Someone should have warned them.

The Daily Mail has a heart rending story* about some recent immigrants to the UK who ended up in prison because they didn’t fully understand the local laws and customs.   New to the country and in dire need of money, the immigrants set out to use promises of love and commitment to con local Brits out of half of their stuff.

In the case detailed by the Mail the mark (Mrs. Hardman) had recently acquired nearly 400,000 pounds the old fashioned way, in a divorce.  After buying a new home for 200,000 pounds, Hardman still had 190,000 pounds left.  The new immigrants were able to con her out of 170,000 pounds with false promises of love and commitment, but failed to follow local law and custom when doing so.  As a result, the men are now in prison.

To all new immigrants to the US and the UK, I urge you to learn about our laws and customs.  Yes we have a cherished tradition of conning gullible rubes out of half of their stuff using false promises of love and commitment, but there are customs and procedures which must be followed when doing this.  Before you start conning anyone with false promises of love and commitment, make sure you contact a local divorce attorney to learn how to do this within the law.  You may also want to contact a local Catholic priest or a Protestant organization like Focus on the Family to learn how to do this morally as well.

*H/T TFH

See Also:  Hey, that’s *our* trick!

This entry was posted in Church Apathy About Divorce, Daily Mail, Online Scammers, Satire. Bookmark the permalink.

157 Responses to Someone should have warned them.

  1. feeriker says:

    Priceless.

    Thanks, Dalrock. I really needed a good, hearty laugh this morning!

  2. Pingback: Someone should have warned them. | Neoreactive

  3. Trust says:

    I’ll save them the legal fees and time consulting with religious leaders. In western hypergamous matriarchy, it’s perfectly legal if you’re a woman, and perfectly moral if you’re a woman and declare your husband not sufficiently submitted to his wife, err, I mean God.

  4. rugby11ljh says:

    One hell of a comedy… Thanks
    It’s weird being able to laugh at this online…
    But hey that’s wonderfully put.

  5. greginaurora says:

    Heh. If I read this story correctly, a man was robbed by a thief. The thief was robbed by two different thieves using the same ploy as the first thief. The news reporter wrote a story about how awful the second thieves were for robbing the first thief of her stolen property. Nowhere does the story interview the victim of the robbery.

  6. CaveClown says:

    “In the case detailed by the Mail the mark (Mrs. Hardman) had recently acquired nearly 400,000 pounds the old fashioned way, in a divorce. After buying a new home for 200,000 pounds, Hardman still had 190,000 pounds left. The new immigrants were able to con her out of 170,000 pounds with false promises of love and commitment, but failed to follow local law and custom when doing so.”

    This reads really close to how some of my kids’ math homework reads.

    After the cons were given the $170,000, how much did Mrs. Hardman have left?

    (A) $20,000
    (B) Public sympathy for being “a poor defenseless woman”
    (C) Alpha-widowhood for her now jailed “conman soul-mate”
    (D) All of the above

  7. Jeremy says:

    The culture these men failed to respect is one requiring significant amounts of drawing out of the experience. These guys went for the slam-bam-thank-you-ma’am. They don’t realize that we in the west have evolved beyond this kind of quick interaction, creating a true living hell that can drag on for decades of fun for the whole family.

  8. JDG says:

    Heh. If I read this story correctly, a man was robbed by a thief. The thief was robbed by two different thieves using the same ploy as the first thief. The news reporter wrote a story about how awful the second thieves were for robbing the first thief of her stolen property. Nowhere does the story interview the victim of the robbery.

    Yes, you read the story correctly and summed up the situation perfectly.

  9. Boxer says:

    The first robbery victim didn’t count. He was a “cellophane man”.

    http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/helping-mister-cellophane-practicing-social-skills/

  10. Gunner Q says:

    Fortunately, she can marry one of them while they serve their sentence… then divorce him to get her money back.

    That works out to a win-lose-win-win, I think.

  11. Phillyastro says:

    It’s nice to know the horn section of The Specials still looks good after all these years. Ska rules!

  12. Opus says:

    How fortuitous it might have been had I saved my comment from this morning (on another thread) until now, which comment concerned two of my friends who have both had cautions registered against their properties (thus preventing either using their own house as further collateral or of selling the same) without the consent of the divorce terrorist to whom they are married – both women having come from third world countries and married my friends, a decade ago; one wanted a second opportunity at marriage and the other did the decent thing following an oops pregnancy (the withdrawal method).

    I understand that both of these women attended the Citizen’s Advice Bureau which does what it says in its name: the people who work there do so for free and thus so is the advice gratis; they tend to be retired and well-healed, and when they get stuck they defer the question to a lawyer who gives some pro-bono advice (in the hope that he can pick up a case – no such thing as free law any more than there is a free lunch – or free sex).

    That the C.A.B. are facilitating the destruction of marriage is doubtless something that would surely shock those good people, but by revealing the full extent of the law these unhappy women are being given the key to ill-begotten cash and prizes. This type of behaviour (registering the notice or caution) will only encourage more men in withdrawing from matrimony and indeed limit further their intercourse with the opposite sex.

  13. PokeSalad says:

    Young Women Are Joining ISIS for More than Marriage:
    http://www.businessinsider.com/young-women-are-joining-isis-for-more-than-marriage-2015-5

    See if you can spot the “takeaway” in the article.

  14. JDG says:

    Gunner Q – good point
    The first theif/welcher can steal the loot back, or at least what the lawers don’t take.

  15. JDG says:

    Lawers = lawyers – blasted phone

  16. If only we could go back to the good old days, when a wife had to kill her husband to access his money.

  17. greyghost says:

    The woman was married an had a husband that she divorced. She is supposed to be lonely and taken advantage of by strangers. Marriage and commitment insulate people from that. She got what she had coming to her.

  18. Dave says:

    Nigerian men. Again. Looks like this woman has not been reading the news.

  19. easttexasfatboy says:

    Yeah, it’s kinda hard to think of which cliches haven’t been touched upon……Nigerian men look upon western women as stupid sheep. Seriously. Fit only for shearing….heh,heh,heh……anyways, most folks know to avoid Nigerians. These folks are highly skilled con artists. It’s a cultural thing. Africans know all about it…….and, yeah, they manage to pluck quite a few folks here in the States. Especially since they’ve colonized home health care.

    So, in this sad tale of woe, Mrs. Hardman has been out swindled by some smooth tongue Nigerian man…….words fail me…..but, there is a bright side to the Nigerian tale……my ex is an RN here in Texas. Yeppers, true story…….she listened too……they promised her a post with some real authority……just what a RN needs to hear to advance her career. I frankly told her she didn’t have the experience for the job. And, if that was so, then, logically, she was going to get severely abused in some way. But, you see, I was wrong. How can I suspect people I dont even know? I was just jealous of their numerous Lexus cars and SUV’S. I tried to break it down for her…..the fancy building they were using was a dump when you went inside. They were making a real killing off various medical scams……and, yes, they were kicking back to some folks……and using her license to hide behind. Not really sure just how much they were able to make off with, but I reckon it was in the high 7 figures, at least.

    You see, it’s not hard to target a greedy woman…..is it? I’m wondering just how this whole thing is going to pan out. Major fraud…..Nigerians are well known for fraud and outright theft. Most all stereotypes are based on observed FACT. So, yes…..I’ve really enjoyed this little post……ain’t gonna lie about it. Every business dealing I’ve ever had with a Nigerian man went south. There are a number of Doctors and Surgeons around here.

    So, what will happen to my ex? Not sure…..I’m certain that her name is all over a large amount of paperwork. We’ll see, i reckon.

  20. Regular Guy says:

    @ PokeSalad

    Takeaway: Those poor girls being deceived by those evil Isis men! Why can’t they have litters of terrorists in a Western Country like a real feminist!

  21. feeriker says:

    If only we could go back to the good old days, when a wife had to kill her husband to access his money.

    Even then, she frequently got away with it.

    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com

  22. Scott says:

    It’s nice to know the horn section of The Specials still looks good after all these years. Ska rules!

    I was always partial to Fishbone myself. Party at ground zero, man!

  23. Dale says:

    That Focus on the Family post is rather revealing. I thought the Bible said the man’s wealth was to go to his sons… I do not remember reading anything about the ex-wife’s share. Let’s see…
    Eldest son: double share
    Other sons: one share
    Ex-wife: Hmmmm… Deut 21:15-17 does not say to give anything to an ex-wife.
    The paragraph before (Deut 21:10-14) shows she is to be given her freedom when she leaves, for cases when he bought a slave to be his wife. That’s it. No split of the inheritance or wealth at all.

    Gee, I wonder what kind of effect this would have on a woman dreaming about divorce…

    I unfortunately used to donate to FOTF.

  24. PokeSalad says:

    @ Regular Guy. Agree….this paragraph struck me – hmmm, I wonder what’s missing in these girls’ lives in the West?

    They consistently talked about the camaraderie they experienced after moving to Islamic State territory, and often used social media to post images of veiled “sisters” posing together.

    “This is often contrasted with discussions about the false feeling or surface-level relationships they iterate they previously held in the West,” the authors said. “This search for meaning, sisterhood, and identity is a primary driving factor for many women to travel.”

    They are also searching for romance in the form of marriage.

  25. @feeriker
    If only we could go back to the good old days, when a wife had to kill her husband to access his money.

    Even then, she frequently got away with it.

    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com

    But of course, didn’t know you women can do no evil?

  26. Gunner Q says:

    “I wonder what’s missing in these girls’ lives in the West?”

    “This search for meaning, sisterhood, and identity is a primary driving factor for many women to travel.”

    According to my hamsterlator, the West isn’t violent enough to support these chicks’ sex fantasies. Either they’re going over specifically to become the battered wives of abusive thugs, the media is filling their empty heads with visions of exotic men and Arabian harems or the women were serious when they said they’d rather burn in Hell than make us happy.

    Whatever. This is a self-punishing crime, like fat acceptance.

  27. Spiralina says:

    This is a pretty clever scam actually. Normally these young foreign men actually have to suck it up and sleep with these desperate old women for the big payout. They figured out a way to do it from afar. I feel zero sympathy for her. You sent a dude $190,000 over the internet? Try to be less stupid.

  28. I don’t get why this is funny? She cons a man out of 100’s of thousands with promises of love and keeps the money. He cons a woman out of dozens of thousands with promises of love and they get prison. Why is this funny?

  29. Pingback: Someone should have warned them. | Manosphere.com

  30. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Why did that woman fall for the scam? How could she be so gullible?

    It’s easy. Today, hordes of middle-aged, overweight divorcees have bought into the media propaganda about cougars, and big-is-beautiful, and how awesome and amazing are all women.

    That’s the really interesting part of this story. That an overweight, fiftysomething divorcee could so readily believe that an accomplished, handsome, younger man would so quickly fall in love with her.

  31. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Bluepillprofessor: I don’t get why this is funny?

    It’s funny because the woman lost a fortune.

    True, there’s an innocent man, her ex-husband, who shouldn’t have suffered. And a double standard regarding the Nigerians. But at least the woman paid a price for her own gold-digging. That’s better than the usual case.

  32. The Tingler says:

    So she got that money in a divorce, who knows, maybe she actually deserved it. I feel bad for her, that’s a miserable story. Lonely, acting loopy from anti-depressants… Hope she picks up the pieces and moves on.

  33. JDG says:

    Nobody deserves 400,000 pounds in a divorce. If she wanted out so bad, she should walk away with what she brought in minus any kids. The kids should go to the father by default. Are you sure your not really “the tingled”?

  34. The Tingler says:

    Seriously? The lady was depressed. She just ended a thirty year marriage and her mother died. She was on psychotropics. Anyone who’s ever been on psychotropics will tell you they make you do stupid stuff. She was probably in a manic state through this whole thing because of them.

    Women who marry for 29 years aren’t gold diggers. For all I know, maybe she really does embody everything the manosphere loathes in a divorced woman, but we don’t know that from the article.

  35. Opus says:

    Tragically, I have an ex-gf who did exactly what the woman in the Mail article did. No Nigerians, but a good looking younger member of her own tribe, who following her latest divorce (and I would like to point out she had put on a lot of weight since I dated her when she was just out of college) handed over a large sum of money to a man she met on a dating site and who was going to invest it for her. There may not have been any dishonesty, but he lost the lot as did she. Had she however not kicked her husband (a man who wanted to have lots of sex with her – I lost interest within the month) none of this would have happened.

    Not that husbands are always wonderful for (in my view) my Mother, an obedient wife, who never spent a penny on herself, allowed her husband to dictate where her fairly considerable fortune should be spent thus both wrecking the family finances and wasting the money at the same time.

  36. greyghost says:

    29 years is not the way of the gold digger. But it is a dumb move on her part. To be psychologically accustomed to having someone in your life for that long and then deciding the grass is greener (where’s TFH and the seeing past your nose thing) loneliness is the only possible results. A woman past 40 needs to put out of her head having some kind of new commitment from a new man. especially now with all that red pill out there.
    This occasion is one where appreciation of what one has would have come in handy. Maybe seeing marriage as something bigger than personal happiness would have filled her with what she thought she was buying. That hypergamy is a motha fucka

  37. Dave says:

    “Nobody deserves 400,000 pounds in a divorce.”

    Couldn’t agree more, unless she actually contributed that much—i.e. if she went into business with her husband and they made a truckload of money together.
    But the default thinking where a woman is “paid” by the man for being uplifted from a spinster to a wife status, is deeply flawed.

  38. Opus says:

    The legal thinking round here is that the spouses need to be placed in the same position as if there had not been a divorce at least to the extent that this is possible; the marriage has broken down, no-one is to blame. This is however deeply flawed, as Dave suggests, because in most cases what has happened is that the woman has given into a whim, has provided nothing materially to the marriage and yet walks away – indeed is incentivised to do so – with half or more of the assets and with the possibility that some other man will be only too happy to wife her up. Were the sexes reversed with men able to trade on their looks and figure but with women providing the financial capital, this would surely not be the law. The law was perhaps fine when the only people divorcing were the very rich, as a million here or there made little difference; that is not the case with the ordinary man in the street.

  39. Renee Harris says:

    @ the Tingler
    You’re not form these parts. If she want freedom she should’t have gotten married. Divorce is mostly the woman’s fault. Because if men are loyal and that how they get screwed. Most the unmarried man on this blog, are kind men with good heart and bright mind that been use and abuse by dumb bitches operating in “my problem your fault” society.
    Her husband would’ve protected her from the cam ( btw sounds like what happened to the old lady in great expectations) it but she wanted to be on her own. Like a drunk driver who died in the car crash, have compassion but realize her fault in situation.

  40. ace says:

    She got beat at her own game.

  41. But the default thinking where a woman is “paid” by the man for being uplifted from a spinster to a wife status, is deeply flawed.

    Flawed, but completely consistent with the belief that a man is little more than a filthy animal, grubbing for sex and food, until a woman lifts him up to a higher plane.

  42. Here is where feminists and anti-immigration conservatives of UK have common ground. Both groups want these 4 men deported but for very different reasons. The UK conservatives because they may have broke the law. The feminists because these 4 men took away/filled the jobs that feminist hypergamous women WANT to do.

  43. PokeSalad says:

    That’s the really interesting part of this story. That an overweight, fiftysomething divorcee could so readily believe that an accomplished, handsome, younger man would so quickly fall in love with her.

    For proof, look at every other ad on OKCupid, Match, or POF. Thousands of Wall-smacked women with enough baggage to sink a battleship put up drunk/duckface pictures and “looking for a prince to treat me like the princess I am” and “if you can’t handle my sass and snark, you dont deserve me.”

    *LOL*

  44. Opus says:

    It is not just gullible women. Near me, a middle-aged guy, a librarian, became enamoured of a woman he had never met nor ever did meet. He was asked for money; he even went to see some Nigerians to verify the story, but he never saw the woman, only an alleged photograph with which he had fallen in love courtesy of one of the dating sites. His friends told him it was nonsense and that he was being scammed, but he would not listen and handed over about Fifty Thousand Pounds sterling. There was, however, no woman and he thus ended his own life on the railway tracks – not because of the loss of the money but by reason of her non existence he felt rejected.

    … and does not Tamino in The Magic Flute fall in love with a photo of Pamina for whom for no obvious reason he has to endure trial by fire and water.

  45. Fawn says:

    It is a terrible thing to take advantage of gullible people looking for love. I’ve seen people fall for similar schemes only they actually met with the person. The “relationships” ended when the bank accounts were dry. My elderly neighbor fell for this after his wife died. His children tried to tell him but he wouldn’t listen.

  46. Yoda says:

    acquired nearly 400,000 pounds

    Many sammiches buy that would.

  47. MarcusD says:

    Organizer of Child-Free Day: ‘To say you’re not having children by choice is almost a taboo’
    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/to-say-youre-not-having-children-by-choice-is-almost-a-taboo-magenta-baribeau-on-organizing-child-free-day

    ==

    Earning less than your spouse makes you more likely to have an affair: study
    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/earning-less-than-your-spouse-makes-you-more-likely-to-have-an-affair-study

    The new study on the economics of sexual infidelity also shows this effect, called the ‘masculine overcompensation thesis’ is strongest in financially dependent husbands.

  48. John Nesteutes says:

    @MarcusD

    By “almost taboo” they must mean “something that you are constantly reminded of”.

  49. “Seriously? The lady was depressed. She just ended a thirty year marriage and her mother died. ”

    Maybe she would be less depressed if she hadn’t thrown away her marriage?

  50. “It is a terrible thing to take advantage of gullible people looking for love.”

    Indeed.

  51. By “almost taboo” they must mean “something that you are constantly reminded of”.

    Or: “Something they keep thinking people look down on them for even though no one ever actually says so.”

    If a typical 20-year-old girl tells her parents she doesn’t want kids, all she’ll hear is a sigh of relief as they give thanks that she won’t get distracted from her Very Important Career Path. If she still says it at 32, they might show some disappointment as they start to realize they’re never going to get grandchildren, and some of the wiser ones may realize she’s going to regret it. They might encourage her to change her mind, but she’s going to encounter very little actual criticism from anyone. “Aw, that’s too bad, you’d make a great mom,” isn’t criticism.

    Maybe the problem is that there are so few taboos left that they don’t understand the concept. She should imagine how people would react if she went around talking loudly about how people shouldn’t marry outside their race. That’s a taboo activity, and she’d get immediate, strong reactions of a sort she’d never get from being childless.

  52. greyghost says:

    TFH
    Those Nigerian guys can teach us in the anglosphere a thing. forget the sex keep those panties on. They want to play with that checking account.

  53. greyghost says:

    “It is a terrible thing to take advantage of gullible people looking for love.”

    I don’t agree with that. Some people have that coming to them, Imagine a 50 plus divorced chick and be broke from thinking she can buy what she was married to and threw away after robbing it.
    That is how it is supposed to be.

  54. easttexasfatboy says:

    The Nigerians I have seen are large, flashy men who are very bold. Gold watches and jewelry, expensive clothes and cars. It’s easy to see how they can scam a foolish woman. Thing is, these folks are extremely organized. Your average greedy woman is childs play. Here’s a thought to make you grin…..since they’re tribal, they’ll learn quick about family law. Plundering foolish women has to be easier than phone scams, right?😈

  55. Spike says:

    Biting sarcasm at its’ best Dalrock. As for the unfortunate Mrs Hardman, well, what can I say: Money easily gotten is easily squandered.

  56. BradA says:

    Scott,

    It must be really tough for the Onion to write satire today. That is far too close to the truth….

  57. Boxer says:

    TradCon Whiteknight : “Tougher penalties! A man stole from a woman! Take from some other man to make her whole!”

    Feminist : See ‘TradCon Whiteknight’ above. Perhaps the #GiveMoneytoWomen campaign is the only addition.

    This is absolutely right. Sadly, in most of the rest of the sphere, you’d have huge numbers of idiots flaming you for pointing it out.

    Part of the reason I enjoy the articles and comments here is the willingness on Dalrock to explore the sick, twisted relationship between faggot CONservatives and their radfem allies.

    Of the two, I have more respect for the radfems. They, at least, are honest about their desires to fuck men over. The cuckold CONservative swears he’s on the side of healthy families, until it’s time to cast his vote.

    Boxer

  58. MarcusD says:

    My Husband Creeps Me Out
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=963124

    Supplemental Income – Belongs to the Family or the Spouse?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=963151

  59. Fawn says:

    @ MarcusD

    Talk about burying the lead – possessed porn? She is creeped out for good reason.

  60. Mark Citadel says:

    Notice no heard-rending stories on Christian businesses destroyed by equality legislation.

    Immigrants remain big news in countries like the UK. They are essentially a protected class (though of course they must not be of Occidental heritage because that would be intrinsically racist).

    Also, you can only really laugh at ‘Social Conservatives’ who continue to think voting will actually change anything. Glad I’m openly authoritarian.

  61. Regular Guy says:

    @ Marcus

    Earning less than your spouse makes you more likely to have an affair
    “The new study on the economics of sexual infidelity also shows this effect, called the ‘masculine overcompensation thesis’ is strongest in financially dependent husbands.”

    No, an insufferable **** will tempt a man to cheat.

    Absolutely E V E R Y T H I N G is the fault of men, isn’t it?

  62. BradA says:

    Fawn,

    Read the linked discussion more closely. It wasn’t the porn, it was the “demonic” aspect.

    A woman who is “creeped out” from basic porn doesn’t know men well at all. It is like being creeped out by someone who likes to look at pictures of food, actual buffets, etc. Both have bad elements, but do not rise to the creeped out standard.

  63. Absolutely E V E R Y T H I N G is the fault of men, isn’t it?

    Well, when nothing can be the fault of women, who’s left?

  64. James K says:

    See also Steve Sailer’s take on legal and illegal blackmail. The blackmailer who uses a lawyer may get rich; the one who doesn’t will go to jail.

    http://www.unz.com/comments/isteve/legal-vs-illegal-blackmail/

  65. John Nesteutes says:

    @BradA

    I find it likely that she is exaggerating or just plain lying about “demonic possession porn”.

    @Fawn

    A man who is struggling with sexual sin needs to seek leadership and accountability from other Christian men in his church. His wife is not the suitable person to do it.

    I do realise that this concept is lost on you.

  66. The “possessed porn” thing, silly as it sounds, actually provides a good example. Yes, that’s disturbing and creepy. But is it a guarantee that the man can’t provide good leadership for his wife? Does his weakness for that vice prevent him from receiving God’s grace through the sacrament of matrimony and being a good husband? Does it change what God expects of the woman who married him?

    If a man isn’t perfect, they’ll find a reason to deny his headship. If it’s not “possessed porn,” it’ll be regular porn, raising his voice (abuse!), not praying enough, or something else. He’s a sinner, by definition, so he’s disqualified from headship.

  67. Fawn says:

    @Brad A – it is the demonic aspect that I was referring to.

  68. Boxer says:

    Totally off topic, but last night I watched the Kurt Cobain biopic Montage of Heck, and was struck by just how relevant it was to this blog and all the participants here.

    The film paints a portrait of a kid who grew up like many kids do today: A divorce bastard who was alienated, atomized, drugged with ritalin, and had no stable male authority figure in his life.

    Once he achieved some measure of monetary success, a parasitic wimminz grafted on to him, got him hooked on heroin, got him to marry her, got pregnant, and then was repeatedly unfaithful, which drove him to suicide. “I’m not quite as monogamous as he was” she explains, with a smirk.

    Really chilling, and simultaneously informative. Make your sons watch it.

  69. feeriker says:

    A woman who is “creeped out” from basic porn doesn’t know men well at all.

    I seriously doubt that she is really “creeped out” by the porn. She’s probably simply lost all attraction to her husband and this is just the first hamsterbatory stage of her preparations to frivorce him.

  70. Boxer says:

    If a man isn’t perfect, they’ll find a reason to deny his headship. If it’s not “possessed porn,” it’ll be regular porn, raising his voice (abuse!), not praying enough, or something else. He’s a sinner, by definition, so he’s disqualified from headship.

    I read all of Marcus D’s links, and that one was especially embarrassing.

    I’m sure his wife’s willingness to “expose” (lol) his weird proclivities to thousands of strangers will immediately strengthen his trust in her, not to mention her creepy habit of going through his browsing history.

    I can’t imagine why such a man would turn to pornography rather than enjoy the company of such a stellar wife. I really can’t.

    Boxer

  71. feeriker says:

    A man who is struggling with sexual sin needs to seek leadership and accountability from other Christian men in his church. His wife is not the suitable person to do it.

    I do realise that this concept is lost on you.

    I would wager a year’s salary that this guy is married to a frigid bitch who would rather have her vagina crazyglued shut than ever again have sex with him. This accounts for why men resort to porn in 99-plus percent of cases.

  72. Regular Guy says:

    @ feeriker

    I would disagree with the assertion that the 99% of cases in which a husband uses pornagraphy is because the wife is frigid.

    I personally know a man who said his wife had such a “charming” personality that her voice would give him a pit in his stomach. She made herself available to him every time he desired sex but he couldn’t stand being around her anymore. He used porn because he didn’t have to have sex with her for a sexual release. Sad, huh?

  73. new anon says:

    Dale says: That Focus on the Family post is rather revealing.

    “Once something becomes accepted by conservatives in America, it then become accepted by Christianity in America.”

    Can’t remember where I read the quote, but it’s right. American Christianity’s measure for right and wrong is no longer the Bible. It’s American secular conservatism.

    American conservatives have accepted divorce, so it has become accepted in American Christianity. You can see this same pattern with other issues, if you look.

  74. Regular Guy says:

    @ new anon
    “American conservatives have accepted divorce, so it has become accepted in American Christianity. You can see this same pattern with other issues, if you look.”

    This is true. Unfortunately, the faction that has been the most vocal about this, The American Left, do so with the authenticity of a concern troll and the resentment of a thief whose mark was recently cleaned out by better thief.

  75. MarcusD says:

    @Boxer

    I found this thread to be far worse:

    What do you think of men who want a submissive wife?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=962720

    I can give quick bios on nearly all people in the thread, if needed.

  76. MarcusD says:

    Some interesting images circulating around:

  77. Regular Guy says:

    The Focus on the Female article opens with this: “Please understand that I’m not advocating divorce. God hates divorce…”

    And then Ron Blue and Jeremy White advise the reader how to continue with the proceedings of a divorce.

    Hedge Fund Manager: “If only I could come up with a scheme to get rid of all this bad debt and have some other poor sap take the fall and I come out smelling like a bed of roses. How would I go about doing that?”

    Churchian Senior Hedge Fund Manager: “Please understand that I’m not advocating swindling the public out of their hard earned money. God hates fraud, but I were to pull off something like that I would take all this bad debt you’ve accrued and repackage it with other financial instruments that would help qualify it with a AAA rating and sell it to mutual fund managers who cater to those knuckledragging, middle class rubes.”

  78. Novaseeker says:

    @Marcus —

    The church picture is lefty without question, but not all bad. Some stuff is misleading more than it is wrong, but more importantly other stuff is missing. It’s not that this is wrong, it’s that other things are missing from it, such that the moral picture is incomplete. Unfortunate.

    The milf ‘hotwife’ is a micro-trend currently. I expect that it will grow a bit (I’m not sure how much, but we will see) in the coming years as porn filters its way through the mainstream more thoroughly even than it already has (it apparently leads to a certain percentage of guys developing cuckold/hotwife fantasies and getting excited by the idea/sight of their wives having sex with other men (note she says it was her husbands idea) … yet another reason why porn use is to be avoided). It’s interesting, though, that her main criterion is penis size — another thing that is trending through the sex market is size-queen-ism, and it seems to overlap quite a bit with the hotwife/cuckold fantasization. Of course she could just be making it all up as *ger* fantasy as well — you never know on the internet, of course.

  79. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker, I disagree, that is pretty close to a pure SJW checklist. Wouldn’t surprise me to see a big poster of Che Guevera someplace inside, like in the top preacher’s office, and maybe an Occupy poster in some other, younger person’s, office. It’s a church of politics, clearly.

    Marcus, is that pic from a radical Catholic church, or from…hm…Episcopalian, PC-USA, maybe United Methodist? Just curious.

    Oh, and Marcus with regard to the hotwife: I’ve seen crazier eyes, but not lately. Of course it’s the net, so the whole thing could be made up, but…probably not, unfortunately.

    She’s 33? Guess all those self-esteem lessons back when she was pre-teen to teen sure paid off.

  80. Tom C says:

    Monty, Emmanuel, Adewunmu and Chukwuka may be off to a rocky start in their new homeland but I think they will land on their feet. These guys should be naturals at the classic prison pen-pal scam. They will be cranking out 100 letters a day in no time.

  81. Anonymous Reader says:

    Ah. UCC, the denomination of Rev. Wright…

  82. BradA says:

    I find it likely that she is exaggerating or just plain lying about “demonic possession porn”.

    That could be John, but the description implied possession, not just porn. I have never heard of that myself and I have heard of far too many varieties. (No end to the variation of deviance today, though it boils down the the same thing in many ways.)

    And then Ron Blue and Jeremy White advise the reader how to continue with the proceedings of a divorce.

    My mind paired the first name with the second last name to make something more relevant to the second point RG, IIRC.

    I would agree with you that porn use is not always (or possibly often) because of lack of sex with a wife, though I suspect few if any wives realize how much most men would have sex with them if they could do so. Being married does not remove the pull of porn, or at least it had not for some of us in reasonably sexed relationships.

    The problem is that porn plays with the mind, is fairly instant, etc. No women can ever compete with that, though she can certainly put a damper on it if she chooses to do so and he then guards his mind.

  83. BradA says:

    Boxer,

    Interesting note about Kurt Cobain. I had thought he was just a rock start that committed suicide. That would put an interesting spin on it if so. Though I would not hold him blameless, no matter how scheming his wife was.

    It does remind me that my father apparently still blamed my mother for “taking his virginity” many years later as that came out in the last days of his life. (Yes, I am the result of that.)

    I have been told my dad was a wallflower at the time, though you wouldn’t have known it by the time I was older as he was VERY outgoing. My mother had always blamed him for things and I will never know the complete truth (especially since both are dead now), but it was an interesting revelation to see.

    Women can definitely be more predatory, in spite of the belief in the myth that they are more spiritual. (My mother was faithful to him though, as far as I know and her character was not the run around kind. He went wild after they divorced, and a bit before, per his own testimony.)

  84. JDG says:

    CAF: Catholics Answering Falsely

  85. Dave says:

    The Focus on the Female article opens with this: “Please understand that I’m not advocating divorce. God hates divorce…”

    And then Ron Blue and Jeremy White advise the reader how to continue with the proceedings of a divorce.

    I didn’t know you noticed too. It was too shameful I tried looking for their email address to drop them a line, but then, decided against it, as I am pretty certain that I would be wasting my time; those folks are steeped in their churchian ideologies.
    Their advice is lopsided and geared towards how to maximize divorce reward by the wife, and hurt the husband the most. The organization should be ashamed it calls itself a Christian ministry.

  86. Trust says:

    I just read the absolute worst marriage advice ever by a Christian leader. It’s a tad dated, but would be a hit movie that makes Fireproof look biblical by comparison. It’s not just making a husband submit to wife, it’s a wife using submission as a tease before beating him into submission with government muscle.

    Dr. Willard Harley advises a woman through email, without ever hearing her husband’s side, to:

    1. Before you submit, scheme against your husband for a while. Talk to lawyers, stash money, get an apartment.

    2. When you are set to leave, don’t just leave. Submit for a month. Be nice, tend to his needs. Basically, follow the biblical plan, but not because it is God’s direction, but to tease him.

    3. Now that your home is probably happier because he didn’t know your pleasantness was a trick, leave. Or make him leave if you have kids, because only the father can be separated from the children, if it is the wife’s will. If that doesn’t whip him into shape, the.government will handle the rest.

    I wish I was making this up. I know this is a bit OT, but am hoping D. may offer his sage commentary.

    Marriage Builders is not properly named.

    http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi8111_quit.html

  87. new anon says:

    The church sign pictured above has all the hallmarks of being an emergent church.

    There is an excellent documentary called “The Real Roots of the Emergent Church” by Elliot Nesch, which covers in depth where this religious interpretation came from and where it seems to be going. BTW, it’s not strictly a protestant phenomenon, as their are emergent Catholics as well.

    It’s available on YouTube.

    He also has an excellent documentary on the purpose-driver/seeker-sensitive/mega-church phenomenon called “Church of Tares.” Also available on YouTube.

    Both are long (about 3 hours), but worth watching if you are concerned about how the church has drifted away from teaching core doctrine to feel-good philosophy.

  88. John Nesteutes says:

    @Trust

    Dr Harley is actually some of the better advice out there, too, compared to most. I generally recommend his advice for men, actually. He’s one of the few marraige counsellors to list sexual needs as a legitimate marital need.

  89. John Nesteutes says:

    @Novaseeker

    Size-queen-ism used to exclusively be the domain of homosexual males. It is not surprising that rampant pornography use is leading to women engaging in this behaviour. A similar thing happened in the 1990s when the porn industry suddenly went to all oral/anal instead of showing natural, normal sex.

  90. Trust says:

    @ John Nesteutes

    That’s part of why I read him, and why this one was akin to an earthquake. His love busters are also good and do give respect high.importance.

    He’s another decent, well-meaning arbitrator.swept away in the current.

  91. Anonymous Reader says:

    Size-queen-ism used to exclusively be the domain of homosexual males.

    How do you know that to be true? DId you ask the Empress Catherine of Russia for her opinion?

  92. It’s not exactly surprising that a bored, aging-but-still-hot wife with a nice-guy beta provider husband who won’t put any limits on her behavior would be looking for a man who will dominate her and who’s well-endowed enough to hurt her in the process. You don’t even need porn to explain that, though it may contribute to the husband turning his own cuckolding into a fetish. (All assuming she’s telling the truth, of course, which is a huge assumption.)

  93. Minesweeper says:

    Can you believe this ? In the UK, a 28yo woman who had underage sex 4 times with a 14yo boy, then THEN ACCUSED —HIM— OF RAPING —HER— when found out, originally got a 2 year suspended sentence(no jailtime).

    This was reversed upon appeal by parents + MP. Can you imagine the outrage of a male saying this about a 14yo girl ?? WAOW just WAOW. Can women sink ANY lower ???? No need to answer that, I know the depth they sink to and it appalls us.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11649520/Corporals-wife-who-seduced-soldiers-son-14-is-jailed.html

  94. Minesweeper says:

    Yes, for sex X4 with a male child AND a false rape charge against him =

    Originally = “NO JAIL TIME”.

    The world today.

  95. Fawn says:

    @ Trust – I’ve never read any marriagebuilders advice before but this seems like pretty good advice overall.

    http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi3550_summary.html

  96. John Nesteutes says:

    @Trust

    His advice basically amounts to how to engage in the best possible beta comfort game. It’s actually very solid advice, for males.

    His advice for females is good advice in Plan A. Plan B is a bit of a problem, although it’s not like women wouldn’t go and do it anyway, so I think on the net, he’s a positive influence because at least he advocates for Plan A. (For the uninitiated: Plan A = meet your partner’s emotional needs as best as you can, despite however awful they are being to you and not meeting your needs. Plan B = stop meeting any needs, move out, until your ultimatums are met.)

    Keep in mind that most of his advice for women is tailored for women whose husbands are having affairs. The community around Marriagebuilders (they have a forum) is also quite a healthy place – lots of subtly red pill advice going on there.

  97. John Nesteutes says:

    Shorter Fawn: “I’ve never read any of Dr Willard Harley’s books, or spoken with one of his marriage counsellors personally, or participated in his forums, but I’ll go ahead and read 1 page on his website and then intrude in on a conversation with two people who actually know what they’re talking about.”

  98. Minesweeper says:

    @TFH, I damm well hope so. They truly deserve it. Suprised they have not had a slut walk in the accused favour. Used to be either a false rape accusation OR underage sex would result in jail time. But no only for the menzzzz.

    Adult females should be given a shoulder to cry on.

  99. Dalrock says:

    I took at quick look at the marriagebuilders link from Trust. It reads just like a secular version of Joel and Kathy Davisson. Wives get unhaaappy for reasons they don’t understand, but while the husband isn’t doing anything definitively wrong they are sure he is somehow to blame. He even says this is the reason most women divorce. Their “emotional needs aren’t being met”. His solution is his own special flavor of the Wakeup Call, focused around punishing the husband until he agrees to buy and follow the good Dr’s book and related materials. Kick the husband out of the house, or move out to a new apartment at a secret location, and only when enough of Dr. Willard F. Harley, Jr’s products are consumed and the husband is fully broken should she consider honoring her marriage vows and letting the kids grow up with daddy.

    It takes a situation where the wife has lost attraction because her husband is too beta, and teaches the wife to crush him and take charge (only worsening the problem). Oprah would be proud, and of course, Fawn loves it.

  100. Anonymous Reader says:

    His advice basically amounts to how to engage in the best possible beta comfort game. It’s actually very solid advice, for males.

    Then it is not solid advice for any man under the age of 40. Beta comfort game is provider game. Provider game has been failing more and more obviously for the last 10, 15 or 20 years. Because thanks to feminism, women in their 20’s and 30’s are their own betas, they do not need providers; thanks to Title IX, Affirmative Action, and last but not least, the state, women do not need men to provide for them. They do not need men to provide for them.

    In fact, in some areas women under 30 now out earn men in the same age bracket, with the same degrees, in the same fields. No amount of provider game will suffice to attract such women, or to retain them after marriage.

    His advice is 20 or more years out of date.

    Keep in mind that most of his advice for women is tailored for women whose husbands are having affairs.

    Would those be women who were sexually refusing for several years prior, I wonder? In any event, this would again indicate that he’s out of date. Does he ever refer to Tinder, for example, or Ashley Madison? If not, then he’s ignorant of the real world as men under 40 live in it.

    From what little I saw, this man is a pedestalizing beta himself, and clearly is encouraging women to go for the cash & prizes of frivorce. Maybe I’m wrong, but frankly I found the “finally, be his wife for a month, then dump him” advice to be nausea inducing; if for no other reason than he’s urging women to destroy what little trust remains as a “cure” for marriage.

  101. Opus says:

    This is nothing new: I had a girlfriend who had sex with her fifteen year old neighbour and apparently the police were looking into it. Was she worried? Of course not, and if they got heavy with her she was sure a quick blow-job would sort matters out, yet the female Professor of Psychology from the local University is presently engaged on research as to bias in the criminal justice system against women!

    Cuckoldry is also not new. I can think of three ex-gf’s of mine (not including the one mentioned in the para above) who in varying ways and varying degrees (including one piece of inter-racial ‘he’s so much bigger stronger and violent than you than you’) engaged in action to make me jealous by flaunting themselves at other men or implying that they were doing so or even going further . Had I complained I would have been cast in the role of insecure control-freak and loser. It is difficult to think what the male equivalent would be.

  102. Fawn says:

    @ John – I wasn’t trying to intrude on your conversation. I was only speaking to Trust actually and agreeing with him about some of the marriagebuilders advice being good advice.

  103. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    @Trust..

    That seems incredibly bizarre. I’ve read a great deal of both of the Harley’s stuff, and they seem to be very much down for mutual reciprocation and accountability in marriage…more than many of the other legions of vipers in the marriage self-help racket.

  104. I wonder which group is smaller: husbands who need to use more beta comfort game, or wives who need to gain a few pounds?

    We could try to find out, but we’d need some very sensitive instruments to measure quantities that small.

  105. Dalrock says:

    @John Nesteutes

    Keep in mind that most of his advice for women is tailored for women whose husbands are having affairs. The community around Marriagebuilders (they have a forum) is also quite a healthy place – lots of subtly red pill advice going on there.

    This isn’t what he wrote on the page Trust linked to. What he says is that 80% of divorces are caused by “neglect” (he isn’t meeting her emotional needs).

    On the subject of neglect, I’ve chosen to feature a marriage that isn’t all that bad from most people’s perspective, but isn’t good either. L.R.’s husband hasn’t abandoned her physically, leaving her to fend for herself. Instead, he’s only abandoned her emotionally. They probably even have a friendship of sorts. It’s cases like these that leave a wife struggling to know what to do.

    As it turns out, most of these women divorce their husbands. In fact, research I’ve personally conducted in the archives of government statistics on the causes of divorce lead me to believe that as many as 80% of all divorces are caused by neglect. Women like L.R. suddenly call it quits with little warning, leaving her husband, family and friends scratching their heads wondering what’s wrong with her.

    Also, he is deliberately vague about just who is having the affairs. You assumed it was the husbands, but after he tells us the primary cause for divorce is men “neglecting” the emotional needs of their wives, he writes:

    At this point, they often make the biggest mistake of their lives-one or both spouses have an affair. There are no excuses for infidelity, but the reason most people give for having an affair is that their intimate emotional needs (affection, conversation, sexual fulfillment, and recreational companionship) are not being met in marriage. And since 60% of all marriages experience that extremely painful betrayal, this response to unmet emotional needs, which is common in marriage, is almost a certainty.

    He is careful to dance around the issue, but he is saying these women lose the tingle, and then someone cheats. Part of his solution is to get these tempted-to-cheat women living away from their husbands, ideally at a secret location.

    Ellen contacted me with essentially the same complaint that you described in your letter. Her husband, Ken, was not abusive, but didn’t meet her intimate emotional needs. She is a Christian, but told me that she was very tempted to have an affair or divorce her husband. She wanted to avoid both possibilities.

    Sometimes, especially when an unfaithful spouse refuses to end an affair, I recommend no contact at all for plan B. If he wants to contact her, he must talk through a designated mediator. But in this case, I didn’t feel that a mediator was necessary and that Ellen could talk with Ken by cell phone. He didn’t know her address, however.

  106. Trust says:

    What serious advisor in their right mind would tell a man whose sexual needs were being neglected to move out to a secret location?

    Here I am, all alone in my private new apartment, with this big empty bed, where my husband can’t find me…. yup, that will solve the neglect problem in a hurry.

  107. JDG says:

    What serious advisor in their right mind would tell a man whose sexual needs were being neglected to move out to a secret location?

    Actually it sounds more like he is telling wives whom have lost the tingle for their husbands to move out to a secret location, which IMO is even worse. Once SHE cheats there is very little chance for reconciliation.

  108. Opus says:

    Having read the quotes in Dalrock just above I have got to say that Dr Harley is out of his tree. I propose that the principal reason for adultery is opportunity and that to suggest 80 % of all divorces are caused by neglect (and he must mean neglect by men) is to demand of males, superhuman betadom.

    Nuts. Plain nuts.

  109. Trust says:

    @ JDG

    I meant it as reverse psychology. We would never tell a man to do this, but.he sits here and tells a woman to. Apologies if my point was not clear.

  110. Dalrock says:

    I’ll try to set aside some time to write up a post on the marriagebusters article in the next few days.

  111. JDG says:

    I meant it as reverse psychology. We would never tell a man to do this, but.he sits here and tells a woman to. Apologies if my point was not clear.

    I see it now. My bad.

  112. OKRickety says:

    Re. Willard Harley and Marriagebuilders

    The series on “When to Call it Quits” is pathetic. He says he “presented this issue in the context of a very dangerous assumption, unconditional love” Apparently, unconditional love is a pet peeve of his. I agree that unconditional love is a bad concept, but it isn’t clear that it is key to his advice (and I’m not sure it really is significant in his advice).

    Looking at Part 3, we find advice on sex. Suppose we have “the problem of a wife’s sexual reluctance in marriage when her emotional needs have been met and Love Busters (‘habits that destroy romantic love’) have been eliminated. The solution is to make sex enjoyable for your wife and to reward her whenever she has sex with you.” First, the husband met all her emotional needs and eliminated Love Busters. But she’s still reluctant. Now, the husband must make sex enjoyable for her and reward her when you have sex. You can’t get much more beta than that, can you?

    His advice to husbands? “… before any separation, I make sure that they have been doing a good job meeting their wife’s emotional needs and avoiding Love Busters.” Again, the man must do everything right.

    I used to think this man was okay. In this series, he is definitely worthless.

  113. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail Corishev
    I wonder which group is smaller: husbands who need to use more beta comfort game, or wives who need to gain a few pounds?

    We could try to find out, but we’d need some very sensitive instruments to measure quantities that small.

    I suggest some of the equipment at CERN used to detect vanishingly small subatomic objects, possibly even the hadron collider, might be pressed into service in this cause. Although there would be a clear need for a naming convention, and the quark physicists have already used both “charm” and “strange” unfortunately.

    What would we be measuring? Micro-interest? No, clearly not. Pico-attraction? No, still too big. A nano-attractor? Hmm.

    I’m trying to think, but nuttin’s happenin’.

  114. Anonymous Reader says:

    First, the husband met all her emotional needs and eliminated Love Busters. But she’s still reluctant. Now, the husband must make sex enjoyable for her and reward her when you have sex.

    So what form of reward would be acceptable? I once saw a documentary on one of the legal brothels in Nevada, and there was a price chart on the wall of the room where a prostitute was being interviewed. Perhaps copies of that price chart could be provided to the families being “healed” by this pedestalizing beta? What’s the going rate for oral, does it cost per minute, is there an extra charge for additional services?

    Enquiring minds want to know.

  115. Dalrock says:

    @OKRickety

    I used to think this man was okay. In this series, he is definitely worthless.

    The foundation to his entire approach is a concept he calls the Love Bank. This is what Rollo calls “negotiating desire”. In a nutshell, doing nice things creates feelings of romantic love and makes us sexually attractive to our spouse, and doing mean things makes us unattractive:

    We like those with positive Love Bank balances and dislike those with negative balances. But if an account reaches a certain threshold, a very special emotional reaction is triggered — romantic love. We no longer simply like the person — we are in love. It’s a feeling of incredible attraction to someone of the opposite sex.

    Like I wrote above, I’ll try to block out some time to do a post on this.

  116. OKR, “unconditional love” is a ridiculous hamster concept due to the way the love portion of the term has been corrupted. True unconditional love is what a husband promises to his wife in his wedding vows, that he will provide for her materially without conditions. What this is converted into by the Evangelical Feminist is 24/7 nonstop for life servitude to said hamster, affirmation, emotional tampon duty and general orbiter status until death or frivorce do them part.

  117. Novaseeker says:

    If you look at his stuff, much of it is based on negotiating … everything. He even explicitly uses the word repeatedly. Not only is this inconsistent with Christian complementarianism, it’s also just a really bad idea in general.

  118. Parsimonious, grudging, used car salesman are terms that come to mind.

  119. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    If you look at his stuff, much of it is based on negotiating … everything.

    Yes, and apparently nothing is ever to be considered settled, either. There’s no such thing as a “done deal”. New negotiation, or re-negotiation, or re-re-negotiation can occur at any time. So the goal posts can shift, be met, then shift again. Or to put it another way, no matter how many hoops a man can jump through, even a hoop of real fire (with some Kleenex wrapped around a coathanger wire), he can always wind up jumping higher through a smaller one at any time.

    A bit one-sided, these negotiations.

    Now I’m thinking maybe Rollo should write up something on this guy.

  120. I’m not going to bother reading his stuff, but the Love Bank already sounds enough like the Love Tank from Five Love Languages that he might be guilty of plagiarism.

    Thing is, if you want to sell something to people with marital troubles, the largest market is unhappy wives who want out. They easily dwarf the husbands who want out and the husbands and wives who are serious about fixing things. So the most profitable product will be one that gives people some motions to go through, so they (she) can claim she tried her best; but set standards for success such that failing to meet them (not filling the Bank/Tank enough) becomes a valid excuse for bailing out, whether that’s stated outright or just implied.

    You can get a best-seller out of that (apparently more than once). Write something that only includes suggestions for fixing things and doesn’t allow for an exit plan, and you’d better keep your day job.

  121. I can’t help but wonder: do these people really exist? Are there really people who weren’t that romantically attracted to each other when they married, but by doing lots of nice things for each other, they’ve negotiated their way to deeper and deeper attraction?

    I’ve never seen that happen, and I’ve seen and experienced the opposite many times; but I can’t rule out the possibility that there are some people out there who are wired backwards so that their attraction vectors don’t follow the normal patterns, and maybe they’re the ones who end up writing these books. Do you guys think that’s possible, or are they simply shysters?

  122. jeff says:

    Dalrock,

    I’ll save you some time. My wife and I went through Marriage builders when it was fairly new and actually counseled directly with Harley Sr. himself.

    It does absolutely nothing if the wife is hypergamous or narcissistic which most women are.

    We read all of his books (I think he had 3 in 2001) and did all of his forms.

    1. My wife lied in the honesty questionaire, then lied about lying on it. I was just about done with it then.
    2. Nothing he said could make her accountable for doing her side of fulfilling my needs.

    Now take into consideration that she was all on board for marriagebuilders.

    There is no headship, respect is a consideration but not required. Submission is absolutely not talked about.

    Maybe it’s changed, but it couldn’t by much.

    The closest is Love and Respect.

  123. jeff says:

    Emerson Eggrichs actually says husband has authority

  124. Tom C says:

    Well, it’s a tough theory to logically debunk. If romantic love is triggered when you fill up your Love Bank to a certain (undefined) threshold, then if you find that it’s not working you must have simply not done enough nice things yet. Try harder.

    Maybe it’s partly projection. I think a man would be more amenable to falling in love with a woman who constantly did nice things for him. In today’s modern dating world it can be rare for a woman to do much of anything nice for you at all.

  125. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Anonymous Reader: “thanks to feminism, women in their 20’s and 30’s are their own betas, they do not need providers;

    Not true for most women. A few women have exciting, high-paying careers. Most women have stifling jobs fill with drudgery and little pay. After a decade in the workforce, most women would welcome a wealthy man to provide for all their needs. How much nicer to sit at home all day, or go shopping and gossiping with friends.

    I’ve heard that uber-rich celebrity men often buy “boutique” stores for their trophy wives, so the wives can fulfill their fantasies of being a career woman. Jim Morrison bought a boutique for Pam, his common law wife, which never made a profit. But it filled her time.

    On TV’s Absolutely Fabulous, Edina fantasized about owning a boutique where she would sell, “Oh, things. Nice things. Knick-knacks. Chocolates.”

    Owning a boutique (without the pressure of having to make a profit on it) seems to be a widespread female fantasy. The feminists never understood that the working world is not much fun. That most men live lives of quiet desperation.

  126. @ Cail
    “I can’t help but wonder: do these people really exist? Are there really people who weren’t that romantically attracted to each other when they married, but by doing lots of nice things for each other, they’ve negotiated their way to deeper and deeper attraction?”

    We’ve had strong sexual attraction from the start, but we’ve found (especially during these years the kids are little), we have to put effort into “doing nice things” in order to keep liking each other, if that makes sense. There have been really hard times to get through, where in reflection, I think the sexual attraction and our vows were the only things keeping us together. But the “negotiation” comes into the friendship aspect, for sure.

  127. Yes, and apparently nothing is ever to be considered settled, either.

    Yes, the really insidious part of the Love Bank/Tank paradigm is that there’s no limit, or even an attempt to measure, how much she withdraws/burns. (I’m guessing about the Bank one, since I haven’t read it, but it’s a safe guess.) If she only needed to withdraw 10 Love Bucks per day in the first year of marriage because she was still smitten with you, and she needs 100 LBpD now because she’s gotten a little bored, well, that’s just how it is. It’s not her fault; she’s not responsible for how she feels. You’d just better raise the amount of your deposits. And if her need rises to 1000 LBpD next year because she starts working for a studly boss and a couple of her friends get divorced and start telling her how awesome it is to be free — well, you’d just better figure out how to stuff more Love Bucks in there faster.

  128. Maybe it’s partly projection. I think a man would be more amenable to falling in love with a woman who constantly did nice things for him.

    Yes, I do think the men who write these things are projecting. It means a lot to a man when his woman does nice things for him, so he assumes it goes both ways. In the Love Languages book, “Acts of Service” is one of the languages, along with touching (sex), talking, gifts, and, quality time. Of course, in reality men are mostly into touching and acts of service, and women are into talking and gifts. But the people who wrote the books thought (or pretended to think) that men and women are equally interested in all five (though with variation from person to person). So the male writers, at least, think (or hope) that women will be affected the same way as men by these things, and the only trick is figuring out which ones fill up your woman’s tank the best.

  129. SS, I can believe what you say: if the spouses are attracted to each other and take their vows seriously, then being nice improves the “friendship” bond that grows between them. Even battling through tough times together can do that.

    What I have a hard time believing is that “nice things” increase the attraction. That’s what these people claim, because that’s what most people are having trouble with and will buy books and seminars to try to repair. They want men to think (without saying it in so many words) that if you just pile on the nonstop niceness, your wife who doesn’t seem to want to touch you now will someday be tearing your clothes off and begging for the meat again. That’s just not true. What I’m not sure about is whether they believe it’s true.

  130. feeriker says:

    Shorter Fawn: “I’ve never read any of Dr Willard Harley’s books, or spoken with one of his marriage counsellors personally, or participated in his forums, but I’ll go ahead and read 1 page on his website and then intrude in on a conversation with two people who actually know what they’re talking about.”

    If Fawn endorses it, then common sense tells you to run like hell in the opposite direction.

  131. JDG says:

    I have a small library of Christian books. None of the books with the exception of some Bible commentaries, dictionaries, and a concordance. were written after 1984. Most were written much sooner.

    Rare is the book published under a Christian banner in the last 30 years or so that isn’t seeped in feminism and/or filled with heresy. Equally rare is the Christian that will spend enough time in prayer and in the Bible to know the lies when they see or hear them.

  132. JDG says:

    “were written after 1984” should be “were published after 1984” at 9:02 pm.

  133. Dale says:

    I was very impressed with Harley’s book, “His Needs, Her Needs”. Although, I guess, without realizing it, I approached the book with the assumption that both spouses would be honest and genuinely want to serve their spouse. I have yet to hear a man object to the idea that he needs to serve his wife. Yes, I have heard many supposed examples claimed by others, but never actually seen it first-hand. This in spite of having many more men for friends than women.
    I have however had a woman object to the idea. Right after she indicated she liked the idea of her husband accepting that he had to serve her.

    If a couple are willing to learn, the book is mostly very good. He pulls no punches with stating that sex is a high-importance requirement for many men. Certainly problems exist however:
    – It does completely lack the idea of the necessary headship and authority of the husband.
    – With respect to disciplining children, he says a husband is not to proceed with a plan of discipline if his wife does not agree. This veto effectively gives her authority in this area. And may give her bad ideas for other areas.
    – It gives the wife an “out” on domestic support (cleaning, cooking, etc.): if she really does not like doing a particular task. I do not recall anything in his book that said a husband did not have to do something if he really did not want to do so. In fact, he repeatedly says that failing to fulfill all your spouses top 5 needs invites adultery and marriage failure.
    Similarly, I fail to recall any boss telling me I only had to do the parts of the job that I liked. Can’t we learn to be mature adults, with responsibilities and duties?
    – He admits that an attractive wife is very important for many men. This part is good. When it comes to examples however, he focuses exclusively on men, with the statement that women already know what to do. In my experience, this is completely inaccurate. Women are largely obese, with masculine short hair, and/or masculine clothing. Women are in huge need of “hurtful” truth about their appearance.

    I just saw something on the page http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi8121_POJA_needs.html
    “Never do anything without an enthusiastic agreement between you and your spouse.” This makes the wedding vows basically useless, and for the exact same reason that the government renders them useless. If she does not FEEL like doing something, then she has the right to stop the activity. I have no desire for a marriage like that. I prefer the servant attitude advocated in Phil 2:3-8. Plus that one is from God, so is based on far better wisdom (1 Cor 1:25).
    To be fair, Harley is trying to get the spouses to look for ways for both to be happy with the meeting of each other’s needs. I see this only working in marriages where both are capable of being mature, with at least a slightly long-range view of life. I know some women like that. And many without. Also some men without, but much fewer.

    jeff said, “Nothing he said could make her accountable for doing her side of fulfilling my needs.” This goes directly against the ability of his counseling to be effective. As jeff no doubt experienced. Sorry to hear that jeff.

    Regarding Trust’s assessment:

    >He is careful to dance around the issue, but he is saying these women lose the tingle, and then someone cheats. Part of his solution is to get these tempted-to-cheat women living away from their husbands, ideally at a secret location.

    Yeah, that seems really foolish. Living with a friend or pastor during any separation, for accountability, seems far wiser. Or do we suggest accountability only for men?

  134. feeriker says:

    In fact, in some areas women under 30 now out earn men in the same age bracket, with the same degrees, in the same fields. No amount of provider game will suffice to attract such women, or to retain them after marriage.

    What self-respecting (i.e, non-beta/delta/gamma) man wants to wife up one of those anyway?

    His advice is 20 or more years out of date.

    It was toxic even 20 years ago. No woman in the modern era has EVER found beta-provider signaling attractive.

    Keep in mind that most of his advice for women is tailored for women whose husbands are having affairs.

    Would those be women who were sexually refusing for several years prior, I wonder?

    Almost certainly, in 90 – 99 percent of cases, but Willard will never touch that in a million years. As a couple of other folks upthread have stated, wives itching to frivorce their boring beta-provider husbands are Willard’s target market, the only one that will line his pockets. He either caters to their wants, or he faces the intolerable possibility of having to get a real job that involves real work and actually produces something of value. He knows what side his daily bread is buttered on.

  135. OKRickety says:

    Willard Harley said about the Love Bank:

    But if an account reaches a certain threshold, a very special emotional reaction is triggered — romantic love. We no longer simply like the person — we are in love. It’s a feeling of incredible attraction to someone of the opposite sex.

    And if the account goes below some minimum (guess who determines that value), then they are unhaaaaaapy. Next step is frivorce.

    Other goodies from Harley:

    Policy of Undivided Attention:
    Give your spouse your undivided attention a minimum of fifteen hours each week, using the time to meet the emotional needs of affection, conversation, recreational companionship and sexual fulfillment.

    Policy of Radical Honesty:
    Reveal to your spouse as much information about yourself as you know; your thoughts, feelings, habits, likes, dislikes, personal history, daily activities, and plans for the future.

    Policy of Joint Agreement:
    Never do anything without an enthusiastic agreement between you and your spouse.

  136. Anonymous Reader says:

    Meet Willard Harley.

    http://www.marriagebuilders.com/graphic/mbi2000_meet.html

    Seems to be either a late Silent or a leading edge Boomer, as he got his first degree in 1967. His wife is bound to be a boomer. He wrote His needs, her needs in the 1980’s, it was first published in 1986. Hence the embedded 2nd stage feminism that we see in quotes up in this thread.

    Therefore, the book is hugely out of date, as is Harley. For all its faults, including an utter lack of headship, Shaunti Feldhahn’s “For Women Only” is a better book.

  137. OKRickety says:

    Dale said:

    To be fair, Harley is trying to get the spouses to look for ways for both to be happy with the meeting of each other’s needs. I see this only working in marriages where both are capable of being mature, with at least a slightly long-range view of life.

    Agreed. The concept is good, but it fails in today’s reality. There is too much immaturity and desire for instant gratification, that is, selfishness. Marriage is now expected to be based on romantic love rather than on commitment to truly love your spouse. It’s almost surprising that any marriages succeed for a lifetime.

  138. Anonymous Reader says:


    Never do anything without an enthusiastic agreement between you and your spouse.

    Well, I guess that pretty much defines who will take a shovel and clean up the yard where the family dog lives. I’m sure there would be enthusiastic agreement on that.

    This is a first world problem, enthusiastic agreement.

  139. All of these marriage-advice books (at least any that are likely to show up in a mainstream bookstore or any mainstream church’s library) are founded on the same belief that drives the modern divorce and child support system:

    Women are inherently good and will do the right thing as long as a man doesn’t stop them.

    That’s the essence of it all, right there. It all flows from that. So while they’ll pay some lip service to a man’s sexual needs, for instance, they’re not going to spend much time on it. They don’t see any need to, because of course a woman isn’t going to neglect her husband’s needs. That would be cruel, and a woman would never be cruel unless a man pushed her into it. So their first question will never be, “How can we get his wife to have more sex with him?” It’ll be, “How can we get him to treat her better so she’ll be in the mood more often?” Or maybe, “How did he hurt her to cause this, and how can he fix it?” Or even, “How can we get him to stop obsessing about lowly sex and learn to appreciate the finer, more spiritual aspects of marriage?”

    All correction is for the husband, because women don’t need correction. So the book may look reasonable to a man, because a man is looking for correction and specific actions he can take. It’s doomed to fail, though, because while he’s working on his behavior — in ways that may or may not be helpful, but probably not — it’s not doing the same for her. Instead, it’s preparing her to be the judge of his behavior, so she can decide when/if he’s earned a treat.

  140. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anonymous Reader: “thanks to feminism, women in their 20’s and 30’s are their own betas, they do not need providers;

    Red pill latecomer:
    Not true for most women.

    How many women in their 20’s are married? Why are most of them not married? If they wanted to be married to a beta, they could lock one down pretty easily. Yet they don’t even start looking until around 28 or so. Why is that?

    A few women have exciting, high-paying careers. Most women have stifling jobs fill with drudgery and little pay.

    So? What do you think a beta is?

    After a decade in the workforce, most women would welcome a wealthy man to provide for all their needs.

    Again, what do you think a beta is? Here’s what it isn’t: a wealthy man to provide for all their needs.

    Outside of some cultural niches, such as serious churches, provider game fails nowadays, there are a whole lot of men who can testify to that.

  141. Good books for men. says:

    I find this very funny, Dalrock. I am literally laughing. We see again that indeed, “women are very emotionally gullible!” We also find the church to co-mingle with femininity in a strikingly ironic way. One might say that organizations like the Roman Catholic Church and Focus on the Family are a bit… “criminal”… in this regard. I have tried in vain, but cannot stop my laughter.

  142. MarcusD says:

    Refusing sex to your spouse just because “you don’t feel like it/not in the mood”. Thoughts?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=963516

  143. infowarrior1 says:

    @Cail Corishev

    Instead, it’s preparing her to be the judge of his behavior, so she can decide when/if he’s earned a treat.

    Modern churchian marriage in a nutshell:
    http://i0.wp.com/www.avoiceformen.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/09/Man-leash-collar-dog-halter-Stockfresh.jpg?resize=750%2C420

  144. Cane Caldo says:

    I’ve read several of the MarriageBuilders books. The sand that makes their house unstable is the assumption of equality in marriage; that men and women are basically the same but with different needs and appetites. To my mind they are more victims of their times than perpetrators.

    Despite the error of equality, they were a lone voice on the bookshelves saying: “Hey! It is neither acceptable nor effective to arrange a marriage only according to her needs and his responsibility!” As AR notes the book was published in 1986; which means it was a bold move, in some ways. That was the era that ramped up the divorce empowerment storyline, and when the pulpits began telling husbands it was all his fault. You don’t get Promise-Keepers and Eat Love Pray without the 80s. The smart publishing money was writing books on how you successfully recovered from the “accident” of divorce. Harley was at least saying, Wait a minute: Marriage as a one-way contract is a disaster. How many disasters can we have and still call them accidents?

    MarriageBuilders is what I always think of when someone (in an attempt to belittle Christians) proclaims that one day soon there will be a Christianized–and therefore sanitized, feminized, and politically correct–form of Game. That actually is not a prognostication, but a recitation of a history that has already happened. In fact I would go so far as to say that Game is a kind of bastard of the movements within the churches of the 80s and 90s. There is more Game in Seeker-Friendly/Willowcreek/Emergent/etc. services and publishing than anywhere in the Men’s Sphere. It’s just that women don’t find it physically attractive because the arms-race of cool/excitement/celebrity makes it almost impossible for a woman to even desire contentment. The principle of continually improving attraction itself shames and destroys contentment.

  145. Opus says:

    Is it falsifiable? Of course not, so this is a form of matrimonial snake-oil. There are literally tens of thousands of self-help books available for purchase and so far as I can tell not even one of them has ever assisted anyone, how could it? We humans can no more change our behaviour or desires (with the possible exception of the intervention of divine grace – or what passes for it) than a wasp or mosquito can choose not to sting.

    If being nice and doing nice things was an attractant, then the most self-effacing of betas would be swimming in pussy, and the cads would be going through long barren-stretches of Incel. As the opposite is the case, I need not underline the conclusion.

    What enables people like Harley to make money out of a lot of feel-good is the idea that marriage is about feeling fulfilled/happy/emotionally-satisfied/ sexually-satisfied; that it is correctable in some Plato-like way. Marriage is no more about perfection than is single-dom; marriage is merely a state where, as with all states, people must struggle on as best they can. As the two parties are both humans one cannot realistically expect more than humans are capable of and as F.Roger Devlin writes sooner or later our spouse or g-f is bound to disappoint us. Walking on egg-shells does not tend to make anyone happy.

    This is the reverse of Game. At its worst Game posits that you would be getting pussy if you were being sufficiently Alpha; as you are not, you are failing to get Pussy and thus it is your fault. Love Bank-ism takes the same ‘it must be your fault’ approach. Harley is thus a Guru and Love Banks bear a passing similarity to a cult. May I also observe that this sort of things strikes me as peculiarly American, although I do not mean to suggest that other nations are entirely immune to such enticements.

  146. Opus says:

    Being fascinated by these things I looked up The United Church of Christ, and learned that it was founded in 1957 by way of merger and at that time had two million adherents (so far as I can see in America), but fifty years has reduced their flock by a half, to one million and this at a time when the American population is on the way to doubling. In those circumstances the smart move was to re-brand themselves as Niche-Christinas catering especially for the LGBT crowd – Gay Marriage ‘we’ll take that’ – and other SJW types; and the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is, I learn, not at all what I had preciously taken it to be – how confusing Christianity is. Apparently one of their churches is the largest in America, The Cathedral of Hope in the State of Texas. Let’s hope that it is better than England’s University of Hope, an establishment so bad that it is consistently ranked the worst University out of over a hundred in the country.

    I was also fascinated by the cuckoldress. It was her husband’s idea, (is my Gaydar pinging?) so naturally as an obedient and submissive wife she did what she was told, not that she is being unfaithful – she would never do that, she says. She tells the guy she is dialoguing with not to be a judgmental dick. Is it possible to be judgmental and not be a dick and is it possible to be a dick without being judgmental? Your women are so rude to men I feel that she needs one of Sean Connery’s schlapps.. Her minimum requirement is 7.5 inches so although she does not say so, is she looking for BBC?

    One would have thought nature had made the average man ideally suited – size-wise – to the average woman, yet women always tell men they are keen on that ‘that is the biggest’ they have ever seen. Now, it is simply impossible that all the men I have discussed this with are freaks of nature – and we are not black either, so women must either be lie-ing when they sat these things or else they are deluding themselves.

  147. infowarrior1 says:

    @Cail Corishev@ Opus

    Interesting history of the use of matrimony:
    ”I talked previously about how traditional marriage and courtship works to enslave men, putting them into the things men are faced with. All these signs are there if you are willing to see them of female domination. One of them hides so well in plain sight people don’t think about it. The word used to refer to marriage:

    Matrimony

    One of the interesting features of words is that they are often put together with prefixes and suffixes that have certain meanings. We can see that in other words, especially those borrowed from Latin.

    suicide – intentional killing of self
    homicide – intentional killing of another
    matricide – intentional killing of your mother
    patricide – intentional killing of your father
    pesticide – intentional killing of pests.

    Now you should start seeing a pattern forming. Each of the words are formed by a prefix and suffix. -cide is the common suffix, which means “killing of”. Now words shift in definition a bit, explaining that pesticide is the thing you use to kill pests. But in the strict meaning of the word, if I kill a bug, I’m committing pesticide.

    Now to the word matrimony. Given the pattern I’ve shown in the words above, the prefix and suffix should be evident:

    Matri-mony

    Matri- in the meaning of the word where it appears means “mother”. -mony denotes a status, role or function. Testimony is another word that provides a view of what -mony means – the status, role, or function of giving a testament.

    So the literal meaning of matrimony is “the status, role, or function of being a mother”.

    For this word to mean “marriage” means that the man is wedded to his wife in a subordinate role to her as mother. The worship of women, specifically motherhood, is evident in traditionalism. Contrasting this with patrimony gets even more interesting. The accepted meaning relates to an estate that is inherited or anything that is inherited or the sum total of one’s property.

    Matrimony is about motherhood.
    Patrimony is about property.

    Which one is used to describe marriage, again? And what messages are the definitions these words have sending?

    The words we use even testify to the intentions behind traditionalism and the feminism that they instituted.”
    https://societyofphineas.wordpress.com/2014/11/22/if-it-were-a-snake/

  148. infowarrior1 says:

    @Cail Opus

    If Marriage is ever truly to be a patriarchal system. Shouldn’t we use the word Patrimony instead?

  149. craig says:

    Re: matrimony, patrimony, testimony etc.: The etymology you’re looking for is that “-mony” implies state but also value. “Money” comes from the same root.

    patrimony = value of fatherhood (i.e., an estate or inheritance, literal or figurative)
    matrimony = value conferred upon motherhood (i.e., ‘honest woman’ status)
    testimony = state of witness (cf. evidentiary value)
    alimony = value of sustenance

    So no, ‘infowarrior1’, matrimony does not imply that the man is subordinate to his wife as ‘mother’; rather, it means that she has attached herself to a man as madonna and not as whore, and that her children are his children and not bastards (lacking patrimony).

  150. the Karma bus wheels go round and round

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