Funny because it is true.

On the topic of the denied impact of judgment on women, The Onion presents:  Single Woman With 3 Young Children Unaware She Subject Of 984 Judgments Today

…single mother Karen Nichols, 29, was reportedly completely unaware that she was the focus of 984 separate judgments by strangers this afternoon.

…she was the subject of nearly a thousand negative assumptions about her financial situation, relative parenting capabilities, and general promiscuity.

While the bulk of the humor in the piece is in the exaggeration of the judgments people make about single mothers, the satirical premise is not that she is being judged as a single mother, but that she is unaware that this is happening.

Friday Bonus: Couple Brought Together Through Mutual Desperation

Related: The normalization of the trashy single mother.

This entry was posted in Manosphere Humor, Satire, Stantons Heroes, Status of marriage, The Onion. Bookmark the permalink.

401 Responses to Funny because it is true.

  1. Pingback: Funny because it is true. | Neoreactive

  2. Pingback: Funny because it is true. | Manosphere.com

  3. feeriker says:

    I don’t envy the editors of The Onion; how is satire even possible in this world we live in, as this example so clearly demonstrates?

  4. PokeSalad says:

    BREAKING NEWS: “Reality Drives The Onion to Bankruptcy.”

  5. honeycomb says:

    Funny .. I thought The Onion was satire .. lol

    In reapity .. I judge all un-married women everyday. Statistically, I’m on firm ground. Problem solved.

    Divorced mom’s get even more judgment.

    I blame the baby-boomers for this mess. Of course I missed being one (i.e. a baby boomer) by a year.

  6. honeycomb says:

    errr reality .. not reapily .. say what!!!! Darn fingers and smart phone miss’alignmnet.

  7. Looking Glass says:

    In the Wizard of Id, the Court Jester lost his mind trying to figure out a way to short-sheet the King.

    This culture is even more insanity causing.

  8. Damn Crackers says:

    There are no single mothers. The correct term is “Solo Mums.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11799007/IVF-The-rise-of-the-new-Solo-Mum.html

  9. Someone very dear to the hearts of Dalrockians said:’judge not lest ye be judge.’ In other-words if you judge other people you won’t be able to resist judging yourself. Sitting in judgement on other people and situations is exhausting and when you add all the judgements you make about yourself you end up physically,emotionally and morally drained.
    I strongly recommend meditation; you’ll soon see that thoughts are just like waves on the ocean or clouds in the sky. Just sit and be aware of your fleeting thoughts,don’t listen to what they say and don’t fight them either. Just sit and host your thoughts like the sky hosts clouds. The sky isn’t troubled by the presence or absence of clouds.

  10. Looking Glass says:

    @Elle Bee:

    1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

    6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

    Matthew 7:1-6, KJV.

    Simply put, we’re not foolish enough to listen to pop-psychology as Theology around these parts. 🙂

    Apologize and repent, or just go along being the damned soul that you show. It is your choice.

  11. Alec Leamas says:

    I think the positive treatment of single mothers on the right and in Christian circles must have to do with the easy availability of abortion – which is to say it is difficult to simultaneously discourage abortion while meting out the appropriate judgment upon non-widowed and never-married single mothers. It’s just simply not the case that one woman can give the same support (material, emotional, moral) that a man and woman can, and the deficits get expressed in two main ways: first, the child goes without the requisite support and develops various problems which emerge in school, disciplinary issues, and later in life; second, the shortfall in (particularly material) support is extracted from third parties (both those interested in the child’s welfare and complete strangers). Of course the perverse outcome is that we’re penalizing people who are striving to make the correct choices in forming strong relationships, marriages, and material stability before having children in order to subsidize those who do none of those things.

  12. Elle Bee says:

    I’m a Buddhist.🙌

  13. GuaranteedEtern says:

    When I first read this piece on the Onion I first took it to mean the target of the satire was those doing the judging, as opposed to her being oblivious to it – after all, why would people be judging her right?

  14. Good grief, went back and saw the comments on the old post, the amount of shrieking “I’m a good woman and mother” with no evidence but feels was unreal. Single mothers who make terrible decisions seem unable to accept that single motherhood wrecks children and fathers, because it would mean they’re in the wrong.

  15. GuaranteedEtern, I think it is. It’s meant to imply their judgment is wrong, and meaningless. It’s most likely right, but certainly meaningless as she can get the men with guns from the state to compel us giving her goodies to save her from a bad decision.

  16. Dalrock says:

    @GuaranteedEtern

    When I first read this piece on the Onion I first took it to mean the target of the satire was those doing the judging, as opposed to her being oblivious to it – after all, why would people be judging her right?

    I think the judgers are the intended target, especially with the simultaneous contradictory assumptions. But the humor doesn’t follow, but instead remains with the overall truth of the assumptions. The piece is funny not because we laugh at the people making assumptions, but because of the truth that 1) the assumptions are in fact being made and 2) the assumptions have more than a kernel of truth; even though we know some of them are mutually exclusive, the basic truth remains that single mothers are generally speaking the source of a great deal of familial and societal chaos.

  17. @Dalrock, that’s only true to those who don’t deny reality constantly.

  18. I find the implication that she wouldn’t know funny as well, to be honest. Often single mothers actually meet the stereotypes or are judging themselves, so they are acutely aware that people dislike them. They get defensive about being a single mother and their hostility, over sensitivity and abrasiveness becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy for many, where single motherhood becomes their identity and they violently resist changing and adding a man into their child’s life. And they then continue to judge themselves and panic about what other people think of them and give in to paranoia and get defensive again and… you get the idea.

  19. DeNihilist says:

    Elle Bee, many an enlightened masters have been very judgemental and harsh. Check out some of the Zen masters. Or Krishna, who advocated war for his student. Bhudda was a warrior prince, who when he awoke took the pacifist route. There is not one path to enlightenment.

  20. Gunner Q says:

    PokeSalad @ 9:06 am:
    “BREAKING NEWS: “Reality Drives The Onion to Bankruptcy.””

    Heh, heh. You know it’s going to happen one day. For the interested, there’s a Christian version of the Onion–larknews.com.

    @Looking Glass,
    Well said.

    Alec Leamas @ 10:46 am:
    “I think the positive treatment of single mothers on the right and in Christian circles must have to do with the easy availability of abortion – which is to say it is difficult to simultaneously discourage abortion while meting out the appropriate judgment upon non-widowed and never-married single mothers.”

    Christian adoption is a perfectly fine solution to both abortion and single motherhood. The positive treatment of single mothers is mostly laziness on the part of Churchians; they’re more interested in hugs and smiles than eternal standards.

    “Of course the perverse outcome is that we’re penalizing people who are striving to make the correct choices in forming strong relationships, marriages, and material stability before having children in order to subsidize those who do none of those things.

    Also well said.

  21. Elle, The Budda Troll, being critical of a person’s sins is not ‘judging them’. It was not judging them in Christ’s time, nor now. Judgment in the context of Jesus and the adulterous woman, is one of punishment, i.e. death by stoning. It most certainly did not mean that Jesus did not call her on her own sin or would require us, as Christians, to also call out the sins of others as we should have our own sins called out.

    All humans everyday make critical ‘judgments’ of others all the time. It happens because of our own human critical thinking skills which allow us to determine the bad decisions in others so that we do not make those same mistakes in future. Learning this way allows future generations to skip the mistakes of their forefathers and thus continuously improve. However, since we no longer learn like this and instead have simpletons like you saying the same stupid junk over and over again, as if this time it might make a difference somewhere.. maybe, now we just strew in our own cesspit of bile until the collapse of society for we have not learned the lessons of the past but have instead decided to repeat them.

    God most certainly gave us these critical thinking skills so that we could learn and also call each other out so as to correct behaviour, not just for that person, but for others who might be watching and learning. Thus, we are called to be critical of the actions of others. It is the most basic of human brain functions and to deny it, is stupidity most profound!

  22. Michelle says:

    @Alec Leamas

    My church treats single mothers well because being a single parent is not a sin. It is evidence of past sin, not evidence of current unrepented sin. Single mothers should be treated as well as anyone else in church.

  23. Pingback: Funny because it is true. | Reaction Times

  24. A Regular Guy says:

    @ Elle Bee

    “judge not lest ye be judge.” Is the single verse most abused by God hating Atheists also happens to be the same verse frequently abused by Churchians. Coincidence?

  25. feeriker says:

    I’m a Buddhist.🙌

    Then you have zero right to be lecturing Christians on the meaning of Scripture.

    Now be gone, little troll.

  26. Alec Leamas says:

    My church treats single mothers well because being a single parent is not a sin. It is evidence of past sin, not evidence of current unrepented sin. Single mothers should be treated as well as anyone else in church.

    Fair enough, but how does it go about dissuading future single mothers at the same time?

  27. DeNihilist says:

    expounding on THF’s post above. No one can be a Bhuddist. As Bhuddha himself stated, “if you find me on the path, kill me instantly”

  28. DeNihilist says:

    To follow Budda is to misunderstand buhda.

  29. feeriker says:

    My church treats single mothers well because being a single parent is not a sin. It is evidence of past sin, not evidence of current unrepented sin. Single mothers should be treated as well as anyone else in church.

    The problem isn’t in “treating single mothers well” (as in treating them like human beings, sinners all, who are worthy of love and kindness).

    The problem is in GLORIFYING their status as single mothers – which is glorifying sin (i.e., sex out of wedlock that produced a bastard child).

    But you already knew that this is what we mean. Nice shot, but not even close to the goal.

  30. Luke says:

    Michelle says:
    August 14, 2015 at 11:59 am

    @Alec Leamas

    “My church treats single mothers well because being a single parent is not a sin. It is evidence of past sin, not evidence of current unrepented sin. Single mothers should be treated as well as anyone else in church.”

    Then your church is not behaving Biblically. There are verses in the Bible about helping widows, which single mothers are different from, and less than.

  31. PuffyJacket says:

    I’m a Buddhist.

    Translation: “I have one or more spiritual tattoos and am open to 3-ways. Please don’t judge me.”

  32. PuffyJacket says:

    My church treats single mothers well because being a single parent is not a sin. It is evidence of past sin, not evidence of current unrepented sin. Single mothers should be treated as well as anyone else in church.

    Translation: “Our church is full of former sluts and ‘non-judgmental’ manginas. Approximately 10% of our female attendees have an STD”

  33. l jess says:

    No judgement is really necessary – MGTOW indifference is sufficient.

  34. My church treats single mothers well because being a single parent is not a sin. It is evidence of past sin, not evidence of current unrepented sin. Single mothers should be treated as well as anyone else in church.

    Does your Church also accept rapists, murderers, abusers, drunks, drunk drivers, deadbeat dads and treat them well? All these sins are in the past, every sin is in the past. However, the consequence of that sin is the natural punishment of committing sin in this world. A single parent who willfully made their bed must sleep in it.

    Being a single parent by choice is most definitely a sin as it is living in sin.

  35. zodak says:

    girls hate to be judged even when they know what they are doing is wrong. it’s laughable, how much they fight against it.

  36. OKRickety says:

    @Michelle

    My church treats single mothers well because being a single parent is not a sin. It is evidence of past sin, not evidence of current unrepented sin.

    Being a single parent is not a sin, but having sex outside of marriage willingly (or “accidentally”) is sin. Becoming a father or a mother does not change this truth, nor does getting married after a child’s conception.

    Women who divorced their husbands for non-Biblical reason(s) are also sinners. If they are mothers, then I consider them to be equivalent to single mothers.

    You make a distinction between “past sin” and “current unrepented sin”. Neither motherhood nor church attendance is evidence of repentance of past sin, or evidence of current sexual behavior. It seems you are supposing these single mothers have repented of the past sin, and they are not currently sinning sexually. I am skeptical. And, lest you think I am being harsh on the single mothers, I am also skeptical about the sexual behavior of their single counterparts without children.

  37. Dave says:

    In another part of town,
    57-year-old Sharon Stone could not fathom why men don’t even see her when she flirts. The reality of the concrete wall.

    “I never get asked out,” she surprisingly complains. “It’s so stupid. I don’t know what to do. I’ve been getting more brazen with flirting, but I don’t think men realize that I’m flirting. They just think, ‘Oh, she’s fun!'”

  38. JDG says:

    “I never get asked out,” she surprisingly complains. “It’s so stupid. I don’t know what to do. I’ve been getting more brazen with flirting, but I don’t think men realize that I’m flirting. They just think, ‘Oh, she’s fun!’”

    Any man in Hollywood will meet me if I want that. No, make that any man anywhere. – Sharon Stone

    Realise [sic] when you are ‘middle aged’ you have a chance for a whole second career, another love, another life. – Sharon Stone

    It’s not like fifty is the new thirty. It’s like fifty is the new chapter. – Sharon Stone

    I like to be treated as a lady. – Sharon Stone

    The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men. – Sharon Stone

  39. greyghost says:

    “Single moms are for booty calls not marriage” . Put that up on the church marque

    My church treats single mothers well because being a single parent is not a sin. It is evidence of past sin, not evidence of current unrepentant sin.

    It is also evidence she puts out with reckless abandon and doesn’t care about father child relationships.

  40. greyghost says:

    Dave
    She doesn’t asked out because she is 57. She should be at her age on amazon.com buying shit for her grand kids and sitting around drinking bloody maries with her 60 year old husband.
    nope

    57 posing nude and flirting for dick.

  41. Spike says:

    feeriker says:
    August 14, 2015 at 1:11 pm
    I’m a Buddhist.🙌

    Then you have zero right to be lecturing Christians on the meaning of Scripture.

    Now be gone, little troll.

    …LOVE your work!

  42. feeriker says:

    “I never get asked out,” she surprisingly complains. “It’s so stupid. I don’t know what to do. I’ve been getting more brazen with flirting, but I don’t think men realize that I’m flirting. They just think, ‘Oh, she’s fun!’”

    No, Sharon, they don’t think that you’re “fun.” They think that you’re a washed up, pathetic has-been who’s been ridden by more men than a vintage Harley Davidson. Fifty-seven years worth of “bitch” isn’t helping your case at this stage of your life either.

    Somebody might want to gift wrap a clue for Sharon’s next birthday.

  43. feeriker says:

    Plus, a Demi Moore/Ashton Kutcher pairup is not a ‘success’ for the woman.

    It sure the heck wasn’t a success for Kutcher either. I mean, I can understand going through a cougar-craving phase, but Demi Moore? Seriously? That, to me, said more about his SMV than hers (if that was the best he could snag from the Hollywood cougar shelf, tben maybe he really ain’t “all that”).

    Then again, it’s probably just bias on my part. I’ve always found Demi Moore to be especially repulsive (along with Julia Roberts). What the HELL was Bruce Willis thinking all those many years ago?

  44. MarcusD says:

    Your Failure to Agree Will Not Be Tolerated
    http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2015/08/your-failure-to-agree-will-not-be-tolerated.html

    And the latest from Amanda Marcotte:

    The rise of ‘cuckservative’, a porn-inflected slur used by the far-right against more mainstream Republicans
    http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/the-rise-of-cuckservative-a-porn-inflected-slur-used-by-the-far-right-against-more-mainstream-republicans

  45. Renee Harris says:

    This makes my heard hurt: I judge mothers as sluts. They are not human lol. But I get told don’t judge. Why can’t I judge them? I thought all female sin is forgive able?

  46. Renee Harris says:

    “It was purely a social-climbing move to increase his own fame from ex-sitcom cast member to silver screen actor, and apparently, it succeeded.

    I doubt she was anywhere near what he truly wanted, sexually, since he has since only gone younger (and probably always will). Once enough of your own fame is established, marrying an older and (at the time) more famous woman is no longer necessary.”
    Have anyone of you wrote about Lucy ball and Desi Arnaz from red pill productive?
    Don’t judge I’m weird….

  47. feeriker says:

    I thought all female sin is forgive able?

    All sin except judging another woman. That one earns you eternal damnation.

  48. Renee Harris says:

    @feeriker on August 14, 2015 at 9:36 pm
    All sin except judging another woman. That one earns you eternal damnation.
    I thought I was getting that just because I was female …..:(

  49. Looking Glass says:

    @feeriker:

    The Kutcher/Moore thing was always a bit odd, but in light of Rollo’s SMV chart, it’s not too far off. Kutcher was 27, a B-list actor (who wasn’t very good) and Moore was 42 and right off another round of cosmetic surgery/new dieting techniques. But those numbers were 25 & 40 when they started dating. And post-2000 Demi Moore was better looking than the previous versions. (Rapid rise of a lot of medical tech + dietary knowledge would be why)

    It also made a lot of sense for Kutcher. A quick read up on his Bio and he’s a guy that knows how to use connections really well. Moore provided him with a massive amount. To the point that I think the first “good” thing he did in Hollywood was “The Guardian” in 2006, which means he survived there for around 8 years without ever doing any great work.

    But it was always going to come to an end. Moore has shown little ability to keep a relationship going and Kutcher was entering the his prime, so he had Women throwing themselves at him. Almost literally, just because he was a Name & Face now.

  50. Truth says:

    @elle beast
    “I’m a Buddhist”

    No. You are a phony self exalter.

  51. Other than widows, single mothers, especially those who cashed out and divorced their husbands for child support and the house are sluts. They’re conniving, they’re thieving, their word is worth nothing. I’ve banged a lot of single mothers over the years and the map is the same, “we grew apart”. “We were walking different paths”. Sure, sure, if they were decent women, they would have figured that out before the married these poor shlubs. Most of them hooked up with these guys to get their student loans out of the way to begin with. With women, there is ALWAYS a price. Don’t fall for it, gents. Single mothers OUGHT to be judged for the thieving sluts they are. And I don’t want to hear about “abuse”. Bullshit.

  52. Renee Harris says:

    Other than widows….
    Oh right because no widow ever became a widow by choice. (Murder)
    If you believe that you’re dumber than I am… That saying something!

  53. JDG says:

    Renee I hope you aren’t trying to put single mothers in the same basket as widows. That would be disingenuous. You example is ridiculous. As you pointed out, a widow by choice isn’t just a widow, she is also a murderess.

    Any woman who would willingly separate children from their father is just as bad IMO (barring genuine life threatening circumstances).

  54. Renee Harris says:

    @ JDG
    No my point is all woman are sluts and can’t be trusted, myself included. ( I don’t want to believe this but it seen to be true)
    Why should get a widow past ?
    AWR sinners and sluts NOT just the ones with fruit of their sluttery. ( I don’t believe this but it seem to true )
    If she a single mom she a slut, but if she a widow that don’t mean she is not a slut it just mean you may waste more time on her
    I am Virgin ( no sex with any one for 28 yrs) but I could be a slut in training….as I understand in this Community “slut”mean all female who had ever sin.
    Two of my favorite commenter here leave me wondering if the blood of Jesus is enough to save me for myself …. Or if delusional for any woman to claim the blood of Christ
    So my point is single moms and widows are like : they can’t be trusted as they are woman .

  55. Novaseeker says:

    Demi Moore was very hot when she married Kutcher. She had upgraded her body surgically to great effect — she was much hotter at 40 than she was when she was younger and married to Willis. For Kutcher it was a career marriage, and that worked for him. For Moore, it was making a statement that she could snag a hot guy in his mid 20s as a woman in her early 40s. It was never destined to last, bit it made its own sense at the time.

  56. l jess says:

    Renee – I hope that some women have integrity and decency – once upon a time they did – they valued their place in life as a wife/mother – men valued themselves as husbands/fathers — today, too many of both genders no longer value anything and will pay the ultimate price.

  57. Looking Glass says:

    @JDG:

    Renee seems to be either attention seeker, playing the martyr or a little of both.

    Though you will have to background a Widow. A 1-partner Widow is an acceptable marriage prospect, if the rest of the situation checks out. There will always be a few issues, but nothing that can’t be dealt with. And nothing compared to the problems that a harlot poses.

    David marrying Abigail is generally regarded as a wise move, and I’m one to agree with that sentiment.

  58. Looking Glass says:

    @Novaseeker:

    People don’t realize how much Visual Appearance Medicine has changed in the last 20 years. 2005 era Demi Moore’s face simply looked a lot better than the previous versions. And from a purely practicality standpoint, the “marriage” worked for both parties. If you view it as a business arrangement.

  59. DeNihilist says:

    Looking Glass, you say VAM has changed, well look at the most recent “hawt” girl!

  60. Liza says:

    Of course we all make judgments all the time; not doing so would mean to hold no standards. But there is a difference between a shaming judgment and a judgment that a person’s actions are wrong. A shaming judgment implies that the person who committed a wrong no longer has any worth. The commenters on this site seem to revel in making these shaming judgments. I don’t believe that single mothers (or the men who make them pregnant in the first place) have committed an act that should render them unfit to be considered and treated with the basic respect due to all human beings. Considering the Christian insight that we are all sinners, we would all do well to remember the basic humanity of these women.

    Reading the mean spirited comments on this post and this blog in general today, I am also working to remember the basic humanity of the people hosting here. I assume you have all had experiences that sre leading you to lash out in an often nasty way against other people, women in particular. I do judge your words harshly (the words “bully,” “misogynist,” “nasty,” “entitled,” “self righteous,” and “arrogant” often come to mind as I read what people here have to say.). But I don’t assume that the hateful words I read here define the entire character of the person uttering them. I assume that the person spewing venom from behind his keyboard may be nice to his dog, work hard, visit the sick or even be a pleasant person in other contexts. Much as I despise what is said here and would not hesitate to tell you so in person if I knew you, I would never treat you as if your trashy words define you entirely as trash. I don’t believe the single mothers you discuss deserve to be treated or spoken of as trash either.

    There is some discussion of using shaming judgments to deter damaging behavior, such as the arguably damaging behavior of getting knocked up without the father’s presence being locked down. But being saddled with a baby one is unprepared to care for is a pretty strong deterrent. Virtue is its own reward and vice is its own punishment. There is no need for shaming on top of that.

    Not only that but shaming doesn’t work – for a couple reasons. You all seem to assume that your judgments would carry enormous weight for the single mothers you encounter. Really, they don’t care. They are trying to take if their kids and yeah, coming across nasty self righteousness as they go about their business isn’t pleasant but I doubt that someone else’s negative assessment is at the top of the worry list for a woman trying to feed her child. But even if the shaming works, it is counterproductive. When you make people feel they are inherently worthless, many will give up trying for virtue. And we want these single mothers to be motivated to be as responsible and productive as they can be, not only for their own sake but for their children.

    You could say the point is really to deter young women who haven’t made the mistake of getting pregnant out of wedlock yet. But there are other ways to do that besides crapping on single mothers who already have enough problems. Things like providing girls with comprehensive sex education and access to contraception, involving girls in sports, and in poor communities where hopelessness reigns, helping girls to identify goals they can be proud of and a way out, goals that will motivate them to guard their future and that will show them other ways to gain pride and status and a purpose besides early motherhood before they are ready.

  61. Renee Harris says:

    Renee seems to be either attention seeker, playing the martyr or a little of both.
    I am sorry. I did not mean to doing either I have those things. I i’m just trying clarify some stuff.
    I understand that I’m annoying and I apologize I take full responsibility for my actions

  62. honeycomb says:

    @Liza(rd brain)
    >“Not only that but shaming doesn’t work – for a couple reasons.”

    Bwhaaaaaaaa .. you mean like what you’re doing right this very post?!?!?! Or what women teachers do to little boy’s to act more like little girls .. and if they don’t then you drug them?!?!?!?!

    Safety First .. so you should stay off critical thinking sites .. we wouldn’t want you to hurt yourself.

    >You could say the point is really to deter young women who haven’t made the mistake of getting pregnant out of wedlock yet. But there are other ways to do that besides crapping on single mothers who already have enough problems. Things like providing girls with comprehensive sex education and access to contraception, involving girls in sports, and in poor communities where hopelessness reigns, helping girls to identify goals they can be proud of and a way out, goals that will motivate them to guard their future and that will show them other ways to gain pride and status and a purpose besides early motherhood before they are ready.

    Are you from planet Earth (where we already do these things)?

    And if we want to teach ab’stu’nence you shame and / or belittle us into doing the above (which we’ve already done in spades) .. which isn’t working (hence our disgust with you and your fembot friends ideas).

    Great job toots .. errrrr troll.

    BORING!

  63. JDG says:

    AWR sinners and sluts NOT just the ones with fruit of their sluttery.

    No this isn’t true. Comments like these just make it harder for some folks to see the real issue, which is unrepentant sin and zero accountability for it. If a woman remains a virgin, she is not a slut. If she only has sex with her husband, she is not a slut. Otherwise whats the point? In spite of what feminists like to believe, shame really is a motivating force especially with women.

  64. Liza says:

    Honeycomb, My point about the difference between shaming and judging is pretty clearly stated. I am judging you and other commenters on this site. The way many of you talk about women or talk to people who disagree with you is wrong. But there is a difference between judging a person’s actions and their entire worth as a person. I’m telling you that the way you and othersrelate on this site is mean spirited. I will tell you that your last comment missed the point. But I don’t call you “toots” or ridicule you or assume you are incapable of critical thinking or should sod off because you made one dumb comment. See the difference? I am saying I think you should change your behavior, not that you yourself are lacking in value or can’t possibly have anything of interest to say.

    Also, it doesn’t make sense to branch off onto the issue of giving kids, mostly boys, drugs like Ritalin. You have no idea what I think about that or what I think about the way teachers treat boys in school. Part of critical thinking is staying on topic and listening to what the other person actually says, not what you assume they might say or what you wish they said.

    I know we try a lot of the remedies I mentioned with a lot of girls in a lot of places. Which is why teen pregnancy rates are down, and are lower in places that apply the methods I outlined. Also, focusing on boys in tough neighborhoods and giving them a sense of hope for the future is important too for a number of reasons, including encouraging them to be more responsible about sex and birth control.

  65. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    greyghost: 57 posing nude and flirting for dick.

    Not really. I’m sure Sharon Stone’s nude photos have been so heavily Photoshopped, it can’t really be called her body.

    I wonder what she looks really looks like nude. No soft lighting. No soft-focus lenses. No makeup. No hair coloring, or hair extensions, or wigs. No Photoshop.

  66. mrteebs says:

    @Liza

    A shaming judgment implies that the person who committed a wrong no longer has any worth.

    No, a shaming judgement implies that the person’s behavior was wrong and that they should change said behavior.

    In a sane society, sufficient societal and natural consequences are allowed to operate with adequate intensity to discourage repeated behavior in the offender and to dissuade non-offenders from becoming offenders. You don’t appear to be in favor of any of this. Instead, it is a perverse system of rewards, distractions, and unaccountability that you seem to think will be an effective deterrent.

    And one other thing: this is a blog about Christian marriage. If you want an audience receptive to contraception for girls – who are by definition unmarried non-adults – you are clearly in the wrong place. Besides, how could our society possibly be any more accommodating than free contraception and abortions for teens, without need of parental consent? We do everything in our power as a society to remove or blunt consequences, and yet even this is not enough because we must now also remove every vestige of stigma. Perhaps we should give out free food, free housing, free schooling, free medical, free childcare, and free counseling to single mothers. Perhaps we should name entitlement programs in their honor, like WIC.

    Oh, wait…

  67. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Liza: But there is a difference between a shaming judgment and a judgment that a person’s actions are wrong.

    No. There is no such difference.

    But some women feel shame upon being judged.

    So what you’re really saying is “Don’t judge me when it makes me feel bad. Only judge me when I say it’s okay. I’ll let you know when that is.” (cue crickets)

  68. Liza says:

    I think Renee is a troll but she’s very funny. I love “all women are sluts and can’t be trusted, myself included.” She is making fun of all of you. Some punctuation would be nice but she is making me laugh.

  69. Liza says:

    Red Pill Latecomer,

    No. The distinction I am making isn’t based on whether the object of your criticism feels bad, but on how you present it.

    We are all children of God and none of us is without sin. The way you all often talk about other human beings on this blog denies both realities.

    You also overestimate your ability to shame women and the power of your judgments over them. A lot might depend on context and your role in a particular woman’s life. But in general, you’re not going to have much luck turning the clock back to a tkme of sexual shame.

  70. mrteebs says:

    Shame is an incredibly effective deterrent. Women will go to almost any lengths to ensure their promiscuity is normalized and the language itself is subject to their reality distortion fields. Why do you think slut walks were invented?

    Co-founders Sonya Barnett and Heather Jarvis decided to redefine the word “slut” as someone who is in control of their own sexuality, to reclaim the word slut as a site of power for women. They observe that historically, “slut” has had negative connotations, and that their goal is to reclaim the term.

    Source: wikipedia

  71. mrteebs says:

    @Liza,

    We are all children of God and none of us is without sin.

    The first statement is false. The second is true.

    We are all created in God’s image. That is not the same as being His children.

    “You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him. Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”
    John 8:44

    “For whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven, he is My brother and sister and mother.”
    Matt 12:50

    But in general, you’re not going to have much luck turning the clock back to a time of sexual shame.

    It is ironic that you think sexual shame won’t work. We have so purged our culture of shaming – by shaming shame – that we have actually proven how effective it is.

  72. Liza says:

    Mr. Teebs, But the reason for trying to rid the word “slut” of its negative connotations wasn’t because women’s fee-fees were hurt. It was because a police officer in Canada stated that women can reduce rape by not dressing like sluts, or words to that effect. The concern was that attitudes about women’s sexuality impede law enfircement’s undrrstanding of the dynamics of crime against women and misguide their prevention efforts.

  73. Liza says:

    But good work on John 8:44. That does indeed prove that Jesus did not view all people as children of God. Those who fail to love Jesus, like the Pharisees he was addressing, are not children of God. Interesting point!!!! I question whether Jesus would apply the same judgment to a single mother,which is a different situation. A single mother is not the same as a Pharisee who hates Jesus. But you are absolutely right, we are not all children of God. Huh. It’s a little confusing how literally to take this though. I mean surely any human being can say, “God was my Creator.”

    But we are all made in God’s image, as you say. I think that every human being has inherent worth.

  74. greyghost says:

    The mound was kicked over. Our champion is here to repair that mound you sexist assholes.

  75. Dave says:

    But in general, you’re not going to have much luck turning the clock back to a time of sexual shame.

    I don’t buy this argument. Even as we speak, women generally feel shame for being previously promiscuous when they are faced with the possibility of being wifed up. It is uncommon for a single woman to proclaim how many men she has slept with when she’s trying to convince a prospective husband to marry her. Almost without fail, most women will dial down the number of their previous sexual partners, because they are aware of the sense of shame that comes with being a slut.

    I question whether Jesus would apply the same judgment to a single mother, which is a different situation. A single mother is not the same as a Pharisee who hates Jesus.

    You need not question this. Although Christ would readily forgive the repentant sinner, He has no qualms about condemning the stubborn, as He did the Pharisees.

    A single mother actually hates God and His laws, because she lives in total disregard of both, thereby justifying herself and condemning God. God clearly said not to commit fornication; not to break up a family. The single mother ignore God’s laws with reckless abandon, and followed her tingles anyway, irrespective of how God felt about her actions. When we act without regards to how others feel, you cannot call that love, can you.
    And the example of the single mother (note, as opposed to a widow) also serves as a powerful incentive for others to act in a similar manner (i.e. break God’s laws without regards).

  76. Liz says:

    It’s funny because it is true.
    It’s also meta-funny since there really isn’t any difference between what is described in the Onion piece and the day-by-day of a married woman with three young children.

  77. JDG says:

    Liza: A shaming judgment implies that the person who committed a wrong no longer has any worth.

    Nope!

    mrteebs: a shaming judgement implies that the person’s behavior was wrong and that they should change said behavior.

    Yep!

    Feminists don’t want to be held accountable for bad behavior. They want only non-feminist thinking people to be held accountable for … well just about everything.

  78. JDG says:

    Liza: But good work on John 8:44. That does indeed prove that Jesus did not view all people as children of God.

    Let me put it in perspective for you. Just before John 8:44, there is John 8:42-43 which says:

    Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word.”

  79. Liz says:

    Caption: “Gay man encounters 300 judgments while fishing today”.

    Bob Smith, age 55, was completely unaware that he was the focus of hundreds of judgments while he fished for trout on his boat on a Saturday morning, completely oblivious to the thoughts and looks directed toward him.

    According to reports, during the three hours in which Smith was holding his fishing rod in the lake, he was the subject of hundreds of negative assumptions about his lifestyle choices, preferred sexual positions, and STD history.

    “My God, look at that hat. It is floppy, and covers his ears and the back of his neck. That is just so sad,” thought 45-year-old local resident Rebecca Mueller, just one of 16 people in the local area as they watched Bob place sunscreen on his nose.
    “Look him holding that….thing. It looks like a pole, with a line coming out of it. What is that, exactly?” Wondered Chad, another disgusted observer.

  80. honeycomb says:

    Hey Liza(rd brain) ..

    >” Also, it doesn’t make sense to branch off onto the issue of giving kids, mostly boys, drugs like Ritalin. You have no idea what I think about that ..”

    Yeah, I do know what you think. You hate little boy’s (and men) so drugging them is fine.

    Hence why I brought it up right before all the demands you had for how we should treat all the poor little girls.

    When you start saying “all lives matter” (i.e. boys lives matter too) .. we can make progress.

    Until then you have Title IX .. and thanks to that we have a more feminized media’oh’cure society.

    If I need a sam’mich I’ll give ya a call. Unfortunately it would probably be the worst one ever made.

    We should’ve never let yenz (th wimminz) vote.

    And you’re still a troll. So be gone.

  81. JDG says:

    Liza: Mr. Teebs, But the reason for trying to rid the word “slut” of its negative connotations wasn’t because women’s fee-fees were hurt.

    It was because a police officer in Canada stated that women can reduce rape by not dressing like sluts, or words to that effect.

    The concern was that attitudes about women’s sexuality impede law enfircement’s undrrstanding of the dynamics of crime against women and misguide their prevention efforts.

    The police officer was displaying common (not so much these days) sense in that if you don’t want trouble don’t invite it. He displayed an accurate understanding of reality, how criminals are motivated, and how crime can be prevented.

    The women, on the other hand, displayed incredible arrogance and stupidity when their ego’s were offended at the thought of being instructed by a man. In other words, their fee fee’s were hurt.

  82. honeycomb says:

    @greyghost ..
    >“The mound was kicked over. Our champion is here to repair that mound you sexist assholes.”

    You’re 100% correct.

    Liza(rd brain) is here to get us to “man-up and marry those Sluts”.

    Which isn’t gonna happen.

  83. honeycomb says:

    JDG …

    Check this out ..
    http://freenortherner.com/2015/08/16/sexual-liberation/

    To Lizard Brain .. It’s a man’s fault of they don’t get what they want. It’s a man’s fault if they do get what they want (e.g. feel bad afterwards). It’s a man’s fault if we point it out or disagree with what you wanted.

    Fella’s dont’cha know .. It’s a man’s fault .. Lizard Brain is here to change your minds.

    Hey Lizard Brain .. we tell men to dress for the man they want to be. That goes for th wimminz too. If you dress (and act) like a slut .. odds are you will get exactly what you asked for .. we also tell men to take their lumps for stupid behavior. Time for your equality speech to chime in with an .. Amen brother (figure’uh’tiv’lee) .. I’ll just be over here waiting for your agreement.

    As a side note .. the sad part, Lizard Brain, is we beta / blue pill men have given yenz everything yenz have asked for and more. So when will th wimminz take ownership for themselves?

    As for me .. I pray GOD holds it against every last one of yenz!

  84. jack says:

    Let me sum it up for you all:

    No Rings for Sluts.

  85. Renee Harris says:

    Ok fine let me tried again …. No BS
    Don’t marry a single mom or anyone with Holy Spirit guiding. Single mom and every woman who doesn’t repent is in sin.
    Judge with righteous judgement. Women go to feminism
    is not because they don’t true men, were hurt used lied by men. They go to FI (I believe ) because they don’t trust the blood of Jesus.
    One has belong to Christ fully to the unforgivable sin blasphemy of Holy Ghost. If your a “churchan slut” and die in you sin than yup it is hell for you. But chruch slut can be forgiven by the blood ( she may have to corporate respectability and marriage in this live) yet her soul be save.
    All sin will be forgiven; only TRUE believers can conmitted the unforgivable sin.

    I read on this blog a woman who has sexual sin is slut but a man could plumb and dumb and still be a Christian? Ok so you guys want woman to be save but men oh well
    I don’t see a group of Misogynists but men with good hearts who have strewed over by females ( they lies about rape, took your kids, money both, did love you back , ect) and now you guys needed protected yourself because the god given society standard won’t.
    Ok we are all broken. We can all be save . We had different consequences if actions.
    Slut who are maybe have go without romance love .those unfitted for marry go with sex and chidlren, but can serve in love.
    To read statement that amount to ” they’re slut so F&ck them, God has no power their sin greater than His power” from men who the saving power of real God not the prevention of Grace of the fasle church pissed me off .
    So yeah

  86. @ Jack

    #2 Pass it on.

  87. Also, when the “no rings for sluts” message is sufficiently passed on and there are enough slut guts on the wall (will our civilization survive this?) maybe it will start affecting hypergamous behavior.

  88. jack says:

    Roissy said it best a few days ago when he indicated that promiscuity was hypergamy thwarted, not hypergamy realized.

    This is such a succinct way of explaining it. One the circle-jerk of feminists stop echoing their lies back to each other, once the true harvest of hedonistic cock-carouseling is seen, then we can expect these women (led by their noisiest, and most annoying members), to suddenly start saying everything we have been saying for years.

    The most important thing we can do, as men, is to not bail them out from their sluttery with a marriage.I refuse to pay full price (marriage), for a very used car with a lot of miles on it. And that certainly no longer has anything like that nice new car smell.

    Force them to go it alone. Let them go through their iPhones and look for the guys they banged in their 20s. Let them seek companionship and support from the men to whom they gave their best years.

    You are going to see a lot of tears at some point. Tears of self-pity, tears of rage, and tears of repentance. You will know the tears of a truly repentant woman because she will be one of the few who accept her degraded, diminished, and defiled status, and will realize that to foist her damaged wares off on a good man would be a sin and a crime.

    They can find solace, support, and eventually even peace with God through repentance and acceptance of the truth. I do not wish emotional pain on the truly repentant.

    But for the women who stubbornly insist that they were in the right all along, or who try to reframe their harlotry as “self-discovery”, I hope they cry themselves to sleep every night in a small apartment full of cats. I hope every day is a day of loneliness and loss, until they finally repent.

  89. Dave says:

    The doctrine of “no ring for sluts” is probably not entirely Christian, and goes diametrically opposed to the Spirit of Christ. At the very least, it shows that Christians who use the term have not fully accepted the repentant sinner. As far as the Bible is concerned, sexual sins ARE forgivable, and those who deny this are either ignorant of God’s saving power, or they do not understand the Scriptures on repentance. We need to be careful of the sin of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

    The single most important requirement of sinners is genuine, heartfelt repentance, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. A sinner cannot do more than that. God does not require more than that. When a sinner, even those with very dark pasts, cast themselves on Christ, and turn from their sins, God not only forgives, He restores them into fellowship with Himself. He also justifies them, making them as innocent as someone who had never sinned before. That is the power in the blood of Jesus Christ. None of their past sins shall be mentioned to them again.

    The major problem with western women is their glorification of sin, and justification of immoral behavior. God Himself cannot forgive the unrepentant sinner, and certainly will not forgive them, until they turn from sin.

    We must always differentiate between sluts who are proud of being sluts, and sluts who have found genuine repentance in Christ. As long as anyone continues to give excuses for sin, they remain sinners before God, and unworthy of forgiveness.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11:
    9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

    We must let God be true, and every man/brother a liar when they go against God’s clear words.

  90. jack says:

    I didn’t say a truly repentant slut should not be considered. (I still don’t think I’d be interested though).

    However, you leave out a third group, sluts who are not “proud” of it, but are somewhat ashamed, but also fail to accept that they are adults with full moral agency. “The Alpha male made me do it” is not repentance.

    Shame is not in and of itself a form of repentance. Many women WILL someday disavow the “empowerment” description of sluttery. However, unless and until they say “yes, I did it, I did it of my own free will, I did it because I wanted to, and because it felt good”, then I am more than confident questioning their repentance.

    Think of all the good men who have been denied a wife and family, Think of all the good men who have had to wait in uncomfortable celibacy while their future Christo-wife feasted on her buffet of fornication for a decade. Consider these wives and how they have damaged their ability to bond effectively to one man. Consider that her past “bad boy lovers” will continue to haunt her fantasies forever (do not deny this, it is very real).

    Consider that the ONE PERSON who could have stopped this was the woman herself. Yes, society at large has a large and undeniably influential role here. But at the end of it all, it takes one person to commit the actual crime. No matter how bad the ghetto upbringing, the criminal still has to go in an hold up the liquor store.

    And no matter how much society creates a background chorus of lies, these so-called Christian women still have to make the decision to go to a man’s place, remove their clothing and fornicate. And then do it again. And then with a new guy, And then rationalize their decision.

    And until they confront the horror they have created, I will gladly (and to my discredit, gleefully) rub it in their slutty little faces.

  91. Yeah Dave, and then you get Sodom and Gommorah. What happens next?

  92. More to the point, I can forgive a person for promiscuity and fully realize that the blood of Christ is sufficient to bring them into the Body of Christ. I can still at the same time recommend nobody marry that person in temporal terms. What about forgiving them means that I should promote their marriage and in so doing promote the destruction of the Church/society? That is precisely what the mangina’s in the “church” are doing, triple backflips to satisfy women’s hypergamy.

  93. JDG says:

    Renee: All sin will be forgiven;

    Then why are people going to hell? What of those who will not trust in Jesus?

    only TRUE believers can conmitted the unforgivable sin.

    Do you really believe that the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were true believers? Check out Mark 3:22-30.

  94. Liz says:

    Liz is not Liza. Liz does not advertise.
    (I know that second statement makes no sense whatsoever in this context, but I’ve always wanted to say that)

  95. Liz says:

    Thankyou.😀

  96. greyghost says:

    TFH
    As women see men seriously speak the way we do it is terrifying for them.

  97. Luke says:

    Dave says:
    August 16, 2015 at 1:50 pm

    “The doctrine of “no ring for sluts” is probably not entirely Christian, and goes diametrically opposed to the Spirit of Christ. At the very least, it shows that Christians who use the term have not fully accepted the repentant sinner. As far as the Bible is concerned, sexual sins ARE forgivable, and those who deny this are either ignorant of God’s saving power, or they do not understand the Scriptures on repentance. We need to be careful of the sin of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.

    The single most important requirement of sinners is genuine, heartfelt repentance, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. A sinner cannot do more than that. God does not require more than that. When a sinner, even those with very dark pasts, cast themselves on Christ, and turn from their sins, God not only forgives, He restores them into fellowship with Himself. He also justifies them, making them as innocent as someone who had never sinned before. That is the power in the blood of Jesus Christ. None of their past sins shall be mentioned to them again.”

    Dave, you’re still struggling with what should be very simple.

    Yes, God will forgive a truly repentant slut (a rare thing IMO, especially pre-Epiphany Phase).
    That doesn’t change her into being a reasonable risk for marriage.

    Genuinely reformed sluts can go to Heaven. They just don’t get to go to the wedding chapel to stand in from of the minister. This is why convents or their equivalent in humble, celibate, nonfecund charity employment was for so long considered an appropriate place for them to end up; there was no better option anyone competent could figure out.

  98. >“bully,” “misogynist,” “nasty,” “entitled,” “self righteous,” and “arrogant”

    Again I point out to a woman that you need to stop because you are projecting so hard it is going to damage the Pluto probe in 9 hours or so….

    It is not that single mom/sluts/CC riding whores are sinful, it is that they justify their sin with the full support of society. They flaunt their sin with slut walks. They demand special privileges to pay for their sin. They thumb their noses at good men- DESTROY them in fact, joyfully and with all of their might and then they go suck an unemployed loser’s dick who treats them like crap in the bar bathroom. Then they look around and demand they not be judged. They despise weak men who have been beaten down by society who just want a woman they can serve in favor of haawwt assholes who beat the crap out of them. Then they demand special laws to “protect” them. They titillate and punish men CONSTANTLY, flirt with them mercilessly, tease them, lead them on, and then are dismayed when the men ‘just want them for sex.’ They screw some men for dinners and paychecks and then they screw the bad boys who throw them down and pound them hard while they cum buckets. They dress in less than nothing, pick up men at a bar, go home with him, take off their shirt, and then their soaked panties, spread their legs, suck cock, and then direct a man’s hand to her vagina while she moans. Then the next day they cry “rape” just for the amusement of destroying another man.

    Repentance means accepting your role and your sin. On Married Red Pill we call it: Owning your shit- which is something women seem biologically incapable of doing. In fact, women refuse to even own OTHER women’s shit! They excuse the worst behaviors in women. They unleash their hamster with the checkered flag to protect ANY woman no matter her crime.

    I mean, like a woman could almost murder her children in order to screw a hot guy who doesn’t want kids and I bet the women would line up to defend her. Nah, that can’t happen right? A man couldn’t be convicted of murdering his pregnant wife SOLELY on the evidence that he was cheating on her and GET THE DEATH PENALTY while a woman ADMITS to murdering 4 children and gets out of jail before she is 50. That just doesn’t happen…….right?

  99. jack says:

    Good point about the epiphany phase (Rollo’s thinking has propagated a lot!).

    If a criminal (let’s use a burglar) decides that he is tired of prison, tired of trials, tired of being arrested, and tired of looking over his shoulder all the time, perhaps he will decide to go straight and get a real job. This is good news for society, of course, but it proves nothing about whether any repentance has occurred. This criminal may have made the decision purely from selfishness – a desire to stop operating outside the law.

    Repentance is seen when the person has ALSO made the choice to repudiate all their past actions, plead with God for forgiveness, and repent outwardly. A person must call their sin what it is – SIN. And there must be no equivocation, blame-shifting, or nonsense about “finding oneself”.

    “I am a sinner, saved by grace, where I was once dead in sin, now Christ lives in me”.

  100. greyghost says:

    If a criminal (let’s use a burglar) decides that he is tired of prison, tired of trials, tired of being arrested, and tired of looking over his shoulder all the time, perhaps he will decide to go straight and get a real job. This is good news for society, of course, but it proves nothing about whether any repentance has occurred. This criminal may have made the decision purely from selfishness – a desire to stop operating outside the law.

    This is where we as men need to be at. This is perfect and it is good enough. When it comes to women this is as good as it gets. That is why God tells you to love her. There is no romance for a red pill man.
    Jack that was awesome and cannot be repeated enough. Pay attention to everything TFH reminds us regularly that feminisms greatest gift is it allows men to see women as they are. A woman will never behave well out of goodness they can’t and never could. Jack that is the key to ending this madness. All men must know this as red pill men. If a man is blue pill and finds this out, well that is where the murders and suicides come from.

  101. jack says:

    My recommendation for most Christian men is to expect to go it alone.

    MGTOW? Well, that term has been hopelessly politicized now. But to expect to live a life as a single, well, more or less yes. I am at an age where I am past any logical attempts at having kids, despite the biological possibility. More important, I really don’t trust most of the women who are available to me.

    I have accepted this, and I will admit that in losing out on a family and wife, and family memories, holidays, having children grow up in my image, being able to impart my wisdom and confidence to my son or daughter, watching them grow and discover as they mature, all these things would be wonderful, but there is a peace in solitude that is almost as good. What I lack in familial fulfillment I mostly make up for in contentment and quiet.

    I will never have the heartache of losing a child to disease or accident, I will never have the problem of watching one of my children fall into the wrong crowd and go astray. I do not need to fear a wife growing tired of me and cashing out “her half” of the life I built.

    I have watched many friends go through hellish divorces, with much of the money being spent like water on attorneys (divorce attorneys are straight from hell), leaving both parties poor at the end, and the children devastated.

    Just a quick look at the statistical evidence would indicate that I have probably been spared much. This does not, in any way, mitigate how I despise those who have brought this into our culture. And if I can shame a slut or two along the way, then why not?

  102. embracingreality says:

    Assuming we agree that children raised without committed, financially stable fathers is negative for society how do the slut apologists on this thread propose the trend be reversed without holding women accountable with something like shame? With an out of wedlock birthrate approaching 40% and single motherhood now being normalized by cowardly churchians and liberals what is the solution to prevent an otherwise inevitable societal decline or even collapse?

    Women have the womb! Should women not be held primarily responsible for what goes into their womb? Are good men now obligated to make sure thugs and losers are prevented from impregnating sluts who can’t keep their knees together?

    The male pill and or MGTOW are likely the only solutions at this point. Men are finally beginning to wake up to the reality that western sluts are completely unfit for marriage and motherhood. When men in large numbers begin rejecting sluts for marriage there will be nothing sluts can do to deflect the shame of being deemed worthless.

  103. Just Saying says:

    Everyone makes judgements – hundreds every hour when driving, or when doing anything, and those judgements allow us to get things done. So I expect to be judged just as I judge others – if you don’t like it, shut yourself inside and never set foot outside where another human, or animal is as all animals make judgements as well. That squirrel that I gave a nut to this morning judged that I was not a threat when offering him something to eat.

    A woman with three kids, especially of different races is telling you a lot about herself and her ability to make decisions. As someone once told me, remember whenever are dealing with women, you have a choice, to make her problems yours, or walk the other way – that is true in your personal life, as well as in your business life. So I’ll keep making judgements since they serve me well.

  104. Luke says:

    Jack, why don’t you go the egg donor and gestational surrogate route to have a child (that no faithless disloyal American woman could ever steal from you)? You just hire a nanny/housekeeper as needed, firing them if they don’t work out (as you cannot just fire a bad wife). Cost is high, yes, but way cheaper than a divorce.

  105. jack says:

    Luke-

    Because I personally think that children need a mother as well as a father. I don’t like the idea of screwing with the natural order, and also I’m really not in the mood for kids anymore, due to age.

    There is a time for things, and that window is kind of passed for me.

  106. greyghost says:

    My first child at 35 last one at 41

  107. jack says:

    Gotcha beat by a lot on the age-o-meter…

  108. greyghost says:

    Oh well had to check it out. Keep spreading the truth and work to make a society that will make a self centered bitch behave kindly and with empathy with wickedness in her heart. It is possible and actually rather easily

  109. GeminiXcX says:

    Remember that the “prodigal son” had an epiphany phase of his own. Only after his money was all gone, and he was hungry and living in disgrace as a pig farmer, did he come to his senses.

    Sometimes people have to hit rock bottom. Yahuweh rescued Israel many times, but he let them crash hard first, everytime.

    King David committed adultery and had Uriah slaughtered to be able to take Bath-Sheba as his own to cover over a pregnancy.

    Read the account about Manasseh. He was just about as bad as you could get for wickedness, and only started humbling himself after being taken captive and thrown in jail.

    I have no sympathy for women (or men) if they flagrantly continue in a defective course of action.

    Please be reasonable, though, gentlemen. People (women) *can* change. The fruits they produce will show the genuineness of their repentance — the big ones being:

    -Full admission of error.
    -No justification, or blame-passing.
    -*Does not expect nor demand that consequences of their sinful life be taken away by God or humans.*
    -Works that prove faith.

    1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

    Former sluts are not owed a husband, men with sexual pasts are also not owed a wife. But in terms of real Christian love and acceptance, repentant people are owed that second chance to be part of the congregation and treated with dignity after casting off their old ways.

    2 Corinthians 2:6-11

    Do not accept or condone wrongdoing, but I do fear a lot here (myself included) take it upon ourselves to judge sometimes with a rigidity that would place us in a dangerous position.

    See also Matthew 18:28-35

    Just offering a perspective. It can be accepted or dismissed according to your individual necessity.

    -GXcX

  110. Bob says:

    Because of the extreme rarity of good women, I am curious to see the data of children raised by single fathers VS children raised by a father and mother in the same home. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence about individuals who have been raised by a single father to accomplish extraordinary things. We know that fathers keep boys in check, both in their sons from straying off a wise path, and keeping undesirable boys away from their daughters – the major pitfalls that hurt both genders the most. But having a bluepill/low quality mother that demands her way over divorce threatpoint will easily remove a lot of positive influence from having the father present even if they are married while the child grows up.

    Of course, Biblically God has intended for man to have a helpmeet so I wouldn’t be surprised if the mother + father model has better results than the single father one, but I suspect that children from each will unfortunately fare very similarly. If any data-minded people would like to take a look at this I think it would be particularly interesting if it turned out that the modern woman is on average so bad that being raised with no mother is superior to with one.

  111. mrteebs says:

    Watching a first time commenter like Liza is amusing, sad, and entirely predictable. The auto-immune response kicks in well before she can actually chew something red, let alone digest it. So, we’re treated to regurgitated blue for a half dozen or so posts, and her work here is done. No attempt to question the mound – only to frantically rebuild it and enlist more drones. The alchemy is patiently explained to us, slowly and with great deliberation, as to a room of preschoolers, because this time, the lead really will become gold.

    Keep rebuilding the mound and hope for a different outcome. The definition of insanity.

  112. GeminiXcX says:

    For some reason, this seems appropriate at this time (it’s an older one):

    https://whoism3.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/feeling-a-little-dead-inside/

    Goodnight,

    -GXcX

  113. mrteebs says:

    @Michelle,

    My church treats single mothers well because being a single parent is not a sin. It is evidence of past sin, not evidence of current unrepented sin. Single mothers should be treated as well as anyone else in church.

    How do single mothers even know to repent when the topic is never broached from pulpits anymore? What is being lamented and criticized here – and rightfully so – is that there is no truth being presented in the culture at large or in the one place that should be stemming the tide: the church. It is not just single mothers. It is virtually everything the Bible condemns – the church is silent on most or all of it because it is offensive and we must – above all else – not offend. Because love. It simply wouldn’t be positive and encouraging K-love, and we certainly can’t have that. Only truth can create the shame that should lead to repentence, but becaus only love is preached, how can there really be any repentence at all?

    So your church treats single mothers well. I take that to mean they don’t offend single mothers. What are they doing to actually ensure those well-treated single mothers cannot sit comfortably in the pew if unrepentant? What are they doing to discourage the one-child single mother from becoming a three-child single mother? From dissuading the unhappily married mom from becoming a single mom? From warning the teen with a boyfriend that won’t come to church who never hears in the strongest possible terms that simply being unequally yoked is a sin, nevermind the sex that is soon to follow?

  114. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I troll Craigslist. I am often stunned by the delusional women who post there.

    Here’s an ad from a woman who says she is 58. She’s seeking a man ages 35-65: http://losangeles.craigslist.org/sgv/w4m/5176156562.html

  115. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Oops, my bad. She wants a man 53-65.

  116. God is Laughing says:

    Looking at that profile, oh boy! Rescue chihuahuas, and crazy ladies.

  117. Luke says:

    Jack, I had my twins just before turning 52. My only regret is that I didn’t do it without my current wife. We did the whole egg donor/gestational surrogate route, so I kind of understand how it all works from first-hand experience.

    FYI, mrteebs, a terminology quibble…
    It is impossible for a woman has any children conceived or born into marriage to become a “single mother” to this children. She can certainly become a divorced mother (these days, probably a frivorced mother. In the words of the erratic George F. Will, “widowed [motherhood] is not divorced is not never never-married”.

  118. Dave says:

    Yes, God will forgive a truly repentant slut (a rare thing IMO, especially pre-Epiphany Phase).

    Maybe in churchian settings. Sinners get saved every time in true gospel churches every time, and this include former sluts.

    That doesn’t change her into being a reasonable risk for marriage.

    Actually it does. How then would you interpret this passage:

    2 Corinthians 5:17

    17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new?

    Now, I am only arguing the facts of God’s word here. Personally, I would still prefer to marry a virgin, not because I think former sluts are damaged goods, but because I have a personal preference for a virgin bride. I do not have a single Bible verse to stand on, and I certainly cannot tell anyone else to do the same. It is just a personal preference. Same way a white man would desire to have a white wife, though he does not have a single verse of scripture to stand on, and he certainly does not have the right to preach his personal preference as gospel to other white men.

    It is not that single mom/sluts/CC riding whores are sinful, it is that they justify their sin with the full support of society.

    It is not only that single mom/sluts/CC riding whores are sinful, it is that they justify their sin with the full support of society. There, FIFY.

    This criminal may have made the decision purely from selfishness – a desire to stop operating outside the law.

    True repentance is never from selfish motives.

    Repentance is seen when the person has ALSO made the choice to repudiate all their past actions, plead with God for forgiveness, and repent outwardly. A person must call their sin what it is – SIN. And there must be no equivocation, blame-shifting, or nonsense about “finding oneself”.

    I wholeheartedly agree. The question however, is, after a person has gone through this phase, should they still be treated like unrepentant sinners? If so, what then is the purpose of repentance? Why repent when you still continue to live under the guilt of your sin? It doesn’t make any sense.

  119. jack says:

    Dave-

    How much repentance would be required for you to accept a saved, repentant former child molester or rapist to marry your daughter?

    “Oh, that’s different” You say.

    No, it isn’t.

    The point is valid. If becoming a new creature in Christ is an automatic shedding of all previous sins and habits, then you must accept such a “repentant sinner” as well.

    Becoming saved makes one a new creature in Christ, but that does not mean that all the original animating sin tendencies are not still at work in that person.

    Where do you think all the Christian frivolous divorces come from? I’ll give you one guess, and the answer is “Christian women who slept around”.

    I am ALL ABOUT treating reformed sluts as sisters in Christ and allowing them full status in the congregation. But they are a bad. marriage. risk.

  120. jack says:

    I see that you and I are mostly on the same page, Dave, but there are a handful of things that I think are misapplied: the “new creature in Christ” and the “judge not” are two that I think are way too often used as a get out of sin free card.

  121. Dave says:

    How much repentance would be required for you to accept a saved, repentant former child molester or rapist to marry your daughter?

    Actually, true repentance is enough for me. Once I am satisfied that he has become genuinely saved I have no objections whatsoever. Unfortunately, a lot of what is considered “being saved” or “repenting” in today’s churches are nothing more than a veneer to cover a shameful past.
    I tell you, when a sinner is truly saved, he is completely reborn. I think it is because true repentance is so rare that people think repentant people still continue in their old lives. They don’t.

    The man later known as Apostle Paul, who ended up writing half of the New Testament, was actually a murderer. He did everything he could to get some early Christians to deny their faith.
    King David was an adulterer and a murderer. His sin was so heinous that he truly deserved to die. What could be worse than plotting the death of a loyal citizen to cover your own sin? Yet, God spared him and continued His covenant with him.
    Moses committed extra-judicial killing, for which he became a fugitive for 40 years. Yet God still entrusted him with the salvation of Israel from Egypt.

    This is not to justify sin. Far from it. But we need to be careful we do not preach our personal preferences as Gospel; they are not.

  122. Dave says:


    I see that you and I are mostly on the same page, Dave, but there are a handful of things that I think are misapplied: the “new creature in Christ” and the “judge not” are two that I think are way too often used as a get out of sin free card.

    We are to judge (see John 7:24), but our judgement must be based on facts, not mere appearances.
    If you have a different interpretation of the “new creature” idea, kindly let us know. Scripture is unequivocal as I see it.

  123. Gunner Q says:

    Dave @ 10:18 am:
    “The man later known as Apostle Paul, who ended up writing half of the New Testament, was actually a murderer. He did everything he could to get some early Christians to deny their faith.”

    And after his unquestionably genuine repentance, he regretted his persecutions for the rest of his life. Paul never wrote off his crimes as being the fault of “who I used to be”.

    The prodigal son didn’t get a replacement inheritance when he finally came home.

    “If you have a different interpretation of the “new creature” idea, kindly let us know. Scripture is unequivocal as I see it.”

    It refers to salvation and our spiritual life, as in the “born again” comments made by Christ to Nicodemus in John 3. Honestly, Dave, if we took that “new creature” passage literally then we would expect people to exhibit entirely new personalities, ethnicities and education levels upon repentance. If you become a new man then you have a 1 in 6 chance of becoming Chinese, right?

  124. PokeSalad says:

    Even though David sincerely repented of his sins when confronted by Nathan, God still took his child from him, and sentenced his family and descendants to discord, strife, and continuous warfare.

    Repentance in no way mandates escape from your sin’s temporal consequences.

  125. Jesus died for your sins so that through him you can go to heaven. There is no reason to believe that this means you avoid punishment. No man needs to marry a born again slut, don’t even buy into Dave’s frame. Just tell him ‘no’ and that’s it. You don’t have to go any further.

  126. jack says:

    Go look at all the born again people you can find. Do they still overeat? Gossip? Drink alcohol to excess? Use the Lord’s name in vain? Do they commit any of the sins they were prone to commit before being saved?

    Please carefully note that “new creation” did not imply “perfect creature”. Even Paul admits to “another law in my members”.

    So, if a man with a long history of beating his girlfriends senseless repented to your satisfaction, you would not have a problem with him marrying your daughter? Not at all worried that despite his “new creation” status that he was not fully free of his carnal side?

    I’m afraid that is a bit naive, and your position is a misinterpretation of the Bible.

  127. jack says:

    Dave-
    Some people read scripture – unequivocally – and decide that men have one less rib than women.

  128. Luke says:

    Dave probably thinks that, if repentant, one of those evil b&stards that shoot up elementary schools should be let out of prison, even if they’ve only been in there a few weeks.
    I disagree, with permanence and vehemence.

  129. Luke says:

    Dave says:
    August 17, 2015 at 7:47 am

    “Yes, God will forgive a truly repentant slut (a rare thing IMO, especially pre-Epiphany Phase)”.

    “Maybe in churchian settings. Sinners get saved every time in true gospel churches every time, and this include former sluts”.

    Perhaps, but plenty of those savings get revoked after the bars close the next Saturday night and those “former” sluts go home with an alpha thug.

  130. greyghost says:

    Jesus died for your sins so that through him you can go to heaven. There is no reason to believe that this means you avoid punishment. No man needs to marry a born again slut, don’t even buy into Dave’s frame. Just tell him ‘no’ and that’s it. You don’t have to go any further.

    This is right on to me. Going to church in prison doesn’t mean you get out of jail. It just means your soul may find its way into heaven. A slut may go to heaven but may never know life as a loved and respected wife and mother.

  131. Pingback: Martyrs and Terror are bigger problems than Shaming. [Mark 11] | Dark Brightness

  132. JDG says:

    jack says:
    August 17, 2015 at 1:30 pm

    I was looking for a way to say this. Well done.

  133. Reluctant Neo says:

    I see a lot to like about the Red Pill, but one thing I have difficult with here is the attitude toward women who have sinned sexually. There must be such a thing as true repentance, even if there may still be a drive and tendency back toward that sin. But why are non-virgin single or divorced women referred to as “sluts” here, even if they are repentant? There does not seem to be much room for Paul’s “Such were some of you.”

    Would you derisively refer to a man who used to rob as a “thief” in church, or to someone who came to Christ and out of alcoholism as a “drunk”?

  134. greyghost says:

    Reluctant Neo
    Red pill is all truth and reality. When it comes to women men are 100% dependent on the attitude of the woman by law(real guns and bullets death) Now I won’t beat the woman or throw rocks at her car. In fact I would maybe even defend her from that. At the same time I’m not marrying the chick or advising another man to. I will actively advise against it. Will not stop a man from wifing up one of them sluts (gotta have examples of stupid for my son)
    By law you don’t expose yourself to a slut. No legal or financial exposure. Fucked the hell out of them if you like just don’t be stupid.
    If the thief and the drunk are men it is different than if they are women. Red pill truth strikes again.

  135. I love this conversation.
    It addresses one of the fundamental signs of religious addiction and abuse, namely, “Magical Thinking.”

    Magical thinking that, if I stick my hand in flames, and ask God to forgive me, somehow the scars, the charring, the smell, the burnt flesh, and the possible disfigurement and total loss of the hand isn’t supposed to happen to me because I repented and/or asked for forgiveness.

    Jesus’ blood was shed to pay the eternal debt of our sin. That act does not wipe out the temporal consequences of our choices, or, we could plant tomatoes in the ground, cry out to God that we meant to plant corn, and reap a harvest of corn, conveniently bypassing the seed-reproduces-after-its-own-kind mandate established by God from the beginning of the world.

    Also. This whole idea of “going to Heaven” is wrong. Once we are born again, we are IN the Kingdom of Heaven, meaning we are citizens, we’re in, we’re family, we don’t have to earn it, it’s done. If that’s all God wanted, we’d get saved and die. God rather wants a relationship where we get to know Him, and grow and develop and work in the Kingdom and build up eternal rewards for our eternal life state. There are levels in Heaven, some Christians will spend Eternity in Heaven’s basement(which is still admittedly better than going to Hell) and some will reign and rule with Christ because they were obedient to God’s plan for them in this life.

    It is an abuse of our faith, and a clear abuse of scripture to teach people that they don’t have to eat the fruit of their choices; the Bible says(Romans 8:1) that there is no condemnation in Christ. It doesn’t say that there are no consequences in Christ.

    So it is beyond foolish to think that the life you’ve lived prior to marriage is somehow wiped out in terms of its impact on your body, psyche, and reputation, just because God has forgiven you for your sins/sinful choices. God certainly forgave David, because the Bible states clearly “The Lord hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.” Then Nathan goes on to outline the consequences that David was going to suffer because of what he did.

    Some women can’t have children later in life because of early life promiscuity; some women have a tipped uterus because of all the pounding, some women have a uterus that can no longer hold a baby because of previous abortions, and ALL women have detailed memory of the best sex of their lives, especially if it was with their favorite bad boy.

    I also don’t believe for a second that a man, a church, or a community would support marrying off one of their finest daughters to a convicted rapist or pedophile(even if she wanted it). They might forgive that man, but they’d never forget, or let him forget what he’d done.

    So enough of this Magical Thinking whereby we preach to people that your choices don’t have short and long term consequences, or draw judgment from God, or draw a reaction from a community of people, or affect in any way your current way of living. For Pete’s sake, some people live better now precisely BECAUSE of their past, because they know they could fall back at any moment(see recovering alcoholics).

    This is just another Scripture dishonoring, blasphemous attempt to tell women that there are different rules/laws for them, when the Bible says over 26 times, “there is no respect of persons with God.”

  136. jack says:

    Reluctant Neo-
    If such a man was not repentant of his thievery, I might.
    If a former thief shifted blame, or indicated that his motives were purely selfish, and continued to display the idea that he was never in the wrong, I’d be 10 times harsher on him than I would be the aforementioned former slut.

    I spare no one’s feelings.

  137. pukeko60 says:

    I love this conversation.
    It addresses one of the fundamental signs of religious addiction and abuse, namely, “Magical Thinking.”

    Magical thinking that, if I stick my hand in flames, and ask God to forgive me, somehow the scars, the charring, the smell, the burnt flesh, and the possible disfigurement and total loss of the hand isn’t supposed to happen to me because I repented and/or asked for forgiveness.

    I don’t like this conversation. The hamster of rationalization is moving as fast as a turbocharger in an F1 car, without the benefits of power or battery conservation.

    This is not religious addiction and abuse, it is justification of sin. Where PDT is correct is that it is Magical Thinking — just as Freud or Ellis would have described it.

  138. Pingback: The Magical thinking of the Hamster. | Dark Brightness

  139. @Pukeko60
    This is not religious addiction and abuse, it is justification of sin. Where PDT is correct is that it is Magical Thinking — just as Freud or Ellis would have described it.

    Indeed it is Religious Abuse, in fact, one of the primary signs of religious abuse. Just because the idea originated in philosophical circles, it doesn’t mean it can’t apply to religion. And people are certainly being abused if they think they won’t suffer consequences based on their choices. Especially when, when it’s a positive harvest(like losing weight, going back to school & graduating, or running for office) people can CLEARLY see the relationship between what they chose and what they got.

    But unfortunately they are then taught that because of God they don’t have to deal with the natural fallout of when they’ve done something sinful; that is indeed abuse.

    And as I said, it doesn’t matter how it’s spun or described, what it is at its root is a clear and blasphemous attempt to say that “women don’t get consequences because they’re women, and to even speak something different is misogyny.” And THAT is exalting women above the Word of God.

    Which is idolatry and blasphemy.

  140. JDG says:

    Reluctant Neo says:
    August 17, 2015 at 5:26 pm

    As you say, a truly repentant slut who stops fornicating and lives a holy life is no longer a slut.

    That does not guarantee that she is wife material. Even worse, not every woman who thinks she is done with fornication / adultery really is. And that’s just taking into account those that are being honest about repenting. In a nation that 1) does not practice genuine marriage and 2) will allow a woman to ruin the lives of your children is it really wise to build a home with someone that is that much of a risk?

    If we don’t expect women to enter into hi risk “marriages”, why should we expect men to?

  141. JDG says:

    PDT – Well said.

  142. Dave says:

    @Reluctant Neo

    There are lots of “older brothers” in this forum, and left for them, the “prodigal son/daughter” will never find their ways home.

    For the most part, most of the men here are hung up on sexual sins of the women. If a poll be conducted however, you’ll readily find out that most of the guys throwing the term “slut” around are not virgins themselves. They learned how to seduce a girl in their college years, fornicated with her, then repented and believed that God had forgiven them. But they hung up their sin partners to dry. Of course the men still deserve a virgin bride, even if they were not virgins on their wedding night themselves. But the women? Yeah, those women are sluts who do not deserve to be married. The hypocrisy stinks to high heavens.

    Romans 2:1-3
    1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things.
    2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things.
    3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God?

    I was once at the ReturnOfKings website, and there was an argument that “women are the gatekeepers of sex”, and should therefore be severely punished for not being virgins on their wedding nights. Right there on the same page, there was an advertisement for a book on how to beat the defenses of single women and bed different women from all over the world. When you point out this inconsistency, they quickly tell you that “consequences of sex are different for men and women”. Really?

    But you know the irony of it all? If the girl/woman in question were their own daughter or someone they care about, they would have a mental gymnastic to defend her right to marry a decent man.
    Make no mistake: sexual sin is serious sin that has damned nations, and ruined minds and families. There is no other sin that people commit that involve body, soul and spirit at the same time, or that literally mingles the essence of one person with another.
    However, we must go to God in His attitude towards this sin. We cannot afford to become Pharisees who think we are better than someone else.

    You don’t want a nonvirgin bride? Sure. That is your personal preference. Nobody forces you to marry one. But calling a truly repentant, blood washed and blood bought daughter of the Almighty a slut? That is way beyond you sirs. Be careful: you might end up being guilty of making the blood of Jesus of none effect.

    “How much worse punishment do you think one will deserve who has trampled on the Son of God, regarded as profane the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and insulted the Spirit of grace?” Hebrews 10:29
    “But the voice from heaven spoke again: ‘Do not call something unclean if God has made it clean” Acts 11:9

  143. Dave says:

    Again, just to be clear, I would personally prefer to marry a virgin. However, I cannot cite a single verse of scripture to support my preference. It is just that: a personal preference. Nonvirgin brides who have genuinely turned to Christ are no sluts. They are my sisters and I will treat them with dignity at all times.

  144. pukeko60 says:

    PDT: the ideas about magical thinking come from psychotherapy: and psychotherapy — says me who was trained in it — can turbocharge hamsters.

    Abuse as a term comes from pediatrics via women’s studies and supercharges hamsters.

    I agree hamsters are sinful.

    Dave: the older brother is a bad analogy. The anger I have is that we tolerate excuses and twist scripture to do so. Because teaching the law is so… challenging. And if you don’t see that, reread Matthew 5, with this in your head: it is not an analogy. Jesus meant every word.

    (Where is John Nestorius when we need him — I stole the last sentence from one of his posts a few weeks ago).

  145. PDT: the ideas about magical thinking come from psychotherapy: and psychotherapy — says me who was trained in it — can turbocharge hamsters.

    Abuse as a term comes from pediatrics via women’s studies and supercharges hamsters.

    I agree hamsters are sinful.

    We are not in disagreement. I actually love any etymological enlightenment I can get.

  146. JDG says:

    Of course the men still deserve a virgin bride, even if they were not virgins on their wedding night themselves. But the women? Yeah, those women are sluts who do not deserve to be married. The hypocrisy stinks to high heavens.

    Are former cads free from the consequences of their former sins? Of course not. They will reap what they sow just like former sluts will. However, one should keep in mind that the reaping for the one is not identical to the reaping of the other. Men and women are different and are effected differently by the same things.

    Furthermore, no one said anyone deserved anything, except perhaps you by seeming to insinuate that formerly promiscuous women should be considered marriage worthy (something that no sane culture would advocate, also something not proposed in the scriptures). What I see instead is people saying that women who have fornicated should have no expectation of marriage, and that women who have had multiple partners are hi risk in terms of commitment (both of which are true).

    If you want to say that former cads don’t deserve a virgin bride, be my guest. But don’t try to smooth over the fact that sex does NOT affect men and women in the same way, or the fact that the risk of divorce is NOT the same for men and women when their respective partners were formerly sexually promiscuous.

    I former cad (whose problems will differ from a woman’s problems) is much less likely to bust up a marriage than a former slut. Also, no one that I can see is knocking virgin women who hold out for virgin husbands. I certainly am not. But no matter how you spin it, it’s better not to “marry”* AT ALL then to marry a former slut. This goes double in a western country.

    *I reiterate that marriage as normally practiced in western countries is not marriage as understood in the Bible.

  147. JDG says:

    Nonvirgin brides who have genuinely turned to Christ are no sluts. They are my sisters and I will treat them with dignity at all times.

    As you well should, and as do I. Yet, I would not marry one of them (or advise another to do so) unless there were supernaturally extenuating circumstances that convinced me that this was God’s will and not coming from a sense of “fairness”, desperation, loneliness, or hormones.

  148. JDG says:

    effected = affected at 8:58 pm.

  149. jack says:

    Dave needs to realize the cads and players are not the commenters here for the most part.

    Also, we are not talking about judging sin, but talking about marriage risk.

    Further, women find it much easier to be promiscuous, due to men being always willing. So, if we are talking about a man or woman who has had a couple partners, then I think that there is still potential for marriageability there.

    Once a woman has serviced a couple dozen cocks, she is no longer wife material. Sister in the Lord? Sure. Pray with her? Yep. Treat her with dignity and respect? No prob.

    But, she is likely to be a bad marriage risk no matter what.

    And let’s not forget the good Christian men who had to endure a long period of celibacy, while the girl went and rode the carousel.

    Personally, I refuse to wife up the chubby leftovers from what was once hotter, purer, and tighter. A woman’s body and her virtue are meant for her husband, not a plaything for her to trade for alpha male attention. She spent her inheritance, just like the prodigal son, and she has nothing to offer me anymore.

    That make you mad? Tough luck. Want to try and use the Bible to argue it? Don’t bother, the argument is long over, and I’m right.

    I refuse to see it any other way, because it is the truth. And I don’t care about those who disagree. But I will continue my mission to bring more men to see the light of truth. And that truth is that once a woman has used up her youth, sexual innocence, and bonding capacity, she is not wife worthy.

    Yes, yes, yes, all the things I said earlier about repentance and being a sister in the Lord still are available.

    But I have only one life, and I will not spend my life’s efforts rewarding a woman who spent her best, youngest, and most innocent years servicing other dick. She spent her inheritance, and is now impoverished.

  150. Reluctant Neo,

    I see a lot to like about the Red Pill, but one thing I have difficult with here is the attitude toward women who have sinned sexually. There must be such a thing as true repentance, even if there may still be a drive and tendency back toward that sin. But why are non-virgin single or divorced women referred to as “sluts” here, even if they are repentant? There does not seem to be much room for Paul’s “Such were some of you.”

    The last job I was at (before I sent out the old resumes to get a better “raise”) the chief network administrator was a 27 year old, never married, virgin, Christian, male. He admitted to me many things, one of which was that he has never even been on a romantic date in his entire life. And it was obvious why. He was short, morbidly obese, and ugly. But he worked very hard, made at least okay money, and was a devoted Christian. He also admitted to me that he would never in his life, marry. He expected that he would die, virgin. I asked him why and he said “…because I can’t inspect her hymen prior to marriage. If I have sex with my wife she needs to bleed, no man can have my wife before me. And I don’t believe that I will ever meet a virgin woman in my lifetime that I would ever want to marry.

    Kind of sad, but smart. He absolutely, positively, would not marry any woman who wasn’t a virgin much like himself. And because he is so physically repulsive, he acknowledges the fact that this woman will never present himself to him. He is at peace with that. Now he doesn’t go out of his way and slut shame all the unmarried/divorced women at his church. But, he has written them all off as potential wife material.

    If I had introduced him to this forum I doubt very much if he would use terms like slut. But at the same time, he probably wouldn’t dignify women who rode the carrousel in anyway other than total indifference.

  151. GeminiXcX says:

    1) That make you mad? Tough luck. 2)Want to try and use the Bible to argue it? Don’t bother, the argument is long over, and I’m right.
    1) Projection.
    2) Translation: Don’t use the Bible to try to make a point, because truth is dictated solely by me.

    In addition, the number of fallacious arguments in your entire post that I’ve snipped only two highlights from is mind boggling.

    I refuse to see it any other way, because it is the truth. And I don’t care about those who disagree. But I will continue my mission to bring more men to see the light of truth.
    Something is very wrong with this. At the risk of being accused of committing a fallacy of my own, your words here are the same type of ‘reasoning’ used by cult leaders.

    What is happening to this thread?

    -GXcX

  152. GeminiXcX says:

    Luke on August 17, 2015 at 2:26 pm
    Dave probably thinks that, if repentant, one of those evil b&stards that shoot up elementary schools should be let out of prison, even if they’ve only been in there a few weeks.
    I disagree, with permanence and vehemence.

    You are disagreeing with a Strawman argument that you created.

    -GXcX

  153. Oscar says:

    @ jack says:
    August 17, 2015 at 9:13 pm

    “Pray with her? Yep.”

    Bad idea. Very bad idea. Leave that to the sisters.

  154. Gemini,

    Something is very wrong with this. At the risk of being accused of committing a fallacy of my own, your words here are the same type of ‘reasoning’ used by cult leaders.

    What is happening to this thread?

    Nothing. Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, 1 Kings, Solomon, Ephesians, Thessalonians, Matthew, Galatians, 1 Timothy, Romans, and many others, they are all pretty clear on a woman being virgin before marriage. Obviously, God had a reason for that. And we choose to ignore His reasons at our own peril.

  155. Dave says:

    Once a woman has serviced a couple dozen cocks, she is no longer wife material. Sister in the Lord? Sure. Pray with her? Yep. Treat her with dignity and respect? No prob.

    “Once a woman has serviced a couple dozen cocks, she is no longer wife materialto someone like me. Sister in the Lord? Sure. Pray with her? Yep. Treat her with dignity and respect? No prob.” FIFY.

    Are former cads free from the consequences of their former sins? Of course not. They will reap what they sow just like former sluts will.

    The “evil” I have often witnessed “under the sun” is that many former cads are the ones who end up with the most attractive and most innocent women in the church. Because of their solid game and experience, they know exactly how to woo the best of them. Even some virgin women would actually prefer to be with “an experienced man”, rather than a fellow virgin “who doesn’t know what he is doing”.

  156. Dave says:

    “I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all.” Ecclesiastes 9:11

  157. GeminiXcX says:

    August 17, 2015 at 5:26 pm

    As you say, a truly repentant slut who stops fornicating and lives a holy life is no longer a slut.
    Correct.

    That does not guarantee that she is wife material.
    This sentence also suggests that there is no guarantee that she is NOT wife material.

    Even worse, not every woman who thinks she is done with fornication / adultery really is. And that’s just taking into account those that are being honest about repenting.
    I personally recall more than one instance of “repeat offender” males from my former Churchian days.

    In a nation that 1) does not practice genuine marriage and 2) will allow a woman to ruin the lives of your children is it really wise to build a home with someone that is that much of a risk?
    Unfortunately, you have linked a definite Cultural deficiency as synonymous with the outcome of personal individual situations.

    Of we don’t expect women to enter into hi risk “marriages”, why should we expect men to?
    I don’t really see anyone here suggesting otherwise.

    -GXcX

  158. JDG says:

    This sentence also suggests that there is no guarantee that she is NOT wife material.

    Not a guarantee, but certainly a likelihood.

    I personally recall more than one instance of “repeat offender” males from my former Churchian days.

    Yes, and we get to hear about the sins of men all the time everywhere else and all the time. Where else but here (and the rare and occasional Bible believing church) are the sins of women allowed to be discussed?

  159. JDG says:

    I personally don’t no many former cads who go to a church. I know several former sluts who attend. So there’s that too.

  160. embracingreality says:

    DAVE

    Said “Again, just to be clear, I would personally prefer to marry a virgin. However, I cannot cite a single verse of scripture to support my preference.”

    I offered you this once before and you quickly explain it away with liberal/feminist translations. here it is again. 1 Corinthians 7:38
    King James “So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

    Take the whole passage in context Dave…
    “36But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his *virgin*, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. 37Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his *virgin*, doeth well. 38So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.”

    Yes, everyone here knows that sexual sin is the same guilty sin for men and women. Eternal consequences are not temporal consequences.

    Temporal consequences of sexual sin are worse for women, always were!

    Female chastity is required for men to even know who a woman’s children belong to! Women know as a matter of simple physics, infant physically exits her womb. Why do you think women have hymens? They have the womb!

    From Conservapedia “A Feminist Bible refers to any Bible translation that kowtows to aspects of feminist ideology, such as the acceptance of abortion. These translations distort the meaning of the Bible and presume to bring God’s Word into line with the translators’ secular political ideologies.The NIV is an example of a Feminist Bible. The 1984 edition uses the word “womb” — a word often associated with the unborn child — only 57 times, compared with 70 times by the NASB and 82 times by the ESV, which is a modern translation widely respected for its accuracy. The problem of feminism worsened in the 2010 edition of the NIV, which went so far as to use gender-neutral pronouns where masculine pronouns would be more appropriate.”

    “Slut” offends you Dave? How about harlot?

    Jesus Christ wasn’t afraid to say it here
    “Matthew 21:31,32 Whether of them twain did the will of his father? They say unto him, The first. Jesus saith unto them, Verily I say unto you, That the publicans and the *harlots* go into the kingdom of God before you. For John came unto you in the way of righteousness, and ye believed him not: but the publicans and the *harlots* believed him: and ye, when ye had seen it, repented not afterward, that ye might believe him.”

    Even though they repented Christ still calls it what it is. Why can’t you Dave?

    Just go ahead and marry up a reformed slut, be a cuckold to her kids, in a sexless marriage. Many of us would be very happy for you, it’s what you deserve.

  161. GeminiXcX says:

    @IBB
    While I agree that scriptural admonition regarding the non-tolerance of those who continue a sinful course (sexually, or otherwise) must be adhered to, what I was finding “wrong” is some of these comments have an “I’m the authority” demand for obedience.

    This thread had devolved from “let us make sure God is glorified and not mocked” to “My way or the highway” self-righteous Messiah-like posturing.

    As for the scriptures being clear on a woman being a virgin before marriage:
    1) What about men?
    2) We are no longer under the Mosiac Law.
    3) Explain, as examples, Abigail, Bath-Sheba, and Rahab to me, especially those last two. Jesus’ female ancestors include an adulteress and a harlot.
    4) Don’t just throw out scriptural ‘references’ that are book titles; chapter and verse please.

    -GXcX

  162. Dave says:

    @embracingreality ,

    No, the term “slut” does not offend me at all. Some women deserve that term. However, what most people here often say is that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, she is automatically a slut. That is a term I disagree with. Sexual sin is horrible, but it is forgiveable.
    Sometimes kids do stupid things, and rather than telling them that their lot in life is ruined, we should help them get back on the straight and narrow road.

    Personally, I believe that the greatest threat to the wellbeing of any young girl in the West is her mother. If she escapes her “right to choose” she is still at the mercy of her “you go girl mentality”. Before she is aware she has been brainwashed into the feminist way of thinking, and her actions afterwards will often force her to keep justifying her wrong behavior, even though deep inside she instinctively knows that she is probably on the wrong path. She must provide some form of psychological self defense to remain sane. That is why virtually all feminists are neck deep in rationalization. They must make their stupid choices to become acceptable even to themselves.
    They continue on this path until they hit the wall….even then some of them never even see the light.

    I think with the rise of the manosphere, some of these girls could be saved some the heartaches they were originally destined for. We need to speak out louder.

    In case a (formerly) sexually promiscuous woman is reading this thread, let me be very clear: no one here is saying that your (former) lifestyle is in any way acceptable. Given the choice, probably 100% of all men on this site will pick a virgin over you, when it comes to choosing a woman to marry.
    However, if you genuinely turn from your sinful way of life, God’s forgiveness will be extended to you. But you still owe it to your future man to be completely honest and transparent with him about your past, and allow him to make an informed decision about whether or not to stay with you. There is no such a thing as a “born again virgin”. Once a woman loses her virginity it is forever gone, and it ain’t ever coming back.

  163. What about men? Go back about 20 posts and read about my former coworker. Because he can’t inspect her hymen ahead of time… he will never marry.

  164. Looking Glass says:

    “jack” might be responding a bit standoff-ish, but he gets the topic in general and the way to approach it. Marriage isn’t a God-given right, which is a common lie most Christians like to tell themselves. (Plus the outright expectation of Marriage) Matthew 19:12 being applicable here, plus 1 Corinthians 7:9 for the assumption set.

    But one issue that happens to too many ad hoc theological arguments is that they descend into a black & white dichotomy of “Must do” or “Must not do” when it isn’t applicable. What is applicable is the Holy Spirit, its Voice and Wisdom. Too often many Christians are operating under the anti-Biblical command of “Thou Shalt Be Stupid”. ““Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.” – Matthew 10:16 The “wise as serpents” part is anathema to the thinking of the modern Christian.

    I’m reminded of a type of situation that happens in a Church that no one ever makes a fuss about. You have a recovering alcoholic, with a couple of DUIs on his record. He’s been clean for 5+ years and a repentant believer. He’s not driving the bus for the Youth Group. And almost no one is going to make a stink if the Church, quite rightly, declines to allow him to drive the bus. Plus, obviously, if someone has a conviction for sexual assault, there is going to a highly limited amount of things a Church, in Wisdom, would let them handle.

    At the same time, Romans 14 is applicable here. Which is why this issue needs a little care when you’re dealing with it. One should be mindful not to throw up stumbling blocks for other Christians, but the Truth is very harsh in current culture. And marrying a reformed slut is simply not a Wise decision. In fact, getting involved with a divorced mother throws a pretty massive stumbling block in the Woman’s life.

    Yet, the Lord does bless the repentant, but it is on his Grace alone (via leading of the Spirit) whether getting involved with a repentant slut is ever a proper idea. And then I’d probably suggest Gideon-levels of confirmation from God. (I do actually know of one situation like this, personally, though she wasn’t a repentant slut just previously divorced. They’ve been married about 20 years now.) But there’s no promise of romantic relationships, for the whole, from God. And that’s something that few can bring themselves to say in the Church.

  165. GeminiXcX says:

    Yes, and we get to hear about the sins of men all the time everywhere else and all the time. Where else but here (and the rare and occasional Bible believing church) are the sins of women allowed to be discussed?

    Perhaps I did not word my post correctly. If female repentance can’t really be trusted, then how can any human repentance (males included) be trusted to be genuine?

    -GXcX

  166. jack says:

    My argument is not a moral argument, it is an argument based on facts that should be observable to anyone who is not deliberately closing their eyes to the truth.

    Too many men have the white knight impulse, and another contingent of men like to play holier-than-thou about forgiveness. My rejection of former sluts is based purely on the observable facts that they make shitty wives, and marginal mothers.

    If I was a raging atheist I would think no differently. Of course, if I was a raging atheist, I would be sleeping with all the women that present themselves as available to me, which is not a small number. In fact, my N count would be over 100 by now if I had followed the course of the world’s method. I have always been treated worse by Christian women than secular women, and at any time in my past, it would have been easier for me to find an unsaved girl to bang than it would be to find a Christian girl to marry.

    As I have stated many, many times before on this blog and other, if I ever did slip some day and marry a formerly promiscuous woman, I would be far more likely to do so with one who never knew the truth and became saved later, fully repenting of her actions.

    I am not likely to provide cover for some carnal, hypergamous Churchian Slut who tried to sneak onto the carousel for a quick ride or two, hoping to hamster her way out of it later. A lifetime of celibacy would be an acceptable alternative, especially if it means she spends the rest of her life alone in an apartment full of cats, crying into her ice cream.

  167. Dave says:

    because I can’t inspect her hymen prior to marriage. If I have sex with my wife she needs to bleed, no man can have my wife before me. And I don’t believe that I will ever meet a virgin woman in my lifetime that I would ever want to marry.

    This guy needs to get a grip. He is obviously wrongly taught. Can he cite a single example in the Bible where a would-be husband inspected the hymen of his future bride?

    There are literally millions of virgin women in America alone. Single. Christian and eager to get married. This guy has gotten some things down. But he needs to lose some weight, eat right and learn some game, and look in the right places. In my experience it is extremely easy to determine if a girl is a virgin. So easy in fact you don’t need to inspect her hymen.

  168. Looking Glass says:

    @GeminiXcX:

    Abigail was Nabal’s widow. And David marrying her was on rather wise decision. You don’t find Women like that often. But I’m not sure how that’s germane to the discussion.

  169. GeminiXcX says:

    What about men? Go back about 20 posts and read about my former coworker. Because he can’t inspect her hymen ahead of time… he will never marry.

    1) This is a restriction he has unfortunately placed on himself. As well, there are medical procedures that can make a woman a physical “virgin” again.

    2) This completely dodges the question(s) posed to you. Your original argument was virginity of the female being an absolute precursor to her even being considered for marriage (with an impressive list of precise passages to direct to me to). I’m simply asking why any biblical directive would not apply to men as well.

    -GXcX

  170. GeminiXcX says:

    Looking Glass on August 17, 2015 at 11:21 pm
    @GeminiXcX:

    Abigail was Nabal’s widow. And David marrying her was on rather wise decision. You don’t find Women like that often. But I’m not sure how that’s germane to the discussion

    Not germane to the ‘discussion’, but meant as a response to an individual user. IBB’s position is that women must be virgins to be considered marriage material. Abigail was married to Nabal (before Yahuweh struck him dead for the disrespect he showed David and his men), so it’s reasonable to conclude that Nabal and Abigail’s marriage included sexual relations.

    -GXcX

  171. GeminiXcX says:

    jack on August 17, 2015 at 11:10 pm
    My argument is not a moral argument, it is an argument based on facts that should be observable to anyone who is not deliberately closing their eyes to the truth. Too many men have the white knight impulse, and another contingent of men like to play holier-than-thou about forgiveness.
    Are you speaking in general terms, or with specific instances in mind?

    My rejection of former sluts is based purely on the observable facts that they make shitty wives, and marginal mothers.
    Then avoid them like the plague.

    If I was a raging atheist I would think no differently.
    But you’re not a raging atheist, so why even mention this?

    Of course, if I was a raging atheist, I would be sleeping with all the women that present themselves as available to me, which is not a small number. In fact, my N count would be over 100 by now if I had followed the course of the world’s method.
    Boasting about your SMV potential does not make your scriptural arguments more or less valid.

    I have always been treated worse by Christian women than secular women, and at any time in my past, it would have been easier for me to find an unsaved girl to bang than it would be to find a Christian girl to marry.
    I believe your assertion here, but the issue at hand is not how “Christian” women treat you, (vs secular women), but the sexual history of women of both groups. Even stuck-up Churchian women can be “savin’ it” for the “right”guy.

    As I have stated many, many times before on this blog and other, if I ever did slip some day and marry a formerly promiscuous woman, I would be far more likely to do so with one *who never knew the truth and became saved later, fully repenting of her actions*.
    The latter half of this is actually an insightful aside; but why would you “slip” in the first place, and what is this “more likely” indecisiveness on your part?

    I am not likely to provide cover for some carnal, hypergamous Churchian Slut who tried to sneak onto the carousel for a quick ride or two, hoping to hamster her way out of it later. A lifetime of celibacy would be an acceptable alternative, especially if it means she spends the rest of her life alone in an apartment full of cats, crying into her ice cream.
    If this is how you would personally view such women, in terms of marriage prospects, no one should guilt you as being unreasonable in this decision.

    -GXcX

  172. Dave,

    This guy needs to get a grip. He is obviously wrongly taught. Can he cite a single example in the Bible where a would-be husband inspected the hymen of his future bride?

    There are literally millions of virgin women in America alone. Single. Christian and eager to get married. This guy has gotten some things down. But he needs to lose some weight, eat right and learn some game, and look in the right places. In my experience it is extremely easy to determine if a girl is a virgin. So easy in fact you don’t need to inspect her hymen.

    I haven’t seen my coworker in a couple of years so I don’t know how he’s currently doing. But by any real measure of professionalism and social functionality, he seemed to be doing just fine. He was very quiet, mild mannered, very straight-forward human being. He wasn’t very open about his social situation with many people but I am one of the easier people in life to talk to, so I assume he made that exception. If he needs to “get a grip” (your words) then our whole world is doomed because there are (IMHO) so many more people on this planet that do NOT get by in life even at his simplistic level.

    He wasn’t harming anyone. He wasn’t breaking any laws. He had no addictions. He got up in the morning, got to work, went home, and was doing just fine. He wasn’t making excuses for himself for anything in his life. He just wrote off the entire female gender as worthy of ever being married to him. Men are entitled to be that way. Far be it for you or I to have any kind of opinion over his behavior or say he needs to “get a grip.” He knows that marrying a woman who allowed any other penis to enter her vagina (just once) would have made him sad, made him hate his wife. So he has taken the necessary steps in his life to prevent that feeling of sadness and hatred from ever becoming his reality. Kudos to him for knowing himself.

    GX,

    1) This is a restriction he has unfortunately placed on himself. As well, there are medical procedures that can make a woman a physical “virgin” again.

    2) This completely dodges the question(s) posed to you. Your original argument was virginity of the female being an absolute precursor to her even being considered for marriage (with an impressive list of precise passages to direct to me to). I’m simply asking why any biblical directive would not apply to men as well.

    Many (perhaps most) of them do apply to men as well but not all of them. You can do your own homework. Google is your friend. The entire Bible gateway is out there for you to look. Come to your own conclusions. I have already come to mine.

  173. JDG says:

    Perhaps I did not word my post correctly. If female repentance can’t really be trusted, then how can any human repentance (males included) be trusted to be genuine?

    So you meet a nice girl and you start getting to know one another. Pretty soon you find out she has a sexual past and she seems pretty honest about it. She tells you she regrets it and isn’t like that anymore. Does it even matter? Should you just take her word for it? Should you try to find out if she is telling you the truth or not? If anything, what are you going to do?

    It isn’t just about genuine verses fake (although that is a factor as well). Her repentance might well be genuine, and she still might fall again (or is it your view that it is not possible to fall again after truly repenting?). It should not have to be said that this goes for both sexes.

    I have seen far too many guys end up divorced because they trusted and married church going women who were formally promiscuous, or even worse, previously married. To be far, some not so promiscuous women have divorced their husbands as well, but this is rare.

    As for scriptures, read the entirety of 1 Cor. chapter 7 and Hosea chapter 1. The former makes it clear that virgin brides are what is expected as contrasted by the latter which demonstrates it is shameful to take a harlot for a wife.

    As for David, he took another man’s wife and married her to cover up his sin after making her a widow. Do you actually believe he would have married a non virgin who wasn’t a widow?

    I shouldn’t even have to say this here, but neither would I enter into a business partnership with a guy if repentant men were as prone to contract breaking as a formally promiscuous woman is to ending marriage. Then factor in that one relapse could ruin the lives of your kids as well as any potential ministry you were involved with in the process.

    Women are supposed to be virgins when they marry. If they’re not there will be baggage to deal with, potentially marriage crippling / destroying baggage. Are their exceptions? Can God remove or help you and her overcome the baggage? Of course. The thing to remember is that exceptions are not the rule, and one had best be sure that it was God that told you to put yourself in that situation before you take the plunge.

    As I said before, for me to advise anyone to take such a risk would require a supernatural affirmation from God.

  174. Looking Glass says:

    @GeminiXcX:

    Ah, I missed that line. And I see what you mean. There technically isn’t a requirement that a Woman not be a harlot to be married (see the terrible suffering that God put Hosea through), but in ancient Israel, in theory, there shouldn’t have been any harlots for marriage, given they were to be removed from the society. (But, a point lost on most, is that ancient Israel really never seemed to actually bother following God in the first place. As the Prophets consistently attest.)

    But the bride price for a harlot would have been practically nothing, assuming the Father could even find a taker. And anyone that’s read the end of Judges might think that trying to keep a harlot wasn’t worth the trouble, anyway.

    The main distinction would be a Wife that wouldn’t produce “children of whoredom” (Hosea 2:4). So following God’s Order is pretty important there.

    And while it has nothing to effect on this topic, I was thinking about the temporal effects of sexual sin & its differential between Men & Women. We can see the way God uses this difference with levirate marriage. And, as we see in Deuteronomy 25 & Genesis 38, God takes that pretty seriously. Or even in how God reprimanded David. But it doesn’t work in reverse and the Creation shows why.

  175. Looking Glass says:

    @JDG

    “As I said before, for me to advise anyone to take such a risk would require a supernatural affirmation from God.”

    I quite agree with this statement.

  176. MarcusD says:

    @Dalrock

    Here is an interesting thread on CAF right now (I expect it to grow considerably if previous, similar threads are any indication):

    Dating, higher education, sex ratios, and the hookup culture
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=974479

  177. jack says:

    The big problem is that within the church there are more promiscuous women than promiscuous men (opportunity, and other reasons as well).

    This creates a disconnect. Former sluts should marry men who used to cad around but are likewise saved. Men who didn’t screw up should not have to take a former carousel rider. ESPECIALLY one that is not fully repentant.

    If I was to marry a woman with a past, we would probably have some painful (for both of us) discussions about her past.
    I.e.:
    Do you have a “favorite mistake”?
    Are there any of your former lovers you still remain in contact with?
    If you could do it all over again, would you remain a virgin until you met me?
    What are you going to do to make up for the fact that I had to wait for you until you were done satisfying your carnal drives?

    In other words, I would bring her right down to zero. This would be a very humiliating discussion for her, of course, but it is necessary. Unless and until she gets the reality that I am the one bringing the far greater value to the table, she will not be sufficiently grateful for this second chance.

    If she wants me, she is going to have to buy me, and at full price.
    I will not be taken cheaply.

  178. Dave says:

    He wasn’t harming anyone. He wasn’t breaking any laws. He had no addictions. He got up in the morning, got to work, went home, and was doing just fine.

    …And he won’t be remembered when he’s gone. The guy is a genetic deadend, and he is operating in stark unbelief. He has allowed his surroundings to dictate his future for him, rather than him dominating his environment to realize his future.

    His requirement (to inspect a bride-to-be’s hymen) is absolutely ridiculous it bothers on insanity. I don’t know of any man in this forum who will allow him to do that their their daughters. I certainly won’t allow it if I had a daughter. That would be demeaning in the extreme.

    What this man needs is a heavy dose of faith, so he can get his head out of the mud where it is, and “seek so he can find”. “He who finds a wife (implies actively looking for one) finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord”. So says the Holy Book. “You have not because you ask not”. “If you will not believe, surely you will not be established”.

  179. Dave says:

    If I was to marry a woman with a past, we would probably have some painful (for both of us) discussions about her past.

    Just be aware that it will take you a very long time to get over the issue after this “painful discussion”, because you won’t quickly be able to erase some images formed in your head by her answers.

  180. Pingback: A fisking at Dalrocks (reblogged) | Dark Brightness

  181. greyghost says:

    If you married a woman with a past you are a piece of shit to bring it up to her. If she turns out to be a slut wife you have yourself to blame along with the slut. Discussing her past with a woman you know was a “reformed” slut is beta chump sorry especially if you went and married the chick. All judgement of her needs to be based on the day she said “I do” on from there.

  182. Ben says:

    Want a real lady I am hard working and very sexual but not forceful

  183. Lyn87 says:

    I’ve been away for quite a while, and started sticking my toe in far enough to read lately, but I’ve refrained from commenting until now. This thread really piqued my interest, though. I especially liked jack’s comment at August 17, 2015 at 9:13 pm. Dave does not seem to grasp the difference between accepting someone into fellowship as a believer and accepting them into your home and bed as a wife, nor the fact that the temporal consequences of sin may differ from person to person, even while the eternal consequences are the same.

    For new guys who don’t know me, I will state that I was a virgin when I married at 25, and my wife was a 20-year-old virgin as well, so I’m not a “reformed cad” who demanded a virgin wife: I paid my own dues.

    In today’s legal climate, the risk of marriage is far greater for men than it is for women. If a man leaves his wife he almost certainly forfeits his house, most of his property, a large portion of his income (maybe even more than he makes if he gets a particularly bad judge), and custody of his children. All of that that doesn’t go to lawyers goes to his ex-wife. He is also likely to be shunned by the members of his church. But if it is the wife who leaves he is equally screwed and gets the same outcome. A woman is at far less risk of choosing poorly than a man is. Which brings us to temporal consequences: a formerly promiscuous woman who has genuinely repented is no longer a slut, but rather a new creature in Christ. Theologically, she’s just fine. But she nonetheless poses a significantly higher risk of nuking her marriage than if she did not have that in her past. The divorce rate among “believers” is only slightly less than that of unbelievers.

    Also, while male and female sexual sin is equally “bad” in the eternal sense, women typically acquire more temporal mental baggage than men do. Given the fact that a sexually-experienced bride (and let’s stop clouding the issue by equating virtuous widows with former sluts) poses a high risk for destroying her husband’s and his children’s lives with the power of the state and the blessing of the church, a man would be wise to think hard, think twice, and then think again before getting romantically involved with such a woman.

    Several months ago I was going through the New Members class at the church my wife and I have attended (but not formerly joined until recently) for the past couple of years. I am in general agreement with the church on all major and most minor doctrinal issues, but I nearly walked away toward the end of the course on a matter of the by-laws regarding the nursery, of all things (and I don’t even have kids). There is a by-law that anyone with a prior conviction of a sexual crime could not work in the nursery. Fair enough… but the church ALSO recognizes marriages as legitimate if the woman is remarried after divorce, even though Jesus specified in Matthew 19 that those subsequent marriages are not valid and are in fact, adulterous unions. The pastor’s answer was that the former marriage is forgiven and thus does not render the “current” marriage adulterous (I disagree with him on that point, but I can live with that being in the by-laws). What I was NOT prepared to live with was the idea that a woman’s past could be wiped clean (as if it never happened), but not a man’s past (and equally forgiven!) sins of sexual predation. I told him, “Either we believe in redemption or we do not,” and a church that only believes in redemption in the first case but not the second was wrong. (Keep in mind that my church is completely patriarchal – no women serve as elders, deacons, or even ushers; no women pray publicly during corporate worship; and wifely submission and the husband’s authority are explicitly and frequently stated.) He admitted that he had never made the connection, but he agreed with me, and was very clear that there was no room for equivocation on the matter of redemption, and that the elder board could and would consider any such case on an individual basis, and a past sin would not be a absolute bar if the person had a record of true repentance and change. I thought that was reasonable. (The by-laws allow such considerations, otherwise I would have declined joining unless such a provision was added.)

    That part is germane to our discussion. A woman who was a slut would have to demonstrate virtuous conduct over many years before she should be considered to have established enough of a track record to be “wife material” again. But how many years? Unless she screwed up a couple of times in her mid-teens and immediately straightened out, her fertility window might be closed before she would have time to prove herself worthy of the title of “Wife.” If she was whoring around after college it’s a virtual certainty that she’ll be long past her prime years of beauty and fertility before she has time to prove that she’s changed.

  184. no9 says:

    @Dave
    “However, what most people here often say is that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, she is automatically a slut.”
    [If she wasn’t raped]
    Well does telling a lie not automatically make one a liar? Does hating someone not automatically make one a murder? Does having sex outside of marriage not automatically make one a fornicator?
    Fornication
    1. voluntary sexual intercourse outside marriage
    2. (Law) law voluntary sexual intercourse between two persons of the opposite sex, where one is or both are unmarried
    3. (Bible) Bible sexual immorality in general, esp adultery
    Slut
    a. A sexually immoral woman.
    b. a prostitute.

    On a different note; interesting that generally women don’t talk about wanting to marry virgin man.

  185. no9 says:

    Corrections
    Does hating someone not automatically make one a murderer?
    ….virgin men.

  186. JDG says:

    Lyn87 says:
    August 18, 2015 at 6:49 am
    I’ve been away for quite a while…

    I seriously thought something had happened to you. I’m glad to see you’re okay, and I’m glad to see you back.

  187. Dalrock says:

    @Jack

    The big problem is that within the church there are more promiscuous women than promiscuous men (opportunity, and other reasons as well).

    This creates a disconnect. Former sluts should marry men who used to cad around but are likewise saved.

    I disagree. Some men and women are a poor fit for marriage; they probably shouldn’t marry. This is truly tragic, but we seldom process this because we skip past it. If they decide to marry anyway, it doesn’t follow that we should try to pressure anyone else into marrying them, including others who are also a poor fit for marriage.

  188. Nburke says:

    I can’t think of any good reason to marry a single mother. Single mothers are not good bets for marriage and are worse than women who aren’t virgins but don’t have children. Most single mothers tried to trap a man into having to marry her or betrayed a man who did marry her. Sneaky and slutty versus just slutty.

    My wife was a virgin when we married. We have our problems but at least I know they aren’t caused by her daydreaming about the men who came before me.

  189. Dave says:

    That part is germane to our discussion. A woman who was a slut would have to demonstrate virtuous conduct over many years before she should be considered to have established enough of a track record to be “wife material” again. But how many years? Unless she screwed up a couple of times in her mid-teens and immediately straightened out, her fertility window might be closed before she would have time to prove herself worthy of the title of “Wife.” If she was whoring around after college it’s a virtual certainty that she’ll be long past her prime years of beauty and fertility before she has time to prove that she’s changed.

    From your entry, you seem to agree with the following:
    1. A woman is not a slut simply because she is not a virgin on her wedding night, even if not previously married
    2. Even sluts are still redeemable and marriageable, “after many years of virtuous living”
    3. The major objection you have to the redemption of some sluts is that they might not be able to have children when they finally find their ways to becoming marriage material.

    I don’t necessarily agree with all of the above though. And, contrary to your earlier assertion, I totally grasp both the temporal and eternal consequences of both good and bad behaviors. As I have repeatedly stated on this thread, I personally prefer to marry a virgin bride. However, I can only say that as a matter of personal preference, not because there is any promise from God to provide me a virgin bride, or command to avoid marrying any truly repentant nonvirgin woman.

    But more importantly, how do you define a slut? I mean, seriously, we need a working definition of that term, if we are going to have a sensible discussion on this topic.

  190. Dave says:

    @no9

    OK, process this: you have a daughter who engages in sexual activities in her late teen years with a teen “boyfriend” whom she met in her first year in college, despite her right upbringing. You found out, set her straight and she broke down in heartbreaking repentance, and continues to walk the straight and narrow path from then on.
    Do you think she is still fit for marriage later in her life? Or she is eternally damaged goods? Would you work to help her in her subsequent marriage efforts?

  191. Damn Crackers says:

    Was everyone’s wife here a virgin when they married? What a statistical coincidence!

  192. Dave,

    His requirement (to inspect a bride-to-be’s hymen) is absolutely ridiculous it bothers on insanity. I don’t know of any man in this forum who will allow him to do that their their daughters. I certainly won’t allow it if I had a daughter. That would be demeaning in the extreme.

    Yeah I don’t think that was what he was saying. I think his inspection criteria was more along the idea that he believed any girl/woman who told him that she was virgin and was still willing to marry him, was lying to him. I think he has been emotionally hurt way too many times and has become a bit jaded, but I don’t know Dave. I guess it doesn’t matter. He is completely at peace with the fact that because he is so short and repulsive physically that he will not only never marry but also never lose his own virginity, why can’t you be?

  193. Charles Brennan says:

    Mine was. Also stood by me through financial hard times. Very devoted despite my not deserving it. I’m sure that’s just coincidence.

  194. FH’s definition of a slut.

    Any woman who has sex with any man other than her husband.

    The end.

  195. IBB. He seems to be in the same position I was in, except the height problem. It takes a bit of time but eventually one finds peace in solitude.

  196. Dave, that is up to the man who would choose her. Her repentance sets her right with God but the man has the right to refuse her marriage due to her sexual past.

    Some men would be happy to have a woman with only one other sexual partner and others couldn’t live with it. To each their own.

  197. I suspect that the picture besides “faith” in Dave’s dictionary is a blue pill.

  198. jack says:

    @Dalrock

    I was speaking in a theoretical sense. If they are a poor fir for marriage, then of course, don’t. What I meant was it is probably a bad idea to match up a repentant slut with a man who played fully by the rules. It would be better for her to be with a man who also needed much forgiveness for his sexual sin. Again, purely a hypothetical.

    @Lyn

    Bravo to you sir, the Church needs men of such logic, courage, and conviction. You have given me my dose of hope for the day.

  199. Dave said: “The guy is a genetic deadend, and he is operating in stark unbelief.”

    And my question is, what about the two guys in my family who married single mothers and never have children of their own? What are they? And what about the guy who marries up a slut and finds out “his” kids aren’t his (like another of my family members)? If I want to make sure I’m not a genetic dead end, and that was my chief goal, I would be nothing BUT a cad. I’d get my biological material out there and let some “faithful” schmuck raise them. Apparently the world is in need of more alpha genes….

  200. jack says:

    What is a slut?

    Sluttery is about behavior, not numbers. While high partner count is never good, I would be more sympathetic to a woman in her 30s who had several long-term boyfriends and slept only with them.
    (I know I’m gonna take heat from Dal on the “sex as the space for romantic love” issue). But bear with me – I am not excusing, just saying that it is less slutty than…

    A woman with the same partner count who fucks recreationally. Sleeping with men for pure hedonism is what defines a slut.

    You can have a girl with a partner count of ONE who is basically a slut, at least has taken the most important step toward becoming one.

    It ain’t quantitative, it’s qualitative.

  201. jack, I beg to differ. A slut is a woman who doesn’t wait for marriage. The mind set is that both marriage and her future husband are not worth waiting for.

  202. embracingreality says:

    The whole catch for me with a Christian woman’s sexual past is this “genuinely repentant” bit. First, most of the Christian women Iv’e dated were not repentant about their past. On several occasions I’ve asked “Do you regret it?” and the reply is usually something like “I wanted that experience in my life”. No doubt Alpha widows still in lust the Alpha that got away. these are Rebellious, unrepentant women who can’t even fake repentance when they’re being coached to. Secondly, having considerable experience dating these women, having seen their conniving, caught them in their endless lying, I don’t believe a damn thing they say. A Christian woman who appeared “genuinely repentant” of her whoring would in my eyes only be trying to dupe me into a sexless marriage long enough to get fat and steal half my net worth.

    Botom line, Christian single men in their 30’s or beyond looking to marry suitable women are simply f*cked in every way except literally.

  203. embracingreality says:

    I hope and pray for God’s very best for the future of those married men and their children. That being said, for myself as a single man with no children I am tremendously relieved I don’t have a stake in the future. I wouldn’t start a family in this world now with any woman but thats just me.

  204. >@Liza: Things like providing girls with comprehensive sex education and access to contraception,>

    YOU….ARE….KIDDING! We just broke the damn bank to provide free abortions and free birth control for all women and you people are STILL using that meme. We have provided comprehensive sex ed for decades now complete with condoms and cucumbers. What are you even talking about? Your view won! You should be happy with the result. Congratulations. I hope all the young girls riding the CC who listened to you and are counting on a Beta Cuck downline will enjoy their cats. Meow!

    You believe in one God? Good! Even the demons believe that.

    >@Renee: “I read on this blog a woman who has sexual sin is slut but a man could plumb and dumb and still be a Christian?>

    Are you seriously trying to cry hypocrisy by cherry picking one guys opinion and then cherry picking another guys opinion on an open blog? I can’t even think of a suitable analogy to illustrate how ridiculous that is. Feel free to point out a particular commenter’s hypocrisy but don’t come here and lie.

    Yes a repentant and recovering slut can be forgiven. When I find one I will let you know because the last one I ever heard who was actually like that was forgiven by the Big Guy about 2,000 years ago. If they are truly repentant, why is it that ALL the recovering sluts are ho’s who screwed everything and everybody who have slammed into the wall at full speed and suddenly can’t pull the plumb and dumbs she could before?

    Let me guess, the Holy Spirit guided her to all those cockzzzzZZZZlol and now the Holy Spirit is guiding her to a life of chastity in which she marries a beta Cuck, stops having sex with him, and makes his life a living Hell of denial, Shit Test, an emasculation. All before the Frivorce- wherein she takes the kids and her OPPRESSED BUT REPENTANT SINGLE MOTHER label all the way to the bank while she looks for her next victim.

    @Dave: “Even some virgin women would actually prefer to be with “an experienced man”, rather than a fellow virgin “who doesn’t know what he is doing.”

    Yes Dave. Take the Red Pill bro. Men and women are different. Really.

    “you have a daughter who engages in sexual activities in her late teen years with a teen “boyfriend”

    Your straw man is not what we are talking about and you know it. These sluts have 10, 20, 200 cockaszzzlolllzz before they are 20. I am sure your example would not be a barrier to even the most Red Pill guy in the sphere who wanted to get married. Again, let me know when you find a girl like that.

  205. no9 says:

    @Dave.
    “Do you think she is still fit for marriage later in her life? Or she is eternally damaged goods? Would you work to help her in her subsequent marriage efforts?”
    I will be more than happy to answer your questions on the condition that you first answer the ones I posed to you.
    You said “However, what most people here often say is that if a woman is not a virgin on her wedding night, she is automatically a slut.” Also take into consideration the definitions I gave you.
    So does telling a lie not automatically make one a liar?
    Does hating someone not automatically make one a murderer?
    Does having sex outside of marriage not automatically make one a fornicator?

  206. Looking Glass says:

    @FH & jack:

    “Slut” comes from the Heart. So you have has true sluts that are smart enough to keep their pants on until they can lock down a Man, thus enabling her to rob him blind. (Classically these are the Carousel Watchers) Or you can have one with a 400+ dick count. The physical & spiritual toll is a lot higher in the latter, but the Heart is still in the same place.

    And that point let’s me bring up a passage that’s so utterly abused: Matthew 5:27-28 (ESV)

    27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

    “Sluttery” comes from the Heart. The physical consequences might be different because of their notch count, but the Heart is still in the same place.

    Side point: Since ISIS’ sex slavery rings are starting to, finally, make the news, it’s useful to think about how to help the enslaved Women after they’re freed. There’s a reason David protected his 10 concubines by designating them widows and allowing them to live peaceably, but away from where things happened.

  207. So this guy we know went in and got gender reassignment surgery. She is now repentant and wants to get married with the hopes of someday sharing a pulpit with her husband. We’re all sinners saved by grace!

  208. OKRickety says:

    JDG said:

    So you meet a nice girl and you start getting to know one another. Pretty soon you find out she has a sexual past and she seems pretty honest about it.
    — snip —
    I have seen far too many guys end up divorced because they trusted and married church-going women who were formerly promiscuous, or even worse, previously married.

    It is difficult to know if repentance is genuine. Relapse is common, maybe even likely for sexual sin. Lengthy time without relapse suggests the repentance is genuine, but how do you know if relapse has occurred except by their own admission?

    I think the likelihood of divorce is directly connected to the number of former sexual partners, and also, I suspect, to the casualness of the sex. It seems like there is a study showing the former to be true. Perhaps someone has a link. If I find it, I will post it.

    It is anecdotal, but in my case, my ex-wife admitted to living with a fiance before returning to Christ. I believed she was repentant and supposed she was giving full disclosure. Ten years and 2 kids later, she admitted she had been promiscuous, had been raped at least twice, and had aborted a child. Another 11 years later, she blindsides me with a divorce. Your mileage may vary, but I think finding a unicorn is more likely than finding a good non-virgin wife (and the odds may not be much better with a virgin).

  209. Damn Crackers says:

    ISIS doesn’t seem to have any trouble finding virgins.

  210. Lyn87 says:

    Dave,

    Since you asked me a direct question I will answer it… with the stipulation that I can only answer for myself. A slut is a woman who had P-in-V with anyone other than the man she was married to at the time (and unless she’s a widow, that means one man ever). Actual rape victims and women who’ve experienced multiple “widowings” excepted, of course. We seem to agree on the spiritual aspect of redemption, so I think you’re with me on the idea that a slut can become a non-slut in that sense. But the $64,000 question is, “How can a man know if she’s really a non-slut, and will remain so if he wifes her up?” And the answer is that he can’t, absent Divine intervention of the “word of knowledge” variety (1 Cor 12:8). It comes down to a myriad of factors, then. Length of time she’s been a Christian. Length of time she’s been celibate. Her partner count. The nature of those encounters. Her fruits over time. Her demeanor over time. Her willingness to tell the unvarnished truth about her past to a potential husband (there seems to be an idea among Christians that those things in her past are none of the man’s business. I stridently disagree: he is entitled to ask any questions he likes and she is obligated to answer them honestly and fully, or to be honest about her refusal to divulge certain things, and he can make whatever decisions he likes based on her statements or lack thereof… and nobody – no clergy member – has the right to second-guess him: especially her.) Once he knows the full truth and if he then decides to proceed, it comes off the table. If he can’t live with it without bringing it back up, he shouldn’t marry her.

    Reason #10,962 to marry a virgin. I knew my wife was one, and she knew I was one, and that has been an important thing in our marriage. Some of the guys here know this story, but one time early in our marriage my wife had some routine medical blood work and it came back that she had an STD. She knew she was a virgin when we got married, and the guy at the clinic told her that it had to have come from me, and there was only one way to catch it (he was wrong on both counts). Of course I denied it, because I knew I had been a virgin, too… AND I knew that she was one because of the bloody sheets on our wedding night. After a lot of weird stuff regarding her parents (you can be born with it – so her whole family got checked), it looks like it was a lab error (my test came up clean, which means that neither us ever had it). That sort of thing is awkward, but it was a lot easier to get through when we both knew the other was sexually trustworthy.

    Anyway, life involves risks and trade-offs, and you get what you can get based on what you bring to the table. A woman who brings a banged-out vag and memories of alphas past brings a lot less to the table than a woman with the factory seal still intact, all things being equal. That may mean that she’ll have to settle for a man she might not be crazy about – but she still owes him loyalty, respect, sexual access, and obedience. It may be that the only men she can get are so far “down market” that she doesn’t want any of them… so be it, she can be celibate for the rest of her life then – actions have consequences. And if a woman lies about her virginity and a man marries her and finds out later that she lied, he is under no obligation to keep her, and she has no right to do anything other than give her ring back and leave with the clothes on her back… regardless of anything any judge or pastor has to say.

    A woman may become a true non-slut but she’ll never be a born-again virgin, and churches need to stop telling young men that the past sexcapades of their female parishioners are out-of-bounds when they want a stable wallet to marry after they’re ejected from the carousel and into The Wall… especially since the church no longer deals with the sins of women, but rather supports rebellious wives against their husbands. Those women use the power of the state to eject the husbands they are commanded to obey, and the church bows to the state every bit as much as any benighted pagan bowing to the “Sun King” in his palace. But the church is too busy whining about the side-issue of “Gay Marriage,” to take actual marriage seriously enough to defend it.

  211. OKRickety says:

    Lyn87 said:

    … there seems to be an idea among Christians that those things in her past are none of the man’s business. I stridently disagree: ….

    I think hiding your past from your fiance/spouse is an absolutely horrid practice, by either sex, not just women. I know mention of Dr. Willard Harley began a furore in past comments, but he does consider honesty, including past sexual history, to be significant in marriage success.

    Willard Harley’s Policy of Radical Honesty is this:

    The Policy of Radical Honesty
    (Note: He says ‘I call it “radical” because that’s how many see my position on the subject.’)

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

    No matter what you think of Dr. Harley otherwise, I think he’s on the right track with this concept.

    For a man considering marriage with all of its current risk, honesty from his prospective wife would be extremely valuable. If you consider the legal and financial aspects of marriage, it would be a part of his due diligence.Similarly, she would benefit from honesty and self-disclosure from him, too. It would give her grounds to respect him and submit to him.

  212. Lyn87 says:

    OKR,

    No argument – honesty is a two-way street. When my wife and I were dating she asked me about my sexual history. I told her that I was a virgin, but beyond that I wasn’t going to provide details. She did not press the matter and that was that. I did not consider her question to be improper in the slightest. She had every right to ask (just as I had every right when I returned the question). And she had every right to make whatever decision she wanted regarding my refusal to provide further details. She knew I wasn’t “Sweet 16 and never been kissed,” but was okay with that as long as I was still virginal.

  213. Liz says:

    “She knew she was a virgin when we got married, and the guy at the clinic told her that it had to have come from me, and there was only one way to catch it (he was wrong on both counts). Of course I denied it, because I knew I had been a virgin, too… AND I knew that she was one because of the bloody sheets on our wedding night. After a lot of weird stuff regarding her parents (you can be born with it – so her whole family got checked), it looks like it was a lab error (my test came up clean, which means that neither us ever had it). That sort of thing is awkward, but it was a lot easier to get through when we both knew the other was sexually trustworthy.”

    I was misdiagnosed with an STD as well. And told by the physician that there was no other way I could have caught it, and I was assured that my husband had to be screwing around, “probably in the local brothels”. That physician was wrong as well. And it wasn’t an STD. Blood test is unusual though, mine was a throat swab.

    My first inkling that this was an incorrect diagnosis should have been the fact that it was a send out test that took about eight weeks to get results back from the states. They don’t send out STD tests, this was South Korea…the lab is right there for something that common. It was a very uncommon strain of bacteria. Anyway, yes it is nice to be about to trust your spouse.

  214. Liz says:

    Not “about”, “able to trust”, meant to say.

  215. PuffyJacket says:

    Yes a repentant and recovering slut can be forgiven. When I find one I will let you know because the last one I ever heard who was actually like that was forgiven by the Big Guy about 2,000 years ago.

    This is bang on. The elephant in the room is that statistically the % of women actually meeting the attributes of a) truly repentant former slut (note: no hamsterlizing allowed) and b) somewhat marriageable is so small as to be essentially non-existent (<.0001% of all women).

    Why so much "concern" over a category of women that for all intents and purposes doesn't exist?

    This may be difficult for some "father with daughters types" to hear, but reality is that some "truly repentant" sluts are going to be passed up for marriage. Oh well. It is what it is. This is a good thing, because it provides that much more incentive for women not to become one in the first place. It's not worth debasing the institution of marriage in its entirety just to rescue a few possibly repentant sluts who may or may not in fact actually be marriageable. Let's not lose the forest for the trees.

  216. Opus says:

    The problem with asking direct questions (apart from not giving the appearance that one is embarking on cross-examination of a hostile witness) is that the answer may not be truthful, or the truth may be a bit too economical or even worse, one may be asking the wrong question. All the signs are there from the beginning, if only one can read them. Lyn 87 must have been a bit of a Pussy-Tease – all this “I am a Virgin but I am not answering your questions about my copious almost-N.”

    Sadly my N was >0 which was how I caught an STD. I went to my G.P. who told me to go to the Genital and Urinary Clinic at the local hospital. He told me it would be very discreet and that I need not feel embarrassed. I duly attended; the waiting room filled with about fifteen people. Soon a booming female voice called out, “Mr Opus for Dr Nookie”. I wanted the ground to swallow me up. These are clearly the wages of sin, and very painful the treatment was too.

  217. PuffyJacket says:

    Blackstone’s formulation was it would be better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent be jailed. Most so-cons would appear to prefer a 10,000: 1 ratio when it comes to excluding former sluts from marriage.

  218. RichardP says:

    In the beginning God created the … earth … And the earth was without form, and void … And God said (Genesis 1:1-3). From this point on, God could have createe anything he wanted to. And he created this. He could could have created any kind of help for Adam that he wanted to. And he created Eve – knowing full well what she was going to do to Adam. God created this when he could have created something entirely different.

    I’ve asked this before – rhetorically: why do we expect a better wife than the one Adam’s father fetched for him?

    And then, right beside it, in apparent contradiciton:

    And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man .. . And Adam said … she shall be called Woman … Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2:21-24). Someone upthread said they could not point to anywhere in the Bible that suggests a man should take a virgin to wife. Adam is talking here about God giving him a wife – therefore, “because of the benefit God gave to me, men shall forever leave father and mother and cleave unto …” an Alpha Widow, right?? Isn’t that what God gave to Adam … an experienced woman? We think we should marry a virgin because we assume that is what God intended when he set up the institution of marriage. We assume he did not give Adam a wife with an N-count > 0.

    Well … Eve probably wasn’t an Alpha Widow, and probably wasn’t experienced when God gave her to Adam. But she did have the seeds of being a contentious woman inside of her and she soon enough rose up and forced Adam to choose between her and God. If you understand that God made Eve for Adam because God saw that it wasn’t good for Adam to be alone, then you should understand the anguished position that Eve placed Adam into – choose her, a cure(?) for his alone-ness, or choose God and be again lonely. (Such a strange position to be in, alone, even tho with God.) We might even conclude that God intended Adam to choose Eve over him (God himself said that it wasn’t good for Adam to be alone). If God crafted the plan of salvation from before the foundation of the world (before he made Adam and Eve), then getting forced away from God’s presence and away from the Tree of Life would have been a necessary step to move things along towards the Cross and the Final Sacrifice. (Note in Revelation that we find the Tree of Life on the banks of the river that flows from God’s Throne; the Bible is bounded by losing the Tree of Life in Genesis, and regaining it in Revelation.)

    Again – why do we expected a better wife than the one Adam’s father fetched for him? And we don’t even consider that we might be displeasing God when we reject the “gift” he created as the cure for our aloneness. But perhaps that is because we haven’t ever considered that she was also maybe created to drive us to the Cross. This whole issue is a lot more complicated than the comments in this thread make it out to be.

  219. Gunner Q says:

    Good to see you again, Lyn.

  220. Luke says:

    God is Laughing says:
    August 18, 2015 at 10:59 am

    Dave said: “The guy is a genetic deadend, and he is operating in stark unbelief.”

    “And my question is, what about the two guys in my family who married single mothers and never have children of their own? What are they? And what about the guy who marries up a slut and finds out “his” kids aren’t his (like another of my family members)?”

    The first man is a fool IMO. The second one was the victim of fraud. Now, the cuckolded guy should have done paternity testing within a month of birth on every one of the children his wife popped out during their marriage (as I did with my twins). Lack of that basic prudence* still doesn’t excuse what the wife (hopefully ex-wife now) perpetrated against him, though.

    On just how common is infidelity leading to paternity fraud/cuckoldry by American/Canadian/U.K. wives:

    From https://web.archive.org/web/20050203215419/http://nomarriage.com/paternity_test.shtml

    From the Guardian, 1998-07-14: “More than 25 years ago the consultant obstetrician E E Phillipp reported to a symposium on embryo transfer that blood tests on between 200 and 300 women in a town in the south-east of England revealed that 30 per cent of their children could not have been fathered by the men whose blood groups had also been sampled”.

    From the Dallas Morning News 1999-10-31: “DNA Diagnostics Center … an industry leader, says 30 percent of the men it tests prove to be misidentified. Similar numbers come from the Texas attorney general’s office, which enforces child support: About a quarter of the men who disputed paternity in the last year turned out to be right. In Florida, the proportion was one-third”.

    From the Sunday Times 2000-01-23: “David Hartshorne, spokesman for Cellmark, said that in about one case in seven, the presumed father turns out to be the wrong man”.

    From the Santa Barbara News-Press 2000-02-27: “For the population as a whole, “The generic number used by us is 10 percent,” said Dr. Bradley Popovich, vice president of the American College of Medical Genetics. [15 to 25 % has been determined from blood tests of parents and offspring in Canada and the US.]”

    From The Age 2000-03-26: “About 3000 paternity tests are carried out a year in Australia. In about 20 per cent of cases the purported father is found to be unrelated to the child. This figure is estimated to be 10 per cent in the general community”.

    From The REPORT Newsmagazine 2000-04-24: “The rate of wrongful paternity in “stable monogamous marriages,” according to the Max Planck Institute in Munich, Germany, ranges from one in 10 with the first child to one in four with the fourth”.

    From the Independent 2000-05-12: “… biologists Robin Baker and Mark Bellis … review of paternity studies also suggested frequent infidelity, with extra-pair paternity running between 1.4 per cent and 30 per cent in different communities”.

    From The Globe and Mail 2000-05-20: “Anecdotal evidence suggests these numbers bear out in Canada as well…. Maxxam Analytics in Guelph, Ont., performs approximately two paternity tests a day. And according to Dr. Wayne Murray, head of the human DNA department, one out of four men who come in pointing a finger at their spouse is not the biological father of the child in question”.

    From the Sunday Times 2000-06-11: “More than 250,000 tests a year are now conducted in America, and about 15,000 in Britain…. roughly 30% of men taking the tests discover that they are not the fathers of the children they regarded as their own. In the wider community, social scientists say up to 1 in 20 children are not the offspring of the man who believes himself to be their father”.

    From the Observer 2000-09-03: “One study followed couples waiting for NHS fertility treatment, where the men were ‘azoospermic’, meaning they produced no sperm and were totally infertile. The researchers found that 25 per cent of the women became pregnant before fertility treatment started”.

    From the American Association of Blood Banks – 2001-02-26: “The overall exclusion rate for 1999 was 28.2% for accredited labs. Exclusion rates for non-accredited US and foreign labs were slightly less at 22.7% and 20.6% respectively”.

  221. The end result is the same Luke. Whether you are staunchly waiting on a unicorn or you are a blue-pill sucking “Man-up and marry the slut variety” your results may not vary.

  222. JDG says:

    …God gave her to Adam. But she did have the seeds of being a contentious woman inside of her …

    Are you saying that Eve was broken when God made her, or that God deliberately made her to be contentious?

    My understanding is that, like Adam, she was created with the ability to choose right from wrong and choose to do wrong.

    … and she soon enough rose up and forced Adam to choose between her and God.

    My understanding is that Adam chose to listen to his wife rather than obey God (big mistake). When I read the Genesis account of the fall I don’t see him being forced to do anything except leave the Garden of Eden.

  223. greyghost says:

    Good to see you back Lyn97

  224. JDG says:

    choose = chose at 4:53 pm.

  225. Renee Harris says:

    @ bluepillprofessor
    >@Renee: “I read on this blog a woman who has sexual sin is slut but a man could plumb and dumb and still be a Christian?>

    Are you seriously trying to cry hypocrisy by cherry picking one guys opinion and then cherry picking another guys opinion on an open blog? I can’t even think of a suitable analogy to illustrate how ridiculous that is.
    Conipacny roman servant hood with slavey of 1800.
    Feel free to point out a particular commenter’s hypocrisy but don’t come here and lie.
    Mark, and glzzzuzzz make comment that about MGTOW with benefits. I looked the movement up. That where I got that from. It seem like men can have sex without sin but woman not can’t .it not just on the blog : in my real life, girls Who put out get boyfriend i’m praying to meet a guy who want to marry a virgin. I know it hard to believe that any Christian man want a virgin.
    Because I meet Christian men and his more than one n count wife.
    A beautiful 26 old ex virgin is dating her way through my circle of friends she hope married and is encourage To look for a man. But My virgin ass has realliy I’m too old was wasting my Virginity on waiting. I am feel sorry for myself. But Also I’m pissed that all never kiss a man or have sex. ( yes I know “grow the fuck up, Renee. sex it overrated… You’re ugly ) but I’m two yrs away the wall and I’ll be treated like slut AND I get to die as a virgin! Yupeeee!
    >I think woman and men should wait untill marriage base roman 11:27- 12:2. To honor Od
    I did not mean Darlock but the commentered. I am sorry making it seem like I was saying the blog with encouraging that.
    You’re right Man get screw over my woman all the time but not all of us pretty enough to any man want.
    I did not ride the cc, I waiting because I was told to . But other girls who did not get love sex committed and marriage so wtf ?

  226. RichardP says:

    @JDG: I’ve said only what is obvious: When God started creating, he could have created anything he wanted to create. He created this. I interpret that to mean he wanted it. And he knew what Eve was going to do to Adam before he created her – and he made her anyway. So I assume he wanted that also. I assume that God created the world that he wanted to create. That includes creating Adam and Eve with the ability to have desires and the ability to act on those desires. Without desires, and abilities to act on those desires, we can’t have choice.

    God admits that Adam was lonely. God creates a “cure” for Adam’s aloneness. Adam is faced with staying with God and going back to being lonely (since Eve would have to leave the Garden without Adam if Adam did not eat the forbidden fruit), or choosing to “sin” so he could be with his wife (knowing full well that would mean he would be without God). By anyone’s definition, that is being forced to make a choice. If you don’t see that, I can only assume it is because you don’t want to. If you think Adam ate the forbidden fruit only because he wanted to disobey God, you are not seeing a larger picture.

    Adam and Eve demonstrated that they had the desire and ability to please self rather than God before the first bite of the forbidden fruit passed their lips. It was having the desire to please self and the ability to please self that led Eve to eat the forbidden fruit and led Adam to choose his wife over God. Eve’s offering the forbidden fruit to Adam was the world’s first sh*t-test. And Adam eating the forbidden fruit was the world’s first failure of a sh*t-test. And all of this desire and behavior was exhibit before the Fall. It was the behavior that caused the Fall. The Fall did not cause some pristine creatures to suddenly aquire the desire and ability to please self rather than God. The desire and ability were what inspired the behaviors that resulted in the Fall. And these desires and behaviors were on full display before God “cursed” Eve, and so that “curse” is not what brought about Eve’s nature – as some have claimed elsewhere. That nature was in full evidence before God “cursed” Eve. (Note that the Bible says only that God cursed the ground. It does not say that he cursed either Adam or Eve; he placed punishments on them.) And, again: if you don’t see that, I can only assume it is because you don’t want to.

    Many of the people I know don’t handle well the idea that God created the plan of salvation before he made the world. He knew what was going to happen after he created, so he made a contingency plan first. But then he went ahead and created this, rather than creating something that did not need a plan of salvation. Folks don’t like the implications of that. Foreknowledge does not mean predestination. But these two points are inescapable: God knew what would happen with his creation before he created it. And God could have created things differently, but he didn’t. Obviously, how you interpret those two facts is up to you. I don’t presume to have the mind of God on this issue. But I can read what Genesis does and does not say.

  227. Reluctant Neo says:

    Lyn, thank you for your well reasoned post. No one really talks to Christian young men about who they should consider for marriage as far as sexual past goes, and that’s too bad. The consequences need to be considered.

  228. JDG says:

    Many of the people I know don’t handle well the idea that God created the plan of salvation before he made the world.

    That would not be me because I think God knows everything, and I still don’t believe he made Adam or Eve with built in faults (seeds of contention).

    It was having the desire to please self and the ability to please self that led Eve to eat the forbidden fruit and led Adam to choose his wife over God.

    Let us not forget that Eve was deceived and then ate the fruit. Desire gave them a choice. They were tempted, not forced. They chose wrong. It was within their ability to do right, but they chose not to.

    But I can read what Genesis does and does not say.

    Now if we can just get you to read the rest of the scriptures with equal enthusiasm.

  229. GuaranteedEtern says:

    @Dalrock
    ” The piece is funny not because we laugh at the people making assumptions, but because of the truth that 1) the assumptions are in fact being made and 2) the assumptions have more than a kernel of truth; even though we know some of them are mutually exclusive, the basic truth remains that single mothers are generally speaking the source of a great deal of familial and societal chaos.”

    ————————–
    I think we are saying the same thing – the Onion doesn’t even realize it’s criticizing reactions that for most people are perfectly natural and – as you outline – are in many cases true.

    Most people instinctively know that single motherhood – even among those that do their best – isn’t good for kids and by extension, society. The evidence for this is irrefutable.

  230. Dave says:

    The Fall did not cause some pristine creatures to suddenly acquire the desire and ability to please self rather than God. The desire and ability were what inspired the behaviors that resulted in the Fall.

    Actually, I think things were a bit different.
    1. God made Adam and Eve perfect, because God assessed them after their creation, and they readily passed His standards. Both had the mind, nature and desires of God.
    2. They were as holy as God was holy; righteous as He was and sinless as He was. This was the essence of being created in “God’s image and likeness”. It did not mean that God was a 6 ft tall hermaphrodite.
    3. Neither Adam nor Eve had an initial desire to please self, until the serpent came. Both were going about their individual businesses, satisfied with God’s simple but clear rules for them.
    4. The serpent <> Eve. To beguile means to “charm or enchant (someone), sometimes in a deceptive way”. In today’s lingo, it may mean to “Game the woman”. Or seduce her. It would have been harder to game Adam, but not impossible.
    5. Eve died instantly (spiritually) when she sinned and, for the first time, acquired the nature of sin. That is what is commonly called “human nature”, which makes us have a tendency to commit sins. When the Bible referred to the “redemption of the body” it was referring to the time when our sin nature will be permanently removed from us. Until then we continue to “groan” under its burden, though we are saved. See Romans 8:23.
    6. Eve now being a sinner, could easily seduce her husband into sin, the same way a cad seduces an inexperienced girl, or a highly experienced older woman seduces a male teenager. Frankly, Adam stood no chance with Eve. There is an innocence which characterizes those who follow the ways of God. See 2 Corinthians 11:3; Matthew 10:16.
    7. And yes, both Adam and Eve were pristine creatures before the fall.
    8. And no, the desire to please self at the expense of God’s laws was not in them before the fall. The serpent deceived them, corrupted them and caused their fall.

  231. Dave says:

    As a matter of fact, we can reduce every sin under the sun to this one-word definition: selfishness.
    When we advance our own interests at the expense of other legitimate interests–be it of God or man–we sin.

  232. embracingreality says:

    RichardP
    “This whole issue is a lot more complicated than the comments in this thread make it out to be.”

    The biblical story of Adam and Eve is a whole lot more complicated than you make it out to be. Why do you assume it was inevitable that eve give into temptation, it was impossible for her to resist? Why do you assume Adam could not have rejected his stupid wife? God could have very easily given him another one! God made Eve, Adam didn’t know God could make another one? He might have been able to get a new on once a month if he learned the trick considering female hypergamy. Genesis records the way it happened, it never once tells us it couldn’t have happened another way. You make a lot of assumptions.

    This,
    “why do we expected a better wife than the one Adam’s father fetched for him?”

    What are you talking about? What man on the planet now has a wife that could have measured up to Eve? You’ve established that Eve wasn’t a slut but perhaps contentious. Men in this day and age have primarily hostile high mileage sluts who are significantly overweight destined for morbid obesity and thats just for a start. Uh, yea, we could work with a woman like Eve, thanks for enlightening us..

  233. embracingreality says:

    Slut question

    Jesus said in Matthew 19
    “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

    So we’ve established here that marrying a woman, **who actually bothered to commit to marriage**, but was divorced for reasons other than adultery was not acceptable to marry. Right? Even if she repents of frivolous divorce, even if it wasn’t her fault, she’s not eligible for marriage. Right? Isn’t that right?

    Yet, some here (Dave) are trying to sell us on the idea that marrying a woman who didn’t even bother to commit to her sex partners(S) is cool, just so long as she’s really repentant and sorry and everything like that there.. Right?

    Biblically, women with previous sex partner(S) with void documents are un-marriageable, except for husbands adultery.

    A woman who did trains in college can be redeemed and marriageable just as long as she wasn’t married to any of the eskimo brothers on the train. She “truly repented” now she’s clean. Thats what you’re telling me???

    I’m telling you, in biblical times, marrying a non virgin woman would have been considered stupid. It would have been a rare Jew or Christian man who would have even considered it. Now it’s almost all thats available, even at church.

  234. Reluctant Neo says:

    embracingreality, I often wonder what the plight was of women and men who were converted and joined the early church with sexual baggage. Did they marry, or remain celibate? In I Cor 7, an extensive chapter on marriage, I don’t see the topic addressed. Actually, I guess “virgin” is used a lot.

  235. Dave says:

    “I’m telling you, in biblical times, marrying a non virgin woman would have been considered stupid. It would have been a rare Jew or Christian man who would have even considered it. Now it’s almost all thats available, even at church.”

    If you look in the right places you’ll find plenty of virgins. Yes, right here in the USA.
    Let me give you a hint. Send a mail to this website admin and let them know you are serious about marriage, and you would like to be introduced to a virgin. Use an anonymous email address, and wait for a response. Chances are you’ll be introduced to one. Or several.

    Please let’s stop this “Diffident Elijah mentality”, thinking we are the only holy ones still in existence, and living virtuous lives, while everyone else is living in debauchery. I kid you not, there millions of daughters of God everywhere right here in this country, many of which are chaste, never rode the carousel, and are praying everyday for God to send them a good man to be their husbands. There are also many men right here in this forum who are married to women who remained virgins until their wedding nights.

    Yet, some here (Dave) are trying to sell us on the idea that marrying a woman who didn’t even bother to commit to her sex partners(S) is cool, just so long as she’s really repentant and sorry and everything like that there.. Right?

    I wasn’t trying to sell you any idea; I was merely standing on the clear word of God, and you still can’t come up with anything in scripture that runs contrary to the arguments I made.

    Sexual sin is not unpardonable sin, though you would like to make it so.

    Let me even ask: have you ever dated a virgin before? I have, actually. More than once. Right off the top of my head I can count three. The last one I dated was a very attractive woman in her 30s. I ended the relationship over the last Christmas holidays. It was really tough for me to break it off because I found her very attractive, but I had to do it. It is after you’ve spent time with a virgin that you will realize that there is far more to a successful marital relationship than virginity.
    Now I don’t wish to be misunderstood that virginity is not a glorious thing in a new bride. It is. But to make everything about it, or to totally disqualify any potential mate because they are not a virgin is foolish, and I really mean that.

    Writing off all nonvirgins is like the case of abortion. I am opposed to frivolous abortions. But at the same time, as a highly trained medical professional, I know there are instances where you MUST decide whether to lose the fetus alone, or lose both the fetus and the mother. Or where, to keep the sanity of the mother, you must abort. But an uninformed politician would come up and start making foolish statements that have no basis in medical science.

    The Old Testament addressed situations where a man married a virgin, but still wanted to get rid of her anyhow. If anything, that should have helped guys realized that marriage success requires more than virginity. See Deuteronomy 24:1. And, BTW, the divorced woman could still go and become another man’s wife (see vs 2), and God would sanction that marriage.

    As in everything in life, balance is necessary. When we assess potential mates, virginity should be one of the criteria used, not the only or the main criterion. What are the circumstances? Each person’s story is different, and each candidate should be judged based on their histories.

  236. Isa says:

    @Reluctant Neo
    Check outside of the bible for the answer. There are tons of Saints/converts who previously lived as courtesans, with mistresses etc. Many of them became celibate religious, but not all. There is of course the issue that the end times were expected to be very soon, so marriage wasn’t as attractive a proposition as prayer, sack cloth and ashes etc.

    At the end of the day, it is not a matter of the state of the body, but the state of the mind and soul. A virgin may be unchaste (see: lifetime movies and romance novels, obsession with) whereas a non-virgin could be chaste in her current thinking and actions but not perhaps her past. Only a chaste woman is acceptable for marriage, regardless of the status of her hymen.

  237. Dave says:

    @Lyn87,

    I agree with virtually everything you wrote in your response, except the fact that I find it rather difficult to put a woman with strings of ONS in the same category of an unsaved woman who had sex with her fiancé prior to marriage. I understand sin is sin before God. But humanly speaking, the two are different.

  238. no9 says:

    @ Dave

    Did you perhaps miss my post on August 18, 2015 at 12:08 pm? Or have you changed your mind and don’t want me to answer your questions?

  239. Isa says:

    @Dave

    I largely agree with your position. Having sex with one’s fiance is now so normalized that to not have had some sexual contact… means a Dugger style courtship complete with inappropriate parental boundaries.

    The key with women, is how, when, and who they engage in sexual relations with speaks volumes as to their character. A woman that hooks up is worse than a prostitute, at least she gets paid. She does not value her body, and likely won’t value yours. A woman sleeping with a “boyfriend” of a month is stupid, but not as bad as the unpaid prostitute. She has received the verbal understanding of sexual fidelity, but no visible actions of it. The woman sleeping with a “fiance” better than the others, at least she acquired some amount of commitment materially, socially, and emotionally and (in the past) could sue for breach of betrothal contract if things went awry.

    Are any of these women “prefect” or “good”? No. But the fiance sleeper has a much better sense of worth and doesn’t take intimacy lightly as compared with “Fun Fran.”

    Note: I apply the same calculus to men and women. I also consider that fiance sleeper is as good as married, so should skip the church/big wedding and do a small private ceremony civilly or with the minister. It’s very tacky for people living in literal sin to have an large affair that celebrates properly ordered sexuality.

  240. Dave says:

    @Renee Harris

    A beautiful 26 old ex virgin is dating her way through my circle of friends she hope married and is encourage To look for a man. But My virgin ass has realliy I’m too old was wasting my Virginity on waiting. I am feel sorry for myself. But Also I’m pissed that all never kiss a man or have sex.

    It looks like you desire to get married. You don’t have to get pissed. Get smart instead, and put yourself out there. There are several men even here who are looking for virgin brides. But I do hope you realize that men look for more than virginity in a woman (even if most of our discussions here seem like that is the only thing that matters).
    You can also contact me. I may be able to introduce you to a few of my single friends who are looking for a wife.
    Good luck.

  241. MarcusD says:

    what caused the doubling of divorce between 1965 and 1975?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=974586

  242. Dave says:

    “@ Dave

    Did you perhaps miss my post on August 18, 2015 at 12:08 pm? Or have you changed your mind and don’t want me to answer your questions?”

    No I did not miss your post. I did not finish my response before I left for work, and I am now at work using a different system.
    The short answers to your questions are Yes, yes and yes!
    So, go ahead, and answer mine-:)

  243. Isa says:

    @Lyn87
    Ug sorry for all the multiple in order postings, but very glad to see you back. What a cheeky answer you gave to your wife, and just the right one too! Mr. Isa said something a bit similar, i.e. “I ran wild when I was younger but reformed once I had a child. I could still get girls, but they aren’t worthwhile women” (his ex wife cheated and then ran off with the kids, possibly to a neighboring country, so he’s not a baby daddy or something stupid like that).

    Oddly enough, he has become more and more conservative (i.e. orthodox) as per appropriate sexual relationships outside of marriage since we started going together. I think having a spouse with virtuous opinions on that score really does change the others thinking over time, although I never bring up discussions about it.

  244. Dave says:

    A virgin may be unchaste

    I could not have said it better. This reminds me of a virgin I once dated. She was a virgin “for real”, in that she had never had intercourse. But I pressed further…….until she revealed that she had engaged in oral sex with her last boyfriend who had demanded sex from her. When she objected, he responded that “at least you can give me that, if you won’t have sex with me?” She obliged.
    The guy later broke it off, apparently because he wanted more action than she was willing to provide.
    And not to talk of so many ‘Catholic virgins” who are pros in anal s*x but have never had their hymens broken….or those who believe that sex in the Missionary position is the real sex, and every other position does not count.

  245. Julian O'Dea says:

    Dave:

    “His requirement (to inspect a bride-to-be’s hymen) is absolutely ridiculous it bothers on insanity. I don’t know of any man in this forum who will allow him to do that their their daughters. I certainly won’t allow it if I had a daughter. That would be demeaning in the extreme.”

    So? Being misled about a potential bride’s status is also demeaning.

    A potential husband should indeed “inspect a “bride-to-be’s hymen” if she claims to be a virgin and it is important to him:

    https://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/no-one-misses-a-slice-from-a-cut-loaf/

    Men should resume demanding that the bride can genuinely wear white.

  246. Lyn87 says:

    Opus,

    You mistook my intent. I didn’t offer further details because I considered them to be irrelevant, and having grown up in an environment where “a gentleman does not kiss and tell” I thought that spilling the beans about every kiss and touch since the onset of puberty was inappropriate (I still do). I told her what she needed to know. FWIW, when I asked her the same question in return she gave me the same answer. Likewise I did not press for further details because I knew all that I needed (and wanted, for that matter) to know. I wasn’t being coy, I was being discreet, as per my upbringing and comfort level.
    __________________________

    Dave,

    I tend to agree with your caveat at 12:10. Not too long ago a couple that was affianced was considered to be effectively married, but without sexual access until the actual ceremony. Such a woman is still on the good side of GBFM’s crudely-named test: the “One Cock Rule.” It’s not perfect, but I’ll agree that it is different than spending her 20’s on the carousel.

    But I think many Christians tread on ground of dubious stability when then assume that a woman who “only” fornicated with a few serious boyfriends is a much better bet than one who rode the carousel with abandon. It is indisputable that – among non-Christian women – higher-N brides present a higher divorce risk than lower-N brides, but that may not be true among women who sought forgiveness, which are the only ones even potentially suitable for a Christian groom. Why? Because it may mean that the “less unchaste(?)” one established far deeper ties to her former partners than the raging nympho did. Both are severely damaged goods (and damaged goods usually sell at a steep discount – although what that means in the marriage market is anyone’s guess), but I suspect that it’s actually easier for the woman who had lots of anonymous sex to stay on the sexual-straight-and-narrow than the woman who was “in love” with the men she took to her bed. As far as I know, nobody has studied that methodically, but it seems as least plausible to me.

  247. Opus says:

    @Lyn87

    I am merely reminded of Leo Tolstoy who aged thirty-four and the night before his wedding to the eighteen-year-old Sonya told her (so far as he could remember) of every single woman he had slept with. One cannot accuse him of dishonesty but what a tactless, pointless, thing to say to his fiancee. That is as bad as in the other direction making a point of stressing ones virginity – I had one girlfriend who did that and it is obvious to me, now, that she was lieing. All lies and deceptions come into focus with time.

    Some things matter, such as ‘Do you have any children?’ but beyond that, I for one, don’t want to know. The sluts are usually so obvious and if they are not then you can’t be hurt by what you don’t know. Anyone prying with me will gain misleading and untruthful answers. I don’t think I have ever known (in the Biblical sense) a virgin.

  248. Dale says:

    Jack
    >I have always been treated worse by Christian women than secular women, and at any time in my past, it would have been easier for me to find an unsaved girl to bang than it would be to find a Christian girl to marry.

    I am not interested in sex before marriage, but otherwise I have the same experiences. I find it far easier to receive reciprocated interest, and respect, from non-Christians. And easier to find a non-Christian from another culture who naturally obeys God’s commands than the women here who say they are Christians. Matt 21:28-32 — the son who says he will obey versus the one who says the wrong words but gives the correct actions.

    GeminiXcX:
    >I’m simply asking why any biblical directive would not apply to men as well.

    Because Deut 22:13-21 applies to brides, not grooms. Note that I do not agree that men are immune to consequences of sexual sin, just that God chose to give a command in this instance that applies only to brides.

    >IBB’s position is that women must be virgins to be considered marriage material.

    Unless she wants to be executed the next day, yes, she must. Deut 22:13-21.
    Fat chance getting elders to take God’s attitudes on marriage seriously however. I’m not aware of a church that would even take the small step of forbidding a non-virgin to wear a white dress. Which would be deceitful for her to wear, given what that signifies.

    Jack
    >In other words, I would bring her right down to zero. This would be a very humiliating discussion for her, of course, but it is necessary. Unless and until she gets the reality that I am the one bringing the far greater value to the table, she will not be sufficiently grateful for this second chance.

    I think 95% of “christian” women would hate you if they heard about such a discussion. And I agree that humble acceptance of our current state is necessary before we can gratefully accept the opportunity. This is exactly the position with salvation, and the need to accept God as God/master/king of our lives. We are giving up control and independence by accepting God as Lord, but we get so much that is worth vastly more. Parable of the buried treasure found in a field fits well here I think.

    Dave
    >That would be demeaning in the extreme.
    Or it might be reflective of the evil that is so prevalent. Although I think it should be acceptable for a Christian woman to do the examining🙂
    Of course, Deut 22 did not suggest any “pre-inspection report”. The woman was simply executed if she did not pass when he inspected her after the marriage agreement. Since we cannot do this today, a pre-inspection report is the next best option. Of course, in my life, I knew 2 women that demonstrated such consistent character, that I would have trusted their word on the issue. For most others however, there would be questions.

    RichardP at 4:27: interesting thoughts. Yes, God knew that salvation and his own atoning death would be required, yet he still created us. That is love.

    Renee Harris
    >I did not ride the cc, I waiting because I was told to . But other girls who did not get love sex committed and marriage so wtf ?

    Unfortunately, this is not a new problem. The OT shows the Israelites asking God why the wicked prosper while the righteous suffer. Sometimes/often this cursed earth is not fair. Sorry, but that is the truth. I encourage you to continue in righteousness — you will be rewarded in eternity, which counts for far more. See 1 Cor 3:10-17

    Lyn, good to hear from you.

  249. Dave says:

    Because Deut 22:13-21 applies to brides, not grooms. Note that I do not agree that men are immune to consequences of sexual sin, just that God chose to give a command in this instance that applies only to brides.

    Maybe God saw that it would be superfluous to address men, in that if the women were obedient to Him, the men really had no choice but to do the same in this instance? When it came to commitment and being true to “the wife of thy youth”, God addressed men; but when it came to sexual purity, He addressed women.

    As is often said, “Women are the gatekeepers of sex; men the gatekeepers of commitment”. Maybe it is true

  250. JDG says:

    means a Dugger style courtship complete with inappropriate parental boundaries.

    I just read the eight steps of the Dugger courtship model. There was nothing inappropriate at all. It’s no wonder we are a nation of whores and whore mongers when folks think that common sense parental supervision is inappropriate. Feminism has done it’s job quite effectively.

  251. no9 says:

    @Dave
    “Do you think she is still fit for marriage later in her life?” Yes.

    “Or she is eternally damaged goods?” We are all eternally damaged goods. That is why we need the grace of God. However using your vernacular… she is now temporally used goods.

    “Would you work to help her in her subsequent marriage efforts?” Well in the example you gave you stated that she broke down in a heartbreaking repentance and has gone on the straight and narrow. If this is truly so then she will want to do what God instructs her to do as set out in the Bible. If she truly repented then she will admit that she is incapable of making the right choices regarding her mate selection and will trust that God has given me, as her dad, guardian and head of the family, the authority to choose correctly for her. Her repentance does not negate her subsequent obligation to forgo some of her previously given and misused rights. So under these conditions I would help her in her marriage efforts. If however she does not then there is nothing more that I can do other than continue with my prayers.

    Your answers to my questions were 1. Yes 2. Yes 3 Yes.
    Okay then telling one lie makes me a liar. A man who fornicated is a cad. So then why do you think that a woman who fornicated is not a slut?

  252. Lyn87 says:

    Since this keeps coming up: unless I am very mistaken, IBB’s frumpy friend is not suggesting that he would demand to literally and personally inspect the hymen of any woman he was thinking of proposing to. It’s a rhetorical statement, and the idea is that so many women have committed fornication, and so many of them lie about it, and the church is so blasé about it, that the only way to have any degree of certainty that a woman is potential wife-material these days would be an actual gynecological examination… but since nobody would buy off on that, he’s resigned himself to life of non-married celibacy. He’s not literally asking for a speculum, he’s making a point.

    I suspect that he would accept the results of such an examination if conducted by a female relative he trusted… but then again, almost no modern woman would submit to such a test even if she was a virgin. It should go without saying that churchian women and white knights would react with fury at the mere suggestion that a Christian man has the right to verify his potential Christian bride’s virginity.

    Then again, it’s not like he has many options. If a guy is a slothful glutton, he gets what slothful gluttons get. A man who chooses to make himself unattractive to women cannot expect a top-tier woman to be interested in him… and since virginity increases a woman’s mate value, he’s a low-MMV guy complaining that high-MMV women are not available to him. So he’s in the same position as a post-wall carousel rider: having spent their youth pursuing hedonistic pleasure that drastically lowered their mate value (whether sex for her or gluttony/sloth for him), they both find themselves with only poor options remaining. At that point they can take what they can get, or decide that being alone is preferable to taking what is available. But he’s not quite as bad off as the post-wall carousel rider, since she can never reclaim her Young-Hotter-Tighter (YHT) self, but he can always put down the fork, pick up a barbell, and generally become more masculine.

  253. But the church is too busy whining about the side-issue of “Gay Marriage,” to take *actual* marriage seriously enough to defend it.

    BOOM.

  254. greyghost says:

    Lyn87
    I saw the same thing in IBB comment about the fat slob friend not being able to land the virgin wife. I will give the guy one thing that he has accepted it as his place to be with out a woman.

  255. Novaseeker says:

    re: paternity tests

    The “official line” is that the number is higher when the man (typically it’s a man asking for the test, obviously) has reasonable suspicions that the wife was unfaithful. Most of the studies that I have seen indicate that in that scenario, the rate is not low — between 15-30%. The claim is then made that in the “general population” the number is lower than that, but there isn’t really much to back that up at all, because we have no general data on non-paternity, because we do not routinely conduct paternity tests. The 10% presumption is based on extrapolating from what they see in other contexts — e.g., cases where children and parents are tested for genetically inherited disorders, and it is noted that there is non-paternity — but that is also a very self-selected group and not representative of the general population, either. The reality is that no-one really knows what the non-paternity rate is in the general population, but there are plenty of people who have a strong interest in everyone believing it is very low.

  256. OKRickety says:

    Lyn87 said:

    It is indisputable that – among non-Christian women – higher-N brides present a higher divorce risk than lower-N brides, but that may not be true among women who sought forgiveness, which are the only ones even potentially suitable for a Christian groom. Why? Because it may mean that the “less unchaste(?)” one established far deeper ties to her former partners than the raging nympho did. Both are severely damaged goods (and damaged goods usually sell at a steep discount – although what that means in the marriage market is anyone’s guess), but I suspect that it’s actually easier for the woman who had lots of anonymous sex to stay on the sexual-straight-and-narrow than the woman who was “in love” with the men she took to her bed. As far as I know, nobody has studied that methodically, but it seems as least plausible to me.

    If it is “indisputable” that higher-N brides present a higher divorce risk than lower-N brides for non-Christian women, why wouldn’t this also be true for Christian women? I suspect both groups have similar distributions of relationship commitment in their sexual relationships. I also consider your hypothesis that casual sex is less damaging than “committed” sex is plausible, but am doubtful without evidence. I would like to see a study (fund with Kickstarter?), too.

    I would expect that repentance of past sexual sin would reduce divorce risk. However, I think N-count and repentance are separate factors in the likelihood of divorce.

    I wonder how the spiritual state at the time of sexual sin affects the impact of repentance. There is likely a difference between the hamstering Churchian carousel rider, and the non-Christian version. Either one could be truly repentant, but their perspective on justifying their sin will be quite different.

  257. Damn Crackers says:

    In OT times, no one gave a shit about the virginity of men or prostitutes. But you better believe that the young bride better be a virgin. This was the scandal that Mary had to put up with when Jesus was born into the world.

    There used to be only two types of women: good girls and bad girls. Guess the roles assigned to each! Now every woman wants to be a whore and chaste at the same time, and it has led to the crazy world we live in today.

  258. jack says:

    Let’s get one thing straight:

    When a woman sleeps with a random guy (ONS), she is in reality sleeping with the fantasy in her head, she is performing alpha-assisted masturbation. When a women is in this frame of mind, she is clearly unchaste.

    The real problem for Christian men is that culture, media, and so forth work diligently to imprint this “romantic” (code for lust) script into her impressionable little head from the day she watches her first disney movie.

    So even the carousel watchers (a term I invented – I’m a proud dad…) often have great unchastity in their hearts.Of course, it is probably easier to spiritually cure a woman whose unchastity has not yet migrated from her head to her loins, and then via oxytocin, back up to the brain.

    All our women are swimming in the same toxic sewage – it is affecting them all. And making them miserable as they are shown images of romantic idealism that cannot exist.

  259. Gunner Q says:

    Lyn87 @ 4:07 am:
    “… since virginity increases a woman’s mate value, he’s a low-MMV guy complaining that high-MMV women are not available to him.”

    This seems the key to me, too, but these days it’s not a man’s fault if he’s low-MMV. The economy is trash, morality is punished, the old are desperate to keep power away from the young and if the guy is white, the gov’t has marked him for soft genocide. Game and gym can make him sexy but can’t make him a wealthy leader of the business world.

    I know exactly what guys like him are thinking. Marriage is so messed up, the only way he’ll even try is with a woman with zero red flags and risk factors. But those women are so rare today that she could land Mr. Millions as easily as Worker Bee. Either he Games up and pulls disposable ass in the bars or he takes a dangerous gamble on the women available.

    He won’t choose evil and won’t play Russian Roulette, so eventually he gives up to make the most of the life he has.

  260. Dave says:

    All our women are swimming in the same toxic sewage – it is affecting them all. And making them miserable as they are shown images of romantic idealism that cannot exist.

    It only goes to show the ineptitude of the Church of Jesus Christ for, though it has been around for 2000 years, it was beaten hands down by the 50-year-old Church of Feminism because the latter evangelized more consistently, and preached its message more clearly.

  261. jack says:

    What I can’t figure out is why so many people here want to make this a moral/salvation/forgiveness issue.

    When, as Christians, we are required to treat these women as sisters in Christ. I do not attempt to judge her repentance with regard to how God sees it, I only want to measure the state of her heart with regard to me. I she cannot see how 15+ years of alpha chasing (whether on the carousel or just observing) comes at great cost to me, and how the fact that “I get her NOW” is not some sort of reward, then I can’t move farther.

    Again, this is hypothetical, because I really think there is a 2% chance I would marry a former tramp.

    I would not marry a woman who was bad with money. I won’t marry a woman who is similarly careless with her heart, and her sexuality. Nor will I allow my dignity to be degraded by letting her push me int the AFBB situation.

    My feelings on this issue would likely be the same even if I was not a Christian.

  262. If these poor single mothers are getting judged so harshly, just imagine what the gals in the Navy are likely to get:

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/08/18/navy-seals-open-women-top-admiral-says/31948789/

    And they say that recruitment is down. I can’t imagine why.

  263. jack says:

    Dave-

    Yes, I agree. The Church has no business squawking about gay marriage when they treat the marriages of their own congregation as basically disposable.

    The Church fell flat on its face, but instead of fixing its own, it wants to build walls for the unsaved. 1000 laws against gay marriage will not stop the decline of this nation one bit, as long as the church uses such issues to draw attention away from its own, far greater apostasy.

  264. Dave,

    Preached it’s message more clearly? You mean lied more convincingly, and compounded that with the power of the vagina and the weakness of men. It’s the sin of Adam all over again. I don’t call that a “church” I call that what happens to degenerate humanity. It’s not “success” it’s gravity, the natural decay of anything that isn’t submitted to Christ, that isn’t abiding in the Vine (and thereby being imbued with Life.)

  265. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”Matthew 16:16-18

    Acknowledging Him is Lord is the rock that the Church is built on (and revelation from the Father). No Evangelical Feminist can prevail upon that. They can corrupt human institutions until His return, they cannot corrupt His Body.

  266. Dave says:

    He won’t choose evil and won’t play Russian Roulette, so eventually he gives up to make the most of the life he has.

    Again, this guy is pathetic. If I had a daughter, and he were to come to me asking for my blessing to date or marry her, I would say N.O.
    In my book he needs to learn to think like a man. A real man does not allow anyone or anything to determine his destiny. Rather, he beats his own paths and writes his own stories, subduing his circumstances to do his will and fulfill his purposes.

    This man should first decide IF he would like to marry, and what type of woman he would like to have. THEN he should get to work to make it happen. As it is now, he has given up before he even starts. Real men don’t do that. If I can get 2 hours with him, I will blow his defective and defeatist theology to the wind before his very eyes.

    Personally, I believe if there is only one good woman on the planet, and I am determined to marry, I will be the man that will marry that woman.
    Right at the center of this man’s decision is a giant UNBELIEF inscribed in bold letters. True Christians don’t live in unbelief, but they walk by faith.

    If he won’t believe to get God’s best, he will most assuredly end up in despair:

    “I would have despaired unless I had believed that I would see the goodness of the LORD In the land of the living. Psalm 27:13

    If he won’t believe he will never be established in God’s purposes for his life:

    If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established. Isaiah 7:9

    Sometimes God cannot bless a person unless that man changes his geographical location. Looking for a virgin bride in certain places is more futile than looking for the Grand Canyon in Alaska. No matter how hard you try, you’ll never find it.
    1. God asked Abraham to leave his familiar surroundings before He could bless him.
    2. Abraham commanded his servant to leave town and country and go find a wife in another country.

    If this brother was serious about getting married, he would be open to seeking a wife outside his immediate vicinity. Last I checked, America made only 4% of the world’s population.

  267. Dave says:

    I would not marry a woman who was bad with money.

    Careful, bro, you never know. You might fall hard for a great woman who is not so good with money management, but is willing to learn and truly making efforts.
    In my book, the single most important quality I look for in a woman, all other things being equal, is teachability. If a woman is teachable and eager to learn from me, she can go places with me, even if she was at a relatively low place when I first met her. But if she is hardheaded and unteachable, she may be more virgin than the so-called virgin Mary, I don’t want her.

  268. You can’t seem to make up your mind between Nietzsche and Jesus, Dave. Are we talking “Will to Power” or a personal Cross we take up daily?

    “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.”</i) 1 Cor 7

    If you want to make God laugh, tell Him your plans.

  269. Daniel Gilson says:

    http://news.yahoo.com/woman-abortion-past-stung-mans-accusation-050031790.html

    Love the comments. Check out this gem from Chrissy:

    “Leave the past in the past. Show me one, “How to have a great marriage” book which does not mention some secrets you need to keep and the same for him unless he has illegitimate kids.”

    Wonder how it would be if it were the other way around?

  270. no9 says:

    @ Dave.
    “A real man does not allow anyone or anything to determine his destiny.”
    Does this apply to the God fearing man as well? Because I know God has determined mine. Unless this is a “no true Scotsman” fallacy?
    “Rather, he beats his own paths and writes his own stories, subduing his circumstances to do his will and fulfill his purposes.”
    Doesn’t a Christian man follow God’s path? Doesn’t a Christian man follow God’s story line? Does God not give us the strength to overcome our circumstances? Do Christian men not pray “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done”? Are we as Christian men not suppose to fulfil God’s purpose?

    Oh and if you would be so kind I would also like your answer to my post August 19, 2015 at 3:47 am. Thanks.

  271. Lyn87 says:

    OKR,

    We know that in the general populace divorce risk increases as a bride’s raw N-count increases. What we do not know is the effect that repentance has on that. Nobody has studied that, to my knowledge. My point is that – among women who have actually repented – a high-emotional-investment former slut who repented may be more prone to go back to her former sluttiness than a high-N former slut who repented, since for most women the emotional pull is stronger than the physical one. My note of caution comes about because too many churchians seem to think that “just a few” spins on the carousel are no cause for a groom-to-be’s concern… we here now better.
    ______________________________________________
    GunnerQ,

    I agree that the deck is stacked against men in general, but IBB’s friend has a problem largely of his own making. He is both gluttonous and slothful, both of which are 100% under his control. Every time he picks up a fork rather than picks up a barbell, he is choosing food over attraction. Every time he chooses the couch over the pavement, he is choosing sloth over attraction. His current pathetic condition is the direct result of tens of thousands of times when he chose easy instant gratification rather than hard delayed gratification. He can change that if he wants to. If he does he’ll move up in the mating market and have a chance to actually see what’s available – right now he hasn’t got much of a clue. But he’s already doing one thing right for a man who’d like to be married: he has a good job that signals provider status. Even if he doesn’t change anything that may eventually get him some attention from bottom-rung women looking for the last half of the AF-BB formula, but he’s better off without that. I won’t go as far as Dave in my criticism, though: God tells us to have faith in HIM, not in one’s destiny to marry a beautiful, submissive, feminine, virgin if he merely has sufficient faith and… will(?).

    But for a guy like him who has decided to give up rather than do the hard work of self-improvement, I can’t muster all that much sympathy, either. To use a gaming analogy: he chose – and chooses again daily – to play life on easy mode. As in gaming, life’s rewards often scale to one’s willingness to play on hard mode. To switch analogies: you don’t reach the summit unless you climb. You can buy all the best gear, but sitting at base camp eating Ho-Ho’s on your butt and whining about the pitch of the slope won’t get you to the top. Even then there are no guarantees, but to give up without trying practically ensures failure.

  272. Looking Glass says:

    @Dave:

    “It only goes to show the ineptitude of the Church of Jesus Christ for, though it has been around for 2000 years, it was beaten hands down by the 50-year-old Church of Feminism because the latter evangelized more consistently, and preached its message more clearly.”

    You have much to learn if you think the “Church of Feminism” is that young. Or that it simply isn’t the decaying husk of what was Western Christianity. There’s a reason they flip between radical Puritanism and radical Communism. They are, in fact, the melding of the two, devoid of God.

  273. Stryker7200 says:

    Anyone care to pick this apart?

    http://chadashby.com/2015/08/19/brothers-and-sisters-unwed-pregnancy-is-not-a-sin/

    To me it looks like an argument to just remove all consequences from single mothers. Anyone have a great biblical argument for shaming single mothers, and even showing that removing all consequences is akin to honoring single mothers as much as wedded mothers? I understand we are to love our neighbor, but to remove all shame is to try and deny one repentance for their sin and seems to almost condone the sin.

  274. Damn Crackers says:

    “The Puritan divines were the precursors of the Jacobins and the Bolsheviks.”
    – Mencius Moldbug

  275. Looking Glass says:

    @Stryker7200:

    At first, I thought the argument was going to be for incest, haha.

    As a quick theological point, I would go with the entire books of Ezekiel and Hosea.

    He’s mostly using a complete strawman setup.

    His actual argument is this: “How can we create this kind of celebratory, supportive, and loving culture in our churches?”

    The proper, Christian response is: Isaiah 5:20-23 [ESV]

    “20 Woe to those who call evil good
    and good evil,
    who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
    who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter!
    21 Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes,
    and shrewd in their own sight!
    22 Woe to those who are heroes at drinking wine,
    and valiant men in mixing strong drink,
    23 who acquit the guilty for a bribe,
    and deprive the innocent of his right!”

    “Woe”, especially when dealing with Isaiah, can be functionally understood that “God is coming for you, and he ain’t happy”.

  276. Luke says:

    Dave says:
    August 19, 2015 at 10:51 am

    “If this brother was serious about getting married, he would be open to seeking a wife outside his immediate vicinity. Last I checked, America made only 4% of the world’s population.”

    Yeah, but America has around 25% of the white women in the world, and probably at least a third of the white Christian ones.

  277. Dave says:

    Yeah, but America has around 25% of the white women in the world, and probably at least a third of the white Christian ones.

    Even right here in America, there are still good and chaste Christian women, if only this man would get off his lazy behind and do the work of getting a good wife.

    His case is like that of an unemployed man receiving free money from government who insists that “I won’t take any job that does not pay well, make use of my current talents, and promises loads of opportunities for professional advancements”. Yet, he won’t search for a job beyond his city; won’t get retrained for a new position, won’t accept unpaid internships, won’t do anything temporary to gain him experience. He even stipulates the hours he will be willing to work for any potential employer.

    Would any sane person think he is really serious about getting a job? I don’t think so.

    Even if he is not receiving free government money, he is actually robbing the state by not getting a job and paying his fair share of taxes to maintain the roads on which he travels everyday, and the security of life and property which he enjoys.

  278. Dave says:

    So this guy we know went in and got gender reassignment surgery. She is now repentant and wants to get married with the hopes of someday sharing a pulpit with her husband. We’re all sinners saved by grace!

    LOL. Actually, repentance includes setting things straight about the past to the best of one’s ability. He will need a gender correction. He must become a man again to be deemed truly repentant. It’s like a guy who robs a bank, claims he has now repented, but moves to Cancun to enjoy his loot. Nope. Repentance requires restitution.

  279. @Dave,

    “Repentance requires restitution.”

    So a repentant single mother puts her child up or adoption to a loving family complete with a mother and father?

  280. Or marries the father?

  281. J N says:

    There’s plenty of precedent in early church fathers for chaste men to only marry virginal women. In my church it is generally expected men only marry chaste women, unless the man is physically repulsive, 20-30 years older, a widower, etc.

    I know a single mom in a neighbouring church. She is a faithful godly woman and doesn’t expect marriage. When her daughter is grown, an older guy or widower might marry her. Who knows.

    She’s repentant and is in church for the fellowship and righteousness and worship, not for a dating service.

  282. J N says:

    @Stryker

    Blasphemes Mary as a fornicator. Mary was a virgin; your average churchian high school girl who is pregnant is not.

    Does not call out fornication as a grievous sin.

    Doesn’t talk about fathers at all.

    Doesn’t talk about adoption being the repentant response to an unwed pregnancy.

    Doesn’t talk about marriage to the father being the other appropriate response. (In a sane society a guy and girl who become pregnant are forced into marriage with no opportunity to divorce.)

  283. Dave says:

    @God is Laughing

    Those are all possible options. If a woman decides that a man is worth having sex with he must also be considered worth having as a husband. And, with the overwhelming evidence showing that single motherhood is the bane of society and the womb through which a thousand thugs and criminals and welfare queens were spawned, giving such unfortunate kids up for adoption is the least that the thoughtless fornicator can do for the hapless kid.

  284. Zero says:

    @Stryker
    I would be the first person to welcome this woman, yet in our narcissistic society, only the feelings of the offender are in question, not the life of the unborn child. Unwed pregnancy isn’t a sin, but unless a young woman deals with the consequence of the sin and emphatically turns from her life (as of a few months ago at the earliest), it’s essentially endorsing sin to preserve the pride of this pastor. It is forgiveness without contrition or repentance. It’s treating the sin as though it never happened and is trying to say that the blessings and joy of Christ can come without confronting the evil and ugliness of sin. Of course there is plenty of blame to go around, but the only person who can make a difference is the woman herself.

    Replace “single mother” with “Neo-Nazi (with a permanent swastika tattoo on his face)” or “pedophile (with a permanent conviction on his record)” and see if people agree to the same article. Sin is sin, after all!

  285. pukeko60 says:

    There’s plenty of precedent in early church fathers for chaste men to only marry virginal women. In my church it is generally expected men only marry chaste women, unless the man is physically repulsive, 20-30 years older, a widower, etc.

    I know a single mom in a neighbouring church. She is a faithful godly woman and doesn’t expect marriage. When her daughter is grown, an older guy or widower might marry her. Who knows.

    Agree. The usual pattern for the baby momma — pre the destruction of marriage and society was either (a) going to the family farm, having the child, adopting them out, and then restarting life somewhere else, or (b) knoing they would have to virtually raise that child be themselves and in later life they may be meet someone, but he WILL be older, and he WILL be looking at a period of faithful singleness to see that this woman has reformed.

    But conflating single mums with Mary… no. Let’s not forget that Joseph was righteous, and considered how he could put her aside when she was pregnant. He was trying to do it privately, for a public condemnation would lead to Mary being stoned. It took extraordinary evidence — angels telling him — for him not to act in this way.

    Joseph would damn these preachers who impugn his wife and blaspheme the mother of our LORD. So should we.

  286. Dave says:

    “A real man does not allow anyone or anything to determine his destiny.”

    Does this apply to the God fearing man as well? Because I know God has determined mine. Unless this is a “no true Scotsman” fallacy?

    Actually, only godly men can be real men, because the more godly a man becomes, the closer he will be to true manhood. God is the ultimate Alpha. No man can become a real man until he becomes godly.

    Buit I do understand your point. By “anyone and anything” as used above, I was referring to anything outside of God or His providence.

    “Rather, he beats his own paths and writes his own stories, subduing his circumstances to do his will and fulfill his purposes.”

    Doesn’t a Christian man follow God’s path? Doesn’t a Christian man follow God’s story line? Does God not give us the strength to overcome our circumstances? Do Christian men not pray “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done”? Are we as Christian men not suppose to fulfil God’s purpose?

    A true Christian has adopted God’s path as his own. He has no other interests except God’s interests. He has no purpose in his life except God’s purpose for him. He lives and breathes to bring the maximal glory to God in every area of his life. That is the whole essence of “being transformed” as stated in Romans 12.

    I believe that all men have two life missions in life:
    1. Find out what his God-given life mission is (most never do; they merely go from one unfulfilling task to another).
    2. Fulfill that mission with every part of his being (even fewer achieve this, and most only realize their errors on their deathbeds or when old age has retired them).

    Every decision a real man makes in life must reflect his life mission, or he is simply wasting his time and straying. To a real man, there is nothing like “killing time”. Time does not die; we do. Or, better still, our opportunities do.

    President Eisenhower got close to the truth, but he narrowly missed it, when he said:

    “We succeed only as we identify in life, or in war, or in anything else, a single overriding objective, and make all other considerations bend to that one objective.”

    Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, April 2, 1957

    Success is not the fulfillment of “an overriding objective”, but of fulfilling the purposes for which one was created”.

  287. Lyn87 says:

    Dave,

    I was sort-of with you for a while, but your post at August 19, 2015 at 8:38 pm reads like a textbook example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Nowhere does the Bible imply that only Christian men are “real” men, nor that one’s manliness becomes more real with spiritual growth. I would argue (and have done so here and elsewhere), that as a man increases his sophroneo (to use the word Paul used in 1 Timothy and Titus), he will become a better man, but the reality of manhood is determined at conception when the fertilized egg has a Y chromosome. Increasing sophroneo is certainly a marker of spiritual maturity for a Christian man, but a non-Christian man may have gobs of it and a Christian man may still be weak in that area. And since we have all fallen short of the glory of God, by your logic none of us can claim to be “real men.”

    OTOH, you made an excellent point a few hours earlier about repentance requiring restitution (another example of the temporal consequences of sin lasting beyond the act of repentance – as if more examples were needed). If I steal from a poor widow in the church and publicly repent, you can bet your bottom dollar that the church would expect me to do whatever I had to do to pay her back, no matter what it cost me. For some reason the idea of “making it right to the best of one’s ability no matter the personal cost” doesn’t seem as popular when it comes to the sexual sins of women.

  288. Tom C says:

    The final 984th judgment made of the single mother in the Onion article was probably not true. That was the judgment of 46 year old Terrance who assumed that each of her children were fathered by a different man and therefore she might be open to getting a drink with him. But according to Cassandra Dorius at the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, only a paltry 28 percent of U.S. white single moms with two or more kids have multiple fathers for them. If she was Hispanic that number would be higher but it would not exceed 50 percent unless she was black, which she clearly was not based on her picture.

  289. Lyn87 says:

    Stryker,

    I responded to the article you linked. My comment went to moderation because I’ve never commented there before, so it may be a while before it shows up. In the meantime, this is what I wrote:

    By that logic, if I successfully rob a bank, will you say that robbery is wrong (wink, wink), but rejoice with me that God has poured out His bounty upon me?

    I didn’t think so.

    And to use Mary – a virgin miraculously and non-sexually impregnated by the Holy Spirit to bring the Son of God into the world without the taint of Original Sin – as an example of single motherhood (as if her situation had ANYTHING in common with the churchian girls getting knocked up by their boyfriends) is a disgrace. You need to repent of your slander and twisting of scripture. Single motherhood is a blight, and celebrating it invites more of it.

  290. Since this keeps coming up: unless I am very mistaken, IBB’s frumpy friend is not suggesting that he would demand to literally and personally inspect the hymen of any woman he was thinking of proposing to. It’s a rhetorical statement, and the idea is that so many women have committed fornication, and so many of them lie about it, and the church is so blasé about it, that the only way to have any degree of certainty that a woman is potential wife-material these days would be an actual gynecological examination… but since nobody would buy off on that, he’s resigned himself to life of non-married celibacy. He’s not literally asking for a speculum, he’s making a point.

    Correct. He has drawn a line in the sand on his life. And I don’t blame him.

    …but IBB’s friend has a problem largely of his own making. He is both gluttonous and slothful, both of which are 100% under his control.

    He is not exactly bright. He’s 5′ 1″. Of that, he had no control. He has no chance in this lifetime at least…

    …but he can play a mean game of Axis and Allies.

  291. embracingreality says:

    Regarding the allegedly virginal, Christian women eligible for marriage. Are these available in sizes smaller than large and extra large? I’m already aware of the many virginal big-n-tasties at churches everywhere, yea, I’m out on that.

    A woman who has remained a virgin because no man who was sufficiently attractive ever asked her for sex still technically counts but not for much.

  292. Lyn87 says:

    Stryker,

    My comment made it through moderation fairly quickly (surprisingly quickly given what time it is). One guy had written this in the comments section:

    “NO ONE is saying to celebrate the sinful behavior but most certainly celebrate the gift of life given by our sovereign Lord!”

    I responded to him with this

    Really? From the article…

    “Throw them extravagant baby showers.”

    Maybe it’s time to think about what message THAT sort of thing sends to the other young women in the church who have not committed fornication, but will surely be tempted some day. And what about the people looking at the church from outside the faith? Does the church respond to sin with a demand for repentance, or with a PARTY to celebrate the consequences of that sin? Let that sink in for a bit: if we are to be a beacon on a hill, should that light be the pure light of the Gospel calling sinners to Christ, or a disco ball calling sinners to party-hardy with the promiscuous “church” girls?

    I’d forgotten how much I missed this sort of thing.
    ______________________________________________________

    embracingreality brings up an excellent point: virginity is important (practically a necessity), but virginity alone is far from sufficient. I can count the sermons I’ve heard on gluttony on my thumbs, although sermons about other examples of lacking self-control are numerous (male porn use being the current popular go-to example). Maybe that’s because gluttony is impossible to hide, and so many Christians are obvious gluttons. Morbidly obese virgins are not wife-material: if a woman won’t even take care of herself, how could a man entrust her to care for his children? Not to mention the fact that being fat is disgusting… and done on purpose.

  293. Looking Glass says:

    @Lyn87:

    Thanks for responding to him. I didn’t have the energy to unleash the brutally of Truth that I know would come. That twisting of scripture is pretty sickening.

  294. no9 says:

    @Dave
    “A true Christian has adopted God’s path as his own. He has no other interests except God’s interests. He has no purpose in his life except God’s purpose for him. He lives and breathes to bring the maximal glory to God in every area of his life. That is the whole essence of “being transformed” as stated in Romans 12.”

    I agree. However that is not what you wrote. You wrote

    “Rather, *he* beats *his* own paths and writes *his* own stories, subduing *his* circumstances to do *his* will and fulfill *his* purposes.”

    I do not see any form of Soli Deo Gloria?

    “Every decision a real man makes in life must reflect his life mission, or he is simply wasting his time and straying.”

    Well the Bible clearly states that many great men were called from diverse and humble origins and different times of their lives and many of them actually questioned what God wanted them to do on His time scale and on His terms because they were seen by others and themselves as being no-bodies.

    “To a real man, there is nothing like “killing time”.

    To a real man there is no idle hands.

    “Time does not die; we do. Or, better still, our opportunities do.”

    And who decides what opportunities we should take and which we should ignore? More money? Better job? Promotion? Bargain on a car deal? Tickets to a concert? ect…Because not all opportunities presented are to the glory of God or to ones benefit.

    “Success is not the fulfillment of “an overriding objective”, but of fulfilling the purposes for which one was created”.

    I find this confusing? Is success not the fulfillment of God’s purpose and isn’t His the overriding objective?

    And could you also answer my question on August 19, 2015 at 3:47 am

  295. Dave says:

    Your answers to my questions were 1. Yes 2. Yes 3 Yes.
    Okay then telling one lie makes me a liar. A man who fornicated is a cad. So then why do you think that a woman who fornicated is not a slut?

    As far as God is concerned, fornication is fornication, irrespective of its duration or frequency. However, humanly speaking, you cannot equate a tattooed, sexually loose woman with countless ONS and group sex, with a wrongly taught Catholic girl who fornicated with her fiance before the wedding. In my book, the former is a slut; the latter is not, though both are fornicators.

    “A true Christian has adopted God’s path as his own. He has no other interests except God’s interests. He has no purpose in his life except God’s purpose for him. He lives and breathes to bring the maximal glory to God in every area of his life. That is the whole essence of “being transformed” as stated in Romans 12.”

    I agree. However that is not what you wrote. You wrote

    “Rather, *he* beats *his* own paths and writes *his* own stories, subduing *his* circumstances to do *his* will and fulfill *his* purposes.”

    I do not see any contradictions here at all. Once you have embraced God’s mission for your life, it becomes *your* mission, and you pursue it as such. That is probably why Apostle Paul could write the “Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ” as “My [i.e. Paul’s] Gospel” (see Romans 2:16). Does Paul have his *own* Gospel?

    And who decides what opportunities we should take and which we should ignore? More money? Better job? Promotion? Bargain on a car deal? Tickets to a concert? ect…Because not all opportunities presented are to the glory of God or to ones benefit.

    When we walk closely with God and are committed to doing His will, we receive instant, ongoing, right-at-the-moment guidance from him and making this type of decision becomes trivial in most cases.

    “Success is not the fulfillment of “an overriding objective”, but of fulfilling the purposes for which one was created”.

    I find this confusing? Is success not the fulfillment of God’s purpose and isn’t His the overriding objective?

    An “overriding objective” is a generic term that denotes what we consider to be our most important pursuit. To some, it may be making money, to others it is women, and to yet others, it is political office. If your overriding objective is wrong, even if you achieve it, you still fail in the end, because you do not fulfil the purpose of your existence, as many “successful” businessmen and politicians find out on their deathbeds.

  296. Dave says:

    @Lyn87

    Nowhere does the Bible imply that only Christian men are “real” men, nor that one’s manliness becomes more real with spiritual growth.

    Well, I am not too sure I agree with the two statements.
    The first model of man that God made was, in today’s terms, “a Christian” (i.e. a godly man, Adam). The second was Jesus Christ Himself. While the Bible was silent on some of the attributes of Adam, it was not in the case of Christ. We learned that although Jesus was born male, He had to grow into manhood on four planes—physical, social, mental and spiritual. See Luke 2:52, and that He represented the most complete Man that will ever walk the earth. I don’t think anyone can be more manly than Jesus, and I believe that the more conformed to Him we become, the closer we are to true manhood. An unsaved person may be developed on some of the planes of manliness, but until they know God on a personal level, they can never grown into full Manliness as explicitly presented in Scripture. And, no, this is not a “true Scotsman fallacy”. Since it was God who made man, He has every right to define what a “real man” looks like, and in His two models (the first and last Adams) He made godliness an integral part of Man.

    Maleness and manliness are two completely different things. Granted that manliness requires maleness, many males may age without necessarily becoming real men.

    sophroneo, or Self-governance, is but one of the many attributes of a real man. There are several others.

  297. Yapoopoo says:

    Women are free to make the choices they make, but they cannot choose the consequences of their decisions.

  298. no9 says:

    @Dave
    “As far as God is concerned, fornication is fornication, irrespective of its duration or frequency. However, humanly speaking, you cannot equate a tattooed, sexually loose woman with countless ONS and group sex, with a wrongly taught Catholic girl who fornicated with her fiance before the wedding. In my book, the former is a slut; the latter is not, though both are fornicators.”

    Humanly speaking, how many sexual partners [maybe multiple fiancés] outside of marriage makes a loose woman? Humanly speaking, how many times having sex outside of marriage with the same man makes a loose woman? Because on the one hand you claim God’s standards as absolute and on the other you claim by your standards that I cannot equate them? “Humanly speaking” is your double speak for something which I don’t know and would like to know.

    “I do not see any contradictions here at all. Once you have embraced God’s mission for your life, it becomes *your* mission, and you pursue it as such. That is probably why Apostle Paul could write the “Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ” as “My [i.e. Paul’s] Gospel” (see Romans 2:16). Does Paul have his *own* Gospel?”

    Again that is not what you said. The words by Paul, “My Gospel”, denotes taking possession of the gift given… not credit for its application. What you wrote highlights the latter and makes no reference to the former.

    “When we walk closely with God and are committed to doing His will, we receive instant, ongoing, right-at-the-moment guidance from him and making this type of decision becomes trivial in most cases.”

    Well seems we are not reading the same Bible. Because no where does it say that God instantly gives you the ongoing, right –at-the-moment guidance. If you walk closely with God and are committed doing His will we receive faith to trust in Him that He is sovereign in all things.

    “An “overriding objective” is a generic term that denotes what we consider to be our most important pursuit.”

    Again this is confusing. You write with an amalgamation of Christian and secular viewpoints. You said “Success is not the fulfillment of “an overriding objective”, but of fulfilling the purposes for which one was created”. So what is your overriding objective? Because as far as I can tell, for a Christian man they will be one and the same.

    “And, no, this is not a “true Scotsman fallacy”. Since it was God who made man, He has every right to define what a “real man” looks like, and in His two models (the first and last Adams) He made godliness an integral part of Man.”

    You just added a caveat. Because you wrote “A real man does not allow *anyone* or *anything* to determine *his* destiny.” There is no mention of God or His standard. Or is this another “humanly speaking” thing?

  299. Stryker7200 says:

    Lyn, thanks for your comments. I got into a classic argument basically how is Christian love shown, and by showing that love, how do we not condone sin?

    There is just a massive drive right now that says we as Christians in America are not loving enough, like Christ. But when this “love” that virtually ignores the sin and fails to call the sinner to repentance, is given freely, are we not doing a disservice to the sinners soul? And how can we avoid condoning sin if we remove all shame?

    I also pointed out that the article appears to suggest a single mother should be treated with the same honor as a wedded mother. IMO this just enforces women to choose single motherhood.

    I don’t have all the answers, but I often come to a loss on how to love my neighbor as myself as argued by so many modern Christians and not condone the sins of the sinners, or at least incentivize future sin…

    IBB – I love me some axis and allies. Fortunately God gave me a 6ft frame and decent looks/game that helped me land a virgin bride. Your friends choice is not a bad one. I also have a close friend that has taken the same position as yours. I myself would argue most women, even Christian woman in the U.S. Today are NOT worth it…

  300. Lyn87 says:

    Dave,

    You moved the goalposts, and your statement was, indeed, the No True Scotsman Fallacy. What you wrote is this:

    “Actually, only godly men can be real men, because the more godly a man becomes, the closer he will be to true manhood. God is the ultimate Alpha. No man can become a real man until he becomes godly.”

    “Actually, only non-porridge-eating Scotsmen can be True Scotsmen, because the less porridge he eats, the closer he will be to being a True Scotsman… No Scotsman can become a True Scotsman until he stops eating porridge.”

    You wrote, in plain English, that ONLY Godly men can be real men. The Bible differs, because in more places than I can count, the Bible refers to men being very ungodly, and nowhere does it question the reality of their manhood. Obviously they cannot be ungodly men if they are not real men at all, as you posit. For a few very specific examples:

    The phrase “ungodly men” occurs four times in the KJV.

    The phrase “evil men” occurs seven times in the KJV.

    Since an ungodly man obviously cannot simultaneously be a godly man, you are simply incorrect as a factual matter, otherwise the phrases “ungodly men” and “evil men” would be oxymorons. As for sophroneo, when Paul advised Titus on how to guide the young men in his charge he only listed a single attribute that he was to teach them: sophroneo (Titus 2:6)… and they were men regardless. The older men had a few other items to work on as they matured, but sophroneo remained among them. Those are attributes of maturity among men (of which sophroneo is the basis), but the only required attributes to be a real man are that he be an adult male.

    You have set yourself up as the arbiter of which adult males are “real men,” and since nobody is fully godly, there has to be some dividing line that only you can see that differentiates which men are godly enough to be “real” men and which men are not men (which doesn’t even make sense: how could a man not be a man?). That is what is normally known as AMOG’ing around here. You may believe that all you like, but don’t expect anyone to agree with your personal definition, especially since it runs contrary to scripture.

  301. Gunner Q says:

    You’re starting to babble, Dave. @ 8:38 pm:
    “God is the ultimate Alpha.”

    You forget that’s a sexual ranking. God is the ultimate Beta. He’s the guy who keeps giving second chances, is inclined to be generous and really doesn’t want to display his power. The devil is the ultimate Alpha, the bad boy who scammed the Almighty Himself (by proxy) and is the original embodiment of Dark Triad.

    (Churchians, then, are running spiritual AF/BB.)

    “Doesn’t a Christian man follow God’s path? A true Christian has adopted God’s path as his own. He has no other interests except God’s interests.”

    There’s no such thing as “God’s path” unless you only mean basic morality and Great Commission. Paul didn’t share Christ’s interests; he was a tentmaker, not a carpenter.

    “Does God not give us the strength to overcome our circumstances?”

    No, He often doesn’t. God puts little value on victory… another one of His Beta traits.

    “When we walk closely with God and are committed to doing His will, we receive instant, ongoing, right-at-the-moment guidance from him and making this type of decision becomes trivial in most cases.”

    Now that’s disturbing. Are you actually hearing voices in your head? Do you refuse to make a decision without a divine prodding? That is neither healthy, mature nor respectable.

    I remember being in a Pentecostal church one time and this topic came up. Pastor asked for a show of hands, how many people has two-way conversations with God on a daily basis, and about half the congregation raised their hands.

    Those people didn’t act like psych cases. But a few months later, the first female assistant pastor was put in charge of teaching male Bible Studies. I do not think it was God they were hearing.

  302. Lyn87 says:

    Stryker,

    In answer to your question, this is my most recent (and probably final) post to that thread:
    When Big Sister gets a big party and a bunch of attention, fawning, and affirmation, do not think for one moment that Little Sister doesn’t take notice.

    This thread is a perfect example of what has become of the modern church: the only remaining sin worthy of condemnation is “The Sin of Giving Offense.” How far have we come from when Jesus repeatedly said things like, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?”

    I guess Jesus wasn’t as “loving” as modern Christians.
    This is probably one of the reasons that the Bible expressly forbids women and spiritually-immature men from holding positions of church leadership… somebody has to make the tough calls. If the center does not hold it all caves in eventually – and there’s no way that bunch of cooing women (of the male and female variety) like the ones in that thread, would do that.

  303. Lyn87 says:

    Format error. The portion of that post that was in the other thread started with “When Big Sister…” and ended with “modern Christians.” The rest was directed at Stryker.

  304. Boxer says:

    Nothing really important to add here. Just saying hey to Lyn 87. Glad to see you, sir!

  305. Like I said Dave’s philosophy is Nietzsche meets the Gospel.

  306. Red Pill overload? Reality shock?

  307. Dave says:

    OK, guys, to each their own.
    Let us just keep making the main thing the main thing—which is putting Christ at the very center of our lives, and living for His glory.
    Thus, even when our individual philosophies differ, we’ll still agree on the most important thing.
    I’m out of this thread.

    Peace to all.

  308. no9 says:

    @Gunner Q
    “You forget that’s a sexual ranking. God is the ultimate Beta. He’s the guy who keeps giving second chances, is inclined to be generous and really doesn’t want to display his power. The devil is the ultimate Alpha, the bad boy who scammed the Almighty Himself (by proxy) and is the original embodiment of Dark Triad.”

    And you forget that one does not blaspheme God. He is not, cannot and will not be measured by human standards as you so callously did. He is the Great I AM, the Alpha and the Omega and is sovereign in all things and will not be mocked. Galatians 6:7 “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

  309. Mark says:

    @Renee Harris

    “”Mark, and glzzzuzzz make comment that about MGTOW with benefits. I looked the movement up.””

    You frequent this blog….and you had to look up MGTOW? I always assumed it was common knowledge? You say that you are a virgin and would like to get married? That is a noble aspiration.What you are witnessing is a natural outgrowth of what women have tried to do to men in the last 40 years. But we haven’t seen anything yet! Let me explain it in economic terms for you.Instilling a culture of promiscuity(along with the PILL) increased the supply of sex available to men, yet the demand for sex from men never changed. When supply skyrockets and demand doesn’t move, price plummets(which happens with any commodity).This is called a supply shock.Women have set the price of sex so low that men now have no incentive to compete for female favor. Supply is so high,coupled with ant-male laws in family courts,there is no incentive for a man to commit.In fact,committing to a woman under today’s laws is financial and emotional suicide.Don’t blame the men.Men are playing the cards that they have been dealt.And they are slowly winning! Feminism never liberated women.It has liberated men! It has made women’s lives harder than any time in history and made a “cake walk” for men. Feminism not only has allowed men to have their cake…..but,sell it once….sell it twice….and eat it to! So again,don’t blame the men!

  310. thedeti says:

    Off Topic:

    Robert Stacy McCain says: Don’t be so nice. Ignore feminists, walk away from them:

    http://theothermccain.com/2015/08/19/nice-guys-failure-self-pity-and-cruelty/

  311. God is the ultimate Beta.
    He’s the guy who keeps giving second chances,
    is inclined to be generous and
    really doesn’t want to display his power.
    The devil is the ultimate Alpha, the bad boy who scammed the Almighty Himself (by proxy) and is the original embodiment of Dark Triad.

    PLEASE shut up, your Biblical ignorance is showing.

    Exodus 34:6-7
    6 Then the LORD passed by in front of him and proclaimed, “The LORD, the LORD God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth;
    7 who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin;
    yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations.”

    Exodus 6:6
    “Therefore, say to the Israelites: ‘I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the yoke of the Egyptians. I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment.’ “

    The Ten Plagues of Egypt
    http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/1653/jewish/The-Ten-Plagues.htm

    Isaiah 42:13
    The LORD will go forth like a warrior, He will arouse His zeal like a man of war. He will utter a shout, yes, He will raise a war cry. He will prevail against His enemies.

    Revelation 14:10,11
    10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
    11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.

    Revelation 20:11-15
    11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them.
    12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.
    13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done.
    14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.
    15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.

    And the devil? Being the “ultimate Alpha” who “scammed the Almighty Himself?”

    Revelation 20:10
    Then the devil, who had deceived them, was thrown into the fiery lake of burning sulfur, joining the beast and the false prophet. There they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

  312. MarcusD says:

    It’s A Divorce Lawyer Orgy: “Ashley Madison Hack Is The Best Thing To Happen Since Moses”

    Husbands and wives across the world are waking up to their partners’ extramarital affairs after, as AP calls it, a catastrophic leak at adultery website Ashley Madison spewed electronic evidence of infidelity across the Internet. Online forums were buzzing Thursday with users claiming to have found evidence that their significant others were on the site. But it’s not all doom and gloom… as Reuters notes many professions stand to benefit from the unfolding saga, from lawyers to therapists to cyber security firms. Prominent divorce lawyer Raoul Felder said the release is the best thing to happen to his profession since the seventh Commandment forbade adultery in the Bible, “I’ve never had anything like this before.”

    (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-20/its-divorce-lawyer-orgy-ashley-madison-hack-best-thing-happen-moses)

  313. Gunner Q says:

    No9 and PDT, you missed my point entirely if you think I was insulting God. Alpha does not mean “winner”. It means “super-sexy”. Beta/Omega does not mean “worthless chump”. It means “boring”. Christ’s behavior towards humanity is definitely Beta in the sense of being the unexciting, long-term, do-your-chores guy rather than the deadbeat jackass who throws the best parties or sociopathic thug who always seems to win.

    Christ is not the easy choice. He isn’t naturally appealing to our fallen instincts. Therefore, he isn’t Alpha even though he’s the Almighty Himself.

  314. Dave says:

    Christ is not the easy choice. He isn’t naturally appealing to our fallen instincts. Therefore, he isn’t Alpha even though he’s the Almighty Himself.

    If by being appealing to our fallen instincts is an attribute of an Alpha, then of course, God and Jesus must be Omega. However, if Alpha means true masculinity, then Jesus is the ultimate Alpha in every way. This was my position all along, that the only person who could define what a “real man”, or true man is is God himself, and He has amply defined it in his word, if only we’ll take His definition.

  315. greyghost says:

    MarcusD
    I heard about that leak thing. I think it’s funny. Always pull your own pussy face to face

  316. “Christ’s behavior towards humanity is definitely Beta in the sense of being the unexciting, long-term, do-your-chores guy rather than the deadbeat jackass who throws the best parties or sociopathic thug who always seems to win.”

    –Did Herod throw the best parties? Does Pilate always seem to win?

    “And when his friends had heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him. For they said: He is become mad.” (Mark 3:21). Family doesn’t stage interventions for boring beta boys.

    “And he said to them: Why are you fearful? have you not faith yet? And they feared exceedingly: and they said to one another: Who is this (thinkest thou) that both wind and sea obey him?” (Mark 4:40) Betas don’t keep their heads when other men’s courage fails, or instill a sense of fear and mystery among others. Or, uh, command the elements for that matter.

    “And presently all the people seeing Jesus, were astonished and struck with fear; and running to him, they saluted them.” (Mark 9:14) Charisma, astonishment, fear, reverence– eat your oatmeal beta stuff . . . .

  317. (saluted “HIM”, naturellement)

  318. Lyn87 says:

    Deti,

    I’ve never encountered that blog before. The comment section alone is a gold mine. I just book-marked it. Thanks.

    Boxer,

    Good to see you, too, bro. I especially missed interacting with you, TFH, Opus, greyghost, Gunner, deti, and a few select others during my latest self-imposed banishment. Gotta’ step away from maddening things every once in a while, you know… and the man-o-sphere can be a maddening place.

  319. Daniel Gilson says:

    http://news.yahoo.com/teenage-boys-reliable-advice-contraception-050052463.html

    “I do think a warning is in order because of your regrettable family situation. However, you should be aware that no law dictates that a man “has” to marry a woman (or girl) he has gotten pregnant. If a paternity test proves he is the father of the baby, he IS required to support his child until the child is no longer a minor.”

  320. no9 says:

    @ Gunner Q
    “No9 and PDT, you missed my point entirely if you think I was insulting God.”
    Hmmm….missed your point in insulting God. Well you wrote
    “The devil is the ultimate Alpha, the bad boy who *scammed the Almighty Himself* (by proxy) and is the original embodiment of Dark Triad.”
    So how exactly is saying that the devil can scam the Almighty Himself not insulting God?

  321. Dave says:

    Betas don’t keep their heads when other men’s courage fails, or instill a sense of fear and mystery among others.

    …..or stun professors of religion in his day, and that is without attending religious schools…
    ….or gather a bunch of peasants, some of whom are older than his mother, and train them, and within a short time, make them into audacious world-changers…
    ……or unilaterally fight merchants in the temple, overthrowing their tables and throwing their coins all over the place, and the temple security dared not go near him..
    ……or send a nasty message back to the king when told that the powerful king of his country was looking for him to kill him. “Go and tell that animal that I’ll be here for another two days…”
    …..or walk several miles in a single day, only to give a 72-hour speech to more than 1000 people without an audiovisual aid, and afterwards, counted it as a normal day..
    …..or captivate his audience for 3 days and 3 nights so much that they forgot that they had not eaten…

    Again, Jesus Christ was the ultimate Man in every sense of the term. The real blasphemy is to portray him as a fragile man with flowing hair and a halo around his head. Abominable.

    The man was more rugged than most have ever imagined. His muscles were all toned and his voice easily filled a big hall or a beachside field. That is what raw carpentry profession will do to you after 30 years. How many of us here could go without food for 3 days and 3 nights? Yet, Jesus, at the age of 30, went without food for 40 long days and nights without breaking a sweat. And that was while not sleeping on his bed.
    If you’re looking for the perfect image of true masculinity, I urge you to study the life of Jesus once again.

  322. garrett4 says:

    Yes it’s amazing that if you can read the gospels without the modern re-imagining shaping your perception–then the character/presence of Christ resembles a Clint Eastwood-like gunslinger or a Michael Corleone far more than some hippie with a goofy smile. Damn all those cheesy movies they show around Christmas.

  323. thedeti says:

    Well, good to see you back, Lyn87.

  324. Boxer says:

    Yes it’s amazing that if you can read the gospels without the modern re-imagining shaping your perception–then the character/presence of Christ resembles a Clint Eastwood-like gunslinger or a Michael Corleone far more than some hippie with a goofy smile. Damn all those cheesy movies they show around Christmas.

    I dunno. When I read the New Testament, I see him as the perfect embodiment of both of those archetypes. Jesus could waste you if you insist, but he’d really rather you just behaved yourself; and, in the end, he’s inclined to let you make your own mistakes and suffer the consequences.

  325. Boxer says:

    I heard about that leak thing. I think it’s funny. Always pull your own pussy face to face

    Me too, and me too. I don’t feel sorry for them at all. Did these dopes really think they could fuck random strangers and their spouses wouldn’t eventually find out?

    The liquidation of all the family’s assets and the redistribution of such to the family law parasites are the natural consequences of this sort of nonsense. I hope they enjoy it.

  326. no9 says:

    @ Dave
    Makes one question the standard used in the selection process of a top tier military unit. Because if a girl can do it then …. well let us just leave it at that.

  327. Lyn87 says:

    Dave says:
    August 21, 2015 at 10:21 am

    Behold America’s first female rangers!

    I think I can say this much without giving away too much personal info, since it was so long ago and before the interwebz. A very long time ago a much younger Lyn87 was going through paratrooper training at Fort Benning, GA. Women had completed the course before, but the Company Commander was bound and determined that this class would be the first to graduate every female. I imagine that the upper level brass of the Training Battalion was on board, because the “black hats” didn’t work for the Company Commanders, but they did answer to the Battalion Commander unless I’m mistaken.

    I saw a lot of good men fall by the wayside for various reasons (mostly having to do with their proficiency at doing Parachute Landing Falls (PLF’s)), but the day I pinned on my wings every single female that we started with was there getting her wings as well. As for the girls meeting the standards… well… let’s just say that they knew the girls would never jump in combat, so getting them through was the “main effort,” otherwise I sincerely doubt that any of them would have made it. One of the girls was in my stick, and I watched her hit the ground like a sack of cement more times than I can count, but they passed her anyway.

    So two chicks made it through Ranger training… I would almost bet my next mortgage payment that they washed out men who did as well or better than either of them. All these “First Woman Ever!” things are getting crazy. I now treat them like I would a woman’s accusation of domestic abuse: a strong presumption of disbelief unless proved otherwise.

  328. Send them right into combat.

  329. vascularity777 says:

    Yes, send them into combat. Equal work for equal pay.

    Would it be a good idea to separate the differing demographic self-identifications? There could be female brigades, transgender brigades, gay brigades, heterosexual male brigades.

  330. Mark Citadel says:

    Single motherhood can be down to a variety of factors, but the most prevalent today seems to be the overarching lack of incentives for male investment.

  331. Dave says:

    Yes, you’re guilty of rape and that is a heinous crime. But, don’t worry, you’re a woman, so I’m going to send you to jail four long days every month……or a total of 104 days, over the next 2 years. Get out of here!

  332. Dave says:

    I suspect that the picture besides “faith” in Dave’s dictionary is a blue pill.

    LOL. Actually, the picture is a shield. But I found the picture of a blue pill….beside the Viagra entry.:)

  333. feeriker says:

    There could be female brigades, transgender brigades, gay brigades, heterosexual male brigades.

    And single mother brigades. For the paratroopers, that means either miniature ‘chutes for the kids, or extra harnesses to strap the kids onto mom when she drops into enemy territory.

  334. @Renee: You have to do more than sit around like a wallflower waiting for God to make a husband magically appear! Get out there! Get active in your church. Tell all the Godly women and men that you want a husband, and don’t be afraid to tell them you are a virgin. Tell the pastor and the elders. Attend some of the churchian singles activities. The Holy Spirit is no more obligated to help you lose weight than it is to make a Husband appear out of the ether. If you posted your story on Craigslist you would have 100 men lining up to wife you up in about a week.

    Stop trying to make it seem that women have it so bad. They don’t. You don’t have to give up the goods or be bitter- but you do have to look reasonably well kept and get out of your comfort zone.

  335. Minesweeper says:

    @dave,so a 15 yo male gets a bj from a thin blonde gorgeous 47yo AND she has to pay them him $10k.

    For a 15yo guy, that prob the best offer ive ever seen. Its setting the bar pretty high though for his future conquests.

    It could almost be classed as prostitution. Just shows you how insane the whole sex thing has become. He is prob 6″ 2 and built like a quarterback and being high five’d by the entire school.

  336. anonymous_ng says:
  337. “@dave,so a 15 yo male gets a bj from a thin blonde gorgeous 47yo AND she has to pay them him $10k.”

    I let her have a go at me for $9,975.00. A $25.00 discount for a superior quality cut-o-beef.

  338. MarcusD says:

    How do you see people who don’t leave cheating spouses?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=975134

  339. Dave says:

    How do you see people who don’t leave cheating spouses?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=975134

    Some of the responses actually made sense. Adultery should not be equal to automatic divorce, and those who chose to forgive the adulterer (the term “cheater” downplays the seriousness of the act) should not be seen as fools. Every case is different. It amazes me how marriage, fatherhood and age tend to soften people. In my younger days, I was as strict as a rat’s butt hole. These days, I tend to veer towards “mercy rather than sacrifice”.

  340. Dave says:

    @Renee: You have to do more than sit around like a wallflower waiting for God to make a husband magically appear!

    I am beginning to think that Renee may not be that keen about getting married, or finding a meaningful romantic relationship, though she claims otherwise. She is probably the female version of the hymen-inspecting bro who eats too much and has not yet learned how to dress well. Both expect a spouse to appear from thin air, maybe if they complain enough? I wonder how many of their other achievements appeared in a similar fashion?

    I have offered twice to introduce Renee to some of my single friends who are looking; she never followed up. But she is very good about flaunting her virginity, and complaining bitterly how she might die as a virgin. God has made legitimate provision for those who desire marriage to enter into it; we just have to do some work “to enter into this rest”.
    And, coming to think of it, dying as a virgin is not such a bad thing. Many people in Scripture, whose names we know, died as virgins, including Jesus Christ, Paul the Apostle, John the Beloved, and the four daughters of Philip the evangelist, as well as a host of others.
    So, whether single or married, Renee remains in good company.

  341. no9 says:

    @ Dave
    “OK, guys, to each their own.
    Let us just keep making the main thing the main thing—which is putting Christ at the very center of our lives, and living for His glory.
    Thus, even when our individual philosophies differ, we’ll still agree on the most important thing.
    I’m out of this thread.
    Peace to all.”

    Well for someone who said they are out of this tread you sure are making a lot of posts. You have clearly changed your mind. So lets continue our discussion with the questions I posted to you on August 20, 2015 at 8:18 am.

  342. Striver says:

    There is a practical side to reconciliation after adultery. The alternative, of course, is divorce. But what then?

    Divorce means going it alone, or meaningless sex, or a new partner who could leave you just as the old one did. Past a certain age, a new partner will have his or her own children and you may be too old to have more with them. So that tie, that incentive to make things work, is gone.

    Going through my divorce groups, I was never surprised when someone attempted reconciliation. For a lot of people, it’s the best choice out of a bunch of bad options.

  343. Minesweeper says:

    “Many people in Scripture, whose names we know, died as virgins,…, Paul the Apostle, John the Beloved, and the four daughters of Philip the evangelist, as well as a host of others.”

    references ??? because this is plain nonsense.

  344. Minesweeper says:

    @Striver
    “Divorce means going it alone, or meaningless sex, or a new partner who could leave you just as the old one did. Past a certain age, a new partner will have his or her own children and you may be too old to have more with them. So that tie, that incentive to make things work, is gone.”

    Very good summary, even before all the legal ramifications. You could add that the attractiveness levels of both parties will significantly declined also, so you miss seeing them when they were younger and more attractive which helps even when older.

    I would say only get married now for finance or children, as nothing else is covered under the law. And in a divorce the man will lose both.

    Also, if looking to get remarried in your 40’s/50’s+ if you have been screwed over by your past partner – cheating,money, abuse etc. This will significantly ruin your ability to trust that won’t happen again.

  345. Lyn87 says:

    Minesweeper,

    As far as I can tell, there is no indication that the people that Dave mentioned died as virgins. The four daughters of Phillip were virgins at the time they were mentioned in Acts Chapter 21, but there’s no indication that they never married, although it is possible that they did not. We don’t know the marital status of John “the Beloved,” or indeed any of the individual apostles other than Peter, who we know was married because Matthew Chapter 8 mentions his mother-in-law. Although we don’t know which of the apostles were married, we do know that several, (perhaps even all of them) were, since 1 Corinthians 9:5 says so. It specifically mentions that Peter traveled with his wife, as did the half-brothers of Jesus (sons of Mary and Joseph), and other apostles (plural) who are not named individually. it is possible that Paul was widowed, but we can’t say for sure. The Sanhedrin was supposedly comprised solely of married men, but we don’t know if Paul was admitted to that body prior to his Damascus Road conversion. He certainly was celibate by the time he penned 1 Corinthians, because he says so in Chapter 7, so he became celibate if he wasn’t that way all along.

    Other than Jesus Himself, the only adult from the Bible that we know died as a virgin was the daughter of Jephthah in the book of Judges (and she probably wasn’t an adult, either). I suppose that there may be others, but I can’t think of any.

  346. Oscar says:

    @ Lyn87 says:
    August 21, 2015 at 1:58 pm

    “I would almost bet my next mortgage payment that they washed out men who did as well or better than either of them”

    Still, no woman has graduated the Marine Infantry Officer Course. Does that mean the MIOC is tougher than Ranger School? I doubt it.

  347. Minesweeper says:

    Beautiful example of how women view themselves and their kids. For the lolzzzzz.

    http://diply.com/menshumor/mom-selfies-fail-bad-parenting/172419

  348. Gunner Q says:

    Lyn87 @ 9:44 am:
    ” I suppose that there may be others, but I can’t think of any.”

    Jeremiah was forbidden to marry. It’s possible Daniel & friends were made eunuchs but was never specifically stated.

  349. no9 says:

    @ Gunner Q
    So how exactly is saying that the devil can scam the Almighty Himself not insulting God?

  350. Gunner Q says:

    no9 @ 11:12 am:
    “So how exactly is saying that the devil can scam the Almighty Himself not insulting God?”

    Because God saw it coming and allowed it. Also note I said it was by proxy, not direct.

    If my earlier analogy doesn’t help then just ignore it.

  351. Lyn87 says:

    Gunner,

    Thanks… I forgot about Jeremiah. That’s three (or two depending on whether one counts Jephthah’s daughter), and one of them was the Son of God. I was just responding to Minesweeper’s challenge to Dave’s assertion that many Bible characters lived as life-long celibates. It appears that almost none of them did, or if they did we don’t know it (and thus it wasn’t important).

    Given what Paul himself wrote about that in 1 Timothy 4: 1-3, it seems unlikely that celibacy was common among the early saints, and was possibly unknown among early clergy. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” And of course Paul also specified to both Timothy and Titus that clergymen should be not only married, but married fathers. Pretty hard to do that and die a virgin.

  352. embracingreality says:

    Minesweeper says:

    “if looking to get remarried in your 40’s/50’s+ if you have been screwed over by your past partner – cheating,money, abuse etc. This will significantly ruin your ability to trust that won’t happen again.”

    True enough but don’t count out single, never married men who’s ability to trust has been ruined by the plain reality of the circumstances right in front of them, even though it’s never actually happened to us.

    I’m 45, single never married, eligible, well off financially. I’ve worked like an animal to get where I am. I’m going to risk half of everything I’ve worked for by marrying? Risk all I’ve worked for and even more by marrying and having kids? I don’t have to be destroyed in a divorce to know the risks are incredible and the discriminatory bias in the family courts is grotesquely unjust. All family courts are the same but NAWALT? Sure but what do average men who avoid divorce and remain married end up with? How may married men grow old with demanding, selfish, manipulative wives? Because I see them everywhere. What of the epidemic of sexless marriages? Obese, morbidly obese wives? Marriage? Whats in it for me? How the hell do I win other than staying single?

    Most of the Christian women available for marriage fall into two categories. 1. Overweight. 2. Divorcees or never marrieds with extensive sexual history, any of the previous with other men’s kids in tow. Horrible attitudes and a sense of entitlement. Considerable debt combined with a staggering wish list I’ll be expected to pay for.

    The modern man who marries will take on vastly greater risks than his wife and will marry a generally lower quality bride. This is a shitty bargain.

    Am I missing something?

  353. Minesweeper says:

    @embracingreality, when did you realise the deck was stacked against you to put you off ?

    Did you cotton on 20 years ago when none of us did or were you just lucky it didnt work out before you realised what the score was ?

    You’d think the used up and divorced first wives would realise their lower value and adjust accordingly – (snorts with laughter).

  354. Minesweeper says:

    “How may married men grow old with demanding, selfish, manipulative wives? … What of the epidemic of sexless marriages? Obese, morbidly obese wives?”

    is there a category for all 3 in 1 ??🙂

  355. Minesweeper says:

    @embracingreality, as I said above, only finance and children matter in todays marriage. That is all.

    All you can do is marry for that, nothing else matters according to the law. Either to join to large financial valuations together or to have kids that you can state your name on the birth cert.

    Obeying, being nice, sex, looking good, not being an absolute **** (insert as appropriate), nothing will be enforced that is in the marriage “promise” so really its all just a big pile of b8llocks.

  356. Dave says:

    “As far as I can tell, there is no indication that the people that Dave mentioned died as virgins. ”

    No indication that they did not.

    “The four daughters of Phillip were virgins at the time they were mentioned in Acts Chapter 21, but there’s no indication that they never married, although it is possible that they did not.”

    Again, no indication that they ever married.

    “We don’t know the marital status of John “the Beloved,” ”

    Of course we do. The kid was only 17 or 18 when he was called by Christ and there was no record that he ever got married. The early Chritians thought that Christ was coming back in their time so they discouraged marriage, which was considred a time waster

    “Although we don’t know which of the apostles were married, we do know that several, (perhaps even all of them) were, since 1 Corinthians 9:5 says so.

    Here is the text of the passage:
    Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?

    “Other Apostles” should not be equated with “All Apostles”. Many of them did not ever marry.

    It specifically mentions that Peter traveled with his wife, as did the half-brothers of Jesus (sons of Mary and Joseph), and other apostles (plural) who are not named individually.

    “it is possible that Paul was widowed, but we can’t say for sure.”

    Of course we can. He never ever mentioned a wife, his widowhood or children. He never mentioned in-laws of former in-laws. The easiest conclusion is that he never married.

    “The Sanhedrin was supposedly comprised solely of married men, but we don’t know if Paul was admitted to that body prior to his Damascus Road conversion.”

    No proof that he was a member of the Sanhedrin. He was a Pharisee quite alright, and maybe too young to be a member of the Sanhedrin. Sanhedrin had no requirement to be married anyhow.

    “Other than Jesus Himself, the only adult from the Bible that we know died as a virgin was the daughter of Jephthah in the book of Judges (and she probably wasn’t an adult, either). I suppose that there may be others, but I can’t think of”

    Did Elijah ever married?
    Jeremiah?
    Jesus said there were those who were eunuchs for the Kingdom of God:

    For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others–and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
    Matthew 19:12

  357. Minesweeper says:

    @Dave
    You can make up as much sh*t as you like, just say its about the book of mormon or something.

  358. Minesweeper says:

    @Dave, Jesus never said he didn’t eat a hamburger either. But I wouldn’t go around saying Jesus ate a hamburger, show me where it says he didnt.

  359. embracingreality says:

    Dave quoted from Matthew 19

    “For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others–and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

    This passage leaves out a point many modern men are learning, many a married man is now made a eunuch by his sexless or obese wife.

  360. Minesweeper says:

    @embracingreality, no that happens in the divorce

  361. embracingreality says:

    Minesweeper asks

    “@embracingreality, when did you realise the deck was stacked against you to put you off ? Did you cotton on 20 years ago when none of us did or were you just lucky it didnt work out before you realised what the score was?”

    I will be the first to admit being distinctly naive as a young Christian man looking for ‘love’ in my early 20’s. Yes I dodged a lot of bullets even while trying to take one right through the heart. Like a bullet named Rhonda, several named Jennifer, an Andrea, Laura etc. I was so stupid I actually thought I could easily meet a virgin at church! I rarely met Christian women who were virgins, even when I was dating girls who were 17. What spared me a horrible marriage and destruction in divorce court? I honestly didn’t want to get trapped in sexual sin, I was looking to marry a “good girl”… Okay, you can stop laughing now. The bible warns young men to avoid the immoral woman, not to even go by her house. It never occurred to me I was dating them until it I was in their traps.

    I remember in the mid 90’s taking one hell of a bitter pill, I now realize it was a red pill of my own concocting. I didn’t talk about it much to other people because back then it was unheard of. I watched many, many Christian men around me discover their wives cheating or get dragged through divorce court frivolously. I woke up to see the relationships with women I dated and the marriages of most men I knew as utter crap. Why bother I thought. I’ve dated off and on since but am largely unimpressed with what’s available for marriage. I’ve poured myself into my work and can now retire anytime but don’t know what else I would do.

    “@embracingreality, as I said above, only finance and children matter in todays marriage. That is all.”

    Biblically, Christian men would be expected to marry for sex, not that they could count on any. If I wasn’t a believer relationships with women would be easy for me, Easy. I would take up with significantly younger women for casual monogamous relationships that might last 6 months, a year or two or until they became more trouble than they were worth. Thats all. Inconveniently thats off the table and a crappy marriage is far less appealing than just being alone.

  362. Lyn87 says:

    Dave,

    [Short Answer] The burden of proof is on the person making the assertion.

    [Longer Answer] You made specific claims that specific people named in the Bible died as virgins, but have offered no evidence in support. Generally speaking, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but to the extent that it may be indicative, it actually undermines your point. We know that Jeremiah died a virgin because he was commanded by God Himself to refrain from marriage and fatherhood. That was significant enough to merit mention in the Bible, which implies that 1) he probably would have otherwise gotten married like most Jewish men at the time (otherwise why tell him not to?), and 2) such a command would have been exceedingly rare (perhaps even unique – God gave several highly unusual and unique commands to His prophets to illustrate certain principles). Likewise we know that Mary was a virgin until after the birth of Jesus (Matthew 1:25) because the Bible mentions it since it is both important.and unusual (unique, actually).

    You advice to Renee wasn’t bad – remaining unmarried and pure isn’t the worse thing that can happen to a believer – but your examples are faulty, and unless you can provide evidence that the rest of us are missing something, you should withdraw them.

  363. Lyn87 says:

    Minesweeper says:
    August 23, 2015 at 7:31 pm

    @Dave
    You can make up as much sh*t as you like, just say its about the book of mormon or something.

    I recall once when I was asked to attend and offer input for a final exam (in the form of a debate) in a college critical thinking course. Half the class debated the other half for about an hour while I and their professor observed and took notes. At the conclusion I addressed each student individually in the order in which they presented. It was abysmal – like Dave, they did not demonstrate an understanding of how evidence or burden-of-proof works, nor the differences between “There is proof that this is true,” “The evidence suggests that this is likely to be true,” and “This cannot be ruled out and thus may be true.” Dave named several people whose celibacy cannot be conclusively ruled out and then insisted that that is proof that they were celibate.

    In his “rebuttal” to me, Dave responded as if I claimed that all the apostles were married (while quoting me saying that we don’t know how many were married!), but he asserted that “many” were not… a completely unsupported assertion. We DO KNOW that some were married because Paul says so in 1 Corinthians 9:5, and we also know that there were only 12 of them (and only 14 even if we count Judas and Matthias). After subtracting several known married men from the 12 apostles, is it even possible to have “many” that were not? It’s odd… watching Dave attack my position that basically consists of, “We don’t have enough evidence to say that so-and-so was or was not married,” with his counter-assertion that, “You can’t show me where it says that so-and-so was married, so we know that they were not.” Well, duh! If the marital status of those individuals was specified I wouldn’t be saying that we don’t know … but it doesn’t say: that’s the whole point!

    I may be a dinosaur, but I remember having classes on critical thinking. When did schools stop teaching that?

  364. Off topic…

    Does anyone remember, Dalrock or some other post commented that the media might soon try to promote fatherhood?

    And anyone else remember that Mark Driscoll “man up” video series, that showed a henpecked man with a fat wife threatening to leave?

    I thought about that today… saw Avengers:Age of Ultron. In the most random moment yet, Hawkeye/Clint suddenly takes the jet after a bad fight and decides to fly… to his family out in the woods. It’s literally some household from a 50’s show. A nice house in the country, a sweet pregnant wife who respects and loves him, and two kids who adore him. Black Widow/Natasha even shows her envy and wishes she could have a family life.

    That, and even the ridiculous Furious 7… Paul Walker’s character is married, a father, respected and shown as strong and admirable… and in the end, he chooses that life over cars/heists/etc.

    That’s just two billion dollar movies this year off the top of my head that promote fatherhood and marriage. Think Hollywood is starting to worry that men are failing to follow the script and be idiots who “man up” as they’re supposed to?

  365. Dave says:

    I may be a dinosaur, but I remember having classes on critical thinking. When did schools stop teaching that?

    I believe I can learn something in critical thinking actually. I went through medical education in the 80s, and business/IT education in the 90s and I can’t remember any classes offered along the line of critical thinking.
    I recently got materials on the subject though. The 5 Elements of Effective Thinking (Burger, Edward B., Starbird, Michael) and Analytical Thinking (Lorrison, Gary). That’s a start.
    Thanks for the tip!

  366. no9 says:

    @ Gunner Q
    Scam def: a fraudulent or deceptive act or operation.
    Deception def: an act or statement intended to make people believe something that is not true.

    “Because God saw it coming and allowed it.” So how can God be scammed if the very nature of it requires that He did not know?

    “Also note I said it was by proxy, not direct.” Qui facit per alium, facit per se. “he who acts through another is deemed in law to do it himself.” So how does a proxy in any way, shape or form change anything? [I smell a red herring]

    “If my earlier analogy doesn’t help then just ignore it.” Why should I ignore your blasphemous claim against God?

  367. Lyn87 says:

    Dave,

    I was subjected to a great deal of training in critical thinking / formal logic during my public school education (back in the days before social promotions and female/feminist/leftist-dominated elementary and secondary education), and more recently in my military career and my Master’s degree program. Some of that was in formal classroom curricula, and frequently supplemented in less formal ways (such as watching someone get chewed out for stating an unsupported conclusion in a military briefing, or a classroom discussion of historicity). Critical thinking is also implied in all the hard sciences, although in my experience hard scientists are hardly more likely to be logical thinkers in general than anyone else outside of their area of expertise (and often within it as well).

    I imagine that lawyers get the most formal training on it in their classes on evidence, but I’ve never been a lawyer so I’m only speculating. Perhaps our resident barrister Opus could chime in on that. One thing, though… it has served me well over the years. If you master nothing else, the thing I mentioned earlier: the differences between:“There is proof that this is true,” “The evidence suggests that this is likely to be true,” and “This cannot be ruled out and thus may be true” may be the most important of all. Most people consider their beliefs to be obviously true rather than likely or possible… good thinkers realize that that’s often not justified. Truth-be-told, most of our beliefs work pretty well most of the time, but it’s vital to objectively consider the weight of the evidence when presented with contrary possibilities. The Bible declares that in the end times a powerful deception will sweep the world, sorely trying the faith of even the devout. I think it likely that the widespread lack of ability to think critically will play a part in that. Once a person’s paradigm is shattered they often latch onto the next idea they encounter. We see this in feminism – once women rejected the patriarchal paradigm (one of the best things that ever happened to women), many of them latched onto feminism, which has been an unmitigated disaster for them and everyone else – although they still hold onto it, despite many of them rejecting the label. We also see this in people who turn from the faith because of a bad experience and end up in a some absurd cult or equally-absurd atheism. When I taught Apologetics in my church’s adult Sunday school class a few years ago I began with an entire month of Aristotelian logic and formal proofs before we even began to look at any evidence at all. I did that because I wanted the class to be able to grasp the significance of the evidence in favor of Christianity, and to internalize why they believed what they believed, not just that they believed it.

  368. no9 says:

    @ Dave.
    You do understand that if we do not continue with the discussion then by default you will acknowledge that your statements were in error. You said you were done on the thread that is why I let it go. However it seems that it was only a ploy to get out of the discussion. So do you wish to continue?

  369. Dale says:

    @embracingreality

    >I’m 45, single never married, eligible, well off financially. I’ve worked like an animal to get where I am. I’m going to risk half of everything I’ve worked for by marrying? Risk all I’ve worked for and even more by marrying and having kids? I don’t have to be destroyed in a divorce to know the risks are incredible and the discriminatory bias in the family courts is grotesquely unjust. All family courts are the same but NAWALT? Sure but what do average men who avoid divorce and remain married end up with? How may married men grow old with demanding, selfish, manipulative wives? Because I see them everywhere. What of the epidemic of sexless marriages? Obese, morbidly obese wives? Marriage? Whats in it for me? How the hell do I win other than staying single?

    Gee, we must live in the same culture. My story is very similar, although I cannot retire already as you could. That due to foolish choices on my part however.
    If I had less respect for myself or the Bible, then I might be willing to marry the women typically available. Why is it so difficult for women to understand that, as I, she needs to consider the interests of others, not just herself? (Phil 2:3-8)

    Although you may view me as still naive. I still desire to marry. But not with blind eyes. Go on a foreign vacation! You’ll never look at masculine, obese women again.

  370. Opus says:

    I have to answer Lyn87. Perhaps it is different in the United States or elsewhere in Great Britain, but for myself I never received any formal training in ‘critical thinking’ or in Logic: too much Law to learn in too short a time to have the luxury of indulging in such fanciful notions. I would say that the practice of Law in itself forces one to think clearly; something I most certainly did not do before my immersion therein. I have read a lot of Aristotle including The Posterior and The Prior Analytics.

    My flat-mate is a chap called Ockham and he leaves his razors lieing around: these I find very useful. I like (and recommend) a book by American Philosopher Michael Philips entitled The Undercover Philosopher; the cover shows a ‘Bogart-like’ male in a trench-coat and hat turned-down over one eye: he’s on the case – your case.

  371. no9 says:

    @ Opus
    “I would say that the practice of Law in itself forces one to think clearly”

    Maxims of law state “Legality is not reality” and that “Law is the dictate of reason”. So here is a question they never ask you in “Law school”. What is the difference between law and legislation?
    [They don’t teach you maxims like “He who questions well, learns well” and “He who distinguishes well, learns well”.]

  372. Dave says:

    @Lyn87,

    If you were to recommend 2 or 3 materials on the subject, which would they be?
    I have never taken any formal course in philosophy or critical thinking. As a teenager, I used to read a lot of Charles Finney’s publications, primarily because of his crisp, analytical presentation of the gospel. That was the closest I ever got to what you’ll call “critical thinking”.
    For those who don’t know, Finney was a 19th Century preacher who exerted great influence on the revival movements of his time. He later became the president of a bible school. He was a lawyer by training.

  373. Opus says:

    @no9 The only Maxims that I know and know of are The Maxims of Equity. I would have thought that the distinction between legislation and Law was obvious enough.

  374. Lyn87 says:

    Opus,

    I didn’t mean to imply that Law Schools teach courses called “Aristotelian Logic.” I just figured that classes on evidence would force an immersion into “practical logic,” for lack of a better term. In my former line of work (military officer), failure to use sound reasoning could result in very real people getting very dead, and I had little use for people who couldn’t reason well. In fact, I would argue that – after sound ethics – an ordered mind is the most important trait for an officer to possess. Likewise, I would not want a defense lawyer who didn’t know the difference between “This is true” and “I think this is true.” I expect that sort of nonsense from prosecutors (who generally seem to lack both sound ethics and orderly minds), but if I were on trial I would want my guy to know better.

    Dave,

    I’ll have to give that some thought and get back to you. It’s bed-time in my time zone and I’m exhausted.

  375. no9 says:

    @ Opus
    “@no9 The only Maxims that I know and know of are The Maxims of Equity.”
    Well here are the others; http://ecclesia.org/truth/maxims.html [That is if you want to study them as well]

    “I would have thought that the distinction between legislation and Law was obvious enough.”
    Well how do they differ?

  376. Anonymous Reader says:

    Shucks, Opus, I figured you of all people would be familiar with this Maxim

  377. Dave says:

    @ Dave.
    You do understand that if we do not continue with the discussion then by default you will acknowledge that your statements were in error. You said you were done on the thread that is why I let it go. However it seems that it was only a ploy to get out of the discussion. So do you wish to continue?

    What question didn’t I answer? I hope you know that there are so many entries here everyday and it is not often possible to read everything. Kindly remind me of the question you’d like me to answer that I did not.

  378. Lyn87 says:

    Lloyd G,

    Of course the Boston “study” was done by a bunch of ignorant eggheads who ignored all the real causes in order to come to a politically-correct solution without sacrificing any of liberalism’s sacred cows. They complain about guns, but Massachusetts outlaws guns in general, so if they have a gun problem, it is because only the bad guys (whether garden-variety criminals or the ones in blue uniforms) have them. It is no longer in serious dispute that restricting the Right to Keep and Bear Arms of average citizens leads to more crime in general and more violent crime in particular. They also ignored the fact that Massachusetts is a welfare state that taxes productive men to pay for the legions of bastard children spawned by non-productive women. If you subsidize something you get more of it, and if you tax something you get less of it, yet Massachusetts heavily taxes productivity and uses the proceeds to heavily subsidize bastardy. The causal link between widespread fatherlessness and all the social pathologies with which they are concerned is well established. They also ignore that Massachusetts cops and courts side with wives against their husbands, which dis-empowers fathers: a major cause of family strife and breakdown. Massachusetts is not alone in that, but they’re among the worst offenders. They also have a highly militarized police force – utterly without justification. When you assume power you assume responsibility, and since the state government has that much power, they OWN the results of anything that happens within their borders.

    The state of Massachusetts (especially the city of Boston) has problems, sure, but they are largely of their own making, I could fix 90% of their problems in a day, but they would rather keep their failed liberal, statist ideology rather than have a free, orderly society. In fact, while this “study” acknowledges the problems, it doesn’t even consider the actual causes.

  379. embracingreality says:

    Dale said:
    “Why is it so difficult for women to understand that, as I, she needs to consider the interests of others, not just herself?”

    Yes, we live in the same culture and the reason women are so self centered is that the culture teaches them to be, so does the church. The mind programing starts with the disney princess phenomenon and continues until they’re 40 year old “Twilight mom’s”. It’s a culture of chivalry on crack. The case can be made that women come by self-centeredness more naturally than men but what we see now is fed by media, weak leaders and women’s own (natural) narcissism. The scriptures clearly teach specific roles for men, women, husbands and wives. The church, lead by white knights and manginas teaches cultural chivalry, bowing down to the Almighty morally superior feminine. I’m just about as disillusioned with the church as I am with their wymens.

    “Although you may view me as still naive. I still desire to marry. But not with blind eyes. Go on a foreign vacation! You’ll never look at masculine, obese women again.”

    I don’t view your desire as naive, I have it as well in as much as I have the desire for a relationship with a woman at least until it turns sour. I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t desire to remain married to a wife who turned selfish, manipulative, controlling, sexless, obese shrew.. Problem is the women available and the grotesque bias in the courts that would force you to marry under a severe legal disadvantage.

    I see it this way, modern women, even Christian women, are in general treacherous betrayers therefore my desire for them betrays me as well.

  380. embracingreality says:

    Somehow I forgot to respond to – “Go on a foreign vacation! You’ll never look at masculine, obese women again.”

    Friends of mine have detailed their experience in Europe (excluding the UK) and the women of nearly all ages who are basically fit and attractive and with much better attitudes. Google- “obesity by country’. Di you know Italy has an obesity rate in the single digits? Something like 8% of the population and some of the most beautiful women in the world. The US reports an obesity rate as high as 52% among women, not counting the ones who are still fat just not fat enough to qualify as obese. Amerika, yep, we got the fattest women on two short fat legs in the whole damn world.

  381. no9 says:

    @ Dave
    “What question didn’t I answer? I hope you know that there are so many entries here everyday and it is not often possible to read everything. Kindly remind me of the question you’d like me to answer that I did not.”

    Not even the ones addressed to you by name?
    The questions are on August 20, 2015 at 8:18 am.

  382. Micha Elyi says:

    …increased use of AI in more and more decision-making could have surprisingly unfavorable effects for women, since the AI is not hardwired to excuse women the way humans (male and female) are.
    TFH

    Consider the very simplistic Artificial Intelligence (AI) of the traffic photo-enforcement camera. Some years ago there was a furor in Britain that photo-enforcement was bagging a higher percentage of female violators than the traditional means of traffic law enforcement. Feminists were sure this was some nefarious means of unfair discrimination against females. Studies were launched to look into the matter, these studies confirmed Bennett’s Maxim.

    A social study is an elaborate demonstration of the obvious by means that are obscure.
    –William F. Bennett, former US Secretary of Education

    The careful study of computerized photo-enforcement revealed that these machines don’t excuse female violators, unlike human traffic officers, and that is why the percentage of females cited is higher when photo-enforcement is used.

    Even the average female could have figured this out after ten seconds of brain activity which suggests that the feminist females who complained that photo-enforcement somehow unfairly picks on females are of subnormal intelligence.

  383. Dave says:

    Even the average female could have figured this out after ten seconds of brain activity which suggests that the feminist females who complained that photo-enforcement somehow unfairly picks on females are of subnormal intelligence.

    This is what you have when you start an enquiry with a fixed answer, rather than asking questions and letting the enquiry take you to its logical conclusions.
    FI almost always starts out with the premise that “Women are victims of the Patriarchy”. It then makes every event, no matter how contradictory, to confirm that premise.

  384. Lyn87 says:

    Women are victims of the Patriarchy”. It then makes every event, no matter how contradictory, to confirm that premise. – Dave

    True. Feminists complain that women couldn’t vote until the early 20th Century (while ignoring the ones who could, as well as the legions of men who could not vote, either), as proof of “Teh Patriarchy!” But when one points out that tens of millions of men have been conscripted to fight in wars (a practice that continues to this day in many places), and that more than 17,000 of the US deaths in Vietnam were draftees (and every last one of them was a young man), that’s not evidence against the idea that “Teh Patriarchy!” doesn’t exist solely to subjugate women… oh, no… that’s further evidence for the existence of “Teh Patriarchy!“, but this time it is general male privilege backfiring on individual men in its never-ending quest to deny women equality, in this case by preventing them from achieving glory on the battlefield. Of course the dead men are not “real” victims of “Teh Patriarchy!” even then, since they belong to the “Oppressor Class,” and only people not in a designated “Oppressor Class” can be “real” victims. That’s why Hitlery KKKlinton can say this with a straight face: “Women have always been the primary victims of war. Women lose their husbands, their fathers, their sons in combat. Women often have to flee from the only homes they have ever known. Women are often the refugees from conflict and sometimes, more frequently in today’s warfare, victims. Women are often left with the responsibility, alone, of raising the children.

    In her warped feminist mind that is literally true, since men (even draftees who get blown to bits before they even get a chance to vote) cannot, by definition, ever be victims of anything.

    You can’t make this crap up.

  385. Micha Elyi says:

    The doctrine of “no ring for sluts” is probably not entirely Christian, and goes diametrically opposed to the Spirit of Christ. At the very least, it shows that Christians who use the term have not fully accepted the repentant sinner.
    Dave

    I disagree.

    As far as the Bible is concerned…

    We are not called to be biblical, we’re called to imitate Christ. By the way, while you were reading the Bible you may have noticed that Our Savior did not marry the woman at the well nor the woman accused of adultery nor Mary the Magdalene.

  386. Mark Citadel says:

    A woman who has sullied herself with slut activity is not going to be attractive to any man as a long-term proposition. I’m sorry to say this, but it is a brute fact.

  387. Dave says:

    We are not called to be biblical, we’re called to imitate Christ.

    And how do you imitate Christ without being biblical? Christ is the very essence of God’s Word.
    Are you aware that the Bible is the Constitution of God’s Kingdom, and that God will not go against what His word says?

    By the way, while you were reading the Bible you may have noticed that Our Savior did not marry the woman at the well nor the woman accused of adultery nor Mary the Magdalene.

    He did not marry the virgins of His day either, remember?

    In her warped feminist mind that is literally true, since men (even draftees who get blown to bits before they even get a chance to vote) cannot, by definition, ever be victims of anything.

    It may be possible maybe at the cellular level, feminism does indeed change people’s brains for real.

  388. Mickey Singh says:

    “Go on a foreign vacation! You’ll never look at masculine, obese women again.”

    Ha ha this is so true. I was shocked when I came here how fat people are. Usually guys like me have to pay our dues by dating down for a few years before we’re accepted by our equals because of being foreign with nonsexy accent, but I refuse to date anyone who weighs more than me. I’ll lay low and work on my accent until I can date at my own level.

  389. Minesweeper says:

    “Are you aware that the Bible is the Constitution of God’s Kingdom, and that God will not go against what His word says?”

    Does God himself know this ? Maybe you should let him know.

    “It may be possible maybe at the cellular level, feminism does indeed change people’s brains for real.”

    you really do come up with some strange stuff.

  390. no9 says:

    @ Dave

    Well then by your silence I hereby accept your acknowledgment that your statements were in error.

  391. Dave says:

    @ Dave

    Well then by your silence I hereby accept your acknowledgment that your statements were in error.

    I disagree. Please reproduce the question. It isn’t fun trying to locate specific posts on this site, seeing that it is a very active forum. My apologies for being silent.

    “Are you aware that the Bible is the Constitution of God’s Kingdom, and that God will not go against what His word says?”

    Does God himself know this ? Maybe you should let him know.

    The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, and as far as God’s Kingdom is concerned, nothing is higher than His word. He sure knows this, because He respects His word even above His own name (Psalm 138:2). God’s word is forever settled and unchanging in heaven (Psalm 119:89).

    And, seriously, do you think any state, country or kingdom could function without a Constitution, or an equivalent? Where do you think America would be without a Supreme body of laws as contained in the Constitution?

    And, what do you think is the Constitution of God’s Kingdom? A hymn book?

  392. no9 says:

    “I disagree. Please reproduce the question.”
    I asked it already. Am I under any obligation to reproduce something that is already on the thread?

    “It isn’t fun trying to locate specific posts on this site, seeing that it is a very active forum.”
    Did I not give you the date and time of my questions?

    “My apologies for being silent.”
    Apology accepted. However it does not negate your acceptance of your statement errors.

  393. Renee Harris says:

    I’m been away for awhile to stop making marriage idol. After talking to my dad, I realize I don’t like myself when I feel sorry for myself . I need to find out more about God Word and where He has me at right now
    I want sex, but The Lord has serving others in tech and prayer.
    I fell Like Elijah when God told him to pull his head out of his pride….
    I’m a Not the virgin who want to marry. my experiences are being used to help others.
    @Dave i’m sorry I refuse your help I didn’t realize if I was doing. I just need to Focus on serving my church and parents.
    @mark
    Mgtow is an acronym that could also stand for
    Men of God Testify Of his Works
    Oh yeah I looked it up : that’s what you do when you’re new to community with own language
    If I don’t, comment as much as not because I’m not reading it took to get them trying to have a life Thad honor God
    I’ve been listening to more Andrew Womack and David Platt
    Better R

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s