The problem isn’t knowledge, but attitude.

In the discussion of a recent post, Dragonfly asked what things a young woman can do to be more attractive to potential husbands:

…from a man’s point of view, what would that 22 year old woman need to be like to snag a man out of her league? Please list physical/relational/educational/vocational I think some of the women here (in denial) need to see it spelled out from a man.

This is a fair question, and prompted a good discussion.  However, as Dragonfly hints the fundamental problem isn’t that most young women don’t know how to attract a man, it is that being sweet and attentive is on nearly all young women’s must not do list.

For a cultural point of reference, Glamour magazine caused an uproar a few days ago by creating a list of things a woman could do to make a man fall in love with her. The Daily Mail describes the squeals of outrage that Glamour would suggest that women be sweet and attentive to a man:

A. Elizabeth West wrote: ‘The 1950s called; they want their advice back.’

Moody Sunflower agreed when they added: ‘It’s 2015, not 1950. WTF??!’

Many argued that the article was encouraging a women to stop being themselves and take on a new persona.

After the ugly feminist meltdown, Glamour pulled the article and replaced it with an apology.

If you are looking for 13 Little Things That Can Make a Man Fall Hard for You, it is no longer available. For a quick explanation of why, here’s our response, posted Monday.

We’ve been taking some heat for a post on man-pleasing tips that ran here a few days ago—and honestly, we kinda asked for it. (That’s the consensus across the Internet and even within our own ranks). We hear you, tweeters—and we agree.

For those who want to see the original list, the Daily Mail article has a copy of it.  Note that Glamour wasn’t offering advice to Christian women looking to marry, and that some of the advice is otherwise nonsensical (especially 3 and 13).  But the list didn’t cause an uproar over suggesting sex out of wedlock, nor for assuming men will like what women like.  The list caused an uproar because it suggested that women be sweet and attentive.  Sweet and attentive is now unacceptable.

The good news here is that the young woman who is willing to buck the trend and actually become sweet and attentive will have the advantage of very little competition.  The bad news is that nearly all young women who are advised to cast off the feminist miserliness will find such a suggestion unacceptable.

Should a young woman broadcast her virginity?

In the discussion following Dragonfly’s question the topic of how to communicate virginity came up.  Some suggested a young woman should proactively get the message out that she is a virgin.  Others, including Spacetraveller, disagreed:

I don’t advocate that women disclose their ‘status’ to a prospective husband ESPECIALLY if she IS a virgin.
I didn’t understand this at the time I was dating, but I think I understand things better now.
It seems a bit ‘try hard’ if you are trying to convince someone you are a virgin. They will naturally, get suspicious about you.

I never disclosed. When my husband (then boyfriend) directly asked (because of ‘no action’ 3 months or so into our relationship), I actually didn’t answer. He says I blushed and looked away, which is probably true, because I am sensitive about this subject.

I never discussed virginity with anyone who I was interested in or who was interested in me because I thought it was too much of an intimate discussion to have with someone who is not yet ‘established’ as a husband-potential. Even having this discussion with a man was, in itself ‘slutty’, in my view.

Spacetraveller raises an excellent point.  There can be a vulgarity about a woman discussing something private in a casual manner, even if the topic is her sexual purity.  Note that her reluctance to reply didn’t take on the usual form of “how dare you ask about my sexual past”, but of bashfulness.  She read her (now) husband right and he read her right as well.  As a result, this worked for her.  Other men might be more insistent on getting a clear answer, and I don’t see a problem with that either.

One other problem with a young woman broadcasting her virginity to her social circle is this nearly always is done as a way to set the stage for a celibate boyfriend relationship.  The problem for a young woman looking to marry isn’t just that her virginity won’t be believed, but that she will risk being mistaken for wanting a celibate boyfriend instead of a husband.

See also: What a setup looks like.

This entry was posted in Daily Mail, Finding a Spouse, Miserliness, Moxie, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

231 Responses to The problem isn’t knowledge, but attitude.

  1. Pingback: The problem isn’t knowledge, but attitude. | Neoreactive

  2. Centurion says:

    There is little on offer for North American men to marry a woman today. It’s expensive, often tense and a battle ground as the couple recognize they have quite different ideas of what is a good marriage. Today men should approach the marriage issue very, very carefully; same applies to common law unions. Start with the premise, “I will not marry,” and then watch carefully for the delightful exception.

  3. Pingback: The problem isn’t knowledge, but attitude. | Manosphere.com

  4. S. Chan says:

    Ronda Rousey is quite attractive, and she often meets highly desirable men. Yet she has been unable to get a boyfriend, even though she definitely wants one. Below is a relevant extract from “Ronda Rousey“, Rolling Stone, 28 May 2015.

    Rousey says, “I think it’s funny when people think that because I’m a female athlete that I must be a lesbian, and I’m like, ‘No, I love men so much that I beat the fuck out of girls for a living just to take them all out.’ ” She’s joking, of course, but at the moment, she doesn’t have a boyfriend. There are various reasons for that, though. For one, she’s too busy. For another, she says, “the kind of guys I’m into have lots of desirable women willing to do backflips for them … but I’m just not doing any backflips.”

    The most desirable men do have women trying for them who will be sweet and attentive. Rousey will not be one of those women; so she is alone.

  5. The Question says:

    Imagine if a men’s magazine or site had published the same list, except with the roles reversed.
    Oh, wait, they already do, right under the “Man Up/Chivalry/Nice Guy” section. It’s exactly the same one-sided outrage as with the New York pastor who published the list of men and women Christians shouldn’t marry.

    Aside from several of the points in the list, calling the advice “outdated” or “misogynist” is like calling an vehicle’s owner instruction manual “cynical” because it tells you to immediately stop your car if the oil light turns on. Ignore such advice at your peril.

  6. Opus says:

    Is ‘sweet and attentive’ code for clingy? – but surely unpleasant and distracted cannot be the means to secure attention and commitment from a man?

    I only knew one woman who certainly was keen and attentive keen to broadcast her virginity and she was lie-ing. I would assume that any woman broadcasting virginity was doing likewise.

    Women tend to give away their promiscuity status by way of accidental comments. It would be crass to ask and I never have. One merely needs to avoid sluts and reformed sluts however one defines that term. They are easy to recognise.

  7. patriarchal landmine says:

    I would have a hard time believing any woman who actually wanted to be my wife, at this point.

    she would have to sign a contract which disposed of all her human rights, for starters. and I don’t believe any court in the world would uphold that contract either.

    marriage is just not an option.

  8. Sunshine says:

    Spacetraveller raises an excellent point. There can be a vulgarity about a woman discussing something private in a casual manner, even if the topic is her sexual purity. Note that her reluctance to reply didn’t take on the usual form of “how dare you ask about my sexual past”, but of bashfulness. She read her (now) husband right and he read her right as well. As a result, this worked for her. Other men might be more insistent on getting a clear answer, and I don’t see a problem with that either.

    I should think a young lady could answer this question without being vulgar (not that Spacetraveller should have done this herself, only that a girl could do it if she felt is was appropriate). A simple yes should suffice and a kind young man would note her bashfulness or blushing and not push for any further discussion.

    In terms of broadcasting, a young lady could simple let it be known that she has always believed that physical intimacy is to be restricted to marriage and has lived her life accordingly. She needn’t get into the nitty gritty details of the matter. Surely a young woman who has bucked the societal trend and remained pure would want to attract the kind of men who are looking for that sort of girl, but if no one knows she’s that sort of girl, how can she attract that sort of man? Just being a “Christian” is not, sadly, enough of an indicator at this point. Unfortunately.

  9. Cindy says:

    Opus: “Is ‘sweet and attentive’ code for clingy? ”

    Definitely not. Sweet and attentive will make you a sammich, just the way you like it. And then she will bring it with a smile. Clingy will whimper and whine until you procure her lunch, because she’s just too darn precious to do it, and then complain because you used the wrong kind of mustard and it triggers her PTSD–the T is for terrible, S is for sandwich. 😀

  10. I’ve never understood how some women think being shrewish, negative, domineering, and selfish is going to snag a mate. Men are biologically designed to eschew women who show these traits, especially for marriage and long term commitment. Think about it from an evolutionary standpoint. You can leave your child with a warm, caring, selfless woman who is always trying to meet the needs of her family (including husband) or you can leave your child with the scowling, rude, arrogant, selfish, self-obsessed woman who values individualism and independence above all else. Which one are you leaving (or more importantly, having) junior with? Which one sounds like she’s more likely to care for him in a dutiful manner and keep him safe and healthy?

    This is why any woman who tries to ape sitcom/silver screen female behavior is setting herself up to look as ugly as possible on the inside to any man she would like to attract.

  11. Patrick says:

    It’s true, sweet attentiveness is analogous to amused mastery. Both communicate love and affection and seeing through someone who is deliberately pushing your buttons for fun, being in on the joke. It’s the push/pull. I’m not so sure that sweet attentiveness will have effectiveness by just throwing it out there, though. I think something called competent responsiveness is the step between being a complete stranger and sweet attentiveness.

  12. Leiff says:

    From the list; 4,5,6 and 12 would have me keeping her around. 10 is a little off. She should be nice to your friends, but with the attitude that you’re at least 2 points better than any of them. Legitimate/non-hyperbolic bragging on her guy will get that guy to take a bullet for her.

    The FACT that most young women find the idea of being sweet and attentive to a man ridiculous is why they (women) are alone, and young men would rather play video games.

  13. Ashley says:

    I didn’t see anything wrong with the ideas on the original Glamour article. It’s a list of thoughtful things a woman can do that would make her guy happy – nothing wrong with that, and there’s no reason why a man can’t do all the same things for his girlfriend or wife. I’m sure an appreciative woman would love these gestures. I think the article could have been better titled and worded throughout. Articles like this need balance, otherwise it seems like you are pedestalizing your partner. If the roles were reversed, such a man doing these things for women would be called a white knight among a list of of other things. It’s better to write an article explaining that these are good ideas if you want to go out of your way to please your partner on occasion, but you don’t have to pander to them constantly, because you will lose their respect.

  14. Bluedog says:

    Gonna drop in here to make a note to the latter concern of the post: broadcasting one’s virginity.

    Dalrock and the article are vectoring rightly here but I’d like to make a suggestion: even discussing virginity is a setup. It’s a trap. Don’t walk into it, don’t do it. Nothing good can come from it.
    Instead: make it a matter of community values that chastity is held in high regard of both men and women – and practice using all five words when explaining this to people: community, values, chastity, men, women – think of them like the rhetorical equivalent of the spherical “Droidekas” from Star Wars I – shielded, mobile and able to shoot in any direction to deflect all the different modes of attack such a sentiment is likely to stoke when stated out loud in a mixed or hostile audience. In that formulation of five words, outside of banality and hate, there’s really no legitimate objection and listeners will privately note this when the position is articulately defended even against an aggressive attempt at shaming or put-down, i.e.: “I belong to a community that values chastity in men and women” … “No, I said chastity not virginity” … “I said community, and that I belong to it, it is a by-choice affiliation – no one is forcing you to belong if you don’t want to, but it’s what I choose and what others choose”,… “No. Who said anything about a double standard? I said men and women, not just women”, … “May I remind you: this is what our community values, we don’t ask or demand that anyone outside it possess or adhere to our values, but honoring our values is what makes us a community, without them, we would not be one”.

    That all said – the other matter that always troubles me about this is community: or the lack thereof. The enormity of the problem has roots in the same individual atomization of man-against-man that gave us the Greek debt crisis. There was no evil conspiracy in Greece to bring that along, just collective human vice and error, that added up too much in one place, at time.

  15. theasdgamer says:

    Fakk Glamour and all bitchy P&D women. Guess why he doesn’t call you back?

  16. theasdgamer says:

    Patrick, you are onto something. A woman needs to be playful and engaging, just like a man does. It’s part of basic attraction and the mating game about which I have posted (see Sexual Macrodynamics). Sweetness is essential for a relationship and does ping the meter for femininity. A woman’s sexuality also needs to be expressed and that is done through 5h1t-tests. 5h1t-tests are an essential part of human mating. They need to be playful as well as a test of dominance and social awareness.

  17. The feminist replies object to performing acts of love, while demanding that others love and adore them. It is really ugly how they demean simple sacrifices to bring pleasure to others. I think the title of the glamour piece “…tips to make a man fall for you” is itself interesting in that “to fall” often connotes deception and fraud. What if instead of “falling” for a woman’s charm men actually loved them for their exceptional character and sacrificial love? Oh wait … that’s like Proverbs 31 Who can find a virtuous wife?…. Charm is deceitful and beauty is passing, But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised.

  18. Opus says:

    I suppose you Americans spell it without a u, so I looked up Glamour Magazine on-line and it sports the following sections: Fashion, Celebrity, Hair and Beauty. Pretty much what one might have expected from the 1950s and pretty much the definition of expecting women to stop being themselves and taking on a new persona. So, obviously, the only difference between then and now is that all that coiffure and clothing is going to be ruined by a snarky attitude. FAIL

    Given that the 1950s gave us Audrey Hepburn and Leslie Caron I’d say that the 1950s probably had it right both in terms of fashion and manners; certainly recently looking at a photo of my deceased cousin from 1958, dressed – albeit she was not quite sixteen – like a movie star, I think berating that decade might be just a tad premature.

  19. Heaven forbid a woman might want to appear sweet and attentive for the man she wants! Nope, can’t have that.

  20. Tilikum says:

    there’s nothing attractive about Rousey. Zero.

  21. Pingback: The problem isn’t knowledge, but attitude. | Reaction Times

  22. It’s like that 1950s ‘Good Wife Guides that floats around. Everyone loves to make fun of it and how about “how far we’ve come”. But it’s actually pretty good advice!
    http://www.j-walk.com/other/goodwife/

  23. Oops, please excuse the typos!

  24. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Sweet and attentive” obviously implies “submissive” to some degree or other, and female submission, except for money of course, has long been on the list of prohibitions. Prohibited expectation for men, prohibited behavior for women.

    Prohibition of submission is an underlying concept within the whole “egalitarian marriage” fallacy. It is, of course, unscientific, denying women’s inherent biological nature.

    Which reminds me, in a previous thread I meant to point out how some stages of feminism seem to have gone to great lengths to shy away from or even reject the more earthy aspects of women; my speculation on this is pretty obvious, to accept the physical, earthy nature of women in one area (menstruation, childbirth, etc.) would be far too likely to lead to acceptance of another physical, earthy part of women: their need to submit to a man they are attracted to.

    Feminism is a rejection of femaleness, in other words.

  25. Eric says:

    The problem for a young woman looking to marry isn’t just that her virginity won’t be believed, but that she will risk being mistaken for wanting a celibate boyfriend instead of a husband.

    Broadcasting one’s virginity falls into the category of oversharing, IMO. What she should be broadcasting to her friends is she isn’t looking to date men who aren’t ready to marry.

  26. Hugh Mann says:

    @seriouslyserving – “It’s like that 1950s ‘Good Wife Guides that floats around”

    That guide is a modern fake.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Wife%27s_Guide

    http://www.snopes.com/history/document/goodwife.asp

  27. @Hugh Mann
    Thanks! I recall hearing that it was a fake a while ago.
    Still, it is pretty funny that someone say down to write a list of things designed to make the 1950s look bad, and it turns out to be decent advice.

    Heaven forbid a wide should greet her husband with a smile!

  28. *wife, not wide
    Lol

  29. Dragonfly says:

    “Surely a young woman who has bucked the societal trend and remained pure would want to attract the kind of men who are looking for that sort of girl, but if no one knows she’s that sort of girl, how can she attract that sort of man?”

    I think that’s just an awkward discussion to have at all, definitely a girl would not want to just lay everything out there at once, she needs to guard her privacy to some degree, but again like Sunshine Thiry states (and definitley how TFH pointed out), how will a guy be able to know…. ?

    I don’t remember how that discussion came about for my husband and I at all… but it definitely did, but I honestly think it was before he was seriously contemplating proposing to me – so right before engagement, 5 months into “dating.” So there was a lot of time there, to gain trust and know if we were even right for each other. I think that may be a good time to lay out the real issues or deal breakers for partners – before engagement. You don’t want to enter into an engagement (especially a public engagement) that you’ll have to break just because you find out a deal breaker about the partner later on.

    2 weeks in to our relationship was when he told me about his past – he thought I would run… I can’t remember if this was when I did end up telling him or not, and if I did, it was a quick answer not some huge ordeal that I made of it. But men should probably beware, I guess this would have been a thing a girl could use over a guy – making him feel like he doesn’t deserve her because she’s so pure. My husband coming to me, guilty about his past, made him feel like he didn’t deserve me somehow😦 But his parents raised him so differently… they weren’t really devout Christians… his dad just told him that he’d regret having sex before marriage, he never went into detail about why a man shouldn’t or other fatherly advice. ….

  30. Dragonfly says:

    So maybe… if he brings it up… a quick answer. But otherwise just wait to go more into detail until the relationship is coming to the point of an engagement period.

  31. Bluedog says:

    BTW – in my earlier post that is *emphasis* “chastity”, not celibacy, which if you are dyslexic like myself would be easy to miss.
    Huge difference and part of the whole point. Chastity is avidly pro-sex – a point which everyone including the culture at large requires re-education about. “Virginity” and “celibacy” are basically “no win” topics where it comes to traditional people or believers trying to express themselves to the wider culture.
    Or, to put it another way: your avowed enemies *want* you to talk about virginity and celibacy, because they know whatever you say they can hang you with it. Aggressive talk-back with “chastity” which may be a deliberately under-used word, is a means to scramble their rhetorical firing solution.
    Communities, if they wish to live more than one generation, must be pro-sex. It’s wise to become accustomed to reminding people of this at the start of any conversation, i.e.: “we care about chastity because we are pro-sex. ‘Virginity’ is a hang up the wider culture has. It’s not really the focus here.”
    And, “We are pro-sex because we are a community. Any community that is healthy and strong, is healthy and strong literally because of the glue of healthy sexual relationships. Unhealthy sexual relationships poison everything. Chaste women and chaste men – are having sex – but they are having the healthy kind that glues communities together.”
    And … faced with rhetorical snark, you can snark right back: “hey, a church or a religion is going to have a position on what licit sex is – ***because*** sex is the glue that holds things together. If YOU want something different, go try the ‘have sex with anyone/anytime’ church community – I’m sure they’re out there. See how it’s working out for them.” I would also consider pointing people to the movie “The Opposite of Sex” – the role inversions here make it particularly potent. This audience won’t like the specific examples that the movie used to make its point, but it made the point better than I ever could or can – that sex is what holds us all together, so it’s not a big step from that that churches should be “pro” sex, but in particular, pro healthy sex.

  32. RichardP says:

    A story about a different kind of woman. Someone I used to know.

  33. Don Quixote says:

    Opus says:
    August 1, 2015 at 1:56 pm

    Women tend to give away their promiscuity status by way of accidental comments.

    This is so true!
    Even the original quote from Spacetraveller reveals her status if you know what to look for. When her boy-friend asked her directly if she was a virgin He says I blushed and looked away. All the signs are there if you pay attention, think it through. If she wasn’t a virgin she would have rebuked him for his enquiry, as Dalrock points out. If she was a virgin she very possibly would not be comfortable discussing such things with any man, blushing is sometimes called the colour of virtue.

    And it also works in reverse. A girl will often inadvertently let slip her ‘status’ in conversation, if you can read between the lines. I recall a conversation with a girl many years ago and she commented that; “all [country of origin] guys are bastards”. This revealed to me that she has had bad experience[s] in her past with these/this type of guy. In the context of the discussion, and by the bitterness of her expression I was convinced of her status with these words. From the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks

  34. Bluedog says:

    Deedee Truitt played by Christina Ricci in the “Opposite of Sex”:

    “Seems like everybody’s having sex but me. Good for them. It’s not that I’m against sex. I mean, it was clever of God or evolution or whatever to hook the survival of the species to it because we’re gonna screw around no matter what.
    “It was a smarter thing to pick than say… the instinct to share your toys or return phone calls. We’d have died out like eons ago. But on the minus side, god… all the attachment that goes with it. It’s like this net.
    “Sex always ends in kids or disease, or like, you know, relationships. That’s exactly what I don’t want. I want the opposite of all that. Because it’s not worth it, not really, is it? When you think about it? [cut to montage of memories of heart-warming relationship scenes] OK, so maybe I’m wrong. Maybe it’s not all shit. Maybe… God damn it.
    “I thought the whole idea was I know what happens next. I’ll tell you one thing… I’m not gonna go back to Bill’s house and be this big changed person for you. I told you right off I don’t grow a heart of gold. And if I do, which is, like, so unlikely… give me a break and don’t make me do it in front of you. Come on, guys, go, okay?”

    I once heard a floriculturalist say “flowers are sex”.
    If that is true and flowers are sex (which as a gardener myself I totally accept as truth), churches are to communities as gardeners are to gardens. If they don’t garden, you may as well not even have a garden. And if they do garden – their work has everything to do, with sex.

  35. Gunner Q says:

    patriarchal landmine @ 1:59 pm:
    “I would have a hard time believing any woman who actually wanted to be my wife, at this point.”

    Me too. After a guy puts up with fifteen years’ or so worth of scorn and sexual neglect, it no longer matters whether women are pretty and nice.

    Meanwhile, my recommended way for a woman to let a suitor know she’s a virgin but not an ice queen is to say “I don’t have a smartphone or use social media.” How many sluts are not online attention whores?

  36. JDG says:

    Definitely not. Sweet and attentive will make you a sammich, just the way you like it. And then she will bring it with a smile.

    Cindy gets it.

    Also, a man would be a fool NOT to make sure he is aware of the sexual past of any woman he is considering for marriage.

  37. rdchemist says:

    There was a similar response to Tracy McMillan when she wrote an article about why you (a woman) aren’t married.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tracy-mcmillan/why-youre-not-married_b_822088.html

    I simply don’t understand why advice like this is so radical these days. Most of the advice can translate well towards being a nice person in general so that people like you and you can be successful and happy.

    Misery loves company

  38. JDG says:

    The FACT that most young women find the idea of being sweet and attentive to a man ridiculous is why they (women) are alone, and young men would rather play video games.

    For some, but many of today’s young women are too busy getting edumacated, establishing “you-go-girl” careers, and riding the merry-go-round (I’m trying to be polite here) to settle down.

  39. “The feminist replies object to performing acts of love, while demanding that others love and adore them. ”

    Exactly. And they call men “entitled”!

  40. As far as virginity, the tried and true method was for a young lady to refer potential suitors to the family patriarch. Approaching the women solely and directly is one of the reason we’re in the slide we’re in. When a young man goes to dad and has a discussion about his intentions and dad is assertive and communicates his expectations for his daughter clearly her virginity is FAR less in doubt. Especially if it is the young lady that insists and who shows proper deference to her father or other male authority figure. She’s supposed to be under a covering, if she isn’t she’s in rebellion and I would assume she’s free for the taking. If she’s not deferential to her father, and doesn’t honor him (by being chaste) what makes you think she will honor her husband differently?

    To put this more directly on topic. If a 22 Y.O. woman want’s to communicate her virginity and increase her MMV being under and honoring her male covering would do a load of good in my estimation.

  41. galloper6 says:

    The problem is they dont want husbands. They want players (with money status resources) that become monogamous at Her convenience.

  42. Scott says:

    The whole conversation about virginity is worthy of a history study.

    It would seem that at some point, in sone cultures when a young man and women were standing at the altar it was assumed they both were.

    The fathers job was to deliver her to the altar that way– through various courtship and betrothal customs.

  43. Dragonfly says:

    I see good points about fathers, but that requires men to be raised TO BE strong, leader-type fathers of the family. And many men aren’t raised that way, they’re raised to accept an “equal-partnership.”

    I came across a man admitting in an online forum recently that he’d rather be a partner, not a leader! http://girlwithadragonflytattoo.com/2015/07/05/the-nice-guy-wants-to-be-your-partner-not-a-leader/

    I think this is normal now.

  44. sickofit says:

    “what would that 22 year old woman need to be like to snag a man out of her league?”
    It’s a lot simpler and non-politically correct than most in this society want to admit. The wealthier and higher status the man, the prettier, sweeter and less trouble you have to be. That’s IT. Keep yourself looking as nice as possible, don’t act like a feminist bitch, and don’t get a reputation for being a whore. This wasn’t rocket science to women of the past.

  45. Dave says:

    The damage that feminism has caused the world is incalculable. As far as the Scripture is concerned, young girls have nowhere to learn to properly relate to men (e.g. to become sweet and attentive young women) except from the older women. Unfortunately, the older women tasked with this task are exactly the ones spearheading feminism, and teaching wrong things to these vulnerable girls. It is a great damage to these young girls and women indeed, because, they are often neck deep in self-sabotage before they realize their many mistakes. Many of them never even do.

    That is why I often try to be compassionate towards the typical American woman who claims to be a feminist, though it is often obvious that she does not even begin to understand the ramifications of her profession. Compassionate or not, sometimes you just have to step aside when someone insist on setting themselves on fire for no sensible reason.

  46. Renee Harris says:

    At what age woman give up on marriage , resign without dying as a virgin
    What if a woman is ugly and marrige is not Realistic what if did not sleep with anyone ever…. How do you guys deal with no sex for life

  47. Renee Harris says:

    At what age woman give up on marriage , resign to dying as a virgin
    What if a woman is ugly and marrige is not Realistic what if did not sleep with anyone ever…. How do you guys deal with no sex for life

  48. GeminiXcX says:

    Regarding the objection-comments to the Glamour article:

    So much for Philippians 2:3, 4.

    I guess Feminist “love” is ‘self-seeking’ (Contrast 1 Corinthians 15:3).

    -GXcX

  49. Boxer says:

    Hi Renee:

    I first had sex at sixteen. I had a great many offers of sex prior to this, but never took any of the willing young ladies up on it. I suppose it was that strong Mormon conditioning. A couple of months before my seventeenth birthday, I suddenly realized that I was going to be seventeen without ever having had sex. O my heavens! What a tragedy that would be!! That same weekend I found a partner and banged the hell out of her.

    These days I look back at that time in my life and consider the younger me a complete sheeple.

    Who gives a shit if you’re seventeen (or thirty-seven) and haven’t had sex? It’s really nobody else’s business. Of course, advertising and media try and sell you things by appealing to sexual interests, and so it’s normal to consider yourself abnormal for not banging every night with a different person.

    If anything, I respect people who go their own way. I also suspect that people (both men and women) who abstain from casual sex to be much smarter than the average libertine.

    Sex is a much bigger deal before you have some of it. After you start having sex, it loses much of its aura. Don’t worry too much about running out and slutting it up. Concentrate on more serious things. Make some money. Take some classes. Read some books. This means much more than doing the nasty, in the grand scheme of things.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  50. shadowofashade says:

    @Renee:

    1) There are reasonable number of things that a any person can do to improve his or her dating prospects:

    a) Eat healthy
    b) Stick to some sort of exercise routine
    c) Dress attractively but modestly.
    d) Seek the Lord wholeheartedly.

    I can tell you, as a guy, I find the first three almost impossible to find in the Church (and I’m not certain of the age of few that I have found attractive).

    2) Adjust your expectations. Are you looking for Brad Pitt / George Clooney? Are there guys you have turned down in the past? Men look at some combination of youth, beauty, and fertility.

    3) “How do you guys deal with no sex for life”: No one is guaranteed marriage. No One. If God calls you or me to bear that cross, we must follow (I may not like it, but I will follow).

  51. GeminiXcX says:

    @Dave

    An interesting comment.

    Most women accept feminist dogma because it’s what they want to believe, hence why “many of them never do” — alter course, that is. (James 1:14)

    I have basically no compassion at this point anymore. Now whether that is prudent, or just unreasonable on my part, my stand is where it is. Hell, I don’t even cut myself much slack. Oh well, who/what we all really are in the heart will become open one day.

    Romans 14:12
    2 Corinthians 5:10

    Luke 18:13
    -GXcX

  52. GeminiXcX says:

    @Renee

    1) Men remain dateless because women are unreasonably picky.
    2) Women remain dateless because women are unreasonably picky.

    The idea of female incel is virtually impossible.

    As for LTR prospects, what is your hypothetical female doing to increase her prospects (See 2).

    -GXcX

  53. GeminiXcX says:

    @Ashley

    I looked at your blog of “rubbish”.

    “rubbish” being the conclusion I came to, after examining several of the entries of foolishness contained therein.

    -GXcX

  54. feeriker says:

    I simply don’t understand why advice like this is so radical these days.

    Because it’s common sense. We all know how “common” that is these days.

  55. Simplex says:

    Dragonfly,

    Men by nature find their niche. They find what works for them in the current world. Adapt or die. That is the world of a male. Not so much a female.

    WOMEN WANT WEAK MEN. Women want manboy “alphas” to have sexy times with, and wimpy, nice men who they can marry and dominate, and divorce if necessary. Time after time after time I see women divide men into these two camps.

    The sexy “alphas” can be guys like waiters. A waiter could be sexy, hard to say how he could be an alpha. One woman said she had to pay for the dates when she went out with her sexy guys because they never had any money. Maybe they were conning her, if they were waiters maybe they actually didn’t have money. Justin Bieber, not John Wayne, will do just fine when your feral female is looking for “alpha.”

    You want to change that, change society, put men back in charge, display women’s range of qualities properly in the media. Right now women control access to both sex and commitment, and look at the results.

  56. Just fast forward to 8:50 in the vid above to hear about how women have it worse than men, yet again….

  57. MarcusD says:

    Just fast forward to 8:50 in the vid above to hear about how women have it worse than men, yet again….

    As they say, if you want social change, demonstrate (and emphasize) how women suffer from it. (Cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E2%80%9CWomen_are_wonderful%E2%80%9D_effect – which has already been swarmed by feminists hoping to co-opt it, too)

    Besides that, he is, as you can imagine, being selective. For example, men are the target of more abuse online than women (and are far less likely to report it).

  58. Breeze says:

    Most women can jump a point or two (sometimes even three) by losing weight, growing their hair out and switching to paleo. Paleo will help you lose weight and improves acne/skin and vitality.

    Other things:

    Dress feminine.

    Act feminine

    Learn skills to complement men – cooking, cleaning etc.

    Be supportive of your man and drop the attitude. Despite what romance movies say no man wants to come home after a long day and then have a fight with his girlfriend/wife.

  59. Noah says:

    One of the retorts to the article was:
    ‘How to make a man fall in love with you according to Glamour. Become quasi non-verbal sex robot in negligee.’

    Well American women do that already by default! They are big time amateur prostitutes

  60. PuffyJacket says:

    Re: raising strong fathers, this puts the cart before the horse. Fathers cannot be strong leader-types when family law effectively transfers all power to the woman, rendering his “input” on the matter obsolete (if he’s even allowed to stick around at all).

  61. Ashley says:

    @Gemini, thanks for visiting.😉

  62. Eric says:

    It’s not just family law. Law always follows the culture, after all, and the culture portrays men as unsalvageable nitwits. You can try to lead all you want, but your daughters are getting the message from friends, school, television, and the internet that their father is not someone to take seriously.

  63. Dragonfly says:

    You know… I asked my husband about the whole “when a young woman should reveal her virginity” and how much does it matter to men. He did think it matters, but only to a degree.

    He brought up how he’s been seeing recently in the news, young women using their virginity to auction themselves off around the world to the highest bidder, and the price sometimes goes into hundreds of thousands, sometimes into millions. I must have been living in a cave, I thought only Geishas in the past did things like this but I suppose with the internet, anything is now possible.

    Anyway, he cautioned that it could be something that a woman could use to manipulate a man, like holding out a carrot in front of him kind of thing.

    With how many women that are now good wonderful spouses that weren’t virgins before, I’m guessing maybe needing to be certain that she is a virgin wouldn’t be so critical? There really are women who are worthwhile who aren’t? …. just some thoughts?

  64. BuenaVista says:

    Disrespect for men is an organizing principle for women and their female social cohort. While only 20% of the female population self-describes as “feminist”, very few (a number approaching zero) opt out of the social, legal, financial, educational and professional benefits that have accrued to women by dint of the feminist culture. Today they’re in the triumphalist phase of their declared gender war.

    I view the comments section of the Glamour piece just demonstrating how women organize and police their ranks; some actually compete on the basis of scorn and contempt. To them, expressing contempt for kindness and charm is a form of value signaling: narcissistic preening as a form of social climbing. Women are not competing for the attentions of men; they’re presuming the former while competing for the approbation of other women.

    It gets interesting when one dates a woman who runs with a tight group of socially “progressive”, feminist friends: she’ll dig around in her attic of gauzy memories for behaviors that she vaguely recalls please men. And they still work! However, the habits of her feminist adulthood always burst forth, and you realize that she’s spent too many years scorning or ridiculing men, with her female cohort, at school, at work, and in the culture. Because it’s the norm, she does so unthinkingly. Even when she is horrified and crying, when you say, “You need time out, babe, ciao”, even when she is desperately apologizing, she’s too locked into the socialized condescension that is her female (and white-knighting male feminist) crowd’s social glue. She’s never had a single conversation with a woman or a man in which she reflected on such things as being kind and charming, or making her man a priority. In her world, a good boyfriend or husband is a cute accessory with money whom her girlfriends would boff if given the chance. So the best you’re going to get is some sort of schizoid, guard-rail-to-guard-rail lurching from the pleasant to the snide.

    Social media supercharges this outlook, and effectively polices away non-feminist BadThink. That’s what we see in the Glamour comments: women competing with each other to nail the best “You can’t say that!” retort.

    An interesting test, or filter, a single man might apply to his women friends: What is love? he might ask. (How does she reveal her love? he might further ask himself.) I’ve never met a woman who has thought about this; to a one they refer to love as a shifting, strange brew of admiration for a man’s looks and resources (i.e., his utility), resulting in desire and a compulsion to possess.

    What makes the Glamour piece radioactive, a kind of sinful expression for the post-feminist, post-Christian set, is that it implies that love is more than having the hots for a rich guy who humors a woman’s unilateral, self-admiring emotional vagaries. Love is a behavior, in other words, as well as a big bowl of the feelz.

    Therefore, to dragonfly’s original question, to stand out, offer an ethic of kindness and respect, served with good humor and wit, and a man will think he’s just met the young Audrey Hepburn. But understand that most men learn, quite young, that if something appears too good to be true, it almost always is. The challenge today all women face, even the unicorns, is that the mass culture of female entitlement and hegemony under the law has created its equal and opposite reaction: fundamentally skeptical, if not disengaged and gun-shy, men. What man wants to marry and wake up in three years with a woman who mimics the Glamour comments section? Most do. The word is out.

  65. BuenaVista says:

    Dragonfly, if a woman told me she was a virgin I a) wouldn’t believe it; and b) would consider it some sort of self-praising value-signaling. (“Why are you telling me this?” I would want to ask. There’s a bit of “she’s protesting her innocence too much” here.)

    I had a girlfriend in college who made a big point of stressing her virginity, but it turned out she was lying about that (she wasn’t even a “technical virgin”). *And* her confusion about the role of sexuality (equal parts desire and disgust) made her a pain in the butt.

    I attend a couple of extremely conservative, evangelical churches and there is a strong sexual undertone with all the single girls, women and divorcees (in the insipid, hip-swaying praise songs, casual and overtly sexy clothing, and Jesus-is-my-boyfriend assertions). I suppose I believe that some Mormons are as chaste as they appear, emphasis some. So I don’t know where the much-discussed supply of virgins (technical or otherwise) originates. I also don’t know any men outside of forums like this one who have any expectation of meeting one.

    Chicks who auction off their hymen on the internet, and women who congratulate themselves on their virginity to a man in hopes of locking him down, are of the same feather, to me. If I had a young female friend who was concerned about this subject in the context of a prospective husband, I would advise her to just say, “You need to understand I’m sexually inexperienced. I haven’t done it. Don’t worry I want to do it, I just haven’t done it.” In this way she doesn’t present herself as a trophy.

  66. Bluntobj says:

    My wife’s words were “I’m saving that for my husband” when I was first dating her and seeing how far I could go. I had found that surprising as I’d never heard those words before, and had not had issues escalating with previous plates.

    Since it was so unusual I kept up pursuit, she kept up her defense, and I ended up marrying her. I keep getting what I want now.

    Virginity in a woman is crucial; there is very high correlation with self-control, fidelity, and success in marriage.

  67. BuenaVista says:

    The flip side: I had a first date a couple of years ago with a divorced single mom who asserted a conservative Christian nature. Our discussion drifted into too-serious stuff, and we were talking about what is and is not a good relationship, or some such slop. Anyway, she blurted out, orthogonal to our discussion, and very aggressively, that there would be no sexual contact in our dating behavior.

    Well, o-kay fine. And you’re practically shouting this to the entire restaurant because????

    (I was fine with the opinion, alarmed at the aggressiveness and social ineptitude of the remark. To me it was like my yelling, apropos nothing, “I have lots of money but I’ll not be spending any of it on you!”)

    I had another, important, long dating experience with a secular woman who hewed to an excruciatingly slow escalation protocol: it took a month to get a kiss. (I was blue pill, newly divorced, and lost in space.) It took months to get someplace better. Turned out she was playing jealousy game with her prior boyfriend-fiance. She went back to him until he dumped her. Suddenly she wanted to hug and kiss me again.

    I’m highly skeptical about women who treat their sexuality as a prize on The Price is Right.

  68. theasdgamer says:

    Simplex, grow the fakk up. Quit whining about men who get sex because you can’t because you’re weak/socially incompetent. Improve yourself and quit whining like a little b1tch.

  69. theasdgamer says:

    @ Gunner

    Me too. After a guy puts up with fifteen years’ or so worth of scorn and sexual neglect, it no longer matters whether women are pretty and nice.

    Meanwhile, my recommended way for a woman to let a suitor know she’s a virgin but not an ice queen is to say “I don’t have a smartphone or use social media.” How many sluts are not online attention whores?

    Paying attention to the Song of Solomon solves a lot of these issues. If a woman advertises that she likes the SoS, that will send the right message. A man who is looking for a mate needs to study that book.

  70. I agree with Simplex. Specifically as it related to my point. A young woman needs to demonstrate she is not in the front lines of the gender war. The best way to accomplish this to me is to demonstrate that she honors SOME man; father, grandfather, uncle, brother or pastor. She must demonstrate she is under a covering or she is demonstrating that she is feral. This discussion is about marriage prospects not PUA game. As far as their being “weak men” as Dragonfly put it, this doesn’t have to be the case. If a woman WANTS to be led and WANTS to defer to male authority she will.

    “Dad, I know that sending my potential husband to you makes you uncomfortable but I want to honor the Lord, I want to honor you, and I want to honor my husband. Will you pray for me and help me find the man that God wants me to marry?”

    Empower the covering and see what you get. It can’t be worse than rebellion.

  71. silvertide says:

    They say that the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach.

    On our second date my girlfriend brought a homemade lunch for the both of us. Needless to say, we are now happily married. It was love at first meal.

  72. Dragonfly says:

    “I view the comments section of the Glamour piece just demonstrating how women organize and police their ranks; some actually compete on the basis of scorn and contempt. To them, expressing contempt for kindness and charm is a form of value signaling: narcissistic preening as a form of social climbing. Women are not competing for the attentions of men; they’re presuming the former while competing for the approbation of other women.”

    Right BV, even in these parts apparently it’s ok for women to mock and deride other women like the RPW who help young girls at the reddit, answering questions they have night or day, or women who blog about how their marriage works well, or about parenting.

    Any woman who blogs or gives advice about what she knows and has personal experience with is “selling snake oil” now, and deserves public criticism and mocking.

    I guess this is just part of the feminine imperative? Tearing down other women for blog hits and to make themselves feel superior. Competing like you said, “on the basis of scorn and contempt.”

  73. >I think every one of those suggestions boil down to a simple principle: Pay attention to the man and show him respect by carefully considering his likes and beliefs, and even adopting some of them…and look for ways to do nice things for him.

    THAT is the outrage.

    I get it now. I really get it.

  74. Dragonfly says:

    “But understand that most men learn, quite young, that if something appears too good to be true, it almost always is.”

    True, BV… as a woman, its awful, but we – no matter how good or pure or sweet we may look – we all have to work really hard at it. Every woman has at least one or even more really deep flaws that they must try to work out through achieving spiritual maturity – constantly being convicted… “working out their salvation in fear and trembling…” It sucks, there is no unicorn, there is no “perfect woman,” we all have our seriously deep flaws and have to work really hard at being women of grace. Even a pure virgin that marries like that has spiritual maturation to go through😦

    I heard it said before, “Grace is not opposed to effort, its opposed to earning.”

  75. theasdgamer says:

    @ Dragonfly

    Feminism is about some women wanting to be like men. The Glamour comments are about shaming women who enjoy being women; those comments are about some women white-knighting for feminism. The whole thing is about some women wanting to create fried ice per feminism.

  76. Ladd MaccAodh says:

    Herd reinforcement of bad behavior is key. The piece was taken down because the author and editors and whoever else at Salon would rather withdraw their words than piss off the herd. That’s all well and good for an online clickbait rag, but doing that in real life is another story.

    You’re a woman who is being sweet and attentive to your husband? Great! Now keep doing that as other women get catty about it. While you’re at it, signal your loyalty to your husband by refusing to associate with divorced women. You’ll give him a reason to risk marrying you, and you’ll face a backlash from the herd. Do you cave under herd pressure? Then your husband knows whose opinion really matters.

    I don’t want to pretend that there weren’t all kinds of things going on beneath the surface in the olden days. Plenty of nonvirgin marriages, affairs, cuckolds, bastards, and abuse to be found (though less than today). However, in the old days, herd pressure was to conform to traits that kept husbands happy. Women publicly shunned other women who divorced, had affairs, slept around prior to marriage, had abortions, or did any of those other behaviors that signal a poor-quality wife. Cattiness aside, a woman could very well lead a happy life by giving in to herd pressure on most things. Now the herd pressure pushes in the opposite direction – sleep around, belittle your husband, be frigid if he’s not perfect (and sometimes if he is), and just generally do things that would drive any sane, self-assured man away.

    The challenge of the modern woman is to become independent of other women, not of men.

  77. Sarah's Daughter says:

    “Grace is not opposed to effort, its opposed to earning.”

    This is excellent!

    Any woman who blogs or gives advice about what she knows and has personal experience with is “selling snake oil” now, and deserves public criticism and mocking.

    Hon, you’re going to have to let this go. One woman’s opinion, regardless who agrees with her, is not worth the mind space. You know it’s not snake oil. The young women who learn from you and other bloggers and experience positive results know it’s not snake oil.

    The effort is in seeking to learn. Most women (if not all) will enter marriage without having learned what her role is in marriage. They will not have been taught how to not gossip, fret, worry, or covet. If they have a shred of wisdom they will seek advice. Take what they need and leave the rest. It is a blessing for them to have other women willing to give that advice.

    Some have a lot to learn. Don’t concern yourself that they’re influencing others. If a woman is prone to be influenced by negative gossip and smarmy, passive aggressive behavior, there’s nothing you can do. She’ll find it because that is the crap she seeks. Hopefully she’ll have the sense to bring it to her husband/father and ask him what he thinks.

  78. Dragonfly says:

    “Hon, you’re going to have to let this go.”

    Thanks… I really do,

  79. Paul in Philadelphia says:

    A story is told in the book, Bible in Pocket, Gun in Hand (about the early frontier preachers) of a trial in a Baptist church. The pastor was accused of sexual relations with one of ladies in the congregation. During the trial the lead deacon tried to ask a clearly confused 16 year old girl delicately about her relationship with the pastor but was clearly not getting through to her. Finally the deacon asked her point blank, “Are you a virgin? “Yes,” the girl replied, “but I don’t want to be!”
    May I suggest a reply like, “Yes, I am a virgin, but I am really looking forward to my husband teaching me how to make him the happiest man in the world!” If he does not ask you to marry him then, move on!
    The best place to see actual examples of how to be the woman of a man’s dreams is to read the profiles on the Russian dating websites. You can then see why men will travel around the World, spend money, and marry a women they hardly know. Men are not really stupid. If a women SAYS the right things, there is at least a chance they really believe them. At least a better chance than marrying a “modern” women who refuses to even say the right things!

  80. BuenaVista says:

    ‘It sucks, there is no unicorn, there is no “perfect woman,” we all have our seriously deep flaws and have to work really hard at being women of grace.’

    Dragonfly misunderstands. Only sociopaths search for the “perfect woman.” All a woman has to do to be above the SMP fray is kind, respectful, and good at a couple of things. That’s it.

    But we live in a world where “respected” institutions part-out children, and that’s brave and empowering. So good luck finding a woman who is kind and respectful. One of her friends just had a “partial birth abortion”, i.e., killed her child, practiced infanticide.

  81. Dale says:

    From Breeze:
    >[losing] weight, growing their hair out…
    >Dress feminine.
    >Act feminine

    +1
    The above cannot be over-stressed. A masculine man wants a feminine woman. Femininity in her will encourage masculinity in him.
    I find about 98% of North American women unappealing, due to how they choose to present themselves; i.e. as men.

    @DragonFly
    >virginity… how much does it matter to men

    Two conflicting answers.
    1) It matters a great deal. I am certain 99% of non-perverse men would not want sex with a women who had another man’s penis inside her. Or at least he would try not to think about it, as this, to me at least, is really a disgusting idea. I have heard this compared with homosexual acts; touching with my penis what another man touched with his. Not desirable.
    Yes, guys who want to sleep around with different women without marrying any of them (see “perverse” above) will have to put up with this fact that other men have been inside her already. But these guys are already rejecting the Creator and are pursuing immorality, so the fact that they will sexually degrade their own bodies (and the bodies of the women) should not be a surprise. God warned us of the coming sexual degradation in Romans 1:21-32.
    God’s view is that a non-virgin bride is eligible for death. Deut 22:13-22. You may point out that I am not God; correct. But if a man submits to God, he:
    – has the mind of Christ – 1 Cor 2:14-16
    – chooses to focus his mind on the thoughts of God (Josh 1:8) and have the Word of Christ dwell in him richly (Col 3:15-17), thus transforming his mind (Rom 12:1-2) to what God would have his thoughts and desires become. It should therefore not be a surprise when the human man starts to feel the same revulsion to sin that God feels. Or when the human man starts to demand the same standards that God demands.

    I think most men who want a God-fearing woman for life-long marriage, rather than a quick “hook-up” after which he can move on to the next promiscuous woman, will want a virgin. In addition to God’s standards, Dalrock has previously written about how these women have the highest statistical rates of remaining with their husbands. Who wants only a 7 year marriage followed by betrayal, versus a 50 year marriage until death???

    2) In addition to the perverse men who want to sleep around and thus actively desire a promiscuous woman, many spiritual men will have given up on getting a virtuous woman, due to the severe lack thereof. Men tend to be realistic, adapting to the reality around them.
    Suppose a man refuses to adapt? He insists that any woman must be obedient to God, or he will not tolerate her in HIS house (Josh 24:14-15). Therefore, he demands:
    a) a virgin (Deut 22:13-22) or a widow (e.g. levirate law)
    b) a woman who ACTS in obedience to God, rather than just mouthing religious-sounding words or appearing religious (Matt 21:28-32), and he therefore also demands that she SHOW obedience through:
    – long hair (1 Cor 11:14-16) (And no, 4 inches past shoulders, in my view, is not “long”)
    – women’s clothing, not men’s clothing (e.g. dress/skirt versus pants) (Deut 22:5)
    – avoidance of gluttony, instead having self-control, thus not being overweight (Titus 2:3-5)
    – having the attitude that she will be busy at home, rather than out in some career (Titus 2:3-5), thus she is likely not pursuing some 4-year degree to prepare herself for 40-hours a week outside the home
    – being pure and kind (Titus 2:3-5)
    – having the attitude that she obey her husband (Titus 2:3-5, Col 3:18-21)

    Such an unyielding man will have problems. Even considering only items that are obvious to all through outward appearance (long hair, women’s clothing (dress/skirt) and not overweight), only about 2% of women in “church” consistently, every week, demonstrate they might be appropriate for Biblical marriage. The other 98%-99% are regularly openly disobedient, even in Sunday morning service.

    Therefore, a wise man will accept that he likely will not get a virtuous woman. He probably will not like it, but will adapt his thinking accordingly. He may be deceitful with himself, and tell himself that a woman’s obedience to God is old-fashioned, or that those Biblical commands are 2,000 years old and have surely expired by now. This would allow him to still view the woman as virtuous, as he now discounts any of God’s commands which she disobeys.
    This man will stop demanding virtue. Including virginity.
    Therefore, virginity now appears to be unimportant, as many men do not demand it.

    So, yes virginity is very important. And since men do not demand virginity, it is effectively not important at all, with respect to whether the lack will prevent a woman from successfully getting married.
    The above contradiction is likely the source of some of your/my confusion on the matter. 😦 Sorry that we men do not openly and plainly reject sinfulness as we should.

    On another note, I disagree that (all) men would refuse to believe a woman claiming virginity. But her actions and responses should line up. Plus, as others have said, it would be very beneficial for her to also state that she looks forward to having sex after marriage.

    I second the following comments also:
    BluntObj:Virginity in a woman is crucial; there is very high correlation with self-control, fidelity, and success in marriage.
    GIL: Empower the covering and see what you get. It can’t be worse than rebellion.

    >women who blog about how their marriage works well, or about parenting

    I think I have said it before, but thanks for your efforts. I am glad to see others correctly and faithfully serve God on a consistent basis. God has put us each in different areas, so you have the capacity to reach many that I never could.

  82. BuenaVista says:

    I truly enjoy it when self-satisfied “Christian” men attribute female virtue to losing weight, growing their hair out, and acting feminine. These meaningless (and vague) platitudes have nothing to do either with faith, Scripture or reality. For a start, a woman’s hair length has nothing to do with her faithfulness; it has everything to do with a man’s sexual preference. Man, do I tire of churchian logical incompetence. If you like your Pentecostal chicks with long hair, because that’s sexy, fine. If you think Jesus gives a shit how long her hair is, you’re intellectually disabled.

    In respect of the “99% of non-perverse men” insight, we’re taking insight from a guy who thinks that God wants humanity to disappear, because insufficient numbers of men are incel. Dude, it’s more complicated than that.

  83. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    This is a fair question, and prompted a good discussion. However, as Dragonfly hints the fundamental problem isn’t that most young women don’t know how to attract a man, it is that being sweet and attentive is on nearly all young women’s must not do list.

    As you said: The answers are known. Women (those without severe and evident social handicaps) can and do attract men.

    There is, however, no answer for the closed-loop phenomenon of female discontent. It is against that with which women must struggle lest she sabotage herself and her man by becoming disrespectful.

    Speaking of closing the loop: Was it a fair question Dragonfly asked? I say that it was not. If we know that women know how to attract and that the issue is not one of knowledge but attitude, then we know this question itself was not about answers.

    THF, serious question… from a man’s point of view, what would that 22 year old woman need to be like to snag a man out of her league? Please list physical/relational/educational/vocational I think some of the women here (in denial) need to see it spelled out from a man.

    Translation: “Isn’t there a big strong man in this room to open the jar of wisdom? I don’t need it, mind you, but those poor lost women out there are just waiting for a real man to tell them step-by-step how to be attractive.”

    The example justement, and men lined up to give their Real Man Answers because the offering of respect is what attracts us. The attracting (attention-seeking) would be less vulgar if the question was played by a woman without a husband of her own.

    Though, it does remind me how grateful I am that my own wife doesn’t spend her time slinking and insinuating herself around the Men’s Sphere.

  84. GottliebPins says:

    This obsession over virginity is ridiculous. Most young people when they fall in love think “this is the one”. They spend every minute together, get to know everything about each other, and everything is new and wonderful. It is inevitable that they will have sex. If one of them doesn’t want to have sex it isn’t noble or inspiring. There’s probably something wrong with them, emotionally or psychologically. They were abused as a child or they were brainwashed by some religious cult. Every girl I dated from high school through college was a virgin. Every one of them was smart, somewhat geeky though still pretty, and they were all shy and had self esteem problems, hence the reason why they had never had a serious boyfriend. I thought this was just how all women are and ended up marrying one of them. Boy was that a mistake. Simply being a virgin does not make them automatically a good choice. If my wife had more experience dating before we met she probably wouldn’t have been such a basket case and most likely never would have cheated on me. It took three failed relationships for her to realize the problem was her. The issue really has to do with being sweet, something my wife could never do and will never do for a man. She shouldn’t have to, in her mind, a man should love her and appreciate her for who she is. A cold heartless bitch. I don’t understand that thinking. Can’t women see what they are? How hard is it to be nice? How hard is it to say thank you? Instead of nagging can you say please? I’d do anything to make you happy but I can’t read your mind. They want to be strong and independent and don’t need no man, except when they need one, and where have they all gone? It’s sad that it’s so obvious and they refuse to accept that all it takes is a smile and a kind word to win a man.

  85. GottliebPlus: “If my wife had more experience dating before we met she probably wouldn’t have been such a basket case and most likely never would have cheated on me.

    Data to the contrary. You either haven’t been reading here long or you are a troll.

  86. @ GottleibPlus: “If my wife had more experience dating before we met she probably wouldn’t have been such a basket case and most likely never would have cheated on me. It took three failed relationships for her to realize the problem was her”.

    So, if you had been number three, four or five your argument is that it would have been better for you? Interesting.

    “If one of them doesn’t want to have sex it isn’t noble or inspiring. There’s probably something wrong with them, emotionally or psychologically. They were abused as a child or they were brainwashed by some religious cult.

    And yet you seem to have some moral revulsion to divorce? The remnants of some brainwashing from some religious cult no doubt? Why even bother getting married?

  87. MarcusD says:

    Simply being a virgin does not make them automatically a good choice.

    Has anyone made that claim?

  88. The Captain says:

    Dalrock,

    Great post. I think the graphic you posted here though (the same one that appears in your post on the Boyfriend Invention), misses one important step that carries the whole process on even AFTER the Christian woman takes a husband, which is contraception.

    Up until 100 years ago, men courted women for the purposes of marriage, and they married early. Then, they had sex, often lots of it, and produced children, often lots of them. Now, even after a celibate boyfriend becomes a non-celibate husband, there’s still a sense in which the woman and man hold themselves back from each other, and in which the woman’s fickleness is allowed to run rampant – and that’s having children. She might go from virgin to non-celibate wife, but she still often keeps her husband from becoming a father (and vice versa) through contraception, which, like the concept t of “boyfriend,” is non-biblical.

    Then, the focus of sex becomes merely “how much can you please me?” instead of the creation of a family. It ties back to the concept of the celibate boyfriend. God’s design for men and women is to either remain celibate forever (like Paul) or to get married. Likewise, once the couple is married, God’s plan for them is to offer themselves completely to the other, and to have children, which in the Bible always represent God’s blessing. Sadly, many men and women get married and then refuse to carry out that plan of the Lord in their marriage.

  89. pjay123 says:

    You can blather on about how women can be more attractive, but family law is more skewed than ever. Why on earth would a man want to marry?

  90. pjay123,

    “Why on earth would a man want to marry?

    I’m a believer but: Darwin Rule 1.

  91. Dave says:

    While I totally agree that virginity is important in a woman, I am even more aware that the blood of Jesus is far more important in changing the most crooked of sinners, and transforming them into beautiful specimens of holiness. We live in a fallen world. When we sin, there are only two things we could do about it: repent of it, or continue in rebellion against God. We cannot undo our sins. However, the blood of Jesus Christ is so powerful that when it washes a sinner from their sins, it makes them pure before God.
    And, last I checked, fornication and adultery were not unforgivable sins. Both are heinous, but not unpardonable, both by God and therefore by man. It is not biblical to hold anyone’s sins over their heads. Yes fornication is bad, but folks on this site have made it look like it is in the same category as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is not. God once instructed a prophet to marry a prostitute. Rahab the harlot was grandma to king David, and an ancestor to Jesus Christ. The man who married his stepmom in Corinth was later forgiven by God and by the Church.

    One principle in Scripture that God consistently uses to judge the heinousness of our sins and the possibility of forgiveness, is how much light we had at the time that we committed that sin, and what we did when the sin was pointed out to us. God almost never used the “size” of the sin to judge it’s seriousness. A Pharisee who claimed to know it all will remain unpardoned for being hypocritical, while the woman taken in the very act of adultery will go home justified before God.

    “And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.”

    I have tried to point out here in this forum in the past. Just because you have never committed sexual sin does not mean you are in any way better than those who did, as far as God is concerned. Whoever shall keep the whole law and yet offend in one point (e.g. being self-righteous) is guilty of all–including fornication and adultery and other filthy sins that men commit.

    I wish we’d stop this self-righteousness and begin to think like God Himself. When a sinner truly repents, his past is gone. Completely. That sinner stands before God as a newborn baby. None of their sins they have committed will be remembered again. That is the Scripture.

    “Come now, let us settle the matter,” says the LORD. “Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red as crimson, they shall be like wool.

    “I, even I, am he who blots out your transgressions, for my own sake, and remembers your sins no more.

    In those days, at that time,” declares the LORD, “search will be made for Israel’s guilt, but there will be none, and for the sins of Judah, but none will be found, for I will forgive the remnant I spare.

    You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.

    None of the sins that person has committed will be remembered against them. They have done what is just and right; they will surely live.

    We read again and again that God blots out our transgressions when we truly and genuinely repent. But folks here want to hold on to those sins and to beat the sinner over the head with them at every turn. That is not the Gospel, people. That is Pharisaic self-righteousness, and God hates it.
    No, I am not advocating that folks go ahead and be captain save-a-hoe, but rather to think like God and think like Christ, and STOP making the blood of Jesus of none of effect.

    I was just like most of those here who beat sinner over the head with their sins. Of course as a 27 year old professional college graduate many years ago, I was a virgin. I got involved with a Christian woman who was not, and I never let her forget that fact. That is until God convicted me of my stupidity and self righteousness.
    I understand many people would quote scripture to show that God wanted the fornicator dead. But I bet none of them can show a single verse in the NT stating that. “I will have mercy” is God’s mantra in the NT, not judgement. And we are to be followers of God, as His children

    Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God

    On a personal note, I have dated several women who happen to be virgins. Truth be told, many of them had something else wrong with them. I couldn’t stand a whole lot of their behaviors and had to eventually break up with them, their virginity notwithstanding. There is far more to a woman than whether she has committed sexual sins before she came to know the Lord..

  92. Isa says:

    @Dalrock
    OT but has there ever been a discussion about tenor of voice? In the language I speak with Mr. Isa, I tend to be very high pitched (like a teenager, apparently). He, when speaking to me, is also higher pitched and more gentle (like when he speaks to children) vs. quite rough with other men. In my native language, I tend to high/medium pitch, with the medium reserved for business or perhaps dry jokes. In the third, I speak quite a bit lower than the other two, but still higher (comparatively) to other women. This I also use for business and for friends (primarily male).

    So it seems odd that I wouldn’t use a higher pitched voice for all interactions with men, but pitching your voice lower in business would seem to make sense. I’ve developed all these habits subconsciously, so it would be interesting to figure out why the pitch would change quite drastically between languages.

  93. Boxer says:

    This obsession over virginity is ridiculous. Most young people when they fall in love think “this is the one”. They spend every minute together, get to know everything about each other, and everything is new and wonderful. It is inevitable that they will have sex.

    In a healthier society, if two youngsters were having sex, their parents would arrange a quick marriage.

    I don’t technically disagree with your sentiments, but in this age, a man has to be extra careful. Past performance is indicative of future behavior, and if a man wants to commit his entire lifetime fortune to a woman, it’s not unreasonable that he expect her to know how to control herself.

    This was even more important in the past, before DNA tests. You want to leave your fortune to your own kids. If you marry a virgin and are locked away for a month, until she gets pregnant, you at least are justified in believing that the firstborn is yours.

    And, last I checked, fornication and adultery were not unforgivable sins. Both are heinous, but not unpardonable, both by God and therefore by man. It is not biblical to hold anyone’s sins over their heads. Yes fornication is bad, but folks on this site have made it look like it is in the same category as blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It is not. God once instructed a prophet to marry a prostitute. Rahab the harlot was grandma to king David, and an ancestor to Jesus Christ. The man who married his stepmom in Corinth was later forgiven by God and by the Church.

    The bible is an interesting book, certainly. It can tell us how to live well and give us good advice. Of course people can change their ways, but I don’t think it’s a good idea for a young man to marry a harlot anyways. Of course, If g-d personally appears and orders such a thing, that’d be an obvious exception. Unless that’s the case, I’d encourage all young brothers to vet their future wives very carefully before buying that ring. Lots of horror stories around these parts. The Hebrew and Christian traditions both seem to generally agree with this too.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  94. greyghost says:

    pjay123 Is actually right. By law enforced with real guns and bullets there is no wife. This is a great and necessary drill to establish a sustainable and emotionally fruitful society for when family law is destroyed.

  95. BuenaVista says:

    Caldo, aside from your confusion in respect of pronouns, the subjunctive and the French language, her question is useful for any single man. Your effort to provide yet another self-aggrandizing internet ad hominem/straw man logical fallacy is noted.

    Her question is useful because it invites introspection and critical thought. Those are two qualities you might consider. In your role as Sage, and, Approver Or Disapprover, or course.

    Also, what the fuck does this sentence mean? (Most sentences, from a self-identified committed apologist, are improved by a subject.) “Yet is a painful predicament from which to be extracted because the process of molding and holding a person to standards is destructive to comfort, niceness, and the perception of happiness.” — May 21, Cane Caldo.

  96. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    You can blather on about how women can be more attractive, but family law is more skewed than ever. Why on earth would a man want to marry?

    We want to marry because our species evolved, over the course of hundreds of thousands of years, to biologically encode pair-bonding into our natures. This happened due to the extended period of human infancy, which leaves every human baby helpless for years on end. During this period, a mother alone can not protect the baby, nor could a troupe of mothers with a single alpha male (as with lions, which are born ready to run).

    The human couple is nature’s and g-d’s ideal vehicle to propagate our species. The bible and talmud and other ancient wisdom all backs this idea up.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK97287/
    This is a good place to start. Bear in mind I have no background in biology or medicine, but there are plenty of other peer-reviewed sources that discuss this.

    Once we accept the fact that it is in our natures (either g-d created us, or nature evolved us, or some combination thereof) to marry, we are then forced to face the real nature of the feminists, who are using our natural drives to destroy us and liquidate our society. This is an almost incomprehensible level of evil that no one should ever forget or forgive.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  97. honeycomb says:

    Why do men try to help women become a venus fly trap / co’meal’yun?

    I don’t trust anyone wanting the key to the test only to go back to their nature afterwards!

    So ladies .. I will not provide you with a cheat sheet.

  98. Jim says:

    “…but family law is more skewed than ever. Why on earth would a man want to marry?”

    Unless a guy happens to get incredibly lucky only an idiot or naive male would marry today.

  99. MarcusD says:

    “Wherever I go to speak, whether it’s Brazil or Italy or Norway, I find that upper-middle-class professional women are very unhappy. This is a global problem! And it’s coming from the fact that women are expecting men to provide them with the same kind of emotional and conversational support and intimacy that they get from their women friends. And when they don’t get it, they’re full of resentment and bitterness. It’s tragic! Women are blaming men for a genuine problem that I say is systemic. . . . Now we’re working side-by-side in offices at the same job. Women want to leave at the end of the day and have a happy marriage at home, but then they put all this pressure on men because they expect them to be exactly like their female friends. If they feel restlessness or misery or malaise, they automatically blame it on men. Men are not doing enough; men aren’t sharing enough. But it’s not the fault of men that we have this crazy and rather neurotic system where women are now functioning like men in the workplace, with all its material rewards.”

    — Camille Paglia

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/211561/

  100. Renee Harris says:

    Thank you relying, however I belive I would answer for ever second God have given me. If I’m too old to marry then I need to find 70 old real virgin and plan for my life alone with out romanic love.
    Btw if a woman never kiss a man , never have oral anal or “mommie hole” sex, but five high or wave “hi” to guy and doesn’t hug guys is a virgin or lying virgin ? Also remember most woman struggle with porn or have been deliver form porn . I have therefore I don’t believe I am a virgin just bc I’ve never kiss a man or I have not “know ” a man . Plus a friend I know slept with a guy but she want to marry because she did every thing right.
    I hate this. I’m two years away from the wall but I’m alway throught I was To wait and service God. I know women slept around but God will let them marry . But ugly don’t get to marry I care how sweet she is.

  101. Spike says:

    The bad attitude manifest in the replies to Glamour is the problem. It is prevalent in all sorts of movies, where the woman support has to hate the male hero. That’s fine in adult movies, but when it is seen in Disney movies like “Brave” and ” Frozen”, aimed at children, saying that this is how women should behave when men are interested, is wrong.
    It seems to me that on top of the list of ugly feminist traits well characterised on this site, a additional one has been exposed: feminists dictate that they must surround themselves with a pile of toxic shit that an interested man has to wade through in order to get to her.

    Someone needs to tell feminists that it isn’t cute, and men have literally got better things to do.

  102. embracingreality says:

    Dalrock is right, attitude is precisely the problem. Even if Christian women were given the true knowledge of God’s own design for femininity, chiseled in stone, modern churchian women are not interested in it. Secular women are in rebellion against their own female nature, the vast majority of churchian women are in rebellion as well. They’re not learning the rebellion from the pulpits, the failures in the pulpits are put there because rebellion is what women want to hear.

    Best wishes and God’s grace to men who do marry but under the current circumstances it’s a bad idea. Understand, virtually any man who marries under the current social and especially legal climate is taking incredible risks. As a husband and particularly a father your risks are vastly greater than your wife’s, *vastly greater*. If she chooses to do so she can implode your family, your assets, your life, eagerly assisted by the family courts. You will be reduced to a visitor in the lives of your own children. You will be jettisoned from your own home and family. Your assets you earned will be hers, sooner or later. Wage slavery to child support and alimony your future. All of this can be done at the whim of your wife, even if she committed adultery and you did not. All of this would be enforced, if necessary, at gunpoint.

    It’s not just the reputation of the unjust family court, it’s the reputation of manipulative rebellious wives for using it often. It’s happening every day, we know many men who are living it right now.

    Fact is this unjust discrimination will not change until men in the west en masse refuse to marry. Who can refute this?

  103. >wait to go more into detail until the relationship is coming to the point of an engagement period.

    You are overthinking this. It WILL come up sooner than the engagement period. If he is a man, it will come up by the second date at the latest.

    I think to find a husband a young girl would simply network out with your friends (and their friends and Facebook friends and everybody at church and their friends and so on) that you are looking to get married and have a big family. Let the tele-woman network spread it for a while and you will have plenty of suitors quickly. A young woman looking to get married and have a large family who is of normal weight/proportions is practically a unicorn.

  104. Aservant says:

    I have read semi- regularly here for at least a couple of years but rarely comment. Frankly, I don’t read here more often because each time I drop by I end up finding most of the articles and comments fascinating so I get trapped for an hour at least and it messes up my schedule! It’s kind of like I have to book a time to get into Dalrock or it isn’t just gonna happen.

    But I wanted to comment on a couple of memes that I have seen coming up on thread recently.

    The first is Ronda Rousey. I find her whole phenomena infuriating. Her appeal to both men and women is the epitome of what is wrong with gender relations today. I actually find her and “the hype” that goes along with her repugnant. Probably one of the best comments I have heard recently to sum up my scorn for her promotion was a comment by Joe Rogan when he said, “Do you know how many women are changing the way they see sports because of her?” And of course it was said with this school boy giddiness that was just pathetic, like it is as obvious as the sun in the sky that this isn’t just a good thing, it is a great thing, not just for women, but for all of humanity.

    Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. If enough women want to beat the hell out of each other for a living that they can form a league and do it, I could care less. The fact that they fight and honestly many are quite good at it isn’t the point. The point is that it is the same common meme of celebrating the coarsening of femininity and the aggressive pursuit of masculinity by women and Rhonda Rousey is the poster child for it. Here is a woman that physically is very attractive, is a hard worker, smart with great natural ability, and yet doesn’t possess one attribute, not even one, of natural feminine attractiveness, grace or Godly character. She is brash, an attention whore to the max, materialistic, extremely cocky and arrogant, superficial, flippant, and honestly, I find her grossly transparent each time she opens her mouth, revealing an extremely insecure, spoiled, immature brat that is trying “to prove to the world” that “she is somebody”. It is pathetic, and it would be sad if it wasn’t for the fact that the whole sports world, which unfortunately is a lot of American society, is celebrating her as the new gold standard for what women should aspire to be like. It is a perfect, “the emperor has no clothes” that just has my mouth agape each time I see someone else slobbering over the woman, which is everyday it seems.

    I know my second comment is trite, but I just can’t help but saying as much as I can, like a few other regular posters here, and that is there is no way that marriage is an option under the current legal/social structure. No way. It is way too dangerous, and men submitting to this unacceptable situation will only worsen the matter. Frankly, greyghost summed it all up perfectly with this comment:

    “By law enforced with real guns and bullets there is no wife. This is a great and necessary drill to establish a sustainable and emotionally fruitful society for when family law is destroyed.”

    That is it. Under the current legal structure, marriage is tyranny of the state in your home, nothing more.

  105. Oscar says:

    @ bluepillprofessor says:
    August 2, 2015 at 9:00 pm

    “A young woman looking to get married and have a large family who is of normal weight/proportions is practically a unicorn.”

    I think you mean “healthy weight/proportions”, because what is normal these days is definitely not healthy.

  106. Dale says:

    Buena Vista:
    >I truly enjoy it when self-satisfied “Christian” men attribute female virtue to losing weight, growing their hair out, and acting feminine. These meaningless (and vague) platitudes have nothing to do either with faith, Scripture or reality.

    Did you bother to read the Scripture references I provided above? I provided verses relating to the first two the issues you listed. The fact you choose not to read and submit to Scripture, does not prove that Scriptures on the topic do not exist.

  107. Dale says:

    @Dave
    >I wish we’d stop this self-righteousness and begin to think like God Himself. When a sinner truly repents, his past is gone. Completely. That sinner stands before God as a newborn baby. None of their sins they have committed will be remembered again. That is the Scripture.

    Again, you are half-right, and therefore effectively wrong. With respect to one of the three types of consequences I previously listed, you are correct. Incorrectly expecting God and us to extend this to the other two types of consequences is shown by Scripture to be wrong and is what is leading you to incorrect conclusions. I encourage you to read my prior answer to you on this topic at
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/07/09/disrespecting-respectability-dishonoring-the-honorable/#comment-182807

  108. Cane Caldo says:

    @BuenaVista

    Your commentary on my grammatical errors are a boon; reminding me to be more vigilant in my editing. It also shows a remarkable contrast as a vague emptiness when compared against my stark criticism.

    Likewise, your flippant rejection of a woman’s ability to signal submission with her hair

    BuenaVista said:For a start, a woman’s hair length has nothing to do with her faithfulness; it has everything to do with a man’s sexual preference. Man, do I tire of churchian logical incompetence. If you like your Pentecostal chicks with long hair, because that’s sexy, fine. If you think Jesus gives a shit how long her hair is, you’re intellectually disabled.

    is equally void.

    Her question is useful because it invites introspection and critical thought.

    No it wasn’t, and no it didn’t. To say otherwise is to be ignorant of her stated reason for “asking the question” in her original comment. Dalrock made good use of it, but that everything to do with Dalrock and nothing with the “question”.

    Also, what the fuck does this sentence mean?[…]

    While I am pleased when anyone reads my blog, questions pertinent to there, but not here, will not be addressed here.

  109. Boxer says:

    I know my second comment is trite, but I just can’t help but saying as much as I can, like a few other regular posters here, and that is there is no way that marriage is an option under the current legal/social structure. No way. It is way too dangerous, and men submitting to this unacceptable situation will only worsen the matter.

    “Marriage” is one of those words that has almost no meaning of its own. I agree that marriage, in the sense of the piece of paper that one signs at the courthouse, is far too dangerous. I have no plans to ever sign that piece of paper, and wouldn’t suggest anyone else do it either.

    “Marriage” in the sense of two people pair-bonding, and planning a future together, is not something that anyone can abolish. Human beings are neurologically wired to pair bond. The urge to have sex (and subsequently the drive to care for the infant that traditionally resulted from banging) is probably second only to the biological urge to survive, in the grand scheme of things.

    Philosophers of the Roman Catholic tradition call this ‘natural marriage’ and it’s more along the lines of what people here are talking about.

  110. Pingback: Excessively Useless Friendships | Things that We have Heard and Known

  111. The Tingler says:

    So… has anyone linked to any articles showing what these griping women do to please their boyfriends? Has any feminist ever written an article on how to please your boyfriend? Does it all just boil down to being their sassy, opinionated selves, without doing anything above and beyond to make charm a guy? And does that mean I don’t have to do anything but be my opinionated self to please my girl?

  112. Spacetraveller says:

    Dear Dalrock,

    Thank you immensely for discussing further this very delicate topic. Much appreciated.

    I re-iterate the point that I REALLY sympathise with men on this issue, which is why I responded to Moses’ comment where he states that he won’t believe any woman who claims to be a virgin. I shall never blame a man for wanting to know. That is his perogative. On the other hand, how a woman responds to this question is …very delicate, to say the least…
    It is not easy, for sure.

    When I see comments like Moses’ I am reminded of the following, regarding my husband:

    1. This was the man who chose to take a chance with me, despite knowing that I COULD have been a phony.
    2. This was the man who, when he realised that he won’t be ‘getting the goods’ (at least not with me!) until our wedding night, he STILL did not walk away. Afterall, as you describe, Dalrock, there was the very real possibility that he could have simply graduated from being a ‘celibate boyfriend’ to being a ‘celibate husband’, only, this time… for life!
    How many men will entertain this rough deal in this current SMP?

    Virginity is afterall, (I believe) a female requirement/need. It has nice consequences for society at large, sure, but I still think it is primarily a female need as it is we much more than men who don’t tolerate very well misuse of our bodies.

    So for a man to ‘help’ a woman keep her virginity until marriage is a very noble thing. I definitely applaud any man who will do this. (On the other hand I don’t blame those who will balk at the idea in this day and age).

    This is one of the reasons I have this ‘husband worship’ thing going on. I know how lucky I am to have found a man who was happy to indulge me in this endeavour…which can be viewed as some kind of ‘luxury’ in many ways, if one reflects extra-hard on this issue.

    Any time I am tempted to indulge my inner bitch (!) I think…does THIS excellent man deserve such a rubbish behaviour from me? That cures me instantly, and then I am back (within seconds) to pre-marriage sweetness levels.🙂
    Works every time.
    A happy side-effect of this ‘hands off until we are married’ deal.
    He kept his end of the deal, now it is time for me to keep mine… till we die.
    I think this is how it should work…so we do it like this. This is fair, and actually nice too.

  113. Dave says:

    @Dale:

    The temporal (present world) costs, in the form of consequences, rewards, unintended consequences, etc., are not forgiven. For example, the thief on the cross beside Jesus who repented. Jesus said he would be in paradise with him (saved), yet Jesus allowed him to be executed for his crime anyway.

    Not true, as shown by many examples in the NT.
    When a person truly repents and is washed by the blood of Jesus, there remains no trace of their former lives anymore. Such a blood-washed sinner has every right to go boldly to the throne of God and demand total, complete restoration from all the prior consequences of sin.
    In the example you cited above, the thief never asked Jesus to save him from execution. He simply asked to be forgiven and be accepted by Christ in the next world, a request which Chist readily granted. Had he asked to be spared temporal death, chances are Jesus would have responded favorably to him. We really don’t know. We do know however that Jesus never allowed any repentant person to be punished for their temporal sins. The woman taken in adultery was a case in point.

    Other examples in the NT
    1. Apostle Paul was responsible for the backsliding or execution of many Christians before he became a Christian himself. After his repentance he did not suffer any known consequences whatsoever.
    2. Apostle Peter thrice denied Christ even face to face. After his heartbreaking repentance, he never suffered any temporary consequences. On the contrary, he became a pillar in the early church and got revelations after revelations, dispensing healings and punishments on those who lied to the Holy Spirit.
    3. The man who took his father’s wife evidently committed an egregious sin, and was initially excommunicated by the church. Upon his repentance however, he not only was forgiven by God, but was also received by the church.

    The real reason why many Christians of today behave towards repentant sinners the way they do is because they do not have an idea how absolutely powerful the blood of Jesus is. I make this case to you right now: if Adolph Hitler, after he had slaughtered 6 million Jews, were to cast himself upon the mercy of God on his deathbed, he will be forgiven. If he were to ask that his life be spared, even by the constituted earthly authority, and if he were to have the faith to receive that answer, he will be spared. God will grant it.
    If a homosexual, who has developed multiple sexual complications, including hepatitis, HIV/AIDS and herpes, were to come to Christ, and upon his repentance, pray in faith for healing from his ailments, God has absolutely no objection to granting him total healing in every fiber of his body. Yes, the salvation of Christ includes healing for our pasts, not merely forgiveness. Of what use is forgiveness when you still pay the consequences of your actions, whether temporal or eternal? The reason why many Christians go through life with the “consequences” of their past lives is because they do not have the faith to get rid of those consequences. If they had the faith they could boldly ask the Lord to take those things away and it will be done. As Paul put it, “they are straightened in their own bowels”.

    Yeah, I know it is difficult for us mere mortals to grasp the depth and the height and the width of God’s abundant love and mercy towards those who believe. Throughout Scripture, the righteous have always kicked against God’s mercy shown on repentant sinners, because it sounded just too unfair. But who dares question God? Jonah was angry because God’s “loving-kindness” was too great towards the repentant Ninevites. The older brother could not stomach staying in the same room with his repentant prodigal brother in the well known parable of the Prodigal Son. And many of us today cannot fathom how God can simply make the consequences of someone’s sins to totally disappear when they repent. Yes, it is troubling to say the least, but God says “I can do what I want with my own”. There are very many honest Christian women out there, who are faithfully serving God, are chaste, and are looking for husbands. Yet, the slutty but repentant woman got the best guys and are married within a short time of joining he church. How on earth is that possible? It all goes to the fact that when we repent, our sins are completely, eternally, blotted out and are never remembered by God. And based on our new standing with God, we can make requests for total eradication of the past, and live the rest of our earthly lives in the full blessings of God.

    Again, the real reason why the “born again virgins” are absolutely repulsive is not because of their pasts per se; it is because they have not really repented in the true sense of the term. When a sinner repents, they never, ever justify their sinful lives. Indeed, they never remember such things without a sense of shame coming over them. When a “Christian” makes her “boast in God” and “holds her head high” for being pregnant for the 3rd time before she turns 18, and she was never married, that is not a Christian at all, that is a whore. And whores have no standing with God.

    But as I said before, it is unscriptural to condemn or otherwise belittle a sinner who has genuinely repented, simply because their sins are different from our own sins. It’s like a student who scored 15% on a test, claiming to be better than another student who scored 6%, when the pass mark is 75%. They both failed, as far as the teacher is concerned.

  114. earl says:

    If a man is aware of what he’s looking for the behaviors of pure women versus the ones that aren’t are usually made known quite easily. Fortunately many woman today do this in plain sight (tattoos are a dead giveaway). It does behoove a man to listen to what she is saying and how she says it because that’s the first sign of who she is.

    It’s probably still ok to ask if you get to the point you want to marry a woman and trust her…but the answer should be a verification of what you’ve seen and experienced with her and not still trying to figure her out.

  115. earl says:

    Oh yeah…and look at her eyes (get used to eye contact). The dead eye stare gives them away too.

  116. James K says:

    Why would any 22-year-old woman want to snag a man (for marriage) who is out of her league? I assume you mean for marriage, because high-value men are always available for hook-ups.

    Perhaps you are so resilient that you will not mind spending the rest of your life noticing women who are hotter than yourself flirting with your husband.

    If he is out of your league at 22, he will be way out of your league at 44, and will feel more temptation than most men to have affairs with other women.

    A man’s strategy might be to seek a woman who has the character and personality that he seeks in a wife, while being “hot enough”. The fact that you are even asking the question suggests a hypergamy that cannot tolerate such a compromise.

  117. The Brass Cat says:

    This quote is great…

    ‘It’s 2015, not 1950. WTF??!’

    Because how much has fundamental human behavior changed in the last 65 years? No change whatsoever. Probably not even in the last 100,000 years.

  118. The Brass Cat says:

    James K says:

    Why would any 22-year-old woman want to snag a man (for marriage) who is out of her league? I assume you mean for marriage, because high-value men are always available for hook-ups.
    . . .
    If he is out of your league at 22, he will be way out of your league at 44, and will feel more temptation than most men to have affairs with other women.

    You’re assuming a that 22 year old woman could even foresee this problem to begin with. As TFH would say, women don’t understand cause-and-effect very well.

  119. Sarah's Daughter says:

    Translation: “Isn’t there a big strong man in this room to open the jar of wisdom? I don’t need it, mind you, but those poor lost women out there are just waiting for a real man to tell them step-by-step how to be attractive.”

    The example justement, and men lined up to give their Real Man Answers because the offering of respect is what attracts us. The attracting (attention-seeking) would be less vulgar if the question was played by a woman without a husband of her own.

    Based on her response in the other thread to how her question was answered and the fact that her practical advice to young women has been under a steady stream of scrutiny, I don’t think you have utilized your psychic skills correctly here. While it still may be vulgar to you, it appears Dragonfly was gathering a collective response from a place where men are willing to speak honestly and compare that to the advice she does give to young women. It may stem from insecurity: “Am I saying the right things? I don’t want to give wrong advice.” Or even a need for validation: “I just know I’m right about this, I’ve proven it to be true in my own life and see, other men agree with my husband.” And it very well could have come from a place of wanting the woman who has been overly critical of her advice to see the responses and say “neener neener, now leave me alone!”

    Though, it does remind me how grateful I am that my own wife doesn’t spend her time slinking and insinuating herself around the Men’s Sphere.

    I remember when I first found Dalrock’s blog. I had been reading Vox Popoli for a long time – most of his posts went way over my head but I really needed to read his posts on marriage, parenting, Christianity etc. The posts that Dalrock puts up were the very thing I was seeking to read and learn from. Granted I came here and made a mess and he graciously put up with me, it was of great benefit to my understanding of the nature of men. It was really important in my learning to see that my husband was not different or overly harsh. Perhaps it’s seen as poor character for a woman to have to learn these things. That is an acceptable assessment – women raised under the influence of feminism, like myself, do start with poor character and must seek truth and learning.

    Is Dragonfly insinuating herself? I would think the consistency of content of her blog posts and comments would reveal that if it were true.

    While one could argue about whether or not it is pure or Christian, one of the reasons I kept reading Vox’s posts was for Space Bunny’s comments. Everyone knows she is a very attractive, slender woman. She is also quite logical and rational and is willing to speak Truth. She has a fantastic marriage and it’s safe to say she and her husband are both highly attracted to each other. I wanted what she had! And she has been very inspirational for me to lose weight and get into shape like she is. Some would look at her twitter picture and be appalled. I look at it and am encouraged and inspired.

    I honestly believe Dragonfly offers this to other women. If there is coveting, that isn’t for Dragonfly to concern herself about, that is for that woman to work out – and “refrain from going around that corner” if she can’t look at Dragonfly’s posts without being consumed with envy.

    I’ve said all of this to you, Cane, to request that you might reconsider your opinion of her or at a minimum accept that her presence does offer a positive benefit to some people.

  120. earl says:

    Initial human behavior hasn’t changed since we were created. What changed is some people decided to believe the serpents whispering in their ear.

  121. PokeSalad says:

    If my wife had more experience dating before we met she probably wouldn’t have been such a basket case and most likely never would have cheated on me.

    Cuck game recognized.

  122. Buck says:

    I have instructed daughter over and over her entire life that in guy world a woman brings 4 things to the table:
    1) her looks
    2) her personality
    3) her virtue
    4) money if she has any.
    Of these only her virtue is lasting. Life will batter her personality and father time will pummel the looks, the money may never be there, but virtue, that she has total control over! I always add, “pleasant”, goes a long way!

  123. steve heller says:

    I thought this was OT, but actually it is right on topic:
    “Women were banding together to demand payment for all the emotional work we do that goes completely unpaid—the exhausting work of being a tolerant, gentle, nurturing, listening woman in our relationships with men, at all times. ”
    http://www.vice.com/read/give-your-money-to-women-its-simple-284

  124. Jeremy says:

    Why is it the non-sweet and non-attentive women that find the advice of being sweet and attentive so distasteful? Could it be that they instinctively know what would work like kryptonite on their relationship if another woman used it on their man?

    Women tear each other down by default. Their world is a world of the lowest common denominator.

  125. CK says:

    James K says:
    If he is out of your league at 22, he will be way out of your league at 44, and will feel more temptation than most men to have affairs with other women.

    James K is crazy. A woman at 22 can easily, sustainably snag a 32 year old man (who is otherwise out of her league) for marriage. Sweet, attentive, AND YOUNG (not ‘youthful’) are attractive qualities.

    Dalrock has many times emphasized that young women (20s) are substantially more attractive to all men than older women are. His commenters can’t believe it, and forget the lesson if it isn’t constantly reiterated.

  126. CK says:

    Girl game (being sweet, attentive, and young) is harmless and beneficial to actual human beings, just as Game is. Both are furiously attacked by feminism and its ladies’ auxiliary of male social-conservative pastors.

  127. Cane Caldo says:

    @steve heller

    I thought this was OT, but actually it is right on topic:
    “Women were banding together to demand payment for all the emotional work we do that goes completely unpaid—the exhausting work of being a tolerant, gentle, nurturing, listening woman in our relationships with men, at all times. ”

    Excellent find. The broad-er one’s interpretation of payment, the more true one will find this to be.

  128. Jane Dough says:

    A young woman who is pretty and pleasant doesn’t just have to look at older men who are out of her league. There are lots of reasons why a young woman would prefer someone her own age, and she can use her assets to snag someone young who is on his way up. Sure, you may be broke for awhile (really no big deal), but there’s a lot to be said for building a life together from the ground up.

  129. thedeti says:

    From way up at the top of the thread:

    “Ronda Rousey is quite attractive, and she often meets highly desirable men. Yet she has been unable to get a boyfriend, even though she definitely wants one.”

    She’s unable to get a boyfriend because:

    –though she’s physically a little above average in attractiveness, she is profoundly unfeminine. She has a masculine attitude and bearing. She’s a professional UFC fighter. It doesn’t get much more masculine than that.

    –most of the men she would be attracted to are themselves very attractive, masculine men, and they do not want a masculine woman.

    –She is more masculine than most of the male population, so she won’t be attracted to most men who would be attracted to her.

  130. CK says:

    Jane Dough, are you re-framing to discourage young women from marrying men ten years older? This ten-year age gap, considered normal in the past, is anathema to feminists.

    Go back to the OP, her question was how to snag men that are out of her league. Your answer doesn’t help. You answered “how to snag men in your league, the same age as you.” That’s a reasonable goal for many women, but it’s not what the OP is asking.

    You re-framed her question, to discourage the age-gap that feminists despise.

  131. CK says:

    In the past and in more traditional cultures, that ten-year age gap supported patriarchy. More recently, in the post-war years, patriarchy survived for a while with a smaller age-gap. This was when large families and young marriage was in fashion. The age-gap wasn’t necessary in the post-war years when a particular fashion was in vogue.

    Now that fashions have changed quite a bit, perhaps a return of the ten-year age gap would be beneficial for all.

  132. Jane Dough says:

    “Jane Dough, are you re-framing to discourage young women from marrying men ten years older? This ten-year age gap, considered normal in the past, is anathema to feminists.

    Go back to the OP, her question was how to snag men that are out of her league. Your answer doesn’t help. You answered “how to snag men in your league, the same age as you.” That’s a reasonable goal for many women, but it’s not what the OP is asking.

    You re-framed her question, to discourage the age-gap that feminists despise.”

    Age is not the end all be all of league. Not even close. I’m a huge advocate of women marrying up, but I don’t care one way or another if a woman chooses to marry someone older or closer to her own age. But there’s nothing wrong with using your charm to snag a man who is on his way up instead of one who is already there. But if you want a younger man, you still need to capitalize on your youth and femininity.

    I won the affections of my husband when he was working on an advanced degree in finance and I had a much easier time than the women who are trying to impress his single friends now. And a lot of men really do want the love and support of a woman when they are starting out. There’s nothing wrong with that arrangement at all.

  133. MarcusD says:

  134. theasdgamer says:

    There are lots of reasons why a young woman would prefer someone her own age, and she can use her assets to snag someone young who is on his way up.

    Yeah, cuz he’s so attractive, having no status and lacking in confidence as well as broke, lolz. Try again, schweetheart.

  135. Dale says:

    @Spacetraveller:
    >Any time I am tempted to indulge my inner bitch (!) I think…does THIS excellent man deserve such a rubbish behaviour from me? That cures me instantly, and then I am back (within seconds) to pre-marriage sweetness levels.

    That is wonderful. Two Scripture passages I was thinking of this morning that you might enjoy:
    First, we should focus on the positive things we see around us or in the people around us:
    Phil 4:8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things.

    And secondly, avoid keeping or dwelling on bitterness or malice:
    Eph 4:29 Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. 30 And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. 32 Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you.

    Your CHOICE to focus your mind on the positive/goods things you perceive in your husband, instead of on the negative/bad things, as you observed, greatly improves your attitudes and behaviours. This would be great behaviour for other women to emulate.

    @Dave:

    >But as I said before, it is unscriptural to condemn or otherwise belittle a sinner who has genuinely repented, simply because their sins are different from our own sins. It’s like a student who scored 15% on a test, claiming to be better than another student who scored 6%, when the pass mark is 75%. They both failed, as far as the teacher is concerned.

    I have no disagreement at all with your views, with respect to the consequence of eternal damnation. You are correct that God fully removes from us, through his own payment, the consequence of eternal damnation, whether I am a 98% failure or a 99% failure.
    You are strongly proving an escape from the first consequence, but extending that to every possible consequence. Why does God not give the reward you would have had, if you had done right (1 Cor 3)? Does no person ever ask forgiveness for not doing good works? I have.

    >Had he asked to be spared temporal death, chances are Jesus would have responded favorably to him. … We do know however that Jesus never allowed any repentant person to be punished for their temporal sins.

    I think this is incorrect, but I invite you to show me I am wrong. As previously stated, the biggest and most obvious consequence to sin, apart from eternal damnation, is physical death. (Gen 3, Rom 6:23) So, I invite you to submit to God and ask God to forgive you of your sins (Rom 10:9-13, John 3:14-18). Then, ask God to remove the physical consequence of aging and (eventual) death from your body. If you are past the age of 25 or so, your body will have already started the downhill descend toward eventually wearing out. Eventually your body will stop working, and which point we say you, “died of old age”. Which just means your body got to such a low level of health (proper working order) that it stopped working.
    God, if you are correct, will immediately restore you to the prime of your youth, removing the consequence of decreasing health you have already experienced. And you will live forever, without growing old and dying. Remember, the wages of sin is death.
    Hey, if this works, it could open a whole new avenue to spreading the gospel. We can go into all the senior homes, and offer escape from death and a return to a healthy state, prior to the degradation of health that is a consequence of sin. Same with all the women that buy beauty products to try to recapture their lost health from their youth.
    Make sure you take pictures before and after you ask God to remove the consequences of sin from the health of your body. We’ll need them to convince me, plus we can use them in the television ads for this great new youth restoration program.

    I started the above a bit tongue in cheek, but really, if you are correct, this will work. So do it; prove me wrong. You’ll also live for hundreds of years after I die, so you’ll have great proof you can give to those around you. That could be a great witness, as you will be very unusual. You can give glory to God in your entry in the various Ripley’s Believe It or Not record books.

    I would be interested in your view of the 1 Cor 3 passage I gave, since God is shown to continue the consequences of sin, even into eternity. I wonder if the parables of the servants can be definitively said to do the same? One servant was going to rule over 5 cities, while another only 3. Difference, for all of eternity, based on actions in this life.
    And remember to send me those pictures of your restored health as you are freed from the consequences of sin. I’ll have to wait 40 years to see whether you appear to be living forever.

  136. CK says:

    Jane Dough thanks for clarifying.

    theasdgamer, good point if the OP is focused on hawt guys. NSFW relevant cartoon http://redpillcomics.blogspot.ie/2015/03/a-prime-gig.html

    Jane Dough, let’s compromise and say that undergrad co-eds should try studying in the med school library, and see what guys they meet there.

  137. Pingback: Discussing sex and virginity with a potential spouse is important | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere

  138. honordads says:

    “Demure” is one of Dr. Laura’s more astute bits of guidance given weekly to dozens of women, young and old. I’m happy that most women don’t/won’t get it. Makes the ones that do a true gem.

  139. Oscar says:

    @ Dave says:
    August 3, 2015 at 6:18 am

    You’ve made a few big mistakes concerning the temporal consequences of sin, while correctly pointing out others’ mistakes and how the Church’s attitude towards sinners could (and should) improve. For example:

    “Had [the thief on the cross] asked to be spared temporal death, chances are Jesus would have responded favorably to him. We really don’t know.”

    You should have left it at “we really don’t know”, because we don’t. Your first sentence is pure speculation. We do know that Christ could have spared the thief the pain and humiliation of crucifixion, and the further pain of having his legs broken, but chose not to. That’s it. That’s all we know.

    “We do know however that Jesus never allowed any repentant person to be punished for their temporal sins. The woman taken in adultery was a case in point.”

    Again, we don’t know that. We do know that Christ spared her life, but we can’t even begin to know if Christ spared her the natural consequences of her sin.

    “Other examples in the NT
    1. Apostle Paul…
    2. Apostle Peter… ”

    Those examples don’t seem support your argument. Remember that of all the Apostles, only John remained faithful to the end. He was the only one standing at Christ’s feet as he died on the cross. John is also the only Apostle to have died a natural death. I doubt that’s a coincidence.

    “3. The man who took his father’s wife evidently committed an egregious sin, and was initially excommunicated by the church. Upon his repentance however, he not only was forgiven by God, but was also received by the church.”

    Again, you’re right, but nothing in the text tells us that he was exempt from the natural consequences of his actions, or that any of the fathers in the church thought he’d make a good match for one of their daughters.

    “If they had the faith they could boldly ask the Lord to take those things away and it will be done. As Paul put it, ‘they are straightened in their own bowels’.”

    Come on, man! 2 Corinthians 6 has nothing to do with asking God to remove the natural consequences of ones sin!

    “If a homosexual, who has developed multiple sexual complications, including hepatitis, HIV/AIDS and herpes, were to come to Christ, and upon his repentance, pray in faith for healing from his ailments, God has absolutely no objection to granting him total healing in every fiber of his body.”

    Now you’re wandering into dangerous territory. God doesn’t always choose to heal us physically, and not just for lack of faith. We don’t know the nature of Paul’s “thorn in the flesh”, but we do know God declined to remove it.

    I’ll give you a more contemporary example. My family and I met a missionary couple in the mid-’80s in LA. They’d both been hard core heroin users until the wife, then the husband, became Christians. They radically turned their lives around (the litteral meaning of the word repentance) and became evengelists to the lowest of the low, and the worst of the worst on the streets of LA. The homeless, prostitutes, drug addicts, drug dealers, and gang bangers came to Christ because of their ministry.

    A few years later, afther we’d moved away, we received word that they’d both died of complications from AIDS due to their drug use before salvation. God did not spare them from the natural consequences of their sin. He DID, however, spare their children. They were both born HIV free.

    This should not surprise us. Recall that God did not spare David or his family from the consequences of David’s sin with Bathsheba, even though David’s repentance was real. Abraham sinned with Hagar, and we’re still paying the consequences for that sin. In fact, ALL death and suffering is a natural consequence of sin – the original sin. We will continue to pay the consequence for Adam bringing sin into the world until Christ returns and begins everything anew.

    God does not always spare us from the natural consequences of our sin, and we should not expect him to.

    Now let’s look at where you are right.

    “The real reason why many Christians of today behave towards repentant sinners the way they do is because they do not have an idea how absolutely powerful the blood of Jesus is.”

    Agreed.

    “it is difficult for us mere mortals to grasp the depth and the height and the width of God’s abundant love and mercy towards those who believe.”

    Amen!

    “it is unscriptural to condemn or otherwise belittle a sinner who has genuinely repented, simply because their sins are different from our own sins.”

    Preach, brother!

    You’re right on all those points. But none of them prove that God will spare every sinner (and the people around him/her) from the natural consequences of every sin.

    Again, if He chooses to do so, praise, worship and glory be to Him for his grace and mercy! But when He chooses not to, we have no standing to expect it.

  140. Gunner Q says:

    theasdgamer @ 1:37 pm:
    “There are lots of reasons why a young woman would prefer someone her own age, and she can use her assets to snag someone young who is on his way up.

    Yeah, cuz he’s so attractive, having no status and lacking in confidence as well as broke, lolz. Try again, schweetheart.”

    No, this time Jane Dough is right. If a woman wants to be a general’s wife then she must marry a lieutenant. Men who are starved for sex and affection until they’ve built up lives with no women in them are, at best, going to have major emotional baggage concerning romance. “Chicks didn’t want me until I became successful and no longer as interested in sex… Should I bother? It obviously isn’t me they want.”

    Girls demanding a finished-product husband is the same crime as people resolving to convert to Christianity whenever Christ returns and starts putting folks in Hell. Unfortunately, it’ll be too late for protestations of love and service. The Man in his strength remembers how he was treated in his weakness.

    One of the primary ways men learn to become strong leaders is within marriage. This is why the Bible requires church elders to have well-ordered homes, because that is often the first proof of a man’s ability. No man becomes a skilled leader without first being put in a leadership position. (This is the one and only reason the Army has second lieutenants.)

    Therefore, the ideal Christian attitude for a young woman is identifying a young man with good potential, keeping him happy and being patient as he makes all the inevitable learning mistakes on his way up. Once he hits the big time and has the world at his feet, it’ll be his long-delayed pleasure to share everything he has with her. This is also like Christ’s return.

    I get it’s hard for women to remain submitted to a clumsy husband lacking self-confidence. It is very pleasing to God, however, and the mortal reward alone is well worth it. The Manosphere is doing its part to help men, er, “man up” but godly women must also play their role of accepting and participating in the sausage-making.

  141. @ Dave, Dale

    The common [feminist] argument that comes across here that doesn’t mean you have to marry that person and shouldn’t use it as criteria to eliminate someone from potential spouse consideration.

    A woman who has a promiscuous past who becomes a Christian is forgiven and that’s amazing.

    However, I still wouldn’t want to marry her.

    Some other men may be fine with that; however, that’s my preference. And my preference is not evil nor should I be shamed for it.

    There’s no good reason to throw out sexual past history from consideration as a factor in being married. People wouldn’t say that if someone was in huge financial debt or a convicted criminal that came to Christ. But for some reason Christian men are always supposed to throw out sexual history as a reason for not wanting to marry a Christian woman who made mistakes.

  142. feeriker says:

    I get it’s hard for women to remain submitted to a clumsy husband lacking self-confidence. It is very pleasing to God, however, and the mortal reward alone is well worth it.

    Right you are indeed. Now if we can only get women to start valuing that which pleases God and to adopt a high time preference outlook in terms of long-term reward, the problem is solved.

  143. theasdgamer says:

    Sorry, Gunner, I disagree. Men who are 30ish aren’t necessarily starved for sex and affection. Nothing in the Bible says that women are to marry men about the same age. Rather, it suggests that women will chase men of high status. Likely David and Saul were much older than their wives and concubines. Ruth married an older man. Likely Joseph was somewhat older than Mary. Of course, Adam and Eve were about the same age.

    Hypothetical: A broad marries a looey, then sleeps with a senior officer and some older noncoms because they have higher status and are more confident.

    It all depends on confidence with women. Confidence with women requires an abundance mentality. An abundance mentality goes hand in hand with preselection, which we find in the Song of Solomon.

  144. Oscar says:

    @ Gunner Q says:
    August 3, 2015 at 2:41 pm

    “No, this time Jane Dough is right. If a woman wants to be a general’s wife then she must marry a lieutenant.”

    From my observation, that’s usually the way it works – literally. Brand new butter bar marries his college sweetheart and they ride the train together to the top, with her supporting his career the whole way.

    “No man becomes a skilled leader without first being put in a leadership position. (This is the one and only reason the Army has second lieutenants.)”

    Dude. That one hurt. I mean, it’s true, but it still hurt.

    “The Manosphere is doing its part to help men, er, ‘man up’ but godly women must also play their role of accepting and participating in the sausage-making.”

    You should’ve written “sausage-stuffing”. That would’ve been so much funnier!

  145. Oscar says:

    @ theasdgamer says:
    August 3, 2015 at 2:56 pm

    “Hypothetical: A broad marries a looey, then sleeps with a senior officer and some older noncoms because they have higher status and are more confident.”

    Does that happen? Sure it does. But every general I’ve ever met is still married to his college sweetheart. That’s not hypothetical. It just is.

    On the other hand, if a man wants to gain some experience and confidence first, that’s good too. I was 28 and had already been a sergeant when I commissioned and married. My wife was 22. Not a big difference, but it helped.

  146. Gunner Q says:

    “Nothing in the Bible says that women are to marry men about the same age.”

    True, but the Bible does say that marriage is a man’s only legitimate source of sex. Insisting upon, say, a ten-year age gap means forcing young men to spend their horniest decade sexless. That is neither charitable nor realistic.

    Christian men don’t have the atheist solution of using whores for relief, practice & preselection during their twenties. Therefore, our young women MUST be taught to marry young and respect a husband she might not be naturally attracted to. This is risky right now because we have only Game to keep a marriage together… but in the long run, early marriage will be the only way the Church can respect the legitimate needs of young Christian men.

  147. Dalrock says:

    @GunnerQ

    No, this time Jane Dough is right. If a woman wants to be a general’s wife then she must marry a lieutenant.

    It is strange to be agreeing with Jane Dough, but she is generally right here. I wouldn’t say a young woman must marry the man while he is still young, but I think there are good arguments for it. Looking at it with brutal pragmatism, a young woman can look for men who are like a partially scratched lottery ticket. He isn’t a winner yet, but enough is uncovered to stack the odds in her favor. At the same time, her competition is very likely to overlook such men and instead fixate on the men who are already fully in their own. There is a sweet spot here which makes an excellent strategy for a young woman, and it also allows the couple to build their lives together.

    I made the same basic argument several years ago:

    For women looking for a husband my advice is simple. Picture the kind of man you want to be attracted to. Picture him in the prime of his power. If you are a young woman who wants to marry a man more your own age, now picture that prime of his power man as he would have been at a younger age. A little less confident and powerful, but with real ability and a basic goodness about him. Now picture the kind of setting the younger version would be most comfortable and dominant in. That setting is where you should look for your husband, and the only kind of setting where you should position yourself to compare different kinds of men.

  148. theasdgamer says:

    So many looeys become generals. Wonder how many looey wives cheat vs. how many end up the wives of generals?

  149. theasdgamer says:

    “Insisting upon, say, a ten-year age gap means forcing young men to spend their horniest decade sexless.”

    Lol, young men will ignore said insistence. Sin is inevitable–you just get to choose which sins to commit. If a young man can convince an attractive young woman to marry, then more power to him. But what is realistic here?

  150. Just try and have a conversation with young women about young marriage. Just try…

  151. JDG says:

    Oscar says:
    August 3, 2015 at 2:31 pm

    Spot on.

    I knew a fellow who was a former participant in the homosexual life style. He became a Christian and turned his life around. He stopped being a homosexual (I guess it is a choice after all, though in his case I believe there was a supernatural influence to make that choice). His ministry was to turn homosexuals away from a life of sin and towards Christ. He still died of AIDS, though I think a lot later in life than he would have had he not repented.

    My own past is laden with sinful behavior, and though I have since become a Christian, I still suffer from results of those life choices made decades ago. Though I bear consequences (both physical and mental) for the foolish decisions I’ve made, by God’s mercy I have been spared many of the consequences that others whom I used to associate with were not (loss of sanity, prison, death).

    Instead, I have a steady job, a lovely wife, and a child, which is much more than I deserve. I have a meritorious network of Christ following friends who have repeatedly “had my back” when I needed it most. Yet at no point did I expect (or even think I deserved) such an outcome.

    The fact is that when I was young I had squandered most of my resources and didn’t deserve any of the benefits that come from living a self-disciplined life. Why should a woman drop everything and marry my penniless self simply because I had given my life to Christ and stopped living my former life? How was she to be sure I was serious and trust worthy?

    Keep in mind that back in those days I used to think that most girls were virtuous and trust worthy themselves (by virtue of being female). Boy did I have a lot to learn.

  152. feeriker says:

    Now if we can only get women to start valuing that which pleases God

    Women don’t believe in God.

    and to adopt a high time preference outlook in terms of long-term reward,

    Women don’t understand cause and effect very well (or at all)..

    Absolutely correct. I just realized that I neglected to enclose that post in [sarcasm][/sarcasm] tags. My bad.

  153. feeriker says:

    Just try and have a conversation with young women about young marriage. Just try….

    It might actually be worth trying, if only to be able to capture it on video to serve as a documentary reminder of its utter futility.

  154. JDG says:

    Just try and have a conversation with young women about young marriage. Just try…

    I have. For most it would seem that a thorough PC indoctrination at a university is first and foremost. Though I have met exceptions, the majority of young women these days appear to have “marriage” on a back burner. This may be for the best when considering the current legal climate for what passes as marriage these days. Now if only guys would stop marrying wall dodgers and look elsewhere for women to marry. At the very least us Christian guys should know better, no?

  155. Michelle says:

    Has a big gap in age between spouses ever been common? Also how young are we talking about when we say young marriage?

  156. JDG says:

    It is strange to be agreeing with Jane Dough,

    Maybe she’s learning a thing or two. It’s happened before.

  157. JDG says:

    Has a big gap in age between spouses ever been common? Also how young are we talking about when we say young marriage?

    Going backwards information seems to stop at 1890. Ages around then have about a four year gap according to sources I found on Google. Before that I only found ages of consent (sometimes 14 and 12), but not anything that demonstrates what was common for marriage (though there are often examples for individuals).

  158. JDG says:

    Missed another marker. Oh well!

  159. CK says:

    Michelle, my example was 32 and 22. If we go back to Jane Austen, 16 and 26 would be considered normal, on the young side. In Pride and Prejudice, an old maid of 27 miraculously marries a rich man near her own age.

    My understanding is that Arabic cultures still feature the ten-year age gap.

    I don’t know how common it was in the past, but I believe it to be more common than the post-war USA pattern of: both marry young, large family.

    The main problem with a woman’s marriage in her late 20s is that she has given her best years to other men (boyfriends, professors, and employers). Not an inspiring picture for her husband, though men today grin, bear and salute that picture.

    Women might think, what’s the difference, early 20s and late 20s? They don’t understand how much beauty is lost in five years. It would horrify them to know the truth.

    The truth is that baby fat is the most valuable commodity in the known world. Ambergris (another lipid) is second. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/08/120830-ambergris-charlie-naysmith-whale-vomit-science/

  160. Dragonfly says:

    @Gunner!

    This is so true what you said!!!!!! “Therefore, the ideal Christian attitude for a young woman is identifying a young man with good potential, keeping him happy and being patient as he makes all the inevitable learning mistakes on his way up. Once he hits the big time and has the world at his feet, it’ll be his long-delayed pleasure to share everything he has with her. This is also like Christ’s return.

    I get it’s hard for women to remain submitted to a clumsy husband lacking self-confidence. It is very pleasing to God, however, and the mortal reward alone is well worth it. The Manosphere is doing its part to help men, er, “man up” but godly women must also play their role of accepting and participating in the sausage-making.”

    We experienced this for sure. My husband was always more mature mentally, he’s about 7 years older in maturity the way I figure, and it has been great being there for him from when we had literally nothing (you really could say we lived in poverty), and both learned how to build our marriage up. Now he’s doing great in his career, even just received his first major promotion😀 but there were hard times… and times where I had to learn to submit and let him lead. Wrote about it here when he was in an intensely brutal training academy and I didn’t want to submit to his requests… how we worked it out…. http://girlwithadragonflytattoo.com/2015/07/17/all-for-one-one-for-all/

  161. Dragonfly says:

    Help Your Husband Get Ahead… advice for the wife who married her yet-to-be General😉
    http://girlwithadragonflytattoo.com/2014/05/14/help-your-husband-get-ahead/

  162. Dragonfly says:

    ^Written based on a group I attend of women who conspire together to help our husbands in their line of work.

  163. Dragonfly says:

    HOLD up… who is this Space Bunny woman… I googled her, and OMG – she is sooooooo insanely beautiful. 45 years old?!?!?!? A mother of 4?!?!?!? (we want to have 4!!!!) She looks incredible looking at her pictures. Wow!
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJaKm9VXAAAy2PZ.jpg:large

    Is she Vox Day’s wife/girlfriend? Total respect for him.

  164. Jane Dough says:

    Maybe she’s learning a thing or two. It’s happened before

    Actually, I took that path 10 years ago. It’s been a very rewarding experience for us both.

  165. Renee Harris says:

    Darlock
    Can you right a post about delighting oneself in lord? A minster I enjoyed said something we woman don’t get: happy cone from joy ei the active choice to rejoice in who god is and the beauty of his holiness.
    Can you write about this and how it work?

  166. GeminiXcX says:

    Renee Harris on August 2, 2015 at 7:23 pm
    Thank you relying, however I belive I would answer for ever second God have given me. If I’m too old to marry then I need to find 70 old real virgin and plan for my life alone with out romanic love.
    Btw if a woman never kiss a man , never have oral anal or “mommie hole” sex, but five high or wave “hi” to guy and doesn’t hug guys is a virgin or lying virgin ? Also remember most woman struggle with porn or have been deliver form porn . I have therefore I don’t believe I am a virgin just bc I’ve never kiss a man or I have not “know ” a man

    Although pornography and/or masturbation fall under the catagory of sins of ‘uncleanness’, you did not commit these things with another person. There was no “porneia” involved.?,

    You are a virgin, if you don’t “know” a man. Not to lesson the need to stop the two practices mentioned above, but a woman who has “only” done the things you mention is still a virgin on her wedding night.

    Please don’t decieve yourself otherwise, okay.🙂

    -GXcX

  167. GeminiXcX says:

    Not sure where that ‘?,’ came from after “involved.” Shouldn’t be there.

    -GXcX

  168. GeminiXcX says:

    @Buck
    Regarding your comment — simple, to-the-point, spot on.

    If I may borrow your wisdom, and just do a slight re-wording of #4 (for emphasis). . .

    1) her looks
    2) her personality
    3) her virtue
    4) no debt.

    -GXcX

  169. JDG says:

    Renee, I believe GXcX is correct in that if you have not known a man (in the biblical sense), then you are still a virgin. It’s the same as when a wife tries to use porn as an excuse to divorce her husband. Looking at naked pictures and having dirty thoughts is wrong, but it is not adultery.

  170. Boxer says:

    People ask about age gaps historically. JDG responds:

    Going backwards information seems to stop at 1890. Ages around then have about a four year gap according to sources I found on Google.

    Also anecdotal, but the people in my tree tend to follow this pattern also. I never found a single example of some thirty-something dude marrying a teenage girl, as is commonly depicted by feminists.

    Generally, my studies (also anecdotal — of working-class Mormons in the 19th century) suggest the norm was a dude of 18-22 marrying a chick of 15-17. At the time it struck me as odd how uniform this pattern seemed, but it makes sense. A 19-year old is making his own money, and a 16-year old girl is becoming a burden on her family, so it’s natural to hitch up at these ages.

    In one unusual case I found two 14-year olds getting married to each other. I’m assuming that was a couple of kids who were caught banging and quickly shuttled off to the temple for a “shotgun” wedding. That was the only example in dozens and dozens I saw.

    Boxer

  171. Boxer says:

    I get it’s hard for women to remain submitted to a clumsy husband lacking self-confidence. It is very pleasing to God, however, and the mortal reward alone is well worth it. The Manosphere is doing its part to help men, er, “man up” but godly women must also play their role of accepting and participating in the sausage-making.”

    There are several excellent articles on Dalrock, aimed at women who want to make their men into more effective husbands and fathers. These are subtle tricks that women used to pass on to their daughters and grand-daughters — but this worldly feminine wisdom has been largely lost thanks to feminism. Here’s one of the better write-ups.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/how-to-encourage-a-husband-to-show-more-leadership/

    Old school women who knew the score were able to get their husbands to accomplish really great things, and these same women could easily ride to a very comfortable life as a result.

  172. Oscar says:

    @ theasdgamer says:
    August 3, 2015 at 4:07 pm

    “So many looeys become generals.”

    Very few do. But Gunner Q did not state that many 2LTs become generals. What he stated was that “If a woman wants to be a general’s wife then she must marry a lieutenant.” And from my observation, he’s right. As I stated, every general I ever met is still married to his college sweetheart. There are exceptions (GEN Mattis – the best Marine general in decades – never married), but they are exceptions.

    By the way, although divorce rates are appallingly high among enlisted Soldiers, they’re surprisingly low among officers. Of the hundreds of officers with whom I served closely, only a handful were divorced, whereas among senior NCOs, an ex-wife or two was the norm. Divorce rates are lowest among male officers, then female officers, then male enlisted and highest among female enlisted.

    This article only pertains to the Air Force, but it has the best breakdown I could find, and it mirrors what I observed in the Army.

    http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140603/NEWS/306030080/Divorce-rates-Another-view-data

    As Dalrock stated, one judges a 23-year-old recent college grad – regardless of profession – on the basis of potential. It’s very difficult for a young woman to judge a young man on potential, however. That’s why parents need to stay involved.

  173. Oscar says:

    @ Boxer says:
    August 3, 2015 at 11:23 pm

    “Old school women who knew the score were able to get their husbands to accomplish really great things, and these same women could easily ride to a very comfortable life as a result.”

    That’s why people used to say that “behind every great man there’s a good woman”, but that’s no longer allowed.

  174. Sarah's Daughter says:

    @Dragonfly,
    Is she Vox Day’s wife/girlfriend? Total respect for him.

    She and Vox have been married for ~20 years. You can follow her on twitter or friend request her on Facebook. She has always been gracious in answering my questions and messaging with me.

  175. Dragonfly says:

    @Sarah’s Daughter, wow, that is amazing… it actually makes me look at Vox in a whole different way.

    I guess Roissy is right:

    “Women serve as an exceptionally accurate barometer for the measure of a man’s attractiveness and social standing. The hotter, sweeter, and more feminine a man’s girlfriend or wife, the likelier it is that man is charismatic, beloved, high status, and possessing those traits and achievements which other men admire and set women on fire.”

  176. Original Laura says:

    Boxer. A 16 year old girl is not a burden to her family unless she gets pregnant. It would be more accurate to say that an unmarried teenage daughter in the home is an ever increasing risk. If she has an illegitimate child she not only increases the family’s expenses but ruins her own chances of getting married and harms the marital prospects of all her unmarried sisters. A slutty sister may even hurt the marital prospects of her brothers to a lesser extent

  177. theasdgamer says:

    Oscar, what Gunner stated didn’t support his thesis any more than the statement, if you want to get rich, you need to buy a lottery ticket. There are higher percentage plays for a woman than marrying a young man, assuming that women aren’t aiming to win the lottery (marry someone who will be a general).

    If shared sacrifice/growth is valued by a woman, then marrying a young man is the way to go. Mrs. Gamer married me and I had no earnings at the time, being a full time student. We had shared sacrifices and growth. Not as much sacrifice as a couple with over $100k in student loans would nowadays. You all need to take that into consideration a whole lot more. An older man can absorb a woman’s loans a whole lot easier than a young man can.

  178. Opus says:

    Picking up on Boxer’s interesting genealogical researches, I believe I am correct in saying that there was usually a four year gap between the man and the woman in age down to about 1950. After that time it has been only two years and no matter what the median age of the marrying woman the man is always two years older – on average. This remains so even though the average age of marriage for a woman has risen from 20 in 1970 to nearly 30 now – though when I was in my thirties the idea that I might date a woman just two years younger than me (they all seemed so unattractive) was an absurd proposition. Why would I want to date a woman my age when I was desirable to and equally desired women aged about twenty; not that I ever consciously thought about it, but that was how it was.

  179. BuenaVista says:

    Dale wants to know if I read the Bible, because anyone who disagrees with him must not.

    Dale says:
    August 2, 2015 at 10:17 pm

    “Did you bother to read the Scripture references I provided above? I provided verses relating to the first two the issues you listed. The fact you choose not to read and submit to Scripture, does not prove that Scriptures on the topic do not exist.”

    Dale, buddy, I am not a legalistic Christian. I reason, I do not simply memorize ancient texts, themselves profoundly ambiguous. If you think *reasoning* is anti-Christian, then you must assert an explanation as to how, unique to Men, we are able to reason.

    Or we could go back to saying that any woman with short hair is unChristian. I’m disinclined to do that.

  180. BuenaVista says:

    Cane, you did not argue any of my points. I await your reply, as Hitch noted in respect of religionists and atheists alike.

    Also, is English your second language?

  181. @Dragonfly,
    My husband was watching “Moneyball” the other day, laughed and rewound to this scene to share with me. Thought you’d get a laugh from it too:

    Grady Fuson: Artie, who do you like?
    Art Howe: I like Perez. He’s got a classy swing, its a real clean stroke.
    Scout Barry: He can’t hit a curve ball.
    Art Howe: Yea, there’s some work to be done, I’ll admit that.
    Scout Barry: Yea there is.
    Art Howe: But he is noticeable.
    Matt Keough: And an ugly girlfriend.
    Scout Barry: What does that mean?
    Matt Keough: Ugly girlfriend means no confidence.
    Scout Barry: OK.
    Billy Beane: [Puts head into hands out of frustration with the conversation]
    John Poloni: Now you guys are full of it. Artie’s right. This guy’s got an attitude and an attitude is good. I mean it’s the kind of guy who walks into a room and his dick has already been there for two minutes.
    Phil Pote: He passes the eye candy test. He’s got the looks. He’s great at playing the part. He just needs to get some playing time.
    Matt Keough: I’m just saying his girlfriend is a 6 at best.

  182. Razorwire says:

    Yep. Roissy is right.

    Which is why I’d rather just ‘date’ the young and beautiful women in the liquid-hot-magma of their AF phase than marry those nice, sweet, “pretty” 35 y/o women who overplayed their hands. The social high-fives garnered from maintaining a GF like the ‘bunny’ or the corollary of the social media status flaunting enjoyed by women in the AF stage of her dualistic sexual strategy have fully trumped marriage as the priority.

    I know: I’m being superficial. I’m failing to see the beauty on the inside. Well, not entirely true. I’ve met many beautiful (on the inside) women who are fine ladies and who would likely make lovely wives and mothers. But the status impact that committing to less-than-beautiful woman offers very little in return. Particularly when

    And since ALL of these women have passed on opportunities to prioritize marriage when their youth and beauty was blooming, passed on men because their inner greatness had yet to sufficiently manifest in the physical-social dimension, I would feel rather foolish to buy into the old model of marriage in the eleventh hour of modern marriage. And In many ways I’m just doing what they did when they were 22 – which is what they were encouraged to do.

    There is almost no thought as to what they can offer nor is there any incentive for them to take the kind of risk that comes with a partially scratched lottery ticket. It isn’t even just about the risk that he fails to fulfill the trajectory the first two scratched boxes indicate, but rather it also includes the risk that she will miss out on some experience that is essential to her becoming her. This is something that no man can quell and is equally as damaging when held in the minds of women making decisions in their sexual and reproductive peaks.

    The question isn’t about her attractiveness to him but rather about how she can acquire the most attractive man. It is not framed from a place of ‘how can I demonstrate I have the desire and capacity to give’ or ‘how can I signal that I have a lot to give within the context of marriage’ but rather ‘how can I attract the kind of men that can give me what I deserve’ and ‘how can I show that marriage is what I want (without having to acknowledge the difference between SMV and MMV.)’

    I’ve met one woman in seven years who was beautiful, feminine, sweet, and quite clear about how she valued marriage, backed up with intent. Yet even she is still unmarried, as she proved to be ill-equipped to navigate the trappings of her brief but influential AF phase. Though by now it is not so brief.

    For these women the concept of settling and marriage are entwined. The idea of possibly settling is too traumatic. And by settling I mean committing to a man that doesn’t quite live up to the accumulated experiences provided via those AF men. She knows perfectly well that her sweet and attentive nature make her stand out and affords her a great many options but she still does not know that she must subordinate the priority of her personal journey or else remain locked in perpetual hot girlfriend land.

    And all the while she secretly laments that her sweetness, her “good-girl” nature is what is holding her back; that she must do “what everyone else is doing” in order to compete. The culture and her friends affirm this at every opportunity.

    So the attention, resources, and social-accolades that come from “Dating” attractive, high-status men is too sweet a nectar to compete with psychic trauma of shifting form actualizing her SMV to actualizing her MMV. And there is not a single person in her life that is telling her that she is squandering her sweetness and goodness, youth and beauty. Quite the opposite. Its all easily boiled down to men failing to man-up. And like so many hummingbirds, they prefer to bounce to the next blossom. Hence: Tinder. The profession of “dating” takes over.

    Marriage will eventually find her. But not because she valued marriage or because she is sweet and attentive – though those things obviously do make a big difference, but because she is beautiful and sweet and age still favors her. Sooner or later that annuity looks a lot better than dealing with the the volatility of her declining equity in a schizophrenic market. An older man who is squared away and reasonably fit will find her to be quite the “Respect” machine at his side and she will rationalize her journey as what was meant to be all along.

    The only question is whether or not this will happen in time for her to have the kids she says she desires. Had she allowed her sweetness and attentive, caring nature to lead the way and then followed that up with having the faith and awareness that her personal journey is not something to be elevated above marriage but rather is THE marriage, we’d have two kids by now.

  183. mikediver5 says:

    To those that have read my earlier inputs that described my situation please bear with me while I explain the pertinent portions for newer readers. I am married to a much younger Filipina; as in 27+ years younger. I did start out to do this, it just happened. I had a group of male friends that met once a week at a neighborhood bar that was owed by a lifelong friend of one of the group. I was divorced at the time and most of the men were married; four of them to Filipinas. I asked for input on where to go for a scuba diving trip. The four guys married to Filipinas said try the Philippines as it had some great and inexpensive diving.

    I went on the trip and when I got back I asked those four guys how they had met their wives; as I had not met any “nice” girls while I was there. They told me that the way to go was to be introduced. They cautioned me that the nice girls were only interested in marriage, so unless that was my goal they would not help. Then I asked all four guys if they were happy in their marriages and if they would marry the same women again if they had it to do over. Each paused to consider and then gave what I felt were serious answers of yes they would marry their wives again knowing them as they do now. I felt this was pretty strong evidence and would give it a try. I asked them to introduce me to women that were marriage minded, and over the age of 35. I felt that since I was 51, 35 was an absolute floor for age appropriate relationships.

    Although I did talk with a few women over 40 who were very attractive and accomplished, there were always problems. Most of these over 40 women had tons of baggage. The one I got along with best had 4 children, and had never been married. There is no divorce in the Philippines so there are a lot of what they call happy go lucky relationships where they don’t marry formally until the children get into high school. I have 6 children so this was going to be an issue. Eventually I found out the youngest child was 2. That was a little too much for me at that point in my life.

    Then things got out of hand. The network that these guys wives had put my contact information out to, started to leak. I soon was being contacted by women as young as 18; who I rejected out of hand. then this 23 year old contacted me. The first thing she said was, “Are you in this for marriage? If you aren’t, then quit wasting my time. And if you are in this for access to sex you can forget it, because I am a virgin and will be on my wedding night.” Those who think Asian women are submissive must not know many Asian women. She said these things straightforward and without any blushes or coy downcast eyes. She didn’t want to waste my time or hers so we needed to establish the ground rules immediately. I admired her honesty, although I of course had some doubts about the virginity thing. It is a very rare Filipina that reaches the old maid age of 23 a virgin. Most of the 18 year olds that had contacted me already had one or two children. I think this answers how I think a woman should put out that she is a virgin and intends to stay one. Let me add that I was shocked about two weeks before our wedding when she told me that I was the first “boy” that she had ever kissed.

    I replied with my honest answers, but told her straight up that she was wasting her time with me as she was just too young. I found her to be bright and interesting and I enjoyed talking with her. It was refreshing to have absolutely no pressure to impress a woman, since I believed that there was zero chance of any relationship. We kind of slipped into talking every day. Then it became every day for an hour. Then it became twice a day for an hour or so each time. As I said, I enjoyed her conversation. This stretched out over about six months, with me reinforcing from time to time that nothing serious could ever develop between us because the age difference was too great. At this point she dragged her mother on screen and we had a long chat that no her daughter was not too young, and I was not too old. She had met and married her husband when he was the professor in one of her freshman classes at the University. I later met all her many, many, aunts and they all had husbands about 20 years older than them. So, it may be a very narrow age difference in the west, and in the US especially, but this is not true in many traditional cultures and locales.

    To the point of a young woman should be covered by her father and or family, let me tell you my experience with a traditional culture. When the time came for us to meet in person (shortly after her mom convinced me that the age difference did not matter) I was informed that I would have to stay with her family for at least a week so they could get to know me before they would allow me to date their daughter. Then, when grudging permission was granted, I was informed that all dating would be chaperoned. I found out that she had never been anywhere without a male relative to chaperone; not even across the street to get ice cream. We had chaperoned dating only well into our engagement two years later. This is how a traditional culture produces virgin brides.

    What does this traditional culture teach to young girls about sex? Her mother had told her that sex was wonderful, and that it was wonderful because it was a gift from God. As a gift from God it was holy. Also, the only proper use of this gift was within marriage. The aside to this was her mother teaching her that sex was addictive; once tried always wanted. So, it was best to be married first, and have a sure long term supply, before getting addicted.

    To those above that say yes a man wants a virgin bride, but none are to be had, I say they are just not looking outside their boxes. I agree that in the west, and in the US for sure, there are few to no virgins above about 18, and few to none of the young women are interested in marriage until their late 20s, or more likely their early 30s. But the west and the US are not the entire world.

  184. Cane Caldo says:

    @BuenaVista

    Dale, buddy, I am not a legalistic Christian. I reason, I do not simply memorize ancient texts, themselves profoundly ambiguous. If you think *reasoning* is anti-Christian, then you must assert an explanation as to how, unique to Men, we are able to reason.

    Show us the “profound ambiguity” in this bit of “ancient text”:

    2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, 5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven. 6 For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head. 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; 12 for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God. 13 Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a wife to pray to God with her head uncovered? 14 Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him, 15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering. 16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.

    I bolded St. Paul the Apostle’s appeal to reason for you in case you missed it. So much for the false dichotomy of “profoundly ambiguous ancient texts” against “reason”.

    Saying you are not a “legalistic Christian” is not a defense for your false statements. Supposing a legalistic Christian, he or she (more often a she, in my experience) would prescribe a particular length for women’s hair, or refuse a short-haired woman to bow her head if she had forgot her head covering, or claim that women who’ve lost their hair by cancer therapy or other misfortune are, ipso facto deserving of it, or otherwise ungodly.

    Your claim that short-hair on a woman doesn’t have a real Christian connotation and therefore doesn’t require material obedience for Christian women isn’t a statement of Christian freedom from the Law. You cannot pass off ignorance and apathy as modern sophistication here, BuenaVista.

    Cane, you did not argue any of my points.

    That is correct. I argued my points. If you want your points argued then you’re going to have to do it yourself.

    Also, is English your second language?

    You pretend to have trouble understanding both me and clear and timeless texts because you don’t like us. Your problem isn’t knowledge, but attitude.

    @SD and Dragonfly

    While you are pondering the goodness of Spacebunny–of which I am sure much can be said–do let yourself see what you do not see. What I mean is:

    Spacebunny isn’t here. Spacebunny doesn’t spend large portions of her day inserting herself into male spaces. Her comments at Vox Populi and AGP are few and , and usually notable for their brevity and wit; which is sometimes called “rapier-like”.

    Let’s consider the rapier for a moment. How does it work? What makes it so nimble and good at puncturing defenses? How did it come into fashion? Why are they good for personal defense, but not so great at battle?

    The key here is that rapiers are made with less material than a normal sword. If steel were words, then we would say that the excellence of rapiers due to the fact that while they aren’t much use en masse they are good one-on-one, make a small point, and then shut up.

    By this measure, you two are not rapier-like because you are ponderous and thick with words. You are battle-axes; barbarian weapons that lead to overextension for the wielder. That will be her ruin, and leave open the man next to her; whom she was to support.

    Spacebunny was lucky to be born pretty, but her true goodness must come from within. It is good that she takes care of herself. I do not doubt that she is disciplined so as not to squander the beauty that was given to her, but physical beauty is fleeting and charm is deceiving. Spacebunny will still be beautiful into her old age because she is there at Vox’s side, defending him. She doesn’t abandon him. She doesn’t go off into stray areas and write verbal checks that Vox Day can’t or won’t cash.

    To be sure: Vox can verbally cash a lot of checks. You two aren’t married to a man like Vox, and Spacebunny isn’t your twinsie. Deal with it. Love the men you have and follow their lead. Your men are not here, but you are. How is that following their lead?

    In this life we are blinded and see only shadows (through a glass darkly), and so we reflexively believe that beauty is an issue of the flesh. But in the next life we will see face to face–spirit and flesh to spirit and flesh. I encourage you two to embrace that beautiful truth and put away the ugly lies because the time is coming when you will not have a choice.

    And let me add another warning: Pretending you are physically beautiful does not make it so. No amount of awkwardly framed selfies are going to change that. They are sorry attempts to bully people by daring them to say something “mean” and then posture a phony self-righteousness as awkward and vapid as selfies.

  185. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    Your claim that short-hair on a woman doesn’t have a real Christian connotation and therefore doesn’t require material obedience for Christian women isn’t a statement of Christian freedom from the Law.

    BuenaVista is going farther than that. He isn’t just arguing for freedom, but mocking and belittling the women who choose to fight against the cultural norm by remaining feminine with their dress and hair.

    I truly enjoy it when self-satisfied “Christian” men attribute female virtue to losing weight, growing their hair out, and acting feminine. These meaningless (and vague) platitudes have nothing to do either with faith, Scripture or reality. For a start, a woman’s hair length has nothing to do with her faithfulness; it has everything to do with a man’s sexual preference. Man, do I tire of churchian logical incompetence. If you like your Pentecostal chicks with long hair, because that’s sexy, fine. If you think Jesus gives a shit how long her hair is, you’re intellectually disabled.

  186. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    BuenaVista is going farther than that. He isn’t just arguing for freedom, but mocking and belittling the women who choose to fight against the cultural norm by remaining feminine with their dress and hair.

    Excellent point! Unlike you, I failed to consider it from the perspective of the woman making the right choice on her own; whom he dubbed “intellectually disabled”, i.e., retarded. I will do better next time.

  187. armenia4ever says:

    I see so many men in the manosphere with the advice: Don’t get married. Considering how much many stories I’ve read about how bad it’s become, I understand. I see it again on this thread.

    However, we can just essentially give up and die. I don’t know about you, but I still want kids. When I found the manosphere barely a year ago, I was 25 and a virgin.

    I’m now about to turn 27 in two months and I’ve slept with 10 girls. At first, it felt great, “liberating”, and an affirmation of my manhood. (Note I was raised as a reformed Christian, and right now I don’t know if I can call myself one, but I have a tremendous respect for the faith and it still dominates my worldview.)

    A few months ago, I became somewhat bored of it. I felt like I was lacking a greater purpose. It felt hollow. There had to be more. Was spinning plates just something that I was going to do for the rest of my life before I eventually died of old age?

    Several months ago at my university – A christian one where pre-marital sex is against the rule – I became friends with benefits with a freshman. She knew I had other girls I was seeing, but her femininity kept her in my sights.

    She had actually been raped – yes, real rape – and it was an immediate redflag in which I assumed she would be nothing more to me then a FwB. (She is a Christian – though more of a nominal one, but the worldview adherence is there.)

    I determined to have a new mindset on what I was looking for in a girl – specifically marriageable qualities. This girl – the friend with benefits one – , hit everything on the damn checklist. She wants to become a trauma surgeon, already has her CNA, and is driven. However, she wants kids early in her life, agrees with me on homeschooling, traditional values, and leadership. Throw in the fact that she takes care of herself and hasn’t subjected me to a single shit test has me thinking, ” Is this the unicorn for me?”

    Manosphere advice would be – Don’t even consider the idea of marriage!

    At this point, Western culture is doomed. If Christians want to save it, they have to go back to the basics and essentially adhere to the “Benedict Option”. We – yes I would include myself in the Christian community – have to form our own culture, institutions, communities, and businesses to provide the light to the darkness which is the shredded and smoking hill of modern day Rome

    While these progressive liberal types kill their kids, we should be having as many as we can. Demographics will have their day. I’ve determined that I will do my part. (I’ve also realized that my parents will help greatly with babysitting, education, and the introduction of a Christian worldview not polluted by feminist dogma with my future kids.)

    I have however noticed that there seems to be almost nothing in the manosphere about raising children, let alone the few blogs that actually deal with married life like this one and a few others.

    Why is this?

    Raising up masculine and strong boys as well as feminine and beautiful girls is one of the primary things shown to be lacking not only in secular culture, but the church as a whole.

  188. JDG says:

    Dale, buddy, I am not a legalistic Christian. I reason, I do not simply memorize ancient texts, themselves profoundly ambiguous. If you think *reasoning* is anti-Christian, then you must assert an explanation as to how, unique to Men, we are able to reason.

    I keep hearing about these legalistic Christians, but I rarely find one. Most often the case is that when somebody points one out I find instead an individual who is obedient to the teachings in the Bible and willing to endure the criticisms of those who can’t be bothered with being transformed by the renewal of their minds.

    Evangelical feminists are often those that make such claims. Sadly, folks who haven’t taken the time to thoroughly read the Bible and pray for understanding often tend to look down on their more devout brothers and sisters for not conforming to the more popular yet unbiblical teachings being propagated these days.

    That seems to be how the culture infects churches. 1st the Word of God is undermined. 2nd the feminist view is inserted (and male authority opposed). 3rd the homosexual view is inserted (and accountability for sin opposed). By then the Word of God has been relegated to “good advice” or mythology status (if it is considered at all).

    “18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written,

    “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
    and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
    20 Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” – 1 Cor 1:18-20

  189. Gunner Q says:

    theasdgamer @ 10:16 am:
    “Oscar, what Gunner stated didn’t support his thesis any more than the statement, if you want to get rich, you need to buy a lottery ticket.”

    As opposed to rooting though the dumpster afterwards for winning tickets nobody happened to care about that are still in redeemable condition… yes.

    armenia4ever @ 5:52 pm:
    “Manosphere advice would be – Don’t even consider the idea of marriage!”

    If you’ve found a trustworthy girl and want to have a family then go ahead. Marriage is a hard road these days but potentially the most rewarding as well. Don’t get married unless, like an electrician working on hot wires, you know what you’re doing.

    “I have however noticed that there seems to be almost nothing in the manosphere about raising children, let alone the few blogs that actually deal with married life like this one and a few others.”

    The Manosphere is the wrong forum for kids & (functional) domestic life. It’s focused on male issues, not family issues. The homeschooling communities might be what you want.

    “At this point, Western culture is doomed.”

    Ridiculous. If Russia survived the Communist/Feminist Winter then so can we.

  190. feeriker says:

    This girl – the friend with benefits one – , hit everything on the damn checklist. She wants to become a trauma surgeon, already has her CNA, and is driven. However, she wants kids early in her life, agrees with me on homeschooling, traditional values, and leadership. Throw in the fact that she takes care of herself and hasn’t subjected me to a single shit test has me thinking, ” Is this the unicorn for me?”

    Um, I hate to be the one to piss on your picnic, but I see a bright red flag here.

    You say that your Miss Right “wants to become a trauma surgeon, already has her CNA, and is driven,” but that she also “wants kids, early in her life, agrees with me on homeschooling, traditional values, and leadership.”

    Dude, c’mon now, it’s obvious: she wants fried ice. Her first set of goals are incompatible with her second. She sounds like every other yougogirrrrrrrrrrrrrrl career woman who thinks she can “have it all” when well over half a century of evidence to the contrary has made it glaringly obvious that she can’t. Either she’s in denial or she’s telling you what she thinks you want to hear. Either way, she is NOT going to make a “traditional submissive wife” for you unless she puts you and any children you might have first in her life. Her becoming a trauma surgeon ain’t gonna achieve that goal.

    I know I’m coming across as harsh here, but I really hate to see a man wishfully think himself into what will likely be a disastrous marriage that will turn into a self-destroying tragedy. I don’t want to see any more young men make the mistakes I did when I was their age.

  191. Renee Harris says:

    @feeriker on August 4, 2015 at 8:18 pm
    I want to be a ivy leagued lawyer- screen writer living in NYC married with twin by 26. Woman have dumb dreams. We are told service The Lord get a job and mr right will find by 22
    Bull Sugar.

  192. feeriker says:

    I keep hearing about these legalistic Christians, but I rarely find one. Most often the case is that when somebody points one out I find instead an individual who is obedient to the teachings in the Bible and willing to endure the criticisms of those who can’t be bothered with being transformed by the renewal of their minds.

    I’m not sure if the term “legalism” has been authoritatively defined anywhere (if it has, I’ll gladly stand corrected and would appreciate seeing the source), but assuming an absence of such definition, I find the following working definition helpful, based on my own observation of the concept in practice over the last several decades:

    “The practice of reducing the Christian faith to living life by an inflexible set of rules, mostly negatives (“don’ts”), few or none of which are supported by Scripture. Common examples include disapproval of or prohibitions against alcohol consumption, card playing, dancing, gambling, interracial dating and marriage, listening to secular music, and smoking (tobacco or anything else). It is the lack of scriptural basis for these prohibitions that sets legalism apart from actual scriptural mandates for godly behavior.”

    Given this definition, and matching it against the examples that both Cane and JDG provided in rebuttal to BV’s post, both are correct in asserting that there is absolutely nothing “legalistic” about insisting that a woman behave in a feminine manner. God Himself has mandated it through various scriptural references.

    Now I wonder who will be the first to accuse God of being “legalistic.”

  193. Sarah's Daughter says:

    While you are pondering the goodness of Spacebunny–of which I am sure much can be said–do let yourself see what you do not see. What I mean is:

    Much good can be said about her.

    Spacebunny isn’t here. Spacebunny doesn’t spend large portions of her day inserting herself into male spaces. Her comments at Vox Populi and AGP are few and , and usually notable for their brevity and wit; which is sometimes called “rapier-like”.

    I do see this. She actually doesn’t comment at VP or AGP at all anymore. She’s on Twitter now, a great venue for her style as you note. She’s also on Facebook and utilizes a very different style of communication there.

    Regarding Dalrock’s blog being a male space (if that was what you were implying): This might be something I have been unaware of. It wasn’t long ago he assured me I was welcome here. I’ve already explained why I enjoy Dalrock’s writing. You make a great point about the amount of time I spend reading/commenting here. It tends to be one of my “go to” places when I take breaks from my work.

    You are correct, I do not have that rapier style that SB does. We’re certainly not twinsies, though we hail from very similar backgrounds and cultures (she was raised not to far from where I was) we are indeed, very different individuals with different passions and concerns.

    By this measure, you two are not rapier-like because you are ponderous and thick with words. You are battle-axes; barbarian weapons that lead to overextension for the wielder. That will be her ruin, and leave open the man next to her; whom she was to support.

    Again, styles differ.

    To be sure: Vox can verbally cash a lot of checks. You two aren’t married to a man like Vox, and Spacebunny isn’t your twinsie. Deal with it. Love the men you have and follow their lead. Your men are not here, but you are. How is that following their lead?

    He’s here, just as he’s at VP and AGP. He doesn’t comment at those places either. There is not one comment I’ve made here that he hasn’t approved before I post. It was his lead that I found any of the blogs I read. He insisted upon it – 6 years ago – when what I’ve learned from those blogs was essential to the transformation of our marriage. And you know, Cane, just recently a commenter from here, took his time to help me with RLB’s health issues. His advice has been such a blessing. So, when I hear this “you’re not welcome here” message from you, I know there is no possible way you understand how valuable this blog has been for me and my family over the years. There are several women who have had great impact on me who I would have never known if it hadn’t been for their presence here, on Dalrock’s site.

    And let me add another warning: Pretending you are physically beautiful does not make it so. No amount of awkwardly framed selfies are going to change that. They are sorry attempts to bully people by daring them to say something “mean” and then posture a phony self-righteousness as awkward and vapid as selfies.

    There isn’t a photo of me associated with my moniker or real name that doesn’t also have my husband in it. I don’t take selfies. Does this bullying only apply to attractive women? Or do you think an average looking woman or even an ugly woman who has a photo attached to her name is bullying people?

  194. Renee Harris says:

    My point was this girl has dreams not goals. Her dream to be a S-AHM but goal iis to a surgeon. One she is actively pursuing The other one she not. Life is like a buffet many women always plan to get the Marrige table but they never do

  195. feeriker says:

    We are told service The Lord get a job and mr right will find by 22
    Bull Sugar.

    To paraphrase myself from a post in a previous thread, I really wish churches would quit beating around the bush, quit insulting our intelligence, and just come right out and preach against marriage and family. It’s what most of them (at least in the western world) are doing anyway for all intents and purposes. A little candor would at least help them save some face.

  196. Aservant says:

    @ feeriker,

    No, you aren’t being harsh, you’re spot on. Twenty years ago I was with this type and it has become common place. The tart I was with said, “I’m gonna work full time and more to buy a house with you, and I’m going back to school full time and I’m gonna get a pure bred puppy”. Really? How’s that gonna work? I’m not taking care of the puppy, I work two jobs and that is enough for me. Maybe you should try and get one thing done at a time. “You are always trying to control me!”, I was told.

    Not too long after she was to the curb. This is classic entitlement behavior and in my experience, only changes if life deals the woman a really hard blow. You, of course, can not have any part of the process of dealing the blow for her benefit as you will only be resented and blamed for her hardship and it maybe could even get you into a dangerous situation. So best course of action is just to bail. Sorry, yeah, it’s hard when it looks and sounds so good, but it has got to be done or you’ll regret it later. Knowing what I know now, I would run far and fast from any woman telling me what this woman is saying because she is either so entitled that she isn’t even on the earth plane as far as realistic expectations, or she is a shameless liar, just telling you what you want to hear.

  197. Sarah's Daughter says:

    @Cane
    Regarding your post: https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2015/08/04/the-original-entryists/
    Sometimes a woman gets lost. That happens. Once a woman is found, however, she ought to go home. Otherwise she is a pollutant; an entryist. Tolerating them is a mistake that injures the community. Not because said woman is “bad”, but because no woman is man enough to be a man.

    Thank you for this. I completely understand what you are saying and up until now have ignored the truth of it. God Bless you all here!

  198. Cane Caldo says:

    @SD

    My pleasure.

  199. Boxer says:

    Dear Original Laura:

    Boxer. A 16 year old girl is not a burden to her family unless she gets pregnant

    A 16-year old girl certainly is a horrible burden on any normal (non welfare receiving) family in a normal (non welfare-and-warfare state) society. She is a useless eater who can not do enough work to support herself, and must be completely supported for several days per month.

    In modern capitalist democracies, where all one’s needs are supplied by structural forces, this burden is offset, but this is not the natural order of things, which is why we can see marriage trends so uniformly distributed across class and race lines just a few decades ago.

    It would be more accurate to say that an unmarried teenage daughter in the home is an ever increasing risk. If she has an illegitimate child she not only increases the family’s expenses but ruins her own chances of getting married and harms the marital prospects of all her unmarried sisters. A slutty sister may even hurt the marital prospects of her brothers to a lesser extent

    All of which are parts of the overall burden of a 16-year old girl. The only sensible solution in a sane society is to marry her off to some 18-year old boy who will support her in return for meals, sex and child rearing purposes.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  200. Opus says:

    I have just caught Arminia4ever’s post from two days ago.

    Impressive it is too: from Virgin to a double-digit partner-count in two years – and despite being twenty-seven is still at College. His Friend with Benefits (just one of his spun-plates) is a freshman (does that mean she is eighteen?) has already been raped, and despite wanting to marry and produce a family shortly is also committed to the rigours of training as a Trauma surgeon (whatever that may be).

    Forgive me, but I see Manosphere Parody and yet I am not actually sure that it is.

  201. Pingback: The Difficulty of Being Pleasant | Spawny's Space

  202. Mickey Singh says:

    I think a culture can expect its womenfolk to resist against it for only so long. I’ve not been here a long time but it didn’t take any time at all before I got the message that sweet and attentive were not part of the American ethos and rugged hell yeah your ass is ours, is. American culture always prided itself on being bold and in your face not sweet and attentive so why would anyone expect American women to be okay with being told to be sweet and attentive?

    I like the devil may care attitude of the American ethos so this is not a criticism of it but a bewilderment that people expect an entire 50% of fellow citizens to go against the grain of a society’s values system.

  203. Lyn87 says:

    Mickey,

    I’m going to bed in a few minutes, so I’ll be brief and let others of my countrymen who aren’t in Asia tonight answer in more detail.

    We Americans have always had different expectations for men and women. What you described is what American men strive for. The female ideal is far different.

    Feminism changed all that in the past 50 years, but that’s our history.

  204. Mickey Singh says:

    “We Americans have always had different expectations for men and women. What you described is what American men strive for. The female ideal is far different.”

    No Lyn87 I don’t think so. Its a general American cultural ethos undivided by gender. A collective consciousness if you will. Rugged individualism as collective consciousness? HELL YEAH!!! Anyway I like it. That’s why I’m here. And you obviously don’t, that’ why you’re not.

  205. JDG says:

    I suspect that “blue pill” madness may have affected Mickey’s judgement. Either that or he does not understand what he is observing. In spite of how individualistic the American ethos may appear to outsiders, the expectations between the sexes have always been different here in the states.

  206. bradford says:

    @Mickey Singh

    It seems rather presumptuous to argue that based on observing American culture for only a short time you know it’s nature more accurately than Lyn87 and JDG, two men born and raised in that culture. Perhaps you do, but I won’t bet on it.

  207. Lyn87 says:

    Mickey,

    The reason I’m not in the US at the moment is because my job has me in Asia. I work for a US company. And you’re also apparently a feminist, because you think that the ideals for men and women are the same. You know less than nothing… and you are doing an excellent job of proving it.

  208. Mickey Singh says:

    I’ve been here only two years. But I’ve had American friends and watched American movies and shows my whole life. Women and men both wear “America Fuck Yeah!” t-shirts here and people high five it. You can’t have a cultural ethos and expect more than half the population not to imbibe it.

  209. theasdgamer says:

    American culture always prided itself on being bold and in your face not sweet and attentive so why would anyone expect American women to be okay with being told to be sweet and attentive?

    Yeah, because men and women are congruent, physically, emotionally, and mentally. Not. Get both your neurons firing.

  210. Mickey Singh says:

    Is it or is it not the American ethos? Yes or no? If it is then it is. But if it isn’t and yet its being exported around the world as such, then what, its a schizophrenic scheme or some sort of mask or ruse to fool the rest of the world?

    “The reason I’m not in the US at the moment is because my job has me in Asia.”

    You married an Asian wife because you prefer Asian people to Americans, or at least Asian women anyway, and you bragged on her traditional culture and how you conformed to it. You spend considerable time with her family and you lived extensively in her country.

    I actually prefer American women to Asian women but that’s because the American ethos, whether for real or just a front, is something I personally find different and appealing. Maybe it will wear off the longer I live here, but for now, I don’t really have the problem with American women or American culture that you guys seem to have.

  211. Mickey Singh says:

    “She had actually been raped – yes, real rape – and it was an immediate redflag in which I assumed she would be nothing more to me then a FwB. ”

    That’s curious. Why was her having been a crime victim a redflag for you?

    “A 16-year old girl certainly is a horrible burden on any normal (non welfare receiving) family in a normal (non welfare-and-warfare state) society. She is a useless eater who can not do enough work to support herself, and must be completely supported for several days per month. ”

    Are you referring to her periods? Are there jobs that give girls and women days off for that? In my culture there are still families who don’t allow them to cook during that time, and some religious rituals are off the table, but even there they are expected to show up for school and work. Even the kids in the child labor force don’t get to take off for their periods.

  212. Lyn87 says:

    Mickey,

    What on Earth are you talking about? My wife is American – we met through a Christian dating service in the 1980’s… in America. She’s a blue-eyed blonde of northern European extraction whose family has been in the US since before we broke from England in the 1700’s. I have lived overseas a grand total of about 2.5 years (less than 6 months of that has been in Asia), all of which was because I was a military officer for 21 years. I have never bragged about conforming to my wife’s Asian culture because 1) my wife is not Asian, 2) her family is not Asian, 3) neither she nor her family practices any kind of Asian culture. In fact, neither my wife nor any members of her close family have ever even been to Asia. I am in Asia at the moment because the US corporation I work for is paying me a crap-ton of money to be here to do a particular sort of work that I’m very good at (although my work is related to my military expertise, I’m not shooting people – my job is actually pretty dull). When this particular job is over I will return to my home in the US, to live with my American wife in our American house.

  213. Mickey Singh says:

    Confused you with mikediver5, sorry. Mike if you are still here I want to ask you why you hate your own country and culture? Every place has its issues. Why do you pedastalize Asian woman? They also have their issues.

  214. theasdgamer says:

    Is it or is it not the American ethos? Yes or no? If it is then it is.

    Distribution fallacy. Men and women have different ethical systems. Women’s ethics are based on feelings. Men’s on reason.

  215. Mickey Singh says:

    So then the inyourfacetakenoprisonersamericafuckyeahboldandboisterous propaganda falls within American womens’ ethical system? Because it is very emotional. Anyway from an outsiders view, this global exporting of one system as the overall cultural ethos when there is really two divergent systems seems schizophrenic.

  216. Lyn87 says:

    Somebody has been watching too many B-list Hollywood action movies.

    Hint: they are meant to be entertaining, not educational.

  217. Opus says:

    If I may so, Mickey Finn – our new boy – seems to be a little out of depth and on the principle that sooner or late he will hit bulls-eye he is aiming at any target.

  218. rdchemist says:

    Mickey Singh sayeth:
    “Women and men both wear “America Fuck Yeah!” t-shirts here and people high five it. You can’t have a cultural ethos and expect more than half the population not to imbibe it.”

    Much too many have imbibed it, which is why some of us have recommended finding a more traditional wife overseas.

  219. Mickey Singh says:

    “If you want to give your future children the best start in life, then you should consider marrying a foreign woman.

    A study involving hundreds of thousands of subjects across several different continents have found that certain beneficial traits such as height and intelligence correlate very strongly with how “distantly related” the parents are genetically.

    The study was reported on here.

    Heterosis

    These findings aren’t too surprising to me. In the biological sciences, heterosis describes enhanced traits resulting from a cross of two genetically disparate organisms to produce offspring with traits that are much more enhanced or better expressed than in the original parents. Such organisms are called hybrids and they have some very interesting effects.

    Plant and animal breeders have been trying to exploit and cope with this biological principle since domestication. The wider the crosses between parents, the more fit the organism (generally speaking). This tends to reduce the probability of problematic alleles or genes from being expressed leading to genetic based diseases or malformations. For example, I know of some dog lovers who desire pure-breeds but have to cope with the expense of dealing with their own unique health problems because their genetic parents aren’t as genetically diverse as the mutts are.”

    Thanks rdchemist. I just sent this to my uncle who keeps trying to set me up with girls back home.

  220. Mickey Singh says:

    “In the discussion of a recent post, Dragonfly asked what things a young woman can do to be more attractive to potential husbands:

    …from a man’s point of view, what would that 22 year old woman need to be like to snag a man out of her league? Please list physical/relational/educational/vocational I think some of the women here (in denial) need to see it spelled out from a man.

    This is a fair question, and prompted a good discussion. However, as Dragonfly hints the fundamental problem isn’t that most young women don’t know how to attract a man, it is that being sweet and attentive is on nearly all young women’s must not do list.”

    Dragonfly you still around? Why is it so important to these women to snag a man out of their league? Why don’t they want men in their own league?

  221. Carlos says:

    Slightly off-topic, but not too: Facebook’s WomenAgainstFeminism on Kermit the Frog’s new “thinner, younger” belle:

    “Maybe he got tired of being punched by Miss Piggy? Blamed for oppressing her?”

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s