Eva Mendes said you can’t keep a man.

A few weeks ago Eva Mendes caused what the Telegraph characterized as a “fierce online row” with a seemingly innocuous statement about sweatpants:

You can’t do sweatpants… ladies, number one cause of divorce in America, sweatpants, no!

The controversy wasn’t really about sweatpants, but about framing divorce*.  The ugly feminist narrative is that divorce is empowerment as well as a tool to acquire power within marriage.  Mendes in her joke reframed divorce as ugly and a failure for women.  This predictably touched off a fury of mound rebuilding, and Mendes ended up offering a sort of apology.

What is noteworthy here is that Mendes accidentally stumbled upon a weak spot in the feminist narrative, and this weak spot remains.  Feminism has recast something ugly as something positive, but the reality remains.  We could have another 100 years of feminism, and there would still be the risk of someone pointing out the obvious;  divorce means failure, and a woman who is able to remain married, especially to the father of her children, gains status over other women.

Note:  I was curious if sweatpants had anything to do with Laura Lifshitz’s divorce.  Given that she makes a habit of airing every last bit of her personal life on the internet, I suspect this won’t come as a surprise for my readers.

*That Mendes herself isn’t married doesn’t change this fact.

This entry was posted in April Fools, Rebuilding the mound, Status of marriage, Threatpoint, Ugly Feminists, Wake-up call. Bookmark the permalink.

364 Responses to Eva Mendes said you can’t keep a man.

  1. greginaurora says:

    Rickrolled. Dammit.

  2. greginaurora says:

    Well played , sir.

  3. Pingback: Eva Mendes said you can’t keep a man. | Manosphere.com

  4. myrealitie says:

    Lol! I see what you did there.

  5. Screw you Dalrock, lol! Never again!

    Nah, you can never be rickrolled enough!

  6. A rickrolled April Fools! Nicely played!

    I was almost hoping to find Lifeshits in tight fitting yoga pants!

  7. Scott says:

    How far we have come when it is controversial to say “dress nicely for your man.”

  8. Tom Scaver says:

    > This predictably touched off a fury of mound rebuilding…

    This predictably touched off furry mound regilding…

    FTFY

  9. Pingback: Eva Mendes said you can’t keep a man. | Neoreactive

  10. Phillyastro says:

    I was hoping Mendes’ apology was the April Fools Joke. I feel as if reality has been Rickrolled…

  11. BradA says:

    Why is rickrolling such a meme? I still haven’t figured that out. You can easily insert a fake link many places.

    Can someone explain what I am missing?

  12. mrb4852 says:

    Brilliant!

  13. Cane Caldo says:

    @BradA

    Can someone explain what I am missing?

    Hey Brad, you got something on your shirt…

  14. Can someone explain what I am missing?

    Sure. Brad, what day is it today?

  15. Thornstruck says:

    Dalrock found common ground with Laura Lifshitz.

    Laura Lifshitz RickRoll’s marriage, Dalrock just links it.

  16. Thornstruck says:

    @ BradA

    There is a wiki entry which describes Rickrolling well enough.

  17. PokeSalad says:

    “I was almost hoping to find Lifeshits in tight fitting yoga pants!”

    No, you weren’t 😉

  18. drew says:

    I just got rick roll’d by Dalrock? That was unexpected.

  19. divorce means failure…

    Hardly. Divorce now symbolizes freedom from Beta boredom. Anything that prospectively optimizes Hypergamy in the long term is a “success”.

  20. I was almost hoping to find Lifeshits in tight fitting yoga pants!

    fh has a craving for soem frivorcing camel-toe

  21. pukeko60 says:

    Rollo:

    Divorce now symbolizes freedom from Beta boredom. Anything that prospectively optimizes Hypergamy in the long term is a “success”.

    You miss the point. Boredom is good. Boredom means you are safe, and secure, and have the luxury to be bored. If you are living through a societal breakdown, you will be suspicious, working… or dead. Boredom will not be an option.

    Ladies, no rickroll: the cads will cheerfully leave you in the gutter, selling yourself to find food. Chaps will treat you decently. Retune yourself to resond to chaps, not cads. Or when the current debt driven economic system falls over, you WILL be in the cold.

  22. Rollo mainly nailed it. Divorce means correction for years of cognitive dissonance. Not to beat her up even more, but Jenny Erikson wrote on her blog about the cognitive dissonance* she felt when her best beta buddy Leif randomly (in her perspective) reached over and kissed her.

    She hit him. Like, struck him with her fist. Yep.

    And then later he proposed. That same night. I forget how much of her story got around–I found it terrifying and fascinating. If we measured the hormones in her body before/after divorce, Jenny is literally happier now.
    _____________

    *One amazing thing I noticed is in their family picture from a couple of years ago is that Leif openly displays his wedding ring. Jenny hides hers.

  23. greginaurora says:

    “Ladies, no rickroll: the cads will cheerfully leave you in the gutter, selling yourself to find food. Chaps will treat you decently. Retune yourself to resond to chaps, not cads. Or when the current debt driven economic system falls over, you WILL be in the cold.”

    I agree with your statement, but I disagree with your audience. Men need to hear this message, take the red pill, and reject all forms of Feminism. Men will be the ones to suffer.

    Women don’t care. A woman being fucked by an Alpha, even if she’s only one of that Alpha’s ten wives, is a happy woman. She doesn’t care about that new dress, the Audi, or the gold and diamonds she’s wearing. What she cares about is that Alpha. Who’s happier, the woman who married a rich Beta, or the woman living with her average-guy Alpha (with a job)? “Selling yourself to find food” is a perfect analogy. Because that’s what she’s doing when she marries that Beta. Sex is revolting, but at least she’s not hungry. Would she trade it for an Alpha with food? Yes. She won’t be selling, she’ll be giving, and she’ll be happy.

    The final end will be a return to our natural default: a few Alphas with all of the women, and a lot of Betas with no access to pussy and no reason to live.

  24. fh has a craving for soem frivorcing camel-toe

    Oh no! You found my hidden weakness, IBB! Nothing like stretched out vaginal camel-toe showing through the stretched sweatpants of a frivorced baby mummy, mmmmmmmmm!

  25. greginaurora says:

    “fh has a craving for soem frivorcing camel-toe

    Oh no! You found my hidden weakness, IBB! Nothing like stretched out vaginal camel-toe showing through the stretched sweatpants of a frivorced baby mummy, mmmmmmmmm!”

    I just threw up a little. In my mouth.

  26. greg,

    The final end will be a return to our natural default: a few Alphas with all of the women, and a lot of Betas with no access to pussy and no reason to live.

    soooo…. what we already have, right now?

  27. Anchorman says:

    Divorce now symbolizes freedom from Beta boredom.

    Perhaps initially.

    However, I think there’s more to the loss of status. Something along the lines of, “I couldn’t change him into a man I could stay married to” once the initial thrill wears off. It may be especially grating if he drops weight, gets a raise, and marries again while she posts kitten mittens on pinterest.

  28. Anonymous Reader says:

    So…. “The Empress’s New Sweatpants”, then, is a little hole on the underarm of the leotard of Feminism. It’s the run in the stocking, too; the loose thread on the sleeve of the executive power jacket of Feminism, or even the snag in the sweater of Feminism that just won’t go away. (But it’s not about the nail…)

    Rewrite paging Hans, rewrite paging Hans Christian Andersson, please reply…

  29. Not a joke, Did you all see this?

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/jonathan-taylor-accuser-recants-domestic-violence-allegations-144221318.html

    I wonder is Nick Saban will swallow his pride and let Taylor back on the team now that the girl admitted she lied?

  30. James and the Giant Peach says:

    pukeko60 “You miss the point. Boredom is good. Boredom means you are safe, and secure, and have the luxury to be bored. If you are living through a societal breakdown, you will be suspicious, working… or dead. Boredom will not be an option.”

    Actually one can say you missed the point. Nobody argues that boredom can bring safety, security, and some cases luxury.

    However you see women NOT choosing boredom. So from their point of view it is a success. Marriage for these women are a time period in which they have to put up with a beta provider until they can divorce and get things out of it.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but are you not the owner of the Dark Brightness blog where the same thing happened to you? You are an established doctor yet from what I get from your blog, you are also divorced. Luckily you have your kids, but others are not so lucky.

    Your own wife did a similar thing, how can you deny the reality of what Rollo says? Yeah many divorced wives end up like Hosea’s ex wife (without the redemption part) but their viewpoint when divorcing is exactly what Rollo is suggesting.

    Dalrock had a post or comment ages ago, if someone can bring it up, it would be useful.

    In it, he equated exciting bad boys to pizza and good guys to vegetables. Yes eating pizza is unhealthy and has long term effects on you and vegetables can be boring, bland, but ultimately are very good for us. However, if you try to argue pizza doesn’t taste good to these women eating it, that would also be a lie.

    I think threatening to take away vegetables by saying they won’t have the luxury to eat it later is silly. Why would those people care? They still have the pizza. The correct response is to salt and pepper that vegetable, spice it up, grill it, mix up the flavor. You will know them by their…. vegetables

  31. earl says:

    Divorce is a temporary freedom from boredom. Perhaps a few months of excitement then it’s back to the boredom you thought you forgot about when you settle into the routine or you get tossed aside when the guy finds another lady.

    I’m seeing this with a recently divorced lady on my facebook feed. She’s in the new exciting faze with her latest suitor after lamenting about the fact her ex bored her. But they all have an expiration date.

  32. GottliebPins says:

    I’m afraid Greg is right. 10 women will be happier sharing one hot alpha, even though it means constant competition amongst themselves for attention, than they would be married to good solid beta providers. There’s no thrill in betas. The down side is when they finally reach the bottom of their market value they will be cast off and another will take their place. Very much like feudalism. Beta men will only get the nags and the hags and live in squalor while the kings and princes live with their harems in luxury. It was the past, it is the future. Accept it. MGTOW choose to be neither. I prefer doing my own thing.

  33. earl says:

    ‘Who’s happier, the woman who married a rich Beta, or the woman living with her average-guy Alpha (with a job)?’

    Eh…I don’t think women are ever truly happy. But she would be more content with a guy she digs than being rich with a guy she doesn’t.

  34. Women don’t care. A woman being fucked by an Alpha, even if she’s only one of that Alpha’s ten wives, is a happy woman. She doesn’t care about that new dress, the Audi, or the gold and diamonds she’s wearing. What she cares about is that Alpha. Who’s happier, the woman who married a rich Beta, or the woman living with her average-guy Alpha (with a job)?

    There is a scene in the movie 21 Days (staring Sandra Bullock and Elizabeth Perkins) where a very intoxicated Bullock is giving a toast to her newly married sister (Perkins) on her wedding day. And in this toast, it goes something like this…

    (slurring words) So here is a toast to my sister…. (slurring words) who told me just a month ago…. “Is this average looking man the best man that I think I can get? No. NO! But… I am not getting any younger and Bill does make a whole lot of money so….(slurring words)

    …you get the point. Yes women do make trade-offs, they trade happiness for things, they marry men that they are not even remotely attracted to just to get his resources and provisioning. Fortunately for women, feminism has rewritten the secular laws of this country such that the beta-bux man, once he says I do, he is contractually obligated to share with his wife he resources for the rest of his life whether she wants to dump him and f-ck the next alpha stud that comes along. That is the law.

  35. earl says:

    Which is why one the best pieces of advice I’ve ever heard when it comes to this whole mingling of the sexes is to look at her feelings and actions towards you…not your feelings towards her.

  36. GottliebPins says:

    My wife is a strange case. When she left me she didn’t leave for someone better than me but for someone other women wouldn’t give the time of day. In fact they called him The Troll. She did it because it made her feel good about herself. When the two of them walked into a bar everyone would say what the hell is she doing with him. All attention was on her. I sort of understand it but it’s definitely wacked. The next guy was an even bigger loser. He’s in jail now for threatening her. Now she lives alone and pays men to fix things around her house rather than having a boring but dependable husband to do it. I still don’t totally understand women. Their logic is screwy. I just know she did me a big favor. No more BS or drama.

  37. PokeSalad says:

    “I wonder is Nick Saban will swallow his pride and let Taylor back on the team now that the girl admitted she lied?”

    Pfft….no woman ever ‘lies’ about such things….amirite…she was intimidated, paid off, unwilling to endure the ‘media circus,’ ‘just wanted to get on with her life,’ etc……….

  38. Poke, I don’t mind Saban’s zero tolerance policy (per se.) What bothers me is that his whole incident is going to tell us more about Saban than it will about Taylor. What Saban has to do is say that he was wrong and to humbly apologize to Taylor for jumping ot conclusions and booting him and to ask Taylor to forgive him and come back to the team. I think we all know this wont happen, Saban is a very prideful alpha male. And prideful alpha men do not typically apologize for anything.

  39. earl says:

    Plus wasn’t that the second time this type of accusation happened to the young fellow? I thought I remembered reading that somewhere.

  40. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    I don’t think women are ever truly happy.

    Two answers:
    1. Ask Adam…

    2. Consult the blues, for example:

    “Aint that just like a woman” by Claude De Metruis & Fleecie Moore circa the 1940’s

    http://www.metrolyrics.com/aint-that-just-like-a-woman-lyrics-bb-king.html

    Last verse:
    You can buy a woman clothes, give her money on the side
    No matter what you do she ain’t never satisfied
    It’s just like a woman, yeah that’s just like a woman?
    Hey hey that’s just like a woman, man they’ll do it every time

    Is it a feature or a bug? Either way, it exists, the discontent exists.

  41. I think Taylor was guilty the first time earl.

    Taylor should just swear off women (entirely) for a few years. Just masturbate and write off women completely, save what is left of his career.

  42. greyghost says:

    I think threatening to take away vegetables by saying they won’t have the luxury to eat it later is silly. Why would those people care? They still have the pizza. The correct response is to salt and pepper that vegetable, spice it up, grill it, mix up the flavor. You will know them by their…. vegetables

    Looks like Christian men with game. At the very least Christian men with red pill balls of faith.

  43. No woman wants to be a “wife”.

    To be a “wife” today is to embrace the expectation of a sexless unexciting future with a man who can never compare to the excitement her past or imagined “single” life. Marriage is commiseration, singleness is celebration.

    http://therationalmale.com/2015/03/31/wives-lovers/

  44. Dalrock says:

    @James and the Giant Peach

    Dalrock had a post or comment ages ago, if someone can bring it up, it would be useful.

    In it, he equated exciting bad boys to pizza and good guys to vegetables. Yes eating pizza is unhealthy and has long term effects on you and vegetables can be boring, bland, but ultimately are very good for us. However, if you try to argue pizza doesn’t taste good to these women eating it, that would also be a lie.

    I think threatening to take away vegetables by saying they won’t have the luxury to eat it later is silly. Why would those people care? They still have the pizza. The correct response is to salt and pepper that vegetable, spice it up, grill it, mix up the flavor. You will know them by their…. vegetables

    I don’t recognize the metaphor, so I’m guessing this was from a commenter. What I would say is it isn’t either or. They want both. There is also a fairly predictable pattern they tend to follow in which they focus on over time.

    Edit: I’ll add that as I mentioned in the post linked immediately above, the goal of divorce empowerment isn’t to divorce and remain “free”. It is to trade up to a better man. The women who claim they don’t want a man once this fails aren’t being truthful, they are merely rationalizing away their spectacular failure.

  45. Mmhmm says:

    I thought that sweatpants wearing women were just pissed off that they were being blamed for their divorces. Almost everyone, male or female, blames the divorce on their spouse. The comments were full of “my husband did (inset terrible thing here) but let’s just blame the pants.”

  46. The correct response is to salt and pepper that vegetable, spice it up, grill it, mix up the flavor. You will know them by their…. vegetables

    For those women, five minutes of pizza is worth a lifetime of eating vegetables, no matter how much you spice the vegetable up.

  47. No woman wants to be a “wife”.

    Exactly; men need to see what women are. Let the veil fall. Women don’t want or need marriage, men or you. They just need lots of alpha sex and resources. Why any man, after knowing this, would want to be a husband, is madness. It’s a sickness. Let it go, let women go.

  48. Dalrock says:

    @Mmhmm

    I thought that sweatpants wearing women were just pissed off that they were being blamed for their divorces. Almost everyone, male or female, blames the divorce on their spouse. The comments were full of “my husband did (inset terrible thing here) but let’s just blame the pants.”

    This adds a layer of rationalization, but it is fundamentally what I’m describing. The joke made divorce a failure on the part of the woman, not empowerment she may or may not have been forced to elect by her no good husband. Given that you are all over the map on this issue, you probably won’t understand the rationalization going on here though.

  49. greyghost says:

    feministhater
    You are right and always will be. A sane society makes it so she needs to be a wife to have her cake and eat it too. Women were never ever any different

  50. I like when my wife wears sweatpants. I really like it when she wears the yoga pants.

  51. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mmhmmm

    I thought

    Nope. “Hamster rationalization” is not “thought”.

  52. Tam the Bam says:

    “I was curious if sweatpants had anything to do .. “
    I’m OK with them. As long as the occupant doesn’t actually
    sweat into them. You should see the amount of cheap office roller-chairs we’ve had to hoy into the skip, and it wasn’t just them being on the blob and that.

  53. Really interesting perspective, that this is about divorce as failure. I noticed a friend’s comment the other day on fb to another friend who is getting divorced, and it was all about “I’m sorry you’re going through this, but looking forward to your better days to come”. And that felt… wrong to me, to be framing divorce as a positive thing.

    When Eva made the sweatpants comment, I thought the uproar was mostly over the idea that a woman should dress to please her man. Feminists seem to have no problems with women dressing up for themselves or to get male attention in public, but if a woman’s husband expresses an opinion? Oppression!
    And I always have to chuckle to myself in these discussions about “don’t wear sweatpants”, “don’t slack off on the makeup”, etc. because my husband has verbalised to me many times, that he prefers me in hoodies and trackpants (Aus) and that he doesn’t like it when I wear makeup regularly. I am totally down with advice to dress for my husband, but it just goes to show that you can’t really give women blanket advice here – you should always advise them to dress for what their own husband sees as beautiful.

  54. Hugh Mann says:

    @Earl
    I don’t think women are ever truly happy.

    “The Fisherman And His Wife” was an old fairy tale well before the Brothers Grimm wrote it down

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fisherman_and_His_Wife

    http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/grimm019.html

  55. Dalrock says:

    @Rollo

    No woman wants to be a “wife”.

    To be a “wife” today is to embrace the expectation of a sexless unexciting future with a man who can never compare to the excitement her past or imagined “single” life. Marriage is commiseration, singleness is celebration.

    http://therationalmale.com/2015/03/31/wives-lovers/

    This can’t be. Nearly all women still marry, and when a handful can’t marry we have the Atlantic, etc. crying foul. We also see that divorce strongly tracks women’s ability to remarry. If women didn’t want to be wives, neither of these would be true.

  56. earl says:

    No woman wants to live in reality.

    To live in reality means that occasionally they will have to give up on their wild imaginations of nonstop entertainment with the sexy man who turns her on 24/7 and grants her every wish or whim.

  57. All, okay most, women want to marry. They want their day. Very few actually want to be wives. Marriage is a status symbol for women. Being a ‘wife’ isn’t seen as a duty but a mere goal in their lives.

  58. earl says:

    Wasn’t there something about the divorce rate going up when the cost of the wedding goes up?

  59. Dalrock says:

    One more point on the status of “wife”. Note that Mendes implicitly claimed the status for herself even though she isn’t married. Similarly, we see European women refraining from blowing up their families (at least at lower rates than US women) even though they are less likely to have the formal marriage certificate. Something is holding these families together in both the US and Europe, and it isn’t the law, religion, or some other form of patriarchal oppression. Women do have an impulse to hop from man to man, but they also have an impulse which leads them to avoid pushing the button to nuke their families.

  60. Joe says:

    Used to joke about this in the Army – the fat wives who captured a junior enlisted husband. You could spot them because of their enormously over-filled lime green stretch pants, which they wore to the Commissary to stock up on chips.

  61. Dalrock says:

    @Femhater

    All, okay most, women want to marry. They want their day. Very few actually want to be wives. Marriage is a status symbol for women. Being a ‘wife’ isn’t seen as a duty but a mere goal in their lives.

    This explains the first set of stats, but not the fact that divorce rates go down dramatically as the chance to remarry does. If women only wanted the wedding the latter would not be true.

  62. fh,

    All, okay most, women want to marry. They want their day. Very few actually want to be wives. Marriage is a status symbol for women. Being a ‘wife’ isn’t seen as a duty but a mere goal in their lives.

    No you can say ALL. Not most, all. Woman’s desire to be “married” is far stronger than man’s desire to have s-x. Believe it.

    And its even worse for single women in some cultures. Ask B0xer what it is like for a 30 year old LDS girl to be a NEVER married girl in Salt Lake City Utah? Ask him what kind of social pressure married women put on single women to become married women. That is not unique to mormons. You can pretty much take that and expand that across many cultures and creeds all around the globe. The pressure to REMAIN married might not be there (as frivorce is so commonly accepted by women) but to GET married… yeah, they all want that.

    Some men don’t. And its getting worse for women because more and more men… don’t.

  63. greginaurora says:

    Regarding European divorce rates: are divorce laws as punitive (to men) and rewarding (to women) in European countries as they are in the States? I’ve thought for some time that, were the monetary rewards for getting married with the intent of divorcing for profit not so readily available, women would not be so eagerly in search of their sucker.

  64. As a result, as Dalrock has stipulated, marriage becomes sort of a social class barrier that women “break into” the moment they become… the MRS. Its like they just moved up in social class.

    It used to be that marriage was common among the commoners. Not so anymore. So lets take that pressure that women have to get married and compound it even more.

  65. Dalrock, if women divorced when their chance to remarry was low, i.e. when they’re older, they would lose their status of being married and wouldn’t be able to get it back. That’s a bit of logic but I think women get that.

    Furthermore, life does indeed go on. A lot of European countries are in the worst depression of their modern existence. They don’t have the money for welfare, weddings or any other frivolous thing but people still have sex and form families. Perhaps this is good, it seems to keep their women in check.

    And I humbly concede to not be able to understand the complexities of all women, or even most. I do know, however, that unless you’re alpha enough, getting married is too risky and, at least in my mind, a bit mad.

  66. Perhaps I should explain my statement a bit more. Women want their day, their wedding day. They also want the status of ‘being married’. What they don’t really want is their husband. Does that explain it a bit better?

  67. greyghost says:

    Dalrock
    I think rather than be wives to a husband. Women want to be “wives” to have a husband. The social status of getting a man is big in the female herd. Actually being a wife to that sucker is a big no no.

  68. earl says:

    ‘Some men don’t. And its getting worse for women because more and more men… don’t.’

    Women and the state went too far and got too greedy with marriage. And there isn’t enough rich Prince Charmings to go around.

  69. bradford says:

    @ Dalrock

    Why should decreasing divorce rates for older women who have less chance to remarry have anything to do with marriage as a status symbol. Even a hamster driven 50+ year old women knows that divorce at that age means she will have to take care of herself without that dependable Beta “mule” to ride. Who will take care of all the practical problems of life; get the car fixed, repair the faucet, mow the lawn, etc. Plenty of women this age simply become “roommates” to their husbands (no sex, separate bedrooms) because they realize that life is much easier that way. Why bother to divorce? Who would take care of them then?

  70. greginaurora says:

    I think women also believe they can still get “Mr. Right” at any age. The hamster will spin up for anything a woman wants to believe, so if a woman decides she can do better because she’s a “strong, independent woman” or some special variety or unique, then she’ll walk away from her marriage with the expectation that men will begin showering attention upon her. She won’t look in the mirror and see an unfuckable old-woman looking back, nor will she see a 25-year old mother of two with baggage and a bad attitude…. she’ll only see her dream of finding Mr. Right.

    Women don’t see a problem getting married to a 50-year old divorced man, so long as he’s charismatic and confident. Women ALWAYS assume men think like women, so why wouldn’t a man want to marry her?

  71. greyghost says:

    To add to my last with MGTOW and more red pill stuff getting out. Men talking in general about how worthless women are maybe tempering to some extent the divorce craze especially for older women. The fantasy of a replacement is going away.
    I just wish some attention whore celebrity would brag about how happy her husband is and how you sorry women had unhappy unsexed husband. Make that a damn status symbol.

  72. earl says:

    Well when women contracept one of their assets and ruin the other because they want to be a man…what do they have left?

  73. @Dal,

    The “girlfriend” provides sex good enough to motivate a desire in the man to commit. After the wedding is a period of at least adequate sex followed by a decline to little or nothing if she can get away with this. When the wife becomes suitably frustrated/disenchanted with the marriage she changes title to divorcée and is again free to become a sexual creature.

    The source of the problem is that women have very little sense of self that is internally derived therefore they play roles defined externally. These roles are proxies for their identities which barely exist. In 2015 “wives” are not defined as sexually giving, or sexual at all except for the honeymoon period. If the sexual wife exists in this culture it as the adulteress giving herself to men other than her husband.

    Women will marry – long-term security needs and a waning SMV necessitate it – but women don’t want to embrace being the popular definition of “wife” any more. This goes back to your assertion of romantic love / sexual connection being the precondition for a “legitimate” marriage today.

    “Wife” is a bad word in 2015, it’s synonymous with the party being over.

    And as for remarriage rates, you may want to read this:
    http://time.com/3584827/pew-marriage-divorce-remarriage/

  74. Mendes accidentally stumbled upon a weak spot in the feminist narrative, and this weak spot remains.

    Yes, there’s a contradiction that they can trip on. They used to frame divorce as something that bad men did to good women — the standard trope of the successful doctor dumping his loyal wife who worked two jobs to put him through medical school and running off with his hot nurse. That’s how divorce used to be portrayed in movies, with the post-divorce woman a victim much like a widow.

    Now that they’re framing divorce as a power-tool for women, that doesn’t fit with the old narrative; but that doesn’t mean they’ve entirely forgotten the old comforting narrative, so it’s bound to crop up in a joke here and there when they don’t think it through first.

  75. Yes, there’s a contradiction that they can trip on. They used to frame divorce as something that bad men did to good women — the standard trope of the successful doctor dumping his loyal wife who worked two jobs to put him through medical school and running off with his hot nurse. That’s how divorce used to be portrayed in movies, with the post-divorce woman a victim much like a widow.

    Now that they’re framing divorce as a power-tool for women, that doesn’t fit with the old narrative; but that doesn’t mean they’ve entirely forgotten the old comforting narrative, so it’s bound to crop up in a joke here and there when they don’t think it through first.

    Cail is correct. It could protect women’s collective “self-esteem” if they delude themselves by framing divorce as something that only happens when bad men did something to good women. When in truth, if men had it their way, there probably wouldn’t be any no-fault-divorce to begin with. This is a construct that women knowingly acknowledge that they use for power within the marriage, even while they continuously BS themselves into thinking that they are the ones who lack the power.

    It might not have even occurred to Eva Mendes that her gender (generally) counted on that threatpoint leverage as much as they do for the power they feel they need to have in marriage. Obviously, a person like Eva Mendes (with everything she knows she could bring to the marriage table) would never need it. Whereas women (in general) take the feminist imperative approach and collectively believe that they DO need it. So of course, scold her for downplaying divorce because….. so many women HAVE frivorced and we shouldn’t allow other women to say anything that might make them feel shame.

  76. anonymous_ng says:

    @Rollo – The source of the problem is that women have very little sense of self that is internally derived therefore they play roles defined externally.

    I contend that this is a problem for most so called adults in our society, driving people to rush right into another relationship because they’ve no idea who they are by themselves.

  77. Just Saying says:

    @greginaurora:A woman being fucked by an Alpha, even if she’s only one of that Alpha’s ten wives, is a happy woman.

    Yep…. Which is why I thank Feminism for allowing fossils like me to have the opportunity to polish my pole inside of so many young women who are out searching for everything they think they are missing. The boyfriend is for when they get knocked-up, just like the husband is for… If you want to be happy and live a contented life, never marry – but enjoy as many women (married, single, or in a “relationship”) as you can. And remember you never regret having sex with a woman – only not taking advantage of the opportunity that presented itself. You don’t have to believe me now – but eventually, you’ll understand the wisdom in that. Of course, YMMV..

  78. JDG says:

    No woman wants to be a “wife”.

    Lot’s of women want to be wives, or at least think they do. I would say women over all want what they think will give them a higher ranking in the imaginary pecking order so common among women.

  79. JDG says:

    The correct response is to salt and pepper that vegetable, spice it up, grill it, mix up the flavor. You will know them by their…. vegetables

    I disagree. Sometimes the kids will not eat the good veggies no matter what you do to them. Also, some veggies just can’t be made to taste good enough for the unappreciative kids. I think the best way to deal with spoiled children is to teach them to appreciate what they have. Usually this means taking away the junk food and only allowing access to the healthy food. When they get hungry enough they will eat the good food. We are talking about spoiled children aren’t we?

  80. Yet another woman has to apologize to feminists, who just dean women to have choices, don’t they?

  81. Anonymous Reader says:

    No woman wants to be a “wife”.

    JDG
    Lot’s of women want to be wives, or at least think they do. I would say women over all want what they think will give them a higher ranking in the imaginary pecking order so common among women.

    Lots of women want the title, but don’t want the actual job.

    Or to put it in another way, they want the office, but only to sit in, reading blogs while sitting at a desk, not to actually do anything.

    Or to put it another way, they want the ring on the finger status, but they don’t want to clean a ring out of the bathtub.

    And this ignores the women who have a ring on their finger, but who are actually “married’ to their job and/or children. Rollo linked to this example:

    http://www.goodhousekeeping.com/life/parenting/a31760/balancing-mother-and-wife/

    I’m rather pleasantly surprised to find negative comments from women following the article.

  82. This can’t be. Nearly all women still marry, and when a handful can’t marry we have the Atlantic, etc. crying foul. We also see that divorce strongly tracks women’s ability to remarry. If women didn’t want to be wives, neither of these would be true.

    I agree with Dalrock, that it isn’t a marriage strike that is going on, it is worse than a strike. Strikers who are working collectively can be bargained with. What we are seeing is far worse, men are just responding to disincentives and opting-out.

    Women are still getting to be first time wives, just later and later in life (and less and less of them.) A white woman today has a 17% chance that she will not be married by age 39 but that just means that she has an 83% chance that she will have been married at least once by 39! Perhaps in 3 or 4 years, those numbers will go to 20% and 80% respectively? Yes nearly all women are getting married (and everyone posting on this website will see that continue all our lives) but if things don’t change (give men some carrots or perhaps government find more sticks in which to “whack” them), perhaps in 2115 a woman might only have a 20% of ever being married by 39????!!!!!

  83. JDG says:

    I do know, however, that unless you’re alpha enough, getting married is too risky and, at least in my mind, a bit mad.

    IMO getting “married” to a western girl is crazy no matter how much of a chic magnet you are. I use the scare quotes because the western world stopped participating in marriage some time ago.

  84. “I wonder is Nick Saban will swallow his pride and let Taylor back on the team now that the girl admitted she lied?”

    Wow, when was the last time a high-profile accusation of rape or abuse (from a woman) turned out to be true?

  85. Beeker says:

    “I contend that this is a problem for most so called adults in our society, driving people to rush right into another relationship because they’ve no idea who they are by themselves.”

    Women need men, more so than men need women in a relationship for validation and to be psychologically healthy it seems. Single women at any age are seen as losers who “couldn’t hold down a man” – Their must be something wrong with them if they are still single. Single males aren’t viewed this way as much I think (many of the greatest male achievers in history were bachelors). Women overwhelmingly get their status from the men in their relationship (they covet being “the doctor’s wife.”). As long as men can get sex, which men don’t need a relationship for (thank you Feminism), they seem to live ok. When a woman is in a relationship, it is her whole life and reason for being – she is defined as being a wife and/or mother. For a man, the relationship is just one component of his life, in addition to his work, hobbies, sports, etc., although he still can put high value on the relationship. Women seek high status men. But men don’t necessarily seek high status women, usually at their own status level or lower – it doesn’t matter as much with men for them to be happy with her.

  86. earl says:

    ‘Lots of women want the title, but don’t want the actual job.’

    That’s basically feminism in a nutshell.

  87. Beeker says:

    “I do know, however, that unless you’re alpha enough, getting married is too risky and, at least in my mind, a bit mad.”

    Modern marriage will break down a man, no matter how much alpha he is.

  88. JDG says:

    I think women also believe they can still get “Mr. Right” at any age.

    For those who doubt this is true read through the comments on this thread.

  89. Spike says:

    Eva Mendes has discovered what manhood has always known about post-feminist women: You can’t say ANYTHING to them without their spitting venom back.
    A man who wears sweatpants is called a slob. Women don’t want to have sex with slobs. Okay we get that bit. But when women wear sweatpants, we are still supposed to think that they are the pinnacles of sexual desirability and virtue, beings that us mere mortals cannot touch.
    I can understand the anger: a fellow woman has broken ranks and called them out for slobbiness and they don’t like it.
    Double standards and female imperative.

  90. Spike says:

    TFH says:
    April 1, 2015 at 5:41 pm

    TFH: Forget Sweden. it has been trapped in a Pincer Movement of Feminism on the one side and Islamic Migration on the other. In 5 years it has dropped 5 rankings in economic size. in 15 years it will be a Third World country.

    Swedish men are fighting back. They have voted for the Democratic Party and have all been labelled “neo nazis” for it. The major parties have decided that they will allow all budget measures to pass through the Rikstag (parliament/ Congress) to prevent them using their balance of power to pursue their agenda. This confirms that they are the true “Opposition” in the country.

    The Feminists, meanwhile received 3% of the vote and are still being pandered to.This is despite their converting to Islam at a rate of 3 women for every man, and the fact that many wives married to Muslim men mysteriously “fall” from the highest balcony in the apartment block, tragic if only it wasn’t so common.

  91. I agree Spike; Sweden is pretty much on the path to extinction along with a host of European countries. They have below replacement fertility and by 2030 will be 40% Muslim. The damage is done; their population decline is irreversible.

  92. Boxer says:

    I stumbled on this tactic while trolling a couple of years ago. i.e.: “You can’t attract or keep a quality man, which is why you’re such a nutcase feminist”.

    I’m inevitably accused of being a woman when I use it, which is endlessly amusing to me. It’s not very skillful, but quite effective all the same.

  93. Minesweeper says:

    Boxer, good play on words, but surely you’ve put the cart before the horse. But I can understand thats how they would like it, absolved fully from their own responsibility.

  94. “fh has a craving for soem frivorcing camel-toe”

    “Oh no! You found my hidden weakness, IBB! Nothing like stretched out vaginal camel-toe showing through the stretched sweatpants of a frivorced baby mummy, mmmmmmmmm!”

    –Well, since there’s ten minutes left of this highbrow holiday:

    da GBFM(TM) should do a remix!

  95. BradA says:

    I stumbled on this link while looking at some products for our new house.

    Good review writer, whether it is accurate or not.

    http://www.amazon.com/review/R3IMEYJFO6YWHD/

  96. Looking Glass says:

    The Scandinavians won’t quite make it down to being a Muslim hellhole, it’s looking like. One thing people forget, when a society is killing itself: there are Bigger Vultures out there. Russia is being less than subtle about a move to retake the Baltic countries, and the Nordics probably go next after that. Granted, that’s probably a 15 year process, but don’t be surprised when it plays out. Which makes a lot of sense, why not take land where no one is living in, anyway? Depopulation doesn’t leaves many Men to fight wars.

    Oh, and the Nordics have suicide rates at American levels already, with Finland already being 25% higher than the US level.

  97. earl says:

    “You can’t attract or keep a quality man, which is why you’re such a nutcase feminist”.

    That takes some effort. All it takes to be a feminist is to be angry at men all the time.

  98. Opus says:

    It is a while since my one and only visit to Sweden, but I feel I might chip in and say that despite its high standard of living, I gained the impression that the males had all volunteered for castration (and cuckoldry). How ironic that I was then being regaled with the ‘England is finished’ shtick as well as it being assessed as puritanical and conservative. As bad a case of lack of observation and inadequate predictive powers as could be, but then my much-travelled hostess was also talking what I now know to be nonsense about Russia.

    Every country has its hang-ups and taboos; for the Swedes it is alcohol (which was prohibitively expensive in bars) and thus they drink too much at home, and their swear words relate not to sex opr body functions but to religion – are not all those wonderful Abba melodies (such as Super-Trooper) really Protestant Chorales and Hymn-tunes.

    Sex was above board (to my surprise they were selling hard-core Danish mags – Scans as we used to call them – in convenience shops); an aged female cleaner wandered round the men’s changing room at the local swimming-baths as oblivious to the men as the men were expected to be to her; and on arrival at parties (in the depth of winter) one disrobed without embarrassment to long-john’s.

    A small country where the Prime Minister (who was shot dead when doing so) could go out of an evening as if he were no more significant than the local Doctor or Lawyer. Socialist paradise of course.

  99. Renee Harris says:

    No woman wants to be a “wife”.

    To be a “wife” today is to embrace the expectation of a sexless unexciting future with a man who can never compare to the excitement her past or imagined “single” life. Marriage is commiseration, singleness is celebration.
    Being a single woman. sucks when done correctly: no sex. No kissing. Second class in the kingdom. You don’t have your own kitchen And No sex. This is my life: I never kiss a boy and call “ungodly” by guy who sleep around.
    Side Note: If I seem like a troll it is because I’m a naturally annoying person. The reason why I starting reading this blog is allergy to virgins I see with the late-20s men of God in my social group does not seem to be here. I’m the chick version of beta. I’m three yrs away from being eligible for a pension and never kiss a boy. I’m a virgin but no over the age of 6 is ” pure” . I get the anger as sex is a way to worship in Marrige and to want sex without marrige is say God is wrong . So again I’m an annoying virgin.

  100. earl says:

    ‘So again I’m an annoying virgin.’

    Did you ever think it’s the annoying part that is keeping men away and not the virginity?

  101. jbro1922 says:

    “So lets take that pressure that women have to get married and compound it even more.”

    I thought this was a feminist message. Because marriage is outdated to feminist and it reflects patriarchal values and what not. Seems like no matter what they say, women still want a wedding.

  102. greginaurora says:

    Women are far more mercenary than they’re given credit for. Feminism wants women to get married so they’ll have direct access to a man’s money and labor. Because Feminism wants to punish men for being men. They want the wedding, yes, but it’s every woman’s “Right” to a man’s labor.

    They view “Patriarchal Marriage” as the legalized enslavement of women and nothing more. The new Marriage 2.0 is “getting what’s coming to them”. It’s cynical and punitive and mercenary by design.

  103. @ Rollo and Dalrock on the meaning of “Wife.”

    I don’t think the two of you are using the same definition for “wife.”

    Women don’t want the to be “wives” with actual duties- like, I don’t know, treating your husband with respect and sexing him up- but they sure want to be “wives” with all the privileges. Especially that exclusivity thing and the guarantee of eternal provisioning.

  104. greyghost says:

    Women don’t want the to be “wives” with actual duties- like, I don’t know, treating your husband with respect and sexing him up- but they sure want to be “wives” with all the privileges. Especially that exclusivity thing and the guarantee of eternal provisioning.

    Yes that is the definition of marriage for women and always has been. They are only wives if that is what is required. By law culture and by church they now are free from that “wife” shit. Now we have the divorced writer talking about herself for women that can and do relate.

  105. Anonymous says:

    Off-topic, but… article in Huffington Post about actual Eat, Pray, Love-inspired “I’m not haaapy” marital trouble (which, fortunately, has a happy ending).

    “The Day I Told My Husband I Didn’t Want to Be Married,” by Jessica Andricks, HuffPo, 2 Apr 2015
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jessi-andricks/the-day-i-told-my-husband-i-didnt-want-to-be-married_b_6968716.html

  106. earl says:

    ‘My life wasn’t what I thought it would be and I wasn’t happy.’

    Because that is what reality is about. What you can imagine is easy to do.

  107. Mark Citadel says:

    Divorce is now desirable? And celebrities will apologize for claiming otherwise? I’m living in a world turned upside down.

  108. Unless the Scandinavians recapture and channel their Viking ancestry they will most definitely become a Muslim hellhole. Sweden could be as high as 40% Muslim by 2030. Russia’s replacement fertility is quite abysmal at 1.61 children per woman. They won’t be able to keep anything they take over the long run.

  109. jeff says:

    I have learned a lot from all of you. I am still perplexed by some questions that I haven’t found answers to. I am RP and my wife is starting to get it.

    1) With shit tests and etc., how far is too far from 1 Peter 3:7? When has the husband gone too far and is considered harsh?

    2) Is our 17 yr old son to remain a virgin until marriage and how? He goes to christian school of about 80 kids who no doubt some have had sex. We have taught both of our children to abstain from anything until ready to marry and actively looking. Even on this blog I hear to have daughter chaste, but nothing for sons other than game.

    I am starting to believe ALL women are BPD. I strongly believe AWALT and only believe what they do not what they see. My wife even now understands why I don’t believe what she says.

  110. jeff says:

    seriouslyserving,

    Your husband is f—-ing lying to please you. I use to do this when my wife was younger and more attractive. She could get away with it, because she was doing the low maintenance look, however she made herself up enough to look hot.

    She cannot do that anymore and I let her know. We had many arguements about it until she finally say her stupidity and now I would say 26 days out of the month she is made up. Sometimes better than others, but she is making progress.

    He is lying. Do you think he would care if you were 3 days without a shower and went down there? That might be extreme and if it is just back up a little. He wants you clean, fresh smelling, looking like you were going on your first few dates with him. Remember that feeling? The anticipation of going out with him? How you felt? That is what he wants, anything else is lying.

  111. Brookes says:

    Interesting post. Too bad Mendes kowtowed. Reminds me of when Chrissy Teigen called teen mom Farrah Abraham a slut for starring in a pornographic film complete with sodomy, a famous male porn star, and a camera crew and pretending like it was a leaked sex tape with her boyfriend. Teigen stood her ground and didn’t apologize and kept her job.

  112. Brookes says:

    In addition to Mendes framing marriage as a bad thing, she probably caught all that shit because she also implied that wives getting fat and turning into slobs after marriage as a bad thing, too. Whenever someone mentions the all-too-common trend of wives not looking like the people that their husbands married, it better be accompanied by some Mommy Martyr garbage or else people cry “sexism.” “So what if I gained 50 lbs and wear sweatpants instead of the sexy jeans I used to wear? Why don’t you push out two kids and see how your body looks?” Or, “so I have to slave away ALL day EVERY day taking care of the kids/ working/ taking care of the house AND I have to look like a supermodel? Grow up and stop being so superficial!” Just as framing divorce as a bad thing will get you yelled at, framing wives’ laziness and selfish disregard for their husbands’ desires will get the ants riled up, even though deep down, everyone knows that the “sexists” who frame it that way are correct.

  113. Mulier says:

    @seriouslyserving

    I’m not going to say that your husband is lying to you, but I will offer a cautionary tale. Most young women don’t need much makeup, and if they are pretty then anything more than a little make up can interfere with their natural glow. So it’s easy for a husband to say early on in a marriage that he prefers she not wear make up. Likewise, casual clothing can be very cute on a young woman, so he may not be lying there either. (I’m just guessing that you’re young!)

    But, you might wait five years and then try something new, both because by then he will probably like some variety, and also because in my experience as women hit their 30s make up (lightly and tastefully done) can start to really help. For me (leaving my mid-30s now), my husband still insists that he hates make up. But once I started wearing it anyway, he immediately began telling me how great I looked. Is he lying to himself or me? I have no idea, but I put it on every morning and touch up before he comes home because it makes him so cheerful.

    Of course I agree with your more important point about taking his particular tastes into account.

  114. Women don’t want the to be “wives” with actual duties- like, I don’t know, treating your husband with respect and sexing him up- but they sure want to be “wives” with all the privileges.

    Right. She wants the ring, to signal to other women that she was able to command a man’s long-term investment. She wants a man’s arm to hold as she walks into dinner parties, which further demonstrates her value — he’ll go to some trouble to please her. She wants to be able to start sentences with “My husband…” She wants a house that she can redecorate in her image with his money.

    In other words, she wants to be a “Mrs.,” and they haven’t figured out a way to do that yet without having a “Mr.” (lesbian marriage doesn’t signal those things), so he’s part of the deal. That doesn’t guarantee that she wants to be a “wife” to him in any way a man who lived over a century ago would recognize.

  115. greyghost says:

    TFH
    Right on the money. Coincidently I now comment that any man wrecked by divorce and marriage today had it coming to him. Today for a man to marry is an act of irresponsibility period. It was different seeing another with the same thought.

  116. Beeker says:

    “Many of us would not have ever become red-pill without the Internet. Even a few years ago these ideas were in far few places. But now, it is a combination of the number of websites AND the cumulative years of this content being out there.”

    Red pill books:

    The Bible, written 2,000 years ago I believe, gives a lot information about female behavior and nature, and male/female relationships.

    The Manipulated Man by Esther Vilar, published in 1971.

    The Predatory Female by Lawrence Shannon, published in 1985.

    Sex and Character by Otto Weininger, published in 1906.

    Anatomy of Female Power by Chinweizu, published in 1990.

    Of Women, essay by Arthur Schopenhauer, published in 1851.

    Granted, with the exception of the Bible, the rest of these works probably would not have gotten their much needed widespread attention if it wasn’t for the internet, blogs, youtube, mens rights groups,etc.

  117. Eincrou says:

    TFH: “But now, it is a combination of the number of websites AND the cumulative years of this content being out there. If a man still can’t avoid these situations, not all the blame goes to the woman.”

    There is a young man in the comments of Rollo’s latest article. He has a treacherous fiance and is asking for advice. Men who have enough sense to search for information on how to improve their relationships can and will find the androsphere. I agree that there is a certain point where sympathy for men who get burned by society should be withdrawn.

  118. Red pill books:

    There are others too, plus entire genres that have a red-pill attitude, like gumshoe detective novels. But imagine going into a library in 1987 and trying to find something useful on this topic. Gonna ask the nice old library lady for direction? I guess you could look up “divorce” and “marriage” in the card catalog, but that wouldn’t take you far. You wouldn’t know words like “hypergamy” yet to look them up, and they probably wouldn’t be in there. It’d be tough.

    Now, someone like Dalrock has written at least a book worth of excellent material, as have many others (heck, I’ve probably written enough blog comments to fill a few books, and I’m only one of many), and it’s all searchable and findable for a man who simply types the question, “Why do women like bad boys?” or “Why can’t I get a girlfriend?” If he doesn’t find the answer to his exact problem waiting for him, he has only to ask and get immediate help. The difference in the amount of information and its accessibility is vast. A man still has to look — which means he has to realize there’s a problem and want to fix it — but if he does that, he will find.

  119. anonymous_ng says:

    @Cail – LOL the card catalog.

    I will say that in 1985 Eric Weber’s book How to Win the Woman of Your Dreams was in my local public library. What I remember from that book is that he wrote about a flight attendant who was frustrated that the men weren’t picking up on her interest, and that drinks and dessert at the most expensive place in town is likely not that much more than at the place you normally go.

  120. Major Styles says:

    God, I love the response by Mendes.
    Never cared two shits for her before – not I am a fan.

  121. Morgan says:

    Now that April Fools is over, I think the real issue is the cause of the divorce. While I think Dalrock is right about the uproar being that divorce is being painted as a failure on the part of the woman to maintain a basic level of personal attractiveness, it misses the whole point. Mendes is implying that the main cause of divorce is men who are leaving their unattractive wives! We all know this is completely false, and it’s left completely unquestioned. Women initiate over 60% of divorces, wether they’re wearing sweatpants or not. The true number one cause of divorce? Unhappppppiness. Until we can recognize and acknowledge that fact, this is all window dressing on the titanic.

  122. @Jeff

    Mate, you are flat out wrong about my husband lying to me.

    For one thing, he has on many occasions told me if an outfit doesn’t suit me, makes me look fat, etc. So I know he values honesty over “hurting my feelings”.

    Secondly, I currently wear skirts and dresses most of the time, with the exception of also wearing jean about 1/2 the time in winter. I highly value looking stylish and well-put-together. I don’t even own trackpants and only own one hoodie! So he is not lying to me to make me feel better about my current clothing choices.

    He made the comments about liking me in hoodies on the odd occasions I wear one. I am going to buy another one this winter because I know he likes them. But I will also continue to wear skirts too because I like them, and my husband also regularly compliments me when I wear them. (Perhaps this is a case of listening to what he does, not what he says?)

    @ Mulier

    I am mid-late 20s, so you could be right about the make up!
    But I think his objection is more philosophical there – he thinks too much make up is fake, and wants me to know that he finds me beautiful naturally.

    Recently, I started wearing a little most days, and he noticed and asked me to reduce how often I was wearing it.

    He also thinks I shouldn’t wear a bra, for the same reason, but I refuse to budge on that one, as I think that would compromise my modesty.

  123. S. Chan says:

    @ jeff, April 2, at 3:02 pm

    I agree with seriouslyserving at 1:45 am . I also think that you should cut your arrogance: just because you are a certain way does not imply that all men are that way.

  124. Renee Harris says:

    On Red pill books
    What about Great Expectations with

  125. Renee Harris says:

    Using the WordPress app
    expectations by Charles Dickens with the original ending would be very red pill. The entire point of the story it’s not chase the beautiful rich girl . Miss haviahinsh cruelty shows the nature of women and Mrs Joe -omg

  126. Bee says:

    @jeff,

    “1) With shit tests and etc., how far is too far from 1 Peter 3:7? When has the husband gone too far and is considered harsh?”

    Marriage game should be a mixture of dominance and playfulness. The amount of dominance (“harshness”) should be according to how rebellious and unsubmissive your wife is. Dalrock has said that if marriage game is not fun then you are not doing it right!

    I am a Christian and a husband. I believe game is a toolbox. I have never used dark triad or threats of cheating or leaving her. I have never even negged my wife because I believe it would crush her spirit. Also, because my wife makes a conscious effort to be submissive and respectful. But, I do use “Agree & Amplify”, masculine posing, slow cooker, sexual teasing throughout the day, etc.

    “2) Is our 17 yr old son to remain a virgin until marriage and how?”

    Yes. Both Christian sons and daughters should remain virgins until they marry. Getting married at a young age helps but our current cultural thoughts on schooling, academic credentials and the high cost of housing make that difficult.

    Check out this blog for some more thoughts:

    http://biblicalgenderroles.com/2014/07/23/why-i-let-my-christian-son-have-a-bikini-poster-in-his-room/

    http://biblicalgenderroles.com/2014/04/18/what-does-the-bible-say-about-lust/

  127. jsr says:

    @seriouslyserving
    “He also thinks I shouldn’t wear a bra, for the same reason, but I refuse to budge on that one, as I think that would compromise my modesty.”

    You are in rebellion to your husband.

  128. Boxer says:

    I am starting to believe ALL women are BPD.

    By definition, Borderline Personality Disorder is a condition so extreme that the sufferers can’t function. They can’t keep a job, pay rent, or live a normal life.

    I get the underlying sentiments. Like nearly everyone, I’ve been a regular cantor of “Women, what can you do?”. Keep it real, though. If all women were borderline, the human race would go extinct in a generation.

    I strongly believe AWALT and only believe what they do not what they see. My wife even now understands why I don’t believe what she says.

    Both men and women behave poorly these days (albeit in different ways, for the most part) due to a constellation of factors. The toxic social environment is the most obvious (we live in a particularly egocentric time and place). All the same, no matter what your situation, you can likely take steps to improve it. If you’re married, read Athol Kay and Rollo Tomassi. If you don’t mind the crass language, read heartiste too.

    My hat’s off to you married bros. You are keeping this civilization alive. You have my support.

    Boxer

  129. Boxer says:

    Is our 17 yr old son to remain a virgin until marriage and how? He goes to christian school of about 80 kids who no doubt some have had sex. We have taught both of our children to abstain from anything until ready to marry and actively looking. Even on this blog I hear to have daughter chaste, but nothing for sons other than game.

    Like most dudes, I started having sex in my mid teens. I was raised largely by a religious mother and stepfather in a very religious environment (my mother and her husband are observant Mormons).

    What would have given me pause would have been a frank discussion of all the chaos that girls and women bring into a man’s life. A dude at 15-18 is usually not prepared for female nonsense, the manipulative nature of women, and similar shite. Before you send your teenage son to heartiste, maybe you can ease him into the idea of building himself up with an education and career, and gaining some strength and confidence, before he jumps in the sack with Suzy Skank-ho and gets taken to the cleaners. Examples abound of ruined young men who trusted their high school sweethearts. I’m sure there are some in your neighbourhood. Let him know that all those examples you point out would have never dreamed that the objects of their adoration would have ever betrayed them, sued them for child support, run off to bang some other playa, etc.

    Best,

    Boxer

  130. By definition, Borderline Personality Disorder is a condition so extreme that the sufferers can’t function. They can’t keep a job, pay rent, or live a normal life.

    The ones who can do those things are called “high-functioning” borderlines. They’re often able to maintain a very good facade in their public lives, performing very well at work (where they can’t afford meltdowns) and appearing to have things in order, while their private lives may be a complete disaster.

    Women who have spent several years “independent” tend to show at least some of the BPD traits. Not badly enough to be diagnosed; but enough that, if you know the list of BPD traits in the DSM, you’ll notice mild-to-moderate manifestations of them all the time.

  131. Boxer says:

    Dear Cail:

    The ones who can do those things are called “high-functioning” borderlines. They’re often able to maintain a very good facade in their public lives, performing very well at work (where they can’t afford meltdowns) and appearing to have things in order, while their private lives may be a complete disaster.

    There is no such thing as a “high functioning” borderline. The criteria for the disorder is such that if someone maintains the appearance of being normal, he doesn’t have the disorder.

    http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/practicas_profesionales/820_clinica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf

    Occasionally, I want to grab an undergrad’s ass, or swipe some loose cash from the coffee can we keep for collective expenses. I manage to control these impulses. If I didn’t, I’d be in the mental hospital.

    The thing about personality disorders is that nearly everyone has some of these tendencies. They’re only disorders if they interfere with the basic functioning of one’s life.

    Boxer

  132. Boxer, I realize the therapy profession is always looking to expand the definitions further, so that may be what’s going on there. But I do know people who function well publicly, yet when you get to know them closely they’re a mess. I get the impression that they’re using all the “sane moments” they have for some aspects of their lives, leaving them none for others. Maybe they’re not BPD, but their case belongs in some kind of basket.

    In any case, you make a good point that it’s a continuum, not perfectly sane people over here and crazies over there. BPD is a range somewhere near the “crazy” end of the scale, while “feral woman” is a larger range further from the “crazy” end but certainly not near the “sane” end, and some of the traits overlap in type if not in intensity. Fair enough?

  133. thedeti says:

    I’m going out on a limb and jumping onto this one.

    I know lots and LOTS of people holding down jobs, marriages and families who display many of the prime features of BPD:

    Intense emotional feelings
    Emotionally unstable and needy
    Concerned about abandonment and rejection
    Poor sense of self-identity
    Poor interpersonal relationships (can’t develop or maintain friendships, have no friends)
    Manipulative behavior for attention or nurturing
    Impulsive
    Frequently accompanied by substance abuse/addiction
    Frequently accompanied by depression, anxiety, anger or rage

    Hell, many of them post in and around the manosphere and on feminist sites.

    I personally know at least 20 people who, if you put them in a therapist’s or psychiatrist’s chair for an hour, would walk out with a diagnosis of BPD and a Prozac prescription.

  134. Boxer says:

    But I do know people who function well publicly, yet when you get to know them closely they’re a mess. I get the impression that they’re using all the “sane moments” they have for some aspects of their lives, leaving them none for others.

    Oh, trust me, I know what you mean. I’ve dated several such chicks. I have tons of funny “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain” stories when the façade slipped. I’ve told some here over the years.

    BPD is a range somewhere near the “crazy” end of the scale, while “feral woman” is a larger range further from the “crazy” end but certainly not near the “sane” end, and some of the traits overlap in type if not in intensity. Fair enough?

    I actually don’t think that BPD is the extreme end of the “feral woman” scale. Feral women are just following the id that everyone is born with. (That’s my own opinion, of course. I’m not a psychiatrist/psychologist) I’ve often wondered if there were a connection between BPD and outspoken feminists, though.

    I don’t mean the garden variety women’s studies graduate, who is just a slut or a slacker, but looneys like Andrea Dworkin, Valerie Solanas and Shulamith Firestone.

    BPD types are serious nutcases. They get panicked about abandonment and attachment for no real reason, often assaulting people or attempting suicide over tragedies that exist entirely between their ears. The feminist literary icon Sylvia Plath was diagnosed with it, and a lot of her work is a window into the disorder. (Aside from being completely batshit crazy, and unable to hold a job or keep a relationship, she actually was a decent writer, and is worth reading, if only to “know your enemy”).

  135. Boxer says:

    Dear thedeti:

    I know lots and LOTS of people holding down jobs, marriages and families who display many of the prime features of BPD:

    Those aren’t borderlines, (or narcissists, or sociopaths) they’re just common assholes. The DSM5 is linked in my original article. The criteria for a personality disorder is explicit. People who are able to hold down jobs, have long term marriages, etc. are not people who have a personality disorder, because the entire diagnosis of a personality disorder is based upon not being able to accomplish such stuff.

    I personally know at least 20 people who, if you put them in a therapist’s or psychiatrist’s chair for an hour, would walk out with a diagnosis of BPD and a Prozac prescription.

    People who are diagnosed with personality disorders are not prescribed medication of any sort. It’s not a neurological or psychiatric condition. (They call them “personality disorders” for a reason).

    Prozac is prescribed for affective disorders (usually major depression). It’s in a class of drugs called SSRI.

    I hope this is helpful.

    Boxer

  136. Scott says:

    Re: BPD

    In general, one of the biggest problems with classifying mental disorders has to do with reaching the threshold for having it verses not having it, which consists of checking off a list of criteria until you reach the threshold. (Enough of the criterion met, you get the Dx. One short, you don’t).

    This creates several issues, not the least of which has to do with getting paid by insurance companies.

    However, to stay in the personality disorder lane, it must be understood that in order to believe that personality can be “disordered” one has to accept that the construct of “personality” is valid to begin with. You may be surprised at how much variance there is between mental health providers on that issue alone. I happen to accept the basic convential framework, with several caveats. But for the most part, it does appear to be a reltively stable internal structure that is very hard to dislodge and make any real changes to.

    The essential feature of a personality disorder is not so much functionality (ability to hold a job, etc) but rather egosyntonism. In short, people with disordered personalities do not, by definition acknowledge that they have the disorder. It is always someone elses problem. This is why one of my colleagues coined the idea that “personality disorder is a clinical way of saying ‘jerk.'”

    The person generally never comes in for treatment UNTIL THEIR PERSONALITY causes them to be in crisis, and they are now having depression or anxiety symptoms. The presenting problem is “I am depressed because everyone is out to get me” instead of “I must be doing something that makes people react this way to me.” This is very important because without the insight needed to make that second connection (added to other personality disorder features like lability and idealizing/devaluing) they will not “get better,” –ever.

    But back to my first point. What if a person has 4 of the 5 signs/symptons needed to be diagnosed? What do they have? The DSM says “nothinig.” So clinicians must write things in their notes like “axis II issues” which is code for “I can’t quite click off all the features, but you know what I mean.”

    But quickly–it is not true that BPDs can’t have jobs or relationships. They just tend to burn alot of bridges, leave a wake of people scratching their heads in wonder, and are depressed or anxious when they cannot get away with it anymore. They respond quite well to SSRIs and such, but as soon as they slip out of the consequences of their behavior, they don’t need it anymore.

  137. thedeti says:

    Thanks Boxer. But Scott, am I glad you showed up to help with this.

  138. I read an article somewhere that said many people diagnosed with personality disorders really have character disorders, but there’s not much interest in that, because a character disorder just means you have the habit of doing stupid/mean/harmful stuff, and you need to knock it off.

  139. Scott says:

    Cail–

    It is perfectly reasonable to classify PDs as characterlogical. It is a term that has fallen out of favor as of late, but I use it interchangeably.

  140. “@seriouslyserving
    “He also thinks I shouldn’t wear a bra, for the same reason, but I refuse to budge on that one, as I think that would compromise my modesty.”

    You are in rebellion to your husband.”

    @jsr

    I knew someone would say that, when I read back over my comment.
    “Refuse to budge” was a poor choice of words.
    What actually happened when my husband told me I shouldn’t wear a bra, as he liked the natural shape of my breasts (and I had commented many times how uncomfortable they were), was that I told him I wished I could, but thought it would be too immodest. He asked what I meant, and I told him that just as he liked to see my breasts, plenty of other men probably would too, and thus I thought it would be inappropriate. He agreed.

    However, I do wonder… would you say a wife is in rebellion to her husband if he asked her to wear a see through shirt in public, and she didn’t? If he asked her to go topless in public (where legal), and she didn’t? What about if he asked her to work in a strip club, and she didn’t?

  141. jsr says:

    Elizabeth Rice Handford’s book, Me? Obey Him?, would likely be a more fruitful source to take your questions, as she is an older woman teaching younger women.

  142. Yes, it is a good book – I borrowed it from my Mum several years ago, but I probably could do with a reread.

    What I was getting at though, was whether you were personally advocating a wife disobeying God in order to obey her husband.

  143. BPD, my two cents.

    First fiance was fluu blown Borderline Personality Disorder. Total and complete, sociopath. We’d be driving down the road happy as could be and pass by a hotel, and something in her would just…. snap. She’s look at me and say something completely off the wall like… “ummm, that hotel, did you ever f-ck your ex-GF in that hotel?!?!?!” And I’d be like, wha? Where did that come from? And the whole night would be completely ruined, it would be her screaming at me about my past (that did not include her) and it would vile and awful. She could hold a job. She just didn’t want one. At all, ever. All jobs where beneath her. When she finished her junior year in college her former employer gave her a call and asked her if she wanted to come in and help them for the summer and she started to cry (literally) because she thought she was past that point in her life. What ended up happening is that NO job was good enough for her time so she made no money and expected government just to…. make her whole.

    The following pretty much covers it….

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/women/borderline-personality-disorder-sick-or-just-crazy-asshole/

    And one other thing must be incorporated into your understanding of the BPD. They are in total control of what they are doing. There is no organic factor or deficit in self control that causes what they do. Their acts are willful and premeditated. They comprehend the difference between right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, truth and lies, reality and fantasy.

    They frequently hold jobs and involve themselves in social situations where their destructive behaviors would quickly work against them. They often perform admirably and demonstrate a respectable capacity for self control and appropriate behavior. Any notion that they cannot help their actions, which you will most frequently hear from BPD’s or the unscrupulous clinicians who profit from their condition by helping them rationalize their behavior, is completely fraudulent.

    They know what they are doing and often enjoy it.

    This I have seen first hand. Its amazing what these people are capable of doing. My BPD girl filed a false emergency restraining order on me by lying to a judge about my “domestic violence” toward her. What I did was told her to get out of my house because she was acting like a complete and total nutcase on the one day of the year that should have been mine, my college commencement party. Because I was not constantly her beta-orbiter she was calling me into the house to tell me over and over about how awful she was feeling and about how no one at the party would talk to her. Completely insane….

    Given the absolute potential for devastation that the BPD brings into the lives of anyone unfortunate enough to be in their path, it is pretty important to understand the prognosis for their condition.

    There is no psychotropic medication that treats BPD and there is no known cognitive therapy that works with them. In short, they have an intractable condition that is impervious to treatment of any kind. They cannot be helped near as much as they can be avoided for the sake of helping others.

    There is a running joke among psychiatric professionals about BPD’s. And yes, we told jokes about serious problems. It is one of the ways clinicians deal with the stress of working with them. Anyway, it’s a simple one-liner.

    You don’t treat borderlines, you ignore them.

    And that, in the broader sense, is also indirect professional advice when it comes to anyone with the misfortune to find themselves locked in the sights of a BPD.

    Get away from them.

    Go directly in the other direction. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200.00. Just get thee…away; chalk whatever losses you suffer up to experience and be grateful about what you could have lost.

    Truer words have never been spoken. I thank God everyday that I didn’t marry fiance #1.

    The late great Dr Peck referred to these monsters as “People of the Lie.” There is actually a book he wrote on these BPD ladies (and yes, they are pretty much all women) on why they are the way they are. No, they can’t be treated. And yes, all these girsl do is lie like rugs. But he pretty much defines the cases why certain women BECOME the BPD. He will usually point to some kind of breakdown between her and her father (he is either absent in her life, dies on her, abused her, or worse, incests her) or some other family member. So of course, she learns NEVER to trust men and (of course) goes out of her way to extract the maximum amount of resources from them without any possible accountablity to them. In my case with #1, her dad was an alcoholic, whaled on her mom, her mom divorced him and then her mother’s brother rapes her and (of course) he’s dead so I could never confront him and save any relationship that I could have had with #1.

    In more recent cases with so many girls being born illegitimate, there never was a father in the house. Lo and behold, the now 25 year old girl still acts like she is 15 and is completely untreatable. She’s BPD because she has no possilble framework for what a healthy relationship should be between a loving man and his woman. There just isn’t anything there for appreciate or emulate. Very sad.

  144. Gunner Q says:

    seriouslyserving @ 4:56 pm:
    “However, I do wonder… would you say a wife is in rebellion to her husband if he asked her to wear a see through shirt in public, and she didn’t? If he asked her to go topless in public (where legal), and she didn’t? What about if he asked her to work in a strip club, and she didn’t?”

    It is not the wife’s place to decide which orders her husband gives are legitimate. He will answer to God for what he makes you do; you will answer to God only for how well you obeyed him.

    You can, of course, ask him to confirm his order, say you don’t feel comfortable about it and propose alternatives. If he insists, however, then the discussion is over. A man cannot be held responsible for his family unless he has this level of power over his family.

    This is a good thing for you. God did not design women to handle a man’s authority. Trust your husband and let him worry about the consequences. It’s much easier to let him drive the car than to grab the steering wheel every time he makes a turn you disagree with. Even if it really was the wrong turn, you’re still going to crash.

  145. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev
    I read an article somewhere that said many people diagnosed with personality disorders really have character disorders, but there’s not much interest in that, because a character disorder just means you have the habit of doing stupid/mean/harmful stuff, and you need to knock it off.

    That won’t be popular any time soon, as it does not lend itself to treatment via drugs. Pharma is an industry, after all.

    Thinking about how many of the items on the BPD checklist …er … “diagnosis” are really typical human behaviors that have been turned up to 11, can’t help but wonder how many 20-something BPD women were “beneficiaries” of the Self Esteem movement of the 90’s. If you are told constantly how Special you are, and no one ever informs you of a choice such as “shape up or ship out”, what reason is there to ever mature beyond a mental age of, oh, 13? Seems to me that in the “nature vs. nurture” camp, BPD is more nurture than anything else. Unlike, say, schizophrenia where there appears to be a clear genetic factor.

    The longer any given behavior goes on, the more effort it takes to change it. The paths in the brain get stronger with every action/reward cycle. This is true not just for dramatic stuff like boozing or picking fights, etc. but for more mundane things – like blaming all your problems on someone else.

  146. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    You guys seem to be describing a huge constellation of symptoms which is only partially included in the official definition of borderline.

    Scott sez:

    They respond quite well to SSRIs and such, but as soon as they slip out of the consequences of their behavior, they don’t need it anymore.

    I’m assuming you’re a psychiatrist or neurologist. If your patient is responding to ssri drugs, wouldn’t that indicate comorbidity with something that ssri drugs are proven effective at treating?

    IBB sez;

    First fiance was fluu blown Borderline Personality Disorder. Total and complete, sociopath. We’d be driving down the road happy as could be and pass by a hotel, and something in her would just…. snap. She’s look at me and say something completely off the wall like… “ummm, that hotel, did you ever f-ck your ex-GF in that hotel?!?!?!” And I’d be like, wha? Where did that come from? And the whole night would be completely ruined, it would be her screaming at me about my past (that did not include her) and it would vile and awful.

    Yeah. This sounds like the sort of shit I’ve seen too. BPD types get really freaked out about being abandoned.

    The smart peeps suggest that these start out as coping skills. Personality Disorders are originally things that people do in childhood to help them survive, which explains why this sort of dysfunction seems to persist generationally (PD parents traumatize their kids in specific ways, which leads to more PD).

    She could hold a job. She just didn’t want one. At all, ever.

    In other words, she couldn’t hold a job. Her excuses and rationalizations sound like a real-world example of that big word Scott used, that I had to look up. (Brother Boxer spent way too much time hiding in academia, but he never had the brains to get into med school, so he doesn’t know what such stuff is without the help of google).

    The fact that she couldn’t hold a job means that she couldn’t hold one.

    I’d reply to the rest of this stuff, but it’s ridiculous, and you don’t need me to tell you it’s bullshit. A Voice For Men isn’t a peer reviewed medical journal, and crazy people aren’t crazy because they like being crazy or because they consciously choose to be nuts. There’s no upside to having a debilitating psychiatric illness.

    Boxer

  147. Boxer says:

    Dear Scott:

    However, to stay in the personality disorder lane, it must be understood that in order to believe that personality can be “disordered” one has to accept that the construct of “personality” is valid to begin with. You may be surprised at how much variance there is between mental health providers on that issue alone.

    This is a very interesting philosophical question which is probably too abstract for Dalrock, but it’s cool you mention it. One of these guys (Lyn87 or Cail Corishev I believe) made me go take the Meyers Briggs a while back (INTJ). “Personality” is the contemporary analog of “psyche” (mind/soul/spirit) I think.

    Its contemplation leads to a cascade of other questions: What is it? Do I have one? What are its primary and secondary qualities? Does it differ from someone else’s, and if so, how? ad infinitum…

    Boxer

  148. Scott says:

    Scott sez:
    They respond quite well to SSRIs and such, but as soon as they slip out of the consequences of their behavior, they don’t need it anymore.
    I’m assuming you’re a psychiatrist or neurologist. If your patient is responding to ssri drugs, wouldn’t that indicate comorbidity with something that ssri drugs are proven effective at treating?

    Close. I am a clinical psychologist (PhD as opposed to MD). The issue you are grappling with here is a function of what happens when people go buy the DSM and read the criteria sets with no training, no internship, no residency, no access to patients who exist along a broad spectrum of mental disorders and have to treat them. It’s not to be offensive, it would be the same if I read a book about engineering and tried to design a complex machine.

    Back before DSM V, when we had multiaxial diagnosis, I would have said “the Axis II characterological problems are driving the Axis I symptoms. ” In other words, the persons way of interacting in interpersonal relationships is “causing” them to be depressed.

    If you were manipulative, manifesting “daddy issues,” controlling, bizarre, etc eventually you would become depressed (and/or anxious) too.

    Which speaks to the next problem that non-clinician attempts to diagnose creates. ALmost none of these disorders are mutually exclusive. In virtually all the criteria sets, you will see something about differentials but those are intended to help the clinician with rule outs and rule ins–helping them figure out what it is and also what it is not. But it is entirely possible (and pretty common) to have a personality disorder and PTSD, or Major Depression or whatever.

    SO when a patient responds to an SSRI, the edge has been taken off of their depression symptoms. They still have all their problems. They still have the same personality.

  149. Scott says:

    Its contemplation leads to a cascade of other questions: What is it? Do I have one? What are its primary and secondary qualities? Does it differ from someone else’s, and if so, how? ad infinitum…

    If you ask the average “lay”person this question, they will say something like “Personality is the way a person is.” And they would not too far off the mark.

    I think the best way to conceptualize this is–if you take the person and put them in the exact same scenario 100 times, they will react in basically the same way every time.

    Now, this of course does not take into account learning from mistakes, etc, but their basic strategy for coping with lifes stressors doesn’t really change much. This becomes more and more stable past the early 20s. It truly is hard to teach an old dog new tricks.

    A “disordered” personality, then is one that interacts with the world and cannot cope with it within certain parameters. Those social norms are the confound.

    I had 2 classmates in my first year of graduate school drop out when we took our first diagnosis and psychopathology class. WHen they learned about how a disorder becomes a disorder they recognized that the APA decides using a combination of science and politics, to be honest. THis is how, for example homosexuality was once a disorder, and now is not.

    This profession, they argued has usurped and become the new clergy. We have simply replaced the word “sin” with “inappropriate.”

  150. Boxer’s right, real BPDs are way beyond feral or the usual female craziness. Imagine that a woman tells you every day that she loves rack of lamb, begs you to make one for her, says she’ll love you forever if you do. So you look up some recipes, practice a bit, and arrive at her door with a silver serving dish. You pull off the cover with a flourish and show her — Voila! — her very own, perfectly cooked rack of lamb that she’s been dying for.

    She screams, shoves it off onto the ground, grabs the tray out of your hands, and smacks you over the head with it, crying and saying, “Why don’t you love me anymore?”

    That’s how BPDs live; every day they’re teetering between extremes, swinging to one or the other almost at random (although they usually manage to pick the more self-destructive one). The worst thing you can do for a BPD (or for the people in her vicinity) is to give her everything she wants, because then she’ll have to find something else to be confused/angry/worried/obsessed/destructive about — and it may be someone to whom she was devoted only moments ago.

    The usual feral behavior does bear some similarities to the BPD symptom list, but the list doesn’t express the true depth of their irrationality, the intensity of their fears and obsessions. It really has to be experienced to appreciate.

  151. On the Alabama issue, it’s out of Saban’s hands now. He’s been expelled from the university.

  152. Scott says:

    Just a couple more random thoughts on this in no particular order.

    WHen you look up PD criteria sets, it is useful to remember that those sets are derived rationally and statistically through factor analysis. That is, once the basic framework of personality disorder exists, the symotoms of each subset (Bordeline, Antisocial, Histrionic, etc) TEND to clump together in research trials, but not always. This is why we have the “PD Not otherwise specified” diagnosis. This is what happens when a person has a couple from borderline, a couple from avoidant, one from schizotypal, etc).

    Secondly, it is (in my opinion) impossible to diagnose a PD without collateral historical data on the patient. Remeber, these people have NO IDEA how they come accross to others (or how they affect them). You need to talk to others who know/have known them. In the army, it is very easy to find this stuff (in command directed settings) because the usual rules of confidentiality do not apply. I can talk to aunt sally, the milk man and the ex husband if I need to. THIS really gets you an idea of what the person is like out in the world.

  153. Mulier says:

    @ seriouslyserving

    I agree about the philosophical point. My husband was the same way. I think he likes to believe that he still appreciates my natural beauty–or what my natural beauty once was? Thank goodness for wife googles!

    For pretty women in their 20s, I think anything more than a little concealer on a pimple plus gloss or lipstick for special occasions may be too much, especially since your husband probably does not appreciate the taste of gloss or lipstick.

    In my 30s I tried going to a make up professional to ask if it was possible to do make up without it being obvious. I was surprised to learn that many of the make up artists who work in department stores are told to make their make up blatant. How that helps sales I really have no idea. Anyway, she suggested loose powders for me, which was scary at first, but actually you can use a light hand to just even out your skin tone with a foundation loose powder, add a diffuse glow on top with a blush loose powder, and then some finishing powder to blur and set the look. As long as the skin is being well cared for underneath (the most important factor–make sure you start now!), I find it does not look like make up, not cakey, no clown look, just me spiffied up a bit, maybe with the clock turned back a couple years. So when the glow fades for you, that’s what I recommend you investigate.

    What to do in the 40s? I have no idea.

    This has been a public service announcement for women lurkers. We now return you to your regular programming.

  154. Boxer says:

    Dear Scott:

    The issue you are grappling with here is a function of what happens when people go buy the DSM and read the criteria sets with no training, no internship, no residency, no access to patients who exist along a broad spectrum of mental disorders and have to treat them. It’s not to be offensive, it would be the same if I read a book about engineering and tried to design a complex machine.

    That’s a good point, but I do know how to read English words, and while a lot of the jargon is dense in the journals, I think I get the general idea.

    You seem to be saying that the definition of Borderline Personality Disorder, as it exists in the DSM 5, doesn’t actually mean what it says. If that’s the case, it’s not a very good definition.

    Even so, if the definition isn’t useful, or if the real world examples of something exceed the lexical range of the definition, the term needs to be redefined.

    In the mean time, all I can do is go by what I read, namely:

    …a general definition of personality disorder that applies to each of the 10 specific personality disorders: A personality disorder is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the in­ dividual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adult­hood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment. (645)

    “Impairment” is a broad term, but I imagine that if the impairment is severe enough for a character to land in your office, s/he isn’t having a very successful life. The idea, put forward by others, that all or most women have a personality disorder, that there are people who appear to be totally functional, hold jobs and are successful, but nevertheless have a personality disorder, immediately contradicts the definition.

    The specific definition of the Borderline PD:

    A pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
    1. Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment. (Note: Do not include suicidal
    or self-mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5.)
    2. A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships characterized by alternat­
    ing between extremes of idealization and devaluation.
    3. Identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-image or sense of self.
    4. Impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-damaging (e.g., spending, sex,
    substance abuse, reckless driving, binge eating). (Note: Do not include suicidal or self-
    mutilating behavior covered in Criterion 5.)
    5. Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-mutilating behavior.
    6. Affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g., intense episodic dysphoria,
    irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few hours and only rarely more than a few days).
    7. Chronic feelings of emptiness.
    8. Inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g., frequent displays of
    temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights).
    9. Transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative symptoms.
    (666, 667)

    IBB’s girlfriend seems like a reasonable candidate, and I have no reason to doubt his story. Such people do exist, but I do scoff at the idea that the sufferer was acting this way because she liked the experience, or because she was “evil”. That’s silly. Such people are sick. In a healthier society we’d lock them in an intensive care unit someplace and force them to get psychoanalysis until they improved, but that’s another whole series of articles.

    Best,

    Boxer

  155. Looking Glass says:

    @MarcusD:

    How does a parent not realize that dumping food on the floor is not something to encourage?

  156. MarcusD says:

    @TFH
    “Note that she only told him of this after marriage. Also note that he goes to a female for advice, who predictably says that he should ‘get over it’, which is not the advice she would give a woman who was looking for reasons to take cash and prizes from a husband.”

    Reminds me of a particular CAF thread: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=486335

  157. MarcusD says:

    @Looking Glass

    Yeah, I’m not sure she really understands the connections being made by the kid.

  158. LiveFearless says:

    @Boxer did you mention Athol Kay in the same sentence with Rollo Tomassi?

  159. @Gunner Q

    Do you have a Bible reference for this
    “you will answer to God only for how well you obeyed him.”
    ?

    I see what you’re saying, and I think I need to study the Bible and pray on it more. It makes sense to me, but I don’t like it.

    (And as a side note, it makes me thankful that my husband is a man of God and would never ask me to do those things.)

  160. Opus says:

    Borderline. Madonna sure was hot when she cut that track.

    Somehow I missed her Anti-social and her Histrionic.

  161. Pingback: Eva Mendes said you can’t keep a man. | T...

  162. earl says:

    Oh yes BPD…I can only imagine the soul sucking tactics they do to a man.

  163. You seem to be saying that the definition of Borderline Personality Disorder, as it exists in the DSM 5, doesn’t actually mean what it says. If that’s the case, it’s not a very good definition.

    Even so, if the definition isn’t useful, or if the real world examples of something exceed the lexical range of the definition, the term needs to be redefined

    Perfect example is autism or spectrum disorder. The public is gone apoplectic because of the sudden million fold spike in the number of children born with autism. This wholly fabricated scare drove the outbreak of measles in the US as the irrational fear of vaccines causing autism spreads .

    The Ad council runs those silly ads with celebrities walking up the odds that got them to their career pinnacle. Tommy Hilfiger….”the odds of a boy born in X town being a designer….1/100, the odds of him blah blah….1/1000, the odds he becomes a fashion powerhouse….1/1000000……queue emotionally profound music…..the odds he have a child with autism…..1/88.

    Anyone who can decide to not react emotionally to that must realize instantly it is bunk. But to show how off it is, the 1/88 stat ads run before noon on a local AM station, in the afternoon the same ads say 1/110. They don’t even care to be consistent.

    All this is the fault of the DSM and the fact that in effect there is lobbying to expand a conditions definition. Reading the CDC data from which the 1/88 number comes shows it is a lie on its face. Meanwhile there are (as I suspect also exists for BPD) people who want (lack better word) to claim that their child is “high functioning Aspergers” …Im guessing because it suggests a high intelligence? (For a medical analog, think celiac or just gluten intolerance which are similar growth opportunities)

    Back on autism, the original diagnostic criteria when it first entered the book would show that the difference in the rate of autism today is statistically insignificant verses the year it was listed.

    The DSM has its problems.

  164. Minesweeper says:

    @Bee says:
    April 3, 2015 at 8:05 am

    “http://biblicalgenderroles.com/2014/04/18/what-does-the-bible-say-about-lust/”

    absolutely agree – the wrong translation has occurred, in fact they have picked the least likely senario, you won’t find many on here that agree with that though.

  165. Minesweeper says:

    Boxer
    If you want to understand BPD, marry one, you will have a full understanding by the end of the relationship.

    You seem to be convinced that personality disordered individuals are drooling in asylums. That is only the low functioners. The high functioners (NPD) are often at the heads of companies and governments.

  166. Sarah's Daughter says:

    (And as a side note, it makes me thankful that my husband is a man of God and would never ask me to do those things.)

    seriouslyserving,
    1 Peter 3 is sufficient in answering your question regarding a Bible verse. But let me ask you something, who will be the arbiter determining if those things are sinful or not?

  167. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    I’m a little surprised that this seems such a controversial topic.

    Empathologism sez:

    All this is the fault of the DSM and the fact that in effect there is lobbying to expand a conditions definition.

    I don’t doubt that you (and Scott) are right on this part of it. Much normal behavior is pathologized (is that a word, or did I just construct it?) by people who either seek to understand people or by people who want to profit off someone’s quirks. Cail Corishev pointed out above that lots of people have weird quirks that approximate a few of the extremes in these disorders. I catch myself daydreaming about the limits of my own behavior.

    Even so, I think there’s a golden mean between this position and the one here that describes the DSM as the “great book” that needs an established guru to interpret the scripture within it. It’s not infallible, but I think it’s useful, and I see no reason why we can’t learn something by reading it.

    Minesweeper sez:

    You seem to be convinced that personality disordered individuals are drooling in asylums. That is only the low functioners. The high functioners (NPD) are often at the heads of companies and governments.

    The people who you call “high functioners” don’t have a personality disorder, NPD or otherwise.

    For the third time, here’s the definition, from the source:

    A personality disorder is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the in­ dividual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adult­hood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment. (645)

    Best,

    Boxer

  168. Boxer says:

    Dear Live Fearless:

    @Boxer did you mention Athol Kay in the same sentence with Rollo Tomassi?

    Yeah. I think they’d both be good resources for a married man, just waking up. Heartiste is a bit too strong a tonic for most, until later, but there’s tactical wisdom to be gleaned from that place, too.

    Boxer

  169. According to that definition, if the culture changes, then the people who cannot adjust have a personality disorder. If I understand this correctly, we all have a personality disorder, the only difference is whether that ‘disorder’ allows us to cope in this world or not.

  170. Sorry, that should read,”… the only difference is whether that ‘personality’ allows us to cope in this world or not.” It becomes a ‘disorder’ when it no longer does.

  171. Renee Harris says:

    Darlock when in the venting dating process can man order be sinful ei sebd a tit pix or video of you touching yourself. When can is to disobey her dad to get a husband ?

  172. Boxer says:

    Dear Feminist Hater:

    Excellent riposte.

    According to that definition, if the culture changes, then the people who cannot adjust have a personality disorder.

    I don’t think the PD goes so far, ideally, as to pathologize people for culturally specific artifacts. If someone stuck me in Japan, the natives would surely think I was a weirdo for doing all the things I take for granted, but I wouldn’t be so destructive as to land in a mental hospital.

    When one begins suddenly assaulting people, stealing for no reason and not caring when he’s caught, or carving himself up with a razor blade, people in every culture take notice and quickly concede that there’s something seriously wrong with the subject.

    If I understand this correctly, we all have a personality disorder, the only difference is whether that ‘personality’ allows us to cope in this world or not.” It becomes a ‘disorder’ when it no longer does.

    Do you have an opinion on one of my unsupported theses, namely that big name historical feminists skewed in the direction of personality disorders?

    I find it interesting that so many of these characters were unable to hold down a job or keep a quality man in their lives. If you read the biographical data, it’s almost as though some of them hit on feminism by accident. “Oh! Finally I’ve found my niche! It’s a career where I can be as acerbic and as insane as I want, and people will throw government grants at me! I can blame all my personal problems on men! That’s great! Let’s go to work ladies!”

    Again, as a caveat, I’m not talking about the slacker who has a women’s studies degree, who works at the coffee shop and halfheartedly reads Robin Morgan to her hipster faggot boyfriend. I mean the figureheads.

    It’s like the whole movement was led by crazy people.

    Boxer

  173. “[A]bsolutely agree – the wrong translation has occurred, in fact they have picked the least likely senario, you won’t find many on here that agree with that though.”

    I agree with it now that God has delivered me from its misinterpretation. The collective Evangelical movement has yet to distance itself from the Gnostic genophobia that people like Origen propogated.

  174. pukeko60 says:

    @Rollo, yes, I write Dark Brightness.

    At present I’m visiting my grandkids, who the daughter will not let the ex near. Hence late reply, BTW. And… about 20 kg lighter, no back pain, and H factor gone from 4 to 16 since divorce,

    But more importantly, my kids are safe. Our case did make the NZ Law review. I could have bought a house in Texas with the Lawyers bills, but my kids are more important.

  175. pukeko60 says:

    And I work with psychologists, mainly single, mainly having hit the wall, and mainly bitter. Don’t date them.
    The Alphas dumped them to the curb, and their petty dramas grate. Life is too short.

  176. Minesweeper says:

    @Boxer
    “Minesweeper sez:
    You seem to be convinced that personality disordered individuals are drooling in asylums. That is only the low functioners. The high functioners (NPD) are often at the heads of companies and governments.”

    The people who you call “high functioners” don’t have a personality disorder, NPD or otherwise.

    – Yes they do.

    “For the third time, here’s the definition, from the source:
    A personality disorder is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the in­dividual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adult­hood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment. (645)”

    That is indeed true. I guess you will go through the time honoured experience like most of us when discovering individuals with PD’s, it’s called the hard way.

  177. Boxer says:

    Dear Minesweeper:

    Yes they do… I guess you will go through the time honoured experience like most of us when discovering individuals with PD’s, it’s called the hard way.

    In other words, you’re making up new definitions for already established terms.

    Since I like things to be well-defined (so that I know what people are talking about when they use such terms) I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    Best,

    Boxer

  178. Minesweeper says:

    @Boxer says :”Yeah. This sounds like the sort of shit I’ve seen too. BPD types get really freaked out about being abandoned. The smart peeps suggest that these start out as coping skills. Personality Disorders are originally things that people do in childhood to help them survive, which explains why this sort of dysfunction seems to persist generationally (PD parents traumatize their kids in specific ways, which leads to more PD). She could hold a job. She just didn’t want one. At all, ever.In other words, she couldn’t hold a job. Her excuses and rationalizations sound like a real-world example of that big word Scott used, that I had to look up. ”

    You seem to flip flop your position on this, they either exist solely inside the nut house or not. Which is it ?

    Scott,, I would say in terms of how a personality is formed that :
    The BPD/NPD’s that I know intimately, started out -created- as normal human beings without disorders, their childhood turned very abusive or into severe abandonment, the brain recognises there is no way I can mature normally and chooses a different route for survivability. The individual dosnt have a choice in the conversion, it just occurs automatically. Like developing a peanut allergy or whatever.

  179. BradA says:

    Jeff,

    Your son should have the same standard as your daughter, chastity until marriage. Some here would argue with that, but it is the Biblical standard of morality. He may have trouble with that.

    Marrying earlier rather than later is the better idea and facilitating a solid marriage for that could be good, though finding a young women who doesn’t go wacko when outside her parents control may be more of a challenge than you might realize now.

    [1Pe 3:7 KJV] 7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with [them] according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

    I don’t see harshness here. I think a firmness is definitely necessary, as is controlling our own tendencies to get too forceful. I am personally finding that quiet strength is ultimately more powerful than anything else. Harder than it might seem for those used to an instant culture.

    I would encourage you to realize that your wife will likely take a long time working through these things, perhaps the rest of your life. We found that my wife had far more feminism than she realized. She is appalled by much of modern feminism, but is continually working on changing her thinking in other areas. My proper response (realizing she is “fine china” and thus takes a gentle but firm approach on things, has also been a key part of things.

    I am starting to believe ALL women are BPD. I strongly believe AWALT and only believe what they do not what they see. My wife even now understands why I don’t believe what she says.

    It will go back and forth. She may have an honest commitment to truth, but years of societal programming is quite challenging to change. You have your own issues to deal with too. Those posting here often expect perfection from women, but allow men a lot of slackness.

    Do watch what you say about your wife as you work through things. Some things are not good shared in public, even though it may seem relevant at the time. Note that Dalrock says nothing (that I know of) about his wife, for example.

    jeff and seriouslyserving,

    you should always advise them to dress for what their own husband sees as beautiful

    Change that to “find attractive” and you would be close, though you are correct ss that you have to read things beyond just the words.

    Men don’t always know what they want either. I started my wife coloring her hair a fair while back when I wanted to see what she would look like as a redhead. I wasn’t that impressed, so I don’t worry about that now, though the coloring genie is out of the bottle as it were and she will likely be coloring the rest of her life, in spite of my concerns now over the chemicals used.

    I can’t say I would prefer sweatpants, but I am not bothered by jeans instead of skirts/dresses. She has a decent figure and that is enough for me. Different men do have different focus points.

    Attitude is far more important than any of this in my mind anyway. A woman who always looks nice, but who has an edge to her, would be much worse in spite of the stylish attire.

    Mulier,

    I have no idea, but I put it on every morning and touch up before he comes home because it makes him so cheerful.

    You seem to have identified the key point, aim to please him and you will do much better than those who do not even attempt that.

    SS,

    Youthful beauty fades over time. You don’t have to look like a painter whore to use makeup. I would bet he is thinking of the teens and 20s women who overdo it.

    A preacher I listened to used to say that “sometimes an old barn needs some paint” when talking about the issue. He had been around long enough at the time that it was a comment born of experience, not youth.

  180. Minesweeper says:

    @Boxer
    “In other words, you’re making up new definitions for already established terms.”
    ? please elaborate ?

    In simpler terms what I was saying is that you will learn from your interactions with them, which you will come across in life. Which will then dispel the notion that they are not in the population.

  181. grey_whiskers says:

    @April 4, 2015 at 10:51 am

  182. BradA says:

    Boxer,

    The thing about personality disorders is that nearly everyone has some of these tendencies. They’re only disorders if they interfere with the basic functioning of one’s life.

    Good point we should always keep in mind. Having the urges isn’t the problem, what we do with them is, as well as what we do when we mess up and get caught.

    General comment to you: I don’t think you are as far from salvation as you may think. I see seedlings of truth come out in many ways. It isn’t the Mormon way you were raised in, which is likely a large factor in your thoughts. I pray you keep finding the proper way in life.

  183. grey_whiskers says:

    @Boxer April 4, 2015 at 10:51 AM — last post submitted itself on my while I was still typing. Must’ve hit the wrong button. Anyway, Robert Stacy McCain (theothermccain.com) has some good stuff on the leaders of the feminist movement; I believe (hint, hint) he’s even published a book on it.

    The other way to say this is —

    “If the only tool you have is a hamster, every problem begins to look like a male.”

  184. Minesweeper says:

    “Chris Dagostino says:
    April 4, 2015 at 11:45 am
    “[A]bsolutely agree – the wrong translation has occurred, in fact they have picked the least likely senario, you won’t find many on here that agree with that though.”

    I agree with it now that God has delivered me from its misinterpretation. The collective Evangelical movement has yet to distance itself from the Gnostic genophobia that people like Origen propogated.”

    To find a couple of guys in agreement (you and bee) on this is amazing. But yes, I’ve found that God has often opened my eyes to the absurd belief system that the tradchristians seems to have adopted. You will get in the neck here for bringing it up though.

  185. BradA says:

    It is not the wife’s place to decide which orders her husband gives are legitimate. He will answer to God for what he makes you do; you will answer to God only for how well you obeyed him.

    Some of us would strongly disagree with this reasoning. God gave women brains. Just because some misuse it to rebel where not appropriate does not mean they should do immoral or illegal things just because the husband tells them to do so.

    Otherwise women are nothing more than trained pets.

  186. BradA says:

    Empath,

    This wholly fabricated scare drove the outbreak of measles in the US as the irrational fear of vaccines causing autism spreads .

    Having raised 4 children on the spectrum, I think it is quite likely some links to vaccines do exist. You neglect to mention that the modern pro vaccine push is driven more by big Pharma than efficacy. We should really question whether shoving that many drugs into an infant is really such a good idea.

  187. BradA says:

    I am not sure the argument you are trying to make Minesweeper, but the clear point is that you can’t keep the birds from flying over your head, nor is it sinful for them to do so. Attraction happens. It can often be a pull to sin (see the Book of James). How we respond after the initial pull is the issue, not the initial pull.

  188. Minesweeper says:

    @BradA says:
    “Empath,
    This wholly fabricated scare drove the outbreak of measles in the US as the irrational fear of vaccines causing autism spreads .

    Having raised 4 children on the spectrum, I think it is quite likely some links to vaccines do exist. You neglect to mention that the modern pro vaccine push is driven more by big Pharma than efficacy. We should really question whether shoving that many drugs into an infant is really such a good idea.”

    Brad, we do’t agree often but I agree with you here, our midwife had her son vaccinated @1 with measles, he immediately developed full blown measles and screamed for 14 days, having a full rash and very high temperature the whole time. He went from being perfect, regressed immediately into full blown autism. Who now in late 30’s still has to have his diaper changed by his parents, who’s only desire for him is that he dies before they do – true story.

    And she said she would do the same thing again. Which shows the belief system at work in the medical profession, that she would sacrifice her son’s entire life so he wouldn’t spread the measles to anyone else. Its a belief system as strong as a suicide bomber.

  189. BradA says:

    The poster at that site did write in a comment:

    There is nothing wrong with a man having sexual fantasies about a single woman or a married woman. The sin comes when you begin to have covetous thoughts about trying to get that single or married woman to actually have sex with you.

    He is full of crap. Controlling what our mind thinks on is one of the biggest challenges in life. Paul would not have written that it was better to marry than to burn (with passion) if the unmarried man could just let his mind and fantasies go as long as he wasn’t seeking what was someone else’s.

    Note that even by his own standard the women this hypothetical man is fantasizing after is not his own!

    Also note that what you serve will take over your life.

    He either never really struggled with such thoughts or he is seeking to justify them to make himself guiltless. I pray for those who are misled by his idiocy.

  190. Minesweeper says:

    “BradA says:I am not sure the argument you are trying to make Minesweeper, ”

    Rubbish, you know full well. I wasn’t engaging you on this either in this thread. I will debate anyone to the ends on what a correct translation is. You are coming from a faulty translation of certain key passages which have been taken as gospel by the current Christian culture and are used by Christian feminists to justify fraudulent divorce. This is an evil that has to be addressed.

  191. Minesweeper says:

    Brad ” Paul would not have written that it was better to marry than to burn (with passion)”

    And Paul is right, do you think its the same to “burn with passion” as it is to have a sexual fantasy about someone ?

  192. Boxer says:

    He is full of crap. Controlling what our mind thinks on is one of the biggest challenges in life. Paul would not have written that it was better to marry than to burn (with passion) if the unmarried man could just let his mind and fantasies go as long as he wasn’t seeking what was someone else’s.

    Great point. Aristotle talks about this in Nicomachean Ethics. We learn virtue by practicing. At first we learn to control our material reactions, and if we’re persistent, our psychological reactions follow. We can’t always control what we think, but if we’re persistent, we’ll aspire to not be led around by our emotions or drives.

    I’ve found it really useful to assign this book along with Epicurus’ fragmentary Vatican Sayings. It comes to the same conclusion from the opposite direction. A man who wallows around in carnal pleasures all the time will end up being much less happy than his neighbor, who saves such things for once-in-a-blue-moon special occasions.

    Boxer

  193. Minesweeper says:

    “@Bxr: It’s like the whole movement was led by crazy people.”
    Yes it is, feminism is BPD “partial insanity” encapsulated into the fabric of law and culture. BPD’s always think of themselves as victims of some grander conspiracy, sounds like the patriarchy to me.

  194. Minesweeper says:

    “A man who wallows around in carnal pleasures all the time will end up being much less happy than his neighbor, who saves such things for once-in-a-blue-moon special occasions.”

    We are not talking about that though.

  195. What’s nuts about the recent measles scare, is that there’s not a ton of proof that the vaccine accomplished much in the first place. Prior to the vaccine’s introduction, it was very common among children, similar to chicken pox. Everyone got it, and it simply wasn’t that big of a deal.

    You’ll see comments like “death rates went down 95% after the introduction of the vaccine,” but measles-related deaths were already very uncommon by the mid-60s due to better hygiene, public sanitation, and overall medical knowledge. Reducing 95% of a few hundred deaths per year is statistically insignificant compared to the number of kids who got the measles with no long term effects.

    But people freak out – OMG MEASLES! just because it’s so uncommon these days; they’ve been so thoroughly trained that all vaccines are perfect and if you don’t vaccinate your kids you’re worse than Hitler.

  196. Minesweeper says:

    @ricosuaveguapo, yep, all my family caught measles pre 1960, all survived, incredibly.

    People do die from illness still, but 1 thing generally happens before this. The administration of a drug to kill pain and lower temperature. Then you can be sure, terrible things will occur.

  197. @Sarah’s Daughter
    “1 Peter 3 is sufficient in answering your question regarding a Bible verse. But let me ask you something, who will be the arbiter determining if those things are sinful or not?”

    God, through the Bible, is the arbiter of what is sinful or not. Some things are not grey areas, and are sinful no matter what.
    For those things that weren’t clear in the Bible, and my husband and I believed differently, I would do a lot of praying, but yes – of course, my husband would be the arbiter there!

    1 Peter 3 is a great passage (I always find comfort in the end, “do not give way to fear” when I am struggling with submission on a particular issue!), but I’m not sure it speaks to the question of whether women will only be held to account for how well they submitted, not the morality of anything their husbands asked them to do.

    @Brad A

    “Attitude is far more important than any of this in my mind anyway. A woman who always looks nice, but who has an edge to her, would be much worse in spite of the stylish attire.”

    Yes, that is a very good point. I think that’s what it means in 1 Peter 3 when it talks about beauty coming from a quiet and gentle spirit.

  198. 1 Peter 3 is a great passage

    Good, that attitude puts you ahead of 99.9% of women. Now, consider these questions:

    Why did St. Peter make a point of saying it even applies if your husband is a nonbeliever?
    What do you think are the odds that a pagan Roman in the first century would never have ordered his wife to do anything sinful?
    Do you think St. Peter was unaware of this possibility?
    Then what does the fact that he didn’t say, “Unless he’s obviously commanding you to sin, of course,” tell you?

  199. Brad

    No disrespect nor anything short of sympathy if youve had difficultly with the condition in your family but your 4 make the sample size now 16 kids, there were 12 in the study that started the hysteria.

    Appeals to emotion like the provocative, “pumping babies full of drugs”, are not forensically serious.

  200. Minesweeper says:

    empath, have you seen this ?

    http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/02/cdc-scientist-still-maintains-agency-forced-researchers-lie-safety-mercury-based-vaccines/

    “A subsequent study by CDC published in JAMA in 2013 has shown that autism rates dropped in Denmark every year for ten consecutive years after Thimerosal’s removal from vaccines (Grenborg et al. JAMA Pediatrics 2013).”

    I think outside of Wakefields original study, the sample size is now very large.

    from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/data.html
    see:

    2000 : 1 in 150
    2010 : 1 in 68

  201. Minesweeper says:

    “1 Peter 3 is a great passage”

    Its beautiful isn’t it. Just a pity every time I read 1 Peter 3:7 I hear Driscoll screaming it. Thanks who ever put that vid online !!!! I think anyone who has had the misfortune to watch those should sue for some form of PTSD.

    Also isn’t amazing and marvellous how fast he has disappeared.

  202. Spike says:

    ricosuaveguapo says:
    April 4, 2015 at 2:00 pm

    My trade is the biotech industry. Prior to that I was a medical researcher, holding two degrees in the subject.
    While my training on the subject is a little out of date – I do not make vaccines for a living – I can tell you that there is a very good reason why a measles vaccine was needed.

    Measles has a rare complication called Sub Sclerosing Pan Encephalitis (SSPE). This occurs when the virus enters the brain and multiplies there. While it is rarely seen in developed countries, it kills thousands. I recall the figure in the early 2000’s was 7000 children a year. My boss ( a woman) has a lung condition where she only has use of about one quarter of her lungs as a complication of childhood measles.

    One of the best things you can do for your children is to vaccinate them. Consider Whooping Cough. It is on the rise again – in infants – because irresponsible New Agers are not vaccinating their kids. This means the “herd immunity” principle breaks down, allowing the organism to find vulnerable hosts more easily. Not vaccinating your children because of the possible one-in-a-million chances of side effects is selfish in the extreme.

    Vaccines are also safeThere are no microchips, no secret tags, nothing* in a vaccine apart from antigen in order to prevent disease. When it comes to side effects, dosing regimes are planned to prevent fevers (main side effect) now. Vaccines such as Pertussis (whooping cough) are now cell-free and far safer than before. Those who worry about vaccine safety think nothing about driving their children around in a car – a statistically far more dangerous place for a child to be.

    *There are adjuvants, such as silica and metal salts – adjuvants – that improve the immune response. These usually are there to keep the antigen around in he body for longer so that it doesn’t get removed which normally happens in healthy individuals.

  203. Minesweeper says:

    @Spike says: “One of the best things you can do for your children is to vaccinate them. Consider Whooping Cough. It is on the rise again – in infants – because irresponsible New Agers are not vaccinating their kids. This means the “herd immunity” principle breaks down, allowing the organism to find vulnerable hosts more easily. Not vaccinating your children because of the possible one-in-a-million chances of side effects is selfish in the extreme.”

    Glad you brought that one up, I had 4 doses of DPT as a child, after the 4th I developed full blown whooping cough and I had it 4 solid months, in and out of hospital during that time and I would have been – horror of horrors – a carrier.

    Of course no one knows for sure whether the vax didnt function and I caught this in the ‘wild; or the vax actually gave me the disease. Also note the DPT whole cell has been largely discontinued in the western population because babies actually caught the disease it was meant to prevent.

    What’s really interesting is that I recently tried to get the details of what happened, my medical file has been expunged for that period. Saying that, I did get the full set of vax’s and caught only chicken pox which I wasn’t vax’d against.

    The medical system has created the overwhelming belief that unless the population is vax’d then disease will be everywhere. They have created this fear and panic themselves and now struggle to live up to it because its impossible.

  204. Minesweeper says:

    @Spike – your boss, who has been affected by measles, did she get the vax before the infection?

  205. Scott says:

    I have been out with the family all day and the BPD portion of this discussion went crazy!

    I won’t have time or space to address it all. Let me just say a couple more things. The reason training and experience with this stuff is important isn’t really because of the jargon and so forth. Although that is part of it.

    When we see patients and try to categorize and diagnose them we look at things like onset, duration, severity, context, stressors, genetic loads (family history), psychological test data, consultations with peers, etc.

    I don’t think much that has been written here really undoes or counteracts the importance of a good interview, collateral data and testing interpreted by someone who has done therapy with these people, mitigated suicide risk in them, placed them in the hospital when they are dangerous, watched them respond to these interventions, etc.

    I was, in my original comment upthread trying to point out that the nature of diagnosis and its artificial dichotomy (you have it or it you don’t) makes looking at each individual case as existing on a continuum very difficult. Every borderline experiences their “borderlineness” differently. They manifest differently. But the underlying instability of their internal structure is there in all of them.

    Also–it was mentioned that each and every one of us can, on any given day, click off one or two symptoms from BPD (or any other disorder for that matter) and this is absolutely true! In graduate school you diagnose yourself with everything. Its kind of a running joke.

    But this speaks even more to the importance of being very careful handing out these diagnoses.

    The intersection of functionality, genetic predispositions, shifting social norms, a society (mostly through feminism) that encourages most of these symptoms and calls them “empowered” and “you go grrrrrrrl” has made this particular diagnosis highly unstable. From where I am sitting, a huge percentage of Americans fit the criteria for some PD now. But I am looking at them trough the lens of social norms from 40 + years ago, because I am now a traditionalist/red-pill/HBD/neo-reactionary whatever. But in our society, nothing is sacred. Look at the website “goodbye America in a photo” to see what I mean.

    So this is the best I can do now:

    Think about your basic episode of “cops.” The police show up at the house. There is a guy on the couch in a “wife beater” T-shirt. A woman crying in the corner. They both have blood on them. They are both drunk. They are both saying the other one started it and they are both injured. The woman is probably BPD and the man is probably NPD or APD. This is the extreme low-functioning end of the PD spectrum. But this relationship WORKS FOR THEM in some weird way. They will be back together in a few days when the woman bails the man out of jail. They are attracted to each other on a subconscious level (to use Freudian terminology).

    Just random thoughts that came up reading everyones comments.

  206. Renee Harris says:

    On the issused of husband asking wife to sin : can not happen. If he ask, it’s not sin. And if it is a sin it HER sin and she must repent. But i think it Is better to sin a little and Honor both God and ones husband than to by sin by honor god over one
    husband. God is judge he hates sin and sinners. Do use His word to jufity your sin against husband

  207. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Good, that attitude puts you ahead of 99.9% of women. Now, consider these questions:

    Those are excellent questions, Cail.

    @Brad
    Some of us would strongly disagree with this reasoning. God gave women brains. Just because some misuse it to rebel where not appropriate does not mean they should do immoral or illegal things just because the husband tells them to do so.

    Otherwise women are nothing more than trained pets

    Her brains are not what prompts a wife to rebel, it is an ever present temptation to most wives. For the most part it isn’t rational (and therefore not reliable to discern morality). It is an urging, a whisper, a thought that can enter at any given time and for no apparent reason. When she is caught off guard (hasn’t been praying, is overly hormonal, overly stressed), that urging can and often times will overwhelm her and bring her to action – rebellion. That rebellion takes form in an eye roll, a sigh, or perhaps whining and other forms of obvious disrespect and disagreement. Sometimes it takes form in an inquiry/assertion online to an anonymous group of Christian men commenting on a blog (setting up a situation for another man to call her husband a liar. Proverbs 14:1)

    However, I do wonder… would you say a wife is in rebellion to her husband if he asked her to wear a see through shirt in public, and she didn’t? If he asked her to go topless in public (where legal), and she didn’t? What about if he asked her to work in a strip club, and she didn’t?

    These are not questions for the men here to answer for you. These are questions for your husband. What would you do with the information should one of these men answer these questions and their answers are different than your husband’s? You will either decide the man who answered the question is wrong or you will decide your husband is wrong. Either way, your being privy to what another Christian man defines as rebellion is at best inconsequential and at worst detrimental and contributes to an insubordination to the Headship of your marriage.

  208. Scott, good explanation. Here’s my impression of the “hgih-functioning” thing, based on conversations with a therapist and reading a few books:

    A client comes in, and she’s clearly able to function in dressing herself well and applying makeup. She’s friendly and shows good manners, even remembers your receptionist’s name and makes small talk with her about her kids while she waits. She usually arrives on time for her appointments. She has a job where she’s considered a good employee and has gotten a few promotions. She’s well-liked at her church, has a circle of friends who hang out with her and even let her babysit their kids.

    Yet when you talk to her and dig into things, you find that her grip on reality isn’t so tight. She says things that contradict claims she made just last week. One week she’ll talk about a great new guy she met, and the next week his name is mud. Or one week she says she broke up with her abusive drunk boyfriend for good, and says everything right about why she needs to stay away from him, then the next week she happily announces that they’re engaged. If you try to force her to confront her contradictions, she laughs it off, claims you misunderstood something, calls you a liar, or stomps out and doesn’t come back until things fall apart and she’s desperate again.

    She’s clearly a mess, so you start looking for BPD symptoms. Frantic efforts to avoid abandonment, check. Impulsive, self-destructive behavior, check. Intense anger, check. Pattern of unstable and intense relationships, double-check. Feelings of emptiness, triple-check. Suicidal gestures, sure enough, check. You’ve seen worse cases of all of them, but all of those are present to a problematic extent. By the symptoms, she’s BPD.

    And yet, based on the other part Boxer keeps quoting, she doesn’t seem to qualify. She’s able to conform to the culture, now that the culture says that bouncing from cock to cock and avoiding commitment is a sign of independence and empowerment for a woman instead of a sign of dysfunction in itself. She’s able to keep a job, some friends (as long as they don’t set too many boundaries), and what seems to be a decent life until you look closely. So she’s a new type of BPD, who matches the symptoms and has plenty of distress, but is intelligent and functions just well enough to maintain a facade to hide it.

    Maybe I found the problem: in a healthy culture, riding the carousel would “deviate markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture,” so she’d qualify on that score too. But in a sick society like ours, that particular sickness is classified as normal.

  209. Scott says:

    Cail– your understanding of the construct is thorough. That description is a classic BPD patient.

    You have to be with them for a bit to see the idealizing/devaluing. It is key.

    The dissociative symptoms/reality testing stuff is a very rare borderline and not a requirement to meet the required threshold. (However, it is precisely those symptoms that got it its name–the disorder was considered to be considered on the borderline of psychosis in its most extreme cases and under very high stress).

  210. Scott says:

    Whoops. The word “requirement” appears one too many times in the first sentence of the last paragraph there.

  211. Gunner Q says:

    seriouslyserving @ 4:50 am:
    “Do you have a Bible reference for this
    “you will answer to God only for how well you obeyed him.””

    The classic example is Abraham lying about Sarah being his wife in Genesis 20. She obviously went along with the deception. God never faulted her for doing so, however, and in 1 Peter 3 praised her as an example of obedience. Another example is Mordecai and Esther, when he ordered her to tell the king about Haman’s plot even though there was a chance she would be killed for the attempt.

    There is also Paul’s famous “let us do evil that good may result” comment. You may believe (even with good reason) that your husband shouldn’t be doing what he’s doing. To be disobedient in the process, however, is doing wrong hoping for a good result.

    It’s logically impossible to both submit to your husband and be the judge of when you should obey. Either he is calling the plays or you are. The Bible tells you to respect and obey so he gets the final word… and because of that, God holds hims responsible and not you. That’s how authority works: it’s the combination of the power to make people do stuff with being held accountable for the outcome. If you do not have the power to make a decision then you aren’t responsible, either.

    This is one of the good parts of being a married woman. Planning ahead, setting standards, financial priorities, God won’t hold you responsible for any of that (unless your husband delegates, of course). So long as you do what your husband says, you can relax and enjoy life.

    BradA @12:43 pm:
    “Some of us would strongly disagree with this reasoning. God gave women brains. Just because some misuse it to rebel where not appropriate does not mean they should do immoral or illegal things just because the husband tells them to do so.”

    There was a time I would have agreed with a “conscience clause”. Now that our gov’t has made the practice of Christianity a punishable crime and most Church leaders serve Feminism not Christ, I do not (and probably never should have). A wife’s first loyalty must be to her husband, not the State and not the Church. Also, both the Bible and the Manosphere have extensively covered what poor judges of morality women are. (Ishmael, Sarah? Seriously?) They should not be allowed to judge what is moral. That’s how we got the frivorce-industrial complex.

    “Otherwise women are nothing more than trained pets.”

    There is much more to submission than merely taking orders from a House Fuehrer. I see it in the workplace, the difference between the workers who only do whatever they’re told between 9 and 5 and the workers who take pride in their work and want to see the company succeed.

    Wifely submission is a female martial art. It starts with mindless obedience, like mindless weight lifting and endurance building for men, but ends up both a healthy lifestyle and a performance art.

  212. Those are excellent questions, Cail.

    Thanks. By the way, I don’t mean to suggest that it’s easy. That’s obviously a very difficult commandment for women; and just like other commandments, perfection is the goal, but approaching it requires constant work and we all fail at times. It’s no walk in the park for men either: at first blush, “she has to do what I say” might sound great; but when you realize it also means, “I’m responsible for every decision this family needs made,” that’s pretty heavy.

    When you imagine showing up before your Lord and being called to account for every time you steered your wife down the wrong path, that’s daunting. I have a feeling that using a wife’s obedience to harm her soul will be worth some serious demerits, similar to “little ones / stumble / millstone / neck” terms.

  213. @Cail

    They are good questions, and answering them definitely leads to the conclusion of “wives must submit, even to requests to sin.” However, to get there you have to do a lot of reading things back into the text that aren’t necessarily there. I’m not convinced.

    @Sarah’s Daughter
    “Sometimes it takes form in an inquiry/assertion online to an anonymous group of Christian men commenting on a blog (setting up a situation for another man to call her husband a liar. Proverbs 14:1) ”

    It would be great if you could keep the personal digs out of the discussion.

    I am not in rebellion to my husband by commenting here, and I am certainly not trying to set him up as a liar.

    I am simply trying to hash out, through discussion, what biblical submission should look like. My goal is to please God in all things.
    I think I’m much better off talking this out among (mostly) like-minded believers online, than in my (mostly blue-pill) friendship circles in real life.

    I’ve seen many of your comments here before, and I hold a great deal of respect for you. I hope you can bear with me as I try to actually understand God’s word, rather than blindly accepting what is said.

    “These are not questions for the men here to answer for you. These are questions for your husband. What would you do with the information should one of these men answer these questions and their answers are different than your husband’s? You will either decide the man who answered the question is wrong or you will decide your husband is wrong. Either way, your being privy to what another Christian man defines as rebellion is at best inconsequential and at worst detrimental and contributes to an insubordination to the Headship of your marriage.”

    I think you misunderstand me.
    No matter what the men and women here think, my default will be my husband’s definition of submission.
    And his perspective is the same as mine – that God will still hold a wife accountable on judgement day for sins she knowingly commits, whether or not her husband told her to do it.
    I’m asking what people on here think, because I am curious to hear the answers, and to compare them to my own, measure them against God’s word, etc. There is no sinister motive here.

  214. That should say…
    “as I try to actually understand God’s word, rather than blindly accepting what is said about it by others.”

  215. Boxer says:

    Dear Cail:

    This is really the interesting part that many of us are arguing about.

    And yet, based on the other part Boxer keeps quoting, she doesn’t seem to qualify. She’s able to conform to the culture, now that the culture says that bouncing from cock to cock and avoiding commitment is a sign of independence and empowerment for a woman instead of a sign of dysfunction in itself. She’s able to keep a job, some friends (as long as they don’t set too many boundaries), and what seems to be a decent life until you look closely. So she’s a new type of BPD, who matches the symptoms and has plenty of distress, but is intelligent and functions just well enough to maintain a facade to hide it.

    I’m a big proponent of personal responsibility. I’m sure IBB can tell you what an asshole I am in that regard, as I think the woman you describe is a moral agent who is making unhealthy choices.

    I feel profound and sincere sympathy for people who suffer from actual personality disorders. They are at the mercy of powerful psychological forces that they don’t understand, and they have no real choice but to behave in the dysfunctional ways they do. Might your own example have some quirks that are probably similar to BPD types? Sure, but that doesn’t let her off the hook.

    The “high functioning” types have no excuses. The fact that she can hold down a job and keep some friends means that she can improve, if she chooses to. Nothing’s stopping her from going into Brother Scott’s office for some psychoanalysis and cognitive behavior therapy.

    She’s too lazy to socialize herself and probably too decadent to stop whoring around and settle down in a healthy relationship with a normal husband type. Why should we give her the cover of a “mental illness” (high functioning or not)? She doesn’t deserve it. Call her what she is: an asshole.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  216. Sarah's Daughter says:

    I think you misunderstand me.
    No matter what the men and women here think, my default will be my husband’s definition of submission.
    And his perspective is the same as mine – that God will still hold a wife accountable on judgement day for sins she knowingly commits, whether or not her husband told her to do it.
    I’m asking what people on here think, because I am curious to hear the answers, and to compare them to my own, measure them against God’s word, etc. There is no sinister motive here.

    Your husband and mine disagree. Here is my advice to you – ONLY defer to your husband. If you, at any time, feel uneasy about it or that it seems off as you are reading the Bible, then pray fervently and trust 1 Peter 3 without fear.

    I am simply trying to hash out, through discussion, what biblical submission should look like. My goal is to please God in all things.
    I think I’m much better off talking this out among (mostly) like-minded believers online, than in my (mostly blue-pill) friendship circles in real life.

    You are best off talking with your husband about these things. That is what biblical submission looks like. That is pleasing to God. If you need to discuss it further with someone else, ask your husband to help you find an older woman who believes as he does who would be willing to be that Titus 2 woman for you.

    I don’t say these things to take personal digs at you. This is the most important aspect of your life on this earth. I say these things with the utmost concern for your well being and spiritual walk.

    It is of no benefit to argue or inquire of scripture with other Christian men or women when your husband has already informed you of all you need to know. His (and your) understanding of it will leave you with questions because it is not accepting of Paul’s use of the word “everything” in Ephesians 5:24. You will need to know example by example when to submit and when not to. That is for your husband to instruct you. It is not a set of rules that have been established among Christians.

  217. greyghost says:

    Gunner Q

    Some of us would strongly disagree with this reasoning. God gave women brains. Just because some misuse it to rebel where not appropriate does not mean they should do immoral or illegal things just because the husband tells them to do so.”

    There was a time I would have agreed with a “conscience clause”. Now that our gov’t has made the practice of Christianity a punishable crime and most Church leaders serve Feminism not Christ, I do not (and probably never should have). A wife’s first loyalty must be to her husband, not the State and not the Church. Also, both the Bible and the Manosphere have extensively covered what poor judges of morality women are. (Ishmael, Sarah? Seriously?) They should not be allowed to judge what is moral. That’s how we got the frivorce-industrial complex.

    “Otherwise women are nothing more than trained pets.”

    There is much more to submission than merely taking orders from a House Fuehrer. I see it in the workplace, the difference between the workers who only do whatever they’re told between 9 and 5 and the workers who take pride in their work and want to see the company succeed.

    Wifely submission is a female martial art. It starts with mindless obedience, like mindless weight lifting and endurance building for men, but ends up both a healthy lifestyle and a performance art.
    ,

    That is where I’m at and will teach my daughters.

  218. Boxer says:

    Dear Grey Ghost:

    That is where I’m at and will teach my daughters.

    The irony is that your daughters will have far more real world power than skank-ho divorcée or babymama could ever dream of.

    A submissive, loving wife ends up with a large number of men (husband, sons, grandsons, sons-in-law) who would kill and die for her. Average feminist slut ends up with a little yappy dog, and maybe she’ll get a pension after fifty years in the cubicle. It’s no comparison.

    Boxer

  219. The “high functioning” types have no excuses. The fact that she can hold down a job and keep some friends means that she can improve, if she chooses to. Nothing’s stopping her from going into Brother Scott’s office for some psychoanalysis and cognitive behavior therapy.

    She’s too lazy to socialize herself and probably too decadent to stop whoring around and settle down in a healthy relationship with a normal husband type. Why should we give her the cover of a “mental illness” (high functioning or not)? She doesn’t deserve it. Call her what she is: an asshole.

    I agree wholeheartedly with every word. I think the therapist often stretches the definition so he can diagnose her with something to keep her coming back, and maybe it has insurance implications to help her pay for it. The hope being that he can use some CBT or something and get her to stop being such an asshole. The problem with that is, a diagnosis of official illness gives her an excuse for continuing behavior that she could stop if everyone just told her, “There’s nothing wrong with you; you’re just a selfish, destructive jerk. Cut it out or get out of our lives.”

  220. However, to get there you have to do a lot of reading things back into the text that aren’t necessarily there.

    For instance? What are we reading into the text that isn’t there?

    For what it’s worth, I was on the “conscience clause” side of the issue until I looked closely at what the scripture said, discussed it with others, and thought hard about what it means. I reluctantly came to the conclusion that it means what it says, and there’s no way around it. It’s unlikely that I’m reading things into it that are forcing a conclusion I don’t particularly enjoy.

  221. Scott says:

    I think the therapist often stretches the definition so he can diagnose her with something to keep her coming back, and maybe it has insurance implications to help her pay for it. The hope being that he can use some CBT or something and get her to stop being such an asshole

    I can definitely help with this part.

    Here in red-pill land ,Truth (with a capital “T”) is all we have, so let me ratchet this back a bit, or clarify.

    Most insurance companies do not pay for (or pay less) personality disorder diagnoses. This is because they are considered chronic and untreatable. They are truly characterological.

    BPD has been treated successfully with dialectical behavior therapy (Linehan) but this requires intensive training and intensive sessions with very high risk patients. Most therapists are not certified to do DBT, and even if they are the insurance issue above still applies in most cases.

    Secondly, there is a stigma against these diagnoses, (especially BPD) for several reasons:

    1. It is seen as the provider giving up on, labeling the person with a character defect or just being mean. Most providers (outside of forensic settings) are very conscious about being perceived as mean with this.
    2. It (and HPD) is considered a “sexist” diagnosis because of its origins and prevalence rates.

    What is far more likely is for a BPD to be diagnosed with bipolar or a mood disorder like depression or anxiety related disorders. The incentive to diagnose these disorders is very high because of the money, and the above mentioned label that allows the patient to claim they are not responsible.

    Also, insurance companies like to pay for “evidence based, brief interventions” and those have been established as effective for (what were formally called) Axis I disorders.

    Personality disorders IN NO WAY give the patient a clinical excuse for their behavior. Only psychosis and certain pervasive developmental disorders do that.

    I think this last part is very important in light of how Boxer appears to conceptualize “real” borderlines. Even they are 100% responsible for their actions.

  222. Minesweeper says:

    @Scott,
    “What is far more likely is for a BPD to be diagnosed with bipolar or a mood disorder like depression or anxiety related disorders. The incentive to diagnose these disorders is very high because of the money, and the above mentioned label that allows the patient to claim they are not responsible.”

    Makes alot of sense, always thought the wrong diagnosis was occurring because the criteria between BiPD and BPD was just too close or inexperienced practitioners. But now I see there are reasons otherwise.

  223. Boxer says:

    Personality disorders IN NO WAY give the patient a clinical excuse for their behavior. Only psychosis and certain pervasive developmental disorders do that.

    I think this last part is very important in light of how Boxer appears to conceptualize “real” borderlines. Even they are 100% responsible for their actions.

    I’m surprised to think a clinician would make a blanket statement like this. Anyway…

    We propose that non-suicidal self-injury in BPD uniquely resides on a spectrum phenomenologically with suicidality. Perhaps the most distinguishing factor, as pointed out by Linehan (1993), is that self-injury may help patients to regulate their emotions–an area with which they have tremendous difficulty. The act itself tends to restore a sense of emotional equilibrium and reduces an internal state of turmoil and tension

    http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/articles/suicidal-self-injurious-behavior-people-bpd

    I think it’s silly to assume that anyone would choose to live this way. There’s absolutely no benefit to having a disorder like this, and I’m pretty confident that anyone who had it would wish it away, if s/he could. I’ve beaten this dead horse long enough, though. Thanks for an interesting discussion, fellas.

    Boxer

  224. @Sarah’s Daughter

    “It is of no benefit to argue or inquire of scripture with other Christian men or women when your husband has already informed you of all you need to know. His (and your) understanding of it will leave you with questions because it is not accepting of Paul’s use of the word “everything” in Ephesians 5:24. You will need to know example by example when to submit and when not to. That is for your husband to instruct you. It is not a set of rules that have been established among Christians.”

    I see what you’re saying, and I will bow out of the discussion on this now. Since I am in agreement with my husband, further discussion would be fruitless.

    But I just wanted to let you know that it doesn’t leave me needing to know “example by example” whether to submit. It’s quite easy – submit to my husband, unless he blatantly asks me to sin.

  225. Personality disorders IN NO WAY give the patient a clinical excuse for their behavior.

    Not a clinical excuse, but don’t you think they ever use it as an excuse as a practical matter? I had a (diagnosed) bi-polar girlfriend who would say, “Well, that’s just me being bi-polar, take it or leave it.” As you say, there’s more stigma about PDs, so a jerk-diagnosed-as-BPD is less likely to throw it around openly like that, but she could still use it inside her own head, thinking, “I know I should grow up and get my life in order, but my BPD is really bad today.”

  226. It’s quite easy – submit to my husband, unless he blatantly asks me to sin.

    For certain values of “blatantly,” presumably.

  227. Sarah's Daughter says:

    For certain values of “blatantly,” presumably.

    Exactly.

    I would know nothing about this if I didn’t have personal experience with it. Which sins should we go by? Going against the Ten Commandments?
    Well, crap – he (my husband) has told me that my father will only be able to live with us in his elderly years if his pagan/spiritualist wife is no longer alive. How could this be honoring my father?
    This, to my understanding, is blatant sin. Now what do I do?

    Maybe that’s a little sin. One that can be tolerated? Who decides this?

    Let’s look at a more ambiguous one – number 9 of the big 10:
    I had certain knowledge of a man’s unfaithfulness to his wife. His wife and I were going to be spending a lot of time together. I was explicitly told, by my husband, to not say a thing and if asked, to lie and tell her I knew nothing. Well, I’m an emotional being, sympathetic to a wife who might have an adulterous husband. She should know! (right?) This was actually the first time (we had been married 14 years) I dug deep and agreed to obey my husband on something I did not agree with – I told her I did not know. I prayed before, during, and after and rebuked the fear that came over me. I cried privately for the woman. I hated her husband (at the time). I later learned that my telling this lie and not creating a volatile situation likely saved lives and certainly saved morale. See, our husbands were serving together in the Army in a remote 10 man team in Uganda. My own husband’s life could have been in jeopardy had this truth come out. Some might say this was just a matter of discernment. Without the biblical command and my brand new (and floundering) conviction of becoming a submissive wife I would not have had that discernment.

  228. Sarah's Daughter says:

    BTW, I’m not asking what I should do in the situation with my father, merely using it as an example.

  229. Robin Munn says:

    Let’s look at an analogous situation. The apostle Peter, in 1 Peter 2:13, told us that we should “be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution.” But in Acts 4:19, Peter refused to be subject to the ruling authorities in one specific case, when they told him to stop preaching about Jesus. Instead, he told them, “whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge.”

    So, was Peter sinning in Acts 4 when he didn’t obey the authorities that God had set over him, and later in life he realized that he had sinned? Or, if some person with legitimate authority over us orders us not to preach about Christ, should we follow Peter’s example and disobey that order, even though we obey other orders the authority gives us?

    I think it’s the latter: that Peter was not wrong in his actions in Acts 4. And by analogy, a wife whose unbelieving husband orders her, say, not to share Jesus with her neighbors would be right to disobey him in that specific order. In this, as in most things, sinful people will look for loopholes, and will be wrong to do so. But I can’t believe that Peter sinned in Acts 4, and so I can’t believe that a wife is always, 100% commanded to obey her husband if he orders her to commit a blatant sin.

    And yes, that’s going to be read by any disobedient woman as permission to disobey her husband when he tells her to do things that aren’t sinful in the least, just unpleasant for her. Some women will use “blatantly” as an excuse. But that doesn’t change the fact that the meaning of “blatantly” is clear and obvious, and those who use it as an excuse have no excuse before God and their own conscience.

  230. Boxer says:

    Robin Munn:

    You’re using an argument from analogy here. Peter isn’t a chick being ordered by her husband to (do/not do) something. He’s a dude being ordered by some other dude. That’s a crucial difference.

    if some person with legitimate authority over us orders us not to preach about Christ, should we follow Peter’s example and disobey that order, even though we obey other orders the authority gives us?

    No offense, but men don’t listen to women on matters of ethics or morality. We don’t generally listen to random dudes, either. We’re wired to listen only to other men that we respect. If you came up to me and started preaching about Christ, I’d pat you on the head and tell you “isn’t that sweet”. Then I’d go on about my day and laugh about it later.

    Bottom line: If your husband tells you to (do/not do) something, just do it. If this vexes you, find some older woman in a happy marriage to tell you the secret of getting your husband to do what you want. Older ladies from the hardcore generation are still around, and they’re skilled at persuading their husbands to do this and that. The old school housewives often let their husbands imagine that these were their ideas originally. Men are simple creatures, and if you are smart, you can be submissive and get your own way most of the time, and he’ll be just fine with it.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  231. Scott says:

    Cail- yes, they say things like that all the time, but almost never about BPD. They regularly say it about bipolar ( which they are often mistakenly diagnose with).

    Interesting you mentioned bipolar, because in the manic phase, it has a psychotic feature, which does in provide a legal defense against culpability.

    But when a person with pd says it, any good clinician will roll their eyes.

    Boxer, the psychiatrists who write that statement about cutting had in mind the state in which most BPDs find themselves in that exact moment– which sometimes resemble dissociation, another altered level of consciousness in which they don’t exactly know what they are doing ( hence the words “tremendous difficulty” in the emotional regulation sphere. But tremendously difficult is not the same as impossible. Plus, they are wrong about suicide anyway. Joiner, Jobes and other state of the art researchers on suicide have shown a very different relationship between suicide and BPD.

    You are right though– I would hate to have the inner life of a BPD. They are absolutely miserable. But they are I’m control of themselves.

  232. Scott says:

    Sorry about that sloppy comment, using my tiny phone!

  233. Scott says:

    Just a quick expansion on the “miserable” comment and emotional regulation:

    The BPD person experiences extreme emotions like powerful, unpredictable ocean waves. There are many theories as to how this developed for them, most of which have to do with abandonment, childhood sexual trauma, etc.

    Upon learning this, one should have an empathic response to these individuals, but they make it SO DAMN hard to, because if the WAY they lash out and make everyone feel their pain with them.

    It is precisely this “how” they respond to those ever changing moods that they are 100% in control of, which is .qualitatively and quantitatively different from those truly out of control- like those with a primary thought disorder (schizophrenia, etc).

    We must always hold that out as the standard, or else every patient with even the slightest difficulty will have “medical” reason for their bad behavior.

  234. LiveFearless says:

    @Scott

    It is precisely this “how” they respond to those ever changing moods that they are 100% in control of, which is .qualitatively and quantitatively different from those truly out of control
    Correct.

    Based on my multi-year relationship with a BPD a long time ago, the most accurate and concise post I’ve seen on true BPD has been written by Rollo Tomassi:

    http://therationalmale.com/2012/01/20/borderline-personality-disorder/

  235. Opus says:

    At the risk of having Scott shake his head (though in his as always entirely reasonable way) I would like to say that every now and then I read of the different forms of mental affliction as described in the latest DSM. I then apply the criteria (say) to some ex-gf or enemy of mine, and yes they seem to have all the traits for BPD, but then I apply the criteria for some other category in the DSM and – guess what – they also seem to be prime candidates for that diagnoses as well, and so it goes on.

    ‘You’ [Opus] ‘are such a calm and rational person not prone to irrational fears or emotional outbursts’ some ex-gf writes to me but (trust me) I am nowhere near as calm as I may appear on the surface. Which of us driving along a motorway has not at some point wondered what exactly might not happen were one to go all GermanWings and turn the steering wheel towards the oncoming traffic.

    Some years ago my life was being plagued by the local nutter, but despite being examined by the medical profession he was (as he boasted to make my misery all the greater) diagnosed perfectly sane – they would not section him – yet everyone who knew of him or could see him wandering round the town all but naked, barefoot and this in the depths of winter, setting fire to letter boxes, churches, fire stations, not to mention stealing Bibles from the local library and urinating through letter-boxes would tell you he was utterly mad, as surely by any reasonable standards he was.

  236. Minesweeper

    Glad you posted the CDC numbers. Dig deeper into them and find how they were derived.

    They are based on medical records from pediatricians. They count the mention of any symptom of spectrum disorder, even one symptom mentioned one time,within a set age range of children. They do not flag the file for later review, they do not check for an actual full on diagnosis of spectrum disorder , even one using the absurdly exaggerated criteria that were in the last DSM.

    Track the controversy of the latest rewrite where the criteria were actually tightened. Check where it got to (the criteria) vs. where it started at first listing. And check into statistical rigor that is applied to other medical studies vs that for spectrum disorder. The numbers you list are the ones from which the 1/88 alarmism comes from, then consider what that means. If 1/88 children are born with autism….. that’s the claim….does that meet your walking around test? You seem very attached to references of things that happened to you. You got X when you were vaccinated for X. Consider also that there is a “celiac effect” where people seem to want to label their kid as high functioning spectrum disorder because it suggests genius. All of this has been studied as well yet you’ll not see those papers without looking for them.

    Look at the evolution of child rearing and how the types of foods and medical practices have changed with the hipster crowd who are obsessively predisposed to alarmism and extreme micromanagement of all things in their environment. Its the outright overt manifestation of the feminine instinct to control, writ large across medicine, diet, safety equipment, rules, self esteem concerns, teaching babies in vitro, so forth.

    If courage existed, a DSM entry would be written about the disorder that informs all of those things.

  237. Scott says:

    Look at the evolution of child rearing and how the types of foods and medical practices have changed with the hipster crowd who are obsessively predisposed to alarmism and extreme micromanagement of all things in their environment. Its the outright overt manifestation of the feminine instinct to control, writ large across medicine, diet, safety equipment, rules, self esteem concerns, teaching babies in vitro, so forth.

    Seconded.

  238. Spike says:

    Minesweeper says:
    April 4, 2015 at 6:44 pm

    Hi Minesweeper. Sorry to hear of your getting pertussis – a horrible disease. Equally I find the expungement of your files appalling. As a scientist, it is important to ascertain why things happen, why they do (or in your case, didn’t) work. In your case, you sound like the vaccine was ineffective – as it sometimes is for whatever reason – and you picked up Pertussis from a carrier at around the same time as the vaccination occurred. The incidence of this happening is about 1:150 000. The incidence of getting Pertussis is about 1/300 for an unvaccinated population. This means there are a lot of carriers and why it is dangerous.
    Pertussis vaccine was once made out of a killed form of the organism that causes Whooping Cough (Bordetella pertussis). When my son was in his childhood (he’s now 18), his third dose was acellular – that is, the active protein had been cloned, placed in a harmless organism, grown synthetically and then tested – a “recombinant” vaccine. It was found to have fewer side effects.

    My boss is slightly older than me, in her late 50s. In her childhood there was no measles vaccine. You simply got it and recovered. She was one of the rare cases in Western countries that developed a complication. She only has about 1/4 of her lung capacity and this limits her a lot.

    Chicken Pox vaccine has only recently become available. My son got it and it was only after that time that the vaccine has been available.

  239. Minesweeper says:

    Empath, luckily for me I have no autistic kid. I do have several friends who do. I probably am attached as you say to things that have affected me. You have lived a lucky life empath if you have been affected by nothing have have no bias in these events.

    I listed the CDC as they are probably the most conservative organisation to even list autistic figures and have the most (possible) reasons to deny a connection.
    I take it you missed the link I also posted regarding the CDC researcher who has blown the whistle and says now they commuted statistical fraud to make the figures look far better than they were. Have a read of that 1st.

  240. Scott says:

    Hristos se naste to my Latin rite/Gregorian calendar friends!

  241. Minesweeper says:

    Hi Spike, Dont worry about it, I dont remember it and its been the least of the afflictions the medical system in its ignorance has inflicted on me. Im still of the opinion that as it occurred immediately following the DPT whole cell vax being administered, it wasn’t dead as you say, merely weakened and altered. But not enough for that batch. And therefore I caught this from the vax. This was not that uncommon, which is why they switched to using the acellular DaPT version, whereby the break up the cell, (I dont think they then recombine the proteins into another org,maybe its changed) and combine with a adjutant , so you still get the proteins exposed but no infection. Don’t forget though the new non live versions tend to produce a lower immunity, so its a coin flip whether its better to infect some and give better protection to others.

    You seem to have missed that I listed two incidences close to me (that I can verify) of a vax initiating full blown infections of the sort they are meant to eradicate. Now your not going to eradicate anything if you keep reintroducing in into the population are you ?

    Now this is being noted, but not advertised because, as I stated above, the potential of a loss of confidence in the vax system and it ceasing leads them to believe the apocalypse will be upon us. So changes are being made regularly, which is why we have switched from live versions to dead versions of many diseases.

    Also your boss not being vax’d against measles is borderline unbelievable to me, most kids were done in the 60’s, she would have been at early school then and the program was generally administered through schools. Everyone I know of that age was vax’d against everything that was available in the UK at least.

    I’m not against vax’s, I dont consider them 100% safe, neither does the industry, no where you will see a vax carton without a list of side effects including the rare possibility of death. If someone makes a claim they are 100% safe and effective, thats not what the manufacturers think at all.

  242. Minesweeper says:

    @Scott
    “dissociation”
    By this do you mean the inability of them to remember or acknowledge what has occurred ?

    “Plus, they are wrong about suicide anyway. Joiner, Jobes and other state of the art researchers on suicide have shown a very different relationship between suicide and BPD.”

    Whats your thoughts on this ?

  243. American says:

    greginaurora of April 1, 2015 at 11:59 am, you’re full of shit and I can prove it in two words: Bill Gates.

  244. greginaurora says:

    @american

    What are you replying to? A quote would help.

  245. Minesweeper, Id like to have such a charmed life as to not have experiences that emotionally bias me.

    It feels like freedom to me, being skeptical of legions of overwrought 30 something women making comments like “I do not believe that poisoning my child to prevent him/her from getting a disease that (in air quotes) might kill him is a good thing to do”.

    These thoughts come from the same place as those that informed the remark “F%&k the man!” came from 40 years ago. No more, no less, and similarly shallow in being born of in-group desire.

    Of course vaccines have warnings and side effects. You know the response…..so does everything else, most “including death”. Someone made the excellent point that eschewing vaccines and yet placing your child in an automobile is intrepid in its statistical inconsistency.

  246. Boxer says:

    Off topic: I wonder if you gents have read this masterpiece yet?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-spinster-and-proud-of-it/2015/04/03/3b885018-d162-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html?hpid=z3

    Kate Bolick has been deconstructed here on Dalrock before. I’d post a link, but one’s my limit. She’s always good for a laugh.

    Happy Easter (Passover, etc.). May the season see us in better health, more prosperous, and strengthened in our resolve to destroy feminism.

    Boxer

  247. Minesweeper says:

    Empath, yep dying is rather dangerous and should be avoided as death may result. Strange, I’ve encountered the opposite to you, legions of clueless females banging on about if 1 child isnt’t fully vax’d then everyone is at risk. I’m not sure who is more clueless.

    And as Boxer says, Happy Easter everyone ! I was surprised to find that Mormons don’t have a different name for it. I was expecting some sort of baptism of the death+being risen in one go type of thing.

  248. pukeko60 says:

    On personality disorders, Scott has most of it correct. \

    But since he doesn’t commit people (I think– it generally si something done by people in my trade) you have to understand that commital is a legal process and the tests in law vary depending on where you live.

    An example: In NZ you can commit a “disorder of violition” so you cutting borderline could find herself in hospital against her will. In other countries a “characterological disorder” would be a resason NOT to commit.

    The problem is that personalit disorders increase the risk of anxiety and mood disorders, if you look at mere symptoms, and those epiphenonema can be used “as an excuse”.

    To quote Lineham. Yes, what happened to you was awful and not your fault. But how you deal with those things is something you can control, and you are accountable for that.

    (Scott, my approach is to limit interaction, keep goals short, and work on crisis plans, building a framework for DBT. In particular, long periods n hospital, in my expereicene, don’t work).

  249. pukeko60 says:

    Darn spelling. Cannot re edit. Mea cupla.

  250. Scott says:

    Pukeko- Right on.

    In the military, clinical psychologists with certain privileges “commit.” It is 72 hour involuntary stay. All I have to do is contact the attending physician and check for bed availability. This is pretty much a formality these days. The liability they assume if they turn my patient away is too high. Once they are in the care of the psych ward, that attending decides if it should be extended or not.

    Absolutely certain disorders increase risk. The algorithm for calculating that risk is very sophisticated. Unfortunately, many providers use their “gut” when there is a tremendous amount of science they can rely on instead. They are just lazy.

  251. mrteebs says:

    I was married to a woman for 18 years who was diagnosed with BPD shortly after the birth of our son (year 12 of the marriage). We lasted 6 more years until she detonated it.

    I did as much reading on it as I could at the time – before the proliferation of the world wide web – and she remained in pretty much continual denial about it. She constantly pined for home (she was from Canada) and claimed the only thing “borderline” about herself was that she was trapped inside the wrong border (USA) instead of “near her family – where we belonged.” Silly me. I thought my son and I, my large extended family, and my parents counted for something. That and the very good standard of living I was able to provide for her. Oh, and the fact that we had lived in Canada for 7 years before moving back to the States and she was miserable for all 7 of those years. Wherever you go, there you are. Funny that Borderlines never seem to figure this out.

    Borderlines rarely change because from their perspective there is no problem. They can drive everyone else crazy, alienate every friend and family member, and just generally make life a living hell. But at the center of their universe, things are pretty much as they want them to be. They genuinely believe everyone else is the problem. Nor are they particularly empathetic people as they skew far harder toward the narcissistic end of the spectrum. I do not subscribe to the notion that this is a brain chemistry issue. I believe it is rational (from their perspective) and calculated. They are master manipulators. There are certain things they want for themselves and this is their tried and trusted method of achieving those things.

    I haven’t really thought about BPD for a long time; this thread of comments was probably the first time in at least 3-4 years. I do know that they are the bane of most counsellors’ existence. Nobody wants to counsel a BPD because they resolutely insist that they have no problem. But they can be quite high functioning for a good part of their lives. In the case of my ex-wife, there seemed to be something about the postpartum hormonal levels that could not let her keep the normalcy facade any longer. She became suicidal, checked herself into the hospital, and BPD was the eventual diagnosis given. But until that time, I had no idea that there was a name for this thing, yet alone a pathology. I assumed it was just my own private hell.

  252. mrteebs says:

    @Gunner Q

    It is not the wife’s place to decide which orders her husband gives are legitimate. He will answer to God for what he makes you do; you will answer to God only for how well you obeyed him.

    Unless he requires her to sin, I might add. If you do not believe Acts 5:29 would apply, please elaborate.

    We are in agreement that feminism has hijacked any semblance of male authority in marriage to be instead an endless “negotiation” (read: husband caves) whenever the wife disagrees. But to remove all moral agency from a wife and insist that submission is her only responsibility – sinning notwithstanding – is a bridge too far. If this were true, then Paul’s admonition in Romans 13:1-2 to obey authority would be the end of the matter; the apostles in Acts 5:29 would have no excuse and should have obeyed the high priest and Council by stopping their proclamations of the Gospel, and let the sin be on those authorities’ heads.

    I’m talking here about a husband giving a wife a clear directive to disobey the word of God – as in “violate one of the 10 commandments for me.” She will not get off the hook on judgement day with “I was just following orders…”

    I normally agree with Cail Corishev, but in this instance, not so much. Submission and obedience are not the same thing. The apostles in Acts 5:29 were submitted to their authorities, but they did not obey them. Their submission was evident in that they were willing to pay the price of disobedience (flogging – see verse 40). Wives should rarely find themselves in the situation where submission and obedience do not align, but it can and does happen. Just as the apostles, they ought to obey God rather than men in such an instance.

    And yes, I realize this has been twisted and distorted beyond all semblance in today’s churchian culture so that the wife redefines sin to suit her desired outcome and emotions on any given day. That is not what I am talking about here. I am talking about something that clearly contravenes the Word of God.

    I take 1 Peter 3:1-2 to mean that a wife cannot opt out of submission just because her husband is an unbeliever, or just because she disagrees with him on a matter, or just because he is doing something that she knows or believes to be sinful. We are not talking about his behavior here. We are talking about her behavior – her actions. If the husband asks her to do something that is clearly sinful, then a higher authority comes into play and her actions (obedience) must consider that higher authority. She can still be submissive while disobeying in such an instance.

  253. mrteebs says:

    @greginaurora,

    I think American is objecting to the idea that material possessions never trump sex with an Alpha. I have mixed feelings about this myself. Goldiggers can be faithful if they perceive unfaithfulness will spoil the gravy train. But of course these days, that is largely a moot point. Unfaithfulness by a female rarely results in any loss of privilege – merely a momentary switchover to the alternate mechanisms (alimony / child support) that ensure it keeps flowing undiminished.

  254. Mark says:

    @IBB

    “”She’s look at me and say something completely off the wall like… “ummm, that hotel, did you ever f-ck your ex-GF in that hotel?!?!?!” “”

    Yes I have!……and that is “ex-gf’s” plural…and most of their friends!….WTF IS YOUR POINT?

    @greginaurora

    Would that be Aurora,Ontario?

    @Boxer & greyghost

    Got sent these two links by a friend.Thought everyone here might like.70%????…..WOW!…..just like the “grass eaters” in Japan! MGTOW is working! I this from a Christian pal of mine at the Church I attend.From the “Beverley LaHaye Institute”????????? Comments are great!

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/bachelor-nation-70-men-aged-20-34-are-not-married

    I love this one.It should be re-titled “My single life sucks”…..Lmao! Comments are great!

    http://elitedaily.com/dating/men-pssies-women-need-start-asking-men-dates/746965/

    As usual,always late to the party.I want to wish everyone here a very happy Easter Weekend!

  255. Opus says:

    @Boxer

    Pride is an interesting word and so far as I can see those who assert their pride (such as the gays – patting themselves on the back for being queer) are using the word to hide what they really feel, namely shame. If being homosexual were perfectly normal no one would mention it any more than I might draw attention to my feeling of pride for eating food or breathing air. Feelings are hopelessly over-rated.

  256. Just as the apostles, they ought to obey God rather than men in such an instance.

    That sounds great. But how does she know when her understanding of God’s commands should trump her husband’s, when the man God gave her as her spiritual head is the one telling her she’s wrong?

    Husband: I want you to do X.
    Wife: I think that violates the Yth Commandment.
    Husband: No, I’ve prayed on it and thought about it, and it doesn’t. You’re wrong, and I expect you to obey me and do it.

    Now what? As you point out, women routinely twist this idea to suit their emotions, redefining “sin” to mean whatever it is they don’t want to do, so how is she supposed to know when she’s doing that? Rebellious women don’t think they’re being rebellious; they think they have valid objections based on “obvious” sinful commands. Her husband, her spiritual head, is telling her she’s doing that. How does she know? That’s not a rhetorical question; there really needs to be an answer if we’re going to concede wives a veto based on it.

    If you say, “Well, sometimes it really is obvious,” that means she, not her husband, ultimately owns headship over herself. And maybe that’s for the best in that case: if a man orders his wife to kill their child (for instance), maybe he shouldn’t have headship over anyone. But let’s at least call it what it is. When that woman refuses, she’s not saying, “I’ll obey you in all things except this.” She’s saying, “I withdraw my vow to love, honor, and obey you, because I no longer consider you my spiritual head.” I wouldn’t blame her for that, honestly, but that’s not the same thing as saying wives get a conscience clause.

    We get hung up on the extreme, “obvious” cases, but you can see in this thread how quickly the same notion gets applied to less obvious cases in real life. One woman who considers herself obedient thinks her understanding of God’s wishes on modesty trumps her husband’s. When challenged, look how quickly she dug in her heels and started obfuscating. Her position boiled down to, “I always obey my husband as long as I agree with him or can get him to change his mind and agree with me.” Well, duh, don’t all women do that — and children and dogs too, for that matter? That’s hardly an Abrahamic level of faith and obedience to brag about there.

  257. Dalrock, sorry, I screwed up the HTML on my last comment, should be a blockquote just on the first paragraph.

  258. @Cail
    “We get hung up on the extreme, “obvious” cases, but you can see in this thread how quickly the same notion gets applied to less obvious cases in real life. One woman who considers herself obedient thinks her understanding of God’s wishes on modesty trumps her husband’s. When challenged, look how quickly she dug in her heels and started obfuscating. Her position boiled down to, “I always obey my husband as long as I agree with him or can get him to change his mind and agree with me.” Well, duh, don’t all women do that — and children and dogs too, for that matter? That’s hardly an Abrahamic level of faith and obedience to brag about there.”

    I wasn’t trying to brag about my “level” faith and obedience, and I’m sorry if it came across that way.
    Truth be told, I am still learning a lot about submission (obviously!) and what that means in marriage. The last thing I am trying to say is that my attitude and actions should be an example for other women – I’m still learning, still putting it into practice, after years of “pretending” I was a submissive wife. (And I realise you and some others would still say I am pretending because I am not adhering to your definition of submission).

    When it came to the bra issue, it wasn’t so much that I was trying to get him to agree with me. More that I was trying to explain to him a perspective he might not have considered.

    We have this issue this modesty often in our house.
    “Honey, do you think this shirt is appropriate to wear out?”
    “Well, I like it.”
    “Yes, but WHY do you like it?”
    “Because it makes your boobs look big…oh… maybe you shouldn’t wear it out.”
    He regularly doesn’t think about other men might view me.

    And it wasn’t like he issued a command – “From now on, you must not wear a bra.”
    I was telling him how uncomfortable they are, and he said something like, “Well, don’t wear one then! I’d like that better anyway…”. And then I explained the modesty issue to him.

    But what you say about getting caught up in the big issues does make me consider… would I have submitted if he still said, “I don’t think you should wear a bra”? Perhaps not. And that is something I need to work on.

    You say my position boiled down to, “I always obey my husband as long as I agree with him or can get him to change his mind and agree with me.”
    That is plainly false. You are watering down my position to prove your point.
    What I said was, I submit to my husband unless he blatantly asks me to sin.
    There are many times I submit to my husband in things I don’t agree with. Many times. These are either grey areas of sin (matters of conscience – where the Bible is unclear) or simply matters of wisdom (which choice is better?).
    I have not at any point had to refuse to submit to an obvious sinful demand, and I don’t expect I will ever have to, as my husband is a believer.
    Ironically, the times I have failed to submit (see above – still learning here!) are over the silly, trivial things. In many ways, rebellion is a habit, and it takes work to undo.
    I am working on cultivating a whole attitude of submission to my husband. A whole attitude towards him that says, “YES!”.

  259. (My husband heard my writing that and said, “it sounds like you’re furiously typing an essay over there!”. I said someone had twisted my words, and I was simply trying to untwist them. He told me not to get too angry. I didn’t sound angry, did I?)

  260. S. Chan says:

    The discussion about declining marriage rates seems misguided. Among people with a college education, marriage rates are holding up, perhaps even slightly increasing. The decrease in marriage rates is among people without college education.

    There is a book about this: Our Kids by Robert Putnam. It was published a couple months ago, and has been widely and positively reviewed.

    The reason for the decline among non-college-educated people does not seem to be agreed upon. Could someone shed some light on this?

  261. SS, no, you don’t sound angry. You sound like you’re seriously trying to get a grip on this, like all of us. But I didn’t twist your words; I interpreted them in light of the bigger picture.

    As I’ve said before: imagine “wifely submission” as a number on a scale where 0 is full rebellion and wife-rule and 100 is blind obedience. I’d like to see that number move higher. Maybe it’d never get to 100, and that might be okay; but right now it’s about 10 (not yours personally, in society as a whole), and there’s no way that’s scriptural, nor will it sustain a civilization.

    There’s nothing wrong with a wife gracefully telling her husband her concerns, and if she can change his mind by giving him a perspective he hadn’t thought of (as opposed to wearing him down or backing him off with a threat-point), fine. Any decent husband wants his wife’s feedback; he didn’t marry her just for her body. We’re really not talking about that. We’re talking about when that discussion is over, you haven’t come to agreement, and he says, “I want you to do this, and as the spiritual head you vowed to obey, I’m telling you it’s not a sin.” What do you do? If you refuse, how can you do that without saying your spiritual understanding is superior to his and outranks his whenever you say so? Who is the head when things get tricky?

    One thing we should keep in mind: women aren’t born with husbands. If a woman doesn’t trust a man well enough to be sure he’s never going to say, “I want you to break the Sixth Commandment,” she shouldn’t marry him. If she doesn’t have enough faith in God to say, “Okay, obedience is scary, but I’m going to trust that You will not allow my Vow in Your Name to be used to make me sin,” then maybe she shouldn’t marry anyone. That is an option, after all.

  262. Mulier says:

    As far as I can tell, the only thing seriouslyserving did incorrectly was how she initially described the bra situation. “Refuse to budge” does sound rebellious. His initial suggestion, though, was not an order, and there’s nothing unsubmissive about pointing out that going braless in public might be a spectacle.

    I liked Sarah’s Daughter’s comments on submission, and she is right that you should trust your husband’s judgment on these issues over the random comments you may get here, especially since unmarried men usually have stricter opinions on submission than married men. As long as your husband is pleased, then you’re heading in the right direction. Also, Sarah’s Daughter’s examples of submitting with trepidation only to find out that her husband was right all along is extremely common. You really are perfectly safe trusting in God, prayer, and your husband.

    And even when it turns out that he was wrong, which happens sometimes too, your silent, pleasant submission will almost always so move him that he becomes appreciative in the moment and more discerning in the future.

    If you run into one of the real exceptions, like abortion or adultery, then tell him that you cannot do as he commands but you accept his authority to impose consequences for your refusal. It’s not perfect submission but it’s not total rebellion either. Also, this will never happen to you except in the realm of internet hypotheticals!

  263. The idea of only obeying a husband if the wife thinks it’s a “Godly” command is that eventually it places her in the position of judge over his thoughts, motives and actions. Bad news.

    Consider Romans 14. Paul uses two examples, one is which day is observed as the Sabbath and the other being eating of meat sacrificed to idols (the butcher industry at the time). Those were examples but the issue was faith, with the result being that which is not of faith is sin. That’s the ultimate loophole for the wife who can claim that while there is no direct or even indirect commandment from the Word, it doesn’t matter because it offends her conscience.

    Consider the wife who was brought up with the (very) traditional teaching of the church, that sex is only for procreation (not for recreation) and is an unfortunately necessary procedure that must be endured in order to be fruitful and multiply in accordance with the command. This doctrine (held by the RCC for over 1000 years) is at absolute odds with 1st Corinthians 7:4, but that won’t matter to the wife who prefers to side with the “teachings of the church” because it gives her what she wants.

    Ephesians 5:22-24 is quite specific: The authority of the husband over the wife is the same as that of Christ over the church. In other words, it isn’t limited. To say the wife is required to obey the husband in everything except *that* is to say that the church is required to obey Christ in everything except *that*. Yet, we see in this thread the attempt to insert a *that* by the resort to absurdity (violation of commandment X) when anyone who has observed wives and their tendency toward rebellion knows that examples of the husband ordering the wife to violate God’s word are basically non-existent.

    Another form of rebellion is for the wife to demand an explanation of *why* the husband wants her to do X, Y or Z. This is the wife attempting to judge the motives of the husband. Look carefully at the Bible and one sees that seldom (if ever) does the Lord give explanations. He commands and that should be enough for His servants. Why is that not good enough for wives? They like to say “because you aren’t Jesus!” but the reality is Ephesians 5:22-24 doesn’t have a qualifier in the text. This is reinforced by 1st Peter 3:1. An adulterous husband is certainly not in obedience to the Word, but the wife is told to submit to him anyway.

    SS’s example of her husband suggesting she go bra-less is an interesting example. Note that she asked why he wanted her to do that. Does it matter? Maybe he wants easier access for an occasional grope without the bra in the way (Proverbs 5:19). The modesty issue is an issue of the heart. It’s one thing for a wife to want to go bra-less because she desires the attention of other men, it’s quite another thing for her husband to desire she go bra-less because that’s what he wants. For the wife, the first is a modesty issue and the second is an obedience issue.

    But, in all fairness, most conservative women have an emotional connection with their bra and feel self-conscious and vulnerable without one. Maybe after they’ve nursed a few children and the breasts droop without a bra. Maybe the headlights have really noticeable high-beams when things get chilled. Maybe they’re big enough that not wearing a bra will generate some attention from other men (unwanted attention). All these are causes of anxiety that men can understand, but does anxiety on the part of the wife equate to sinfulness?

    Lets try it from the other direction (heh) and see how it works. Husband and wife arrive at restaurant, wife is wearing a knee-length skirt and conservative blouse. While waiting to be seated, wife gets up to go to the ladies room. Husband motions her over, gives her a smirk and says “When you’re done, take off your panties and put them in your purse”

    What are the odds she refuses?
    Could this be considered sinfulness on his part (if so, how)?

    Seems to me that sometimes Christ requires us to do things that we don’t want to do because it requires us to step outside our comfort zone. Husbands can be the same way with wives.

  264. Minesweeper says:

    @mrteebs
    very similar experience to yourself with BPD high functioning ex-wife. Thing is, to me now the whole concept how a marriage (or even relationship) could possibly work is completely out of the window – I have quite literally no idea anymore, even after a LTR with last gf (non-BPD) it was amazing but still. You seem to have retained some ability to still see how a marriage could function.

    How did you get there ? Like you I’ve read and understood the sh1t our of everything, any pointers ?

  265. Dave says:

    On another note, does anyone notice that men’s refusal to engage in Marriage 2.0 might be biting really hard? Just this past week, a colleague invited me to an informal roundtable with several female professional graduate students who were genuinely concerned that they could not find people to date and eventually marry. These were very attractive and highly intelligent women, all in their 20’s. One even expressed an appreciation for a recent date who called her rather than texting. In her words, the bar has now been lowered to ridiculous level, when a call from a date is actually considered unusual.
    Although I tried to drop a few redpill wisdom for them, for the most part, they were too far invested in their “standards” to really catch what I was saying. Only one of them seemed to be practical, and to see things from a male perspective (she just got out of a long-term relationship, and she was about hitting the big 30 soon). Even then, she could not seem to grasp why men simply won’t play this tired game anymore.
    My friend who invited me was grateful that his fiancee (who happens to be thoroughly domesticated) was not present to listen to the garbage spewed by these educated women.
    But the desperation was unmistakable. MGTOW is biting real hard, people.

  266. Minesweeper says:

    @Dave, thats awesome news, only because this circle has to complete before our culture can possibly hope to recover.

  267. But the desperation was unmistakable. MGTOW is biting real hard, people.

    Of course. That is because it doesn’t require any effort to participate in it. MGTOW only requires NON participation.

    In a generation-and-a-half we have dropped from a rate of 72% of all people 18 and older being married (1976) to our 49.2% rate (today.) That is not a coincidence. It is instead, men simply responding to mere disincentives.

  268. greginaurora says:

    @S. Chan

    I can offer you an opinion without any scientific evidence to support it:

    Colleges are rife with the blue-est of blue pill, and are rabidly misandrist. Normal men are no longer interested and have begun finding their own way. These natively red pill men are also not interested in marriage. And as Dave points out just above, their bite is beginning to be felt.

  269. Scott says:

    Colleges are rife with the blue-est of blue pill, and are rabidly misandrist. Normal men are no longer interested and have begun finding their own way. These natively red pill men are also not interested in marriage. And as Dave points out just above, their bite is beginning to be felt

    I THINK I have prepared my son for this. (Freshman in the fall). He is going to a very small Catholic school that no one has ever heard of. He is so red-pill now that he is recruiting his friends. (The look in those boys’ eyes when the scales come off is painful to watch. They become a little depressed at first).

    We will see.

  270. greginaurora says:

    @mrteebs

    I’ve never met Bill Gates personally and can’t vouch for where he falls on the Alpha/Beta/Omega spectrum, but I suspect that a man who built the largest fortune in the world while fighting off the competition can’t be TOO Beta. He’s definitely a hard-left Democrat, but that doesn’t say anything about how he treats his wife. He might be in command of everything in his home. Or he might be a Beta-schmo getting pegged by his wife. She might be giving herself to the gardener every afternoon while Bill is making money. I don’t know. I’ve never met them.

    But I can attest to the common culture, which is rich with stories of wives cheating on their rich Beta husbands. Not divorcing them: cheating on them. The more Beta the man, the more likely his wife is unfaithful.

    But How? Women aren’t all vow-breakers and terrible people and HOW-DARE-YOU!!!

    I’ve seen this too many times to discredit it. “It didn’t count.” She wasn’t in love; it was just once; he was totally hot but she’d never go out with him; I don’t see what the big deal is I don’t even like him; … If a woman can rationalize away the event, then as far as she’s concerned she didn’t cheat. She’s still faithful. Men are different. A man can cheat on his wife, know that he’s cheating, know that it’s just sex and he’s not leaving his wife, and walk away from the affair with no effect on his marriage. A woman can’t. If she’s cheating at all, she’s already torn between her now-two men. “Which one does she love?” She can’t walk away unaffected… unless it never happened in the first place. BAM! The hamster erases her memory. It didn’t count. The man would remember the sex with the other woman AND still love his wife. The woman chooses whom she loves and never thinks about anyone else.

    You know how to tell if she chose the other man? She might not be planning a divorce soon, but there’s still a tell. When she doesn’t want to have sex with her husband anymore, then she’s chosen another man for her love. There are other reasons for that, to be sure, but an abrupt end to what was otherwise a regular sex-life means she’s in love with another man.

    But back to Bill Gates. I don’t know the man. He can’t be TOO Beta, or he’d never have been able to fight to the top of the pack. I think he looks like a schmo, but under-estimation of a rival is a deadly miscalculation. If he’s nothing more than not-supplicating, his wife is going to stay faithful.

    But tossing him into the argument is disingenuous. A man is “rich” with a million dollars. Comparing a “rich” man whose wealth was inherited, or who saved every penny for forty years while eating canned beans and never leaving the house, these men aren’t the same. One built a fortune and an industry, the other has lots of money and nothing worth living for. If a woman married our inherited wealth rich-man, she may expect him to behave like Bill Gates only to find that he behaves like Buster Bluth (Arrested Development). Money is not an indicator of Alphatude.

  271. greginaurora says:

    @Scott
    You mentioned your profession above, and I was lining up for something nearly identical. But studying Psychology in San Francisco set me down in an environment too hostile to keep me with my goals. I think at one point I’d said to myself, “If I finish, I’ll make a career out of helping these people. But I don’t want to help them. They’re miserable. Good. They’ve earned it.”

  272. Dave says:

    Seems to me that sometimes Christ requires us to do things that we don’t want to do because it requires us to step outside our comfort zone. Husbands can be the same way with wives.

    I think we need to tread carefully there. While the relationship between the man and his wife is likened to that of Christ and the Church, it might be a bit too much to compare the man with Christ. For one, man is fallible and imperfect; Christ is infallible and perfect. Christ can never ask the church to do sinful things; a man can ask his wife to do sinful things.
    It is on record that some men have asked their wives to engage in certain clearly sinful activities for whatever reason (e.g. lie to the church or the government, or cheat on taxes). The case of Ananias and Sapphira comes readily to mind. The couple “agreed together to lie to the Holy Spirit” (Acts 5:9) and were both instantly killed. I would imagine that had the wife refused to go along, even if she did not report to any authority, her life would have been spared.
    Where the husband asks the wife to commit clearly sinful acts, she owes it to him, to herself and to her God to refuse to do so. Obedience in such a situation would be akin to foolishness, which God will definitely not reward. However, where the Scripture is not clear, she must trust her husband’s judgement. That makes a lot more sense. Where her husband’s orders violate God’s clear commands, she must disobey.

  273. BradA says:

    I may have skipped some responses, but too little time to read them all now.

    Take a thought experiment:

    – A husband commands his wife to aid him in sexually abusing your minor child. Is she guiltless?

    Some would be arguing that based on their stand.

    SD,

    The example of your aging father is errant. We are commanded to honor our parents, not to take care of their every stupidity. There is no sin refusing to take care of his apostate wife, who you imply would be part of the package of having him live with you. You would thus have no Biblical grounds for rejecting your husband’s direction in that.

    You would have Biblical grounds for the example I gave, though I do not see your husband ever pushing that.

    ====

    The only tougher issue is the one of Sarah obeying Abram (I believe that is what he was at the time). Her obedience was to the technical truth, even though it was leading to something stupid.

    She was also the one who told Abraham to take her maid and then blamed him for doing so, so she is not spotless nor was he. We need to watch drawing a blanket assertion to do wickedness.

    We also need to use wisdom, a clear admonition throughout the Scriptures. We are told to obey those in authority, yet the Apostles blatantly disobeyed those in authority when they were commanded to stop preaching about Jesus. The exact same principle would seem to apply to other authority relationships, including marriage. That does not justify stretching it beyond reasonableness, as some have done today.

    Gunner Q,

    Truth remains truth whether people misuse it or not. Society abuses many things today, but that does not make the core principles wrong. It only makes the society wrong.

  274. BradA says:

    Minesweeper,

    “BradA says:I am not sure the argument you are trying to make Minesweeper, ”

    Rubbish, you know full well. I wasn’t engaging you on this either in this thread. I will debate anyone to the ends on what a correct translation is. You are coming from a faulty translation of certain key passages which have been taken as gospel by the current Christian culture and are used by Christian feminists to justify fraudulent divorce. This is an evil that has to be addressed.

    I didn’t know you gained the ability to read minds.

    I think I know what you are saying, but your accusation doesn’t fit reality. Try again.

    Wallowing in sexual fantasies is not good for anyone. I will stand by that as a full Scriptural principle. The link given was light on true facts and just lots of his own justification if that is the position you are taking. You and he wouldn’t be the first to substitute carnal desires for solid Biblical principles though.

  275. BradA says:

    Brad ” Paul would not have written that it was better to marry than to burn (with passion)”

    And Paul is right, do you think its the same to “burn with passion” as it is to have a sexual fantasy about someone ?

    Exactly how is engaging in mental fantasies (likely along with masturbation) not burning with passion?

  276. Scott says:

    You mentioned your profession above, and I was lining up for something nearly identical. But studying Psychology in San Francisco set me down in an environment too hostile to keep me with my goals. I think at one point I’d said to myself, “If I finish, I’ll make a career out of helping these people. But I don’t want to help them. They’re miserable. Good. They’ve earned it.”

    I went to graduate school in the bay area. It was rough. It was during that time that I worked in the environment that produced this story:

    http://courtshippledge.com/2014/05/the-story-of-jim/

    I went from being a garden variety conservative (my vehicle with the Bush/Cheney 04 sticker was vandalized BECAUSE of the sticker) to right-libertarian to whatever it is I am identified as now in about an 8 year period.

    I have been accused ot “hate speech” and “rasing [my] kids to be bigots” by my old classmates and current practitioners in the last few years since I blog in the open.

    I am currently trying to figure out how to be unplugged from the matrix and practice ethically. There are only 2 of us (“red-pill” mental health providers) that I am aware of, in the entire world. “Pukeko” is the other one. He is a psychiatrist in New Zealand.

    I am sure there are others, but for obvious reasons they are scared to come out.

    Lonley world.

  277. BradA says:

    Empath,

    No disrespect nor anything short of sympathy if youve had difficultly with the condition in your family but your 4 make the sample size now 16 kids, there were 12 in the study that started the hysteria.

    Appeals to emotion like the provocative, “pumping babies full of drugs”, are not forensically serious.

    I just know the outcomes can be real, though our children had plenty of other challenges and I would not solely blame immunizations. I just note that claims a tie is completely ludicrous are usually made by those with no experience in the area.

    Have you ever looked at the number of shots given to very young children. It is not trivial. That is my point and it remains quite valid.

    I am not a fanatic on it, just a hard core skeptic. I also know that big Pharma makes lots of money from them and is completely shielded from responsibility, so I “follow the money” in many considerations of the topic.

  278. BradA says:

    I would ask:

    How many people have died recently because they didn’t have a vaccination? How many have died from the vaccination?

    I do not believe we have had any deaths from even the worst non-vaccine scare stories, yet we have had them from bad reactions to vaccines. Perhaps something is being overlooked….

  279. Scott,

    http://courtshippledge.com/2014/05/the-story-of-jim/

    My nextdoor neighbor is a cop. I once showed him your story of jim when you posted it before and the cop said to me the same thing I am going to say to you, “It doesn’t matter…. the cops were called and someone is exiting that building.” He admitted to me that she over-reacted calling them in, but that is it. That is the world we have created for ourselves and the cops don’t like it anymore than you and I do. But they are told to do exactly what you have in your story of Jim. They are not permitted to think it through.

  280. @Dave
    Where the husband asks the wife to commit clearly sinful acts, she owes it to him, to herself and to her God to refuse to do so. Obedience in such a situation would be akin to foolishness, which God will definitely not reward. However, where the Scripture is not clear, she must trust her husband’s judgement. That makes a lot more sense. Where her husband’s orders violate God’s clear commands, she must disobey.

    Herein lies the rub. Who decides what sin is?

    The answer is both simple and complex. First, God’s Law laid out what sin is for everyone. Beyond that (with the arrival of the Holy Spirit), on an individual basis that which is not of faith is sin and to not do that which you know to be right is sin. The key to the second part is the individual decision.

    It was not given to various groups, synods, councils, patriarchs and popes the authority to declare something a sin for all of Christendom. Morality is not determined by democracy.

    This issue is much easier to grasp if you take a Covenant model of Theology rather than a dispensational view. God created three Covenant entities: The family, the state and the church. Within the family the authority of the husband is supreme with respect to ruling his own home. Yet, he is still to abide by God’s Word and be obedient to God. However, as a separate covenant entity, neither the church or the state were given authority to regulate his authority within the home.

    A classic example of the Church doing just that involves the Church claiming the authority to dictate internal policy within the home to the point of claiming the right to regulate the marital bed. God only placed two restrictions on the marital bed: no sexytime when she’s on her period (unclean) and for 40 days after the birth of a boy and eighty days after the birth of a girl. Nothing else. This is not that difficult to understand, people just don’t want to admit it.

    I can think of quite a few areas in which there are no “clear commandments of God” and more than a few in which common understanding and church doctrine are contrary to the Word of God. Throughout history people have jumped through hoops to call sin the things that God never condemned or prohibited; while at the same time they struggled to justify and allow the things God forbid. Nothing has changed.

  281. Minesweeper says:

    @bradA
    Thanks for getting back tome, I appreciate your reply.

    “I didn’t know you gained the ability to read minds.”
    There is alot you don’t know about me Brad.🙂

    “Wallowing in sexual fantasies is not good for anyone. I will stand by that as a full Scriptural principle. The link given was light on true facts and just lots of his own justification if that is the position you are taking. You and he wouldn’t be the first to substitute carnal desires for solid Biblical principles though.”

    Before we go through this, can I ask you a question ?

    Have you ever felt lust\sexual attraction towards your wife ?

  282. Minesweeper says:

    @IBB
    ““It doesn’t matter…. the cops were called and someone is exiting that building.” He admitted to me that she over-reacted calling them in, but that is it. That is the world we have created for ourselves and the cops don’t like it anymore than you and I do. ”

    I call BS on that one, male cops LOVE IT, LOVE IT when they can white knight on some poor chumps ass, the satisfaction males get from whooping some slub over a female accusation is really quite damming.

    All males suffer from this affliction. You’d better pray you get a female cop who knows just how much females are full of sh1t in that situation or (in the words of Lt. Vincent Hanna (Al Pacino)) motherfucker – you are going down.

  283. I call BS on that one, male cops LOVE IT, LOVE IT when they can white knight on some poor chumps ass, the satisfaction males get from whooping some slub over a female accusation is really quite damming.

    Quite often the cops don’t believe there was any domestic violence. The problem is they are not permitted to think in these situations. You are expecting them to use their heads and see the situation for what it is instead of what they must do to be in coplyiance with law enforcement policy. Thomas Ball (in his manifesto) referred to these insane, non-thinking policies, as the “second set of books.”

  284. Minesweeper says:

    Brad!
    “Exactly how is engaging in mental fantasies (likely along with masturbation) not burning with passion?”

    If you need to ask, then you just don’t know.

  285. Scott says:

    I call BS on that one, male cops LOVE IT, LOVE IT when they can white knight on some poor chumps ass

    This is kind of what I was getting at in my point # 3 near the bottom of the original article:

    3.Police officers (mostly men) whose greatest kryptonite is a weeping woman in the corner. All men dream of saving the damsel in distress, and they get paid to do exactly that.

  286. But studying Psychology in San Francisco set me down in an environment too hostile to keep me with my goals.

    One therapist told me that she won’t take on more than one BPD client at a time, because dealing with them and keeping them from twisting your reality is so emotionally and mentally taxing. (I actually went for a while mainly because I was dealing with a BPD on a near-daily basis, and it helped to have someone to bounce my thoughts off of and assure me that I wasn’t crazy.)

  287. Minesweeper says:

    @IBB, “Quite often the cops don’t believe there was any domestic violence. The problem is they are not permitted to think in these situations.”

    Come on, a police force of 80%+ male cops, and NOT ONE, ONE has the balls to say, nah, this is bull ?

    They are in full compliance with it, they may not agree with it, may not like it. But they are fully compliant and enjoy the satisfaction of executing it.

    Do you really think they would behave this way if the ordinance was turned around ? Think male cops could arrest scores of females on false accusations and be content about it ?

  288. Dave says:

    How many people have died recently because they didn’t have a vaccination? How many have died from the vaccination?

    I do not believe we have had any deaths from even the worst non-vaccine scare stories, yet we have had them from bad reactions to vaccines. Perhaps something is being overlooked….

    Don’t even go there, Brad. Nonvaccination of kids is a big no-no. Frankly, I would advocate that parents who fail or refuse to vaccinate their kids be prosecuted.
    Medical science is overwhelming in its support of vaccination.
    Whew! Have you ever seen a case of paralytic polio? Yep, it’s a form of permanent paralysis where a leg becomes so thin it cannot easily support the weight of the person. In some cases, the affected person is permanently in a wheechair. This is caused by a virus, and is easily prevented by a simple vaccine.
    And how about tuberculosis? It is a vicious disease that used to ravage the third world. Vaccine was one of the core measures which made it rare to come by today. And how about hepatitis? And the flu? And Pneumococcus vaccines?

    What you believe does not matter Brad; it’s objective data that matters. People die everyday from lack of vaccination far more than they die from being vaccinated.
    Listen to the CDC:

    CDC estimates that from the 1976-1977 season to the 2006-2007 flu season, flu-associated deaths ranged from a low of about 3,000 to a high of about 49,000 people. Death certificate data and weekly influenza virus surveillance information was used to estimate how many flu-related deaths occurred among people whose underlying cause of death was listed as respiratory or circulatory disease on their death certificate.

    See what widespread vaccination did to polio in the US:
    http://vaccines.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=005964

    And what about pertusis, another deadly vaccine-responsive disease?
    See WebMD here:
    http://www.webmd.com/children/vaccines/features/california-whooping-cough-epidemic

  289. Minesweeper says:

    @Cail Corishev says:”One therapist told me that she won’t take on more than one BPD client at a time, because dealing with them and keeping them from twisting your reality is so emotionally and mentally taxing.”

    Its heartening to hear that even therapists need help when dealing with the gravitational reality lensing capability of BPD’s. Spare a thought for those who were married to them.

  290. Minesweeper

    Lust is a desire for something that cannot be legitimately obtained. Ergo, while you can lust after your neighbor’s wife, you cannot lust after your own wife. The neighbor’s wife cannot be legitimately obtained so that’s lust. Your desire for your wife is not only legitimate but practically commanded (proverbs 5:19).

    The unmarried young man with a strong sexual attraction toward an unmarried young woman is not lusting because he can legitimately obtain her by marrying her. Compare this with Romans 1:27, in which the men are burning with lust for one another (homosexuality is prohibited and condemned, therefore illegitimate).

    Lust is also closely associated with covetousness. You cannot covet that which you already possess (a wife) or that which doesn’t belong to anyone else (the maiden)…

  291. JDG says:

    Frankly, I would advocate that parents who fail or refuse to vaccinate their kids be prosecuted.

    What is wrong with you? Are you really a Christian?

  292. JDG says:

    Frankly, I recommend that any government that sticks it’s nose that far into any man’s family affairs be toppled.

  293. Minesweeper says:

    @Artisanal Toad: “The unmarried young man with a strong sexual attraction toward an unmarried young woman is not lusting because he can legitimately obtain her by marrying her. Compare this with Romans 1:27, in which the men are burning with lust for one another (homosexuality is prohibited and condemned, therefore illegitimate).

    Lust is also closely associated with covetousness. You cannot covet that which you already possess (a wife) or that which doesn’t belong to anyone else (the maiden)”

    You are partially right in some things, our translations have selected lust rather than covetousness for these text’s which has led to huge confusion and almost the creation of a new religion – feminist Churchianity.

    Note in Rm 1:23+, the sin is idolitary, the punishment was God inflaming straight people to become gay. Its not a burn the homo’s to the ground text. It’s a warning to what will befall those who are straight who languish into idolitary.

  294. Dave

    As a former member of the drug development industry I can say with certainty that you don’t have sufficient facts to draw a reasonable conclusion, much less to make statements like these:

    1. Frankly, I would advocate that parents who fail or refuse to vaccinate their kids be prosecuted.
    2. Medical science is overwhelming in its support of vaccination.

    You used polio as part of your argument, so I’ll just point out that the polio vaccine was absolutely not necessary. Why? Because in 1948, in the small North Carolina town of Reidsville, Dr Fred Klenner discovered a cure for polio. There was an epidemic of polio and he was presented with 60 patients. He CURED all of them within 4 to 5 days using nothing more than very high doses of intravenous sodium ascorbate (Vitamin C titrated with sodium hydroxide to adjust the ph).

    His discovery was published in the July 1949 edition of the Southern Journal of Medicine and Surgery. The medical establishment responded with *crickets* Yawn, no news here folks, move along.

    Not knowing how the drug development industry works, you don’t understand why the FDA, AMA and NIH couldn’t be bothered to even acknowledge that incredible discovery. You see, one cannot patent a vitamin and one cannot reap obscene profits from a vitamin. If you ever saw someone in an Iron Lung, in all likelihood they contracted the disease during that ten year period after the cure was discovered but before old JS developed his vaccine. God is just, though, and Saulk gave away the patent, making it public domain.

    That move resulted in an industry-wide meeting in the mid-1960’s that had representatives from every major pharmaceutical manufacturer as well as most of the minor ones. The meeting was chaired by a former head of the FDA. The goal was to ensure that there would never again be another Jonas Saulk and model contracts were developed that ensured that the corporation owned the work of any scientist they employed. There was later a federal restraint of trade investigation as a result of that meeting, but that’s another story.

    Do you want to mention smallpox? You cannot show me a single verified study that definitively proves the vector of transmission for smallpox. The literature is filled with speculation, but at the end of the day NOBODY has ever proved what the vector of transmission for smallpox is. There is an enormous body of evidence (completely ignored) that the bedbug is the vector of transmission. This matches the facts of the WHO effort to eradicate smallpox, because not only did teams go in to vaccinate, but they were accompanied by sanitation crews who taught the people how to maintain sanitary conditions in the home and while doing so *sprayed the hell out of everything with DDT* which killed the bedbugs and *PRESTO* no more smallpox.

    Dave, vaccines are cash cows and it’s a numbers game. There is also a growing concensus in other first-world countries that common childhood pathologies such as measles and chicken pox are actually good for the immune system later in life as an adult. Google “Germany measles party.”

    Doctors are only taught what the medical industry wants them to be taught. Same with the dental industry. Did you know that back in the 1970’s a dentist in Michigan developed a method for the teeth to heal their own cavities? It’s true. After he started to publicize it the dental board destroyed his practice and ran him out. Why? Because it’s all about money and if everyone knows how to heal their own cavities and keep their mouths and teeth healthy it destroys the entire dental industry.

    Why is it that only 30% of the world’s medical literature is in MedLine?

    I have seen people with Parkinson’s disease get into a hyperbaric chamber and two hours later they got out and were able to walk and talk again. I have seen people cured of cancer with intravenous sodium ascorbate. I have seen cases of severe atherosclerosis that was cleared up within six months by multiple rounds of EDTA chelation therapy. I also know a former doctor who lost his license because he used these therapies with his patients. The medical board wasn’t interested in hearing testimony from his patients, only government investigators. You see, the efficacy of the treatment was irrelevant.

    Final point: Stanislaw Burzinski. He’s had a cure for some of the most radical brain tumors (that typically occur in children) in clinical trials for over 25 years. I had an FDA agent tell me to my face that Burzinski would never receive a drug license for his Antineoplastin compound, for three reasons.
    1. It’s as safe as water and no LD-50 can be shown.
    2. Everybody agrees that it works, but he can’t explain exactly how it works.

    With those two, he admitted that adding a slightly toxic substance that would allow demonstration of an LD-50 would overcome the first objection and the second objection could be overlooked in light of the severity of the problem (the patient has about a 100% chance of dying anyway), but the third reason was the kiss of death:

    3. Stanislaw Burzinski and his wife own the patents personally, and it is the policy of the FDA that no drug license will be issued to an individual. Period. No matter how good it is or how great the need.

    I have seen too many instances of effective compounds removed from the market by regulatory fiat at the same time (Surprise, surprise, surprise!) a new compound with less efficacy got approved. Organidin comes to mind, manufactured by Carter Wallace. If your kid has asthma, your best bet is to buy Organidin in Europe and have it shipped to your place because you can no longer buy it in the US.

    You won’t find this in MedLine, Dave. These are the stories one picks up working in the industry for years and listening to the testimony and observations of other scientists.

  295. jsr says:

    @AT

    Curious if you’ve encountered any underground cures for asthma or osteochondritis dissecans.

  296. JDG says:

    AT – The corruption has no bounds.

  297. Minesweeper says:

    @AT, awesome post ! I can fully believe everything you have said. As one who got almost totalled by the “industry” I can ascertain, no cheap as chips cure will ever make the doctors rounds. I don’t know how far you have got into knowing whats going on, but it seems that the dental industry is providing 80% of the patients to the allopathic industry (according to the best dentists on the planet). Neither of which are able (nor want) to acknowledge just how symbiotic their relationship is, unintentional or otherwise.

  298. Dave says:

    Frankly, I would advocate that parents who fail or refuse to vaccinate their kids be prosecuted.

    What is wrong with you? Are you really a Christian?

    Yes I really am. What were you trying to say?

    Frankly, I recommend that any government that sticks it’s nose that far into any man’s family affairs be toppled.

    Family affairs? Really? Is it your right to infect my kids with a disease which you could easily have prevented through vaccination?
    Or, take it another way: would you be OK if my kid got your kid infected with a potentially fatal illness just because I refused vaccination?
    Fact is, any parent who refuses vaccination for their kids should not object if their kids were quarantined from other kids.

  299. Minesweeper says:

    “Or, take it another way: would you be OK if my kid got your kid infected with a potentially fatal illness just because I refused vaccination?”
    What would be the problem again if my kid is already vaccinated ?

  300. JDG says:

    Dave – Yes I really am. What were you trying to say?

    I’m trying to figure out what kind of a Christian can advocate the prosecution of other Christians for not believing the hype that you believe. Even if it were true, it should be up to the head of the house as to whether to vaccinate his own kids, not the government.

    Family affairs? Really? Is it your right to infect my kids with a disease which you could easily have prevented through vaccination?

    Just because you say the vaccination would have prevented it doesn’t make it so. Would you have the government prosecute Christian parents who don’t believe what you do concerning vaccines?

    What about those who trust God and aren’t as trusting of modern medicine as you are? Is it not up to them to decide what happens, or are you one of those who believe the government really owns your children and you just get to raise them until you step out of line with the latest trend in modern “morality”?

    By the way, I have no objection with you quarantining your kids from others whose parents you disagree with.

  301. Dave

    If the purpose of vaccination is to prevent the vaccinated child from getting the disease, why are you afraid of the unvaccinated child? Your kids should be safe, right? The logic of your assertion is that only the *unvaccinated* children are at risk. If this is the case, why would you worry about unvaccinated kids? After all, you’re shooting your kids full of every dose of monkey puss, horse-piss and aborted fetal cells that is the vaccination industry flavor of the day.

    Either you can agree with that statement or you should admit that the vaccination doesn’t work as advertised. However, it sounds like your belief and confidence in vaccines is that of blind ignorance rather than informed evaluation.

  302. Dave says:

    Dr Fred Klenner discovered a cure for polio

    That is hilarious. Cure for polio? I seriously can’t contain my laughter. If indeed there was a cure for polio do you think the dear doctor would need the approval of the FDA to make it available to people in the third world?

    …you don’t understand why the FDA, AMA and NIH couldn’t be bothered to even acknowledge that incredible discovery…

    It’s like cure for AIDS; it does not exist, and the FDA does not need to acknowledge a nonexistent cure.

    Do you want to mention smallpox? You cannot show me a single verified study that definitively proves the vector of transmission for smallpox.

    Actually, I can show you tons of studies that prove that smallpox is caused by the Pox virus called Variola. There is no speculation about this at all, so I don’t know where you got your story from.

    Dave, vaccines are cash cows and it’s a numbers game. There is also a growing concensus in other first-world countries that common childhood pathologies such as measles and chicken pox are actually good for the immune system later in life as an adult.

    I bet many parents who refused vaccination for their kids also believe they were doing the right thing for those kids. Which is totally false.
    While not all vaccines may be absolutely necessary, most definitely are.

    Doctors are only taught what the medical industry wants them to be taught.
    Actually, if you understood how rigorously the doctors question everything they are taught, you would not have this idea.

    I have seen people with Parkinson’s disease get into a hyperbaric chamber and two hours later they got out and were able to walk and talk again. I have seen people cured of cancer with intravenous sodium ascorbate.

    Seriously, you should stop writing these types of ridiculous statements. If you had even a rudimentary knowledge of what causes Parkinson’s disease (as opposed to parkinsonism), you would never write such a thing in a public forum. I kid you not. And that piece about cancer being cured by sodium ascorbate? That is totally way out there.

    Final point: Stanislaw Burzinski. He’s had a cure for some of the most radical brain tumors (that typically occur in children) in clinical trials for over 25 years. I had an FDA agent tell me to my face that Burzinski would never receive a drug license for his Antineoplastin compound, for three reasons.
    1. It’s as safe as water and no LD-50 can be shown.
    2. Everybody agrees that it works, but he can’t explain exactly how it works.

    Really? Isn’t the guy from Poland? Why couldn’t he get his drugs to be used in his native land? After all, you couldn’t tell me the FDA is stopping him even in Poland?

    I am sorry to say, but virtually all of your assertions have no basis both in science and in facts of observation. They are nothing more than consipracy theories that could be extremely dangerous to public health. I know, because I have been actively involved with the medical profession for three decades, and my knowldge did not come from Google or Wikipedia.

  303. Dave says:

    If the purpose of vaccination is to prevent the vaccinated child from getting the disease, why are you afraid of the unvaccinated child?

    That is not how vaccines work. Most vaccines are actually a mild form of the disease which then boosts the immunity of the person being vaccinated. Over time, the effects of the vaccines tend to wane, or new strains of the infecting agents might actually mutate from the old one.

    The unvaccinated child is vulnerable to being infected with the disease which can then be transmitted to those whose immunity is waning.

    Either you can agree with that statement or you should admit that the vaccination doesn’t work as advertised.
    However, it sounds like your belief and confidence in vaccines is that of blind ignorance rather than informed evaluation.

    It is the latter rather than the former. I am as quite knowledgeable about this topic as any other well informed person. Vaccines work. Failure is often due to uncovered strains of infecting organisms, not because the “Drug industry” is trying to milk us for money.

    Each year, there are more than 100 strains of the flu viruses infecting us (some say as many as 300 strains). Vaccines are developed to prevent most of these strains. As it often turns out however, not all the strains can be prevented. Therefore, you could be vaccinated for the flu and still get the flu in any given year. But your risk is much less compared to an unvaccinated person.

  304. Dave says:

    I’m trying to figure out what kind of a Christian can advocate the prosecution of other Christians for not believing the hype that you believe.

    If a Christian were so uncharitable to knowingly cause the illness or death of another, they should be prosecuted.
    If, as a Christian, I knew that by my action, I would prevent the exposure of some kid to serious illness and death, and I refused to take such action, I should be ready to pay for my inaction in any way necessary. This is common sense.If I knew that by taking preventive measures on my car, it would work for me for a longer period of time, and I refused to take those measures, it would be foolish of me to start praying for a miracle when my car breaks down.

  305. JDG says:

    Actually, if you understood how rigorously the doctors question everything they are taught, you would not have this idea.

    I work with doctors every day. This statement is BS. They are pushing drugs with more vigor than the cocaine dealers I used to know back in my “idiot” days. Why is that? It’s certainly not because they question everything they are taught.

  306. Dave says:

    Stanislaw Burzinski and his wife own the patents personally, and it is the policy of the FDA that no drug license will be issued to an individual. Period. No matter how good it is or how great the need.

    That seems to be a new one. I have never heard before that the FDA will not issue a license to an individual who fulfills all the other conditions of a license. Even then, if the dear doctor were that smart, he would have easily created a small company (an LLC, maybe), and then applied for a license through that company. I spent approx. $300 to create mine.

  307. Gunner Q says:

    mrteebs @ 12:37 am:
    “@Gunner Q … If you do not believe Acts 5:29 would apply, please elaborate.”

    1 Corinthians 14:35 is directly relevant here. If a woman has questions about something (context being Church teachings) then she is to ask her husband. She does not decide for herself.

    “But to remove all moral agency from a wife and insist that submission is her only responsibility – sinning notwithstanding – is a bridge too far. If this were true, then Paul’s admonition in Romans 13:1-2 to obey authority would be the end of the matter; the apostles in Acts 5:29 would have no excuse and should have obeyed the high priest and Council by stopping their proclamations of the Gospel, and let the sin be on those authorities’ heads.”

    Your error is that women are not men. Women are morally inferior to men, partly because of their notorious vulnerability to deception and partly because God designed them to be servants not leaders. There is no comparison between a man disobeying another man and a wife disobeying her husband.

    A woman who judges the fitness of her husband’s leadership is called a commissar, not a wife.

    “I’m talking here about a husband giving a wife a clear directive to disobey the word of God – as in “violate one of the 10 commandments for me.” She will not get off the hook on judgement day with “I was just following orders…””

    The responsible party is the husband. He will take the full punishment. His wife, being required by God to obey him, will not be punished. Were it otherwise, she would be in the no-win situation of disobeying God by obeying her husband or disobeying God by not obeying her husband.

  308. JDG says:

    Dave – This was your quote: Frankly, I would advocate that parents who fail or refuse to vaccinate their kids be prosecuted.

    Then you say:

    If a Christian were so uncharitable to knowingly cause the illness or death of another, they should be prosecuted.
    If, as a Christian, I knew that by my action, I would prevent the exposure of some kid to serious illness and death, and I refused to take such action, I should be ready to pay for my inaction in any way necessary

    You must be a statist. That’s your choice, but to put your twist on vaccines over the well being of you brothers is lunacy. Let me guess, you would have them prosecuted for their own good. Good grief.

    Lots of Christians don’t believe as you do. They deny or at least question (as I do) the authenticity of your information. They don’t trust academics, government officials, or even those in the medical profession. Who are you to stand and accuse them of being uncharitable simply because they don’t believe you?

  309. Dave says:

    Lots of Christians don’t believe as you do. They deny or at least question (as I do) the authenticity of your information. They don’t trust academics, government officials, or even those in the medical profession. Who are you to stand and accuse them of being uncharitable simply because they don’t believe you?.

    Very well. They may choose to believe what they want. The fact though is, if by their action or inaction, they cause harm to someone else, they are liable.

  310. Dave says:

    The responsible party is the husband. He will take the full punishment. His wife, being required by God to obey him, will not be punished. Were it otherwise, she would be in the no-win situation of disobeying God by obeying her husband or disobeying God by not obeying her husband.

    This does not make any sense at all, and it is contrary to Scripture. The wife is not under any obligation to disobey God while obeying her husband. That is heresy. If a husband asks his wife to disobey God, she is not in any way obligated to obey him. Let us stop making the Bible say what it never said. Marriage is only for this world, and it should never be allowed to come between us and our eternal destinies.

    A man wants his wife to have sex with another man while he watches. Must she obey him? She must be a fool if she does.

  311. Dave says:

    I work with doctors every day. This statement is BS. They are pushing drugs with more vigor than the cocaine dealers I used to know back in my “idiot” days. Why is that? It’s certainly not because they question everything they are taught.

    Have you ever been to a doctor’s conference, where they are presented with a novel treatment? Have you been through the question and answer session, to gauge how quickly they warmed up to the new idea? Have you had conversations with them afterwards to see how they intend to incorporate such new teatments into their practices? If you haven’t done any of these, then you don’t know jack about how doctors think.

  312. Dave

    I am sorry to say, but virtually all of your assertions have no basis both in science and in facts of observation. They are nothing more than consipracy theories that could be extremely dangerous to public health. I know, because I have been actively involved with the medical profession for three decades, and my knowldge did not come from Google or Wikipedia.

    I meet the eligibility requirements to be a Diplomat of the American Board of Toxicology. I have over 20 years of experience in the drug development industry. What, pray tell, is your active involvement in the medical profession?

    no basis both in science and facts of observation

    Intravenous Ascorbic Acid (IVAA) is an interesting treatment. When one ingests vitamin C it acts as an antioxidant. However, administered IV, it has quite the opposite effect and works as an oxidizing agent. It creates hydrogen peroxide in the cells which is then neutralized by an enzyme called catalase. Many types of cancer (depends on the cell type) have little or no catalase. Non-hodgins lymphoma is one, along with some types of breast and lung cancers. I have yet to see a melanoma that was resistant to IVAA but my experience is limited.

    The absence or shortage of catalase in the cancerous cells causes the IVAA to have a specific cytotoxic effect which first nails down any metastis and then goes after the tumors. One problem with IVAA is it doesn’t penetrate the blood-brain barrier, so it has no effect on brain tumors. One significant problem with using IVAA is typically the patient has already been through both chemo and radiation and their immune system is shot. If not carefully controlled the IVAA will kill the tumors so rapidly that the patient will be at significant risk from the necrotic cascade as the tumors die. This information is not available on Wikipedia and I got it from experience.

    With respect to smallpox, I made specific reference to the vector of transmission. Yes, what causes smallpox is commonly known but I was pointing out that the vector of transmission has never been proven. With over thirty years of active involvement with the medical community (forgive me, but that sounds like you’re a receptionist at a hospital) I expected you to catch the difference. Alas, you didn’t.

    Your ridicule of my statements about hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) indicate to me that you know nothing about it. In order to learn you’d have to delve into the Russian literature on the subject (which has not and will not be placed in MedLine). This should be easy for you because formal medical journal literature translates from Russian to English almost 100% with Google translate. The Russians are light-years ahead of the US when it comes to research on HBOT.

    Dr Fred Klenner discovered a cure for polio

    That is hilarious. Cure for polio? I seriously can’t contain my laughter. If indeed there was a cure for polio do you think the dear doctor would need the approval of the FDA to make it available to people in the third world?

    …you don’t understand why the FDA, AMA and NIH couldn’t be bothered to even acknowledge that incredible discovery…

    It’s like cure for AIDS; it does not exist, and the FDA does not need to acknowledge a nonexistent cure.

    The point, Dave, is we had a lethal disease for which there was no treatment. Along comes Fred Klenner and points to a cure for the disease. That should have been sixty-point type on the front page of the New York Times. Your comment on third world countries is a strawman argument and it fails. I was specifically talking about the US. Doctors like to feel like they’re in step with each other (especially now-days when deviations from “acceptable standards of care” can result in lawsuits and loss of license) and the medical authorities should have immediately done what they could to learn more and publicize it. For a decade they knew exactly how to treat polio and they suppressed it. The Problem, Dave, is that nobody can make money on a vitamin. Many companies were working on a vaccine for polio and nobody wanted Klenner to piss in the punchbowl and give the public a cheap and effective cure for polio. Dave, it’s all about money.

    OH.. BTW- there is a patented cure for AIDS. If you know so much about the medical industry then surely you know the patent office requirements for efficacious clinical trials before they’ll issue a patent. Of course, nobody in the drug industry wants a cure because there is far more money to be made selling a treatment that one has to take for the rest of their life. You ignore that and assume that if there was a cure it would immediately become widely available. That tells me you’re completely ignorant of how things really work in the drug industry.

  313. JDG says:

    Very well. They may choose to believe what they want. The fact though is, if by their action or inaction, they cause harm to someone else, they are liable.

    The fact is that you don’t know if they are causing harm or not, and you want them prosecuted. Furthermore, you want the government to have the authority to prosecute a man for what he believes or doesn’t believe, even Christians. That’s why I asked if you are a Christian. If you are a Christian, your brothers should come first, and a brother should not go to unbelievers to prosecute another brother.

  314. JDG
    I work with doctors every day. This statement is BS. They are pushing drugs with more vigor than the cocaine dealers I used to know back in my “idiot” days. Why is that? It’s certainly not because they question everything they are taught.

    Ever take a look at the pharmaceutical reps that visit these doctors? I’d have to say there is a positive correlation between how good they look and how well they push the drugs on the doctors who don’t have time to read the literature. I know a few pharm-reps and the most successful ones are all slim with at least a D-cup rack (usually store-bought after they figure out how the game is played).

  315. JDG says:

    If you haven’t done any of these, then you don’t know jack about how doctors think.

    BS! I speak with them frequently. I know some of them personally. Every year a new set of residents come in and demonstrate how wrong you are. They accept what they are taught. Now they are pushing drugs when changing your diet is all that’s required.

  316. JDG says:

    AT – My SIL was a pharmaceutical rep. She had a room full of boxed samples in cases stacked to the ceiling. I kid you not. She also had various gadgets to give to the doctors (laser pointers, mini-flashlights, ect.) She was a looker, and she made a bundle.

  317. Dave
    That seems to be a new one. I have never heard before that the FDA will not issue a license to an individual who fulfills all the other conditions of a license. Even then, if the dear doctor were that smart, he would have easily created a small company (an LLC, maybe), and then applied for a license through that company. I spent approx. $300 to create mine.

    Dave, do you work in drug development? Do you know the difference in requirements between an investigative new drug application (IND) and a new drug application (NDA)? Have you ever worked for a facility that falls under the GLP/GCP regulations? Unless they’re directly involved, doctors don’t know anything about this area so I truly doubt you know anything either and it doesn’t surprise me that you had never heard of this.

    With your extensive array of knowledge in the medical field, have you read the clinical trial reports on the antineoplastin therapy? They’re on Burzinski’s website and freely available. But, wait. Would you understand them if you read them?

    I’m sure you spent only $300 on a small company, but then again, do you have a proven drug that would be worth tens to hundreds of millions of dollars every year? Did you scrape together the $50k to $75k to consult with a really knowledgeable attorney with expertise in the drug development field? I think not. But, I’ll let you take the poor man’s approach. Read Hale v Henkle (cited in over 1600 other cases) and ponder the high court’s comments about the nature of corporations as opposed to individuals.

  318. Don Quixote says:

    Re: Swine flu clip, I thought it was interesting:

  319. mrteebs says:

    Sorry Gunner and Cail. You have demonstrated only that it is more complicated to give a wife moral agency compared to the simplicity of blind and absolute obedience – and that such moral agency can be abused by women. No argument with the female propensity to be cavalier or outright defiant about submission to a husband, but in the paraphrased words of H.L. Mencken, for every difficult problem there is a simple answer that is wrong. Your answer has only the benefit of simplicity – not congruence with the whole of scripture.

    This same reasoning would lead one to the inescapable conclusion that when God institutes authority anywhere – whether husbands over wives, apostles over christians, or rulers over the ruled – disobedience is never allowed because the leader, not the follower, must answer for the righteousness of any given directive. It starts to read like Tennyson’s Charge of the Light Brigade where the only acceptable response from those under authority is “…theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die.” Neither of you really addressed the issue of the apostles in Acts 5:29 juxtaposed with Romans 13:1-2. Seems to me that if you carry your theology to its logical conclusion, then the apostles in Acts 5:29 erred in their disobedience to authority and the American Revolution was a rebellion not only against the king of England, but against the God of heaven, since George III was His appointed authority. Trying to argue that the king was not the appointed authority is fruitless as well, for you do not declare independence from one to whom no allegiance or submission is due.

    I take submission to authority very seriously. It is almost wholly lacking in our culture because we act as though every authority has to “earn” our respect before we will obey, yet this idea is completely foreign to scripture. And, I think women are particularly guilty of a cavalier attitude toward the authority of their husbands. However, this does not invalidate a higher authority to whom she must answer in those (hopefully) rare instances in which a husband clearly violates scripture and tells his wife to sin. Please note that I am NOT excusing a wife who disagrees with her husband to conveniently label his actions as sin and do as she pleases – reminiscent of Fireproof where wanting to buy a boat was conveniently turned into a “sin” because she had more “noble” ideas about how to use the money. Or the “threatpoint moment” in the Dennis and Barbara Rainey story where he wanted to move the family and she disagreed (read: threatened to leave him). But I digress. The point here is that if a husband says, “drive the car while I rob the bank,” the wife is under no more obligation to obey such a directive than the apostles were to obey the Council in Acts 5:29. Yeah, it can complicate things, and yeah, it can (and does) get abused. But abuse of something does not invalidate its legitimacy.

  320. Dave says:

    So many points. Where to start?

    BTW- there is a patented cure for AIDS. If you know so much about the medical industry then surely you know the patent office requirements for efficacious clinical trials before they’ll issue a patent.

    If there were a cure for AIDS why is it not being used by people? Why doesn’t the owner of this cure make it available outside of the US where FDA oversight is nonexistent? Fact is, there is no such a cure. It is all munbo jumbo. It’s all a sensational claim. There is no truth to it.
    Look, I give you a hint: most viral diseases have no direct cure. From common cold to HIV to polio to viral hepatitis. There is no cure because viruses tend to reside and replicate in normal human cells, and you can not get rid of them unless you harm these normal cells. Unlike most bacteria that stay outside human cells and can be easily killed by antibiotics, viruses are far more closely integrated into the host cells, sometimes as deep as the nucleuses of these cells.

    Actually, you can make money on vitamins and many do to the tune of billions of dollars every year. See here. Problem is, vitamins don’t work, and that includes this ascorbate that you mentioned. It’s all baseless claim by the doctor.

    With respect to smallpox, I made specific reference to the vector of transmission. Yes, what causes smallpox is commonly known but I was pointing out that the vector of transmission has never been proven.

    Smallpox is a communicable disease. It does not require a vector for transmission. Direct contact with an infected person or with their body fluids is all that is required for transmission. It is like Ebola. You can get infected by coming in contact with anything coming from the infected person.

    What, pray tell, is your active involvement in the medical profession?

    With all due respect I am actually more closely involved in the medical profession than you are. I am directly involved in the care of patients from day to day.

    The fact is that you don’t know if they are causing harm or not, and you want them prosecuted.

    O yes we do. See here. When non-doctors decide to make uninformed medical decisions, they can only cause harm. Imagine if an untrained pilot decides to fly a commercial jet? Or some enthusiastic mechanic decides to build a skyscraper? The result would be the same.

    I know a few pharm-reps and the most successful ones are all slim with at least a D-cup rack (usually store-bought after they figure out how the game is played).

    So, our prescribed medications were pushed by pharm reps with store-bought racks? Sounds interesting. Fact is, doctors are generally very reluctant to try new therapies. Like everyone of us, they get comfortable with proven therapies, and are not very enthusiastic about new therapies until the benefits are very convincing. Take, for instance, the case of Coumadin. this is a blood thinner which is often prescribed for patients with atrial fibrillation (iregular heart bets that can cause blood clots in the heart and brain). Pradaxa is a newer alternative which was approved by the FDA in October 2010. But guess what? Five years later, doctors still prescribe Coumadin till today, and I will be surprised if they don’t continue doing so for another next 20 years. That shows you how reluctant they are to swallow everything that the drug industry pushes down their throats.

    Every year a new set of residents come in and demonstrate how wrong you are. They accept what they are taught. Now they are pushing drugs when changing your diet is all that’s required.

    Residents are really not doctors. At the most they are doctors in training, so they really don’t count. When you are being trained for a profession you accept what you are taught. But after you graduate you have every freedom to explore what you really want to do.

    …Now they are pushing drugs when changing your diet is all that’s required.

    The mother of an ex had this idea. She was diagnosed with colon cancer, and rather than going to see a doctor, she decided to “change her diet”, etc. While dating her daughter, I got introduced to her. I had to use everything in me to urge her to go see a doctor pronto. This was already about 2 years after her initial diagnosis. She relented, and went. Unfortunately, at the time, the cancer had already spread. Despite chemo and other therapies, she ended up dying later.

    Your ridicule of my statements about hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) indicate to me that you know nothing about it….

    Actually, I do. And I do hope you realize I did not mean to ridicule you; it was only the statements that you made that I found unbelievably wrong.

    She had a room full of boxed samples in cases stacked to the ceiling. I kid you not. She also had various gadgets to give to the doctors (laser pointers, mini-flashlights, ect.) She was a looker, and she made a bundle.

    What does this prove? Nothing I’d say. It just means that she has samples to show/give doctors so they could try them on patients and see if they work.

    I’m sure you spent only $300 on a small company, but then again, do you have a proven drug that would be worth tens to hundreds of millions of dollars every year? Did you scrape together the $50k to $75k to consult with a really knowledgeable attorney with expertise in the drug development field?

    I visited the doctor’s website. His clinic sure looks like that of someone who wouldn’t have trouble paying a lawyer a mere $50k to defend his million dollar invention.

    But, I’ll let you take the poor man’s approach. Read Hale v Henkle (cited in over 1600 other cases) and ponder the high court’s comments about the nature of corporations as opposed to individuals.

    This deals with the applicability of 5th ammendment to individuals vs corporations. No? I am not sure I understood where this comes in.

    Now having said all this, I am not saying that drug companies are not greedy. But a whole lot of the claims about suppression of novel therapies are not true either. At least, there is no evidence to back up the claims.

  321. Dave says:

    And while we are at it, people, please do not become your own doctors. It is not safe. even doctors are not allowed to be their own doctors because it is not safe.
    1. Vaccines work and are largely safe. It is far more helpful compared to the small harm it causes.
    2. No treatment or medication is 100% safe. Even the water that you drink can cause significant harm if taken in excess. It is called water intoxication, and it can result in hyponatremia and eventual brain damage. Same goes for something as innocuous as Tylenol. People die from liver failure caused by excessive intake of this OTC medication
    3. Stop listening to folks who do not have medical training. If you have health questions, I think it is far more sensible to ask your caregiver/doctor. If you don’t trust your doctor, find another one that you trust. There are good Christian doctors all over.
    4. There is no consipracy between doctors and the pharm industries. yes, the drug industries want to shove down new therapies all the time. For the most part, if such therapies are not experimental, they must have undergone extensive trials before they get to your doctor’s office.
    5. Diet does not cure cancer. neither do vitamins. Diet may help to prevent many medical conditions, including obesity, a type of diabetes, hypertension, gout, sleep apnea, etc. But once a person develop an illness, they need treatment. Diet will never reverse cancer. It is like a driver who got into an accident by going at 200 mph in a neighborhood with a speed limit of 45 mph. After he gets into a crash, he must first be treated THEN advised to slow down in the future. You don’t simply tell them to slow down and don’t treat them. So, a person could develop a disease by eating wrongly and maintaining a poor lifestyle. But once they develop their disease the must first be treated, then advised how to prevent a reoccurrence.
    6. Get your shots and take other preventive measures against diseases.
    —Get the flu shot every year, especially if over 65 or if you have any chronic illnesses such as diabetes, COPD, etc
    — Get pneumococcal vaccine at age 65 or if you haven’t had one in the last 5 years. Or better still, ask your doctor
    —If you are age 75 and you have ever smoked, get screened for abdominal aortic aneurysm.
    —If 50 and above, get screened for colon cancer with a colonoscopy.
    —Maintain an active lifestyle and avoid too much sugars, salt and high cholestrol.
    —Drink water; it’s far better than sugary drinks
    Live long, and prosper!

  322. S. Chan says:

    Artisanal Toad said, on April 6 at 9:28 pm, ” I know a few pharm-reps and the most successful ones are all slim with at least a D-cup rack”.
    Dave, on April 7 at 5:12 am, disputed that.
    As it happens, the following related letter appears in today’s Wall Street Journal.

    … I have been in medical practice for more than 40 years, during which time in their quest to persuade me to prescribe their drugs, pharmaceutical companies have deployed well over a thousand representatives to my office. Most of them have been attractive young women, not to mention very professional ones. Obviously, someone years ago discovered that attractive women get better access to busy doctors, underscoring the obvious fact that meritocracies do care about gender when doing so means profits.

    Rick Parkinson, M.D.

    Provo, Utah

  323. Dave

    I have been reading your responses and have been wondering whether you were some sort of industry shill, a troll or what Marx would have called a “useful idiot.” Given your most recent response I’ve reached the conclusion that it’s a combination of all three, heavily weighted toward the last.

    You said If there were a cure for AIDS why is it not being used by people? Why doesn’t the owner of this cure make it available outside of the US where FDA oversight is nonexistent? Fact is, there is no such a cure. It is all munbo jumbo. It’s all a sensational claim. There is no truth to it.

    I’ve already answered the first part- and the reason is simple. There is far more of a profit to be made from an ongoing treatment than from a one-shot cure. You also seem to be of the opinion that the FDA is the only regulatory apparatus in the world, ignoring the fact that most other countries have similar agencies. The reality is that for the most part, approval by the US FDA is the gold standard, certainly within the developing world. Your blithe comment that there is no truth in this is telling. You made a bald assertion with zero evidence. Dave, let’s see some evidence to back up your claim.

    Meanwhile, this is the patent I mentioned.

    Your ridicule of my statements about hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) indicate to me that you know nothing about it….

    Actually, I do. And I do hope you realize I did not mean to ridicule you; it was only the statements that you made that I found unbelievably wrong.

    Again, you make bald assertions based on your opinion. Yet, you decline to provide any statements regarding your training, your experience, your work and most importantly, any evidence to support your assertions at all. HBOT is not a well-known therapy in the US and is used only on a limited range of conditions. In order to understand how little the US medical community knows about this it’s necessary to either do a lot of reading of the Russian literature or have a friend that’s a Russian doctor who is familiar with the therapy.

    Then came this whopper: Smallpox is a communicable disease. It does not require a vector for transmission.

    Fail. Without a vector of transmission there is no communicable disease. You really need to understand these terms before you make statements like that. Since I’m practically sure that you’ve never seen reports like this, I’ll share some field observations of doctors 100 years ago. Read all of it and you might learn something from Dr’s Cambell and Watts. Some of the stuff they did was appalling in terms of informed consent but don’t let that put you off reading it. But, of course, your mind is made up already, so just read the bottom line:

    “WHEREAS, the Bexar County Medical Society remembers with satisfaction its hearty endorsement of Dr. Chas. A. R. Campbell’s original work in proving that the bat is the natural enemy of the mosquito, which is now being widely accepted as a scientific fact;
    RESOLVED, That we express our entire confidence in Dr. Campbell’s experiments and clinical observations tending to show that the bedbug is the sole conveyor of smallpox, as the body-louse is of typhus fever, and we believe that further experience will lead to its complete demonstration.
    ”RESOLVED, further, That in the interest of scientific progress, a committee be appointed by the chair to pursue a careful investigation of the subject in conjunction with the Board of Health, and that this Society tender its cooperation in the matter, and in framing the proper regulations for the control and eradication of the pest.” The committee consisted of the following gentlemen:
    Drs. J. S. Langford, J. A. Watts, T. T. Jackson, D. Berrey, Chas. A. R. Campbell, and S. C. Applewhite.

    Dave also said Problem is, vitamins don’t work, and that includes this ascorbate that you mentioned. It’s all baseless claim by the doctor.

    Golly gee, Dave! You must be some kind of real expert if you can automatically *know* that the claims are baseless without even reading the articles. Because if you’d taken the trouble to Google Dr Fred Klenner you’d have found a number of references, read the articles and realized that his claims were not baseless. Since you obviously didn’t do any research at all, try this:

    http://www.seanet.com/~alexs/ascorbate/199x/landwehr-r-j_orthomol_med-1991-v6-n2-p99.htm

    Scientific Journals don’t make a habit of publishing baseless claims by anybody. The author has to get by the editor’s vetting process first. Turns out that a year prior he had an article published on the treatment of Viral Pneumonia with large doses of IVAA that yielded “excellent results.” In total Dr. Klenner had 28 scientific publications between 1948 and 1974.

    How many pubs do you have, Dave?

    The point is you’re making the same mistake that doctors make, in reverse. Doctors take the position that their teachers at medical school are the pinnacle of the medical industry with respect to knowledge and experience. It follows that if there was something to this IVAA therapy then they’d have mentioned it. In the same way you are attacking the knowledge and integrity of the Scientific Journals and Editors that published Dr. Klenner. Since you haven’t resorted to an appeal to authority (“I’m a doctor and you should believe me”) I have to assume that at best you’re a nurse of one variety or another (although I still have this gut feeling you’re some kind of receptionist). You support the current paradigm because you don’t have the training or experience to understand why you are wrong. You parrot the party line because that’s all you know. Your questions about ‘why, if a cure exists, why-oh-why isn’t it being used’ is simply an indication of your naivete.

    I even gave you a concise explanation of how IVAA works but you didn’t mention that at all. Nor did you provide one iota of evidence that I’m wrong. In short, you respond with blind ignorance, strawman arguments, appeals to emotion and bald assertions completely devoid of facts or evidence of any kind. I’m done.

  324. Toad,

    That we express our entire confidence in Dr. Campbell’s experiments and clinical observations tending to show that the bedbug is the sole conveyor of smallpox

    I’m not sure so I’ll defer to you on this but isn’t this the sole reason why you can’t really legally resell used matresses in the United States?

  325. JDG says:

    Residents are really not doctors. At the most they are doctors in training, so they really don’t count. When you are being trained for a profession you accept what you are taught. But after you graduate you have every freedom to explore what you really want to do.

    Do you mean exploring like prescribing nexium for acid reflex instead of having the patient drink milk and stop drinking soda, or like trying to prescribe anti-depressants to some one because they do not see the world as the doctor does (anyone who thinks happiness is overrated must be depressed). It’s funny that these graduates still want to prescribe drugs when drugs are not needed.

    And then there is the feminazi doctor who openly resents traditional marriage and deliberately says things to hurt the patient (who had just suffered a miscarriage) and antagonize her husband.

    I see your motto is “In doctors we trust”. Well sorry Dave, I don’t. And I’m not alone by a long shot. I’ve known (and know) some good one’s and some bad one’s, and the good one’s are disappearing IMO. Verify, then trust.

    I repeat, a Christian (assuming you are one) has no business jumping in with Caesar against his own brothers, especially over matters of belief.

    I guess I’m done too.

  326. JDG

    Don’t know about the mattress thing at all.

    Strongly advise you read the link. Some of the stuff those guys did was appalling but their observations were sound. Note particularly their observations on the efficacy of vaccination for smallpox, even with multiple lots from different vendors. The issue is similar to Bastiat’s law.

    After WWII the WHO went on a rampage to wipe out smallpox. What most don’t know is the vaccination teams were accompanied by sanitation teams that taught modern sanitation methods and while they were there they sprayed the hell out of everything with DDT.

    Keep in mind, smallpox was always known as a disease of filth. The worse the living conditions, the more likely smallpox was to occur. On another note, was it really the blankets that we traded to the indians that caused smallpox, or the bedbugs that piggybacked along in the blankets? My money is on the bedbugs.

    [NB. Properly used, DDT is the greatest weapon in the fight against malaria the world has ever seen. It should be used inside the home on walls starting at about 5 feet off the floor and everywhere on the ceilings. This is where the female mosquito’s light when they come into the house. It’s a persistent poison that lasts for months. Since the males don’t come into the house to eat, there is no chance of developing a DDT resistant strain of mosquito. The ban on DDT killed millions of children]

    So, the effectiveness of the vaccinations was irrelevant if the vector of transmission for smallpox is the bedbug, because all that DDT being sprayed around destroyed the vector of transmission and allowed them to claim the vaccine was a success.

    If you really want some fun, read up on the Baxter Labs incident in 2009 and keep in mind that Baxter runs a biosafe level III facility. They shipped 72 pounds of LIVE flue virus to 18 labs in Europe. Only one lab tested it (using ferrets) and they all died. The subsequent investigation revealed it was live flue virus which would have caused a global pandemic if it had been used to make flue vaccines. There is no way a biosafe III facility could do this accidentally.

  327. Toad, they banned DDT in the late 1960s when that b-tch wrote Silent Spring where she convinced everyone DDT was erradicating our national bird, the Bald Eagle, by softening the eagle eggs. Rachael Carson was (IMHO) guilty of the murder of tens of millions of people in Africa where DDT was needed the most.

  328. JDG says:

    AT – It was IBB that asked about the mattress thing. I’m totally with you on DDT. Your case for bedbugs and smallpox makes sense to me as well.

  329. Dave says:

    I have been reading your responses and have been wondering whether you were some sort of industry shill, a troll or what Marx would have called a “useful idiot.” Given your most recent response I’ve reached the conclusion that it’s a combination of all three, heavily weighted toward the last.

    How come folks are so quick to label someone they disagree with, and sometimes use derogatory terms in describing them? It doesn’t sound mature to me and I think guys who do it should stop.

    I understand that we are all passionate about our views, but there is absolutely no reason to lose one’s cool.
    To address your statements above, I am not any of those things you mentioned. I know exactly what I have been writing about and I must tell you, a lot of what you wrote are simply untrue. To prove or disprove my assertions, please go look for a trusted doctor, or a pharmacist, or a professor of medicine, and ask them to confirm all the stuff you’ve written here. I guarantee you they will disagree with you 100%.
    1. Your claim that there is a cure for AIDS
    2. That there is a cure for polio
    3. That parenteral vitamin C will cure cancer
    4. That vaccines don’t work
    5. Etc.

    A word about the USPTO and patents: The USPTO has issued patents for nonsensical “inventions”
    Some of them are listed here: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/crazy.html
    If I were you I would not put much stock in any patent claiming to cure AIDS

    I can’t address all the issues raised in your post but I’ll just address one.

    How Smallpox is transmitted:

    Expectoration of upper airway secretions, including secretions from the oropharynx, led to person-to-person transmission of smallpox virus [2,13]. Inhaled secretions containing variola virus entered the respiratory tract where viruses multiplied locally and then spread to regional lymph nodes via circulating macrophages [6]. Multiplication within lymph nodes then led to a primary viremia with dissemination of virus to lymphoid organs, such as the spleen. Viral amplification within lymphoid organs led to a secondary viremia, which was associated with the onset of symptoms and the characteristic smallpox rash. Virus could be isolated from the oropharynx, skin lesions, bone marrow, spleen, liver, and kidneys.

    Virus that localized within small dermal blood vessels produced endothelial swelling and infection of epidermal cells, resulting in characteristic vesicles in skin and mucous membranes. When stained with hematoxylin and eosin, the cytoplasm of infected cells contained characteristic inclusions, called Guarnieri bodies, which were faintly basophilic or acidophilic (picture 1). Extension of infection into the corium and sebaceous glands produced the “pockmarks” or scars which, upon healing, were hallmarks of prior smallpox infection.

    Variola virus infection stimulated specific cytotoxic T cell responses, neutralizing antibodies, and the production of interferons [2]. These immune responses restricted viral replication and induced prolonged immunity in the patients who recovered. In one study, survivors had evidence of variola virus-specific CD4+ memory T-cell lymphoproliferative responses and neutralizing antibodies greater than 40 years after infection

    References
    Christie AB. Smallpox. In: Infectious Diseases, Epidemiology and Clinical Practices, Second Edition, Edinburgh. (Ed), Churchill Livingstone, New York 1974.
    Fenner F, Henderson DA, Arita I, et al. Smallpox and its eradication, World Health Organization, Geneva 1988.

    Bedbugs are not required for the transmission of Smallpox. Indeed, think about this: if bedbugs were required, would Smallpox be useful as a terrorism weapon?

  330. Dave,

    Bedbugs are not required for the transmission of Smallpox. Indeed, think about this: if bedbugs were required, would Smallpox be useful as a terrorism weapon?

    I don’t know much about smallpox other than cowpox was the vaccine against it. (They discovered that people who got cowpox never got smallpox.) So, give someone a little injection of dead cowpox cells and the human body has time to figure out out to make anti-bodies against it which in turn protected them from smallpox. But I would like to answer your question.

    You can try and weaponize any biohazzard. But that doesn’t mean they are going to be all that effective, tactically. Cleanliness and basic hygene do go a long way in stopping 3rd world diseases from spreading. We here in the 1st world have learned to defeat that cr@p by washing our hands. Even with all our cruiseline ships being infected with norovirus, you don’t hear about that happening in our towns or cities, never an epidemic on land transmitted from person to person. That is because we here in the first world are smart enough to wash our hands after we wipe our own @sses. The 3rd world labour on a cruise ship, not so much.

    Forget about smallpox, the Bubonic Plague wiped out a third of Europe and lower Asia over a period of a hundred years. It took them that long to figure out that it was transported (from port to port) inside the bodies of rats who would get bitten by fleas, the rats go ashore from the ship they were on, the fleas get into the community (that was generally flithy), and the people (who lived in that filth) got bitten by the fleas and got the plague. So how did they stop it? With this.

    That ended the spread of the Black Death, a rat guard. Now the rats couldn’t move off and on to ships which meant the fleas didn’t move which meant the plague didn’t move. Brilliant. And yet… so simple. Its simple once you understand it. And we understand how these diseases spread.

    Think about it, fleas, bedbugs, head lice, any tiny thing that would spread these diseases, pretty much all gone from the first world. (Crab lice are almost enitrely gone with women grooming their ‘gina area and removing ALL the hair becoming the cultural norm.) And when I mean gone, I don’t mean we don’t have these pests, of course we do, but we learned how to easily and effortlessly mitigate any health danger they might cause. That is why I asked about the law regarding the sale of matresses. I think (because of bedbugs) it might be unlawful to sell a used matress. It also might have something to do with that “…remove this tag under penalty of law…” nonsense that are on bed matresses.

    So I guess what I’m trying to say is…. don’t be afraid of smallpox. Or polio. Or Ebola. Or SARS. Or HIV. Or any of that crap being weaponized. We know ALL ABOUT that stuff. Its actually very hard to get it because we know how it spreads.

  331. Dave says:

    … I have been in medical practice for more than 40 years, during which time in their quest to persuade me to prescribe their drugs, pharmaceutical companies have deployed well over a thousand representatives to my office. Most of them have been attractive young women, not to mention very professional ones. Obviously, someone years ago discovered that attractive women get better access to busy doctors, underscoring the obvious fact that meritocracies do care about gender when doing so means profits.

    Rick Parkinson, M.D.

    Provo, Utah

    The doctor did not say he did not prescribe the said medications, or that he did not accept the many samples which these attractive, store-bought, D racked women provided. These are some of the things that resident doctors are trained to handle. Irrespective of how attractive the drug rep might be, the doctor will still have to objectively assess whatever it is they are selling, and consider the interests of his patients first. In many cases, the doctor accepts sample medications, and give these away to patients to see how useful they are. If they are good the doctor will continue to prescribe the meds; if not he will most likely stop, even if the drug reps were drop-dead gorgeous chicks.

    As in all things, I think a positive attitude goes a long way. When we allow our lives to be governed by suspicion and cynicism, we’ll miss out big time.
    Doctors are not your enemies; they are your friends. In fact, the only advocates that you have in the healthcare system are the doctors. That is the reason the businessmen in medicine (read “administrators”) are doing everything they can to muzzle them. And it’s working. Does anyone know that due to the lobbying by the business folks, it is ILLEGAL for doctors to own hospitals? Yep, only business men are allowed to own hospitals. These are people who don’t care a hoot about your health. To them, patients are nothing more than a source of income; they don’t give a rat’s hairy butt whether you are well or not. Only doctors and other healthcare givers concern themselves with that.

    And, no, I am neither an industry shill nor a troll nor a useful idiot. I am a well informed, sensible and good hearted man who is trying to get folks to know what really is happening in the medical industry.

  332. Dave says:

    IBB,

    I do appreciate your explanations. It does shed light on the discussion.
    I just want to add that in treating almost any illness, several factors are simultaneously addressed. thus, in the case of transmissible infections, vaccines need to be combined with good hygiene, good nutrition, etc. The combination is far more effective than any single one of the measures.

  333. Dave says:

    To those who think vaccines don’t work, maybe they should learn from someone who learned it the hard way. Anti-vaxx mom abandons movement — after all seven her of her kids get whooping cough. See here.

    She is lucky though. If it were paralytic polio, those kids would probably be paralyzed for life.

  334. Exfernal says:

    For those you mention, it’s not about the vaccines ‘not working’. It’s about the risk of their various side effects. Some might be difficult to spot. I suspect that the rise in autoimmune diseases and allergies might be related to exposure to some adjuvants, for example (I’m pro-vacc myself, BTW).

  335. Minesweeper says:

    Dave
    http://nsnbc.me/2013/05/08/bill-gates-polio-vaccine-program-caused-47500-cases-of-paralysis-death/

    Now that is a side effect – yes ? Also note with anti-vax mom now pro vax – 3 of her eldest were vaccinated. So much for the DPT vaccine working. I myself caught whooping cough FROM the vaccine.

    And ive seen vaccine damage, even adult women driven either into full blown cfs or into a mental ward with madness, and this was travel vax’s as an adult, not babies.

    Now I think we all support vaccines esp polio. But there is something going wrong and being to afraid to even address this because identifying it will derail the whole process, is just bad science,in fact its bad everything. See article I linked to above re the CDC scientist admitting they lied about MMR not causing a rise in autism.
    Actually I will repost it here, you can find multiple sources for this – even mainstream. So this time you have to read it.

    http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/02/cdc-scientist-still-maintains-agency-forced-researchers-lie-safety-mercury-based-vaccines/

  336. Minesweeper says:

    Dave
    “She is lucky though. If it were paralytic polio, those kids would probably be paralyzed for life.”
    These kids HAVE been paralysed for life :
    http://nsnbc.me/2013/05/08/bill-gates-polio-vaccine-program-caused-47500-cases-of-paralysis-death/

    http://www.ringoffireradio.com/2015/02/cdc-scientist-still-maintains-agency-forced-researchers-lie-safety-mercury-based-vaccines/

    I’ve known several adult females go into full blown CFS/ME or the mental ward after travel vax’s as adults, not even a couple of kg of baby. Now in your anti\now pro vax mom story, 3 of her kids were vaccinated. So much for the vaccine working – huh ? I myself got full blown whooping cough from the vaccine (I believe) and it was my 4th DPT vaccine (shot). So yeah. Its clear things are not working as intended but every problem is whitewashed as they believe (and not without reason) that if a problem is identified then the whole program will derail. But its bad medicine,science, bad everything to carry on ignoring whats happening.

    They have to change their mindset, which is we vaccinate every illness out of existence, then we deal with the fallout and the damaged humans that this has caused. I doubt they will succeed. A wonderful goal no doubt.

  337. Minesweeper says:

    WT* WP eating my comments constantly !

  338. Minesweeper says:

    Now it works !

    Dave, re your polio remake.
    http://nsnbc.me/2013/05/08/bill-gates-polio-vaccine-program-caused-47500-cases-of-paralysis-death/

    lets see if this works.
    I give up……………………

  339. Minesweeper says:

    Dave see below:
    This link causes WP to eat my comment:
    nsnbc.me /2013/05/08/ bill-gates-polio-vaccine-program-caused-47500-cases-of-paralysis-death/

  340. Minesweeper says:

    Dave
    “Anti-vaxx mom abandons movement — after all seven her of her kids get whooping cough.”
    And 3 of them had been vaccinated !

    “She is lucky though. If it were paralytic polio, those kids would probably be paralyzed for life.”
    These kids have been damaged for life.
    nsnbc.me/2013/05/08/bill-gates-polio-vaccine-program-caused-47500-cases-of-paralysis-death/

  341. Minesweeper says:

    Dave
    “Anti-vaxx mom abandons movement — after all seven her of her kids get whooping cough.”
    And 3 of them had been vaccinated !

    “She is lucky though. If it were paralytic polio, those kids would probably be paralyzed for life.”
    These kids have been damaged for life.
    nsnbc.me /2013/05/08/bill-gates-polio-vaccine-program-caused-47500-cases-of-paralysis-death/

  342. Minesweeper says:

    Dave,
    I got whooping cough after my 4th DPT shot. So its a fallacy to state that vaccination would have prevented this one way or the other(even with DPaT). Which is why vaccine programs tend to look at population statistics as a whole, because it works poorly at an individual level. It may contain it at the population level and it may induce it at the individual level.

    I think with the population mobilising via the webs, that the cover-up in problems will surface eventually. And they are covering them up and for good reason as they think if they identify a problem then the whole program will derail (and it might).

  343. Minesweeper says:

    @Exfernal, did you know they started to use peanut oil as an adjuvant in the 1940s? – mostly as it was dirt cheap and they still do even to this day.

    Take a guess where life threatening peanut allergy comes form.

  344. Isa says:

    @Minesweeper
    If it was directly after the shot, your immunity would not have been high enough yet so you could have gotten it from anywhere. I’m definitely pro vaccine, as any vaccines make me bedridden for about a month afterwards because I have a puny immune system. So herd immunity is increaaaddiiiibbblllyyy important to me. I also do pick and choose which things I have to get and not, as I do have an overly severe reaction. Regardless, I am quite glad I didn’t get polio like my uncle who was paralyzed, or my other uncles with heart defects from rubella etc.

    Really any deadly disease with a high r0 should be vaccinated against. Smallpox is 5-7 whereas measles and whooping cough are 12-18. That’s almost impossible to contain.

  345. Minesweeper says:

    @Isa, its was my 4th DPT vax, so I really should have been protected by then, if not, just how many do you need ? I think it was directly after the shot, which means I got it from the shot. Which is why they spent a huge amount of money changing the vax from whole cell to acellular. Now the acellular version is weaker at inducing immunity compared to the whole cell, but too many kids were getting ill from the other. Just like they stopped using live polio in the western world, as again, more kids got polio from the vax than got it in the wild.

    As vax’s make you bedridden for a month afterwards, you are precisely my point, for many vax’s are a sledge hammer to crack a nut. They need to provide safer vax’s and understand how each body handles a vaccine and they dont.

    I would guess if you are having that sort of reaction and it clears, then its probably the heavy metals that they are using : mercury or aluminium.

  346. Minesweeper says:

    ARGH !

    Forgive all, WordPress has decided to pop out my comments after all. Honestly not my doing. Dalrock, please tidy up your post if you can.

  347. Dave says:

    No one has argued that vaccines don’t cause harms. Rather, the arguments I have consistently made is that the harms caused by vaccines pale in comparison to the benefits they bring. Car accidents kill thousands of people every year in the US alone. No one will use that fact to argue against cars per se, but in favor of making driving safer. It is naïve to condemn all forms of vaccination simply because their risk is not zero. As a matter of fact, there is no form of treatment whose risk is zero.
    Those cases of polio and death after Bill Gates’ vaccine campaign in India, while tragic, did not address some crucial questions:
    1. Why did Gates use live vaccines which have been proven to be harmful, rather than the inactivated forms?
    2. How many people were vaccinated in total before the number of new cases of polio rose to almost 50000? That should help put things into perspective.

    Again, I suggest that rather than seeing a conspiracy behind every tree, folks should speak to a Christian doctor whom they trust. At least such should be less likely to trick them into becoming victims of the “Big Pharma and the deceptive medical cabal”.
    Now, I wish to make it clear that I do not advocate blind confidence in anyone. We should ask questions. We should do research (it’s pretty easy to do, actually). We should speak with people and satisfy ourselves that our medical decisions are sensible. But we cannot afford to be so cynical that we can’t see the trees for the forest.

  348. Dave says:

    Minesweeper says:
    April 11, 2015 at 9:25 am

    Dave,
    I got whooping cough after my 4th DPT shot. So its a fallacy to state that vaccination would have prevented this one way or the other(even with DPaT).

    I totally believe you. But you’d agree that it does not argue against vaccination at all. Vaccines reduce the incidents of the diseases vaccinated against, not necessarily eliminate them.

  349. Minesweeper says:

    Dave,
    I think we have reached a stage in the western world anyway, where more are harmed by vaccines than are probably helped. But you can’t research this, you can’t research “vaccine problems”. If you do you will be finished. Its like challenging the earth is not flat sort of thing.

    Once you move beyond the political and you see real people who are hurt permanently or dead, then it changes your perspective. No-one should ever turn up at their doctors for a simple injection, only to have serious repercussions for their entire life.

    And the problem being is that if you do have a serious reaction and its permanent, their is no reversal. Its not like, your taking a new statin and its starting to cause you problems, so you stop or switch to another composition.

    Vaccines are designed to alter you permanently. And tbh they only really justify themselves during a real epidemic.

    Look at the stats for measles over the last 10 years, according to this:

    Measles: Zero, Vaccine:108

    The premise at work in the medical system is that its better to die via the vaccine, I’ve mentioned this already, see above. And its a prevalent belief.

    Other 1st world countries vaccinate very little under 2 years old – Japan for example. They have far less problem with their children and strange diseases.

    Strange but true, of all my friends, whose with the most damaged or had children who died, have been mothers involved in front line in the medical system. You would think its the other way round, its so tragic they could not at all even approach the subject. But it is true, of those families who have a mother involved in : GP,dental,care,nursing,midwifery – not 1 family has escaped a child who has either died or had a serious permanent illness fro a young age.

    Without going into my friends private details I will provide you with the 3 female GP’s that I’m friends with either them or their husband.
    1: Boy – heart valve failed to close, died within 72 hrs.
    2. Boy – Autisim from infant, can’t talk, can read, attends mainstream school, tantrums alot.
    3. Girl – 12mths, couldnt walk, 1 in a million neurlogical problem.

    I could go on. But I wont. This is just the GP’s. The others are so tragic as well.

    The riskiest place for a child seems to be inside a mother invoked with the medical system. Now if they are destroying their own, think of that mentality.

    If you are in the medical system, then you won’t be able to see what the others standing outside it can see, and its horrifying. The allpoathic medical system needs a reformation. Its like the catholic church from the 1500’s.

  350. Dave says:

    Without going into my friends private details I will provide you with the 3 female GP’s that I’m friends with either them or their husband.
    1: Boy – heart valve failed to close, died within 72 hrs.
    2. Boy – Autism from infant, can’t talk, can read, attends mainstream school, tantrums alot.
    3. Girl – 12mths, couldn’t walk, 1 in a million neurological problem.

    I could go on. But I wont. This is just the GP’s. The others are so tragic as well.

    Again, I believe what you wrote. All of the examples you gave could have arisen from other causes though. Even if they were all due to the use of vaccines, wouldn’t be better to work towards how to make vaccines better and safer, rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water? What you advocated, if I understood you well, is that we should not vaccinate our kids anymore because vaccines could be harmful. Well, this has recently been tried in Cali and the result was disastrous. What then?
    People undergoing surgical treatments die all the time from complications of the surgery. That, again, does not argue against the surgeries themselves, but rather, encourages us to find safer ways to perform those surgeries.
    A world without vaccines is going to be worse than what happened during the great plague, because diseases are spread faster all over the world these days than then. Personally, I don’t think the world will survive a society without vaccines. See how much panic Ebola caused? Now, imagine if we have to deal with 10-20 different disease outbreaks in many parts of the world at the same time! That could ruin entire economies.

  351. BradA says:

    Minesweeper,

    Have you ever felt lust\sexual attraction towards your wife ?

    AT covered it. I cannot lust my wife. I have desired her as is completely appropriate in marriage. (See Song of Solomon for some examples.)

    Saying sexual fantasies are fine leads any who follow that astray. I recall something about a millstone in that context.

  352. BradA says:

    Dave,

    You have a bit too much trust in the system. Big pharma and big government drives things for their own reasons and safety is only a surface concern.

    All vaccines are not bad, but at least a few are dubious if not outright harmful.

    Are you sure you want to push them all? What about the HPV vaccine for young girls?

  353. Minesweeper says:

    @BradA
    AT wrote “The unmarried [young] man with a strong sexual attraction toward an unmarried [young] woman is not lusting because he can legitimately obtain her by marrying her.”

    So you agree with this ? I put young in [] brackets so not to discriminate with age.

  354. Robin Munn says:

    @Minesweeper –

    If there have been zero deaths from measles in the US in the last ten years, isn’t that strong evidence that the vaccine is working? I just looked up the measles statistics worldwide, and http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs286/en/ quotes a figure of 145,700 measles deaths worldwide in 2013 (primarily in poor countries). Assuming those numbers are accurate, that’s about 6,500 deaths per 300 million people. But the US, with a population of 300 million who were almost all vaccinated, had no measles deaths in a much longer time period.

    The numbers you’re citing are proving the point you’re arguing against.

  355. If there have been zero deaths from measles in the US in the last ten years, isn’t that strong evidence that the vaccine is working?

    I was wondering how long it would be before someone would say what Robin just said.

  356. Brad,

    Are you sure you want to push them all? What about the HPV vaccine for young girls?

    You have erected a strawman. The people who are needlessly angry about measles vaccines and the like irrationally conclude they are dangerous. People who are angry about the HPV vaccine for young girls are not angry (and are choosing to “opt out”) because they think the vaccine is potentially dangerous. They are angry because the concept of this government (and political wanks at the department of health and human services) wanting to vaccine all young girls for HPV is that government assumes that all our daughters are sluts. That is the problem (the only problem that I can see) with government pushing it.

  357. Minesweeper says:

    @Robin Munn
    “If there have been zero deaths from measles in the US in the last ten years, isn’t that strong evidence that the vaccine is working?”
    No not really, the real evidence would be zero transmittable infections or measles symptoms in vaccinated populations. If your vaccinated and still end up a disabled or dead (vax or disease), then I wouldn’t count that as a win.

    The issue is what would you rather die of the vax or take your chance with the disease ? Neither should be the goal but this still occurs, and the VAERS db is prob only tracking 1% of incidents as doc’s underestimate vax deaths and reactions by a ridiculous amount, if not cover up completely, it does a doctor you no good at all lodging a VAERS ticket.

    And that’s the problem, I would never ever say dont vax your kids. But I wont ever say they are 100% safe or effective either. But developing ultra safe vaccines with no side effects and tracking everyone who may have been adversely affected is too expensive right now. And practitioners are too scared to say problems occur if they do.

  358. R G says:

    Hah! Eva’s apology is actually TO THE SWEATPANTS!

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s