from my life (although I’m not saying your point is wrong in the broad sense).

    My mother blew up her marriage with my father, and her parents (Catholic) cut her out of their life. They didn’t speak beyond what was necessary to discuss me for 5+ years. I was raised from that point on by my father with great assistance from my mothers grandparents.

    My fathers 3rd wife blew up their marriage and her parents (Church of Christ) cut her out of their life also. They haven’t spoken or been in the same room together since (10 years now). My father still goes and eats sunday lunch with them (and my brothers) every week.

    My first wife blew up our marriage and her parents (Church of Christ) took my side and helped me throughout the process. They spoke very little until she had a baby. They are on better terms now that she has remarried but they still don’t like her very much.

    The moral of the story I guess is that my father and I pick crappy wives but great inlaws.

  118. Kevin says:

    I agree that the categorizations of Alpha/beta etc are mostly useless beyond AF/BB. Bluepillprofessor’s is probably closer to how to think of it.

    The problem on Vox’s site and others is that the designation of status has to do with how many women you have sex with. So, a band player that is semi-handsome is going to score beyond the wildest dreams of the average man, even though he might be an effeminate pussy. So, in reality we have two levels of status, one provided by women in the sexual market place and one by men in the social market place. They clearly overlap, but many times they don’t.

    And of course, all these rankings are so fluid based on the current social context and peers as to be meaningless.

    My biggest problem is that unless you are a PUA running around trying to have sex, who gives a crap what gets women excited? Athol Kay is more right here – better to learn behaviors for marriage than worry about the rest of it.

    The next problem with regards to social status among men is that we do not resolve our disputes by violence. The silverback gorilla is alpha because if you disagree with him he will fight you until you submit. In modern life that is really not a threat. Women are the best example – they will say anything safe that it will rarely lead to violence against them. A man with a minimal cognitive ability will realize the same, he is safe from violence. Without violence, social status among men becomes much more fuzzy because our evolutionary hardware is for settling disputes by violence and intimidation. So, we have defaulted to letting a woman’s tingles be the arbitrator of social status instead of violence. Personally, looking at society, we might be better off with violence.

    As someone else mentioned, the absurd deification of alpha is also hilarious, especially that most systems judge that by how many trashy girls had sex with you. What a way to choose our leaders! So we have it backward – evolutionary you demonstrated you were alpha with dominance and then got to have sex to propagate your genes. Now, by having sex you demonstrate you are the alpha. Not even GBFM can think of something as silly as that.

    Vox ran a series on leaving gamma where a guest author went over lots of traits and how to stop being gamma in certain contexts (fitness, spirituality). Thinking about weak traits makes sense. The problem becomes that, although he correctly identifies many weak traits, the assumption is that spectrum leads from gamma through to alpha fitness, or spirituality, or conversation, etc. We are all on a spectrum of being carnal and devilish to being like Christ. Carnal men and women are busy defiling each other, Christlike people are choosing differently. There is no alpha spirituality because VD measure alpha by how many sluts you slept with. PUAs are the most spiritual, fit, enlightened among us when thinking about the rankings that way.

    Ok, enough. I don’t think the systems work except for the simplest formulation. Even as a heuristic they teach us the wrong things.

  119. Gunner Q says:

    Kevin @ 11:07 am:
    “My biggest problem is that unless you are a PUA running around trying to have sex, who gives a crap what gets women excited?”

    Unless you’re a banker running around trying to make a billion bucks, who gives a crap about money?

    Unless you’re an athlete competing for the Olympics, who gives a crap about being fit?

    Unless you’re training to be a chef, who gives a crap about good food?

    And what’s the point of measuring a man’s worth by being rich, strong or healthy, anyway?

    Sex is a critically important part of the human experience, far more than merely propagating the species. I can personally attest that having a normal sex drive and being denied any way to satisfy it is soul-crushing; other guys from Donal to M3 have said this as well. History records that wars have been fought over sex, from Alphas killing over Helen of Troy to Omegas rebelling against those who considered their needs unimportant. Lovers sometimes choose suicide over separation.

    “So, we have defaulted to letting a woman’s tingles be the arbitrator of social status instead of violence.”

    This has ever been true, from today’s hookup culture to our grandparents’ reserving jobs for married men to the harems of Pharaoh. Should it be this way? No, but it IS this way. Our Creator made us sexual beings, therefore we ignore the importance of sexual behavior at our peril.

  120. sandals with socks says:

    Sex is no lon

  121. Kevin says:

    @Gunner

    None of your examples are analogous to mine. Let me make them analogous:

    Unless you’re a banker running around trying to make a billion bucks, who gives a crap about whether or not you make the Forbes 100.

    Unless you’re an athlete competing for the Olympics, who gives a crap about the time it takes you to run a marathon.

    Unless you’re training to be a chef, who gives a crap about the review of your restaurant in the NYT.

    The point was – having a man’s social status established by women is not important – not that sex is not important. Sexual status sure. But men (and women) have alot more dimensions to them. The many systems of ranking men rely on sexual partners as their metric.

    We can measure men by lots of things like wealth, etc. That does not mean they describe the supposed evolutionary true social-sexual environment the manosphere is always going on about.

    Sex is a critical part of human reproduction and a small part of the human experience. Only savages fight over sex, because only savages need to. The reasons for the historical battle of Troy, if real, are unknown. But, in literature as a way to celebrate love, we imagine lots of men doing stupid things that few do in real life.

    I said violence was replaced by tingles, and you say it has always been so. I don’t think so. You have your cause and effect wrong as I tried to explain. You are saying the harem made Pharaoh king. No, Pharaoh was king so he got a harem. Tingles had nothing to do with it. [Now that I think about it-previously male selection actually gave women status. Ironically now the manosphere declares the modern man derives status the same way women historically did.]

    We are carnal beings, our Creator made a path for us to become holy beings. Sure, sex in marriage is part of that, but its a small limited part.

  122. JDG says:

    Sex is no lon

    Does anyone know what this means or at least know what a lon is??

  123. SirHamster says:

    You have your cause and effect wrong as I tried to explain. You are saying the harem made Pharaoh king. No, Pharaoh was king so he got a harem.

    A man with a harem by definition has power and/or status. How else is he going to keep that many women? And that’s the point of counting the number of sexual partners – they provide a useful, general, objective correlation with socio-sexual status.

    That you can find exceptions where a man with power and/or status doesn’t get a harem does not negate the general relationship. It was not meant to be an exhaustive definition, just a useful rule of thumb.

    It’s the same idea as using an SAT score to judge a man’s general intellect. Sure, some smart people don’t score well on it; but the SAT score is still an objective and useful metric.

  124. Laura says:

    @GunnerQ

    Could you get a job that pays a similar amount to what you are earning now in another state with a lower cost of living? Would you consider moving?

  125. Kevin says:

    @SirHamster

    The biggest problem is not that a few powerful men don’t have a harem (the system is useless for Christians). The real problem is the number of men who have “harems” who are not powerful/successful. This is the biggest indictment of the system of using women as a metric for male social status in a modern society. In a society of whores, this is no big accomplishment. PUAs don’t have any status. Most college males don’t have any status. They are just hot tingle generators. Females with no risk of getting pregnant don’t even need to choose high status males further separating social and sexual status (I just thought of that too – forgive me I am just realizing alot of this in the past few days -the supposed evolutionary connections are almost all severed).

    Who originated the system? Mostly PUAs who are very often low social status males probably trying to inflate their egos by conflating having sex with social status. I may never own a company or innovate – but I banged 10x the number of sluts as everyone else!

    If stupid people aced the SAT all the time then went off and failed college, we would think the SAT was not useful in predicting college success. That would be a bigger failure to discriminate than a few smart people doing poorly. Anyway, I have said enough on this for one thread.

  126. Novaseeker says:

    Females with no risk of getting pregnant don’t even need to choose high status males further separating social and sexual status (I just thought of that too – forgive me I am just realizing alot of this in the past few days -the supposed evolutionary connections are almost all severed).

    In a sense, yes.

    What we have now, due to the separation of procreation and (most) sex, is a bifurcation of rank — there is sex rank and there is social rank. They aren’t blurred together to the extent that they were historically because under the current set-up, sex and procreation are mostly separated (that is, almost all sex is intentionally and deliberately non-procreative). So if you are looking for someone for the non-procreative sex, sex rank is the key factor — and that’s where a man’s sex rank is relevant. When procreation enters the picture (i.e., ex that is intended to be fecund), you have somewhat different choices being made — some women will try to get pregnant from the high sex rank men regardless of his social status (the “sexy son” approach to genetic propagation down-generation), while other women will look for the best combination of sex and social rank they can find, often compromising a lot on sex rank when compared with the men they were interested in having non-procreative sex with.

  127. Beeker says:

    Has anyone thought that the AF/BB paradigm could lead to the dumbing down of humans and the destruction of humanity?

    The genes that gave early men a survival advantage are not the same genes that would necessarily give a modern human a competitive or survival advantage. Genes for physical dominance and appearance are not as important as genes for intelligence in todays’ modern society. Men today do not need to be physically strong to survive and flourish like they did in the past. Whereas intelligence is even more important today.

    Women find men that are tall and muscular, namely physical attributes, and not necessarily intelligent, as being more attractive (alpha guys). Women are also attracted to men that are social deviants and criminals (the wild and crazy “bad boys”) (Which gender writes love letters to murderers and serial killers in prison? Women – I’ve never heard of men doing this).

    Whereas the nerds that are smart, not as physically developed and good looking, but actually are more civilized, make more money and have better careers, as being unattractive (beta guys).

    I remember reading somewhere that once women become financially independent they start to give more weight to a mans’ looks when considering a relationship – the mans’ income, intelligence and career are no longer big factors in their appeal. Women want the hot, hunky alpha stud guy to impress their girlfriends.These women have can support themselves financially just fine, so why not?

    Many clueless beta guys will gladly wife up a single mother (alpha widow) that is still somewhat attractive to them despite hitting The Wall. Women may choose to have a good looking, cute baby with the alpha guy, and then marry the beta guy to raise and support her and her children (“pre-cuckolding”). Women are not shamed for being single mothers these days.

    Women these days can be breeding stupider (and possibly more anti-social and deviant) humans and lead to the breeding out of human genetic characteristics (such as intelligence, being civilized and kind) that are actually better for human survival and the flourishing of humanity in the future.

  128. Novaseeker says:

    @Beeker —

    What’s really happening is that things are dividing up by SES class, like most everything else. In the highly educated UMC and above, AF/BB and lane changing doesn’t involve getting pregnant with AF (unless she can swing getting AF and BB in one guy — an AB, which means she won the jackpot), but CCing a bit until the later 20s and then marrying another highly educated BB and making offspring with him. These offspring tend to do better in life than other offspring (married parents advantage as made clear in a mountain of studies) and are also well set up genetically (intelligence) and by means of nurture (cultivated drive, ambition, discipline from parents) to succeed in the next generation. These people aren’t generally creating dumbed down children. Of course, there also aren’t that many of these people, but there are enough of them to populate the elite class which controls society and the economy, or at least reaps most of the benefits from it.

    Below this is where we see the idiocracy scenario forming up, and moreso the lower you go. On the lowest SES rungs, what you describe is common, and, yes, they are going to likely be more thuggish and less successful — both because of the genetic component and the lack of married parents giving them a huge leg down on worldly success. They may, however, be quite prolifically successful at making offspring among the low SES group, which is the Dawkins version of “success”, so it depends on how it’s framed. In the middle SESs, there is a transition going on now — marriage is still more common than not, but it’s becoming less common, and is also much more fragile than it is among the UMC and higher. It appears that the trend there is pointing downward such that it is not impossible to conceive of a situation in the next generation or two where marriage becomes a luxury good, in effect — which will have the impact of consolidating, in a hard way, the cognitive elite who are still practicing it.

    So while I do think the effect you are describing will spread through the broader demographic, I also see a haves and have-nots situation deepening here when it comes to marriage and children, and the economic and social impacts of that will be large (they already are large, but will only get bigger and more significant in the decades ahead). A scenario not unlike the basic idea behind the film Elysium may not be that far off (not in the literal sense — no rich people’s space station in the sky type of thing, but rather an increasing split between the highly educated, well put together and married elite class, and everyone else).

  129. desiderian says:

    Nova,

    The UMC is not as strong as you make it out to be. Droit du seigneur is no way to run a railroad.

  130. Cane Caldo says:

    @Kevin

    (I just thought of that too – forgive me I am just realizing alot of this in the past few days -the supposed evolutionary connections are almost all severed).

    I think you would like my archives. If you get bored, search the older posts with the category “Game”. Also, there is a post here called Cypher’s Problem, which Dalrock guest-posted before I jad a blog.

  131. Novaseeker says:

    Des —

    It’s still pretty strong, statistically. I’m not claiming the marriages are all great marriages — I have no idea, but looking around my peers I’m sure most of them are of middling quality. But the marriage stats are high and the divorce stats are low, and that tends to also make for more successful kids. That could always change, but I haven’t seen any statistics that suggest that it is currently deteriorating in that class.

  132. Beeker says:

    Older parents having children is generally not good for producing healthy children, both mentally and physically:

    When the father is older:

    “Children of older fathers at risk of low IQ, autism and suicide’
    Children of older men are more likely to suffer from autism, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia as well has having lower IQs and poorer academic performance, a study suggests”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10663832/Children-of-older-fathers-at-risk-of-low-IQ-autism-and-suicide.html

    When the mother is older:

    “Birth defects are more common among the children of older women: everything from cleft palates to cerebral palsy. The risk that a pregnancy will yield a trisomy – a group of chromosomal abnormalities including Down’s syndrome – rises from two per cent when a women is in her twenties, to 30 per cent by the time she is in her forties.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9928198/Are-older-parents-putting-our-future-at-risk.html

    When a parent is older when starting a family, obviously they have fewer years on this Earth with their children, and may never meet their grandchildren.

    Maybe older couples should consider adopting.

  133. Des & Nova,

    The UMC is not as strong as you make it out to be. Droit du seigneur is no way to run a railroad.

    Its pretty strong. Women don’t typically want to frivorce their UMC husband if he was the only thing keeping her in that class.

    We have lots of class structures in our society in the United States. LC, ULC, LMC, MC, UMC, LUC, & UC. Unless your last name is Kennedy, we have no royalty in the United States. Therefore, the qualities that place you in your class in the US are mostly by your own merit (education, worth-ethic, obeying man’s law, respect for authority, not being morbidly obese, and responsibility based on usage of debt and saving for retirement), only partially by luck (buying real estate at the right time, winning a lottery, not being romantically involved with a BPD, etc) and yes, partially by birth (marital status of birth or adoptive parents, intelligence, beauty, height, athleticism, & inherited wealth.) The birth part is not fair, but it is what it is. Life isn’t fair nor is it easy. And because religion is all but gone from the US as any kind of social structure from which to shame people into behaving morally (or shame people from frivorcing) your class not only dramatically determines if you are likely to remain married all your life, it almost perfectly defines if you’ll ever be married AT ALL!

    At this point in our society, pretty much ONLY at least lower-middle, to straight middle class is a basement requirement for any chance at a lifelong marriage. Marriage has all but completely disappeared from the lower class. If you have a felony criminal record or are routinely in and out of prison, you are not getting married. If you have 2 or 3 b@stards, you are not getting married. If you get a welfare check and live in public housing and never leave it, you are not getting married. And if you are upper-lower class (life long renters, no real assets, no college education, but a willingness to work and an ability to at least stay out of prison = ULC) then you might get married, but the likelihood of that marriage being for a lifetime is an engineering aproximation of zero.

    I love if-then-elses because they give the reader a lot to think about and a lot to argue with. But at least everyone is talking about it and they are all talking about the same thing. An if-then-else is very easy for anyone to understand.

    IF you are LC THEN you will not be married
    IF you are ULC THEN you will probably not be married, but if you do, you will most likely be divorced
    IF you are LMC THEN you will (probably) be married if you want to be, and you have (at best) a coin flip that your marriage will last a lifetime. 50-50 shot at frivorce
    IF you are MC THEN you will be married if you want to be, and you are about 70% shot at lifelong marriage
    IF you are UMC THEN you will be married if you want to be, will most likely marry very well, and maybe only a 15% shot of being frivorced
    IF you are LUC THEN you will have to fight them off with a stick and you better get a pre-nup
    IF you are UC THEN I don’t care if you ever get married or frivorced because I am super jealous of you and I don’t give a f-ck if you live or die… LOL!

    Point is that class most definately is a good marker to determine how things will work out for you from a matrimony standpoint.

  134. Gunner Q says:

    @Laura,
    “Would you consider moving?”

    …Next door to you? j/k

    All the time but I’ve carved a good bachelor niche in California and don’t really have anywhere to go, not when every State in the Union is following Cali’s lead. I’ve moved away a couple times already and economic misery actually drove me back. I’ll try again when my niche collapses.

    What hurts is I could make six figures where I am if I take a gov’t job. My conscience won’t allow it; you wouldn’t believe the cronyism and corruption here. So, I’m private sector, poor and pleasing to God. Two of three ain’t bad but what modern woman will respect a husband who chooses God over fat paychecks?

  135. Two of three ain’t bad but what modern woman will respect a husband who chooses God over fat paychecks?

    An ugly one?

  136. SirHamster says:

    @ Kevin:

    The real problem is the number of men who have “harems” who are not powerful/successful. This is the biggest indictment of the system of using women as a metric for male social status in a modern society. In a society of whores, this is no big accomplishment. PUAs don’t have any status. Most college males don’t have any status.

    I said power/status, not power/success. Power/status are both relative to a group of human beings. Success is an entirely different metric.

    PUAs have status amongst women, and they have status from men who wish they had that level of sexual success. Men in general are going to admire/envy a guy who can bed hot women at will. As far as a PUA does do that, he has status.

    Most college males don’t have any status; but then most college males are not PUAs and don’t have harems. The college students with harems are going to have higher status compared to their fellow college students.

    You could further refine the metric by grading the quality of sexual partners (1x hot woman > several mediocre woman); but that’s already making the system more complex by using more subjective standards.

    The system has a particular resolution within a set of parameters. It can’t do more than that, but that is not a “real problem”, any more than it’s a real problem that the SAT doesn’t measure lifetime earnings. It’s a tool, and it has a limited set of applications. But unless you have a better tool for the job, it has a niche and will stick around.

  137. SirHamster says:

    Who originated the system? Mostly PUAs who are very often low social status males probably trying to inflate their egos by conflating having sex with social status. I may never own a company or innovate – but I banged 10x the number of sluts as everyone else!

    The system I am talking about originated from Vox Day, an interesting and sharp man with a long list of commercial accomplishments. He’s not a PUA.

    If stupid people aced the SAT all the time then went off and failed college, we would think the SAT was not useful in predicting college success. That would be a bigger failure to discriminate than a few smart people doing poorly. Anyway, I have said enough on this for one thread.

    Yes. But that’s not the observed correlation between SAT and college completion. Thus, the SAT has value. As do Vox and Roissy’s systems.

    They don’t map 1:1 to reality, but that’s not what they’re trying to do. They’re models, not reality. You get the value of using models to analyze reality, yes?

  138. theasdgamer says:

    Kevin’s error in thinking is NTS. Because PUAs have ignoble motives, therefore what they produce is poisoned, no matter whether there is any basis for it in reality, wisdom, or understanding.

  139. desiderian says:

    Nova,

    “That could always change, but I haven’t seen any statistics that suggest that it is currently deteriorating in that class.”

    Open your eyes.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/02/u-s-millennials-post-abysmal-scores-in-tech-skills-test-lag-behind-foreign-peers/

    http://www.usdebtclock.org/

    The utter fecklessness of public UMC institutions – the GOP, mainline Protestantism, corporate America, the military brass – is a direct reflection on the quality of private UMC institutions, foremost among them the family.

    “No good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; for each tree is known by its own fruit. Figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks.

    ‘Why do you call me “Lord, Lord”, and do not do what I tell you? I will show you what someone is like who comes to me, hears my words, and acts on them. That one is like a man building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when a flood arose, the river burst against that house but could not shake it, because it had been well built. But the one who hears and does not act is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the river burst against it, immediately it fell, and great was the ruin of that house.”

    Luke 6:43-49

  140. Novaseeker says:

    Des —

    Well, we’ll see which of our visions of the future comes to fruition I guess.

  141. Escoffier says:

    Des, unless I read it wrong, that survey is citing a broad cross section by SES, not isolating the UMC. UMC children still do very well by standarized academic metrics. They are not well educated, I don’t think, and certainly not “wise” by any stretch. But they get good grades and test well and the competition for slots in elite schools, internships and entry level jobs in prestige careers is fiercer than ever. So, for now, that little slice of the class structure is doing “well” materially. Whether it’s sustainable or not remains to be seen. Their souls are impoverished, but that’s been true for a long time (see the subtitle to 1987’s Closing of the American Mind).

  142. Laura says:

    @GunnerQ

    My neighborhood has an average age of 60+, so if you move next door to me, you need to bring a bride with you! I hope you like golf, bridge, and duck/deer hunting.

  143. desiderian says:

    Nova and Escoffier,

    I am humbled by your responses. Nonetheless, I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken, and gravely so.

    “we’ll see which of our visions of the future comes to fruition I guess”

    I was not speaking of the future, which is likely to be better out of pure regression to the mean. We’re so far away from that mean that it well may not matter. And no, we will not see if we continue to be as blind as we have been.

    Escoffier,

    “But they get good grades and test well”

    Despite rampant grade inflation, renorming, etc… in my neck of the UMC it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to lie to ourselves about the underlying reality, although we seem determined to will our way through via circular back-patting squad. It does no one any good for intellects of the quality of yourself or Nova to join in.

    I quoted the whole passage from Luke because it connects the rottenness of the fruit with it’s underlying cause – the abandonment of Christ as the sure foundation of our common life, and the inevitably ensuing abandonment of Christlike headship in marriage and family formation, which is just as evident in the cuckolded UMC as it is further down the SES chain, the latter flowing from the former.

  144. desiderian says:

    Serial monogamy = mass cuckoldry.

  145. Des, the UMC millenial kids will do alright (financially and career wise.) They have enough of a family support system that for their years on this planet, they will be okay. Their money/career/job complains (much that they are) stem from the fact that far too many of them can’t do STEM. They just need more years of training and skills which they will get to signal employers. But that is about it.

    They will get “married” (even if it is only marriage 2.0) eventually. Most of them will do that “Best Friend’s Wedding” thingie, and have “safties” (ie: get a friend of the opposite s-x and the two of you promise to marry each other if neither is married by the 30th birthday.) But that is only because they don’t care that much about the student debt or the notch-counts. Basically, none of the UMC college graduate millenial kids are virgin. All their notch-counts are already in the teens or twenties, so what difference does it make? And they all have high 5 figure (in some cases, low six figure) student loan debts.

    Spiritually, mostly they’re f-cked. Their souls don’t have a prayer, literally. But there is nothing that you or I or any of us can do to save them. They need to save themselves by truly accepting Christ (but that isn’t happening.)

  146. Our problems Des is the LC, ULC, & LMC. These are the classes whose children are really struggling financially (they look around and say…. “where’s daddy?”) and forget about Christ because largely He isn’t here either.

  147. desiderian says:

    Along comes IBB on cue to illustrate the blindness.

    “Des, the UMC millenial kids will do alright (financially and career wise.) They have enough of a family support system that for their years on this planet, they will be okay. Their money/career/job complains (much that they are) stem from the fact that far too many of them can’t do STEM. They just need more years of training and skills which they will get to signal employers. But that is about it.”

    How will even those bearing the magic STEM do alright when they have the burden of student debt on top of debt slavery to their government to pay off while their H1B competitors have neither? When they have to fight through the AA madness from cradle to grave? When they enjoy none of the spiritual succor your generation took so blithely for granted and failed to pass along?

    Family support? Selling one’s own children into slavery to keep one living the style to which one has become accustomed is now called support? Well, at least you’ve gotten a mess of chutzpah in exchange for the birthright of faithfulness, honesty, and prudence and the prosperity that grew from it you’ve so foolishly traded away. It was not the magic STEM that earned that birthright, and it will not be STEM that one day recovers it.

    My undergraduate degree and first career was in Engineering, and I fully appreciate the great value of that particular vocation, but it was only one small piece in what made this country great, and had very little to do with what made it good. It is currently neither. Not close.

  148. desiderian says:

    “Our problems Des is the LC, ULC, & LMC. These are the classes whose children are really struggling financially (they look around and say…. “where’s daddy?”) and forget about Christ because largely He isn’t here either.”

    It is the disorder in the UMC that is the proximate cause further down.

    (1) Men are naturally drawn to hierarchy, but the cuckolds of the UMC inspire none to follow their lead, most crucially among their own offspring, who are not at all doing alright.

    (2) By delaying assortive mating until it’s women are well past their peak, they sow chaos further down the SES chain, among male and female, as well as within their own marriages.

    (3) To hide from themselves their own decay, they sow disorder throughout society so they can still feel superior in relative if no longer absolute terms (the Jerry Springer effect).

    There are green shoots like Dalrock and Scott who speak truth to the rotten powers that be and start their own new institutions from scratch. Therein lies my hope, but hope placed in existing institutions, especially those of the UMC, and those who’ve risen to power over them is gravely misplaced.

  149. BradA says:

    theadsgamer,

    You can call me blue pill ish if you want, I just go for what the Scripture proclaims, wherever that leads. It says we are to stay away from the appearance of evil, for example. Close dancing with women not your wife seems more than a bit on the dangerous side, especially given all the warnings about sexual sin. That would be completely independent of your wife’s problems and challenges.

    Those who follow Christ have severe limits on our lives if we truly follow Him. We should walk out most of those ourselves, but they remain limits.

    I would also wonder how happy you would be if your wife was dancing in the same manner with a hotter guy than you. I suspect it wouldn’t go over very well, but perhaps you wouldn’t care. You continually talk about how the dance partners are hotter than her, so the reverse comparison would be valid to consider.

    Do what you want, I was just making a comment on the wisdom of the situation. Remember that Paul said that all things may be lawful, but not all things are profitable.

  150. BradA says:

    GunnerQ,

    The cost of living is way out of whack in California and that will come home to roost at some point. Lots of opportunity in other places. You can be fired or laid off anywhere as well, including California.

    You do have it easier as a single though, since you could likely be quite flexible in living arrangements if necessary.

    Someone else wrote:

    Two of three ain’t bad but what modern woman will respect a husband who chooses God over fat paychecks?

    My wife and she is not ugly as IBB posits. I make a decent paycheck, but have made more and less in my career, partially because of my pursuit of independent game development and other self employment options in the past. I could make more than I do now, but she has never put pressure on me to not pursue the things of God.

    I do not believe she would leave me if I announced I wanted to go full time into the ministry since she stuck with me being full time trying to make money (and largely failing) in the game biz, etc.

    I know bashing all women is fun sport here, but it is not accurate in many cases.

  151. Opus says:

    May I leave this here as it is the currently most popular thread and if not, perhaps it might be filed under Hamster, Very Large.

    I have for reasons unconnected been re-reading some old love-letters. The writer in question who was then aged twenty-eight and who at that time had an admitted partner count of >300, writes to me and refers back to our last meeting. She explains that she has never been on The Pill and thus all her former sexual encounters (per vaginum) were with men who had worn a condom (as I had) but that on that last night with me, she had (because she loved me so much and was prepared to give more for me than for anyone else) generously offered me the opportunity to be the first man, with her not to have to use a condom.

    She:

    1. implies that – effectively – she is offering her virginity.
    2. Packages what might have been for me a lifetime of financial commitment as a benefit to myself.

    I am happy to say (and relieved) that I did not take her up on her kind offer.

  152. BradA says:

    You took her up on part of her offer, just not all of it.

  153. Pingback: Insensitive | Dalrock

  154. Robert What? says:

    We laugh at this video – and it is hysterical. But this is just an exaggerated version of what young men are taught that girls/women want. They are taught that by everyone: their teachers, their parents, popular entertainment, and in church. And they fail miserably and don’t understand why.

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