Moral progress

James Bond is being introduced to our new morality.  Now he has a girlfriend.  The Telegraph explains in New James Bond gets a live-in girlfriend and ‘outspoken’ gay friend (emphasis mine):

For decades he has swaggered through life conquering women, chain smoking and saving the world, untroubled by the sensitivities of the 21st century.

In a new book, however, James Bond will be getting a dose of modern morality

Among the surprises for fans includes the return of Pussy Galore, who has moved in with Bond in London and spend the mornings squabbling in quite the opposite of domestic bliss.

Hat Tip Vox

Related:  Broken Premisses

This entry was posted in New Morality, Serial Monogamy. Bookmark the permalink.

186 Responses to Moral progress

  1. Pingback: Moral progress | Neoreactive

  2. Pingback: Moral progress | Manosphere.com

  3. Damn Crackers says:

    That’s not too new. In On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, Bond marries a girl. She ends up being killed by Blofeld at the end. Likewise, two of the villains in Diamonds Are Forever were gay lovers (Mr. Wint and Mr. Kitt).

    It doesn’t matter. Bond will be a black man soon, then a woman, then a transsexual.

  4. Damn Crackers says:

    I think the worse slap in the face was Bond bedding Grace Jones in A View to a Kill….ugh.

  5. Bob Wallace says:

    The original Pussy Galore was a lesbian.

  6. greyghost says:

    They should go all the way and have him a red pill MGTOW. Tightening up Pussy Galore with game.

  7. See, I thought Horowitz would be the right guy for this, because his Alex Rider series of juveniles is brilliant. “Eagle Strike” should go down as one of the greatest spy novels ever written. “Moriarty” was quite good as well. ‘Tis too bad.

  8. Might as well make him a transexual lesbian black disabled woman while we’re at it. This isn’t Ian Fleming, it’s social engineering at its best! Anthony Howowitz is a douche of the highest order!

  9. peregrinejohn says:

    This should go well. Crowds will flock to see it, for exactly 1 weekend.

  10. The original Pussy Galore was a lesbian.

    Yeah, but Bond’s Game made her change her mind.

  11. Gunner Q says:

    This is an important insight into the SJW mindset. The Bond franchise is the easiest formula for success I’ve ever seen but these people don’t care. They just want everything to burn. Pervert everybody, politicize everything, lie about it all and fund the effort with stolen money.

    Hmm… that would make an awesome Bond villain. if there was a Christian movie studio of any size and ambition, they could do an amazing Red Pill take on the franchise. Maybe Roosh will step up instead? There’s money to be made here. I can smell it.

    The key to defeating the SJWs is to make the process enjoyable and profitable because they’re solidly opposed to both.

  12. Boston to Providence says:

    The classical Bond lifestyle has never been more sustainable than it is now, it was nothing more than a cheap fantasy until recently.

    Do they really think a lot of women are going to read it? It makes me think of The Rifleman, and how the writers couldn’t allow the protagonist to have a wife, to give a vicarious role for female viewers to fill, who otherwise would never watch a western.

  13. new anon says:

    If people don’t understand what GamerGate or the Hugo puppies were about, use this as an example. This they will understand.

  14. greyghost says:

    Gunner Q
    First thing first we have to get a Christian movie studio red pill. There are some youtube production types that with some guidance from some red pill writers may be able to pull it off.

  15. Boston to Providence says:

  16. All male spaces must be destroyed!
    All male role models must be humiliated, subjugated, castrated, and gender queered!
    All male occupations must be given to women in thought but not deed. Women must receive credit and must not do work!
    All male children must be medicated!
    All male pastimes, hobbies, and pursuits must be made illegal!

    All Hail the Goddess!

  17. sljereirle@gmail.com says:

    Speaking of homosexuals, where were all the Christian leaders/pastors, who actually MAKE a living writing and talking about Christian principles, and speak out against homosexuality, when Kim Davis was jailed? Where are the James Dobsons and Franklin Grahams, who should be too old to care, and to sincere in their beliefs to pass up an opportunity, to have chained themselves to the nearest lamp-post by her jail house, shouting the Lord’s word from believing lips?

    I don’t mention it as a slam on Christianity (I’m Sufi and a ardent follower of Dalrock’s blog), but where are all the leaders, ready to take a brick to the head like the Civil Rights leaders of old–is it that they really don’t care and, like Franklin, would rather launch missives from their Facebook page (as he did)?

    I get that regular Christians (or Muslims for that matter) can’t just drop everything to go protest anything and everything or even one thing–but when it is your JOB, your chosen VOCATION and you write books, give speeches and take very public positions–and then an ideal situation presents and you are essentially motionless while an actual believer who does NOT “preach” as a vocation, write books, or go on public speaking tours, goes to JAIL for the beliefs you claim to hold!?!?

  18. The woman he married in IHMSS was demure, feminine, and possessing of true grit. This one sounds like a typical career girl.

    The new bond movies are worse than the ones from the 90s. Those ones just had massive plot holes; these ones are downright depressing. As for this? Good lord…

    The remake of The Avengers was more faithful (the one with the the Bowler hat, not the combat armour).

  19. new anon says:

    Crackers,

    The gay guys from Diamonds were creepy weird. If anything, they were a negative portrayal.

    There’s a reason Diana Rigg was killed off at the end of OHMSS. The plot line could not be carried on for more than one movie, because it conflicted with one of the basic features of the Bond character (womanizer).

  20. Damn Crackers says:

    Maybe the Horowitz model is just a rewrite to make the Bond franchise into a wacky sitcom. Career woman live-in, gay neighbor…it’ll be a 007 Home Improvement! Now, we just have to get Bond three rascally step-sons to raise.

  21. The Tingler says:

    Can’t wait to see Daniel Craig’s Bond in an apron cooking breakfast for Pussy Galore and crying feminist tears over all the girls he’s callously pumped and dumped over the years.

  22. Pingback: Moral progress | Reaction Times

  23. Dave says:

    where are all the leaders, ready to take a brick to the head like the Civil Rights leaders of old–is it that they really don’t care and, like Franklin, would rather launch missives from their Facebook page (as he did)?

    You pretty much answered your own question. These so-called leaders are only concerned about their bottom line. The rest is just a filler.

  24. ddswaterloo says:

    Envy always want to take what it envies and destroy it or replace it with itself.

    Always evil and always a bad outcome. But that is fine for the SJW.

    ‘Equality’ and social justice is just a mask for Envy.

  25. Boston to Providence says:

    Crackers et al., at least there’s some flexibility with Bond, in that they can recast it as necessary. Otherwise, he’d end up like Indiana Jones, who in the recent movie acknowledged his bastard and got back together with his same-age girlfriend 25 years hence. (Played by Harrison Ford, age 73, who is married to Calista Flockhart, age 50.)

  26. Opus says:

    ‘I must be dreaming.’

    There is (I have to say) something absurd about James Bond, this: the notion that post WW2, M.I.5 (recall that Bond is a Lieutenant Commander – and linguist – seconded to intelligence by The Royal Navy) was the organisation to save the world from bad things – as if The United States of America was a minor or third world power. Much as I might wish it to have been otherwise the idea that England was the only or main player is absurd (though apparently we bombed Syria a month ago).

    Bond (I have read Russia/Love and two of the short stories) is steeped in the nineteen fifties – hence his introduction of himself by his surname, the consumption of multiple Martinis and non-stop Smoking: he is not an American superhero, and thus for me the films get worse after OHMSS – the (until recently) longest, with the best Bond, the best Leading Lady and the best Score: The Countess Tracey was so looking forward to living in Acacia Avenue, Royal Tunbridge Wells with her husband James and then she was shot dead.

    There is also something absurd (about being a ladies man) in an age when scoring with multiple women seems to take little effort and where the women themselves have Ns only just short of prostitute’s and where women proudly claim to be sluts.

    ‘but of course you are’.

  27. Hey James, thanks for saving the world and all, but couldn’t you call a woman after you nail her? Don’t be so selfish!

  28. MrMadWriter says:

    Modern morality is what they are calling Goodthink I see

  29. Tom C says:

    Well, Daniel Craig looked nice dressed in drag for that International Women’s Day thing.

  30. Tom C says:

    Note that the new novel is set in 1957 so they can rewrite history.

  31. Spike says:

    And let me guess: Pussy Galore is going to be sassy, independent, probably Bond’s martial equal in combat (!!), and will have had just as many ‘conquests’ as Bond.
    Since one of his conquests, a Ms Fiona Volpe tells him that he inevitably defeats his enemies by sleeping with his enemy’s girlfriend (including the original Pussy Galore (“I appealed to her maternal instincts”), this sub-plot is going to be a little awkward for the writers.

  32. @Tom C

    They have to set it in 1957 because the current day story would be a aged James Bond now broke after Pussy Galore divorced him and took their kids to shack up with her heroin dealer. Even after a distinguished career in the MI5, James Bond cannot retire because he still must work to make his maintenance obligations. Our hero now works as an EU aid worker passing out water bottles to Muslim migrants that spit in his face.

  33. Bluepillprofessor says:

    I got something different out of this story:

    https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/3k5hgi/new_james_bond_men_are_not_allowed_to_make_women/

    Author of New James Bond book says:

    One of the challenges of writing the book was that attitude that a heterosexual man can change a woman’s life and make her go weak at the knees… That’s something that would be challenged, I think, in the 21st century.

    Men are simply not allowed to make women go weak in the knees in the 21st Century, at least not heterosexual men. Perhaps homosexual men are still allowed?

    I am sure that all the women no longer getting weak in the knees are not missing out on anything as suggested by 50 Shades, slut culture, and women’s increasing happiness.

    This is another example in the increasingly powerful attempts to kneecap men and empower women. Female sexuality is lionized while male sexuality is disparaged. Continually, like a splinter in my mind….

    YOUGOGIRRRRRL!

  34. MarcusD says:

  35. GeminiXcX says:

    Looks like ‘James Bond 2.0’

    Wonder which novel-character they’ll “modernize” next.

    -GXcX

  36. GeminiXcX says:

    @ sljereirle

    Kim Davis is a public-sector worker. She had no right to do what she did. If her conscience bothered her that much, she should have ‘put trust in the Lord’, prayed, and just quit her job.

    I believe her $80,000 salary was the mitigating factor in the way she upheld her “principles”.

    Just my 2¢

    -GXcX

  37. GeminiXcX says:

    @MarcusD
    Her very next tweet. A new product is being released, but the most important thing is, wait for it. . .

    Finally! A woman onstage! #AppleEvent

    Groan; another female that’s simply a waste of material.

    -GXcX

  38. donat says:

    If you’d been paying attention, you’d see Bond has already been SJW’d or pozzed in the current phase. Casino Royale was ok, but in the 2nd film, he doesn’t get the girl. She also fights along side him like some equal. In the 3rd, he also spends the last hour of the film protecting old lady M… why she’s so important to the Bond story, we’ll never know.

    Ultimately, men are being reduced into the role of a pack mule. i.e. Do all the grunt work but don’t expect any benefits/rewards for doing so… oh and don’t even pretend it was something special because ‘yougogirl’ can do it just as well if she wants.

    Even alphas are getting the full treatment. The latest Mad Max and Mission Impossible also follow this basic formula.

  39. Gunner Q says:

    Modernizing the Bond franchise is a good idea. I’m looking forward to the scene in which Bond tries to seduce a hot chick but her iPhone keeps dinging. Eventually, he forces himself on her in frustration. She enjoys the moment while he takes his turn paging through the iPhone behind her back, literally. “This is espionage, not rape. I’m only distracting you.” “Oh, Bond! Yes! YES!”

    “We meet at last, Mr. Goldfinger. Only after I saw those dick pics you sent Pussy Galore, I’m thinking silver medal.”

    “I like your explosive dart gun, Q, but does it come in a nipple piercing? I’ll be going under the covers, I mean, undercover and I don’t want to look suspicious.”

    The femme fatale notices Bond slipping a tracking device into her vodka. “Did you just try to drug me?” “Of course not, I drive an Aston Martin for that.”

    Bond and a police detective view a lineup of high-rent whores. Detective: “Do you recognize the woman?” Bond: “It was dark. I couldn’t see her face. Tell them all to undress so I can check tattoos. … That’s her, with ‘Love is patient, Love is kind’ above her arse! She’s neither.”

    M: “How is he?”
    Doctor: “Bond is in critical condition. Syphilis, herpes, hepatitis, gonorrhea, warts, HIV…”
    M: “The gunshot wound, doctor.”
    Doctor: “Ah. Yes. He can leave now.”

    “Don’t worry, you’re not my type.” “Smart?” “Fat.”

    Bond slow-dances with a sexy nuclear engineering professor at a California university. He leads her close to an exit and leans in. “Do you consent?” he whispers. “Mmm… sure…” she says dreamily. Bond immediately tazes her and shoves her out the door where an unmarked MI5 van is waiting. “I got her consent. Extradite her.”

    Wow, the lines almost write themselves!

  40. Tracy Bond (Diana Rigg) was far and away, the greatest Bond Girl of all time. She was pure red pill, great looking, incredibly intelligent and educated, and yet completely and totally submissive and obedient of James. She would have done absolutely anything and everything that James/Lasenby would have asked of her. That is why the compulsive womanizer James Bond simply had to marry her.

    As Opus once said to me, any woman who can make love to a man in the presence of two horses in a barn in Switzerland the way Tracy Bond did, okay, that is a real woman!

  41. Opus!!!!

    he is not an American superhero, and thus for me the films get worse after OHMSS – the (until recently) longest, with the best Bond, the best Leading Lady and the best Score: The Countess Tracey was so looking forward to living in Acacia Avenue, Royal Tunbridge Wells with her husband James and then she was shot dead.

  42. There is absolutely NOTHING FEMINIST about this woman, nothing.

    The Countess Tracey loved the Patriarchy, loved everything about men being in control and dominating women. That is not to say that her submissiveness made her weak or childlike. She was all woman, all grown up, all everything, and yet totally devoted to her husband.

    It pains me for feminists to wreck the memory of James Bond this way. It kills me. Please feminists, let us have our pure Bond.

  43. Opus says:

    Not that there is anything new in this sort of thing; it has a name, Bowdlerisation. Mr Bowdler did to Shakespeare what is being done to Bond, in Bowdler’s case ensuring that Romeo and Juliet lived happily ever after and likewise I suppose Hamlet and Ophelia.

    I see however that it is not just Bond: Next winter’s panto of Snow White (up in Leicester) is also getting the treatment; out go the seven dwarfs and in come the seven friends – obviously her Beta Orbiters. I can only suppose therefore that Wagner’s Ring will be next. Alberich the dwarf instead of being spurned by the three Rhinemaidens will I presume become their friends, the giants Fasolt and Fafner will obviously have to be a lot smaller, Fricka will no longer be a nagging wife but the equal partner of Wotan who will thus have to mend his womanising ways and it is obvious that rather than place a sword between himself and Brunhilde, on her rock, Siegfried will be wearing a condom. Those seven butch Valkyries will however need no alteration.

    Oh Brave new world.

  44. Cane Caldo says:

    mong the surprises for fans includes the return of Pussy Galore, who has moved in with Bond in London and spend the mornings squabbling in quite the opposite of domestic bliss.

    Yeah, that’s what guys what to read about: Relationship squabbling.

    GunnerQ said:

    This is an important insight into the SJW mindset. The Bond franchise is the easiest formula for success I’ve ever seen but these people don’t care. They just want everything to burn.

    No, they don’t want it to burn. They want it subjugated. (You want it to burn now, and I can’t say I blame you.) This is an important distinction to make. They aren’t trying to destroy, but co-opt.

  45. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I thought Bond worked for M.I.6 (aka, Secret Intelligence Service?) and not M.I.5.

    I seem to recall that in Moonraker, M has a meeting with his opposite at M.I.5., again implying that M is M.I.6.

  46. JDG says:

    Please feminists, let us have our pure Bond.

    Seriously?

  47. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    As others have said, no male spaces can be permitted.

    Harvard’s traditionally Hasty Pudding plays — an all-male tradition since 1844 — are going coed: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2015/9/8/women-protest-hasty-pudding/

    Of course, female spaces are allowed to thrive.

  48. BradA says:

    Gemini,

    It is called civil disobedience.

    Five black robed justices had no right to push LAW on the rest of the country, especially one upending all recorded history. They have been overstepping their bounds and should be resisted in far more places.

    And not that Obama and Hillary have no trouble ignoring laws they don’t like, why shouldn’t that apply to everyone?

    Your point will be taken better when it applies from the top to the bottom. We are likely to see more and more of this as people finally say “Enough!” It will cost some people a fair bit, but other methods have completely failed and this is the only likely non-violent route.

  49. elovesc35 says:

    So I would guess that there will be no exchanges like this from the “new” Bond :
    “Plenty O’Toole: Hi, I’m Plenty.
    James Bond: But of course you are.
    Plenty O’Toole: Plenty O’Toole.
    James Bond: Named after your father perhaps? “

  50. Emily says:

    BradA,
    My question is: Why didn’t they fire her? There is no reason to expect her to quit her job. She’s under no obligation to do so. But she is legally obliged to issue the licenses. So why didn’t they fire her?

    It will be interesting to see what happens in her case.

  51. Opus says:

    Meanwhile in Brighton, England (our gay capiital) there is in November to be a festival (supported by government finance) of early music (that is to say from the 12th to 18th centuries) all written by women: so much for the pretence of equality. I am reminded thus of Soviet composeress Sofia Gubaidulina who when asked to contribute to a festival of Soviet women composers, replied that she would decline to do so because she wanted to be judged as a composer and not on the basis of being a woman – I don’t think she got the memo.

    I wish, by-the-way, that women would get their story straight: that either men in their misogyny deliberately prevented women from composing, or, men allowed the women to compose but then denied them performance. Either way, there is no reason to suppose that the music performed in Brighton will achieve anything beyond the mediocre, not that I object to mediocre to pass the time – better than that overlong Mahlerian angst so popular now.

  52. feeriker says:

    My question is: Why didn’t they fire her?

    Because she’s a government employee. I know for a fact that it is all but IMPOSSIBLE to fire a federal government employee. I would imagine that that’s true of employees of most state governments as well.

  53. Nels says:

    Why didn’t they fire her? Isn’t she an elected official? Firing wouldn’t be an option.

  54. desiderian says:

    “Because she’s a government employee.”

    No, she’s an elected official. She would need to be impeached.

  55. bradford says:

    “No, she’s an elected official.” And I doubt that process would go the way the judge wanted. County wide vote? She’d win in a landslide. County board member vote? The board wouldn’t touch it with a ten foot pole.

  56. Daniel Craig Bond movies lost me right after they showed him coming out of the water similarly to Ursula Andress in Dr. No. James Bond, wearing a skintight boxer brief thing with the camera lingering over him in a slow motion shot?! What is this? Batman and Robin, where the camera cuts to Batman’s ass and nipples on the Batsuit? Yes, yes, the plot to Casino Royale was very close to the book’s, and Eva Green is smoking hot, but the details were just wrong.

    They’re talking about having Tom Hardy as the next Bond. I like him as an actor, but I don’t see him being able to pull off the “Cool/Suave” aspect of Bond, just the badass side of him.

  57. Spacetraveller says:

    Partially OT, but I am sure you have caught wind of this furore in the UK right now…
    Paging Opus! Paging Opus! For he is both lawyer and British!

    I am afraid I am with Sarah Vine on this one…
    What a joyless world we live in now…

    I never really liked Bond’s behaviour, (hey I am Catholic!) but I must say his world is preferable to the world of Miss. Proudman, where the natural tendencies of men are senselessly stifled…

    I imagine she would go into an immediate apoplectic state at the sight of Bond slapping an unacquainted woman’s bottom without permission…

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3228538/SARAH-VINE-man-t-compliment-woman-human-race-deep-trouble.html

    In other news… my tenuous link to Bond (and I DO have one despite my lukewarm feelings about him) is that…. (wait for it) my mother actually went to school with Diana Rigg! All she remembers is that she used to wash Diana’s hair in the dorm sink, along with her sister, my aunt.
    To date, my only claim to fame…

  58. enriquesufi@gmail.com says:

    Gemini (sorry, this is my real log on, screwed up the name field in my previous post)

    My problem with your logic is that, as I understand, for all the years of Kim Davis’s career in that position, up to and including the day she was thrown in jail, the Commonwealth of Kentucky defined, by statute, marriage as between a man and a woman–so she was upholding the law of the state she was publicly operating in as a civil servant. She went to jail and paid the consequences of her choice, for violating a judicial order (it’s not like she tried to get out of it). The issues surrounding her employment are another issue (see below).

    While one can quite fairly bring up any number of similar issues with the 1960s Civil Rights movement (or even Loving vs Virginia: black/white marriage), I suspect that we are in for more litigation, because so many states have not updated their own laws and as an EEO/Civil Servant issue, unless there are specific clauses, I would imagine she and many others will be able to assert, if administratively reprimanded or fired, that when hired, and throughout her tenure, her religious principles conformed to what she always knew, in commission of her public duties, the law of the state to be. The mere “over-riding” of that law by a 5-4 decision in federal court, does not give her employer the right to fire her, as will be asserted in ANOTHER (EEO) case she will bring if that happens, that her religious rights are being infringed, and when hired and sustained by that employing agency, there was no reasonable expectation that such a drastic, unorthodox ruling by a higher court would counter the common law and state law of hundreds of years in the US (and KY as applicable). In other words, I could see her and others similarly situated as her, start getting buyout/settlements.

    While the private sector is of course somewhat different, it is not completely detached from similar federal enforcement of EEO laws, civil rights, etc. Taxis and airlines are sanctioned, charted, licensed, and essentially “credentialed” through state, local and federal agencies, and thus often are known to serve at the “privilege” of these agencies (if you don’t pay your liquor license or maintain training, etc, you can have your charter pulled/de-credentialed) . This will ABSOLUTELY lead to further EEO suits against say, an airline that employs a Muslim woman who will not serve alcohol, or cabbies that won’t transport two gay men, or alcohol or a pet pig, etc. The argument will be, XYZ company, operating in a public space for the benefit of the public, under XYZ charter granted by INSERT GOVT ENTITY, has no legal right to withhold INSERT RELIGIOUS ISSUE from public passenger so and so. Just like the cake bakers.

    As a Muslim, I do not support necessarily any hard line in either direction, but I do believe this is going to open up a can of worms–similar to the lady years ago who was, I believe FIRED from her job for taking a stand against homosexuality, who was REQUIRED to give her opinion on the matter in a group setting as part of her duties–as I recall, she was “made whole” and won her case.

    I also wonder, since I have not read the majority decision, did they actually CLOSE a door on polygany/polygamy, by saying that marriage can be between any TWO people? If not, I suspect a guy can show up with 10 women for a license as well–since marriage is not between a man and woman any longer. Will be curious to see how religious clerks handle THAT one.

  59. MarcusD says:

    Watching porn does not cause negative attitudes toward women, contentious Canadian study finds
    http://news.nationalpost.com/health/porn-study-882992

    They reported in the Journal of Sex Research that the 23 per cent who reported having watched an “X-rated” movie in the previous year were no more or less likely than porn abstainers to identify as feminists, or voice support for the traditional family.

    And the blue-movie watchers expressed on average more positive attitudes toward women in positions of power, and less negative attitudes toward abortion and women in the workforce than those who refrained from pornography.

    Unsurprisingly, the study is flawed.

  60. Opus says:

    I am glad Spacetraveller mentioned it: what happened was that a young Barristeress has a Linkedin page, Linlkedin being Facebook for Professional people. Naturally there is a space for a photo and I have no doubt that this young woman went to great trouble and probably expence to have a photo taken which presented herself in the best possible light. You don’t think think that such success as she has had has been in spite of her looks which on the basis of the photo are not inconsiderable. Now, in the legal profession in England (which is a split profession) the Bar look down on Solicitors and so when this middle-aged man, a Solicitor (who otherwise looks up to The Bar) by the name of Carter-Silk commented as to how hot the appropriately named Miss Proudman looked, she went into full-on Public Nuclear shamming mode. How dare he, a mere male, a mere Solicitor and worse still, twice her age (ouch) – and not even looking like Brad Pitt – even deign to comment on someone as divine as Miss Proudman – you wouldn’t do it to Royalty would you. That was not quite what she said – she blathered on about Sexism and Professionalism and all that rot. Now, the trouble is that Carter-Silk lacks any Game and so he compounded his folly by repeating himself, simply not getting the message that although he, Carter-Silk, may be a big-fish in his own pond but Miss Proudman is out to catch someone in the George Clooney league if she can and that compared to her, Carter-Silk’s SMV is a negative number (I’d like to say an irrational number it is that bad). What Carter-Silk should have done (apart from nothing) was to Neg her furiously if not the first then certainly the second time, perhaps by agreeing and amplifying. I am not sure quite what that neg might be but Heartiste and his commenters would know exactly what to say.

    I would like to predict that she will receive no further Briefs from Carter-Silk but he seems so blue-pill I would not even bet on that.

  61. Gunner Q says:

    Cane Caldo @ 3:08 am:
    “No, they don’t want it to burn. They want it subjugated. (You want it to burn now, and I can’t say I blame you.) This is an important distinction to make. They aren’t trying to destroy, but co-opt.”

    You have it backwards. I DON’T want America to burn. I want to re-seize the reins of power and punish the evildoing Elites. Meanwhile, everything they do smells like scorched earth. America is not going to be here tomorrow, in any form, if they keep up the debt spending, illegal immigration and purging of Christianity… and they keep doubling down as the damage becomes more visible. They know the harm they’re doing and they enjoy it.

    This is happening now in California. We’re having the worst drought of our entire Statehood and the outgoing Governor is proposing to dismantle half our power grid to replace it with “renewable energy sources” purchased with additional deficit spending… timed for after he leaves office so he can duck the outrage. Meanwhile, Sacramento’s only plan to handle the drought is draining Lake Tahoe and telling us to stop using water. You’d think they would try desalination, seeing as the Pacific Ocean has plenty of water, runs the length of the State, is close to all major cities and building the plants would provide lots of kickbacks from labor union buddies, but the dark truth is they were engineering an artificial drought before the real one happened. The miscreants are refusing money and allies in their quest to make things worse.

    The Joker is loose in Gotham.

  62. Dave says:

    Marine study finds all-male infantry units outperformed teams with women

  63. JDG says:

    Marine study finds all-male infantry units outperformed teams with women

    The only surprise here is that this one made it to public eyes.

  64. Tom C says:

    Hey, Sean Connery, how do you feel about domestic violence against women?

    “I don’t recommend doing it in the same way that you’d hit a man. An openhanded slap is justified – if all other alternatives fail and there has been plenty of warning. If a woman is a bitch, or hysterical, or bloody-minded continually, then I’d do it.”
    –Playboy interview, 1965

    But you changed your mind twenty years later, right?

    “I don’t think it’s that bad. I think it depends entirely on the circumstances and if it merits it.”
    –Barbara Walters interview, 1987

    I’m not condoning it, but at least the guy stands by his principles. People thought he was nuts to say it even back then.

  65. MarcusD says:

    My Sister is living with an emotionally abusive guy and doesnt see the issue
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=977736

  66. Marcus, that thread is a great find! The sister is with an atheist that won’t meet her family, tells her he doesn’t love her, doesn’t want to get married and kicks her out every now and again; and guess what….

    …..she keeps going back for more!

  67. Opus says:

    Now you see what I have had to deal with – the likes of Miss Proudman, I mean. Carter-Silk failed to read the Memo – I am sure he got it – that at work you have got to treat all women at work as if they are asexual, or non-existent, unless they tell you otherwise but beware entrapment. Sexism is entirely permitted when the sexist is the woman in which case we don’t call it sexism but we say the guy got lucky. The fact that the same photo on her Facebook would have produced a hundred likes and even more gushing comments is an entirely different matter as those are her friends (women and Manginas) and thus they are permitted indeed expected to coo over even the most obese of menopausal specimens (which Miss Proudman is not).

  68. Opus says:

    The sooner we throw women out of the Professions, the Church, the Military (or at least acknowledge that they are merely modern day Courtesans and with attitudes to match) the better. It is always about them (which is why you should never employ a female lawyer) trust me, I have seen them rooting for the opposition especially if that opposition is female. By way of example (and I have a number of them) a friendly acquaintance of mine was telling me that he divorced his wife – having found her in bed with another man – and what did his female lawyer advise him to do? She advised him to hand over the house in its entirety to his wife – she obviously did not fancy my friend. He says that that was good advice and that that was what he did. I was a little speechless.

    There is a willingness on the part of men to trust women. Another acquaintance of mine was telling me that he needed a lawyer for his upcoming divorce and felt that he should hire a woman to as it were outgun his wife. ‘You’ I said ‘have been shafted by your wife – a woman – and so now you think that another woman and by reason of her being a woman can improve the situation?

    People like Carter-Silk do not instruct women like Miss Proudfoot because they value her advice (he knows far more and has infinitely more experience than her) but so that they can wile away an afternoon (at the client’s expence) in Conference, gazing at a vision of loveliness, whilst the female Counsel basks in the admiration of Solicitor and Client. Females should never go to The Bar if only because they cannot do anything without first seeking approval.

    I hope this is not getting too technical because I know it is different in the U.S.A. Male lawyers are not perfect (far from it) but female lawyers are in a league of awfulness all of their own.

  69. Exfernal says:

    http://bato.to/read/_/341583/relife_ch93_by_whiteout-scans/21 – at least Japanese entertainment is not fully PC yet. Where is the SJW outrage at the off-color joke here?

  70. Novaseeker says:

    I hope this is not getting too technical because I know it is different in the U.S.A. Male lawyers are not perfect (far from it) but female lawyers are in a league of awfulness all of their own.

    Yeah, we have law firms in the US now that specialize in representing men in divorces — they arose because of the growing awareness that the average family lawyer is kind of worthless in representing men.

  71. Novaseeker says:

    On Miss Proudman …

    I have to say that she doesn’t look very special here: http://static.standard.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2015/09/10/13/AN79356332For-Use-in-The-Ev.jpg

    Perhaps I’ve known too many female lawyers who are like that over the past few decades — not necessarily mannish, but really trying to be. Not attractive to me in the least, really.

  72. anonymous_ng says:

    AAAAAAND, here we go, a “scholarly” critique of modern feminism that finds it is founded on a lie, unnecessary, and evil. I mean, it’s in pop-psychology today so it must be scientific, right?

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200908/why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil

  73. Opus says:

    Blimey! She does not look all chubby and homely like that on Linkedin which thus rather supports my suggestions that she went to great expence and trouble. What Carter-Silk is thus saying is ‘I had no idea how attractive you were’ and she is furious because she knows it is all ‘photo-shopped’.

  74. Dave says:

    It is generally agreed in scientific circles that you don’t make conclusions from a single scientific study. But these days, almost any journalist will cite a single study to conclude that their idea has been “proven”.

    Well, tough luck. You need several of those studies saying the same thing, usually over many years, to arrive at a conclusion.

  75. Exfernal says:

    Anonymous_ng. do you know the reputation of Kanazawa? Colloquially ‘speaking’, a crap-stirrer. His opinions are his own, and often at odds with the scientific consensus of the moment.

  76. anonymous_ng says:

    @Exfernal, I had noticed that based on another of his articles at PT.

  77. Glenfilthie says:

    Fine.

    Pass.

    The same thing happened with books years ago in the SF genre. I was buying books all the time, based on hard science or at least plausible foundations…then about every third book became a social justice warrior lecture. Then it was every second book. Soon, it one book in five that wasn’t about queers in space, the feminist time traveller or the socialist superhero. I gave up and now I don’t buy SF books anymore. If you look at the offerings in the bookstores, the SF section has shrunk and is easily less than a quarter of what it used to be back in the 70’s.

    Oh well, Bond was getting stale anyways. Mission Impossible was a fun flick though…

  78. Original Laura says:

    The problem with Miss Proudman is that she has demonstrated poor judgment, over-sensitivity, impulsivity, and petty vindictiveness. When I was her age, older guys the age of Carter-Silk called me dear or darling sometimes but I did not say a word. They were raised in a different era, they generally reminded me of my father in one-way way or another, and on the whole they had very good manners. I was well aware that I was occasionally making mistakes of various kinds that they were often gracious enough to point out and help fix.

    What goes around comes around, as Miss Proudman is about to find out. She has tried to damage a man’s professional career over politically correct nonsense. Nobody is going to forget what she has done, and sooner or later she is going to make a boo boo of her own. Actually, she already has.

    Opus, in what way does the training for barristers differ from that of solicitors? I tried to Google this question a year or two ago and never really nailed down an answer. In Britain you begin studying law at age 18 I think, but I’m not sure how many years the course of study takes or at what point and in what fashion the road to barristerdom splits off from the road to solicitorhood. Do you take a bar exam at some point?

  79. Opus says:

    @Original Laura

    Very broadly, Barristers are Court Lawyers and thus deal in contentious matters, Solicitors tend to be involved in non-contentious work and thus most spend their lives buying and selling houses. The different training reflects those inevitabilities, though both will have a Law Degree (or something like it) so all study academically as first year Law Students, Tort, Criminal Law, Constitutional Law and so forth: the split is and has always been ten Solicitors for every one Barrister; one does not progress upwards (or downwards): ones choice is made immediately post Law Degree.

    The ambiance or perhaps atmosphere and approach as between the Office-Bound Solicitors and the Barrister sometimes but usually not to be found in his chambers is the greater difference. All practicing Barristers are self-employed and thus have no guarantee of any income (and many have part time jobs or private income to account for this) and thus Barristers have tended to be UMC (in our sense of the word) and Solicitors the ordinary Middle Class; we have a third branch of lawyers who so far as I can see learn exactly the same law and they are called Legal Executives and they tend to be working class.

  80. Opus says:

    Those who wish to study Law go straight to University at eighteen and do not take a prior degree. Armed with their Law Degree they then spend a couple of years taking their finals and getting some experience, thus many Lawyers qualify at the age of twenty-three at which point (if not before ) they are let loose on the public.

  81. Cane Caldo says:

    @Opus

    The sooner we throw women out of the Professions, the Church, the Military (or at least acknowledge that they are merely modern day Courtesans and with attitudes to match) the better… [but] There is a willingness on the part of men to trust women.

    This is it. All the -isms and -ists that must be pushed back and rooted out will not suffer such until it is acceptable to tell women “No” simply because they are women, and the task is only suitable for men.

    @anonymous_ng, exfernal & Dave

    I do not understand your criticisms of the PT article. PT published an essay that forwards the tenets that are forwarded here in the Men’s Sphere. Am I missing some sarcasm, or are you three actually against it?

  82. JDG says:

    why-modern-feminism-is-illogical-unnecessary-and-evil

    All feminism, from suffrage today’s “sexually empowering”, affirmative action, pro woman / anti-male legislation (and everything in between) is illogical, unnecessary, and evil.

  83. JDG says:

    3:48 pm should read: All feminism, from suffrage to today’s … (etc, etc)

  84. Spacetraveller says:

    @ Opus,

    If this is the sort of woman ou work with everyday, then blimey, I sympathise…

    @ Original Laura,
    Yes, quite…
    This Proudman woman is what we Brits say, ‘a little up herself’. She takes herself too seriously.
    In a few years, she will be moaning that no-one is commenting on her looks anymore, I am sure.
    There is precedent, as the lawyers would say! Valenti, anyone?

  85. Spacetraveller says:

    …sort of woman YOU work with…

  86. JDG says:

    Am I missing some sarcasm, or are you three actually against it?

    I too did not understand the exchange. I get it that shoddy work is shoddy work, but that title IS pointing AT the obvious (ie: Feminism is illogical, unnecessary, and evil). Now if we could only get folks to see the whole truth regarding feminism (any part and all of feminism is rebellion).

  87. Boston to Providence says:

    Concealment of sexual interactions (however minor) is expected female behavior, and the fact that Proudman avoids that model so avidly is a demonstration not simply of careerist calculation, but also indicates a skewed perspective of reality, especially at so late an age as 27 – beyond the possibility of immaturity as an excuse, and the beginning reasoned speculation that the issue is of a deeper developmental nature. (I hope it won’t seem gratuitous to point out that she looks as many as ten years older.) In my lay, though not-unexperienced, opinion, she’s beyond simple TryHard, but well within the realm of a diagnosable personality disorder.

    Then, my instinct tells me this: She is no alphabitch, she’s low on the girl-game spectrum, lacking the social success with the opposite sex (or whatever sex…) that she sees her peers enjoying. Rigidly accepting simplistic feminist BS as her guide, she lashed out attempting to score a hit, which will ultimately fall flat as more level-headed mentors eventually begin to roll their eyes and wonder what her deal is. The moment her support system dwindles along with her fame, and even fellow self-proclaimed feminists wish she’d lighten up (her lack of social skills disables her from attaining a real intrasexual leadership role), she’ll throw herself at men (or whatever sex…) as a string of last resorts. Everyone will know that there is just something “off” about her.

  88. Original Laura says:

    Thank you, Opus. Very few lawyers here qualify before the age of twenty-five, and many are years older after having worked for a few years between college and law school . I had never heard of Legal Executives. Somehow they never9make an appearance in British Drama. I forgot to ask you why some judges have a red sash. A knighthood, perhaps?

    You won’t be able to shove women out of the professions as long as the divorce rate is 40%. With a 40% divorce rate a woman needs a Plan B, while endlessly postponing marriage while working on Plan B undermines marital stability throughout society. It’s a chicken and egg problem and very hard to fix.

    The church is a different matter. By the time the church started ordaining women they had already caved on birth control, abortion, divorce, and second marriages . I have never understood the thinking behind what they did . The Protestant churches have never had a problem recruiting male clergy as far as I know, and the Catholic church which DOES have a recruitment problem has never seriously considered ordaining women. They manage to make do with what they have.

  89. Mariah8 says:

    I am suprised they never suggested Pierce Brosnan’s wife as a Bond girl, she would definitely fit the “fat acceptance ” part of the feminist agenda.

  90. Dave says:

    I am surprised they never suggested Pierce Brosnan’s wife as a Bond girl, she would definitely fit the “fat acceptance ” part of the feminist agenda.

    I just Googled his wife and I couldn’t believe what I saw.

  91. Dave says:

    Before and after pics here

  92. anonymous_ng says:

    @Cane – @anonymous_ng, exfernal & Dave

    I do not understand your criticisms of the PT article. PT published an essay that forwards the tenets that are forwarded here in the Men’s Sphere. Am I missing some sarcasm, or are you three actually against it?

    I liked the article, that’s why I posted it. I think that he does indeed hit the nail on the head especially from an evopsych point of view. At the same time, I ended up there today from a link to another post of his on intelligent people drinking more, but at the bottom are a couple links to some criticism of that article which say that the data doesn’t support his going the extra mile to say that more intelligent people bing drink more, blah blah etc etc.

    A quick trip to the comments of the drinking article showed that he generates lots of strong opinion for and against, thus it’s not unreasonable for Exfernal to ask if I knew that he’s a notorious for poking the bear with a stick. Or, that’s how I read it.

    That said, I find the PT articles to be *generally* pretty baseless and the equivalent of USA Today which is what prompted my snark in the original post.

  93. Modsquad says:

    They went through the same thing in the Timothy Dalton reign… tried out Bond to be a monogamous-commitment type. It gets boring for the writers real quick, and won’t hold very long.

  94. The Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    Miss Proudman enjoys rating men on the internet. Yet they don’t complain that they are objectified. She just complained because an older man just gave her a compliment.
    http://myinforms.com/en/a/16335901-ooh-la-la-hot-stuff-thats-what-prim-barrister-at-centre-of-sexism-storm-said-about-the-men-she-ogled-on-the-web/

  95. Isa says:

    @Original Laura
    The Catholic problem isn’t really a problem per se once you get down to the stats. The number of priests per practicing Catholic (i.e. almost every Sunday mass attendance) has held steady. The drop is in the number of people practicing religion in general. Only natural that there would be fewer priests. Not well kept secret, the orthodox orders of priests, brothers, and sisters are bursting at the seams and are now sending priests to “recolonize” certain dioceses. Fascinating stuff really.

  96. MarcusD says:

    Would you maintain sexual intimacy with a spouse addicted to porn?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=977893

  97. ray says:

    “This is happening now in California. We’re having the worst drought of our entire Statehood”

    I heard about that. If it were me, I’d get down on my face and beg Father and Son for rain. Go put buckets in the kitchen.

    I’ve got roots in that state, and would not appreciate any attempt to drain Lake Tahoe. They just can’t rest until they’ve destroyed everything good.

    De-sal was the obvious move thirty years ago, but the People etc. knew better.

    “The Joker is loose in Gotham.”

    Arkham empties.

  98. ray says:

    The sooner we throw women out of the Professions, the Church, the Military . . . the better. [redacted]

    Church leadership first. Then the rest.

    I’d keep them in the arts, but not allowed to take over. Or whine.

  99. Opus says:

    I am not insensitive to the problems of female lawyers: the tendency is for female lawyers to either come across as too girly or at the other extreme as some caricature of a man. Some get the balance right – not easy – and some are very hard working. When I was younger they were all pleasant, helpful, modest of demeanour and courteous; sadly the last quarter century (as their numbers have multiplied ten–fold) has produced the likes of the self-over-rating Miss Proudman (her mother if not her grandmother would only have been a shop-girl or mill-worker).

    Original Laura now asks me about Red Judges (as we call them): these are High Court Judges. Purple Judges are Circuit Judges; District Judges (lower on the scale) wear ordinary black robes but Magistrates (stipendiary or otherwise) wear no special form of distinctive marking. … and then there are the wigs! – Counsel thus dresses as befits the Court in which he is appearing (either with or without Robes Wig and Tabs) and adjusts his language accordingly: thus one addresses a Red Judge as My Lord, a Purple Judges as Your Honour and all lesser forms of Judiciary as Sir (or Madam) or (the preferably to be avoided) Your Worship. I hope that is now all clear! – and you thought Shepards (ask Novaseeker) was complicated!

  100. Jonathan says:

    it is not just them
    Christians also want to feminise men
    http://joshuarogers.com/2014/01/27/what-i-wish-someone-had-told-me-before-marriage/
    look at this guy
    apparently a guy expecting his wife to look after the home is sinful…
    and his wife could not handle it and told him off, keep in mind his wife does not even work…

    40 years ago Christian teaching on husbands did not require men to master domesticity
    protecting, providing,leading was enough
    homemaking, supporting etc was expected from the wife…

    now all Christians teach it as the otherway around
    so even in complementarian households the man now has to do half of the homemaking else he is not a real leader…

  101. Hugh Mann says:

    Five minutes on Google would have told that lawyer Ms ‘Proudman’ was a professional feminist:

    http://leftfootforward.org/2015/02/why-i-want-feminism-and-not-equality-and-why-they-are-not-the-same-thing/

  102. Gunner Q says:

    ray @ 1:16 am:
    “If it were me, I’d get down on my face and beg Father and Son for rain. Go put buckets in the kitchen.”

    The weather forecasters are, in fact, predicting near-torrential rain for California this winter. Not sure that’ll be a good thing. Heavy rains after long droughts ruin topsoil.

    “I’ve got roots in that state, and would not appreciate any attempt to drain Lake Tahoe. They just can’t rest until they’ve destroyed everything good.”

    Ironically, it’s the environmentalists that most want Tahoe destroyed. They can’t lock it down with bureaucracy because it’s shared with Nevada so they want it drained instead, lest they lose control of the water supplies they’ve already seized.

    As if building a 200-mile long aqueduct under a mountain range through earthquake country is any way to solve a preexisting crisis. It isn’t going to actually happen, that’s the good thing.

  103. Boston to Providence says:

    … And a mild-mannered post comes full circle, as blasting along Californian fault zones is part of Zorin’s plot in A View to a Kill. Odd but interesting.

  104. 007 says:

    Bond liked the look of her. He felt the sexual challenge all beautiful Lesbians have for men. He was amused by the uncompromising attitude that said to Goldfinger and to the room, ‘All men are bastards and cheats. Don’t try any masculine hocus on me. I don’t go for it. I’m in a separate league.’

    Bond came to the conclusion that Tilly Masterton was one of those girls whose hormones had got mixed up. He knew the type well and thought they and their male counterparts were a direct consequence of giving votes to women and ‘sex equality’. As a result of fifty years of emancipation, feminine qualities were dying out or being transferred to the males. Pansies of both sexes were everywhere, not yet completely homosexual, but confused, not knowing what they were. The result was a herd of unhappy sexual misfits – barren and full of frustrations, the women wanting to dominate and the men to be nannied. He was sorry for them, but he had no time for them.

    – Ian Fleming, “Goldfinger”

  105. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Entitlement-Mentality Ingrates Invasions Edition | Patriactionary

  106. Micha Elyi says:

    Marine study finds all-male infantry units outperformed teams with women
    Dave

    “A social study is an elaborate demonstration of the obvious
    by means that are obscure.”–William F. Bennett, former US Secretary of Education

  107. Opus says:

    I remain puzzled (and this thread is as good example as any) as to why, given that America is a large country with a population well in excess of 300,000,000, that so often the subjects for discussion here originate from English newspapers. I realise that these days it is accessible on-line, but even so, are the only people of interest Fictional spies and Feminist lawyers inhabiting the rather overcrowded yet considerably less populated British Isles (and not even the Celtic fringe – just London and the Home Counties)?

  108. infowarrior1 says:

    @Jonathan

    ”so even in complementarian households the man now has to do half of the homemaking else he is not a real leader…”

    I think those who label their relationships as complementarian is too weaksauce. Its only a matter of time before they cave.

    One should be unapologetic about the nature of the family and societal structure of Christianity which is Patriarchy

  109. infowarrior1 says:

    @Jonathan
    ”I realized today as I was reading Dalrock’s latest post “The Sin of Lacking Moxie” just how much traditional complementarians are getting it from both sides. The feminists despise the principle of headship as much as many Christian men in the manosphere despise the man-up messaging (as seen in “Fragging Christian Headship”). At issue in this case is the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood which Dalrock convincingly argues is embracing feminism. This aversion doesn’t stop feminists from also hating it as we can observe in Shirley Taylor’s call for redress from the Dr. Al Mohler in “No apology yet for the denigration of women”. Man-up complementarians such as Driscoll and Rainey are sick with the heresy of feminism, and the hyena’s are circling. Cut-off from the truth of Biblical submission while embracing the lies of feminism all of their natural resistance is gone, they are coals being blown by the smith. Watch them disappear into the maws of the hyena matriarchy and remember that as you watch the truth of God’s word unfold:

    Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
    (Gal 6:7-8)

    Also, remember not to see this as an attack on the Body of Christ, it’s an attack on a cancerous tumor and God approves. You’ll sleep better at night. Psalm 2:12b reminds us: “Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.”

    https://empathological.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/into-the-maw-of-the-matriarchy/

  110. jonakc1 says:

    I find it hard to read that empathological blog… he lives a pretty feminist marriage where his wife works while he looks after the home…
    that aside
    why has christianity changed?

    before if a man went to and older man for mentorship, he was given Godly principles and told to provide, protect, pray with his family etc

    now he is told to do homemaking duties as provision, protection etc is not real service, only pretending you are a woman is…
    you see so many of these complementarian wives keep praising their husbands for doing all the housework, cooking and childcare while they work or relax….
    the same men mock and belittle men who come home from work and relax while their wives cook for them ( rarely these days)
    why?
    at least if they were for equality I could understand, but they seem to want men to now be wives and subordinate and women to lead- and according to them that is a man leading…
    if a man got told this by his mentors at church 50 years ago
    he would kiss the church goodbye

    now he is mocked!!

    look at their twitter accounts, every sentence accompanying leadership is be a servant and do laundry ( ignoring the fact that leading itself is service)
    they critique men who tell their wives to do something for them ( a real servant leader irons hiw own shirts etc)
    how weak?!
    if they cannot get their wife to support them on such a minute task
    how do they expect their wives to support them on larger life changing issues and decisions?!!

    everything has changed
    men are not told the more they subit and act like women, the more manly they are
    and women are told they are angels who do no sin and should expect the husband to run the home as a sign of real leadership…

    look at Carolyn Custis James, conservatives love er, currently she is going around telling churches why men should be stay at home husbands…

    boundless, fotf are not that different
    Chandler etc are sly about it

    I feel very disheartened
    How do I trust a God on bigger issues, salvation, grace etc when he keeps changing on smaller issues like this…

  111. jonakc1 says:

    or here
    http://www.cbeinternational.org/blogs/confessions-awkward-newlywed
    the husband is so feminised that he basically believes being a man is sin so he is not even sexually attracted to his wife…
    during their honeymoon…

  112. jonakc1 says:

    imagine approaching marriage like that
    I imagine he also feels sinful if his wife cooks him dinner
    or makes him coffee
    or lets him hang out with his friends
    although being an egalitarian he would obviously be the one doing all the domestic duties…

  113. Original Laura says:

    @Opus. On September 11, 2001 during the Twin Towers coverage, one of the US stations allowed one of their female newscasters to report on the story even though she had laryngitis and her voice was gone. She kept saying the same things over and over AND she kept apologizing for her voice. It was all about her, apparently. The major networks were all hemming and hawing and refusing to estimate how many people had been in the towers at the time they were struck. It occurred to me that the British news might be more objective since it wasn’t a local disaster for them so I switched over. Sure enough, the Brits WERE discussing how many people worked at the towers, and how many might have had time to escape, etc.

    I never really went back to American news. The Daily Mail offers better coverage of our gruesome violent crimes than any of the US papers plus Peter Hitchens, although I dislike their cluttered website. The Telegraph offers good coverage of both American and British news plus fascinating obituaries. I also look at Drudge and Breitbart. But as soon as I started reading British papers I preferred them, and I never went back to reading American papers. Even the Guardian seems far more balanced than a US paper.

  114. Jonacki, again I am amazed these people are unable to read. There is an ENTIRE book in the Bible devoted to erotic, sexual loves that describes oral, anal, orgasms, dread, the whole 9 yards. The honored patriarschs had multiple wives. The beloved rulers had thousands of wives. What religion are these people practicing?

  115. Kagen Water Systems says:

    An attempt to appe

  116. Kagen Water Systems says:

    It was either this or Idris Elba. I guess American audiences feel more comfortable with a gay friend than they do a black James Bond. Says something, really.

    http://www.inquisitr.com/1694752/idris-elba-is-the-world-ready-for-a-black-james-bond/

  117. Boston to Providence says:

    BluePillProf,

    You’re free to argue that the reason churches have failed to address sex in specific and explicit ways is due to external cultural rules rather than internal spiritual ones, but it seems to me that, historically, Christianity has done its damnedest to stifle any such discussion. (Especially the more ascetic groups.) The mentality of the people you refer to may be a misunderstanding of Christianity, but Christianity has done itself no favors. It set rules for sexual conduct, then after a time, people forgot why the rules were in place, and began to think of sex as the sin rather than its circumstances. Maybe we should call this “Churchianity,” too. I think it has deep, old roots. If someone brought sex back into the church, instead of merely condoning it everywhere else, then you’d see some change.

  118. Micha Elyi says:

    Maybe we should call this “Churchianity,” too.
    Boston to Providence

    The Church is the Body of Christ, the same Christ who asked Saul of Tarsus, “why do you persecute Me?” not “Why do you persecute my disciples?”

    One would do well to contemplate that before yielding to the temptation to go off on a “Churchianity” riff.

  119. Kagen Water Systems says:

    “If someone brought sex back into the church, instead of merely condoning it everywhere else, then you’d see some change.”

    Do you mean to say condemning it everywhere else?

    Allow me to introduce myself. I’m a wife and mother who was directed to this site by a friend who lurks and occasionally comments here. He requested I don’t reveal who he is. I’d like to give a little background. I have an overall great marriage to a great guy (I’ve noted the jealousy from some other couples) but we have gone through a rough patch. I guess you could call it a seven year itch. I returned from a business trip to find out my husband had gone to a massage parlor that does happy endings. What should I make of that? There were never any complaints in our sex life. I thought we were happy. How to explain this?

  120. jonakc1 says:

    obviously he is wrong
    but any wife who goes on business trips and makes her husband look after the home
    is not really Christian ( do you just pretend Genesis 1-3 and Titus 2 do not exist)
    and you emasculate your man, make him feel like the woman…

    that does not really aid the problem…

  121. Kagen Water Systems says:

    I don’t emasculate my husband. I am all praise for him and have always been, even in hard times. I’m not a career woman either. I went on this trip to further my husband’s music project. I came home to find out my husband had cheated on me, despite the fact that during the trip I had an open invitation from someone to cheat on him, which I rejected!

  122. greyghost says:

    A black James Bond won’t work because James Bond is an Englishman. Connotatively that would be a white guy. For an American it could be anybody as long as he acts and thinks “American”

  123. Mariah8 says:

    This is probably the last place on the entire planet I would choose to come and complain about my husband being a douchbag. I am going to guess either a troll or a masochist ?

  124. Kagen Water Systems says:

    Idris Elba is English dough. My husband is not a douchebag so nip that in the bud, lady. Our marriage was in the seven year itch. I guess he was just bored being with the same woman every night for past thousands of nights. When I found out it relieved my guilt over the flattery I felt at being propositioned on the trip. And the proposition wasn’t just for sex either. The man wanted me to leave my husband to be with him! Of course I rejected that idea but when I found out my husband went to a happy ending massage therapist I can’t say I didn’t reconsider, if only for a minute. Anyway, after a few months of both of us going back and forth about where we are in life, what we want, and the pros cons of our marriage, we concluded we really do love each other and wish to be together. We both nurse jealousy though when we notice someone attractive of the opposite sex and that seems to present an issue. I think its because we both know we were once at a stage where it might’ve been a possibility for a glance or a smile to turn into something more. We still do couples retreats sometimes to help us through our issues. Is marriage supposed to be work?

  125. Kagen Water Systems says:

    Maybe I need to rephrase into a question. Are there any people here who have gone through a period of doubt about your marriage but who have stuck it through? Do you rejoice or regret that decision. Is it likely my husband’s visiting a happy ending massage therapist a statement about his happiness in the marriage or did he just want to try something he never did before? If a man loves his wife and his sex life, can he still do things like that without it effecting his love for her and their sex life? I ask because as stated above, he still notices other women and will sometimes shyly flirt. He’s not an extrovert so his flirting usually just takes the form of chuckling or smiling in response to something the woman will say. Considering the past, do I need to worry? He isn’t pleased when he sees me noticing men or men noticing me either, but I know for certain he has nothing to worry about from my side. From his side I can’t be sure. I don’t know what he’s really thinking.

  126. MarcusD says:

    Question for women-how do i deal with this situation?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=978074

  127. Dale says:

    MarcusD
    >Everybody in dresses: Why does gender neutral clothing always mean ‘boy’ clothes for girls?

    Maybe because men are not as easily deceived as women and thus would not wear the dresses … 1 Tim 2:11-15
    And thus men do not so readily do what God said is detestable to him (Deut 22:5).

    @Kagen Water Systems

    As I was not there, I cannot give an intelligent assessment of what occurred. Proverbs has a part along the lines of “one side seems right, until the other is heard”. Wish I could remember the text.
    Anyway, a few points from what you have said:
    1) You mentioned “happy endings” and “cheating”. If you mean only manual manipulation with hands (what I have heard wrt “happy endings”), then this is not adultery. Not, I am not defending or advising this type of behaviour. But you do yourself no favours by inflating this act into adultery; it is not. Deal with the problems you have, rather than creating bigger ones.
    2) You said, “There were never any complaints in our sex life. I thought we were happy. How to explain this?” This may seem unfair, but I will address my comments to you, not him, for this question. Why? Because just as I am able to only control myself, not anyone else, so also you are able to only control yourself, not him. So, do you know what your husband desires? Dress, weight, hair length? Yes, those are all “superficial”, but as you have been married for 7 years you no doubt know that men are visual. Do you choose to present yourself, daily, as your husband desires? If you know your husband prefers skirts, stop wearing pants at home. Type in “BMI” in Google, and use the test to get an objective measure of your weight.
    Does your husband know he can safely ask you to make changes, without you freaking out and fighting? How do you know? When was the last time you asked him what change you could make that he thinks would strengthen your marriage?
    Does your husband know what you desire sexually/romantically? How do you know?
    Does he feel/know that he can trust you to be obedient to him?

    And no, I do not want the answers to any of those questions. Instead, see those as suggestions for you to follow up with, together with your husband.

    And maybe suggest to him that the two of you are not apart for more than 36 hours in the future, so that you can always be available to each other, sexually. Of course, if you do not offer yourself to him on a daily basis, with an immediate willingness to fulfil the offer, then being together will make much difference in this respect.

    I encourage you to read the following with him, with a willingness to calmly discuss, frequently being silent, without arguing, so you can hear his uninterrupted thoughts.
    – Col 3:18-21
    – Titus 2:1-5
    – Eph 5:22-33
    – 1 Pet 3:1-7
    – 1 Cor 7:1-9. Read three times in a row if necessary🙂
    – Matt 5:31-32, and the parallel passage in Mark that says husbands also cannot divorce and seek another wife🙂
    – Song of Songs.

    Have both of you ask the other for a recommendation. What part of Scripture would each like the other to pray about each day, asking God to help that person to serve the other as God wants? E.g., you may ask him to pray about Col 3:19, wrt husbands loving, and not being harsh with them.

    Hope things improve.

  128. Siobhan says:

    @Kagen Water Systems: To obtain his loyalty, pledge yours without reservation. Assume he is honest, good, and true. Humble yourself, and ask him (and yourself) daily, what can you do, to further his happiness? Once you hear it, do it. With love, and without resentment. See him as a fine man. Devote yourself to him. He will naturally love, protect, and care for a wife who sees him thus and treats him so.

  129. Opus says:

    Back to Miss Proudman:

    I was just recollecting that a former colleague of mine told me that one day he was in Court before a Judge who (presumably) had heard expert evidence in other cases from my colleague’s brother who was (as you would say) a Realtor and Surveyor.

    “You are better looking than your brother” said the Judge.

    Naturally, my friend went postal on the internet protesting that he should not be judged for his good-looks and that he did not appreciate gay pick-up lines in court. These days my friend looks more like Leon Trotsky, so let that be a warning to Miss Proudman: she might end up looking like Rosa Luxemburg or even Germaine Greer.

  130. Dave says:

    The NYPD does it again

  131. feeriker says:

    I’m not a career woman either. I went on this trip to further my husband’s music project.

    Is your husband a professional musician, and are you his manager (IOW, is this a “family business?”)? Otherwise, your statement makes no sense as as an explanation.

  132. Gunner Q says:

    Dale @t 12:51 am:
    “As I was not there, I cannot give an intelligent assessment of what occurred. Proverbs has a part along the lines of “one side seems right, until the other is heard”. Wish I could remember the text.”

    “The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.” Prov. 18:17

  133. Kagen Water Systems says:

    ” If you mean only manual manipulation with hands (what I have heard wrt “happy endings”), then this is not adultery. ”

    How is it not adultery? Whatever you want to call it, it most certainly is cheating, that is going behind my back to seek a sexual experience with someone else. Despite my being attracted to another man, I did not do this, during the exact same time period that my husband did. Imagine the pain at knowing you refrained from temptation out of love and loyalty and your spouse did not. It is indescribable. And for him to then doubt me whenever a man smiles at me and I smile back, it is just ridiculous, though my suspicions of him are perfectly warranted with history.

    My husband and I have always been open with each other about our likes, dislikes and desires. We have always been sensitive to each others needs. I have stayed almost as attracted as when he met me aside from natural aging which can’t be helped. Have neither lost nor gained weight from that time (aside from pregnancy), maintained my figure, health and beauty as far as possible and he has too, aside from some hair thinning which could not be helped. Some people just say he had a desire for some variety, something different since being with one person for so many years can get tired. I noticed even now that other men notice me more than he does. I might look new and attractive to other men but to him I’m the same woman he wakes up next to day after day. Anyway, despite this, after each of us having a new experience and knowing that if we parted we could both easily find someone, we concluded we are soul mates, meant to be together, love each other and love our family to much to split it apart. But I kept help thinking if he regrets this. Yes music is our hobby. We have cut a few CDs which mostly just get circulated amongst our friends. Occasionally we do small gigs for fun. He’s shy but attractive and I notice women noticing him. I’m also attractive because he notices men noticing me. But HE doesn’t notice me. I’m old news to him.

  134. KWS:

    >Are there any people here who have gone through a period of doubt about your marriage but who have stuck it through?

    Yes, everybody who has been married in fact and not just here.

    >Do you rejoice or regret that decision.

    Happily married for 3 of my 20 years of marriage- the 1st year and the last 2 since I discovered the Red Pill.

    >Is it likely my husband’s visiting a happy ending massage therapist a statement about his happiness in the marriage or did he just want to try something he never did before?

    It is likely you were being contrary and making the marriage and sex life difficult or non-existant so he got his needs satisfied elsewhere.

    >If a man loves his wife and his sex life, can he still do things like that without it effecting his love for her and their sex life?

    Yes, sex and love are very different for men and women. A woman will not cheat unless she falls out of love. A man will and can stay very much in love. Men traditionally had more than 1 wife and your mythology of eternal love in a monogamous marriage is just that, mythology.

    >I ask because as stated above, he still notices other women and will sometimes shyly flirt. He’s not an extrovert so his flirting usually just takes the form of chuckling or smiling in response to something the woman will say. Considering the past, do I need to worry?

    This is called “Dread” and we have found it works to ramp up a woman’s sex drive. Let me guess your sex with your husband ‘suddenly improved’ when you found out he had a happy ending with another woman.

    >He isn’t pleased when he sees me noticing men or men noticing me either, but I know for certain THAT RIGHT NOW he has nothing to worry about from my side.

    FTFY.

  135. craig says:

    Kagen Water Systems says: “There were never any complaints in our sex life. I thought we were happy. How to explain this?

    Is it likely my husband’s visiting a happy ending massage therapist a statement about his happiness in the marriage or did he just want to try something he never did before? … He isn’t pleased when he sees me noticing men or men noticing me either, but I know for certain he has nothing to worry about from my side. From his side I can’t be sure. I don’t know what he’s really thinking.”

    KWS, please consider that he doesn’t know what you’re really thinking either.

    It’s very likely that you are, even unconsciously, giving off signals of dissatisfaction and hypergamous impulse to which he is reacting. The main reason I offer this possibility is that you admit to the attention of other men, even to the point of receiving offers to leave him; offers that bold aren’t generally given unless the would-be paramour senses in you an openness to straying.

    The other reason is that as a man, I can’t imagine seeking sexual release outside of marriage and also being happy with married intimacy. The absence of complaints in your sex life may indicate that he has accepted the status quo as unchangeable and given up trying for more. Negotiating intimacy is humiliating to a married man, considered against the earlier vows of perpetual fidelity and support. There comes a time in the average man’s life when he recognizes that a woman either wants him or she doesn’t, and nothing he does can “win” her desire if it’s not already present. (It’s about that time that fishing or tinkering or games take up progressively larger shares of his time.) Even if sex still continues, he may perceive you as not really ‘into’ him, but keeping him around because it’s convenient to have a placeholder until something better comes along.

    Of course, only you know whether this explanation fits the facts.

  136. Nburke says:

    KWS – A happy ending massage is cheating. Disatisfied with his sex life or not he is willing to risk losing his family for a hand job. Something must be seriously wrong either with the marriage or the man himself. Talk to him and find out what it is. Strangers can’t help you with that.

  137. jeff says:

    Hilarious! There is no way he has not complained or IS satisfied if he only had a hand job.

    I would say he held back not going full sex with someone and ONLY had a hand job.

    7 year itch is a feminist myth along with midlife crisis.

    I have a wife that rejected me for years then went through an “available anytime” with me, but there was a definite “please not now” look or body language. Now we are older and I do not desire her any longer and she is always trying to “check in” with me to see if we are ok. What do I say? Yeah everything is ok because it is. I get more from my own hand than from her and I could ask her any time “apparently.”

  138. infowarrior1 says:

    If the passion is not mutual then marriage should not have commenced.

  139. infowarrior1 says:

    Check their behaviour against scripture. And see if they are saved. If they are saved then it would be possible to point out their errors via scripture. If they do the usual sophistry with the text and cannot be shown the truth then in all likelihood they are not saved.

  140. Nburke says:

    jeff said

    “I have a wife that rejected me for years then went through an “available anytime” with me, but there was a definite “please not now” look or body language. Now we are older and I do not desire her any longer and she is always trying to “check in” with me to see if we are ok. What do I say? Yeah everything is ok because it is. I get more from my own hand than from her and I could ask her any time “apparently.””

    It sounds like your wife eventually tried to do right by you even though she wasn’t attracted to you. You probably should’ve taken the duty sex.

  141. OKRickety says:

    infowarrior1 said on September 14, 2015 at 3:49 pm

    If the passion is not mutual then marriage should not have commenced.

    True, but the marriage happened. Supposing the passion declined after the honeymoon (which I think would be the usual scenario). Do you recommend divorce on that basis? Or do you recommend taking action to improve the situation?

  142. Bob says:

    “. Men traditionally had more than 1 wife and your mythology of eternal love in a monogamous marriage is just that, mythology.”

    Except of course, where God commands exactly this. The responses you get here may be a little confusing as they are half people trying to adhere to the Bible with very detailed examination, and half PUAs who don’t care that sex outside of marriage is still sinful for men and will encourage it.

  143. ManlyMan says:

    It’s a troll. The giveaway is this statement:

    “Is marriage supposed to be work?”

    Seriously, are you new?

  144. jeff says:

    KWS was looking for examples.

    Of course my wife wasn’t attracted to me. I tried the whole marriage to do what she asked and found the RP too late…. for her. She recently tried twice in 3 nights to initiate. I rebuffed her, and yes she got mad. Who cares for a wife who confuses you for years and you’ve wasted your libido years trying to please her to find out it never helps.

    I was Rollo’s epiphany stage to a BIG FAT T!

  145. Dale says:

    Prov 18:17 – Thanks Gunner Q!

  146. MarcusD says:

    CAF women: Do/would you run your clothing choices by your husband?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=978278

    This is sad on so many levels.
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=978263

  147. S. Chan says:

    Some feminists are starting to realize that sex bots will be a severe threat to their agenda. The BBC has a story “Call for a ban on robots designed as sex toys“. There is also now a Campaign Against Sex Robots, launched by a robotanthropologist (really), Kathleen Richardson.

    The BBC story is based on a paper by Richardson, published in a (non-peer-reviewed) newsletter: “The Asymmetrical ‘Relationship’: Parallels Between Prostitution and the Development of Sex Robots“. Here is an extract from the paper’s conclusion.

    I propose that extending relations of prostitution into machines is neither ethical, nor is it safe. If anything the development of sex robots will further reinforce relations of power that do not recognise both parties as human subjects. Only the buyer of sex is recognised as a subject, the seller of sex (and by virtue the sex-robot) is merely a thing to have sex with. … empathy is an important human quality. The structure of prostitution encourages empathy to be effectively ‘turned-off’.

    Relatedly, the Second International Conference on Love and Sex with Robots is to be held in November. This field seems to be really moving forward.

  148. jonakc1 says:

    they justify men running the home or being house husbands, or living in an egalitarian genderless relationship by calling it servant leadership… so it seems biblical

  149. infowarrior1 says:

    If christ is what the husband represents and is himself a servant leader. Is Christ equal to or submitting to the church?

    If the church is equal to Christ isn’t that blasphemy?

    By their sophistry they deny the glory of Christ represented in marriage which reflects the relationship between Christ and church as the book of revelation shows.

  150. infowarrior1 says:

    If the church is equal to Christ. Does that mean the church can tell what Christ can or cannot do?

    The reason for this is. Wives are commanded to submit to christ as the church submits to Christ in the Ephesians chapter 3:22-24(off the top of my head).

    This shows that marriage is a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church.

  151. infowarrior1 says:

    @Okrickerty

    Once the marriage is done both partners are responsible for upping each others libido for each other. If there are barriers to attraction then that should be rectified.

    I do not not know though if it is right to be able to annul marriage because of fraud prior to consummation.

  152. D says:

    In the book, Pussy Galore headed a crime syndicate that controlled crime in a major American city; can’t see her just staying home and nagging Bond!

  153. Dave says:

    “Pussy Galore”. What kind of a name is that?

  154. Gunner Q says:

    jeff @ September 14, 2015 at 6:56 pm:
    “She recently tried twice in 3 nights to initiate. I rebuffed her, and yes she got mad. Who cares for a wife who confuses you for years and you’ve wasted your libido years trying to please her to find out it never helps.”

    That sounds unwise. Of course it’s going to be duty sex when she’s forcing herself to change her attitude. You should have taken it and given Stella time to get her groove back.

    The husband doesn’t have the Biblical right to refuse sex, either.

    Dave @ 7:26 am:
    ““Pussy Galore”. What kind of a name is that?”

    Either a whorehouse madam or a Bond girl. Why not both? Perhaps Bond will be using a whorehouse for a safehouse in the movie even though it’s the first place Blofeld would look.

  155. @Jeff: “Who cares for a wife who confuses you for years and you’ve wasted your libido years trying to please her to find out it never helps.”

    This is typical anger stage and the behavior you describe is total AWALT. Stop blaming your wife for what is in the past. Move forward from this point. While it is true your wife was ‘in’ on the conspiracy to deny this information to men, she was only a tiny, tiny part and you can’t blame her when it was YOU who was acting unattractive. Women are literally programmed to LIE about sex. That is what they do and they will NOT tell you they really just want to be dominated and safe in the arms of a strong man. They…just…won’t. They Can’t! so stop blaming her and begin you new life today.

  156. Bob says:

    Yes, women are completely absolved of all responsibility to effectively communicate in a marriage to their spouse. It’s okay for them to lie for years causing incredible frustration because it is simply the way they are programmed and they should not be held accountable for this. As bluepillprofessor put it, the true responsibility lies in YOU for not acting the attractive way that she wanted at that time, and the only solution is to MAN UP you slack-jawed faggot, can’t you be more like the only Real Men™ in the room such as himself or any of the Red Pill PUA lifestyle who have discovered the truth, the way, and the life?

    Sarcasm aside, his advice is fantastic if you plan to live your life in a secular way, but terrible if you are trying to follow God. The fact that it is shoved on everyone without disclaimer is a little irritating but we have seen much worse.

  157. BradA says:

    You need to grow up Jeff. Do you want all the things you did wrong for years being held against you? Some aspects of sex is doing what you need to do even if you don’t want to do it.

    It is also the glue that holds a marriage together and you are going to do some serious damage to your marriage if you keep up your own immaturity. One person’s sin does not justify that of another.

  158. BradA says:

    Who absolved women from all blame Bob? You also need to grow up a bit and realize that people do bad things, often for very long periods of time. Most of those should simply be avoided, but those in a marriage must get over it if they want their marriage to succeed.

    Following the Biblical command allows no out on sexual relations, no matter what the long term offenses. A man that wants to follow the Biblical way must get over things. You and Jeff may not follow that, but the other principles still apply.

    Yes, it can be appropriate to say “man up” in a case like this. No one told him to marry her. He is married and he has an obligation to fulfill that, which includes sex and closeness.

    Live as you want, but avoid the trap of living in the past and letting someone else’s sins control you!

  159. Boxer says:

    Dear Bob:

    The eristic tone in this article is understandable, but I think it honors the unworthy. I wouldn’t pay too much attention to bluepillprofessor.

    That aside, you raise an interesting point.

    Sarcasm aside, his advice is fantastic if you plan to live your life in a secular way, but terrible if you are trying to follow God.

    His advice actually isn’t fantastic for us secular types, either. Statements like:

    Yes, sex and love are very different for men and women. A woman will not cheat unless she falls out of love. A man will and can stay very much in love. Men traditionally had more than 1 wife and your mythology of eternal love in a monogamous marriage is just that, mythology.

    betray his lack of any understanding about relationships (at least, those of the heterosexual variety). This is just so much one-dimensional propaganda, absorbed entirely through reading the most emotionally laden blogs on the internet, parroted back without any critical analysis.

    If you want a more realistic and comprehensive view of relationship dynamics, a good place to start would be The Polygamous Sex by Esther Vilar. Vilar was one of those rare birds — a freethinking and intellectually honest feminist in the 1960s. She goes into detail about what bluepillprofessor is pretending to lecture on — coming to more sensible conclusions in the process. Men and women have very different conceptions of “love”. The love a man feels for his wife is often paternal in nature, and he historically would seek out hot sex elsewhere with sluts, while continuing to care for his wife in a fatherly way. There’s much more to it than this, but you get the idea. Another great resource (though much more cynical) is Simon Sheppard’s works on procedural analysis (two of them are available on Kindle for under ten bucks). His contentions include the fact that love is entirely driven by biological instincts, rather than spiritual or transcendental qualities.

    I hope this is helpful…

    Boxer

  160. @Bob: “women are completely absolved of all responsibility to effectively communicate in a marriage to their spouse.”

    No they are not but they don’t communicate this about their sexuality. NONE of them communicate this so ALL of them are at fault and it does no good to whine and cry about that fact. It does terrible HARM to continue blaming them for that fact. Do you blame them for hidden ovulation? Then don’t blame the Fitness tests on an individual woman.

    >his advice is fantastic if you plan to live your life in a secular way, but terrible if you are trying to follow God.

    My statements are practical, not secular, humanist, socialist or communist. If it works, I am for it. Please explain to me how engaging in behaviors that lead to passionate love with your wife is anti-biblical or leads you away from God.

    Be careful that it is not you new age ascetics that are not the ones likely to hear those feared words:

    “I never knew you.”

    Brother Boxer, beyond the ad hominems you have not disproved the central statement about which you rail.

    >A woman will not cheat unless she falls out of love. A man will and can stay very much in love.

    Women don’t take lovers when they are still in love with their husbands. That is self evident and your protestations suggest you are trolling, again. Husbands are fully capable of taking a lover and remain in love with their wives- not paternal tucking the little girl in type of love that you claim- but passionate love- for TWO women. In contrast, women largely lack that ability. I think Vilar would have agreed. Prove that she didn’t. [:

  161. Gunner Q says:

    “Husbands are fully capable of taking a lover and remain in love with their wives…”

    God would disagree.

  162. JDG says:

    Where is the concept of “being in love” in the Bible?

  163. Cane Caldo says:

    @JDG

    Where is the concept of “being in love” in the Bible?

    A poignant question.

    I have a couple questions for the hardcore 007 fans; as I am only a casual one.

    1. Does Bond seduce any married women prior to the Daniel Craig Casino Royale?
    2. Does he do so in the books?

  164. Dale says:

    JDG:
    Song of Songs.
    Prov 5:18-19. Of course, the argument could be made that the clause “may you ever be intoxicated by her love” is the result of, or dependent upon, the preceding clause which says, “may her breasts satisfy you always”. I therefore don’t think you should expect to hear this verse in a sermon any time soon. Heaven forbid the women be told they need to be sexually available to their husbands at that level of frequency or consistency; that would be sexual abuse! Trigger warning! Can you imagine the complaints and whining that would result? Surely not from all women, but I think the vast majority.

  165. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Missed opportunity with the title. Coulda been “Progress, Moral Progress”.

  166. MarcusD says:

    @infowarrior

    If the church is equal to Christ. Does that mean the church can tell what Christ can or cannot do?

    That’s just what they do. They’ve changed the faith in order to provide a reason to change the faith.

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

  167. Exfernal says:

    @Boxer re; Simon Sheppard
    Would the author of gay erotica have much experience with heterosexual love?

  168. Dave says:

    Nope, I don’t have any children but it is offensive for you to call me “childless”. Moreover, I do have children, actually…”I didn’t change nappies, which is OK with me. But I did help my niece get through medical school….”
    “I did sit down with my nephew when he was having a really tough time joining the Army and gave him alternatives. Those are very motherly things to do, very maternal things to do, very nurturing things to do. So I feel I am a mother, of sorts. I am not completely childfree.”

    Kim Cattrall, Sex and the City actress

    When will this hamster get tired of running on the wheel, and take just one millisecond to face the truth, that it is not getting anywhere?

  169. Boxer says:

    Of course, their rush to ban robots (that won’t be good substitutes anyway) necessarily distracts them from what really will hit female SMV, VR, as PM/AFT describes

    Technology is a near perfect storm to hit the F.I. in other ways. Most of the make-work jobs in academia (administrative paper-pushers) are slowly being replaced.

    Example: The team of overpaid women who, ten years ago, would manually inspect every transcript before a degree was issued, is gone. One individual now sits in a desk and manually checks software overrides to the machine which does their jobs — and the human who does this is usually a he.

    Most of these jobs are not cut outright. The people who held them were moved around until retirement or voluntarily quitting, at which point no replacement was hired. It’s largely been a silent transition into a more efficient status-quo, and I see no reason why it should reverse itself.

  170. Damn Crackers says:

    Once marital rape became a thing, marriage became pointless for a man.

  171. Damn Crackers says:

    For the ethicist who has a problem with sex robots, what does she think of robotic labor slavery that has been going on now for some time?

  172. mikediver5 says:

    Excellent point on the labor slavery of robots. Let’s start a movement to free the slaves/machines. And we don’t mean just the industrial robots; we need to include the CPU operated washing machines and dishwashers, not to mention the PCs and MACs that we are abusing and forcing into abject slavery to our whims.

  173. Looking Glass says:

    Doesn’t that make every iPhone user a slave-owner?

    Oh, we could have some real fun with that one.

  174. Another Lurker says:

    Kagen Water Systems:

    Are there any people here who have gone through a period of doubt about your marriage but who have stuck it through?

    There is probably no marriage on this planet in which one or both spouses have not experienced periods of doubt.

    Do you rejoice or regret that decision.

    Married 30+ years. There were two major occasions in the past where we talked about divorce, but ultimately decided to stick together. It was the right decision.

    Is it likely my husband’s visiting a happy ending massage therapist a statement about his happiness in the marriage or did he just want to try something he never did before? If a man loves his wife and his sex life, can he still do things like that without it effecting his love for her and their sex life?

    No, he can’t. It is an ugly but convenient, for some, myth about men being in love with / loving their wives but still seeking / having sex with other women. It is just not true. However, if you both are willing, you can work through it and recover. If you manage to do that, your marriage will become stronger, and you happier. But there are no guarantees. First of all, there must be a will to repair whatever is ailing your relationship — on both sides. It is doable. Yes, marriage is work, but it is worth it. For most.

    I ask because as stated above, he still notices other women and will sometimes shyly flirt. He’s not an extrovert so his flirting usually just takes the form of chuckling or smiling in response to something the woman will say. Considering the past, do I need to worry?

    It’s not possible to tell if you “need” to worry, but you will worry all the same, so it is something you need to work through, and probably talk about with him. Calmly. Stating your concerns and needs without accusations, blame, or ultimatums.

    He isn’t pleased when he sees me noticing men or men noticing me either, but I know for certain he has nothing to worry about from my side. From his side I can’t be sure. I don’t know what he’s really thinking.

    You’ll never know what he’s really thinking — and you don’t need to — so pay attention to what he’s doing. Good luck.

    [D: Note: I have placed KWS on the blacklist as a troll.]

  175. Exfernal says:

    Thanks for clarification. Another Sheppard, then.

  176. PokeSalad says:

    “Pussy Galore”. What kind of a name is that?

    Its as good as Xenia Onatopp, Plenty O’ Toole, or Holly Shagwell.

  177. PokeSalad says:

    Feminists can ban sex robots…just as soon as they ban vibrators.

  178. American says:

    The last James Bond film I saw was “Octopussy” in 1983 as a Jr. high schooler. Arrived at the mall with a female date and her older sister as chaperone. Turns out my date was a budding feminist who didn’t like the movie’s “misogyny” as she put it. I left with her sister.

    P.S. The new James Bond can pound sand. I don’t need him or his newfound feminist homosexuality.

  179. The Jack Russell Terrorist says:

    I agree with American. James “Bomb” films after Octopussy are a waste of money. I borrowed the ones after from the library. Would have been a waste of $$$ to purchase.

    Another article about an entitlement princess.
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinthesky/2015/09/15/fliers-describe-chaotic-scene-that-caused-american-flight-to-divert/72315046/

  180. Opus says:

    When I said that OHMSS had the best leading lady, what I meant was two things: Tracy is from the point of view of an actress the most interesting of the Bond females and the role needed and got a great stage actress to play the part: she even recites (up in the mountain-based building) some verse. I have seen Diana Rigg on stage; one of the advantages of living in or near London is its theatres and I am lucky also to have watched, Judi Dench (on a number of occasions including twice as Hermione/Perdita) and Vanessa Redgrave as Cleopatra.

  181. Jim says:

    @Can and @Opus

    “The sooner we throw women out of the Professions, the Church, the Military (or at least acknowledge that they are merely modern day Courtesans and with attitudes to match) the better… [but] There is a willingness on the part of men to trust women.

    This is it. All the -isms and -ists that must be pushed back and rooted out will not suffer such until it is acceptable to tell women “No” simply because they are women, and the task is only suitable for men.”

    Bingo. About time someone said it.

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