Brutal

This entry was posted in Threatpoint. Bookmark the permalink.

158 Responses to Brutal

  1. Pingback: Brutal | Manosphere.com

  2. unsigma says:

    youch. Now we are either flashy, high dollar providers or deadbeats….great… I suppose the implication is that he was too cheap to keep and she married up. Not sure how deadbeat equates bald, but providers have a full head of hair…so…incentive….

  3. Pingback: Brutal | Neoreactive

  4. Glenfilthie says:

    Oh jeez. It’s just a stupid commercial targetting largely stupid people, Dalrock.

    Seriously – what kind of dummy shells out for cable these days? It’s just more mind rotting, unimaginative and uninspired crap on more channels. It is so bad that I have gone to the computer to filter the vast volumes of crap on commercial TV.

    Come to think of it, this battle of the sexes thing is a stupid fight for stupid people too. Y’all would be far better off spending your energy looking for a good woman rather than bitching about the dregs – but that’s just my scholarly opinion…

  5. Opus says:

    Didn’t understand it but could not help but notice that the music at the end is from Lowe’s 1985 movie St Elmo’s Fire. Demi Moore was so hawt in that one.

  6. earl says:

    ‘Y’all would be far better off spending your energy looking for a good woman rather than bitching about the dregs – but that’s just my scholarly opinion…’

    Well my opinion is we need to stop having the dregs corrupt the good women because it is getting harder to find them.

  7. thedeti says:

    Glenfilthie:

    The point of this post to me is how we all have a cheap laugh at Total Deadbeat Rob Lowe joking about:

    “My kids are always fighting over what to watch; but that’s their stepdad’s problem now!” while Total Deadbeat pisses away time and money that should be spent with and on his kids.

    In a better world, that wouldn’t be funny at all. But in today’s world, where Total Deadbeat is there in part because he’s a dick, in part because his ex wife wants nothing to do with him and probably forced him out of his kids’ lives, it’s a sick joke.

  8. earl says:

    Total deadbeat is today’s definition of alpha.

  9. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    In a better world, that wouldn’t be funny at all. But in today’s world, where Total Deadbeat is there in part because he’s a dick, in part because his ex wife wants nothing to do with him and probably forced him out of his kids’ lives, it’s a sick joke.

    The “deadbeat dad” is the rationalization we use for the system we have built to destroy families. Here alternate reality Lowe has been evicted from the home and another man has taken his place. Meanwhile the evicted husband and father is hanging out in an alley, when he isn’t receiving his medical care in a seedy motel.

  10. Deebos says:

    @ Earl. Well said, its not just hard to find them but knowing what we do about the evolving nature of women enables us to see past the immediate benefits. In 2011 I had three women want to get serious, as in what are my intentions for marriage with one flat out asking me to propose (she was 24 and I was 38 at the time). The problem for me was getting serious with modern American women is an ongoing minefield dance with the potential for her to blowup your life on a whim an ever increasing reality. I know too many good men who are portrayed as deadbeats and losers by their ex-wives when in fact they did everything they could to save their marriage, they are also saddled with alimony and child support that pushes over 50% of their net income. The video reminded me of them. They were once homeowners, coached little league, volunteered at church and (the one in particular) now post divorce rape lives in a two bedroom apartment close to the bad side of town, no longer attends the same church as his ex and kids because that’s not his “time” to see them, alimony/CS pushes around 65% of his net, he is openly called a deadbeat and new daddy tells him a real man would step up and support his kids and to get a second job. New dad has moved in but they aren’t married and of course church just loves him for being a “real” man and helping raise kids that aren’t his own. Mom drives a new car (as in 2015) and Dad drives an old beat up early 90’s Toyota with mechanical issues. This guy was solid, good career (structural engineer), worked out, looked good, ate healthy and took pride in his family but she wanted more so she took off with the kids and pulled the “I fear for my safety card”…blew up in his face and he never saw it coming. Oh yeah, weekends without the kids are spent in the bottle as well and any joy he had in life is now gone, he seems shell shocked anytime he’s around.

    I asked myself when those women wanted to get married to me, am I any different than these guys, am I better than them, am I special and believe it won’t happen to me, do I believe running game on my wife day after day to keep her entertained is a good idea? Of course not, like I told my business partner once, when you cede a portion of your freedom to someone else you better be sure they place an extremely high value on it and you better be sure their moral compass will never allow them to change their mind on that value. Modern marriage can no longer promise that.

  11. earl says:

    That’s the thing…no amount of game a man does is going to change a woman’s mind if she wants to bolt. There really is no difference in their mind between a man who works hard and a deadbeat. It’s all based on her attraction level to them and the vows or subsequent consequences mean nothing to them.

    My hope is one day that women will no longer have any thirsty men waiting in the wings as their ‘plan B’ to shack up with…but that trend doesn’t seem to be coming yet.

  12. Gunner Q says:

    “I asked myself when those women wanted to get married to me, am I any different than these guys, am I better than them, am I special and believe it won’t happen to me, do I believe running game on my wife day after day to keep her entertained is a good idea?”

    Amen, Deebos. That’s exactly what I asked myself.

  13. thedeti says:

    Good comment, Deebos. That reality seems to escape a lot of folks, and perfectly illustrates D’s comment about the “deadbeat dad” caricature in the ad.

  14. thedeti says:

    “am I any different than these guys, am I better than them, am I special and believe it won’t happen to me, do I believe running game on my wife day after day to keep her entertained is a good idea?”

    That really hits home. I, and a lot of churchian/Christian guys, believe: yes, they are different, they are better, they are special and it won’t happen to them. And they believe the woman “isn’t like that” too and “she would never do that to me”.

  15. thedeti says:

    or at least I used to believe that. “Believe” should be ‘believed’.

  16. Beeker says:

    “Do I believe running game on my wife day after day to keep her entertained is a good idea?”

    Having to “run game” on your wife everyday in a marriage sure seems like a ridiculous and stressful way to live. No wonder most married men die before their wives. I no longer envy married men and I no longer want to get married. A mans’ family life, his wife, marriage, children and home, are supposed to be a sanctuary in his life. There is enough stress and hardship in life with other things, and modern marriage and women just add more to it.

  17. earl says:

    ‘New dad has moved in but they aren’t married and of course church just loves him for being a “real” man and helping raise kids that aren’t his own.’

    Ugh…that’s another reason men would be leaving these false churches. They don’t see that the woman disregarded her vows, blew up her family, and now is committing adultery…they see a ‘real man’ raising another man’s kids.

  18. earl says:

    ‘That really hits home. I, and a lot of churchian/Christian guys, believe: yes, they are different, they are better, they are special and it won’t happen to them.’

    Pride goes before a fall.

  19. thedeti says:

    “Pride goes before a fall.”

    Yup. But, those guys are also conditioned into it — constantly told how great and wonderful their women are, how they would never ever hurt their men, how they would never ever divorce.

  20. Isa says:

    @Gunner Q
    The hard thing is that any lifelong project always has and always will be a crap shoot as far as “succeeding”. The problem is that no fault has tipped the scale so far into the not chance in ____ section, it’s very hard to look at putting yourself at risk. The biggest fear my female friends have of marriage is actually divorce. So it seems we now have two people who are both terrified of divorce going into marriage looking for it in a paranoid way and thus… cause it to happen. Through overly high expectations, “virtual cheating”, not being “happy”, many excuses.

    One interesting thing to remember is that marriage has always been a crapshoot. I can’t find the study itself, but a textual analysis was made of Medieval letters between couples (who of course all had arranged marriages), which found that 1/3 were “in love,” 1/3 had a working relationship (news about chickens and such), and the last 1/3 hated each other. If we apply modern divorce rates, sounds about right for around 40% of first marriages.

  21. earl says:

    ‘One interesting thing to remember is that marriage has always been a crapshoot.’

    I would agree since this goes back to the fall of man. This biblical passage and the disciples reaction seems to elude to that.

    ‘Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

    The disciples *said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.

    Matthew 19 3-11

  22. Boxer says:

    I thought the commercial was sorta funny. So sue me.

    Incidentally: Didn’t Lowe get in trouble for making a sex tape with some teenager back in the early ’90s? He’s the perfect actor to play both parts.

  23. Bluepillprofessor says:

    There is an entire series of these commercials but this is the most offensive. The next in line is Rob Low and “Meathead Rob Lowe” making fun of men who work out and stay in shape. Can anybody imagine the commercial making fun of fat women and their high calorie “diets.” Or better yet, making fun of post-wall women and their cats. There would be Presidential condemnations and a Congressional investigation on structural sexism in America.

  24. The next in line is Rob Low and “Meathead Rob Lowe” making fun of men who work out and stay in shape.

    Meathead Rob Lowe is awesome.

  25. mdavid says:

    Dee, …you better be sure their moral compass will never allow them to change their mind on that value. Modern marriage can no longer promise that.

    Yes, marriage without religious and moral values is a joke. Marriage today should be entered into by a man with extreme trepidation only; she (and her religion) should follow a doctrine that disallows divorce for any reason under pain of damnation. She and new husband would then be considered engaging in the moral sin of adultery. The father would have this moral lever with his children as well.

    I saw this once the other way around, with the husband divorcing the wife. She would sit with all the kids with the husband & new young wife nearby at the same church…very uncomfortable for everyone else including me.

  26. BradA says:

    no amount of game a man does is going to change a woman’s mind if she wants to bolt.

    True Earl, but staying in that mindset may keep her attracted in the first place. A man can’t prevent a wife from straying, but he can contribute to the risk of that happening.

    It seems to me that many Christian men view game as a special thing to do rather than a lifestyle to live. Kind of like viewing a diet as a one time thing to lose weight rather than a long term shift in how you eat to lose the weight and not regain it.

    You cannot go back to being a slob/sloucher/etc. after running game for a while any more than you can go back to eating lots of snacks and deserts after losing weight.

  27. earl says:

    ‘True Earl, but staying in that mindset may keep her attracted in the first place.’

    I’ve come to believe that feminism is such a poisonous disease to any woman that swallows it that even being the attractive game master of them won’t be enough. She’s always looking for more and there is no single man on the planet who will satisfy her. Why do you think the whole idea of one man sexing her constantly and one man giving her money even exists? They are man eaters.

    It’s just as important for women to embrace God, their femininity, purity, and integrity…as it is for a man to embrace God, masculinity and honor.

  28. I have to agree with Earl here:

    “It’s just as important for women to embrace God, their femininity, purity, and integrity…as it is for a man to embrace God, masculinity and honor.”

    The genius of marxist feminism is that it has convinced gamey churchians that they are fighting it, while they are actually serving and furthering it.

  29. Bluntobj says:

    Dalrock,

    He’s selling a kidney, not receiving medical care…

    Was a funny commercial in a heinlein sort of way where we laugh at things that are truly saddening.

  30. BradA writes, “A man can’t prevent a wife from straying, but he can contribute to the risk of that happening.”

    Actually Moses lay down the Law and Jesus came to fulfill the law so that a MAN COULD prevent his wife from straying.

    Time and again we witness the churchians promoting the “new marriage” void of the LAW of Moses.

    While BradA and his fellow chucrhians are quick to scoff at the Rob Lowe commercial, they are doing the same thing, only in a more sinister, underhanded fashion.

  31. okrahead says:

    I have a close relative who frivorced her husband… He is hard working and has a respectable trade with a solid, UMC income. She frivorced him to run off with her boss at work who had, according to her, “a million dollars in the bank” (he also had a wife of his own). She viewed her now ex husband as a “deadbeat” not because he didn’t have a job or failed to provide (very well) for his family, but simply because she was able to jump ship to someone with even more money. If a woman has the covetous mindset, then you’re a deadbeat to her as soon as she can “do better”.

  32. okrahead says:

    Earl,
    Solomon said the “barren womb” is one of the four things that “are never satisfied” and that never say, “enough.” How many womyn in our culture today (including churchians) are artificially barren? Why then should we be surprised when they can never be satisfied?

  33. earl says:

    @ okrahead…

    ‘If a woman has the covetous mindset, then you’re a deadbeat to her as soon as she can “do better”

    Man eaters.

    Money is the same as game. There is always going to be another guy with better game than you, looks better than you, etc. It’s not about how well you can do in the world…it’s about if she takes her vows seriously (listens to God) or not.

  34. okrahead says:

    I’m taking Meathead Rob Lowe with me to Planet Fitness…. He’s going to set off the “lunk alarm” while I hang out in da womynz showers… Fun For All!

  35. earl says:

    ‘ How many womyn in our culture today (including churchians) are artificially barren? Why then should we be surprised when they can never be satisfied?’

    Good point. That eludes back to something that was looked down upon around these parts for discussion…but you can’t keep the truth about those things down.

  36. BradA says:

    It’s just as important for women to embrace God, their femininity, purity, and integrity…as it is for a man to embrace God, masculinity and honor.

    Definitely. Are you really arguing that men can do part of this and women cannot do the other part? Living holy today is a challenge. Yet it has always been a challenge, just in different ways. Sin remains and we will have these struggles until that is finally put under His feet completely.

    While BradA and his fellow chucrhians are quick to scoff at the Rob Lowe commercial, they are doing the same thing, only in a more sinister, underhanded fashion.

    Ah, making up things again GBFM. I never said anything about the OP video.

    Considering me churchian is quite comedic, though that is likely your intent.

  37. earl says:

    ‘Are you really arguing that men can do part of this and women cannot do the other part?’

    Women can…many by and large choose not to. Whether that is from weak fathers, tyrannical mothers, media influence, educational influence, bernakification, churchianity, birth control, frivorce, etc…the choice is up to you as far as what is doing it. But most women today don’t know how much they are by and large envied and hated in this society because the serpent puts up a good front by giving them everything they always wanted.

    And now that women mostly aren’t virtuous…many men are being influenced as to whether or not being virtuous is rewarding. You’ll have the serpent whisper she only likes bad boys who can game her correctly and the Christianity thing makes you look like a beta loser in her eyes. In the end you either follow God or the voice of your wife.

  38. BradA writes, “A man can’t prevent a wife from straying, but he can contribute to the risk of that happening.”

    The Judeo-Christian Civilization was founded upon a system wherein “a man could prevent his wife from straying.”

    That is the purpose of the LAW.

    Next BradA will be teaching, “A man can’t prevent a criminal from murdering, but he can contribute to the risk of that happening, by learning Game.””

  39. Dalrock says:

    He’s selling a kidney, not receiving medical care…

    Ouch. Even worse.

  40. Treasurer says:

    This may be slightly off topic but I wonder if any of your readers have heard of a recent UK case whereby a woman who separated from her husband in 1980’s and was divorced in 1992 was entitled to a share of his (self made) fortune, even though when they lived together they were penniless ‘New Age travellers’. (Not sure what the US equivalent is).

    Her former husband, Dale Vince, later set up a green energy company and is now worth approximately £3 million. Kathleen Wyatt later had two children by another man (they later separated). Her daughter, (by the other man) Jessie, said her mother was bringing the case for ‘woman power’ and that she thinks that ‘all men are the same’.

    Dale Vince said that his former wife was being allowed to ‘cash in a very old lottery ticket’ and said that they had a settlement 20 years ago but that he cannot prove it because it was so long ago that not even the courts keep records. He said that his ex-wife’s legal action had already cost him £500,000 because he was required by law to fund her claim.

    Incredible

    Treasurer

  41. earl says:

    Heck I could be more popular than Mark Driscoll if I started preaching ‘Woman up and stop being a slut’ sermons to the congregation.

    Granted I also take popularity as people hating you.

  42. Martel says:

    This might have been touched on already (haven’t read all of the comments yet), but part of the reason guys don’t think divorce can happen to them is the implicit belief in feminine moral superiority.

    You see, those other guys who got kicked to the curb by their wives somehow deserved it. If were “the man” he should have been by perfectly providing for all of her emotional, financial, sexual, entertainment, needs while working sufficiently to earn enough income for her to live comfortably while putting in ample time taking care of the cooking, cleaning, and kids, she NEVER would have left. “Those other guys” fell short of their duties, somehow.

    Moreover, if she’s a Good Christian Girl, you can be absolutely certain that she’d only wrong you if you deserve it, NEVER because of some flaw in her.

    She’s an angel, and how can you go wrong with an angel?

  43. Exactly Martel,

    “You see, those other guys who got kicked to the curb by their wives somehow deserved it. If were “the man” he should have been by perfectly providing for all of her emotional, financial, sexual, entertainment, needs while working sufficiently to earn enough income for her to live comfortably while putting in ample time taking care of the cooking, cleaning, and kids, she NEVER would have left. “Those other guys” fell short of their duties, somehow.”

    This is exactly what BradA is saying with, A man can’t prevent a wife from straying, but he can contribute to the risk of that happening.”

    BradA is trying to sell you the Marxist version of Christianity where the LAW of MOSES which Jesus came to fulfill has no value and does not apply to women.

    And then the Churchians wonder why the family is blowing up.

    Oftentimes a Churchian, who recently got laid by negging a woman, will pridefully boast that the system is just fine, as after all, “I got laid! nyah! nyah! nyah!”

    The genius of marxist feminism is that even as the gullible Churchians believe themselves to be defeating it or countering it, they are advancing it.

  44. earl says:

    OT: How many more feminists are going to write books about the EPL type of lifestyle? It’s getting unoriginal, stale, and disgusting.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2015/03/12/she-took-a-year-off-from-her-marriage-to-sleep-with-strangers-what-could-go-wrong/

  45. earl says:

    This is why the dregs must be stopped over finding a good girl…they are shipping this filth out to women.

  46. earl says:

    ‘BradA is trying to sell you the Marxist version of Christianity where the LAW of MOSES which Jesus came to fulfill has no value and does not apply to women.’

    If the law doesn’t apply to a certain group…what could possibly go wrong?

    Even God gave Eve a curse for her sin. He understood that there is no such thing a feminine moral superiority.

  47. I just want to point out that there’s actually a LOT of good TV today. You just need to be smart about it. We’re in a golden age of dramatic television.

  48. I just want to point out that there’s actually a LOT of GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN today. You just need to be smart about it. We’re always in a golden age of dramatic poetry, if only one opens Shakespeare, Homer, and the Bible.

  49. pdwalker says:

    So find a part of the world where women are still feminine, believe in marriage and want men. Move there and choose one for your own

  50. “So find a part of the world where women are still feminine, believe in marriage and want men. Move there and choose one for your own.”

    Yes! Do not try to change the world for the better.

    Do not try to help your brothers and sons.

    Do NOT do what Jesus and Moses did.

    Game & Run away!🙂

  51. Martel says:

    @ GBFM: I see what you’re saying, but I don’t think this is an either/or (and if you disagree, I’m cool with that.)

    You said: “Next BradA will be teaching, ‘A man can’t prevent a criminal from murdering, but he can contribute to the risk of that happening, by learning Game.'”

    What I would say (not necessarily speaking for Brad), “A man can’t prevent a criminal from murdering, but he can contribute to the risk of that happening by hanging out with him when he’s drunk (at least to him). Moreover, a man can’t stop another man from robbing people, but he can stop him from mugging HIM if he’s packing a 45.”

    Each of us is held individually accountable. The Law applies to us all. Nevertheless, things we do or don’t do can in fact influence how others respond or behave. If I have a roommate who’s a recovering alcoholic, it’s HIS fault if he starts drinking again. Nevertheless, it’s a good idea for me not to leave open bottles of rum all over the apartment.

    Likewise, even though according to the Law she has no right to leave me no matter what I do, if I act like a ridiculous dweeb it’s going to be more tempting for her to want to leave me than if I regularly turn her on. Does that make it MY fault if she leaves because I have no “game”? No. It’s her responsibility, period.

    Still, much like Paul tells us in 1 Cor 8:13, even though I know whether or not she sins is up to her, I don’t want to make it any easier for her. Inspiring her sexually is one way to do that. (A flip side to this is that I have no right to cheat on her no matter what, but if she lives on Ben & Jerry’s it’s going to be a bit harder for me to keep to that.)

    It’s like with the current rape hysteria, if you criticize a woman for passing out spread eagle in a miniskirt at a frat house, you’re “blaming the victim” if she gets sexually assaulted. No man in that fraternity had any right to touch her, and any man who did so should be prosecuted. It’s HIS fault. Nevertheless, her behavior made it more likely to occur.

    I like a lot of what you have to say (I’ve paid sporadic attention to you for quite some time), but even if Brad (or me or whoever else) is wrong here, we’re basically on the same side. We disagree over tactics, emphasis, sometimes Scripture, but we basically agree that the Word should be the basis for how we do things and our churches, feminism, schools, etc. are keeping that from happening. We’re never going to be as effective fighting our true enemies as we could be if we’re not careful about how we attack our allies. Disagree? Of course. Fire away. But even if Brad’s wrong on some points, I think he basically gets it (as do you). That’s what matters.

  52. The LAW of MOSES states

    “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

    Why are so many Churchians against applying this tenet to women?

  53. Martel says:

    “’Thou shalt not commit adultery.’ Why are so many Churchians against applying this tenet to women?'”

    Violating this other commandment for starters: “You shall have no other gods before Me.” Among these gods are Romantic Love, Feelings, Intimacy, and Sexual Satisfaction.

  54. Anchorman says:

    Deebos,
    This guy was solid, good career (structural engineer), worked out, looked good, ate healthy and took pride in his family but she wanted more so she took off with the kids and pulled the “I fear for my safety card”…blew up in his face and he never saw it coming. Oh yeah, weekends without the kids are spent in the bottle as well and any joy he had in life is now gone, he seems shell shocked anytime he’s around.

    Stay with him. I went through an almost identical experience (seriously, your description is almost literally what happened to me, with the exception that my ex is, deep down, a permanently scarred man-hater, thanks to her mother.

    Stay with your friend. He can pull out of the tailspin with friends and Christ. It took me about 2-2.5 years and I consider myself a pretty strong guy with no previous emotional baggage. The more baseless the frivorce, the harder the recovery.

    Depression is a sneaky, awful thing. It slowly closes off your world and distorts reality. You rationalize all sorts of self-destructive behavior. Have patience as he talks, for the 50th time, about the same issues. Keep him moving and out of lonely spaces.

    I never got to the point of suicidal ideation, but my buddy did following his divorce. He seemed down, but not all that bad. Then, boom. Hospital. He said it snuck up on him and he was convinced 1) no one was really interested in him talking about his problem one more time and 2) his family really would be better off if he was gone. He said it seemed perfectly rational and it was only luck (I say Divine intervention) that stopped him. Even though it’s been years, I still connect with him once a week.

    Stay with guys who divorce. They feel isolated, still fight the male conditioning to “suck it up” and not connect with others, and are literally going through a process like a widower.

  55. Deebos says:

    @ GBFM

    You must have an old bible. The new, as taught in most churches and albeit unwritten, bible states;

    Thou shalt not commit adultery, unless you are seeking feminist empowerment or your husband is not showing you enough attention, or your husband works all the time, or he deserves it for a reason of your choosing. If for these reasons than you have not committed adultery but rather expressed your feminine imperative. Forgive your husband for his shortcomings in causing you to do this as he is commanded to forgive you (see Fireproof and Courageous). Forgiveness is the Churchian way.

  56. The Bible was a result of men getting together and asking,

    “How can we establish civilization?”

    Many manosphere writers believe they are doing the same thing when asking, “How can I get my cocokaksk wetsttz lzozoloz in a benrnkaiified owmenz bunghzozlzozizlzo? lzozllzoz”

    Men in former generations would have been quite embarrassed to state, “BradA writes, “A man can’t prevent a wife from straying, but he can contribute to the risk of that happening (by not learning game and negging and wearing furry hats).””

  57. Novaseeker says:

    OT: How many more feminists are going to write books about the EPL type of lifestyle? It’s getting unoriginal, stale, and disgusting.

    Although, really. In this case, the guy was completely closed to life, and that was what spurred her on to that nonsense. She says several times in the book (quoted in the article) that it was the lack of kids that made her do it. The guy has a lot to answer for there, in my opinion, for being closed to life, and I don’t have much sympathy for the pain she inflicted on him.

  58. Martel says:

    “Men in former generations would have been quite embarrassed to state, ‘BradA writes, ‘A man can’t prevent a wife from straying, but he can contribute to the risk of that happening (by not learning game and negging and wearing furry hats).'”

    Correct, because men in former generations were raised from infancy to grow up to be MEN, thus naturally being much of what women crave without even thinking about it. We’ve been raised to be a feminine as possible, to do the opposite of what we should do in virtually every area of our lives. It takes a lot of conscious effort to rectify that, including admitting some embarrassing truths.

  59. GBFM,

    The LAW of MOSES states

    “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

    Why are so many Churchians against applying this tenet to women?

    Because they are churchians and not Christians. Churchians care about man’s law (particularly those created to accomidate the feminist imperative) not God’s law. God doesn’t pay the pastor. God doesn’t pay the judge, the lawyers, the DA, the police, or the social workers. God doesn’t pay you a visit to commend you if you spank your wife because she f-cked the house painter, the police do. And they remove you from the house. And take away your children. And if you ever get out, the church will ask YOU to leave.

    There is no secular law against infidelity. Government does not lock married people up if they have consentual s-x with someone who is not their spouse, not unless that person is under 18 (in which case, they throw away the key if its a girl under 18 and if it is a boy under 18 they give the mom an interview on Ladies Home Journal and her own Lifetime for women TV movie.)

    In churchianity the only thing that matters is government and its secular laws. God’s law does not apply as God cannot sue the church if no one obey’s God’s law. God does not send his own police to arrest church members for violating God’s law. God does not judge you until after you are dead and most people in churchianity don’t even believe in God so what difference does that make?

  60. Escoffier says:

    Boxer:

    Actually, it was 1988–in Atlanta, during the week of the Democratic National Convention. Which Lowe was attending to campaign for Dukakis.

    Make of that what you will.

  61. Escoffier says:

    Oh and the girl (or one of them) was 16, the age of consent in Georgia, hence she was not legally underage.

  62. Escoffier says:

    The Bible was a result of men getting together and asking,

    “How can we establish civilization?”

    Of course, this interpretation is to bring to the Bible a perspective alien to the text. It presupposes that the Bible is false, “poetic fables,” the willed creation of (some) men to spiritually, intellectually, and politically dominate and command other men. That is the assertion of all modern philosophy beginning with Machiavelli, and the root of the present crisis.

    Now, the truth, falsehood, or “unprovability” of the Biblical narrative cannot be established by reason. We can evaluate the effects of its teaching—salutary, corrupting, indifferent—based on a rational understanding of man via the premises of pre-modern philosophy, but this cannot answer the question of the underlying truth or falsehood of Biblical claims.

    However, even to begin to understand the Bible on even this low level, we must come to the text with the preeminent question—Is it true?—not already answered in the negative. We must first try to understand the Bible as the Bible and its authors understood themselves before we attempt to understand it better than they understood it. And on that basis, the Bible stands as the revealed Word of the living God to His chosen prophets. Not a secular, earthly conspiracy (however salutary) to found civilization.

  63. Well, well, well….. it appears that in some states (less and less each year), adultery still is criminal behavior.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/04/17/anti-adultery-laws-new-hampshire/7780563/

    Punishments vary widely by state. In Maryland, the penalty is a paltry $10 fine. In Massachusetts, an adulterer could face up to three years in jail.

    Location, location, location. That said, I think that if a saddened Massachusetts man went to the local DA to ask them to prosecute his adulterous soon-to-be-Ex-Wife for her affair, I’m guessing government would give him the finger.

  64. Escoffier says:

    The Bible was a result of men getting together and asking,

    “How can we establish civilization?”

    This interpretation brings to the Bible a perspective alien to the text. It presupposes that the Bible is false, “poetic fables,” the willed creation of (some) men for the purpose of spiritually, intellectually, and politically dominating and commanding other men, if for ostensibly good reasons. That is the assertion of all modern philosophy beginning with Machiavelli, and the root of the present crisis.

    Now, the truth, falsehood, or “unprovability” of the Biblical narrative cannot be established by reason. We can evaluate the effects of its teaching—salutary, corrupting, indifferent—based on a rational understanding of man via the premises of pre-modern philosophy, but this cannot answer the question of the underlying truth or falsehood of Biblical claims.

    However, even to begin to understand the Bible on even this low level, we must come to the text with the preeminent question—Is it true?—not already answered in the negative. We must first try to understand the Bible as the Bible and its authors understood themselves before we attempt to understand it better than they understood it. And on that basis, the Bible stands as the revealed Word of the living God to His chosen prophets. Not a secular, earthly conspiracy (however salutary) to found civilization.

  65. Martel says:

    “That said, I think that if a saddened Massachusetts man went to the local DA to ask them to prosecute his adulterous soon-to-be-Ex-Wife for her affair, I’m guessing government would give him the finger.”

    It would be used as evidence of emotional abuse in the divorce proceedings.

  66. Anchorman says:

    The guy would ask for her number and “look into it.”

  67. Novaseeker says:

    It would be used as evidence of emotional abuse in the divorce proceedings.:, etc

    Yes, although evidence is also admissible that it was his emotional abuse which “drove her to the affair”, etc. Adultery laws are not enforced.

  68. desiderian says:

    Martel,

    You’re killing it on this thread.

    “It’s like with the current rape hysteria, if you criticize a woman for passing out spread eagle in a miniskirt at a frat house, you’re “blaming the victim” if she gets sexually assaulted. No man in that fraternity had any right to touch her, and any man who did so should be prosecuted. It’s HIS fault. Nevertheless, her behavior made it more likely to occur.”

    This was my thought as well. But then again, has this approach been ineffective for our enemies? Seems to be working awfully well on the great swath of go-along get-along types.

    “I like a lot of what you have to say (I’ve paid sporadic attention to you for quite some time), but even if Brad (or me or whoever else) is wrong here, we’re basically on the same side. We disagree over tactics, emphasis, sometimes Scripture, but we basically agree that the Word should be the basis for how we do things and our churches, feminism, schools, etc. are keeping that from happening. We’re never going to be as effective fighting our true enemies as we could be if we’re not careful about how we attack our allies. Disagree? Of course. Fire away. But even if Brad’s wrong on some points, I think he basically gets it (as do you). That’s what matters.”

    I don’t read it as necessarily an attack, nor is it necessarily detrimental to the cause. Without GBFM’s voice coming from that direction, the natural human tendency is to slide into moderation, to split the difference between whatever voices are contending. If GBFM is out of bounds, then that middle way moves inexorably toward Churchianity.

  69. desiderian says:

    Martel,

    “embarrassing truths”

    Falsehood leads men to places far more embarassing than truth may seem to be.

  70. thedeti says:

    I was surprised to discover the so-called “heart balm” statutes (criminal conversation, alienation of affections) are still on the books in my state.

    Criminal conversation is just fornication. Alienation of affections is a tort, a civil wrong, which subjects the defendant to liability in damages for having sex with a married person (i.e., “alienating” the spouse’s “affections”). This tort is almost never filed or proved because an element of the tort is proof that absent the defendant’s conduct, the straying spouse wouldn’t have strayed.

    The problem there is that most of the time, when a person commits adultery and cheats on his/her spouse, things have been bad in the marriage for a long time. The interloper’s sexual contact with the spouse, and the spouse’s straying, are really just incidental — the spouse’s affections have been “alienated” for a long time, and the marriage has been in a bad state for a long time, long before the interloper ever showed up. That’s a big reason why adultery laws aren’t enforced.

    Of course, the main reason why adultery laws aren’t enforced is that our society long ago decided as a policy matter that the answer to bad marriages is to let people divorce and end them as peaceably as possible, rather than to make people stay in them under threat of criminal prosecution or civil liability.

  71. desiderian says:

    Nova,

    “Although, really. In this case, the guy was completely closed to life, and that was what spurred her on to that nonsense. She says several times in the book (quoted in the article) that it was the lack of kids that made her do it. The guy has a lot to answer for there, in my opinion, for being closed to life, and I don’t have much sympathy for the pain she inflicted on him.”

    This was the case with my wife’s first marriage. In her case, he deceptively promised children “once they were established in their careers,” then changed his mind once that was achieved. Instead of committing adultery within marriage, she filed for divorce and then found a man open to life and committed to headship (something else her ex refused to do).

    On the basis of her parents’ marriage and her upbringing, I judged her a good risk. I’m not nearly so sure that we’re not nonetheless living in sin, but the alternatives seem worse for us both.

  72. desiderian says:

    Escoffier,

    “Actually, it was 1988”

    The irony is that back then Lowe was generally considered the skeevy, preppy, most-likely-to-be-a-Duke-Lacrosse member of that Rat Pack. How times change.

  73. Nova,

    Adultery laws are not enforced.

    This was just a week and a half ago…

    http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/03/south-korea-adultery-law-repeal/386603/

    In the United States, for example, adultery laws enacted in the 1700s and 1800s were often prejudiced against women. The laws “were concerned with women cheating on their husbands and having kids that weren’t theirs, and then [the husbands] taking care of kids that weren’t theirs,” JoAnne Sweeny, an assistant professor of law at the University of Louisville, told me. “Adultery could only happen if the woman was married. If the man was married but the woman wasn’t, that wasn’t adultery” but rather the lesser offense of “fornication.” Moreover, “if a wife wanted a divorce, she had to show that her husband lived in adultery, whereas a husband had to show only that his wife had committed a single act of adultery.” As Sweeny has documented, the legal systems in many states continued to treat male and female infidelity differently until the 1950s; as of 2013, at least 18 states still had adultery laws on the books, though they are rarely enforced.

    You can replace that “rarely” word with “never” and it would be just as true a statement.

    That is PURELY DRIVEN by the feminist imperative that any woman (married or unmarried) can f-ckety-f-ck-f-ck any man she wants at any moment for any or no reason, and her husband must support those children. This is why I keep harping on the belief that women are NOT moral agents. If women did have moral agency, we wouldn’t be having these silly arguments about the merits of criminalizing God’s laws like adultery.

  74. The irony is that back then Lowe was generally considered the skeevy, preppy, most-likely-to-be-a-Duke-Lacrosse member of that Rat Pack. How times change.

  75. Escoffier says:

    Playing a sainted liberal WH speechwriter for a sainted liberal President for four years can change perceptions markedly.

  76. Escoffier says:

    D, I think there is a post of mine regarding the interpretation of the Bible that is stuck in mod. I wouldn’t gripe like this, except I think the point is rather important.

  77. Playing a sainted liberal WH speechwriter for a sainted liberal President for four years can change perceptions markedly.

    Rob Lowe’s Sam Seaborn was supposed to be the central character of TWW. Obviously, because Martin Sheen is such a strong actor in such a strong role on the show, it didn’t workout that way. And a disgruntled Rob had to go back to the NBC producers to get his own (soon to be failed) show, The Lyon’s Den.

    As an avid follower of TWW, it was pretty clear which character was added to the show that saved Lowe’s career and gave Sam Seaborn the counter balance that made TWW such an amazing hit for the few years he was on it.

    http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/westwing/images/6/61/Ainsley_Hayes.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width/250?cb=20060709030206

    Sam Seaborn: No, man, why participate in the process when you can get a job commenting on it?

    Ainsley Hayes: You think because I don’t want to work here it’s because I can get a better gig on Geraldo? Gosh, let’s see if there could possibly be any other reason why I wouldn’t want to work in this White House? This White House that feels that government is better for children than parents are. That looks at forty years of degrading and humiliating free lunches handed out in a spectacularly failed effort to level the playing field and says, ‘Let’s try forty more.’ This White House that says of anyone that points that out to them, that they are cold and mean and racist, and then accuses Republicans of using the politics of fear. This White House that loves the Bill of Rights, all of them – except the second one.

    Sam Seaborn: This is the wrong place to talk about guns right now. I thought your column was idiotic.

    Ainsley Hayes: Imagine my surprise.

    Aaron Sorkin is a clever writer.

  78. Martel says:

    @ desiderian: Thanks. One thing I try to do is to the best of my ability determine whether somebody’s heart is in the right place but their brain’s a bit off or whether their heart’s in the wrong place and act accordingly. Each requires a different approach.

    Moreover, there’s a time for “repent, you harlot!” but also a time for “Have you seriously considered what it is you’re doing?” The wrong approach will often backfire, but the right one can work wonders.

    “But then again, has this approach been ineffective for our enemies?”

    Hardly, but that’s partly because even most of our allies are too mealy-mouthed. When I’m accused of victim-blaming in such cases my response is along the lines of, “Get real, moron. It’s perfectly possible for an evil jackass to screw over an idiot. Just because he’s being evil doesn’t mean she’s not dumb.” They use this in the overall context of “victim culture” in which nobody who’s been “oppressed” can be called to account for anything. It’s nonsense, we know it’s nonsense, THEY know it’s nonsense, but it’s quite effective so long as you intimidate people away from using their brains.

    “I don’t read it as necessarily an attack, nor is it necessarily detrimental to the cause. Without GBFM’s voice coming from that direction, the natural human tendency is to slide into moderation, to split the difference between whatever voices are contending. If GBFM is out of bounds, then that middle way moves inexorably toward Churchianity.”

    Indeed, we need voices that state unequivocally that sin is sin and there’s no excuse for it. At the same time, we all sin, and as most of us pray “lead us not into temptation” I try as a Christian to not steer fellow Christians into circumstances in which they’ll be more likely to sin. No woman has the moral right to cheat on her husband, but wimpy husbands are more likely to get cheated on. The latter clause in that last sentence is neither moral nor immoral; it’s a fact. Thus, the more masculine Christian men become, the more likely Christian marriage is to survive. At the same time, if we become real men but churches and everybody else excuse every mistake women make, it still won’t be nearly enough. I advocate not “leading them into temptation” with the understanding that they WILL be tempted no matter what we do regardless and need to develop the requisite character to resist it. We shouldn’t assume that calling men to a standard in any way absolves women from upholding their own.

  79. desiderian says:

    Escoffier,

    Gripe away. The bowels of Christ are surely large enough to contain yours truly.

  80. earl says:

    ‘The Bible was a result of men getting together and asking,

    “How can we establish civilization?”

    The Bible is the inspired word of God. Basically everytime men decided to make civilization in his own image…God came in and said ‘No, this is how it’s done.’

    We are not so different from the ancient Israelites.

  81. cynical observer says:

    “Correct, because men in former generations were raised from infancy to grow up to be MEN”

    I don’t think so. The only reason men in former generations may have had more loyalty from their wives is because women couldn’t get away with as much as they can now. (birth control, state interference, relaxed cultural restrictions and reduced social shaming)

    This “Real MEN” (TM) as opposed to peter pans or deadbeats comparison is annoying and unhelpful rhetoric. No one has ever defined what exactly a “Real Man” is. And I doubt any man with a clue would care about other men’s opinion of him.

    It’s unbelievable even men on sites like this can even remotely consider getting married in the west. I’m no Christian, but allowing the interference of a godless, tyrannical State on one’s own marriage should be outright sinful.

    And finally, for the life of me I just can’t see any merit to this “Game” thingy you people talk about as if everyone here knows exactly what it is. Proponents of “Game” advise people to be “Confident, fit, well-groomed” and pursue one’s own life goals and hobbies which seems like general life advice at best. Being “dominant” for your wife so she won’t have to think for herself seems pretty convenient. The more specific components of “Game” such as negging et cetera. seem quite doubtful to me. I really don’t think such a thing would save anyone from a soul-destroying divorce if it wasn’t going to happen anyway.

  82. earl says:

    ‘The LAW of MOSES states

    “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

    Why are so many Churchians against applying this tenet to women?’

    The same reason why Jesus will tell people he doesn’t know them when they cry out ‘Lord, Lord’.

  83. Martel,

    No woman has the moral right to cheat on her husband, but wimpy husbands are more likely to get cheated on. The latter clause in that last sentence is neither moral nor immoral; it’s a fact. Thus, the more masculine Christian men become, the more likely Christian marriage is to survive.

    This might be the biggest reason why daughter’s of single moms who never got to know their dad are so f-cked up, and their chance at a stable lifelong marriage is almost a hopeless proposition. It’s about authority. It should have nothing to do with how wimpy or masculine a woman’s husband is. It is about her respecting her husband’s authority over her to do whatever he tells her to do, something that daughters of single moms are pretty much …. (shrugging shoulders) …. never told to do. That is what daddies are for…

    (Dad to daughter) “Okay so he asked you to marry him and you said yes. You want to be happy the rest of your life?”
    (Daughter) “Yes daddy.”
    (Dad to daughter) “Obey your husband, in all things.”
    (Daughter) “Mom never told me that.”
    (Dad to daughter) “I know. I’m telling you that.”
    (Daughter) “But that doesn’t sound right. I am my own person.”
    (Dad to daughter) “You are your own person, and I’ll love you no matter what.”
    (Daughter) “Then why must I always obey my husband?”
    (Dad to daughter) “Because you married him. This is a contract you made with him and with God. That is part of the contract.”
    (Daughter) “But what if I don’t agree with him on something?”
    (Dad to daughter) “Then why are you marrying him NOW???? If you don’t believe that you can obey this man in all things, then do NOT marry him.”
    (Daughter) “But… that doesn’t sound fair?”
    (Dad to daughter) “Life is not fair nor is it easy. But this is marriage. You are contracting. Part of the contract is for you to obey.”
    (Daughter) “But… mom doesn’t always obey you?”
    (Dad to daughter) “And… is your mom always happy? Or do you quite often see her miserable, yelling at her parents, yelling at my parents, yelling at you, yelling at me. I never yell as she doesn’t listen to me. You want your marriage to be like that, where your husband tunes out your screaming? Or, would you rather just be pleasant and smile and obey him? Which would make you happier?”
    (Daughter) “Well, I want to be married but I am not willing to obey him. I might make a terrible mistake and marry the wrong guy and I want the ability to walk out on the marriage.”
    (Dad to daughter) “Okay. Then this marriage to him does not have my blessing or my support. You don’t know him well enough yet to marry him. You don’t know him at all. Enjoy the elopement.”

    The above conversation is completely unreadible for most women, I’d say, 95% of women. It would mean absolutely nothing to them even if it means everything to fathers who most certainly NEVER-EVER want to see their adult daughter’s divorced. I know I’ll never want to see that.

    It all boils down to authority. If you accept the premise that women simply aren’t moral agents (as I have) then women MUST come under the authority of their husbands and obey them. In all things. The ancients understood this back in the day even if the blue pill world can’t get this now. That is the way it was until the last 50 years or so. Low and behold, the last 50 years have seen a complete destruction to marriage and the family.

    We are 19 months away from electing a woman who has never obeyed a man (or really anyone) in her life to be the leader of the entire free world. With her finger on a button, she will have ultimate authority over the life and death of all of us. God is weeping for His people. We are most definately on the Road to Perdition.

  84. earl says:

    ‘It all boils down to authority. If you accept the premise that women simply aren’t moral agents (as I have) then women MUST come under the authority of their husbands and obey them’

    If you are going the moral agent route again…in that case I accept the premise that men aren’t moral agents and then MUST come under the authority of God and obey HIM.

    This is where it all goes back to.

  85. Martel says:

    @ innocentbystander: In addition to what you point out, part of a husband’s authority is legitimated by the surrounding community. Everybody saw the husband as the leader of his home, and the respect that this gave him actually reinforced his authority in the eyes of his family.

    Now that headship is routinely mocked, his authority has no backup. Thus, he has to be even more authoritative to command that natural respect. In prior times, in addition to her husband telling her to obey him, so did her own parents, her pastor, her friends, and everybody else. Today, even if she’s naturally inclined to listen to him, she’s got hundreds of other voices in her life telling her she really doesn’t have to. This means that each individual couple needs a much stronger internal dynamic to work properly than it used to.

  86. Gunner Q says:

    Isa @ 10:10 am:
    “The biggest fear my female friends have of marriage is actually divorce.”
    Good. That means they’ll try hard to please their husbands so he won’t ever want a divorce.

    “One interesting thing to remember is that marriage has always been a crapshoot.”
    Not like today. Men are okay with marriage being a risk but not Russian Roulette.

    On top of that, “unhappy marriage” is often a temporary phase. Couples eventually work out their differences… sometimes just for their own sanity, true, but it happens so long as divorce is not an easy option.

  87. Tam the Bam says:

    I’m inevitably aligned with Opus on this.
    Do. Not. Understand.
    It’s quite fast, and they are speaking rather colloquially, of course. But even then, I fail to grasp the initial premises.
    Who are these bloody people, and what are they doing?
    Are they playing “Strung Flowers” with massive unsuitable dice? Why is Deadbeat Rob 3″ shorter than Rob-in-the Whistle?
    I’m not being awkward, and I realise it’s my loss and am unfeasibly far from the target demographic (that would require guaranteed mains electric supply, rising main water, street lighting and even remotely adjacent blacktop), but … communicate already, marketers ….. Please?

    Makes less sense to the likes of me than a rained-off episode of “One Man and His Dog”. (That’ll do, lad ..)

  88. JDG says:

    BradA is trying to sell you the Marxist version of Christianity where the LAW of MOSES which Jesus came to fulfill has no value and does not apply to women.

    And then the Churchians wonder why the family is blowing up.

    I don’t think they are wondering. I talk to church goers from various churches on a regular bases, and until I point it out to them they usually haven’t given it much thought. As mentioned above, the common consensus is that if something isn’t right then the man failed in some way. The good news is that, in some Christian circles, this isn’t carrying the weight it once did.

  89. greyghost says:

    Well she didn’t marry up they still have cable. She just replaced the same man with some new gina tingle.
    The real men thing
    The only real men out there are the MGTOW’s and PUA. Those men are following their own script. Supplicating to the worthless females we have so this mad society can say you are manned up and mature is irresponsible. The ironic thing is that men that do that are suffering the most as they should. Men that are not red pill and still cling to the delusion of the modern churchianship and pleasing the feminine imperative blue pill are irresponsible. Any suffering they and their offspring endure is deserved.

  90. JDG says:

    Earl – http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2015/03/12/she-took-a-year-off-from-her-marriage-to-sleep-with-strangers-what-could-go-wrong/

    If the comment section is representative of our society, then we as a society deserve even worse than feminism. Like the writer of the book being discussed, the men and women writing those comments love evil and hate anything resembling good. They have no concept of shame. President Obama is indeed the appropriate president for the populace of this country.

  91. JDG says:

    I just want to point out that there’s actually a LOT of good TV today. You just need to be smart about it. We’re in a golden age of dramatic television.

    What’s a little dog poo in a batch of brownies. You won’t hardly taste it. Choose your poison. Just don’t forget that it actually is poison.

  92. JDG says:

    So find a part of the world where women are still feminine, believe in marriage and want men. Move there and choose one for your own

    As I’ve hinted at before, the foreign market is better supplied than the domestic one at present.

  93. JDG says:

    “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

    Why are so many Churchians against applying this tenet to women?

    Because they’re women, and it’s always the man’s fault.

  94. JDG says:

    The Bible was a result of men getting together and asking,

    “How can we establish civilization?”

    Not quite. The Bible is a result of God passing His eternal word through men to other men. These things were written down and at a certain point men copied copies of those writings together into one book called the Bible. The salvation of men by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was and is the underlying principle and motivation for the Bible.

  95. Beeker says:

    “So find a part of the world where women are still feminine, believe in marriage and want men. Move there and choose one for your own

    As I’ve hinted at before, the foreign market is better supplied than the domestic one at present.”

    And be sure to stay in that foreign part of the world if you marry one, never bring her to the States.

  96. earl says:

    ‘The only real men out there are the MGTOW’s and PUA. Those men are following their own script. Supplicating to the worthless females we have so this mad society can say you are manned up and mature is irresponsible.’

    PUAs and MGTOWs are the result of worthless females and this mad society. They aren’t real men anymore than a slut or a feminist is a real woman.

  97. BradA says:

    Where did I write anything about the Law in this thread GBFM and Earl? Must be fun beating up straw men.

    Though if Jesus fulfilled it, how does it still apply to us? Do all of you pushing for it keep all of it? For that is the requirement, even the obscure and “impossible” parts. No mixed fabrics for you, or shellfish, or….

    You don’t have to have the Law in your life to know that adultery is wrong. It was wrong before the Law and remains wrong after Jesus fulfilled the Law.

    It is almost comical to watch all of you scamper about. Enjoy your circle jerk. I will stick with what the Apostle Paul wrote on the topic. I would even argue that Jesus’ requirements are stronger than the law in many ways, dealing with the attitudes of the mind and heart. (See the Sermon on the Mount.)

    Those requirements apply to all mankind, not just women.

    And as I noted before, anyone who claims I am part of churchianity is being foolish. Though don’t let that stop you, enjoy your rhetoric. Though I would suspect I would have had a much easier time finding a good church if I was. Maybe you are just projecting your own selves?

    Are you like preachers harping against homosexuality while living in it?

  98. BradA says:

    JDG,

    The salvation of men by the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was and is the underlying principle and motivation for the Bible.

    If that was the sole end we would want those who gained salvation to die quickly so they would get to the next step. We are commanded to “occupy til He comes” and that is something that is very missing by the exaltation of MGTOWs and PUAs. I am not sure how anyone could claim a PUA is a true man. No sin makes someone a true man. Sin corrupts all it touches and anyone claiming otherwise is leaving out huge chunks of Scripture.

  99. earl says:

    ‘Though if Jesus fulfilled it, how does it still apply to us?’

    The law is basically the minimum requirement. Things you would say to people who have no idea about how morality works (like those whose moral agency is lacking). We still need the foundation and we shouldn’t wipe it out on the whims. Even still keeping the law isn’t enough.

    A ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. You know the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” When Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.” But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich. And Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God! For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” They who heard it said, “Then who can be saved?” But He said, “The things that are impossible with people are possible with God.” Luke 18:18-30

    ‘I will stick with what the Apostle Paul wrote on the topic.’

    I would too. Because it is much better for a person in the long run than just following rules.

    ‘But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.’

    Galatians 5:22-23

  100. greyghost says:

    Earl
    You got that partly right. I would show more appreciation for those men along with the gun nuts every body loves to hate. They are doing the dirty work that allows you to play righteous Christian man and talk down to them. Any real changes that occur will come from the actions of those guys. The role of men like Dalrock is to show men how to make a civilization.

  101. Brad,

    Though if Jesus fulfilled it, how does it still apply to us? Do all of you pushing for it keep all of it? For that is the requirement, even the obscure and “impossible” parts. No mixed fabrics for you, or shellfish, or….

    You don’t have to have the Law in your life to know that adultery is wrong. It was wrong before the Law and remains wrong after Jesus fulfilled the Law.

    And… you don’t have to be considered a “Prophet” by a Christian for another Christian to know that God has revealed something to you about His law and how to fulfill it.

    I am commanded not to eat pork. That is God’s law (and it was a very good one.) Christ never gave me any new rules from God (His father) on pork that trumped the old ones. And yet, someone came along and figured out that the way to eat pork is to cook it, real well. That way if the pig had worms (and what pig 4000, 3000, 2000, 1000, or even 500 years ago didn’t) you wind up cooking the worms and killing them so that when you eat them you digest the pork AND the worms and you will NOT get Trichinosis and die. Whoever figured that out is a prophet. God revealed to him that little tid-bit about His law regarding pork. So now, we can eat pork even though it is not stipulated how long to cook it in the Bible.

    God’s law didn’t change Brad. His law is still in effect. ALL of His laws are in effect. Don’t eat pork. Don’t do it. You have free will and if you want to eat it, something bad might happen to you. But we figured out why that law was so vitally important and what we must do if we are hungry and must violate it. If you want to eat pork, roast that pig! Bleed it, cook it well, cook it long, cook it hot, kill anything and everything that might be in it and might still be alive even if the pig is dead. Thanks be to God.

    What makes The Bible so beautiful and perfect is NOT that everything writen in it is good. Much of what is in the Bible (mass genocide, incest, murder, rape, sociopaths like King David) is horrible! Instead, the book is perfect because it is a very clearly defined set of If-Then-Elses. I like If-Then-Elses because there is no mistake, no misunderstanding the rules and circumstances for breaking them. If someone wants to come along and figure out WHY those rules are the way they are and WHY it is important to follow (or to find the reasons for those If-Then-Elses like what we have with our “pork prophet”, whoever he may be) then they are doing God’s work. They are being good Christians.

    One of the many places where feminism gets us in trouble with God’s laws is that feminism works very hard to make sure people are not permitted to ask why it is so important that wives obey their husbands. A feminist will never even begin to entertain that question, never begin to fully analyze the importance of that law because (unlike our “pork prophet” who understood that His law was good and had purpose) the feminist rejects utterly the existance OF God. In fact, the feminist will do all that she can (appeal to whatever secular authority there is) to make sure that type of question is never posed or seriously debated. Here at Dalrock’s (and other red pill places like it) we are starting to reveal the truths about God’s laws (such as Genesis 3:16) and why they are just as important today as they were thousands of years ago! We are having these discussions. And in doing so, in digging deep into the If-The-Elses, we are incrementally destroying feminism.

  102. Gunner Q says:

    BradA @ 5:40 pm:
    “I am not sure how anyone could claim a PUA is a true man. No sin makes someone a true man.”

    The PUAs invented the Manosphere and (re)discovered Game, giving hope to the involuntarily celibate and helping fathers hold their marriages together. They taught us Christians about women when our own leaders lied to us until we couldn’t even understand the Bible anymore. Pickup artists are truer men than clergy because they’re honest, helpful and don’t blame men for womens’ misconduct.

    Frankly, PUAs sin much less than most ordained pastors. God Himself prefers honest enemies to treacherous allies.

    And what’s with the MGTOW hate? We refuse to sign up for Russian Roulette with a pistol and that makes us inferior?

  103. easttexasfatboy says:

    Lowe certainly didn’t mean to make such a deep statement on marriage, or did he? He nailed the threat in threatpoint, didn’t he? Selling a kidney to survive is harsh. Feminism has run rampant, hasn’t it? Churchianity ain’t Christian. Ever hear of the Saduccees? They were the politicized go along bunch that Jesus had to deal with. The Bible is very clear about the untrustworthy nature of women. Eve was just the first. You see, the churchians have made a deal with feminism. Divide and conquer. Wink and nod, right? However, evil can be very banal. Abortion can’t be linked to Baal worship, can it? GBFM knows exactly what I’m saying. BTW, he plays the foole, doesn’t he? Rebellious women are truly worthless. Lots of wisdom in the good book about how to deal with rebellion. As IBB points out, if then else, or as divine wisdom points out, it is the original sin. Yeppers, Eve was a a card carryin’ feminist. This isn’t anything new. Ever wonder why God commanded certain tribes of people to be eliminated? Interesting thing about the human psyche….once people commit evil depraved acts, they are a source of moral contamination. They are no longer human, but bestial. If we accept divine wisdom, then we can see that retribution is surely headed our way. Funny thing is, judgment starts in the house of God first, right? So, marriage ain’t the smart thing to do anymore. There really aren’t any moral women to be found for a young man to marry. Btw, bestial and feral are functionally equivalent. You see, women have never been trustworthy. The Bible has clearly warned us about that. What has happened is that the restraints of civilization have been destroyed. What we see in feminism has always been in the female heart.

  104. ddswaterloo says:

    What does a deadbeat mom look like??

    Hint: They had a child with a deadbeat dad.

  105. My Dad always taught me that “real men” find solutions and don’t just impotently bitch about things.

    The Bible says it’s better to be single and the only reason to get married is if you “burn.” The consensus here is clearly that there are no virtuous women left, and that the churches aren’t really Christian but in fact “churchian”, and that something like “game” is pointless.

    So, why all the complaints? Shouldn’t you just tell Christian men to never marry, never have sex, and never have children, and be done with it?

    There are countless Christian sects that died out due to not reproducing. American “Christians” will just be another in a long line.

    Y’all had a good run, bow out gracefully.

    It’s not as if there are “real Christian men” left that would actually confront the businessmen in the pulpits raking in big $$$ for preaching various heresies – feminism, prosperity “gospel,” Xian-Zionism, etc. I suspect that the “Christian” men are simply too comfortable in the churchian subculture to risk anything to solve the problem.

  106. BradA says:

    The PUAs invented the Manosphere and (re)discovered Game

    Hardly. They discovered it for themselves, but the principles of a man being a man were there the entire time and are covered in the Scriptures. They didn’t discover them any more than Donald Trump discovered how to operate in God’s financial blessings.

    Applying transcendent rules usually works out well, no matter who applies them.

    The fact that many Christians have walked from them (and paid the price) doesn’t mean they don’t exist.

    TFH,

    Being a better sinner is nothing to boast about. Those who elevate women and perform spiritual cross dressing are also walking foolishly. Nothing to celebrate there either. The Scriptures have plenty of bad things to say about those who live a hedonistic lifestyle, none good. Elevating them because they are not quite as bad (in some ways) as others is not great theology.

    IBB, so you get to pick and choose which parts of the Law you want to follow?

    [Jas 2:10 KJV] 10 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all.

    And GBFM, are you seriously trying to say that you keep every last part of the Law Moses spoke? I have my doubts. I guess James was blue pill too!

  107. Renee Harris says:

    I go to a chruch were my pastor would mock husbands, but he too teach crap (sarcasm starting) the wrath of God, the evil of this age, how to share a Christ center gospel, our lives are Gods andHe can do As he will with them. Hell is real and you have every right to go there just don’t act surprise when you get then ( sarcasm done)
    Ps Are there any red pill woman blog ?

  108. Boxer says:

    Dear TFH, Renee:

    Ps Are there any red pill woman blog ?

    Aside from Dr. Helen, who writes excellent content, I’ve recently become a huge fan of Judgy Bitch (a/k/a Janet Bloomfield). She writes well and has a good sense of humor. She also recently inspired so much angst amongst the radfem cliterati that she earned a lifetime ban from twitter. This is an almost unparalleled honor, and I bow to this superior troll in the pantheon.

    http://judgybitch.com

    She also writes for Taki’s Magazine and occasionally Thought Catalog. Check her out.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  109. JDG says:

    If that was the sole end we would want those who gained salvation to die quickly so they would get to the next step.

    Brad the underlying principle and motivation does not equate to the sole end.

  110. JDG says:

    And be sure to stay in that foreign part of the world if you marry one, never bring her to the States.

    That would be safer to be sure, but let it be known that foreign born brides as a group divorce at a much lower rate then their domestic counter parts.

  111. John Nesteutes says:

    @Deebos

    Plain Anabaptist communities (Amish, Hutterite, conservative Mennonite or Brethren, etc.) have a 0.3% divorce rate.

    I realise we have some theological differences, but we’re worth checking out.

    I’m literally the only divorced person in my church, and I married outside of the church when I was choosing to be a worldly person.

    Some people’s kids or other relatives get divorced – always preceded by leaving the church and/or marrying someone outside of he church.

  112. desiderian says:

    TFH,

    Most contemporary conservatives are closer to the Sadducees. The SJWs are the Pharisees.

  113. Nathaniel says:

    @glenfilthie,

    The topic can’t be discussed because you pronounce it stupid (your argument).

    Sir,

    Fuck you,

    Sincerely,
    Everyone

  114. MarcusD says:

    Married Life: What Gomez and Morticia Can Teach Us
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=950889

    Wife wants me to attend IVF seminar
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=950964

  115. easttexasfatboy says:

    The Pharisees were really hung up on traditions. You know, killing a flea on the Sabbath was hunting. Hide bound and intransigent. Hard to think of a more self righteous bunch back then. SJW’s, indeed. The Saduccees were the political compromisers. Remember, they were in the middle of a bunch of seriously disenchanted Romans. Who had to deal with all of those intransigent Jewish factions. Lots of different political agendas. When Jesus performed the miracles, they gnashed their teeth. They were looking for a militant messiah who would deliver them from the Romans. That didn’t work out.
    God’s word is eternal. He’s given us sufficient guidance to know who is His, and who isn’t. Fruitage of the tree and all that. Churchians will call out, “Lord, Lord, etc.”, but He won’t know them. Abortion, Spiritism, the list is long. Anyways, those who love the Bible know that things are going to get much worse. It isn’t surprising that families are being destroyed, is it? Feminism is rebellion, plain and simple. Don’t take a viper to your chest. Just know this, that we are all going to have to give an account for ourselves before God. Gonna be some world class gnashing of the teeth then, y a think?

  116. desiderian says:

    Escoffier,

    “The Bible was a result of men getting together and asking,

    ‘How can we establish civilization?’

    This interpretation brings to the Bible a perspective alien to the text.”

    Your analysis is as usual spot on. The funny thing is that this trope doesn’t even make sense as sociology. Civilization is an emergent phenomenon, not the product of ex nihilo conscious design. It’s a forest, not a parking lot.

  117. earl says:

    ‘Yep. By this account, PUAs are more ‘real’ than most men.’

    Ah yes by going out and having casual sex with women then spinning it into advice they are somehow making civilization better?

  118. PA says:

    Ah yes by going out and having casual sex with women then spinning it into advice they are somehow making civilization better?

    A few things to clear up about PUAs: the genuine article is about as rare as nationally ranked tennis players, because few men have the ability and temperament to be one. They exist but for every guy who bags hotties for ONSs with regular success you have legion of keyboard jockies who, like rock star groupies, find ego gratification by association with the genuine article. And online, it is sufficient to call yourself a PUA to be thought of as one.

  119. earl says:

    ‘And what’s with the MGTOW hate? We refuse to sign up for Russian Roulette with a pistol and that makes us inferior?’

    From what I’ve gather about the more popular MGTOWs it is the result of being screwed over by women so they are going to live for themselves therefore it’s a reaction to women. Living a lifestyle based on avoiding women because they put your heart into a blender isn’t very fulfilling. I get the system is brutal to men and many women are man eaters so I understand the decision they are making…but they still don’t seem at peace about it.

    Now if the man is living a single lifestyle because he is dedicating it to God (much like St. Paul wanted when he was mentioning not to marry)…there’s plenty of fulfillment there. Instead of avoiding something, he is living for something.

  120. Karl says:

    >>> Medieval letters between couples (who of course all had arranged marriages)

    an “arranged marriage” is often not so arranged. I can name multiple cultures/countries (including the Gulf Arab countries) I ‘ve been too, where marriages are “arranged” in theory. In reality, the parents control the roaming/socializing-circles of a daughter; and the parents have a veto over a candidate son-in-law. A slightly more-rigid version amounts to “arranged introductions”.

    In the ACTUAL medieval world, maybe 0.00001% of families held enough wealth/power, for the parents to bother worrying about EXACTLY WHO the xxx-in-law would be.

  121. Spike says:

    easttexasfatboy says:
    March 13, 2015 at 7:37 pm
    Abortion can’t be linked to Baal worship, can it?

    I think that modern abortion isn’t linked to Baal worship, but rather to the worship of that other hideous Canaanite deity, Molech. Molech had the head of a horned bull and the body of a man. Children were sacrificed to him by placing the child – usually a baby – in the deity’s outstretched arms while a fire in its’ belly consumed the child.

    Today, abortions are performed by the millions world-wide. The reason? The woman involved “isn’t ready”, “is forming a career”, “couldn’t get her man to commit”, “has to go on tour again (Stevie Nicks)”, “has to travel” – all are selfish reasons that were the same as the sacrifices of old were.
    What is politely called “medical waste” is collected from abortion clinics and burned in a special incinerator. Molech (Satan) doesn’t care. He still gets his collection of innocents, sacrificed for the sake of selfishness.

  122. earl says:

    ‘It isn’t surprising that families are being destroyed, is it?’

    Not at all. They finally figured out the linchpin on how to destroy it. By giving women power over her fertility.

  123. Deebos

    I asked myself when those women wanted to get married to me, am I any different than these guys, am I better than them, am I special and believe it won’t happen to me, do I believe running game on my wife day after day to keep her entertained is a good idea? Of course not, like I told my business partner once, when you cede a portion of your freedom to someone else you better be sure they place an extremely high value on it and you better be sure their moral compass will never allow them to change their mind on that value. Modern marriage can no longer promise that.

    You may be better or worse, makes no difference. Your point stands. Running game is back-fill for society having taken down all the coups and left women free range. The coups served to magnify the masculine in men. Because the coups (social mores, stigma, decorum, etc) were constructed and run by men. men, the group, made a man more of a man. This is a key weakness in game as marriage permanence belief..

    If you could somehow survey large numbers of women on how certain characteristics they’d ascribe to men in general, it would not be a nice picture they’d paint. That’s the back drop for your game today saving your marriage today. You got nuthin’ to back you up. No church, no law, few friends or colleagues who would put men and marriage first.

    Meanwhile men keep claiming that “back when there actually were real men this wasn’t happening”
    Then go into a pep talk about how to build your gym muscles, cut your abs, etc. Yep, back a century ago when there were gym muscled real men with jobs in IT….er….wait….no gyms, no IT. Gotta love the strident insistence though

    Brad

    True Earl, but staying in that mindset may keep her attracted in the first place. A man can’t prevent a wife from straying, but he can contribute to the risk of that happening.

    This statement is so generic that of course it is true. In fact, your words are efficient, there needn’t be further programing with quark splitting discourse about keeping her attracted. A stigma on her for being fickle if she chooses to not be attractive wouldnt hurt either

    This was the case with my wife’s first marriage. In her case, he deceptively promised children “once they were established in their careers,” then changed his mind once that was achieved. Instead of committing adultery within marriage, she filed for divorce and then found a man open to life and committed to headship (something else her ex refused to do)

    .

    Interesting dichotomy. The choice was between adultery and divorce. Clearly divorce was the moral choice. Nothing frivolous to see here…move along

  124. earl says:

    ‘In her case, he deceptively promised children “once they were established in their careers,” then changed his mind once that was achieved. Instead of committing adultery within marriage, she filed for divorce and then found a man open to life and committed to headship (something else her ex refused to do)’

    I don’t know if this lady is Catholic or their religious situation, this would be more of a general question…wouldn’t that be one of the conditions for an annulment?

    Part of the deal with marriage is children. If a person deceives another person like that then it wasn’t really a marriage to begin with.

  125. Does anyone ever wonder *why* marriage was deconstructed and *why* the great books for men were exiled from the campus? Why did this happen?

    It seems many folks here feel that it just “happened,” like sometimes it rains.

    Some folks, such as desiderian, state that Jesus wanted marriage to decline, and thus because Jesus wanted the family to blow up, it is a sin to feel any despair about it. desiderian stated that despair over the decline of the culture was both arrogant and sinful–pretty much what the feminists say.

    How many other folks agree with desiderian and the feminists that Jesus and the Lord willed the destruction of modern marriage?

    Sadly, I think it is all too many here.

    But what really happened? What really caused the decline of marriage?

  126. earl says:

    ‘But what really happened? What really caused the decline of marriage?’

    The topic that must not be discussed around these parts.

    One thing is for sure…Jesus’s church made it clear where it stood when it comes to that.

  127. Yes Earl,

    “The topic that must not be discussed around these parts.”

    Most churchians, like desiderian and his fellow feminists, tell men that Jesus and the Lord willed the destruction of modern marriage, and that men thus have no right to feel despair nor to try and rectify the situation.

    Then BradA chimes in and tells men that when their women stray, it is their fault, as in the BradA church, the LAW of MOSES does not apply to women.

  128. What so many churchians
    sadly fail to realize
    is that if only so many men
    hadn’t gamed their wife into bed
    before marriage
    they would not have to
    game her
    during marriage
    and
    after marriage.

    And so it is
    that in preaching and teaching game
    they are advancing the feminist marxism
    even as they believe themselves
    to be countering it.

    Such is the beauty of feminist marxism
    That it inspires desiderian to teach
    that Jesus willed feminist marxism
    and that men have no right
    to feel despair
    that their wives were gamed into bed
    before marriage
    and thus that men
    have no right
    to rectify the situation with
    the LAW OF MOSES
    but only with
    more
    game.

  129. easttexasfatboy says:

    GBFM! Eve was the the root of the failure of marriage. You know that. Read the penalties God laid on her. She was the first feminist.

  130. earl says:

    ‘Eve was the the root of the failure of marriage.’

    Close. Look farther and you’ll find the root.

  131. easttexasfatboy says:

    Yeah, if Eve hadn’t listened to that reptile. Yeppers, I’ve opened the door to original sin. Rebellious females are an old problem. So is infanticide. There’s a cultural reset coming.

  132. Yes easttexasfatboy!

    The Bible teaches: “16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” -Genesis 3

    Jesus stated he came to Fulfill this Law.

    But then BradA, like his fellow marxist feminists, states that when a “Christain” woman disobeys this Law and directs her desire beyond her husband, it is the man’s fault for not knowing Game and negging her enough.

    Then desiderian teaches that we must not despair that women are no longer following the Law, because Jesus willed for women to no longer follow the Law. desiderian teaches that expecting women to follow the Law is both sinful and arrogant, as Jesus hath willed that women must blow up their marriages by NOT following the LAW.

  133. earl says:

    ‘Rebellious females are an old problem.’

    Rebellious angels are an even older problem.

  134. Cane Caldo says:

    For years GBFM Lozzol’d around the web saying that the Great Books for Men would teach them Game; that the reason modern men didn’t know Game anymore was because they had stopped reading the Great Books for Men. He said it here, and there, but mostly he said it at Roissy’s/Chateau/Heartiste’s.

    Some time in 2013, that began to change. Now he insists that if men read the Great Books for Men, then they wouldn’t need Game. He says that because they stopped reading the Great Books for Men, modern men had to invent Game.

    Does GBFM know what the Great Books for Men really say? Does he care, or is prattling on about Great Books just his Game; an exercise in irrational self-confidence? Who set a hook in GBFM’s mouth and changed his course?

  135. easttexasfatboy says:

    GBFM! The Bible is very clear about how to identify apostasy, i.e. rebellion. Fact is, most of the folks on this list are feminized to some degree. It’s just part of this culture. Remember, Israel was explicitly warned to stay completely away from the surrounding nations. So that they wouldn’t become curious. Yes, Satan was very astute. He most likely was the third of creation. So, we face an age old problem. God’s solution to rebellion is destruction. That’s the eternal viewpoint speaking, there. So, what can be expected from feral feminism? It’s all there in the Bible.

  136. Escoffier says:

    Why did this happen?

    The two fundamental reasons are 1) the cycle of regimes and 2) modernity. The first was inevitable, the second our choice.

    All human institutions, up to and including whole civilizations–the cultural-religious-intellectual-political-economic phenomena that Machiavelli broadly terms “sects”–have a life cycle. They come into being and pass through various stages before they wither and die—if they are not killed off or conquered before they have the chance. Broadly speaking, they begin simple and rustic and these traits help them gain strength, which strength leads to success and eventually wealth, which corrupts and undermines the foundations of that success. “Virtue gives birth to quiet, quiet to leisure, leisure to disorder, disorder to ruin.”

    Modernity speeds up this process by declaring the end stage—the exaltation of material ease and consumption—to be the only true purpose of life and by undermining the foundations necessary to achieving such ease. The peaks are shorn off the mountains and the pillars are stripped from the temple.

    We did this on purpose, as a human race, because material ease is something that all men in all times and places want or are tempted to want. A cadre of philosophers or pseudo philosophers told us we could have that if only we followed them. The price was that we would have to discard God or at least worship Him in a new way that put science and materiality first. Some of these philosophers were basically honest about this, others misled, and others outright lied. But they all knew what they were doing.

    That’s why it happened.

  137. easttexasfatboy says:

    Game is the realization that women are basically stupid. Not all, obviously, but enough for sexual misadventures. It works, because women have certain basic flaws, and game essentially uses the same tactics that a certain reptile used way back when. What I believe has happened to GBFM is that he realizes that we are closer to a cultural reset. Think civil war, something major that completely changes our society. Anyone who loves the Bible has looked forward to these days. Gonna be a rough ride.

  138. earl says:

    Oh a culture reset is coming. You can’t have ~55 million abortions and counting since 1973 without the heavy hand coming down.

    It would almost be the crowning jewel of the reset if Hillary were elected.

  139. desiderian says:

    Cane,

    When we were young, and the great books were still widely taught, they were just as widely, and foolishly, ignored. GBFM senses rightly that the seasons are turning, that the prosperity that fed that foolishness has passed, and if they are again taught, on their own terms, that there will now be those ready to learn, and he will no longer need to speak foolishness to be heard by fools.

    He is almost correct. It has not yet passed for the teachers themselves.

  140. @GBFM

    I few threads back I compared “Game” to surgery. Successful surgery requires many different things, such as understanding anatomy, understanding the actions and interactions of various organs and systems, understanding the cause and typical effect of various stimuli on the body and finally the techniques of actually performing surgery (there are others). It seems to me that focusing a definition of game as PUA techniques is somewhat akin to defining surgery as only surgical techniques. It leaves out the entire background and body of knowledge necessary to apply such techniques. This is critically important because it’s that background knowledge that allows the surgeon to decide whether application of surgical techniques is even necessary, and if necessary what particular techniques need to be applied.

    I took it a bit further and pointed out that the Bible commands a husband to love his wife and it seems to me that what an expanded definition of game includes is an understanding of female hypergamy and solipsism, the female mating strategy (AF/BB), their attraction to masculinity and contempt for supplicating behavior; and that because of the curse, AWALT. But men also have to know themselves and root out all the false feminist teachings (romantic love, one-itis, chivalry, pedestalizing, supplication to the woman, etc.) and focus on masculine behavioral techniques such as frame control, agree and amplify, amused mastery, self control, self improvement, etc.

    Just as you cannot consistently, successfully perform surgery without a knowledge and understanding of the underlying issues, I don’t see how a husband can truly love his wife without understanding her nature as a woman and why a woman reacts the way she does. Women don’t want to be loved the way men want to be loved, so to truly love her give her what she needs. In order to do that the husband needs to understand himself and know what not to do as well as what to do.

    Several have stated that the idea of having to game their wife for the entire marriage is repugnant. Well, just as it takes years to learn the necessary information and techniques to become a surgeon, I think it takes years to fully swallow the red pill and internalize that particular knowledge base. Once fully internalized it becomes natural behavior and isn’t work, it’s now part of your personality. As BradA pointed out, this is a two-way street. There are things a husband can do to increase attraction from his wife and there are things a husband can do to repel her.

    As the Apostle Peter said, live with your wife in an understanding way, for she is the weaker vessel. You can’t live with your wife in an understanding way without an understanding of her nature, and the fact she’s referred to as the weaker vessel should tell you something about that nature. That’s not game, that’s obedience to the Word.

    GBFM said:
    But then BradA, like his fellow marxist feminists, states that when a “Christain” woman disobeys this Law and directs her desire beyond her husband, it is the man’s fault for not knowing Game and negging her enough.

    I didn’t get the sense that was what BradA was saying at all. Nothing is going to stop a woman from walking if that’s what she wants to do (thus the importance of picking a good one), but a husband can both engage in and avoid certain behaviors and that will reduce the likelihood she’ll want to walk. Why? Because she’s getting what she needs/wants and not getting what she doesn’t want. That isn’t cultural marxism, that’s being obedient to the word and treating her as the weaker vessel. If God’s love is holy and pure, consider the number of times we are commanded to Love the Lord, then contrast the number of times we are commanded to Fear the Lord. As I recall, we are commanded to fear the Lord (in the NT as well- “work out your salvation in fear and trembling”) far more often than we’re told to love the Lord.

    Interesting how women react well to a strong dose of masculine dominance (fear) along with a side dish of comfort (love). Is that game and cultural marxism?

  141. desiderian says:

    GBFM,

    Despair is the opposite of hope. It is about the future, not the present or the past. We all share your grief for what was lost.

    The will of Jesus is to submit to the will of the Father. Sin has consequences. It is the will of the Father that the local consequences reflect the severity of the general, just as a nerve feels the pain of an infection, so that the body can respond to the cause of the pain before the body itself is destroyed by an infection gone unchecked.

    Our fathers sinned greatly in forsaking God and making Gods of themselves, creating others in their image, most gravely seeking to make women men. Our mothers, in a mirror image of Eden, were all too willing to follow along and do the will of these fathers rather than God’s, and over time to make Gods of themselves too.

    Among the consequences of that sin is the loss of the institutions those men had built up, a loss which we all mourn. But what was not in fact lost was the traditions those institutions were built up to preserve and transmit. Those live on in the great books and in the faithful remnant that did not forsake God, just as has happened before in other times and places, and there is the hope, and not despair.

  142. desiderian says:

    Escoffier,

    This cycle is characterized by a new thing under the sun – the capacity of man to end the human race itself. I sense that much of the present disorder is an allergic reaction to that fact.

  143. Escoffier says:

    If one were forced to name the “peaks” of modernity, I think it’s safe to point to thermonuclear weapons and mass, medicalized abortion as the two that really stand out as crystalizing the flawed premises underlying the whole enterprise.

  144. @Escoffier
    I’d go with Romans 1:18-32, the wrath of God (abandonment) being poured out on a rebellious and unrepentant world. You can see the progression since the early 1960’s, step by step. Tied in with that is the pill and the 5 year lag before widespread divorce exploded.

  145. easttexasfatboy says:

    Toad! I agree that a man can try to keep his wife attracted to him by gaming her. However, feminist Kant is designed to plant the seeds of “unhaaaappppinessss “. Few women are immune. I keep thinking about what was said to be a sign of the last days…..amongst other things were a lack of natural affection. The real problem with perversion in society is that when it becomes mainstream, the destruction wrought is terrible to see. And women see such things, and it’s just like that apple again, isn’t it? So, as this society spirals in, it’s just going to get worse. MGTOW is a reaction to a worsening situation. Think about the days of Noah. Those demons are still alive, right?

  146. Gunner Q says:

    earl @ 5:34 am:
    “I get the system is brutal to men and many women are man eaters so I understand the decision [MGOTWs] are making…but they still don’t seem at peace about it.”
    Of course not. I went MGTOW for my safety, not my pleasure. It takes a lot of pain to reach that decision. Most critics don’t understand that.

    “Now if the man is living a single lifestyle because he is dedicating it to God (much like St. Paul wanted when he was mentioning not to marry)…there’s plenty of fulfillment there.”
    Sigh, get married or get ordained? Are those the only two legitimate ways a man should live? That would explain why the Churchians despise the business world, shun the Great Commission and let the Commies overrun the government, if they think nothing is important except seminary credentialism and doting on babies.

  147. greyghost says:

    Sigh, get married or get ordained? Are those the only two legitimate ways a man should live? That would explain why the Churchians despise the business world, shun the Great Commission and let the Commies overrun the government, if they think nothing is important except seminary credentialism and doting on babies.

    No shit, man. Somebody as got to keep the lights on. It is that kind off stuff the causes atheism and rebellion and the conversion to Islam.

  148. desiderian says:

    GBFM,

    “that in preaching and teaching game
    they are advancing the feminist marxism”

    Game is superfluous next to Christian headship, which it unknowingly imitates, but even on its own terms, I think you’re mistaken.

    Game works on women, as women, i.e. in their longing to submit to a dominant man, and not to women as men, as feminist marxism teaches them to be, striving to dominate men. It subverts feminism, rather than enabling it.

    Cultural marxism:

    SJWs:

    Game:

    Or if you prefer a Great Book, it acts like Ariadne’s thread, leading Theseus back out of the Labyrinth, the loss of the institutions we both lament akin to Kutuzov’s retreat from Moscow to defeat Napoleon and preserve Russia in War and Peace (and fact).

  149. desiderian says:

    heh, guess image links don’t work in this comment section

    Try: Cultural Marxism, SJWs, Game

  150. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. Ecclesiastes 12:13

    Another one of those verses a lot of people wish didn’t exist. Especially the women, because that means all the feelbad headship verses are commands. As I’ve said before, I think Romans 1:18-32 is a prophesy directed straight at our times. As Captain Capitalism would say, “Enjoy the Decline.”

    I should point out, though, doting on babies is important. 1st Timothy 2:15 says women will be saved through the bearing of children if they continue in sanctity, faith and love (paraphrasing from memory here). I can’t remember who has that great chart that graphs the useage of the pill and rate of divorce together and the curves match almost perfectly with about a 5 year gap between the introduction of artificial birth control and the explosion in divorce.

  151. They Call Me Tom says:

    If you’re up for random theories on the ‘why’… first I’d be tempted to blame social fatigue after the world wars, but then, having read Chesterton and Anna Karenina, it is pretty clear that it goes back to at least the nineteenth century. Maybe Belloc has something when he says everything went wrong with the formation of the Anglican Church. Maybe that can be blamed on the Reformation. Perhaps the Reformation could be blamed on the failure of the Catholic Church. Maybe the Catholic Church failed because it decided to split in half around the time of the fall of Rome… And then there are all those Greek plays and the like, I guess the difference being that the Greeks were a society who would willingly punish an adulterer, even if some of the gods supported the adultery (although reading the Iliad you realize that the Greeks found heroic things that we’d consider crooked)… All that random chasing of a train of thought gets to this I think, it has always been there, the last few generations have been more sloth than their predecessors in standing against it, so now a tougher fight is left. The other real problem is that frivorce and SJW now have government sanction to defend them from the criticism of their peers, and too many of their peers, as many of you have said, go along to get along.

  152. Striver says:

    If Game is surgery, most people are not equipped to be surgeons. Ever. Maybe they can learn the simple stuff, maybe not.

    When my wife decided to end our marriage, my pastor gave me a copy of His Needs Her Needs. I don’t think everything in that book holds up to how women think, at least some women. Anyway, after reading the book I honestly decided I was meeting more of her needs than she was mine. And she is the one ending the marriage!

    Most people are average, most men and women are average. Whoops, all women are amazing now, I guess. That is one of the problems. We are all sinners, replacable by children, new men and women years down the road. No one is that special. In any era the average man is going to have a limited pool of dating partners. Probably a few women in his lifetime that really like him enough and he likes them enough. That’s okay. But these average men, I am one in the romantic department, make plenty of compromises of their own before entering into the marriage. Their wives are not all that to them, they are not the prettiest woman the man has ever seen, they don’t share all of the man’s interests.

    Where are men supposed to come up with the emotional energy to keep on gaming their average wives? The men need a break from romance. Few people can keep up that level of intensity. If a 6 woman is with a 6 man, or a 5 with a 5, whatever, they are still decent people who SHOULD both know that they are imperfect and should be willing to compromise to make the marriage work. Of course today, the women are always fabulous and the men are clueless jerks who don’t deserve them.

  153. desiderian says:

    Gunner Q and greyghost,

    “No shit, man. Somebody as got to keep the lights on. It is that kind off stuff the causes atheism and rebellion and the conversion to Islam.”

    This is another area where churchianity has forgotten the wealth of good teaching (doctrine is from the Latin for teaching) traditionally offered by orthodox Christianity.

    Luther’s Doctrine of Vocation* speaks directly to your concerns.

    * – no doubt drawing from centuries of Catholic teaching with which I am less familiar. Vocatio is Latin for “call,” Professio for “response,” from which are derived the contemporary terms vocation and profession. God calls each of us to specific work that is necessary for the Body of Christ as a People and not just a church at worship – engineering, garbage collection, blog writing, even the law and government. Our professions are our response to that call.

    Catholics believe that celibacy is a special gift necessary for the priestly profession, but that is not the only vocation.

  154. desiderian says:

    “Where are men supposed to come up with the emotional energy to keep on gaming their average wives?”

    Roughly 105% of game is leaving behind the feminist programming that twists men into imitation women. Gaming one’s wife is easier than keeping up that lie, and more effective. Christian headship under Christ’s yoke is easier than either one, if you can find a church where it is preached and practiced to bear you up.

    The cultural headwind is there whatever you do.

  155. earl says:

    ‘Sigh, get married or get ordained? Are those the only two legitimate ways a man should live?’

    I never said that. A single person can dedicate their life to God and not be ordained.

    You have three options.

  156. Matthew Chiglinsky says:

    They’re really overdoing these commercials, and I think they are backfiring. I personally lost interest at “unusually hairy” Rob Lowe. I’m so traumatized I think I want to NEVER order DirectTV so that I won’t recall such a creepy commercial.

  157. Pingback: Robe Lowe and DirectTV think deadbeat dads are funny. They’re not. | Honor Dads

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s