Don’t fear marriage and fatherhood, but beware those who are working to destroy your family.

Matt Walsh has a new post up at the Blaze*:  Dear Millennial Men, Don’t Be Afraid of Marriage And Fatherhood.  Walsh makes some good points.  He notes that marriage isn’t the only way a man can embrace responsibility while pointing out that very few of the men avoiding marriage are practicing celibacy.  He also notes the toxic impact of feminism on women, and that large numbers of women are delaying marriage.  This last part is understated, but even acknowledging it is a massive improvement over the way (for example) complementarians pretend that men are insisting that women usurp men’s roles.

However, there is a huge piece missing from Walsh’s analysis.  Men don’t just fear the responsibilities of marriage and fatherhood, they fear the way these institutions have been corrupted and assaulted by our laws, courts, Christian leaders and entertainment, and even attacked by Walsh himself. Marriage has been legally and socially replaced by a new family model.  While some men only fear taking on responsibility, wise men rightly are weary of the evil of this new form of family.  Under God’s family structure, marriage is for life and husbands are head of the household.  Under our new culture and legal structure, marriage lasts precisely as long as your wife says it will, and married fathers are either a punchline or a serious threat to the family and must be aggressively restrained.  It isn’t the responsibility that many men fear, but the contempt of society (including conservative Christians) that being a married father earns, and the loss of their family on a whim that best demonstrates this contempt.

It isn’t just that the law and the courts stand forever ready to reward your wife with cash and prizes if she decides to destroy your family.  The culture, including Christian culture, will constantly be working to undermine you and destabilize your family.  Christian movies about husbands and fathers reliably degrade the role of married men.  Fireproof was the Christian entry into the genre of divorce fantasy, and Courageous went to unbelievable lengths to tear down good husbands and fathers so it could ostensibly build them back up.  More recently War Room followed in this well worn anti husband and father path.  But these are just the more serious expression of the dark modern Christian contempt for husbands and fathers.  There are also Christian comedies like Mom’s Night Out which portray Christian husbands and fathers as buffoons.  It is true that Christian movies are following the lead of secular movies in this regard, but this is a deeply troubling defense.  Moreover, Christian films aren’t just following, they take the secular contempt for married fathers to the next level.  Modern Christians haven’t noticed this because the movies reflect how modern Christians collectively feel about married fathers.

Yet while modern Christians can’t spot the contempt for married fathers in Christian movies, secular critics very often do.  In his review of War Room on rogerebert.com, Matt Fagerholm complains that the movie portrays the Christian husband and father as lacking any redeeming qualities (emphasis mine):

The film’s centerpiece sequence occurs early on, as Elizabeth sits weeping in her closet while pleading, “God, help him love me again.” This moment is heartbreaking for all the wrong reasons. Since the Kendricks have mistaken one-dimensional caricatures for people who exist in the real world, they forgot to provide Tony with any redeeming qualities that would make us want to root for his marriage. As for the film’s advice to women who are beaten by their husbands, one of Elizabeth’s co-workers advises, “Learn to duck so God can hit him.

Likewise the feminists at Dame were astonished by the anti-father message of Mom’s Night Out, as they explained in Manchildren Are Not Sexy. Neither Are Helpless Dads.  This is a movie that Christians adored, yet feminists were made deeply uncomfortable by the anti father and anti family message it carried:

And that’s the biggest problem with Moms’ Night Out: The moral of the story isn’t that the women are supposed to stay home and not have fun, but that the men are totally hapless morons without them around—and that this lesson is still being drilled into our heads in 2014. We’re supposed to feel better about this “men are total idiots, the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” philosophy (and that latter piece of wisdom was actually uttered in the movie in case you missed the point). But this story of the helpless manchild is a disservice to men—and families—everywhere.

There is of course a good, strong, competent man in the movie, but he isn’t a married father.  He is a sexy badboy biker.  Christians say that marriage and fatherhood is the path to respectable manhood, but the man we really (collectively) respect is the man who doesn’t listen to what we say about respectability and marriage.

Walsh rightly wants men to man up.  Yet if they do, how will Walsh respond? Does his support for marriage go deeper than posing as the only real man in the room?  Too often the answer is no.  If your wife writes to him complaining about you, Walsh won’t hesitate to join the gossip and denigrate you to your wife and the rest of his audience:

She told me about her own prize catch; he wakes up at around 11 AM to play video games, meanwhile she brings their two sons to church. Something tells me this is the sort of guy who would call his wife “the boss.”

…I don’t know this woman. But I’m guessing she’d be overjoyed if hubby dropped the video game controller and picked up the Cross of Leadership.

This hopefully won’t be fatal to the family in question, assuming Walsh has it all wrong;  if Walsh is merely unfairly maligning a good husband and father, the man can probably push through the discord Walsh is sowing in his home.  But what if Walsh is right, and this wife who lacks discretion also has a failing husband?  Is the ego boost Walsh received by denigrating another husband and father worth the risk that two young boys will grow up without their father in the home?  And what about the other women (besides this man’s wife) that Walsh is posing for when he whispers that their life would be so much better if they were married to a real man like himself?  Are their husbands good enough to survive Walsh’s clumsy attempt to AMOG them?  We should pray that they are.

Even worse, at the same time Walsh mocks other Christian husbands for not being the kind of big strong Christian leader that he is, he is careful to avoid upsetting the feminist sensibilities of the women in his audience:

I believe that men have a duty to lead, and I believe that there are many, many women who agree with me.

Notice: I’m not saying that the man should be the boss. Being a leader doesn’t mean being a “boss.” But I don’t need to spend time dispelling the notion that men ought to be the boss, because, as we’ve covered, that notion doesn’t really exist.

For most marriages the sand Walsh throws into the gears will only create low level strife;  we can’t blame the nearly 50% divorce rate on acts of grandstanding by Walsh.  But his inclination to malign good men and destabilize fragile families is a dangerous game with no upside except to Walsh himself.

Likewise the Christian husband and father Jenny Erikson divorced almost certainly can’t single Walsh out as instrumental in encouraging his wife to blow up their family.  Nor can their two daughters blame Walsh for the fact that they will grow up without their father in the home.  However, Walsh undeniably provided Jenny Erikson comfort by aiding her in rationalizing her treachery.  We know this because shortly after Jenny Erikson announced that she was tired of honoring her marriage vows, she tweeted:

Married men: your porn habit is an adultery habit http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/11/25/married-men-your-porn-habit-is-an-adultery-habit/ … (I love this guy)

But again, Walsh is only a bit player in the cacophony of voices whispering marital strife and destruction.  Men who take Walsh’s advice to marry and have children  aren’t safe if they merely keep their wives from reading bad influences like Walsh himself.  They also need to overcome the discord being sown by a legion of Christian leaders.  Modern Christian culture’s contempt for married fathers is so great that it has become customary to tear down fathers from the pulpit on the very day set aside to honor fathers.   And while Father’s Day is a special day set aside to tear down Christian fathers, the threats aren’t limited to just one day.  Christian wives are now being taught that submission means throwing godly tantrums, and many pastors now want to turn your marriage into a threesome.

But just because Walsh has a disturbing habit of sowing discord into other men’s homes, doesn’t mean he is wrong when he says men should man up.  We all should.  For some men this will mean carefully selecting a wife and doing everything possible to protect their family from what Walsh, secular culture, and Christian leaders throw against their home.  For others it will mean finding purpose and responsibility while foregoing the profound benefits of marriage, including sex, romantic love, and children.  For all of us manning up should also mean respecting the respectable, and doing what we can to fight against our society’s relentless attack on the family structure God created.

*H/T The Question

This entry was posted in Armchair Husbands, Attacking headship, Child Support, Christian Films, Courageous, Disrespecting Respectability, Fireproof, Headship, Jenny Erikson, Kendrick Brothers, Matt Walsh, Miserliness, Mom's Night Out, Rebellion, selling divorce, The only real man in the room, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, War Room, Weak men screwing feminism up, Whispers. Bookmark the permalink.

488 Responses to Don’t fear marriage and fatherhood, but beware those who are working to destroy your family.

  1. Pingback: Don’t fear marriage and fatherhood, but beware those who are working to destroy your family. – Manosphere.com

  2. Pingback: Don’t fear marriage and fatherhood, but beware those who are working to destroy your family. | Neoreactive

  3. mikediver5 says:

    I have nothing to really add but this is the first time I have ever been first to the comment paqrty.

    Having said that I read the earlier thread that inspired this one and agree that unfortunately for us all things will continue to get worse, and at an increasing rate, until it all collapses. I am old enough now to know I will not survive such a collapse. I am OK with that. I am no martyr, it is just that I agree with H&K that you should not support an evil system, even to keep breathing.

  4. ladonai says:

    Thanks again, Dalrock. Insightful and invaluable stuff. Sad how non-Christian critics oftentimes see spiritual problems so much more clearly than most professing Christians do.

  5. Josh says:

    “Well worn”, I believe you meant.

    [D: Thank you.]

  6. Dang, ‘Rock, my chances of ever getting married again were zero anyway. But if I’m a 20 year-old man reading this post from you, I’d never consider marrying the first time or having children until major, serious changes were made to the institution and society. Getting married isn’t “manning up”. Resisting your own enslavement is “manning up”, self preservation is Job 1. There are simply too many others “in the marital bed”, as it were. Fuggetaboutit.

  7. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    I only watch these films because I’m an occasional participant here.

    There is of course a good, strong, competent man in the movie, but he isn’t a married father. He is a sexy badboy biker. Christians say that marriage and fatherhood is the path to respectable manhood, but the man we really (collectively) respect is the man who doesn’t listen to what we say about respectability and marriage.

    This character (I believe he was played competently by a country music performer) was incredibly disturbing to me in his placement within the narrative. In a way it was humorous, but not in the way the filmmaker intended, and I believe it was meant to strike fear into the hearts of good chaste men who don’t run in the sorts of circles that I do. “Watch out, beta boy” it seemed to say “because your Christian wife will be found attractive by a tough guy if you are not careful to do just as we say — and get competent as a homemaker.”

    It struck me as not only incredible, but offensive, to see such a vacuous threat, directed at men who don’t know any better.

    As an erstwhile “badboy” who has a history of riding (dirt bikes – though I’ve rubbed shoulders with Bandidos etc.), I’ll tell all you guys that the character in question wouldn’t give a shit about that woman. Not only would he not fuck her, he wouldn’t lean his bike against her. Lots of single, childless women like such men, and they aren’t going to be slumming it with your wife when they can get a hot bar skank with no strings attached. Not only that, but if such a woman showed up with a sob story about missing kids, that man would laugh in her face, rather than play save-a-married-ho.

    I do think these films are good in one way, in that a few intelligent beta dudes might detach themselves enough to get some tips on having more leadership in their homes, but these are incidentals. In a healthy society, leadership is taught in institutions like boy scouts and from fathers to sons, rather than through biker gangs and street gangs. People who have an outlaw biker or gangster image are really mediocre men who have few options. It was a disgusting and manipulative trope in that movie which probably did a lot of damage to good men in making them doubt their wives, but didn’t reflect reality at all.

    Boxer

  8. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    Matt Walsh has his, and the rest of us need to get ours the way he has.

    He’s a punk, who is throwing salt (and not the salt of the Word) into the game of godly men.

    “Childhood ended and manhood began precisely when I became a husband and then a father.”

    Yawn.  That’s because marriage civilizes men, right?  Boo.

    And he has a lot of fucking nerve, don’t he…he sho’ nuff like to speak for us, don’t he?

    As men, we either give ourselves entirely to the women we love, or not at all. Increasingly, we seem to be choosing the latter. We turn away from marriage but grasp for some pale reflection of its joys. We don’t want to be family men, but neither do we want to be celibate and single.  We don’t want to give, in other words, but we won’t hesitate to take.

    Fuck you, bro…you don’t speak for we, us, or me!   This is epic pandering, and this is the type of talk that will get a dude punched in the mouth…and I’m dead serious about that!

    We’re afraid to embrace manhood because we’re afraid of what comes with it: work, duty, sacrifice.

    As an FYI, this quote is actually set out on the page of his article, which is a way to lend even more validity to the sentiment.

    After a short blurb about the perils and toxicity of feminism, he ends with this:

    Still, I’m not going to pawn all the blame off on women. Let the feminists engage in that kind of cowardly, cross-gender finger pointing.

    No, let’s not ever criticize women, let’s get up on the brothers, shall we….

    We’re men; we’re supposed to be the leaders. We’re supposed to take the reins, not just in our families, but in society as a whole. Sure, feminism has made many in our culture hostile to masculine, assertive men, but that doesn’t mean we should just surrender and take a back seat.

    Thanks Matt.  So does that mean you’re going to spit out the blue pill and take the red one?  C’mon homeboy…don’t be skurred…you know you can do it!

    I’m done with Matt today.  I’d slap them glasses off his face if I ever met that cat.

  9. Kate Minter says:

    Here, we are awaiting a non-cam version of Daddy’s Home (pits reliable step-dad against returned bio-dad) to appear online so we can see which man the narrative is supporting. I’m betting it’s step-dad because he manned up and paid for someone else’s children.

    I did a little project writing for teen boys here: aboysguide.wordpress.com for anyone who might be interested. There really cannot be enough done to show young men that they do NOT have any obligation to “man up” and should instead “marry young,” preferably to a girl even younger whose parents are willing to invest in his education in return for his sacrifice to early commitment.

  10. Hank Flanders says:

    It’s funny. I was planning to take a break from reading the manosphere for a while in order to make time for some other things, but then Matt Walsh has to come along and write another article of the type that caused me to unknowingly seek out and find the manosphere to begin with. Just now, I saw someone post this newest Walsh article to facebook, so being intrigued by the title, I clicked the link, skipped straight to the comments, and in the end, couldn’t help myself. I had to see if Dalrock had seen Walsh’s article and written a piece on it. I guess I can’t get away…haha.

  11. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    @Boxer,

    It struck me as not only incredible, but offensive, to see such a vacuous threat, directed at men who don’t know any better.

    I agree.

    It was sublimely subliminal mastery of the behind the back crossover cuck move.  I caught it when I first saw it, and even my (female) friend kinda smirked and said, “yeah, because that’s what all of us women want, that pathetic shit”.

    I paused and looked her in her face and said, “are you serious?”

    And she said, “no, PG, I’m not, but it makes guys think that’s what all women want and it’s total bullshit”.

    And I said, “yeah okay, if you say so.  We guys will take that under advisement”.

     

  12. Anon says:

    The Grand Poobah of cuckservatives, Jonah Goldberg, says the following :

    http://link.nationalreview.com/view/547f9de03b35d0210c8bb89f3jsqf.3lfa/698a2add

    Every conservative is supposed to believe that incentives matter.

    Except, of course, where male-female relations are concerned. In those matters, anything a woman wants is right, no matter what. The costs to men and children are of no consequence.

    A cuckservative is not credible on the ‘incentives matter’ point, due to their pathological blindness of how laws have incentivized feral female behavior.

  13. Bdawg16 says:

    Great article Dalrock, but I hate that term “man up”. What is that supposed to mean anyway? So what is “woman up?” I thought Helen Smith made a great point to that mangina Tucker Carlson on Fox News when she called the term “man up” derogatory towards men. It’s not a biblical term either.
    I love how these self appointed “relationship and marriage” experts spew off their ignorance and pandering drivel as if anyone other than the one’s they are pandering to actually give a damn about what they are saying. I’ve never heard of this Matt Walsh ass clown. And I call him that based on the script of what he said that you quoted.
    Don’t even get me started on movies like Fireproof. I wouldn’t let my dog take a dump on the DVD for fear of him catching some kind of disease.
    Excellent article as always but the term “man up” is a buzzword for shaming, slandering and ridiculing men in our society. And it’s people like this POS Walsh and a whole multitude of other “false prophets” who perpetuate this demonic philosophy.

  14. Marriage sells, but who’s buying?

  15. Pingback: Christian Contempt | Something Fishy

  16. HamOnRye says:

    http://www.amazon.com/War-Flea-Classic-Guerrilla-Warfare/dp/1574885553/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453507144&sr=8-1&keywords=War+of+the+Flea

    The link above is to a book by Robert Taber, named “War of the Flea”

    While we can all lament the fact that something once good has now been corrupted and twisted. What I wouldn’t give to turn the clock back to even 1990. However that’s at best navel gazing and I dont see any eye opening event on the horizon that is going to suddenly change people views.

    I fully expect that that American Society is going to crater in one form or another, and likely on several fronts. With that said out of chaos comes opportunity…

    Personally I think the best course of action is to assist current society come to a complete collapse, while at the same time building up alternative organizations to replace the current ones.

  17. Gunner Q says:

    Quotes from the linked article:
    “Sure, feminism has made many in our culture hostile to masculine, assertive men, but that doesn’t mean we should just surrender and take a back seat.”

    “Surrender and take a back seat” is EXACTLY Marriage 2.0 from the male perspective.

    “Yes, of course I know some men are truly not called to this vocation. But the men who are meant to be single or childless for a while, or permanently, are still meant to sacrifice themselves and live devoted to another.”

    Slavery. Literal, textbook slavery.

    “But if we’re too afraid to give ourselves and our love to something greater, like family, then we start reaching for replacements. We invest ourselves in television, or games, or pornography, or anything else. ”

    Are the only replacements for marriage selfish? Career, athletics, art or even simply enjoying God’s creation count for nothing? Walsh finds pleasure and meaning in playing with his kids, why shouldn’t I find pleasure and meaning in playing with my friends?

    “In truth, even most of these deluded feminists still fiercely and quietly yearn for a man who will come into their lives and be that protector and leader.”

    Walsh makes no such statements about men. How about “In truth, most of these men looking at porn still fiercely and quietly years for a woman who will come into their lives and be that affectionate, loyal helper”.

  18. The Question says:

    I want to be angry at Walsh for his foolishness, but when I look at him I can’t help but see myself – had things turned out differently. He is exactly what I wanted to be in my early twenties; married, a couple kids, good writing gig, a house. Just another good middle class WASP.

    Instead, I like so many others went through something similar to that of Rollo Tomassi as he described in his post “That Was Then.”

    The biggest unspoken lie perpetuated in the man up movement by inference is that women want to get married young, so if a man can’t get a wife in college it’s his fault because he’s immature and that’s why the women flock in droves to ride the carousal with Harley McBadboy. Go to any university and ask the typical 21-year-old coed if they want to get married. Chances are, they’ll say yes. Then ask them what age. It’ll be 28-30. There will be a handful that want to get married then and they will easily find a man. The rest want to earn their feminist merit badges and then when they enter the epiphany phase they’ll find that nice guy beta provider who has been dutifully working in the meantime and conveniently hears he needs to “man up” and marry her.

    What makes columns like Walsh’s so infuriating is that these writers think that they were able to marry because, unlike us, they are wise-beyond-their-years. In reality, much of it is a matter of meeting the right person at the right time in the right place. I know men just like him who got married young and it’s no different with them in terms of their attitude toward bachelors. Anything I say about what is discussed here or other manosphere sites is dismissed with “Stop complaining. Look at me; I got married, so you should be more like me if you want to get married.” It makes them feel superior. They don’t realize they only married because they met a girl who wanted to as well (just pray she doesn’t decided to make up for missing out).

    I’m sure Rollo would say the same thing as what I’m about to say, but Walsh’s problem is the same as Mark Driscoll’s when it comes to his views on sex, marriage, women, what not; they got married young and don’t know anything else beyond their own unique life experience and are oblivious to the world of dating since they got off the market. He is also unable to define masculinity and manhood outside of the feminine. You’re not a complete man until you have made a lifetime commitment to a woman.

    Having gone a separate route has been tough at times, no doubt, but had I married before taking the Red Pill it would have been a disaster. Among other things, I would have read Walsh’s article and said “Amen!” instead of posting a link to it here with indignation.

  19. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Childhood ended and manhood began precisely when I became a husband and then a father”.

    Interesting. There are some unstated assumptions in this little pronouncement.
    Men who work on oil rigs, men who drive trucks, men who are in the Marines, Army, Air Force, Navy, etc. who are neither married nor fathers – men who make nerdbro Matt Walsh’s life even possible – are not men ?

    I would argue that when Matt Walsh calls himself a “truth teller” he’s lying.

  20. Matt Walsh is just Mark Driscoll lite.

    Matt’s whole premise for this article hangs on what perceives as men’s three primary fears: work, duty and sacrifice. He believes that men ‘fear’ these aspects of his virtue signaling definition of manhood because they fear “growing up” and fear “putting away childish things”.

    He goes with the easy simplistic answers that the Blue Pill has taught him to repeat because he’s incapable of acknowledging the true reasons men (christian and secular) men are opting out of marriage – it’s simply the most pragmatic choice.

    http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/12/04/the-sexodus-part-1-the-men-giving-up-on-women-and-checking-out-of-society/

  21. Dave says:

    Personally I think the best course of action is to assist current society come to a complete collapse, while at the same time building up alternative organizations to replace the current ones.

    Be careful what you wish for, as you just might get it.
    It took more than 200 years to build this society to this level. Even if we were to subtract the time of feminist contamination, it still would have taken at least 150 years to get to where we were in the 60’s. So, starting over might not be as simple as it sounds, as we’d all be dead before the new society takes root. And who says there won’t be another form of “ism” to come around 200 years after to ruin the whole thing?

    We don’t need a new society. We sure can and must reclaim this that we have. The road may be long and arduous, but there is no other way, actually. I am pretty certain that if the Communists had invaded the USA, and taken all the women, schools, our law courts, churches, etc, many guys would be plotting to overthrow them from power. What then is different with feminism?

  22. Darwinian Arminian says:

    “Sure, feminism has made many in our culture hostile to masculine, assertive men, but that doesn’t mean we should just surrender and take a back seat.”

    I’m not taking a back seat. I’m getting out of the vehicle, lighting a cigar and enjoying a chuckle as I watch them accelerate it head-first into a brick wall.

  23. Bdawg16 says:

    Dave said: We don’t need a new society. We sure can and must reclaim this that we have. The road may be long and arduous, but there is no other way, actually. I am pretty certain that if the Communists had invaded the USA, and taken all the women, schools, our law courts, churches, etc, many guys would be plotting to overthrow them from power. What then is different with feminism?”

    You make some valid points Dave, but look at it from another perspective. I don’t think most men, including myself, are trying to recreate what was torn down by the feminists and man haters of our society. Of course, plenty of elitist’s men have benefitted from feminism.

    When it comes to the Communists, I dare say in 2016, any Communist country would take most of our women, school, courts or churches because the vast majority are pure shit holes. Even if we paid them, they would not take them. Even Communists are afraid of them and how they might pollute their society.

    There are some good women left in our country but they are in the small minority. There are a few good churches left, but they are considered “fringe” and out of the mainstream. I’m not sure if there are any good schools left. Our courts are corrupt beyond reason, especially family courts.

    I for one do not want to go back to the 60’s. Men had already been “blue pilled” long before the 60’s and that’s “one of many” reasons we are in the mess we’re in today with the family unit and society in general.

    I don’t think there is anything at all to “reclaim”. I think many men are just sick and tired of being looked at as criminals, ridiculed, mocked and treated like a piece of shit on the bottom of someone’s shoe and society in general, especially the institutions you named, and so many females. seem to perpetuate the problem.

  24. The Question says:

    Let’s ask expat/retired Marine Fred Reed his thoughts on how wonderful marriage is for men. http://fredoneverything.org/matrimony-holy-or-otherwise/

    “If you are a young man, and contemplate matrimony with the love of your life, it is well to look at marriage from the standpoint of reason rather than sentiment. Men are, after all, male, and occasionally capable of reason. The first question to ask yourself is: Why marry? What would you gain? Would your troubles disappear? Would sex be better? Would food be more savory? Would you get tax breaks, enjoy more freedom? Do stock options come with marriage? Is there any practical advantage at all?….Marriage has one purpose only, which is to get her legal hooks into you.”

    What really damns Walsh is that modern technology makes it impossible to have a shred of intellectual curiosity about why men don’t want to get married and be ignorant about it at the same time. There are plenty of articles elucidating our perspective like the Breitbart series.

    In short, anyone who thinks young men need to man up it’s something who doesn’t care enough about them to shut up for a moment and listen.

    Notice none of these “man up” articles ever has a single man (hehehe) quoted as to why he doesn’t want to get married. Not one. Has he ever he asked a single man why he doesn’t want to marry? Because the entire man up mythology is that men are shirking their responsibilities while the women are just sitting there from the moment they hit 18 waiting for a good man to wife them up and any bachelor can demolish this myth within seconds of opening his mouth.

    Again, Aaron Clarey deserves a medal for that video take-down of Prager, because it is applicable to the rest of these man uppers who are basically giving young men advice as harmful as a financial adviser telling them to invest their life savings in Enron in 2001 while we’re off to the side screaming about its impending bankruptcy.

  25. bookooball says:

    Marriage between a man and woman doesn’t have to be recognized by the state for it to be valid in the eyes of God almighty.

  26. bookooball says:

    Admit it, men are just bitter, Rollo…

  27. HamOnRye says:

    “We don’t need a new society.”

    Not entirely. We do however need an event that will allow us to break the status quo.

    Look at it this way. If you were to walk into your local church and talk about biblical defined marriage as written into the bible, and as its discussed here, you would receive an enormous amount of scorn. You will likely be asked to leave, and some enterprising SJW might even take to twitter to make an example out of you. All the “right” thinking church goers would shrug and say that you likely got what you deserved.

    Right now the wrong thing, the American Cultural thing, is too comfortable for most people to rock the boat. Any attempt to reclaim culture is going to be met by stiff opposition from both “conservatives” and progressives.

  28. Jason says:

    But what ARE you and others actually willing to do, besides complain about the problem? Be specific and concrete; you have discussed things to death Dalrock. Just whining about things isn’t going to do anything; if you and others commenting here are serious, then you need to SPEAK UP and ACT UP – not just on blogs but in your actual churches. There’s a lot of good you guys could do here, but only if you actually let your ministers and churches know what you think. I know that’s tough and has its risks, but that’s what being a Christian – or just a responsible person – means. Otherwise you are not being faithful, but just engaging in what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “cheap grace.”

  29. Jim says:

    “Notice: I’m not saying that the man should be the boss. Being a leader doesn’t mean being a “boss.” But I don’t need to spend time dispelling the notion that men ought to be the boss, because, as we’ve covered, that notion doesn’t really exist.”

    Translation: Be her bitch just like he is. No thanks.

  30. SJB says:

    Walsh’s article is as blue as blue-pill gets: he introduces his theme by basking in the validation his daughter gives him. In his own words: he’s a man because a female notices his love/service.

  31. Boxer says:

    I dare say in 2016, any Communist country would take most of our women, school, courts or churches because the vast majority are pure shit holes.

    Communist societies preserved manly culture — as we see today in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Russia and Poland, which protect their women and kids much better than capitalist countries like Germany, Sweden and USA.

    Feminism is capitalism, extended to the kitchen and bedroom. It started in the USA and UK and spread to other capitalist countries. Only now are kooky feminists making inroads into E Europe with crap like FEMEN, and their progress is limited.

    There are some good women left in our country but they are in the small minority.

    This isn’t true either. Over half of all marriages last until one party dies. That’s over half of the women in USA who are actively resisting feminism and refusing to ruin their kids lives, despite incredible incentives and endless streams of trashy propaganda.

    I like to bash women too, but credit where due. Feminism isn’t nearly the unstoppable juggernaut that we often imagine it to be. I have a great faith that we will all live to see it completely destroyed.

    Boxer

  32. The Question says:

    @ Jason

    We’re not the ones perverting Scripture and biblical marriage, resulting in the ruined lives of millions of men and children, just to placate the feminine imperative and women’s hypergamy along with 30 shekels while claiming to fight the good fight against feminism. Take your outrage to those like Walsh and report back to us on how well your efforts go in convincing him to change the error of his ways.

  33. SJB says:

    @Jason: But what ARE you and others actually willing to do, besides complain about the problem? Be specific and concrete . . .
    .
    Surely the concrete, specific answer is: God’s will.

  34. Boxer says:

    Dear Pedat:

    And she said, “no, PG, I’m not, but it makes guys think that’s what all women want and it’s total bullshit”.

    It’s interesting how women are, to some extent, naturally redpilled. They see the propaganda for what it is, at least as often as we fall for it.

    I have to wonder how many good men started doubting their good wives after seeing that movie. I imagine it caused a tremendous amount of damage to its married viewers. Sad to think about.

    Boxer

  35. Bdawg16 says:

    Jason, many of us do speak and act up not only in our churches but everyday lives. And we’re told in pc terms to fuck off. Dalrock is doing society a great service in offering this forum. One of the reasons blogs exist like this one is for education and encouragement for men who are the most discriminated against members of society on this planet. We won’t shut up and anyone who’s offended by what we say can exercise their constitutional right to read blogs more appealing to their personal taste.

  36. greyghost says:

    I like to bash women too, but credit where due. Feminism isn’t nearly the unstoppable juggernaut that we often imagine it to be. I have a great faith that we will all live to see it completely destroyed.

    Boxer

    Man, you must have a serious stock pile of ammunition. Ha ha ha. These are going to be some fun times. This Trump thing is going to be really fun. Every man in the manosphere should apply for a job in his administration.

  37. JDG says:

    “Notice: I’m not saying that the man should be the boss. Being a leader doesn’t mean being a “boss.”

    If your not the boss then she is. I take this to mean that Matt Walsh’s wife is the boss.

  38. Boxer says:

    Man, you must have a serious stock pile of ammunition. Ha ha ha. These are going to be some fun times. This Trump thing is going to be really fun. Every man in the manosphere should apply for a job in his administration.

    Trump is like all the taboo memes of the collective consciousness, congealed and come to life. I don’t agree with him on everything, but I honestly love what he’s doing by laughing at political correctness. People are actually starting to talk about things that matter, out loud and in the open. It’s great.

  39. Dave says:

    But what ARE you and others actually willing to do, besides complain about the problem? Be specific and concrete; you have discussed things to death Dalrock.

    I think Dalrock is doing an important part by maintaining this blog. Maybe it’s up to us readers that need to truly “man up” and reclaim our civilization.
    Say what you may about him, but Roosh is doing something concrete about what he perceives to be wrong in society. He not only maintains blogs and write books, he organizes his readers to take specific actions. Even then, Roosh is unmarried and “unemployed”, so he probably has more time on his hands, and therefore should not be compared to Dalrock.

    Why don’t we come up with some modest proposals? I personally am fully convinced that it is relatively easy to change America. I have lived in many countries and one thing I have come to understand is that highly structured societies are easier to influence and control. And America is a highly structured society. It would have been much harder for instance, for the feminists to influence policies in Mogadishu.

    A new election is around the corner. Why don’t we start off by demanding changes to family laws?

  40. Dave says:

    Feminism isn’t nearly the unstoppable juggernaut that we often imagine it to be. I have a great faith that we will all live to see it completely destroyed.

    Agreed. But we cannot afford to do nothing. Feminists are bullies, and bullies don’t leave you alone simply because you go about yourt own business.

  41. Dave says:

    @Jason: But what ARE you and others actually willing to do, besides complain about the problem? Be specific and concrete . . .
    .
    Surely the concrete, specific answer is: God’s will.

    Seriously?
    If you cannot show specifically from God’s words that “feminism shall rule the world”, ascribing what we are experiencing today to “God’s will” is a delusion.

  42. SJB says:

    @Dave: I knew you aren’t really a bishop. You probably fake the Lord’s Prayer every time too. Have a good evening.

  43. Bdawg16 says:

    Boxer, I hope you’re right…

  44. Easttexasfatboy says:

    I’m of the opinion that we as men get the society we deserve. Most of will agree that feminism is bad. But how many of you will speak out about abortion? Who among you will call it what it is……premeditated murder? Who among you profess to be a true Christian? How many women that you know will agree with these simple statements?

    Make no mistake, gents. This is very simple. Almost all women here in the USA are raised as feminists. Look at what they actually do, not what they say. The odds of marrying a feminist are very high. You may not find out for years that she was a feminist. But there you are, and she’s doing what feminists do……taking everything.

    Marriage is truly a suckers bet. Sane men realize that. When women will kill the fruitage of their bellies with no qualms, this society is toast. A woman’s right to chose…..to be a murderess. It is that simple. It is a bad place to be…..in front of your Maker…….admitting than you agreed with the slaughter of innocents. I wonder how many of you believe in the Judgement?

  45. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    “Childhood ended and manhood began precisely when I became a husband and then a father”.

    Interesting. There are some unstated assumptions in this little pronouncement.
    Men who work on oil rigs, men who drive trucks, men who are in the Marines, Army, Air Force, Navy, etc. who are neither married nor fathers – men who make nerdbro Matt Walsh’s life even possible – are not men ?

    The irony is his style along with this argument betray a lack of maturity that he isn’t aware he has. How unserious must he have been before marriage to have this perspective, especially since I don’t get the sense that he married all that young? The man has been married for a hair over four years, a father for less, and he is strutting around saying Lookie here, this is what a real man looks like! One thing he hopefully will learn from older men over the years is that real men don’t do that. It is a subtle lesson though, because the only effective way to teach this lesson by modeling it, and it can take a while to notice the absence of a thing.

    I would argue that when Matt Walsh calls himself a “truth teller” he’s lying.

    I think part of the problem is he found himself very young with an audience. As I understand his bio after High School he became a DJ, and after a few years as a DJ became a writer and then a speaker. As such, he has spent much of the time he should have been gaining wisdom declaring how wise he is. This has to be the punditry equivalent of being a child actor.

    From the very first days of this blog I’ve always been cognizant that there is a degree of hubris in setting out to teach, especially on the web. If you have even a moderate audience there is nothing you can write about that someone in your audience doesn’t know more about than you do. This is true for any man, no matter how wise and experienced. There is no way around this, but being aware of it should help prevent excessive embarrassment. On the other hand setting yourself up as a purveyor of wisdom with such limited life experience (not just in years, but in breadth) is a prescription for embarrassment. There is a paradox to wisdom and experience. The more you learn, the more confident you tend to become, but also the more humble you tend to become as well.

  46. Pingback: Don’t fear marriage and fatherhood, but beware those who are working to destroy your family. | Reaction Times

  47. Bdawg16 says:

    “The more you learn, the more confident you tend to become, but also the more humble you tend to become as well.”…well said Dalrock

  48. Jason says:

    I think though, Dave, that it’s helpful to have specific guidelines, objectives, specific things that one does over time, rather than just rely on invective and the mantra of saying “society is going to hell, something needs to be done” over and over again. That’s simply too easy, and a way of letting oneself off the hook. And yeah, sure, family laws needs to be changed and one should be a good citiezen by voting and contributing to political candidates and all that, but let’s face it: what the average person can do in that sphere is pretty limited. Whereas a faithful individual Christian can actually do a lot in his or her church; in fact, this is probably the area where the little platoons in society, as Burke would say, can probably make the most difference concerning the terrible atomization that is occuring in America.
    Look at it this way: suppose Dalrock were to say in one of his blog posts that rather than commenting on his blog for the day, commentators should make an effort to talk to some members of their church and their pastors about making changes of the sort that he and others have suggested. Again, a lot of good could result from that, certainly much more than moaning for the 1 millionth time here that feminists suck.

  49. bookooball says:

    Quite the optimist, you are…

  50. bookooball says:

    I found out after she was pregnant she is a feminist in lady’s clothing… now I must navigate a minefield to be with my child.

  51. infowarrior1 says:

    ”Yet while modern Christians can’t spot the contempt for married fathers in Christian movies, secular critics very often do”

    Its a bloody shame that only secularists and aware discerning Christian can spot what is really going on. Cucktianity ensures blindness.

  52. Emily says:

    Scripture says that becoming a man is more about putting away childish things than about passing some milestone in life such as marriage or fatherhood (1 Corinthians 13:11). Clearly, there were men in the Bible who never married, but who were great examples of godly masculinity. Strange how many who claim to be believers don’t go to Scripture for answers but simply like to toot their own horn.

  53. anonymous_ng says:

    This one popped up on FB today.

    http://mustbethistalltoride.com/2016/01/14/she-divorced-me-because-i-left-dishes-by-the-sink/

    Mostly, he’s rationalizing his failure to suck up hard enough, to roll over and wet on himself enough. If his leaving dishes next to the sink was truly the reason she left, then, she is a child who shouldn’t be allowed to make decisions about her life, but this seems to be what we’ve come to (mostly) as a society.

    As for Matt Walsh, he has a dick, so he is a man, but he’s still a useless, mouthbreather who contributes nothing worthwhile to society.

  54. infowarrior1 says:

    @Boxer
    ”Communist societies preserved manly culture — as we see today in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Russia and Poland,”

    Their socialism is purely economic. They did not have cultural Marxism to subvert their cultures.

  55. Kaminsky says:

    @ Gunner Q,

    “Slavery. Literal, textbook slavery.”

    Yup.

    “But if we’re too afraid to give ourselves and our love to something greater, like family, then we start reaching for replacements. We invest ourselves in television, or games, or pornography, or anything else.”

    Good observation here. These shamer types always come up with activities that are not only shameful but often seriously degrading (often sexual) when they want to fill in the blanks for what single men do with their free time. It’s never “He didn’t want to get married. He’s just happy working hard, volunteering his time and enjoying his outdoor hobbies. He spends a lot of free time working with forest conservation clubs and he loves reading the classics. He’s a T-ball referee too.” Of course not. It’s always something , “He sits in the basement dressed up like Conan while masturbating to busty satyresses when he’s not playing doomquest and sucking on lollipops with peanut butter smeared on his balls so the cat will lick him off.” It’s as pathetic as possible. They narrow down all the world’s possible activities to a weird limitation of fantasy fiction and degenerate porn. It’s fun to see the projection. It’s like they’re revealing what they would be doing if it weren’t for all the ‘honey-do’s’ (And no, I’m not into satyresses or peanut butter play, ha ha)

    You could say that this is the highest form of FI indoctrination/pedestalization that you can ever attain. ANYTHING not done in the interest of manning up (FI) is not only a waste of time but an inhumane one at that. There is simply nothing decent or worthwhile to be done outside of maintaining the FI.

    “Masturbating to Anime” is the latest in a hateful line of shaming.

    The duping is so total. So total.

  56. Dave says:

    How about these proposals:
    1. Abolition of spousal support. Two consenting adults should be able to come together, get married on their own terms without either being rewarded when the union ends.
    2. Mandatory 50/50 joint custody of all dependent children in a marriage in case of divorce. One parent should not be able to alienate the other parent from the lives of the kids.
    3. Abolition of child support payments: each parent become financially responsible for the kids when they are with him/her.

    The unintended consequence of these proposals will be an increase in marriage rate; reduction in frivorces; and a reduction in single motherhood.

  57. Dave says:

    @SJB:

    @Dave: I knew you aren’t really a bishop. You probably fake the Lord’s Prayer every time too. Have a good evening.

    Looks like you do possess special powers which enable you to know many things. And why, again, would I fake the Lord’s Prayer?

  58. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    They did not have cultural Marxism to subvert their cultures.

    So actual Marxist societies weren’t really Marxist, but Capitalist societies were/are?

    (lolling)

    Quite the optimist, you are…

    It can’t last for much longer, man. Feminism is an ideology that exists in times of tremendous surplus.

    I am guessing the history books will peg the peak of feminist idiocy as something like 1997, with the passage of the draconian child support laws by Bill Clinton.

    Sorry about your situation, by the way. Sucks. I hope it gets better.

    Boxer

  59. Looking Glass says:

    @Dalrock:

    A Man of any intelligence, that naturally seeks to teach others, will have generally learned the Hubris problem by the time they are 16 and found ways to keep it in check. I, personally, recall a hilariously bad essay I wrote early in high school that, upon reading a few weeks after it was returned, showed me I needed to address certain things.

    That Walsh hasn’t is not surprising. Though my sympathy for his children.

  60. rugby11 says:

    Porn in marriage equal adultery.
    Makes sense

  61. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Feminism will only last until they really need men to survive.

  62. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @The Question

    The biggest unspoken lie perpetuated in the man up movement by inference is that women want to get married young, so if a man can’t get a wife in college it’s his fault because he’s immature and that’s why the women flock in droves to ride the carousal with Harley McBadboy.

    Spot on. I’m a single man myself, and one of the things that galls me most about the purveyors of the “man-up-and-get-married” message is that they don’t just insist that men have a responsibility to offer themselves up to women for the role of dutiful spouse — they also emphasize that the women have no such obligations to do so for men. You can see a great summation of this attitude from an article that Damon Linker wrote after Eliot Rodger’s massacre. Dalrock dismantled it here in his “Saddest Man-Up Rant Ever” post, but it’s worth recalling Linker’s closing words to the young men of America:

    “The woman you long to sleep with, like the world itself, owes you absolutely nothing. Let that be seared into the brain of every leering, groping, cat-calling, date-raping, would-be mass-murdering man in America.”

    While Linker isn’t in the pastoral trade (though he is Catholic), there are plenty of Christian ministers eager to repeat his message to men that women don’t owe them anything. The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood even published a piece with a similar message here, again as a response to the same event and the #YesAllWomen hashtag that came afterwards (if you have not yet seen it, how I envy you). Like Linker, they want the men to know that women aren’t here on earth for their sake:

    “All men have in some fashion entertained or acted upon the idea that women exist for their pleasure. Believing it has only given men dissatisfaction and misery, and it has provoked objectification, hatred, and even violence toward women.”

    . . . . So just to clarify: If you’re a man then you need to know that women don’t belong to you, they have no duties towards you, and they should be free to do as they please. Fine. For what it’s worth, I largely agree; outside of some sort of agreement or contract (like, oh say, marriage) a woman doesn’t owe you a wife. Or sex. Or a date. Or her attention.

    But when men decide that being a husband or pursuing a woman isn’t even worth the effort anymore . . . along comes a crowd of “Christian men” like Walsh (or Mohler, Driscoll, Rainey, etc.) to declare that we’re immature, we’re cowardly, and we’re “stealing” from women who desire husbands!

    If women don’t owe men their affections, then why should it be an issue that men are no longer offering theirs? At this point, I’m starting to believe that the modern culture views the husband role as a public utility like the electric service: No one person really understands how it works or how it’s maintained, and they don’t really care. But when it stops, our homes are in disarray . . . and all we can really do is get pissed. Because dammit, the service is supposed to just be there!

  63. embracingreality says:

    “wise men rightly are weary of the evil of this new form of family.”

    Thank you and so very true. Wise, average and even moderately simple minded single men who have two eyes to see and two ears to hear need only observe the results from all too trusting men who weren’t weary and paid a very heavy price in the family courts. The days of willful ignorance won’t last forever.

  64. Jim says:

    “The woman you long to sleep with, like the world itself, owes you absolutely nothing. Let that be seared into the brain of every leering, groping, cat-calling, date-raping, would-be mass-murdering man in America.”

    And guess what shithead, I don’t a cunt a fucking thing either. Do these white knight fags ever listen to themselves? Unreal.

  65. @ Darwinian Arminian 12:19am

    Awesome comment!

    Thinking back to the group of peers my husband and I were around when we were dating/engaged, I can think of several guys who wanted to marry young, but couldn’t. And several young women who didn’t want to marry until x,y,z…

  66. There’s an interesting concept in sociology that categorises societies according to the mechanisms of control adapted for maintaining social order.

    Ostensibly there are three adapted cultural devices;

    Shame (particularly prevalent in the Middle East and Islamic cultures but common throughout most primitive global cultures).
    Saving face (a variant of shame predominantly in Japan and East Asian cultures).
    Guilt (seemingly uniquely Western European and most prevalent for cultural advancement).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilt_society
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shame_society

    Traditional Western Guilt culture is premised on internalised absolute standards of morality (God, universals, sin, law, morals etc) but as reductionist/materialism gains sway a new meta narrative for Western Guilt culture is being created before our very eyes.

    Political correctness (feminism, equality, diversity, equal opportunity etc.) and its guilt sins (nationalism, racism, sexism etc.) are becoming the new meta narrative for Western Guilt culture.

    Dalrock made the profound observation that in the socio/sexual/marriage sphere men are ruining the feminist pipe dream by not fulfilling their end of the bargain by not achieving and marrying single mothers, promiscuous women and women approaching the wall.

    It’s interesting to see how the Cathedral, Christians and conservatives have bought into the new meta narrative and are adapting new guilt sins to fulfil the new ‘masculine’ paradigm.

  67. nick012000 says:

    @Darwinian Armenian: The formatting man, the formatting!😄

  68. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @nick012000

    Aaww, rub it in why doncha . . .

    I’d like to take this moment to humbly thank Dalrock for deleting the bungled first comment that I left and allowing me to submit a new, improved and properly formatted (I hope!) revision instead.

  69. What always gets me is how you have these guys pressuring men to “man up” and get married, yet it has obviously never dawned on these know-it-alls that getting married is not as easy as going down to the DMV and registering a car. Maybe it was back in the younger days of these wind bags, but it’s certainly not now.

    The fact is that many guys being nagged about marriage have no prospective wives to select from, because all the women they know, plus all of the women they don’t know, aren’t attracted to them. That’s right, marriage is something that two people need to sign off on, and more men than ever can’t find a cosigner. Oh sure, they may be able to when they are much older, and there is no point anymore..

    Another problem is that the standards for what makes a person qualified to be married are higher than ever. In the old days, people married young and grew into life together; nowadays, you’re supposed to have everything set up and ready to go first, like having your career going. Who set these standards so unreasonably high? Why, it’s the same people who are telling young men to man up! That would be the baby-boomer generation — you know, the one who showed us how marriage works with their 50% divorce rates. See, the key is that they don’t want to face the real reasons of why their marriages failed, so they chalk it up to being unprepared at the time of marriage, like not being mature and grown up, having their careers going, etc. They take this “wisdom” straight to their kids and call it a guide how not to get divorced.

    Well, maybe it’s working, to an extent. It’s true that the divorce rate has fallen slightly. Of course, this is because people are getting marrried less. Yep, that’s how to avoid divorce: don’t get married in the first place.

  70. joshtheaspie says:

    @Jason,

    Well, first of all, it says to minister to those who are ill. Given that -I- am ill, I’m spending a fair amount of time working on that.

    Other than that? When I go out looking for a church that’s worth going to, and find people preaching against men, or in favor of Divorce, or blaming men for everything, I bring up the problems with it, and get yelled at, then go back to my gathering with those of the faith being time spent with fellow Christians outside ‘the church’.

    I also intend to spend time taking the log out of my own eye, before I try to remove the splinter from my Brother’s. I have a lot more wisdom to gain, and a lot more bible study to do.

    I intend to provide for those men kicked out onto the streets by recurring trips to the debtor’s prison for child support, by donating to and helping the homeless.

    I intend to work on removing un-needed things from my own life, to make my own life better, and simpler, and reduce the things that tie me to this world.

    Over-all, I think these things will leave me better off, and leave the world better off.

    So yeah, I’m already doing stuff. Doesn’t mean I’m going to donate to a church that hates men, and uses the phrases “real man” and “man up”, or volunteer to mentor children at a church that accuses men of being pedophiles for their efforts.

  71. ray says:

    Jason — “But what ARE you and others actually willing to do, besides complain about the problem? Be specific and concrete; you have discussed things to death Dalrock. Just whining about things isn’t going to do anything; if you and others commenting here are serious, then you need to SPEAK UP and ACT UP – not just on blogs but in your actual churches”

    ACTUAL churches? Where did you think you were . . . sailing through the Cyber Pass? I’d be willing to bet this essay is as close as you’ve come to a real church in quite awhile.

    I disagree about the site owner discussing to death; on contrary, these posts (and sometimes subsequent commentary) are fresh, invigorating, often scripturally masculine. Dalrock is doing what he’s supposed to do as a Christian man. What’s your problem? No-one else currently on the planet is filling this desperately needed niche for restoring the Church. (Although a handful of other sites do good works in similar areas.) When the apostasies investigated herein are removed from your ‘actual churches’ then I might consider going in and daring to worship God there, without fear of the ceiling falling. Until then, thanks, but I’ll stick around where I know He’s at.

    Just as Scripture advises, people gather here regularly to glorify the LORD of heaven and earth, who is our Father, and to praise his son Jeshua, who is our King and also our friend. Many here strive to return fatherhood to its rightful biblical position, for only in this way can family and national health be restored — not thru shared or equal parenting or administrative schemes, which are all feints and deceptions, but through assumptive father custody and authority in all familial matters. Period. Plus no divorce or abortion, and removal of the profit-structures underlying these ‘industries’ that prey on fatherhood, sonship, marriage, and family. In Malachi 4, God insists that the Christians and Hebrews of OUR time change and heal some hearts, of fathers to children — or else. I don’t see this being done in those ‘actual churches’ you recommend; instead I see it being done here, or at least a beginning of it, and a fine sight it is too, a wakeful and confident pastor guarding sheep in the night.

    Many of the men here, especially older ones, do practice what they preach concerning feminism etc, and some have suffered for it legally, financially, physically etc. They are warriors of Philadelphia and you should test their works and learn to respect them, instead of calling them whiners. Who knows, maybe one day they’ll remember your name, and let you work on their orchards? ;O)

  72. Micha Elyi says:

    The Grand Poobah of cuckservatives, Jonah Goldberg, says the following :

    http://link.nationalreview.com/view/547f9de03b35d0210c8bb89f3jsqf.3lfa/698a2add

    Anon

    Please back up your claim that Jonah Goldberg is Grand Poobah of “cuckservatives”. Please define “cuckservatives”–preferably in 25 words or less–and show evidence that your definition is the same that other users of the term in this blog’s comboxes. Then show evidence that Mr. Goldberg is in this category of “cuckservatives” and show examples of Mr. Goldberg exercising his Poobah powers to rule. At least one example should come from the article of Mr. Goldberg’s that you linked.

    Every conservative is supposed to believe that incentives matter.

    You have made an unsupported assertion. Please back up your claim, preferably by documenting several well-accepted definitions of “conservative” then revealing the appropriate paragraphs in some Conservative Catechism that conservatives as you defined them accept as authoritative instruction for what conservatives are “supposed to believe”.

    Except, of course, where male-female relations are concerned. In those matters, anything a woman wants is right, no matter what. The costs to men and children are of no consequence.

    To further the discussion and because it seems accepted as a truism about American culture generally by most commenters on this blog, I’ll grant you your claim that “where male-female relations are concerned… anything a woman wants is right, no matter what”. But you must show proof that whoever you label “cuckservatives” believe that “(t)he costs to men and children are of no consequence”. Good luck proving a negative. Still, if you can demonstrate that there has not been one article in National Review lamenting the costs of divorce suffered by men or children, I’ll accept that as adequate proof of this claim of yours.

    A cuckservative is not credible on the ‘incentives matter’ point, due to their pathological blindness of how laws have incentivized feral female behavior.

    Pro tip: if you can’t communicate your idea without using jargon such as “cuckservatives” or “cuck” you just may have no idea to communicate at all.

    I believe the use of the use of “cuckservatives” and “cuck” leads many commenters here into the habit of using schoolyard taunts instead of reasoned discussion.

  73. hoellenhund2 says:

    Believing the narrative of hacks like Walsh is the modern equivalent of having faith in some cargo cult, or the Ghost Dance. It’s the belief that if only men, the iseful idiots of society, go through some sort of ritual that makes no sense and isn’t incentivized by any economic or political factors, social problems will magically disappear.

  74. Opus says:

    I am at a loss to understand the notion that men are fighting shy of marriage. I am equally puzzled by the notion that when a woman hits a certain age that her chances of marriage approach zero.

    Some years ago I, very briefly, dated a woman – good looking it has to be said, single and never married but with the red flags of an illegitimate child (on learning thereof I promptly bailed – to her considerable distress) and, frankly, too old, (her mid-forties). Before I forced her into purchasing more paper hankies she told me, presumably as a way of boosting her sagging SMV (and I assume tits), that there was a guy who had known her as a teenager and who said that when she was seventeen he worshiped the ground on which she walked. He was back on the scene and still keen. I assumed this revelation to be some sort of fitness test to bounce me into some sort of commitment. I did nothing, hence the hankies. Time passed.

    I now see – five years on – that she has recently married this very guy who has obviously been hanging around in the meanwhile with her playing hard to get and who is no less than a Surgeon! From his photos he must have been cute as a younger man yet in their new found happiness strikes me as having overdosed on the Blue Pills. There she was on the verge of being sacked from her glamorous job which involved much foreign travel and I suppose foreign dick (off sick from work for any number of years – yet well enough to date me) and playing hard to get with the sort of guy who are as rare as Hen’s Teeth. This is pure and successful AF/BB strategy.

    Then again another (as it happens) of my ex girlfriends – now with two ex husbands and four children has had for longer than I can recall had a certain guy hanging around with his tongue hanging out. She is or was, it must be said, before she hit the wall, pretty cute. He was a cross between an honoured guest and a member of the staff (he fixed her plumbing and the like). He has recently come into money – money which would at the very least vastly improve her finances, yet she has not only not taken the bait but has as he came on heavy – assuming that the only thing he had been lacking was wealth – given her beta-friend his marching orders, so he now sits at home all day licking his wounds.

    Both these women, by the way, assert that they are devout Christians.

  75. It is a rarely acknowledged fact that developed societies, and increasingly the developing ones too, have become 100% female-dominated. Men are, no matter how some women may question it, clearly second- if not third-class citizens. It is obviously taking significant adaptation to put up with the new status quo, specially for those of us who are no longer in the younger age brackets -but it is noteworthy that young men appear to be coping better with the currently unstoppable dictatorial gynecocracy. Marriage is moribund, even within allegedly-traditionalist religious sub-communities, because marriage was never anything other than a way of controlling women, who are nowadays not merely out of control but the controllers.

  76. @Jason What is your problem? Dalrock has an audience of millions of readers. Most of them are male.

    Do you have millions of readers/listeners like Dalrock or 100 million readers like Rollo Tomassi ?

    Please search “christianity men” here.to understand why Dalrock writes this stuff (and has real influence)

    Matt Walsh is well funded for content. Is that content ghost written? Have his former “radio show” hours disappeared from the web? How well is he paid to take credit for an agenda? Have you fallen for it?

    Could his marriage simply be part of an elaborate story line?… Will his wife exit if his “fame” among women suddenly slows down?

    Do some people with an agenda sell their soul?

  77. AurelianWay says:

    I understand the merits of tough love in a young male child & trying to instill a sense of self reliance & responsibility. For an adult male who may have been through a messy divorce or dated a succession of carousel riding “empowered” women, using a tough love / man up / shaming tactic on him is pointless. This man played by the rules, did what was asked of him by women & society yet he still got the shit end of the stick. By shaming him you will be pushing him further away & polarizing the situation.

    Even a token display of empathy towards a man would go a long way to keep him negotiating at the table so to speak. To reiterate what was discussed on the last couple of posts. Why Man Up? Why should men care what women want. What incentive do men get by marrying these modern western women?

  78. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("yac-yac") says:

    I must say, I do find it deeply, deeply troubling, all this intense social pressure, cruel derision and relentless shaming, demanding that gay men should “man up and marry those sluts”.

    </concern-trolling>

  79. Hank Flanders says:

    Jason

    But what ARE you and others actually willing to do, besides complain about the problem? Be specific and concrete; you have discussed things to death Dalrock. Just whining about things isn’t going to do anything; if you and others commenting here are serious, then you need to SPEAK UP and ACT UP – not just on blogs but in your actual churches. There’s a lot of good you guys could do here, but only if you actually let your ministers and churches know what you think. I know that’s tough and has its risks, but that’s what being a Christian – or just a responsible person – means. Otherwise you are not being faithful, but just engaging in what Dietrich Bonhoeffer called “cheap grace.”

    If discussing something is “whining,” then aren’t you whining about people whining? Besides, how do you know people aren’t speaking up in their communities and churches?

  80. Novaseeker says:

    We sure can and must reclaim this that we have. The road may be long and arduous, but there is no other way, actually. I am pretty certain that if the Communists had invaded the USA, and taken all the women, schools, our law courts, churches, etc, many guys would be plotting to overthrow them from power. What then is different with feminism?

    The reason is obvious, even if you refuse to see it: most people like the current situation. Whether they are male, female, old, young, conservative, progressive or what have you. Most people have a few grievances about this or that, but only a tiny sliver sees these as reflective of “systemic” problems that require “putting things back in order”. So, unlike your communist scenario, where there would likely be a very large grassroots resistance, the current culture has nothing at all of the sort — most people of all persuasions think that this is the best we have ever been, if only a few tweaks here and there were made. Feminism is hugely popular, if you define it properly not as “who identifies as feminist” or “tumblrina feminism” — the basic idea of equality, gender egalitarianism, the sexual revolution, female financial independence and all that goes along with all of those are broadly and widely popular among *all* demographics. So, frankly, you have no support, other than a tiny fraction of people who see things differently — a fraction so small that it couldn’t even form a proper bolshevik-style revolutionary cell.

    Face it, those of us here are a tiny, tiny sliver that is basically meaningless in the broader culture. Yes, some people in the mainstream may agree with this or that which we say, but they will never agree that the issue is systemic to feminism (as I describe it above) or the social order in general, because they are deeply invested in both of those, and see no broad problem — only the need for perhaps a few minor tweaks here and there. This is why you won’t win with a “change the thing back” approach. There is no going back, and people don’t want to go forward to a place that looks like going back. I understand if your temperament is of the “do something, dammit!!!!” type of temperament — that’s fine, but realistically you have no likelihood of success. It may still be personally fruitful for you to do that, if that’s what you need to do to feel psychologically well on the personal level, but on the larger level the impact will be zero.

    The only impact we can ultimately have is on the very small microcosm around us — our own families and loved ones, our own friendship circles and so on. That can include churches, but most likely for Protestant Christians will involve founding your own churches based on these ideas, because the other ones will prove to be stony ground, generally, for the reasons I point out above. Think more microcosm, because that is where we can have the greatest impact.

  81. imnobody00 says:

    The man has been married for a hair over four years, a father for less, and he is strutting around saying Lookie here, this is what a real man looks like!

    No mean to offend, Dalrock, but this is a common feature of many American men. They are very smug, even when they have no reason to it. It is always: “Look at me, losers! I am the mega-man. Admire my superiority!”. The humility that Christianity teaches is absent. As much as I admire the United States, I find this characteristic insufferable. (This is why my nick is “imnobody”: look at what I say not at what I am, I am not important).

    I guess it betrays a feeling of inferiority when you are worried about strutting and bragging and saying how great you are. People that are rich – say, Bill Gates – don’t say “I am very rich” because it is evident. People that are intelligent – say ,Einstein – don’t say “I am very intelligent”. If you are constantly saying that you are great, it is because you don’t think you are and you want to convince others and yourself.

    I remember having a project with the World Bank and we had a consultant in the States. I made a document about the design of the project and then we asked him for another document of design of the project from him. The document was full of self-praise, “look at all my past successes and what a great professional I am”, thinly veiled. In meetings, he always was talking about their past successes.

    In the manosphere, it is usual to find people have this attitude too. Talking as if they were geniuses and the other person is a moron. I have lived in Europe, Latin America and the States and this attitude is only usual in the States. It must be tiring having to always pretend you are a superman, when you are only a human being, full of flaws and sins, as we all are.

  82. Kate Minter says:

    boydoesntmeetgirl : You raise some excellent points. If you care to experiment, I would say stop screening girls themselves and start screening their parents. Parents who truly want a good marriage for their daughter will be willing to do things like help the young man pay for his college education, help them buy a first home, etc. Look for parents willing to do that. Then you know the parents are invested in the success of the marriage and will be teaching their daughter about the realities of sex differences and how to be a good wife and mother. My daughter is aware she’s to be married early in this fashion.

  83. vohlman says:

    Actually I Corinthians 13 says that when Paul became a man he put away childish things. It does not say that was what made him a man.
    There are, actually, no men in Scripture who are listed as never marrying. None. For some we don’t know if they did, nothing is said, but it is never said of anyone that they didn’t marry. And going to Scripture we find an awful lot about how the Godly man is married and has children. For example:

    Psa 128:1 A Song of degrees. Blessed is every one that feareth the LORD; that walketh in his ways.
    Psa 128:2 For thou shalt eat the labour of thine hands: happy shalt thou be, and it shall be well with thee.
    Psa 128:3 Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table.
    Psa 128:4 Behold, that thus shall the man be blessed that feareth the LORD.
    Psa 128:5 The LORD shall bless thee out of Zion: and thou shalt see the good of Jerusalem all the days of thy life.
    Psa 128:6 Yea, thou shalt see thy children’s children, and peace upon Israel.

    Dozens of other verses suppliable upon request.

  84. Kaminsky says:

    @novaseeker,

    Nice post. There is not much one can do at all when the issue is trying to get a bunch of fat idiots to change how they think. Every one of us here, even Dalrock and Rollo, has one vote that will likely be cancelled out a year from now by some guy currently stumbling across the border from Juarez anyway.

    The “Boys, sharpen your broadswords! Once more unto the breach!” contingent of the manosphere, ready to “take back what’s ours!” gets on my nerves. How? Murder? This stuff is settled. The fat dummies won. It’s over. Mind your own and enjoy yourself. Use this disaster to let yourself off the hook and really explore a truly independent, non-collective life. It’s a blessing. Any other time in our history and you would have had to (rightly) offer up a lot of your time to the collective. Not so now. That’s not only the best thing for you to do in selfish terms but also the best for the long-term fix.

  85. J1J2 says:

    The modern family model is a single mother whose men who come and go till she gets too old or fat to bother with, and the only problem is that men are so guilty of “slut-shaming”, “fat-shaming”, and “sexist agism” that the mothers in question wind up alone, horrors. So all we need is a campaign of finger-wagging and shaming against men, to make them realize how wrong they are not to value fat old sluts (and some other man’s kids), and the new ideal will become reality!

  86. @ Darwinian Arminian

    If women don’t owe men their affections, then why should it be an issue that men are no longer offering theirs? At this point, I’m starting to believe that the modern culture views the husband role as a public utility like the electric service: No one person really understands how it works or how it’s maintained, and they don’t really care. But when it stops, our homes are in disarray . . . and all we can really do is get pissed. Because dammit, the service is supposed to just be there!

    You’d be closer to the truth if you said slavery.

    Responsibilities without compensation — whether authority, status, money, or the like — is slavery.

  87. @Micha

    Good post and good questions. This is why I always point out that one must be careful that some manosphere writers are not licking hands that hold the back stabbing knife

  88. Opus says:

    Is imnobodyoo right?

    I certainly heard that same criticism of Americans a lot when I was a youth and emanating from people who had never met an American or been to America but my own latter De Tocqueville-like experience of Americans is not so much bragging as confidence. Americans are nothing if not positive – and they have much to be positive about. If there is a problem, Americans are convinced that there is a solution and if that problem is yours they are keen to help you find that solution. The open-ness of Americans is something that continues to amaze me; you’re a stranger, they want to take you in, no questions asked!

    Perhaps that is where all this ‘man-up and marry’ stuff come from because I have never – even as a recalcitrant single-male and wanna-be player – experienced any pressure to marry. Frankly, on those rare occasions when I was perhaps keen to make an honest woman of some now long-forgotten bint*, the reverse was the case and I was spoken to as if I needed to be sectioned.

    * slang for woman in the north of England.

  89. Every one of us here, even Dalrock and Rollo, has one vote that will likely be cancelled out a year from now by some guy currently stumbling across the border from Juarez anyway

    Or be cancelled out by someone who comments here, agrees with manosphere themes and adroitly complains ion the comboxes, but gets louder and more prolific when they can pile on the “cuckservatives”.

  90. @Opus

    He may be right. But it may be something more prevalent among the 40 and under crowd (+/-), They were more raised with the -“everyone gets a trophy”, and,” I am special”- mantras which shape social media vernacular.

  91. Novaseeker says:

    Political correctness (feminism, equality, diversity, equal opportunity etc.) and its guilt sins (nationalism, racism, sexism etc.) are becoming the new meta narrative for Western Guilt culture.

    Dalrock made the profound observation that in the socio/sexual/marriage sphere men are ruining the feminist pipe dream by not fulfilling their end of the bargain by not achieving and marrying single mothers, promiscuous women and women approaching the wall.

    It’s interesting to see how the Cathedral, Christians and conservatives have bought into the new meta narrative and are adapting new guilt sins to fulfil the new ‘masculine’ paradigm.

    Yes, precisely.

    There’s an excellent relatively recent book on this by Joseph Bottum entitled “An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America”. Basically, his thesis (which I agree with and which I believed before I read his book as well) is that what we are dealing with is a religious shift — PC and all of its attending ways really comprise a new, non-theistic, public religion that, in effect, has replaced the prior public religion of Christianity (in a loose consensus, given the plurality of Christian types). It functions the same way, and has the same enforcement mechanisms — it simply has different substantive content. And the proponents of it among the elite are just as serious about the new religion and its moral claims as their predecessors, the leaders among the Puritans and later leading religious groups in America, were at their time. It’s a non-theistic religion, complete with absolute moral claims and demands, as well as enforcement mechanisms which work remarkably like they used to work for the previous public religion. The difference, of course, is the substance, but the form and the role and the means — these are very similar.

  92. I meant to add an anecdote in that reply to Opus, and for imnobody to see

    I once went to gather my three or four year old (now ten) daughter from a half day sort of Bible summer camp thing and when I entered the facility a 4ish year old boy blazed up to me like a miniature Flash and asked “Have you seen ME?”

    Ive considered that the earliest demonstration of the narcissism to which imnobody alluded and to which Ive assigned part blame on the I Am Special atmosphere.

  93. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    I think part of the problem is he found himself very young with an audience. As I understand his bio after High School he became a DJ, and after a few years as a DJ became a writer and then a speaker. As such, he has spent much of the time he should have been gaining wisdom declaring how wise he is. This has to be the punditry equivalent of being a child actor.

    Perhaps that accounts for some of the obnoxious know-it-all tone that pervades his writing.
    Lying to onesself is still lying.

    He’s arrogant and ignorant.

  94. Emily says:

    True, 1 Corinthians 13:11 doesn’t say that putting away childish things makes one a man, but it does seem to imply that the two go hand in hand. It would seem to me that any male who has passed puberty is a man physically, but I think there are other aspects to “becoming a man” as well. I just can’t see how marriage and fatherhood alone make one a man and I’m not dismissing their value. I agree that young marriage is the way to go if one wants to marry, but I disagree that it is always possible to find a suitable mate within the desired time frame.
    Just my opinion, of course.

  95. Hank Flanders says:

    At this point, I don’t really see how Matt Walsh could be a “blue piller,” clueless about the proclivities and mindsets of modern women, or have little to no knowledge of our current legal system. However, Walsh, like the Kendrick brothers, knows his audience: women. The only people I ever see posting Walsh articles this one to facebook are women. The people who love movies like Fireproof and War Room are primarily women, too I’ve noticed. If these movies portrayed the men as loving and caring towards their wives and the women as the ones who need to be fixed, then the movies probably wouldn’t do so well. Likewise, Walsh wouldn’t get all of the facebook shares he gets if he wrote that men are supposed to be respected and followed as the bosses in their homes but that modern society (including Walsh himself, apparently) removes men’s incentives to marry with the line of thinking that they advocate.

  96. PokeSalad says:

    Walsh is far from the first ‘mens’ writer to discover how much more lucrative it is to adjust one’s writing to the FI.

  97. Elspeth says:

    Here, we are awaiting a non-cam version of Daddy’s Home (pits reliable step-dad against returned bio-dad) to appear online so we can see which man the narrative is supporting. I’m betting it’s step-dad because he manned up and paid for someone else’s children.

    Hey Kate. We actually saw this film and I’m gonna spoil it then leave. Will Ferrell is the very weak, very soft step dad to Mark Wahlberg’s bio-dad. At one point when Ferrell is in the depths of despair (and fear of losing his wife) he actually says to Wahlberg: “Last night I made love to our…I mean MY wife…”

    It was really something to watch as it was startlingly realistic in its exploration of the fears and motivations of a second husband whose a good man married to a woman whose first husband was exciting but unreliable.

    By the movie’s end, husbands 1 and 2 are best buds. Wahlberg’s character himself marries a beautiful single mother who’s ex-husband is more alpha than he is. He becomes what Will Ferrell’s character was at the beginning of the movie. and the credits roll.

  98. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    imnobody00 says:”this is a common feature of many American men. They are very smug, even when they have no reason to it. It is always: “Look at me, losers! I am the mega-man. Admire my superiority!”. … The document was full of self-praise, “look at all my past successes and what a great professional I am”, thinly veiled.

    Here in Los Angeles, this is normal behavior among both men and women. Regardless of their profession, most men and women act as if they were celebrities. Yoga instructors, dentists, psychics, realtors, life coaches, personal trainers, nutritionists — everyone is always promoting themselves as a celebrity.

    They all have brochures, professional photos, self-published books (all claiming to be bestsellers). Everyone wants a reality show. Everyone seems to have whitened teeth, dyed hair, plastic surgery.

    And they way they talk! I was a at dinner where a guy kept “casually” mentioning how rich he was, and talking about the things he bought, dropping phrases like, “But hey, what’s the point of having so much money unless you spend it to … etc., etc.”

    I had a neighbor, a woman in her 40s, a failed actress, who was mistress to some senior citizen producer. This woman would pass around a folder containing her life story. It contained “proof” of all her achievements in the arts, and as a civic leader, and humanitarian. It was mostly nothing. I remember it had a form letter from Merv Griffin, thanking her for participating in some charity event.

    I suppose this American self-praise begins with kids trying amass Facebook Friends and Twitter Followers as a means of self-validation. As proof of how famous and popular they are.

  99. vohlman says:

    Historically and Biblically speaking strong families are the bedrock of any strong society. Contrariwise any society that allows its family structure to become weak has, sooner or later, slid into destruction or anonymity.

    A strong family involves young, fruitful marriages; strong leadership by men in their families, a strong focus on the importance of children who grow to bring honor to the family; including raising strong families themselves.

    Our society ignores this to our peril. But reform in this area will have to start with men, strong men, marrying, raising children, and leading their family. Nothing else will work.

  100. Caspar Reyes says:

    There’s a slightly more than outside chance that I will soon get to meet and speak with Alex Kendrick face-to-face. Maintaining all respect for him, etc., what one question should I ask him?

  101. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    vohlman: There are, actually, no men in Scripture who are listed as never marrying. None.

    Doesn’t Paul imply (I forget the verse) that he never married — and that he had no sexual desires. That he wished all men were like him (i.e., an asexual), but for men who “burned” with passion (unlike himself), such men should marry so as to avoid falling into sexual sin.

  102. Pingback: Don’t fear marriage and fatherhood, but beware those who are working to destroy your family. | Society of Southern Gentlemen

  103. Miserman says:

    If there is one thing I would say men fear, it is futility. Nothing is worse than for a man to invest all of himiself and at the end of day have nothing to show for it.

  104. Dalrock says:

    @Poke Salad

    Walsh is far from the first ‘mens’ writer to discover how much more lucrative it is to adjust one’s writing to the FI.

    While I have no doubt he intuitively understands which side his bread is buttered on, he clearly has an overpowering need for female approval. He wrote a post about chivalry a while back and included the line “I’m no feminist”. He was so disturbed by the hate mail he got for that post that he wrote a follow up post complaining that women weren’t giving him the kudos he had come to expect for his writing. He received letters from men essentially calling him a mangina, but he dismissed this as coming from trolls. However, it truly stung him that the women in his audience withheld approval for the post:

    …what disturbed me more than the inevitable Attack of the Trolls, were the literally hundreds of people who told me they agreed with the message, and thought it constructive and urgently necessary, yet I “lost them,” or they “stopped reading,” or they “changed their minds about me,” because of one three word sentence halfway through my rather lengthy post. Here is that decisive phrase: “I’m no feminist.” There goes the whole heartfelt and sincere piece about loving, protecting, and being loyal to women; apparently negated in the minds of many because I didn’t give myself the proper label.

    @Anon Reader

    I think part of the problem is he found himself very young with an audience. As I understand his bio after High School he became a DJ, and after a few years as a DJ became a writer and then a speaker. As such, he has spent much of the time he should have been gaining wisdom declaring how wise he is. This has to be the punditry equivalent of being a child actor.

    Perhaps that accounts for some of the obnoxious know-it-all tone that pervades his writing.
    Lying to onesself is still lying.

    He’s arrogant and ignorant.

    This comes with youth though. By his own metric he only really became a man just over 2 1/2 years ago when he became a father. Per the editor’s note in this post his kids would have been born in May of 2013, and per the man up post:

    I can look at my life up until this point and separate it into two distinct halves: childhood and manhood. Childhood ended and manhood began precisely when I became a husband and then a father.

    If we take him at face value, he has positioned himself as a “professional truth sayer” since he was a child. He has been a man for less than three years by the fatherhood metric, and less than five by the marriage metric. The problem is to get the approval of women that he is jonesing for he needs to present himself as the only real man in the room. He simply can’t afford not to teach manhood, no matter how new it is to him.

  105. Boxer says:

    Dear Elspeth, Kate, et.al.:

    Wow! I really have to see this film.

    Hey Kate. We actually saw this film and I’m gonna spoil it then leave. Will Ferrell is the very weak, very soft step dad to Mark Wahlberg’s bio-dad. At one point when Ferrell is in the depths of despair (and fear of losing his wife) he actually says to Wahlberg: “Last night I made love to our…I mean MY wife…”

    This is disgusting, but sorta funny.

    One of the weaknesses men consistently have is their refusal to talk to the ex-boyfriend / ex-husband of the new woman they attach. This allows for all sorts of nonsense, most often including grandiose claims by said woman about their ex (he’s an abuser, a sex pervert, a serial killer, etc. etc.)

    It was really something to watch as it was startlingly realistic in its exploration of the fears and motivations of a second husband whose a good man married to a woman whose first husband was exciting but unreliable.

    This is not an innate fear. Men don’t give a shit about their wife’s ex-whatever. It’s an artificial fear that the moviemakers are consciously trying to promote, in order to weaken and destroy the marriages of the moviegoers.

    The social engineers seem to want to make men insecure. I’m sure there’s some monetary incentive for this (book sales, counseling appointments, or whatever). They’re parasites, who seek to weaken their host and feed off the decaying organism.

    Interesting!

    By the movie’s end, husbands 1 and 2 are best buds. Wahlberg’s character himself marries a beautiful single mother who’s ex-husband is more alpha than he is. He becomes what Will Ferrell’s character was at the beginning of the movie. and the credits roll.

    It’s a huge shame more men don’t hunt down their new wife’s ex-boyfriend. He would be very valuable as to what the new husband could expect (who would know her tricks better?) If he is the sort of scumbag she says he is, then it’s proof that she’s a person who doesn’t make very good decisions.

    Best,

    Boxer

  106. Funny thing, most of the comments from the men at Blaze after Cucky-Walsh’s article are in disagreement, all of the comments from women agree with Cucky Walsh and wholeheartedly. A lot of Amen’s and “you GO, Mark!” from the women. Women on Blaze would think Cuckie correct, of course and therein lies the answer behind the question of, “What does Cucky get out of selling out his own gender?”. Attention and affirmation from women.

  107. Jason says:

    Joshtheaspie, it seems to me that you did the decent, right, manly, Christian thing: you said what you believe to your fellow church members, and when they weren’t interested, you went on to evangelize other Christians outside the church. You made an honest effort, and did what you could. You acted, and were faithful in the sense of the epistle of St. James (“faith without works is dead”). Honestly, that’s all I’m really suggesting here to Dalrock’s followers: make a sincere effort to actually do something – which may be as simple as just talking about these matters to a fellow parishioner in the pew – in addition to cyberspace criticism.

  108. The Question says:

    Dalrock

    Well put. We have realize Walsh really isn’t writing this post to men; they aren’t the intended audience. He’s actually being quite clever; the overt message is to young men, but the covert message is to the real readership, which are the “laydees.”

    As a writer myself under 30, I would highly advise young aspiring writers to read a lot, learn how to write, but instead of actually writing or publishing your work, focus on getting life experience. That will bring the authenticity and wisdom to your writing that only real life experience can provide as well as inspire creativity.

    Also, realize that getting paid to “tell the truth” is a poor business model unless you don’t rely on it for your livelihood because you’ll let the bottom line dilute the message.

  109. Jason says:

    Sam Botta, I don’t know if Dalrock has millions of readers, but he certainly has many, and is undoubtedly the most prominent spokesman for masculinity in society and in the church in the Blogosphere. His blog has also been around for seven years or so, and has had a strong Christian emphasis for the last two I guess. One would expect then by this point, after I suppose hundreds of essays and tens of thousands of comments, that there would be evidence here of Christian men and women not merely analyzing and venting about these issues (which is of course legitimate), but talking about what they are actually realistically doing to alleviate if not solve them. We should be hearing about how Dalrock’s Orthodox or Catholic readers suggested to their bishops that the Eucharist be denied to the divorced without annulments and being laughed at to their faces, or those of a Calvinist persuaion arranging for some kind of Consistory for church discipline and having surprising success with that, or the probably majority Evangelicals finding to their shock that in their Bible studies a lot of women really do want to submit to their husbands. Alas, there really doesn’t to be any signs of such testimony; all that I can remember is one seminiary student saying a year ago or so that he and others were discussing Christian masculinity in their study group. (Of course, I may have missed other anecdotes and testimonies and am open to correction here.) Really, there should be more stories like that, again at this juncture.

    Of course, it may be as you say that Dalrock’s readers are doing such things privately and BTS. But truly, who actually believes that? What is more likely is that, human nature being what it is (and hey, I’m no different – I myself can be a great coward), Dalrock’s followers are talking but not being faithful, simply expecting others to do the hard work. That’s never going to happen: if Dalrock and others want there to be at least a seperate sphere from the general Christian society where Christian masculinity thrives of the sort that I think Novaseeker refers to above (in essence a form of Rod Dreher’s Benedict Option), then they are going to go after it. Nobody is going to do it for them. As it is, I expect it’s going to be more of the same here, with Dalrock writing yet more essays about the failures of ministers and churches, and his commentator smaking the same old complaints but not doing anything about the problems of atomization in American culture. And to repeat for the third and final time, that would be sad, because considering the essential decency of Dalrock and his followers there’s a lot of good they could contribute in healing the pain that so many women and men are in today.

  110. PokeSalad says:

    Fatherhood in no way makes one a “man.” I know plenty of “men” who are just as irresponsible now as fathers as they were when they were not. Becoming a father, at its base, simply means that your plumbing is in sufficient working order….the same as about a jillion other men on this earth.

    This is a common error of mistaking the effect for the cause. Responsible fathers are the result of responsible men becoming fathers.

  111. JDG says:

    Of course, it may be as you say that Dalrock’s readers are doing such things privately and BTS. But truly, who actually believes that.

    Regardless of what you believe, some of us have been activelying working against feminism in our congregations and association circles for years (and taking heat for it).

    What are you doing?

  112. seventiesjason says:

    My church watched “War Room” on New Years Eve….a night of a pot luck dinner….board games, a fun auction……..and then we all filed into the chapel to watch ‘The War Room’

    I mentioned I didn’t like it, and you would have thought I ripped the Bible in half by the looks I got. I mentioned a few reasons that Dalrock mentioned and as usual I got the ” I just didn’t get it” comments and I got the “head-shaking-pity” from many men and women alike. Some older women told me “When you’re married, you’ll understand!” (gonna be 46 this year…not happening)

    The worst comment I expected finally came….not from a woman, but a man a little younger than me in my church who actually reminds me of Matt Walsh in attitude, style and in the “looks” department. “This is exactly why you are single…..you can’t enjoy a good movie for what it is; a movie that is Christian, family orientated, that strikes a real chord in too many Christian families today. Not enough men are being men in their homes…..women love to laugh, have fun and want a man who is going to lead them….you single Christian guys have some very, very destructive opinions and presumptions about women. None of them are true. This is why Christian men like you are not growing and learning from this……you had a great opportunity tonight, and as usual you find a fault with it!”

    He went on, but at this point his voice just sounded like Charlie Brown’s teacher from the old cartoons………I could have given a retort, I could have argued…..but it would have been pointless. I then would have had the rest of my Christian character called into question……..and the circular discussion would have just dug my hole deeper.

    These topics I should just learn to keep to myself and focus on my Holiness, my service, my dedication to prayer, His word and what I was delivered from.

    Great post Dalrock

  113. joshtheaspie says:

    @Jason:

    Well thank you for the praise, but that’s not why I told you. I told you because you asked. And until you asked, I don’t recall discussing these things before. I’ll occasionally read mention of action taken inside the church from members of this blog, in an understated way. Or someone mentioning challenges he’s facing in doing good, in the attempt to get advice on how to overcome those challenges. But there’s good reason why I don’t see it more often.

    One of the characteristics of a Christian is not tooting his own horn about the good he’s done, unless there is a specific befit to others for doing so (my Mother worries about me, so I make sure to tell her things that will encourage her, for example).

    There is even instruction to this effect from Jesus.

    Matthew 6: 1-7, 16-18
    1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.

    2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

    5 “And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words.

    16 “When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show others they are fasting. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, 18 so that it will not be obvious to others that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

    So it seems to me that you are using good Christian behavior as evidence of bad Christian behavior, and what you would call manliness. That is rather puzzling.

  114. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @vohlman

    There are, actually, no men who are listed in Scripture as never marrying. None.

    Bullshit. There’s even one instance in the Bible where God begins a prophet’s ministry (Jeremiah’s) by telling him he will never marry:

    “The word of the Lord came to me: You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place. For thus says the Lord concerning the sons and daughters who are born in this place, and concerning the mothers who bore them and the fathers who fathered them in this land: They shall die of deadly diseases. They shall not be lamented, nor shall they be buried. They shall be as dung on the surface of the ground.”

    Jeremiah 16:1-4

    By now I’m used to seeing this kind of bastardization of Scripture from the likes of Mohler and Driscoll, but that doesn’t leave me any less disgusted with it. It reeks of the worst kind of Phariseeism: you pick out disparate verses and passages to create a new rule or commandment that is convenient for you, but was never ordered by God in the first place.

    So for all those who want to assert that marriage and children are what grants a Christian male his manhood status, I’d like to leave you with a few words from the Apostle Paul at the end of 1 Corinthians 7:

    “So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better.”

  115. joshtheaspie says:

    @vohlman says:
    “But reform in this area will have to start with men, strong men, marrying, raising children, and leading their family. Nothing else will work.”

    Then nothing will work. You are railing that the symptom be changed, without attacking the disease. You expect the market to revert to it’s old shape, without first reverting the incentives that shape the market.

    And if you propose that men must become strong in ways society punishes, then man up and marry those sluts in order to fix the incentives of the market, then there is no point to start to fix the solution.

    Many men just don’t respond to shaming any more. The attempt to look like ‘the big guy in the room who will fix things by shaming men into place’ has been done so long, the effort is transparent and ineffectual.

  116. Jason says:

    I certainly agree Joshtheaspie that one should avoid tooting horns, that one should do things unostentatiously. However, one ACTUALLY NEEDS TO DO THEM – privately perhaps, prudentially certainly. And as I suggested above to another individual, while it’s possible that Dalrock’s commentators are doing things BTS, there’s every reason to believe that they’re generally not.

  117. joshtheaspie says:

    @Jason
    Pardon, I do not understand the acronym “BTS” so that may cause me to confuse the meaning to which I reply.

    And yes, you need to actually do good. But I do not see the ‘every reason’ to believe we are not.

  118. Jim says:

    “Then nothing will work. You are railing that the symptom be changed, without attacking the disease. You expect the market to revert to it’s old shape, without first reverting the incentives that shape the market.”

    There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.
    Henry David Thoreau

  119. joshtheaspie says:

    @Jim
    So then you agree that exhortations to keep hacking at the branches is less than useful?

  120. Jason says:

    joshtheaspie, bts=behind the scenes

  121. Jason

    I get you. I understand why you FEEL as you do about the sort of repetitiousness of the male blog sphere and its Christian Red Pill Subset.

    I feel like the guy accused of racism responding that his best friend is black when I tell you that you’ve no idea what folks do or do not do. I have done what I suppose you’d call direct activism in several churches, meeting in person with pastors and systematically deconstructing their false beliefs and shaming their blatant Lift chasing. Ive done more of the same by email , not me sending off screeds, but by dialog, including with one of the oft mentioned national family ministries where i was all set for traveling to their HQ for a face to face meeting at one point.
    Ive done anecdotal research where Ive downloaded hundreds of sermons and categorized them for being man bad woman good. Ive used those examples to communicate an overarching theory to folks like Russell Moore and others. Ive used these things to minister to men who find themselves with a process server at the door holding divorce papers, which is some of the most important -work-of all, because these men can go lower and lower as they attempt to supplicate their way back into the approval of the ex wife and more, friends and family who as usual choose her side, tacitly or actively.

    I have suffered those same concerns about the ebb and flow topically and have concluded that, like any non empirical thing ( there is plenty empirical about marriage and divorce but the context in this post is not) about relational matters. I concluded that reading these things is cathartic to men who’ve run afoul of the very things we lament.

    So stop bitching about it and you go beat feet to your own activism and report back.

  122. Also Jason

    I would predict that the comments with the most extreme invective are likely made by the folks the least likely to put money with mouth. Railing at “cuckservatives” is cheap theater because it has no innate actionable aspect driving it. Perhaps a form of schadenfreude drives it and that’s not a change agent.

    The league of red pill assassins will however be comprised partially of converted “cuckservatives” who were forged in the fire of their own divorce and the subsequent realization that they had been so incredibly wrong. But few are those that will change their toxic traditional views based on argumentation or information. If you see one being flamed out, bring him into the fold if you want to heap coals on his head most effectively. He’ll be able to take the heat.

  123. BanderSnoot says:

    My wife of 34 years left me because of my struggles with depression. I was made to sit through a public excoriation in church where the pastor told his (and my) congregation that the elders have the right to separate a marriage if a husband speaks angrily to his wife. I repented my sins, asked forgiveness, offered to go to counseling, anything, but was told the marriage is over.

    Found out later that she had met with the pastors years before and this was her plan all along.

    Though I submitted to discipline and was publicly found to be repentant, I was forced out of the church… it was the best thing the Lord has ever done for me. He led me to a new church and the toxic atmosphere of my life was replaced with lasting joy and faith, and my struggles with depression are now gone.

    But in the end, that church destroyed my marriage, though I provided the fuel, they happily lit the match and fanned the flames. And I will be paying the legal fees (when I can finally afford them.) I continue to send financial support, and pay all the bills for a woman who I will never see again.

    Such is the effect of creeping feminism in the Christian church. It’s always the husbands fault.

  124. Jason says:

    Like I said to others Empathologian, I admire and greatly respect guys like you who actually do things. And if you are not succeeding because of what you and Novaseeker said above, that Christians are just not interested in most churches concerning masculinity issues, then maybe there needs to be Plan Bs. Perhaps alternative church plants need to be done then that focus more on creating solid Christian families, for those who are evangelicals, or lay groups need to be created for Catholics and Orthodox and those in the conservative mainline. Obviously it’s a challenge, but it is at least my impression that there’s a lot of negative energy here on this blog that could be more intelligently and constructively channeled.

    Just to mention one simple example that pops up immediately to mind concerning a realistic objective: even in small churches, and surely in large parishes and megachurches, there are always few young men and women there that could be mentored. We all know the type and can pick them out if we have some perception: the shy Beta guys who don’t know how to relate to women, the mildly feminist women who just need to tune down the “girl power” shtick a bit. Maybe a lot of men and women here are doing such mentoring, and that’s great, but if not then there are real opportunities in churches that perhaps some additional commentators could take advantage of.

  125. joshtheaspie says:

    @Jason:

    Thanks for explaining your acronym.

    But over all? Just drop it. You’re just annother guy, in a long line of guys, demanding that men ‘man up’. It’s tiring. You’re not going to convince me to do anything. If I do something different than I do now, it will be because of a passage discovered in the Bible, or my own ponderings. I was conversing with you for your benefit, not because I think you will convince me of anything.

    The vast majority of what my fellow man says, at this point, sounds like the Charlie Brown teacher, for all the good it does.

    You are not encouraging. You are shaming as a form of exhortation. And it stinks.

  126. Jason says:

    Whatever Joshtheaspie. You know, I made a real effort to engage with you, to praise you, and to try to explain where I’m coming from, on an issue that I think that not enough is being done enough about in the churches and elsewhere. If you think that I’m mistaken, then that’s perfectly fine. But if at the end of this all you can do is call me an extortionist, well screw you.

  127. Miserman says:

    In all the bluster over whether men should marry or stay single in this slut-walk culture, I come face-to-face with 1 Corinthians 7:1-2:

    Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband (NKJV).

    Frankly, I have not followed that advice.

  128. @Jason: I get what you are saying bro, I really do, but you are asking the impossible. You are demanding that slaves speak up and then take their whipping like a man. You CAN demand that disempowered men who have been beat down their entire lives stand up to their wives- that is basically what we do in Married Red Pill. You can NOT demand they stand up to their church, their pastor, the community, and all their friends. Sure it would be nice if more men could speak up- evil triumphs when good people remain silent and all that but nobody has a duty to essentially stand up in church and start screaming rank heresy to the rank- rank and file church lady feminists and manginas/White Knights.

    AT BEST you can talk about these issues in secret and quiet whispers. You may NOT talk about feminism except in glowing terms or you are SEXIST and MISOGYNIST. Just try it on Facebook. I dare you. Let us know how that works our for you.

    Read the comments on this thread. Even the pastor can’t bring himself to say what male headship means. Leadership is ONLY if you are leading where the WIFE wants to go.

    What is it that Rollo said: Oh yes,

    THE FI HAS REPLACED THE HOLY SPIRIT IN MODERN CHURCHIANITY.

    Jason, the Red Pill has the same rules as fight club for a reason. The first rule of Fight Club is you do not talk about fight club. Do you know what the second rule of Fight Club is?

  129. feeriker says:

    This is a common error of mistaking the effect for the cause. Responsible fathers are the result of responsible men becoming fathers.

    And thus tradcons demonstrate why they, like women, are hopeless at cause and effect.

  130. PokeSalad says:

    there’s every reason to believe that they’re generally not.

    Prove it.

  131. Jim says:

    “So then you agree that exhortations to keep hacking at the branches is less than useful?”

    Yes. Why hack at branches when these grow back? The damned thing needs to be pulled up by the roots.

  132. Jason says:

    Sorry Joshtheapsie, I thought it was extort you wrote. My apologies.

    PokeSalad, I gave my reason for why I think generally speaking people are not following up on their rhetoric in one of the above comments.

  133. Jason says:

    Churches are not supposed to be fightclubs Bluepillprofessor. They should be places of love, hope and trust. Do you think that God is no longer capable of working through flawed but faithful vessals such as those at Dalrock’s blog, that simple but profound steps – sowing mustard seeds – cannot grow into great beauty?

  134. PokeSalad says:

    Churches are not supposed to be fightclubs Bluepillprofessor. They should be places of love, hope and trust.

    …from the guy who said, “screw you.”

    *chuckling* By their words ye shall know them.

  135. Jason says:

    Jesus, St. Paul, Martin Luther said worse PokeSalad.

  136. Vektor says:

    “He notes that marriage isn’t the only way a man can embrace responsibility while pointing out that very few of the men avoiding marriage are practicing celibacy.”

    Celibacy? Wrong. Dead wrong. There are alternatives to sex with women that exist TODAY, and every day the levels of refinement increase and improve. It is possible to get off, without spending hundreds to thousands of dollars on some thankless, asshole female. In other words….fuck that shit.

    “Under our new culture and legal structure, marriage lasts precisely as long as your wife says it will”

    The term “till death do us part…” is so laughable, so ridiculous, I can’t fathom how people don’t just bust out laughing in churches across the western world. The “marriage” is not worth the paper it’s printed on. Except you can be damn sure the STATE will ENFORCE your end of the deal. In other words….if you get divorced…you become a slave and you lose your children. And the state gives your “wife” every incentive to divorce you.

    The war of the sexes is about power. Women have too much power. I will NEVER allow a female to have power over me ever again.

  137. JDG says:

    Jason what are YOU doing?

  138. DORA GLASBERG says:

    Matt Walsh is a religious fanatic who writes ALL his articles
    from a viewpoint of getting himself and HIS life choices validated as “normal”.
    Any deviation make YOU abnormal. I heard a while back he was some new conservative voice. He’s not. I doubt he ever ventured out of what ever one horse town in Kentucky he was born in.

  139. vohlman says:

    @Darwinian Arminian, what part of ‘in this place’ was unclear? A few chapters later the exact same prophet is now saying:
    Jer_29:6 Take ye wives, and beget sons and daughters; and take wives for your sons, and give your daughters to husbands, that they may bear sons and daughters; that ye may be increased there, and not diminished.
    Because he is no longer ‘in this place’.

  140. vohlman says:

    @Darwinian Arminian, and as for I Corinthians 7 (where the word ‘betrothed’ is not found in the Greek. The word is ‘virgin’.) in that exact same passage Paul says:
    1Co 7:2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

  141. vohlman says:

    @joshtheaspie, You write, “Then nothing will work. You are railing that the symptom be changed, without attacking the disease”
    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”

    The thing what will attack, and destroy, this disease is for strong men to marry young and fruitfully, lead their families well in Godliness, and stand up against the evils of our age. That is what has always been needed, and what has always succeeded. If you need to culture to change before you can do right, well, there is a hymn in response:

    Once to every man and nation, comes the moment to decide,
    In the strife of truth with falsehood, for the good or evil side;
    Some great cause, some great decision, offering each the bloom or blight,
    And the choice goes by forever, ’twixt that darkness and that light.

    Then to side with truth is noble, when we share her wretched crust,
    Ere her cause bring fame and profit, and ’tis prosperous to be just;
    Then it is the brave man chooses while the coward stands aside,
    Till the multitude make virtue of the faith they had denied.

    By the light of burning martyrs, Christ, Thy bleeding feet we track,
    Toiling up new Calv’ries ever with the cross that turns not back;
    New occasions teach new duties, time makes ancient good uncouth,
    They must upward still and onward, who would keep abreast of truth.

    Though the cause of evil prosper, yet the truth alone is strong;
    Though her portion be the scaffold, and upon the throne be wrong;
    Yet that scaffold sways the future, and behind the dim unknown,
    Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above His own.

  142. Anonymous Reader says:

    vohlman, you’re new around here, aren’t you?
    So how long have you been married, how many children do you have, and how many churches have you turned around personally?

    Just curious.

  143. greyghost says:

    AR
    ha ha ha ha

  144. Molly Ellick says:

    The heart of Jason’s desire to see change resonates with me. Maybe he just didn’t know the best way to inspire, and rather came across as questioning. I’ve been reading, reading, reading on the manosphere for some time, from the perspective of a woman who has watched women destroy their husbands, families and society. At times Dalrock’s posts or the following comments have led me to find roots of feminism I didn’t know existed in myself. (Thank you.) I have often wondered, in frustration, why men don’t stop the destruction. Why there is primarily a tone of impotence and bitterness among the stronger sex. BluePillProfessor’s comment gives me some glimmer of understanding. Hard to be strong when you’re beat down all the time. I don’t know if this will be any comfort at all, but know that there are women who are angry about the way men are treated. So, a man really can’t speak up, and evil triumphs when good people remain silent. Is the answer then that a few women speak up?

  145. vohlman says:

    @anonymous, Yes, I haven’t commented here much in the past. I blog and write on marriage issues and was pointed here by a friend after I posted the Matt Walsh article to some of my FB groups.

    I have been married for (Von yells to ask his wife) 26 ish years, I have six children, five children in law, and four grandchildren and counting.

    In general we have attended churches that place a high view on marriage, children, etc.

  146. joshtheaspie says:

    @Jason

    Forgiven. We all make honest reading errors. Though I stand by my statement that I’m tired of exhortations to follow the directions of others. If I do not do what I am commanded not to do, and I do things which are commanded (even if I don’t do them all at once, but prioritize one at a time), then my non-participation in what others think is a good idea is not a matter for them to harangue me about. And the same goes for the rest of the brethren.

    Missionary work is good, and some are called to go to Africa, etc. But that doesn’t mean I’m not living up to helping the poor or spreading the work if I focus on local charities instead.

    And since I don’t see everything my fellow Christians do, and they don’t see everything I do, ‘challenging’ people over sin, or lack of action that may or may not exist… is a problem.

    By the same token, if I do not focus on the survival of the current legal and social order, but instead focus on my own family, and on helping individuals (rather than social orders)… then all these grand exhortations (not extortions ^_^ ) are nothing but sand rubbed in a brother’s wound.

  147. joshtheaspie says:

    @vohlman

    So, you present the argument I anticipated, and already addressed.

    Chicken and the egg it is then.

  148. Jim says:

    ” Vektor says:
    January 23, 2016 at 7:34 pm”

    Well said.

  149. vohlman says:

    >>joshtheaspie, nope. No room for chickens.

  150. joshtheaspie says:

    😛 Then maybe you should get your fowl butt out of here.

  151. Kaminsky says:

    @Vektor,

    Strong stuff and inspiring in a lot of ways. I could never get too many clear takes on the situation. In every single way, marriage has been altered, pruned, manicured, this taken out/that left in, selectively rewritten to be a 100% homage to the FI. Men were too busy working I guess. It’s not an option.

  152. Dave says:

    @Molly Ellick says:

    I have often wondered, in frustration, why men don’t stop the destruction. Why there is primarily a tone of impotence and bitterness among the stronger sex.

    As someone who has lived in different countries over the last 23 years and have visited many more, I am often surprised at the docility of the typical American male. While there are few, over-the-board, hyper-masculine exceptions (e.g. the biker boys and rednecks), the overwhelming majority of the American males are not manly at all, and it is not only frustrating to me as a man, but I find it rather disgusting as well. I am not saying this to castigate anyone at all; it is simply a fact of observation and my gut reaction to it.
    In my experience the typical American man is overly nice, overly soft, and overly agreeable. Even when he disagrees with you, he could be very indirect and “too nice” about it. Again, I am not suggesting that he become rude and intolerable, but there is something about “the masculine approach” which is often lacking in the typical American male.
    If you look at the manosphere for example, the typical American male would rather talk about his problems and frustrations with the status quo (the same way women do). He will debate endlessly how the society and the government are beating him down (just as women talk about problems they don’t want to get solved). But if you suggest that we do something about these problems–no matter how modest, he quickly retorts that nothing could be done; that it’s forever too late; that we should simply await the day of our deaths or some apocalypse which will put an end to it all. Even rigt here on this site, folks have resisted any attempt to help us organize to do something—anything, to change the trajectory of social movements.

    The people in the manosphere that are doing something are not the typical American men. Take, for instance, Roosh. The guy may be American born, but he was brought up by Armenian and Iranian parents. While I don’t agree with much of his PUA-based approach to life, I can’t but respect him for doing more than merely talking. He is organizing people to effect change in our society. He is disseminating information to other men so they could not only avoid feminist victimization, but also attack feminism in every way.

    I don’t know the cause of this phenomenon. It couldn’t be due to undue exposure to wealth, as some peole have said that wealth softens people. The typical Saudi male is exposed to lots of wealth, but he is still able to retain much of his masculinity. Maybe there is something in the food and in the water? After all, much of our food is loaded with hormones and pesticides, and our water has lots of female hormones in them as well. All these lower testosterone in the males. Or could there be a spiritual factor as well? It has been floated that feminists are Satanists. Could they have bewitched the American male? I know that sounds silly, but it is worth considering, as there is no satisfactory explanation of why those who founded the most advanced civilization in history have been reduced to blue-balled blue pillers en masse.

  153. MarcusD says:

    A Woman’s Story: I Asked God to Teach Me Mercy, Then This Fight With My Husband Happened.
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=996558

  154. joshtheaspie says:

    Dave:

    “Help”, yeeeah. Sure. That’s what people are trying.

    Let me put it this way, the American male is so used to everyone that claims to want to help him, while telling him what to do being a lying scumbag, that telling us what to do, while claiming to be ‘helping’ tends to evoke the same reaction to you, we’d give to Mark Driscol.

    And yes, you are being disparaging. And that, too, feeds into it. All I see in your post is yet another AMOG complaining about why I won’t do what you say. You want me to take action? You want me to be masculine? Fine. Come find me, and I’ll shoot you in the face.

  155. joshtheaspie says:

    I think this is the crux of it that so many people are ignoring.

    This is the experience of the American Male.

    “Do this.”
    “Okay, I’ll do that.”
    “You’re horrible for doing this!”

    “Do this.”
    “Okay, I’ll do that.”
    “You’re horrible for doing this!”

    “Do this.”
    “Okay, I’ll do that.”
    “You’re horrible for doing this!”

    “Do this.”
    “Okay, I’ll do that.”
    “You’re horrible for doing this!”

    “Do this.”
    “Okay, I’ll do that.”
    “You’re horrible for doing this!”

    “Do this.”
    “Okay, I’ll do that.”
    “You’re horrible for doing this!”

    “Do this.”
    “Okay, I’ll do that.”
    “You’re horrible for doing this!”

    “Do this.”
    “Okay, I’ll do that.”
    “You’re horrible for doing this!”

    “Do this.”
    “Okay, I’ll do that.”
    “You’re horrible for doing this!”

    At some point, people will react differently. For the men that are being castigated for not doing what you want, the path begins to look like this.

    “Do this.”
    “Why?”
    “How dare you question me!?!”

    “Do this.”
    “No.”
    “You’re horrible for not doing this.”

    “Do this.”
    “Do it yourself.”
    “You horrible racist sexist rude crud lude bag of chewed food!”

    “Do this.”
    “Go away.”
    “You horrible racist sexist rude crud lude bag of chewed food!”

    “Do this.”
    “…”
    “Do this.”
    “…”
    “Do this!”
    “…”
    “DO THIS!”
    “….”
    “YOU ARE THE WORST PERSON EVER!”

    “Do this.”
    “Let me explain why not.”
    “Stop arguing, this needs to be done, so you must do it. Do it!”
    “No.”
    “You are horrible.”

    “Do this.”
    “Why should I?”
    “Because God demands it!”
    “He doesn’t, actually? See?”
    “YOU DO NOT GET TO READ THE BIBLE AND MAKE DECISIONS. DO IT!”

    And once again… what the oh so “helpful” people that come here and try to “organize” us are doing are saying “do this.”

  156. Kaminsky says:

    Dave with some topshelf, veiled TORMINTR signalling. Topshelf.

    Instead of grouping together and having street shout-outs against insane SJW’s there are much more clever, beneficial and covert plays to make imo. Banding together to yell just feeds SJW’s/Leftists bonfire and doesn’t solve anything. Were you going to share your logic with them? Hilarious.

    Better to get stealthy, withdraw, minimalize and enjoy life, all the while undermining the beast without them even noticing you’re doing it.

  157. Dave says:

    @joshtheaspie:

    You are being overly dramatic, and taking things personally, when you really don’t have to. I did not mention your name specifically, so no need to “shoot me in the face”. I am an American as well, so you need to take out your anger on those who are actually doing the damage.

    Maybe you should ask yourself these questions:

    1. Is there an overwhelming number of blue-pillers in America?
    2. Are our public policies geared towards placating the women, and giving in to most of their irrational demands?

    If you could answer both in the affirmative, then you have your answer. You don’t have to shoot the messenger.

  158. joshtheaspie says:

    What is the US government? “Do this”
    What is Hillary Clinton? “Do this”
    What is Mark Driscol? “Do this”
    What is the Feminine Imparitive? “Do this”
    What is the military recruiter, or draftsman? “Do this”
    What is the person demanding PC behavior? “Do this”
    What is the Pastor calling for men to take orphan girls to the Father-Daughter dance, while giving no commands to the women in the audience? “Do this”
    What is VAWA? “Do this”
    What is the anti-family court system? “Do this”

    Who are the commenters who deign to ‘help’ the men they are disgusted by, by telling them what to do? All you are is “Do this”

  159. joshtheaspie says:

    @Dave

    No, Dave, I don’t need to ‘do this’.

  160. Dave says:

    Better to get stealthy, withdraw, minimalize and enjoy life, all the while undermining the beast without them even noticing you’re doing it.

    That is a fundamental mistake. These people are trampling over our rights with impunity. We cannot simply pretend that nothing is happening. The manoshpere is a form of pushback. But the effort needs to become more overt. For instance, ‎Grover Norquist forced the Republican Congressmen to go on record about their commitment to tax reform. If ordinary American men would come together, we could force the politicians to go on record that they will reform the family court, and make it more just for all those concerned, and a good place to start is to ensure that no one receives a reward for breaking up their marriages.

  161. joshtheaspie says:

    Dave, yet again says: “Do this”

  162. Kaminsky says:

    Who’s pretending that nothing is happening?

    Ordinary American men don’t even know the terms ‘blue pill/red pill’ and wouldn’t understand the concepts anyway. The average white man you want to recruit is the same guy who will look at a single man over 35 like he’s something between a homeless man and a serial killer, even while he (avg. white man) is in the midst of a horrific divorce. He’ll regard marriage as the biggest mistake of his life yet think to himself “faggot” when he is introduced to you and finds out you’ve never married.

    You want to rally those kinds of guys? Best of luck.They’ll just lock arms with the batshit feminists in resistance to you to try to build up some credit with their overlord towards their biennial bj if they’re not already divorced (in which case they’re chasing down imputed income and have no time for any of this street shouting.)

    My ‘fundamental mistake’ greatly hampers the enemy by withdrawing resources from them and degrading their life quality almost overnight, all while upgrading my own. Some mediocre woman that I would have otherwise slaved away for is now on her own. I’m living the life of Reilly to the best of my ability instead. She doesn’t even know who I am either.

    For white men to organize and make their voices heard is/will be laughed out of any room, including rooms filled with other white men (leftists, trad-cons, manginas, vets,) Better to quietly withdraw and let the other demographics come to the conclusions on their own when the white boy cash cow starts to look emaciated. That’s the only thing that has any merit to them; their own voices.

    We’ll all vote and share thoughts on the internet and do what we can; I get you on that, but actions speak louder than words, I’ve heard. Withdraw if you can.

  163. hoellenhund2 says:

    I have often wondered, in frustration, why men don’t stop the destruction.

    Why don’t women stop the destruction? That’s the question you should be asking. One average woman has more social power to wield against misandry than 10 congressmen. I’m serious.

  164. hoellenhund2 says:

    I don’t know if this will be any comfort at all, but know that there are women who are angry about the way men are treated. So, a man really can’t speak up, and evil triumphs when good people remain silent. Is the answer then that a few women speak up?

    Well, duh. It should be obvious at this point that the only imaginable way for social change to turn against feminism is if it’s recognized as women’s problem i.e. something that harms female interests. For an average man it’s social suicide to publicly be an anti-feminist. His female counterpart, on the other hand, can be an anti-feminist with negligible risk.

  165. Kaminsky says:

    “It should be obvious at this point that the only imaginable way for social change to turn against feminism is if it’s recognized as women’s problem i.e. something that harms female interests.”

    Great call. That’s what’s so depressing at the end of the day. The return of ‘respect’ for men will not be respect at all but just a routine tune-up for the FI—Just replacing a worn out, balky fan belt. Most men don’t even recognize how duped they currently are. Certainly those same types will fall hard for an occasional pat on the head, especially since it’s been missing for fifty years. Alas.

  166. mrteebs says:

    I have never read anything by Matt Walsh – other than the snippits occasionally harvested by Dalrock for dissection – and don’t intend to start. He’s young, he’s spouting blue pill conventional wisdom primarily because he’s discovered it results in The Lift, and he has yet to experience enough of life to be forced to reconsider his BP calculus when he eventually observes the divergence between its theory and everyone’s reality. The first rule of business is not “listen to your customers” – it is “watch what they do” but Walsh is too young, too naive, or both to understand the truth of this yet. His statements remind me of that old Ambrose Bierce definition: Positive – to be mistaken at the top of one’s voice.

  167. greyghost says:

    vohlam
    So your wife allowed you to play house for 26 years and let you play papa for your kids and was kind enough to let you think you were running that. Tell your wife Thank you for allowing me to lead.

  168. Dave says:

    Why don’t women stop the destruction? That’s the question you should be asking. One average woman has more social power to wield against misandry than 10 congressmen. I’m serious.

    Exact type of attitude that makes the feminists happy. Imagine telling a bully that he has all the power, and there is nothing you can do to stop him. That is exactly where he wants you: powerless and defeated and cowering at the corner of the hallway when you hear the sound of his steps a hundred yards away.

    This might surprise you: most American women don’t really want to be feminists. The few relatively flame-throwing feminists among them, having scared away the men, left these mass of women no other choice, women being what they are: followers. As soon as the men begin to exert themselves and re-assert their leadership roles in society, you will see how quickly most women will jetisson feminism. Waiting for women to “stop the destruction” is like waiting for Godot. You might as well wait for hell to freeze over.

  169. Dave says:

    For white men to organize and make their voices heard is/will be laughed out of any room, including rooms filled with other white men (leftists, trad-cons, manginas, vets,)

    Maybe 5, 10 or more years ago. These days, more men have been burned by divorce and other similar feminist-sponsored evils that they are quite aware of what is happening.

    My ‘fundamental mistake’ greatly hampers the enemy by withdrawing resources from them and degrading their life quality almost overnight, all while upgrading my own. Some mediocre woman that I would have otherwise slaved away for is now on her own. I’m living the life of Reilly to the best of my ability instead. She doesn’t even know who I am either.

    She doesn’t have to know you. Once her Big Daddy government knows your address, He can write the apprioroiate laws to confiscate your hard earned money. For instance, Obama not only increased taxes on many fronts, but both of those wishing to replace him from his party are pormising a slew of even more new taxes. Where’re you gonna run to?

  170. joshtheaspie says:

    Ah yes. “Week men are screwing up giving women what they want.” Why do people who keep saying “do this” keep insisting they have something new and surprising to say?

  171. Kaminsky says:

    @ Dave,

    Yeah it might be getting better for red-pillers to organize and share their thoughts but you might also be overestimating it too because it’s the world you’re focusing on. I can mentally scan the, say, 25 men I know back home who might make a few grumbles of agreement to some of my redpill screed, but mostly they would do what they do, enjoy my bullshit, laugh about it when I’m not around, and then go back to their yoke, quietly pitying me, without having any notion that I pity them. Look at Helen Smith’s (our team) pow-wow with righty Tucker Carlson (our team, more or less) for an example. Look at how he resisted and was basically hostile to EVEN DISCUSSING the issue. Forget agreeing or disagreeing. He was immediately dismissing it. The redpill stuff isn’t as appealing as you think. It’s not just unknown, it’s unappealing.

    “She doesn’t have to know you. Once her Big Daddy government knows your address, He can write the apprioroiate laws to confiscate your hard earned money. For instance, Obama not only increased taxes on many fronts, but both of those wishing to replace him from his party are pormising a slew of even more new taxes. Where’re you gonna run to?”

    Now here you’re the fatalist resigned to helplessness. I thought you were criticizing us for that. I agree with you on this, btw. That’s why I think a good play (if you can do it, fathers can’t) is to lay low, minimalize, learn to regard free-time as the extra money you won’t be making, withdraw from typical life and its demands on your spending. We agree here. I live overseas due to the very things you mention here.

  172. Dave says:

    Now here you’re the fatalist resigned to helplessness. I thought you were criticizing us for that. I agree with you on this, btw….

    On the contrary. I was merely pointing out to you that just because you stay away from marriage does not mean your money won’t go to those you’re trying to avoid. Our best bet is still to fight back in any way possible. Even if we don’t win, at least it will slow down the speed of our societal descent into the abyss.

    That’s why I think a good play (if you can do it, fathers can’t) is to lay low, minimalize, learn to regard free-time as the extra money you won’t be making, withdraw from typical life and its demands on your spending.

    Makes sense in some way. But don’t assume that merely withdrawing from life will stop these people from coming after you in other ways.

    We agree here. I live overseas due to the very things you mention here.

    I plan on moving elsewhere within the next several years also. Even without any new government interference, America is a very bad place to raise kids as it is now. Once my kids reach a certain age, I intend to take them out of this environment entirely.

    But then, if we don’t fight this battle here, I guarantee that they will take the fight to you wherever you run to. Feminism has even reached Africa now. Imagine.

  173. Kaminsky says:

    You have to be as smart as possible in sheltering yourself from tax legally or simply elect to get yourself as free as possible from the financially focused life.

    This ‘bully’ of feminism relies on men to feed it. It’s a rare bully that can only function due to the efforts of its victims. Imagine a schoolyard bully who needs to be taught how to throw a punch by the very kids who everyone knows it will later throw those punches at. It can be easy to defeat by simply disengaging from it. It will be interesting to see what happens in Cologne for example. Feminism might have lost its bite there overnight if German men just decide to stay inside on Saturday night reading in bed while the feminists try to go out and brave the hellhole they created.

    White men started something of a marriage strike and…presto…Here comes Donald. Maybe it’s unrelated but a terrible current president combined with the first hint of white men saying “Screw it then,” and things might be changing pretty fast. Who knows? Just a smattering of men voting with their feet is maybe enough. Imagine a huge contingent. We’ll see. I’ve actually taken both stances here; things are changing…things are not changing anytime soon, so I’m kind of discredited there.

    My final point is that the typical political shouting, even voting is way less powerful than white men simply living differently. Seriously, physically living differently and valuing a very new lifestyle. My idea is that if they do it quietly in addition, it is even more effective. Bottom line; Men have to really, fully reject the traditional life for the society to change in their favor (which would really just be society trying to to lure them back to the yoke but that’s another discussion.) At that point, the change wouldn’t matter to them anyway. But I might be talking about a very small percentage of men who would live differently or can live like this, so maybe it’s moot.

  174. Pingback: Don't fear marriage and fatherhood, but beware ...

  175. infowarrior1 says:

    @Steven Gonzalez

    ”but it is noteworthy that young men appear to be coping better with the currently unstoppable dictatorial gynecocracy. Marriage is moribund, even within allegedly-traditionalist religious sub-communities”

    Even when all Israel defected. There were 7000 men(as well as women) that did not bow their knees to Baal.

    God always preserves a remnant faithful to himself including in terms of family structure. Patriarchy as ordained by God will always survive as surely as his church endures.

  176. SJB says:

    @Dave: That you are offended when I suggest other men seek the Father’s will day-by-day means you are no adopted son. Rather your idol is paper and ink which you trot from platform to platform. Your god is not. May you fall into the hands of the Living God.

  177. hoellenhund2 says:

    Exact type of attitude that makes the feminists happy.

    What makes feminists happier? When a bunch of women start opposing them on their own initiative, or when a bunch of right-wing conservative men start opposing them – which is something they’ve successfully dealt with for decades?

    Imagine telling a bully that he has all the power, and there is nothing you can do to stop him. That is exactly where he wants you: powerless and defeated and cowering at the corner of the hallway when you hear the sound of his steps a hundred yards away.

    Imagine a short, thin guy getting mercilessly bullied. Another victim of the same bullies happens to be a muscular guy who’s a feet taller. Nevertheless he never puts up any resistance. Instead he walks up to the short guy and says “well, it’d be great if you started resisting and challenged all those fuckers in an open fight. I could do the same, of course, but I’m a follower by nature, you know. So yeah, just do it. As soon as they start breaking your ribs and kicking your teeth out, I promise I’ll show up and cheer you on. Sounds great, isn’t it?”

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure it’ll work wonders, lol.

    This might surprise you: most American women don’t really want to be feminists.

    It does surprise me. Because it’s obviously not true. They act and speak like feminists most of the time. No further evidence is needed.

    The few relatively flame-throwing feminists among them, having scared away the men, left these mass of women no other choice, women being what they are: followers.

    They had no other choice? Really? Why didn’t they follow the men that have left, the men who stood up against feminism? Why aren’t they lining up to be the handmaidens of Roosh, Paul Elam etc.?

  178. Novaseeker says:

    That is a fundamental mistake. These people are trampling over our rights with impunity. We cannot simply pretend that nothing is happening. The manoshpere is a form of pushback. But the effort needs to become more overt. For instance, ‎Grover Norquist forced the Republican Congressmen to go on record about their commitment to tax reform. If ordinary American men would come together, we could force the politicians to go on record that they will reform the family court, and make it more just for all those concerned, and a good place to start is to ensure that no one receives a reward for breaking up their marriages.

    This is already being done. The MRAs are doing this. Organizations like the National Parents Organization are organized, dedicated lobbyists focused on family law issues. Things are being done. If you want to participate in them, they’re hiding in plain sight. Note that progress is slow, however, because most people agree with the current family law system until it bites them in the ass themselves. Because of that, most the advocates are people who have been burned, and the non-burned tend to look on the burned with suspicion, rather than looking at the system with suspicion. Human nature.

  179. enrique says:

    Matt really believes all he wrote, but it’s more humorous that I betcha Matt’s wife proofreads his material before he goes with it.

    Give him a few years, and see how it’s working out. Still happily married in 5-10 years? Divorced?

    Maybe he can write an article in a few years, “Stepping up to the non-custodial role: It’s fulfillment and joys”

  180. vohlman says:

    von wanders around the house singing, For twenty six years she’s washed myclothes
    Cooked my meals, cleaned my house
    Given me children, milked the cow…

  181. Dave says:

    @SJB:

    @Dave: That you are offended when I suggest other men seek the Father’s will day-by-day means you are no adopted son. Rather your idol is paper and ink which you trot from platform to platform. Your god is not. May you fall into the hands of the Living God.

    Nope. It means you didn’t know what you were saying. Your ignorance of the word is astounding. The word commanded us “not to be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Ephesians 5:17).

    Obviously, with your beating about the bush, you did not understand what the will of the Lord is.

  182. enrique says:

    Novaseeker, I used to be part of the NPO and it’s predecessor (and spoke to Glenn Sacks a few times). They are a group of folks trying in earnest, with even some female support, but changing the White Knights who run the state legislatures is just as difficult as dealing with Jim Crowe institutional racism in the last century…but changing the culture is MORE difficult than changing racist attitudes in the last century. After all, the Quakers had white women on their side fighting against racial bigotry and injustice…who do we have?

    I think it’s a lost cause and at this point, the only way to “change” the system, is to kill the system off like cancer. When I see all those bureaucrats that run family court, the attorneys (Feminists and White Knights), the judges (White Knights), the “case managers” (Cat ladies), and the men (mostly Hispanic where I live, myself included), all of us being herded around, disrespected and treated like teens with outrageous traffic infractions, and i see the utter F&$&ING JOY these women have on their faces, and how they love to put you in your place…I can only long for a day when so many men have pulled out of the system, that it goes away. Sure, there will always be pregnancies, and child support (even with a male pill), but contrary to what people think, HALF the men in that room were married to the woman. I cannot in good conscience encourage married for the younger guys, unless under the tightest of criteria (foreign, young, non-Americanized).

    Overall, NPO shouldn’t even exist, or have to exist.

  183. greyghost says:

    This is already being done. The MRAs are doing this. Organizations like the National Parents Organization are organized, dedicated lobbyists focused on family law issues. Things are being done. If you want to participate in them, they’re hiding in plain sight. Note that progress is slow, however, because most people agree with the current family law system until it bites them in the ass themselves. Because of that, most the advocates are people who have been burned, and the non-burned tend to look on the burned with suspicion, rather than looking at the system with suspicion. Human nature.

    This is why I don’t get involved in the “those guys are pussies” arguments. (for here it is the no true Scotsmen thing) MRA’s, MGTOW, PUA, etc. doing their part. What is happening in the black community is amazing. It is especially apparent on youtube in the videos and in the comment sections. In fact check out the comments on any article that has comments attitudes of men are becoming more public. Trump is the latest. And his survival and ability to thrive is telling. (he has my vote) All of these different approaches are slowly effecting the system without endangering the men involved. Remember even the best army in the world still has to use cover and concealment even when fighting the weakest forces. Survival is important. The men here once they get their heads out of their righteous asses need to understand the role they will play in the end game when it comes crashing down. That is why Christian men need to understand and be fully aware of the red pill and game ( the true nature of women and what it takes to culturally and social norm check their naturally uncivilized nature) .

  184. averagechump says:

    @Dave,

    I noticed you mentioned that at some point you will be moving out of the United States. This really bums me out because I love the United States, even with all its degradation. Sometimes, when I’m driving through the Smoky mountains or over the hills I’ll see the many farms and suburbs scattered about, with the American flag, and the Rebel flag, waving gallantly; and I’ll drive by some gentleman picking up his mail at the end of the driveway who will gladly smile and wave; and sometimes I’ll get lost and ask a lady for directions and she’ll gladly go out of her way to help me out — all of these little things I notice, and when I notice them it reminds me that this is a truly great place to live, with some great people and a great history.

    We are no doubt a “feminized” country in many ways, but I doubt we are any more feminized than the rest of Western Civilization. From what I heard, Conservative views in the United States actually have some force to them (i.e. are taken seriously), far more than many other European or western nations. Then again I haven’t done much traveling outside the United States so I wouldn’t know.

    This is a serious question, though. What aspects of the United States do you (1) find too terrible to raise your children in and (2) you won’t find in any other Country?

    Also, I noticed above you mentioned that a lot of Americans are too soft. That we are too agreable and so on. A possible answer to this would be that, in my experience, the softness and agreeableness is actually a facade, and that for the most part, disagreeableness and poor conversational form is taken far more seriously than in other countries. In essence, saying things too bluntly will result in your ass getting kicked, so you have to know how to be polite. This is true for most Southern States, I believe. Softness and agreeableness, from the American view, exists to ensure that a stranger does not get offended, because if someone does get offended, than someone else will certainly either (a) get their ass kicked, or (b) get shot. That is why in the South people are very polite, yet the crime rate amongst middle class people is actually very high. It’s called an “Honor Culture”, I believe.

    @Hoellenhund2,

    “It does surprise me. Because it’s obviously not true. They act and speak like feminists most of the time. No further evidence is needed.”

    Yeah, it pisses me off as well when people say shit like “Yeah man, most girls want to submit!” or “Bro, a majority of women don’t want to be called feminists, so whazz the big deal?”

    What the hell does it matter if they “want to submit” or if they “don’t want to be called feminists” when their actions speak otherwise? – It doesn’t make sense.

  185. Novaseeker says:

    Enrique —

    I agree. I also have spoken with Glenn before and was involved before as well. It’s not going to work, because there isn’t the political clout for it to work. I was just pointing out to Dave that if he is interested in “doing something”, there are avenues where people are, in fact, “doing something”. Effectiveness is, of course, another issue.

  186. greyghost says:

    Enrique
    The law is the target and the end game. Civil productive beta males need the red pill with the real purpose of keeping them from thoughtfully and with good societal intentions of being in ignorance cuckservative. productive civil beta males that choose to commit and have families in a marriage must be respected and appreciated by law regardless of the culture. Any reliance on the cooperation of women cannot be allowed for they have no agency or ability to civilize a society. Any agency women have is based on how she thinks she will rate in the herd. Beta males on the other hand have agency when nobody is looking. beta males will organize and develop civil communities for survival without and outside hand forcing it. Women cannot do that. (see any boys vs. girl survival reality show to see the what happens. here is an example in the “real world” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1168182/Catfights-handbags-tears-toilets-When-producer-launched-women-TV-company-thought-shed-kissed-goodbye-conflict-.html ) The areas in need for and to be targeted for the red pill are the police, the military, the gun culture, and the district attorney’s offices. The approach needs to be red pill respect for the productive beta male. In no way should preservation of the blue pill cuckservative ideals be allowed to stand.

  187. greyghost says:

    This simple law in China will save marriages for their productive. By default a woman will respect a proactive man even if she doesn’t tingle for him. society wins. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/8857708/Chinas-divorce-rule-dubbed-Law-that-makes-men-laugh-and-women-cry.html
    No need for game no need to make sure she is “happy’ no need for her cooperation. just be a stable working man and society wins. This is how a strong civil society provides for it’s citizens. It takes full advantage of the beta male productivity and female nature.
    The cultural norm of the left over women concept takes care of the slut culture thing at the other end. http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/04/23/the-startling-plight-of-chinas-leftover-ladies/ These two concepts are very family positive and neither require so tingling bitches cooperation and both require responsible agency and reality on her part. Also notice China has no problem with women working and building their own. That is how it is supposed to be.

  188. TomG says:

    Maybe families and the men and women leading them CAN take responsibility by their own actions. People and films that call themselves Christian may not necessarily be so or their type of Christianity. So these influences are disruptive for this reason alone. Nonetheless, fortitude is required for any marriage.

  189. enrique says:

    Grey, Nova,

    I hate to be a doomsdayer, seriously, but I just don’t see any hope. You can’t red pill “the system” through artful debate or discussion. Feminism is so deeply engrained that anyone that veers from it is severely punished. How do you think we got so-called mandatory arrest in DV situations? All of this goes back to the fear of litigation and/or the mob, just as it does with race. And the legislatures and judges, all of them, are typically married beta blues who went to beta blue schools, and notwithstanding years of public (or even private) schooling by women FOR women, they go onto law schools or grad schools, etc, that just ALWAYS PUSH the FI.

    Sadly, I think the only nuclear bomb we are holding is to go Omega man, in a sense, and have them look around their Family Courts and see less and less men each year…and can stare at each others’ foreheads and see the counties, states, etc, remove the money…but THAT’s the thing, all of this is ALSO driven by the federal government’s HHS programs (speaking of CS for example), and other govt programs. The whole system is set up to support women, and as other posters have noted, if marriage goes away, “common law marriage” and if that goes away (men pump/dumping) THAT will require payment (crafted in Orwellian-speak, “settlement for prior physical engagement without requisite caretaking component” LOL).

    F*&$ing women will be paid no matter what I guess, and we will wind up, as we have now essentially, prostitution. Women bitch about the one-hit prostitutes, but they are the cliche goes, more honest, than the woman that drags a man through 7 years of a sexless marriage, only to take the kids, house and everything else.

    And people wonder why a young guy, like we saw visiting here a few weeks ago, would WANT Islam to burn the mother down. It’s so out of whack right now that the market correction needed would take a complete meltdown and replacement of the entire culture (religious and social). You would NEVER see this stuff happening in Egypt or even freakin Lebanon.

  190. Looking Glass says:

    I’ve made this point a few times before, but it really doesn’t stick. For as dark as things seem, realize that it took nearly 150+ years of “legal” development to get to this point. And the truth is that system is actually extremely fragile. There are a number of vectors to attack it, but this isn’t the forum for that. But it’s the reason why the propaganda has to be pushed so hard. Its the exact same effect that Soviet-Bloc countries ran with: as long as no one can openly discuss things, no one knows they all hate it.

    But for this forum’s sake, and especially for the Christians here, your first duty is to God. Get yourself centered, then affect those around you. Especially your Churches. Realize that nearly all people are Follower-types. Influence the Leader-types, get them right with the Lord, and let Him do the heavy lifting.

  191. PokeSalad says:

    Jesus, St. Paul, Martin Luther said worse PokeSalad.

    Each had more credibility in their little finger than you do.

  192. PokeSalad says:

    Better to get stealthy, withdraw, minimalize and enjoy life, all the while undermining the beast without them even noticing you’re doing it.

    Amen, brother.

  193. PokeSalad says:

    “It should be obvious at this point that the only imaginable way for social change to turn against feminism is if it’s recognized as women’s problem i.e. something that harms female interests.”

    It’s more subtle than this. If feminism is, in Limbaugh’s terms, a way for the unattractive to gain the benefits long enjoyed by the attractive, then it can only be crippled by outcomes that damage feminists’ interests, not those of women as a whole. Feminists hate attractive women at least as much as they hate men…and will fight until the last sorority coed.

    In my mind, this is a factor in the feminists’ tremendous outpouring of silence about the Cologne/European migrant sexual assault frenzy…..they think that’s an “attractive womens’ problem,” not theirs.

  194. @BanderSnoot
    My wife of 34 years left me because of my struggles with depression. I was made to sit through a public excoriation in church where the pastor told his (and my) congregation that the elders have the right to separate a marriage if a husband speaks angrily to his wife.

    Christians don’t even know how the Bible defines sin any more, but they sure can trot out their favorite verses and biblical principles to claim somebody else is in sin. WRT an ecclesiastical court within the church, the example Paul used in 1st Cor. 5 was a man who had his father’s wife, which was not just a sin but a death-penalty offense under the Law.

    The examples he used in chapter 6 are all violations of the Law. Surprise, Romans 4:15 and 5:13 say that where there is no law there is no transgression and no sin is imputed. Of course, that leaves offenses of the conscience, Romans 14:23 and James 4:17, along with specific issues commanded in the New Testament, but in those areas Christians are commanded NOT to judge, so the church is only to judge in cases of sin. Speaking angrily to the wife is not a violation of the Law, thus not something for the church to judge.

    The idea that the elders of any church claim the right to separate a marriage (by what authority?!) for perceived offenses of the husband, when doing so would cause the wife to not be able to obey her command of 1st Peter 3:1 to submit to her husband even if he is disobedient to the Word… tells me that was not a church, it was a cult. I’m going to guess one of the Reformed churches. Not even the RCC is that insane.

    However, what you really need to know is that your wife DID NOT leave you because of your struggles with depression. That is pure unmitigated bullshit. She left you because she could and because she had the willing support of the cucks in the church you were attending.

    OTOH, unless you married a virgin, or if you married a non-virgin whose father specifically annulled her marriage to the guy she gave her virginity to, you weren’t actually married to the woman you thought you were married to for 34 years because she was already married to somebody else when she walked down the aisle. That’s what Exodus 22:16-17 says: the guy who takes her virginity marries her and she is married unless her father absolutely refuses. How many fathers would be told about that event and even if they were told, how many know they had to annul the marriage when they heard of it?

    That will no doubt bring out Dave to screech about me being a false teacher, so read the passage yourself.

    “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.” Exodus 22:16-17

    Woman gives up virginity = married to guy who got it, he has to pay.

    If father annuls after the fact, then he doesn’t get to keep her but he still has to pay.

    The RULE of losing her virginity is she’s married, the only exception is if father annuls it. There is no other outcome. Even for an interpretation that says the marriage takes place later (meaning she’s now betrothed) the effect is the same: Anyone else she has sex with after that is a case of adultery.

    People that don’t think they’re married don’t get divorced, so if father didn’t annul then the only way the non-virgin is not married is if the guy died, making her a widow. You know what that means, right? It means the vast majority of the couples in virtually any church you can find are not married to each other, because the only way they’re actually married to each other is if the wife has an N=1, or in the case of a re-married widow, a woman who had an N=0 when she married her first husband. Outside the most conservative churches, does one even see virgins getting married any more?

    Nobody wants to talk about this, but that’s what Scripture has to say about it. Look at it this way: if the woman who divorced you wasn’t a virgin when you married her, then she didn’t actually divorce you because you were never actually married and she did you a favor by ending the adulterous relationship. 34 years is a long time, but if that’s the case then better late than never.

  195. @Dave and @Jason:

    Let me try again. I met one of my brothers who lives in another State and spoke to him for the first time in about 3 years just last month. We talked at the bar about what we were doing.

    He told me about his divorce, his sexless marriage, and how awful his wife and now ex-wife was treating him. He was taken to the cleaners, sees his kids once a week and every other weekend etc etc. He slept in the basement for 3 years before the divorce and never had sex a single time with his “wife.”

    I thought he was ready so I took some time and explained the concept of Married Red Pill. I told him about Dread Game and typical female behaviors that we have observed. I told him about self improvement and “Nice Guys” and about my book- Saving a Low Sex Marriage: A Man’s Guide To Dread, Seduction, and the Long Game

    See: https://bluepillprofessor.wordpress.com/2015/05/22/hello-world/

    I told him about acting as a moderator for Married Red Pill and my experiences with hundreds of men in low sex marriages.

    His response? He soaked it up that night. The next night he told me: “I don’t want to hear anything about your “hate women” bullshit and how women are the cause of the problems in the world. You need to get over it.”

    I tried to explain that I- and many, many other guys went from sex once a month or less to several times a week and a MUCH better marriage so it is not about “hating” women but about understanding how women behave.

    His response? “You just trick your wife into having sex and and treat her badly.”

    I was still not willing to give up. I asked him whether he thought ignoring your wife sexually was a better strategy than learning how to initiate, seduce her and fuck her good.

    His response? He physically attacked me. Slapped me in the face hard and told me to fuck off. I lost a brother in that moment and I will NEVER try to preach to the unconverted again.

    Instead of exhorting men to go over the top and charge the machine gun nests like it is the fucking Battle of the Somme all over again why don’t you lead the charge. Let us know how it works. No Man’s Land is right over there, Bro.

    Finally, if you don’t think modern Churches and marriages are “Fight Club” you are a complete moron.

  196. The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it.

  197. @MarcusD (12:28 a.m.)

    Great find! Chick fights with her husband all week. Talks about HIS duties to love her. Doesn’t get to the whole “submission thing” and then drops this- PROVING Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks:

    >I had to look at him and not hold him responsible for all the other men who have abandoned me, hurt me and left me with wounds to heal, because he is not any of those men. He is the man who stood at an altar in a Catholic Church and promised to love me as best as he could,

    Want to bet the slut wore White at her “Wedding.” What a sick joke.

  198. Also want to speculate on the Starfish sex her beaten down husband is getting. She practically admits she is a slut who blew Chad in the bathroom and then got pumped and dumped by the entire football team but God will forgive her for that just like she must forgive her Beta, unattractive husband for being weak and pathetic. He married me with my stretched out cooch and my yougogirrrls mentality. At least he doesn’t bother me for sex any more…..

  199. Dalrock says:

    Normally when I respond to questions I name the person I’m responding to and quote the specific question. In this case I’m going to use some host’s prerogative and summarize some of the complaints I see not just in this thread, but similar complaints I’ve seen on other blogs.

    1) Why are you blogging? Why aren’t you [running for office, starting your own church, canvassing your neighborhood, etc.]?

    This one always makes me chuckle, because I can only assume the person complaining is terribly frustrated with life. Someone who repeatedly clicks on a blog and smolders with frustration that it is only a blog has to be incredibly frustrated with everything else in life. In the morning they pick up their daily paper and shout to the person on the other side of the breakfast table “Why do they keep reporting the news? Every day it is the same thing, words words words! Why don’t they do something?” In the evening they turn on their TV, only to experience the brutal letdown for what has to be the millionth time “Only pictures and sound! Where is the smell, touch and taste! I am hungry, yet it does not feed me! Curse you television!” They sit down to eat, and yet they are confounded to find they are still thirsty. It is truly a cruel world for such a man.

    But beyond the absurdity of complaining that a blogger is… blogging, or that commenters are commenting, is the pretense that such things have no impact. Drudge after all is only a blogger. I’m not aware of him organizing protests, etc. Yet he made a profound change by getting information out that the media was eager to suppress. Ask President Clinton if Drudge had an impact. I’m not saying I’m Drudge, but if the argument is that blogging as a tool is of little or no value, this is nonsense. You could say that I’m terrible at blogging, but saying that blogging has no potential to have impact is foolish. And if you think I’m terrible at blogging, why are you wasting your time on my blog? There is far too much excellent blogging content out there to bother with poor blogs.

    A better criticism would be that blogging is a powerful tool, but not in the cases we talk about. But while this would be a better argument, it still falls flat. When the Christian media and men like Russell Moore are condemning Pastor Saeed based on patently absurd allegations, we need a way to respond to mass media assaults with a similar medium. Likewise when Christian movie makers attack marriage, etc.

    2) Why the complaints?

    Our biggest problems lie in the area of denial and confusion. In relation to the OP, the problem isn’t that modern Christians consciously set out to attack marriage and denigrate husbands and fathers. Yes there are Christians who are doing this, but they aren’t the bulk of the problem. The biggest problem is that Christians are doing these things while very often telling themselves they are bolstering biblical marriage. See the CBMW as just one glaring example. This is happening across Christian culture, and outside of this sphere there is nearly no one pushing back. Even those who would push back suffer from the mist of lies and confusion expertly used to cover what is happening. What many see as posts “complaining about the problem” are in fact posts carefully describing what is going on. It is very difficult to untangle all of the lies and obfuscation. Some of you already knew everything I’ve explained. That is fantastic. But for me it has taken a great deal of time and thought, as well as help from commenters and other bloggers in the sphere.

    3) Why the repetition?

    Repetition is an essential teaching tool. The ideas we discuss here go against what we are told on a daily basis, and what we generally have been told our entire lives. Tackling subjects like this once won’t burn through a lifetime of teaching feminism as good and normal. Also, as I mentioned above untangling all of this takes time. I wish I had something new and profound to share every day of the week. I don’t. I’m lucky if I put together a truly new piece of the puzzle once or twice a year. In the mean time, I can either park the blog or keep the conversation flowing. It is the nature of the medium that there will always be new people who just arrived. If I do it right I have food for them as well. Lastly, the longer I go between posts, the more out of control the comments sections get. In the 5+ years I’ve been blogging, I’ve never locked a thread (and my preference is to keep it that way). Throwing another log on the fire gets the conversation back on track.

    4) How can we influence this outside of cyberspace?

    The most important thing I would say here is to be ready for a long haul. It took many decades to get where we are. You aren’t going to give an impassioned speech to your congregation and experience a cinematic slow clap as the scales fall from their eyes. The men you influence most will be the men you know for years and they learn to respect you. This means you have to spend time with them, learn from them, and respect them as well. Over time some will go to the latest Kendrick brothers movie and instead of them wishing you would only see it, cringing because they know exactly what you would say as the characters take turns trashing husbands and fathers. But if you really want to know how to do this, go ask Empath. He has an extraordinary amount of experience patiently challenging the (denied) feminism in churches and church leadership. You may also be interested in checking out Scott and Mychael’s blog, as they are doing a fantastic job modeling the profound beauty of biblical marriage to others both online and off.

  200. greyghost says:

    Dalrock’s looks beaten down lately

  201. Dalrock says:

    @vohlman

    I haven’t commented here much in the past. I blog and write on marriage issues and was pointed here by a friend after I posted the Matt Walsh article to some of my FB groups.

    I have been married for (Von yells to ask his wife) 26 ish years, I have six children, five children in law, and four grandchildren and counting.

    In general we have attended churches that place a high view on marriage, children, etc.

    Welcome.

    When you posted Walsh’s article, had you already noticed his habit of undermining other husbands/fathers?

  202. vohlman says:

    @Dalrock,
    >>When you posted Walsh’s article, had you already noticed his habit of undermining other husbands/fathers?

    I have noticed a disturbing tendency not only in Matt Walsh but in most commentators to, in the very largest sense, to take with one hand what they gave with the other. So, for example, he preached at one point against government schools, but then seemed to fall in with the ‘just go along with the government and you won’t be hurt’ philosophy. (A philosophy which one would seem to be historically completely blind in order to believe. As several FB meme’s pointed out at the time.)

    I have always noticed that his view of marriage was, well ,marriage lite as per the sort of right wing modern direction. The ‘let’s do it God’s way but not, obviously, just like God said it or the patriarchs lived it, because that would be just too, well, extreme and get people mad at us.’

    But he is hardly alone in that. It is pretty much the ninety and the nine.

  203. Jim says:

    “This might surprise you: most American women don’t really want to be feminists.”

    It does surprise me. Because it’s obviously not true. They act and speak like feminists most of the time. No further evidence is needed.”

    No kidding. Most of them are feminists even if they won’t admit it or don’t realize it. Feminism is just a label anyway. The real problem is gynocentrism. Feminism is just politicized gynocentrism.

    ——–

    “bluepillprofessor says:
    January 24, 2016 at 11:48 am ”

    Sorry man but your brother is a weak ass pussy. You should have either beaten his ass for physically attacking you or filed charges against him. And you’re right, never try to open their eyes. Let them learn the hard way. When he gets his ass handed to him in divorce court by his “loving” wife maybe he’ll learn. Or maybe like Robin Williams ti will take until he’s at the point of hanging himself.

  204. Kevin says:

    The porn = adultery is hugely problematic with Christians. Pornagraphy is a serious sin, but it is no where near divorce worthy. I was speaking with a woman defending her sister for blowing up her marriage for pornography. She said pornography is very serious because it disturbs the sacred sexual relation of a marriage. When I asked if a husband could divorce a wife when she messes with the sexual relation by not having sex often enough her head exploded. Lest we forget – wife’s sexuality impeded = end of world, husbands sexuality impeded = a healthy marriage. It’s so ridiculous.

  205. They Call Me Tom says:

    I want to be a family man, trouble is finding a woman who wants to be a family woman. You can always find a woman interested in a tumble, but to find a woman who wants to be a mother and wife?
    In the prime years for motherhood, most females are too vain, too attached to the power of their temporal beauty, and fear too much that motherhood will damage that temporal thing. Never mind that physical beauty will diminish regardless. Out of that small pool of women willing to be mothers, a smaller pool still are interested in being wives. Sure any woman is willing to get goodies and prizes if they don’t have to give anything in return. But the woman that does want to give something back, that wants to be part of something bigger than themselves is rarer still, and that’s what it is to want to be a wife.
    As has already been mentioned by many in these discussions of the decline of marriage, the problem is not the lack of boys willing to ‘man’ up, but rather the lack of girls willing to ‘woman’ up… and further the lack of any call from social, political, and religious leaders for girls to do so.

  206. Jason says:

    Thanks for your response to my criticisms Dalrock. While I see where you are coming from, I still believe you are mistaken. If as a Christian you see something wrong in your own church, I do believe you have an obligation to do something NOW, and not when things might get better or more aggreeable. Indeed, the entire point of Christianity is that its adherents suffer, that Christians act as “fools for God” (in a prudent way, of course) and take up their crosses, even when it seems crazy and when the times don’t seem right. Martin Luther didn’t just post his theses anonymously, but he did it publicly and on the church door so that all Catholics would know the problem, and then years later defended himself in front of the Holy Roman Emperor – risking his life, even though it may not have been the “right” time to do this. His namesake sought to bring about the Kingdom of God in America four centuries later, after a century of other African-American scribes writing and complaining that Americans should do the correct thing and affirm the liberties of black people. When King led his flocks out into the streets because he felt that contemplation and critique were not enough, that active resistance was necessary so that white Americans and churches could be directly confronted with their sins, was he acting prudently, at the right time? Certainly not! In fact, he admitted as much, that he never really knew whether it was the best time to make a march or conduct a sit-in. He simply wanted to follow God – whether his actions were effective was not the main point, although he certainly always wanted to be competent.

    So, if one of your readers believe that something is wrong with their particular church, or in greater society at large, I do believe they’re required to contemplate what they can reasonably do, and then act. Even when it might be difficult, or seems like all of culture might be against them, simply because that is what God calls them to do. And anyway, how can your readers’ fellow Churchmen be expected to “get it” over time after decades of culture inernetia, as you put it, if your more enlightened readers don’t instruct them in the way? That seems to me like covering the light with a bucket, something that Jesus specifically said not to do.

    Finally, what’s with your extreme pessimism and nihilism, Dalrock, your shibboleth that nothing you or your readers could actually do in their churches would be effective, that only blogging is the only path open to you and your readers? Why are you guys so terrified of talking to your bishops, of leading bible studies, of trying to set up some reform in local churches, of mentoring lonely people in the church? These are not Herculian tasks. And yes, of course, there are going to be difficulties, and many times when your initiatives do not seem to work as well or simply appear to fail. Well, when has that not been true? Those of your readers who have tried to reform and fallen are in good company. I do believe that though if you and your readers continue to do such simple, little things, such mustard seeds will – over time – flourish into gardens.

  207. Emily says:

    @Dalrock

    I strongly agree with your third point. Repetition is key. I know when I started reading this blog and other similar ones I was at times a bit put off, and I have never considered myself a feminist! It has taken a while for me to appreciate just how deep the rot goes. I see the influences of feminism all around me in ways I had never noticed before. Occasionally, topics related to feminism have come up in conversation with those around me, and it really is interesting because some people think as I now do and others still don’t see it for what it is. I have actually been encouraged to observe how the push back against it all is showing up unexpectedly at times. In any case, I appreciate your blog. It certainly is one of the better ones, in my opinion.

  208. Boxer says:

    Dear Jason:

    I don’t want to answer for anyone, just trying to deepen the debate a bit.

    Finally, what’s with your extreme pessimism and nihilism, Dalrock, your shibboleth that nothing you or your readers could actually do in their churches would be effective, that only blogging is the only path open to you and your readers?

    Herbert Marcuse wrote about something he named “the defeated logic of protest”. His ideas are applicable here. By going to these mainstream feminist churches and raising hell, the protestor is actually entering into a dialogue with them, and in effect strengthening them. The fact that he shows up means that (at some level) he recognizes their authority. The feminists get lots of media time when people do this and their feminist message grows stronger.

    On the surface, what sometimes looks like pessimism and/or nihilism is just good tactical thinking.

    Marcuse would have suggested that people drop out, and form their own parallel institutions that don’t partake in any of these oppressive and unhealthy memes. That’s what, as I see it, we’re doing here.

    Why are you guys so terrified of talking to your bishops, of leading bible studies, of trying to set up some reform in local churches, of mentoring lonely people in the church? These are not Herculian tasks.

    I don’t think anyone is condemning any of these things; but, isn’t that what the Dalrock blog is actually doing here? I consider this (as a total non-Christian and unbeliever) a place where I come to study the text of the Bible and a place to talk to lonely people who are going through rough times. I have recently started going to a Catholic mass too, but most of the real learning I do is here.

    It’s a mistake to think that a blog is meaningless or that it doesn’t reach anyone. It’s here for people to find and people do read it, and find their questions answered.

    Boxer

  209. feeriker says:

    This might surprise you: most American women don’t really want to be feminists.

    While it might be true that most women don’t consciously want to be doctrinaire feminists, ALL women –100 percent of them– enjoy spillover benefits ftom feminism that they are not about to give up. These include his-fault divorce, abortion on demand, AA/EO preferences in jobs, and the franchise, to name just a few. All of these have been demonstrably destructive to society, even –especially– to women, but like an addict chasing the next ephemeral high, women refuse to give them up, even after suffering the toxic after-effects.

  210. feeriker says:

    Out of that small pool of women willing to be mothers, a smaller pool still are interested in being wives

    And to think that there was once a time when wanting the former by definition meant wanting the latter.

  211. Dalrock says:

    @Jason

    While I see where you are coming from, I still believe you are mistaken. If as a Christian you see something wrong in your own church, I do believe you have an obligation to do something NOW, and not when things might get better or more aggreeable…

    Finally, what’s with your extreme pessimism and nihilism, Dalrock, your shibboleth that nothing you or your readers could actually do in their churches would be effective, that only blogging is the only path open to you and your readers?

    You are making stuff up. No one, certainly not me, has argued that you shouldn’t engage where you can. I also never said blogging was the only way. I said you need to be ready for a long process.

    Moreover, showing up and telling your host (and everyone else) that they are doing it all wrong isn’t effective either in person or on the web. So yes, engage your pastor and bishop, but do so in a way that is most likely to be effective. What you are displaying in this thread is a painful lack of people skills. You aren’t the first, and you certainly won’t be the last man to come here and appoint yourself the head and start handing out orders. If you understood how to accomplish what you claim to know better than the rest of us, you would understand how absurd it is when you start doing this.

  212. HamOnRye says:

    Martin Luther didn’t just post his theses anonymously, but he did it publicly and on the church door so that all Catholics would know the problem, and then years later defended himself in front of the Holy Roman Emperor – risking his life, even though it may not have been the “right” time to do this

    You would also do well to note that from this came the Luthern Church, separated from the RCC. Sometimes it is far more effective to create a parallel organization.

  213. Dave says:

    I want to be a family man, trouble is finding a woman who wants to be a family woman. You can always find a woman interested in a tumble, but to find a woman who wants to be a mother and wife?

    Why seek the living among the dead (Luke 24:5)? If you want a wife, why not try looking where wives are more likely to be? There are many attractive women world over who are hoping and praying to find a man such as yourself. Why waste time on American women who are not ready to be wives, nor understand what that means?

  214. greyghost says:

    Good news fellas Satan lost the AFC championship game

  215. dragnet says:

    @greyghost

    “Good news fellas Satan lost the AFC championship game”

    Yah seriously…I absolutely could not take having to watch the Pats in yet another Super Bowl.

  216. Novaseeker says:

    Good news fellas Satan lost the AFC championship game

    And ran off the field like a coward.

  217. SJB says:

    @Jason: What you are called to do is not what every man is called to do. The body is composed of many parts and it does no good for the phalanges to lecture the femur about dexterity.
    .
    Let every man seek God’s will and do as He says.

  218. Kevin says:

    Christian men are the hardest hit by the situation and the most who might want to “man up” and accept responsibility so these type of posts hurt them the most. A Christian man wants to serve, wants to give his life as Christ did, and wants to have sex and wants to have children. At least the sex and children depend on marriage.

    The unrepentant cads and PUA work against the Christian at every step – but they can survive in the world single and sinning with the sluts. The Christian man is left frustrated.

    So the betrayal of so many Christian leaders, as Dalrock has pointed out, is most bitter for Christian men whose life goals and potential enjoyment are thwarted by the continual feminist path. It is a very tough place to be with little guidance on how to survive and live virtuously in a fallen and now feminist world.

  219. Paniym says:

    Jason, Jason, Jason………
    Have you really tried to implement what you suggest???? Only if you want to be excommunicated from your church, loose much of your family and be condemned as a misogynist will you openly confront the church elders within a fem-centric church and society.

    For most men they can’t see red pill truths unless they experience the pain related to blue-pill thinking (or the personal experience with someone close to them). It’s only the harsh pain that can get through a lifetime of brainwashing. Not arguments, quoting bible scriptures, etc. Taking the Red Pill is one of the most traumatic experience a man can experience. The only reason why most men take the red pill is because their blue pill paradigm has completely failed.

    For those in the church it’s even worse as in almost all churches women have tremendous power in the church either directly (as in church ministry) or indirectly as having the family financial power deciding how much money to donate. (They decide where the money goes and which church they attend). The fem-centric church and society and the female power within the church corrupts the whole church structure. Almost all pastors have no clue how brainwashed they are by the culture and how much covert influence fem-centric church women have over them.

    It’s my opinion that they can only be awakened by their personal traumatic bluepill experience (or the experience of someone close to them). Like I said……No amount of argument or scripture quoting will ever work.

  220. Dragonfly says:

    Jason, I think you make good points on what we’re all called to do.

    “Martin Luther didn’t just post his theses anonymously, but he did it publicly and on the church door so that all Catholics would know the problem, and then years later defended himself in front of the Holy Roman Emperor – risking his life, even though it may not have been the “right” time to do this.”

    This is very true, and I agree that if the people who are commenting here, myself included, take these things seriously, then we will be already doing these things in our daily lives – mentoring younger people, striving to teach the right things in our churches, and living by example what we believe. Even as a woman, someone who is easier to listen to on these issues, I still get a little bit of heat from some people in my social circle and even church, and I don’t even blog about the heavier stuff that Dalrock does. But I don’t blog anonymously, I have my blog linked to social media sites, and people from our church read my posts, which has at times created conflict, albeit minor. It also serves as a great accountability tool – I can’t behave however I want without many people I know seeing that behavior. That’s something that I definitely think bloggers could benefit from – having that accountability that your pastor or church members know what you do online when you’re alone and no one’s looking. Having unmoderated forums where commenters are just able to talk however they want to others is detrimental to the whole atmosphere and uncivilized. If people don’t behave that way in public, why would they behave that way online? Because they know they don’t have to deal with any real life consequences when they’re anonymous and on the internet.

    But what’s different about the manosphere… is that it’s mostly men complaining about how things are stacked up against them, so not being anonymous will label them as being “whiny, disgusting men.” That’s how the world generally sees men who complain about these things. I had a bride’s maid’s mother that I was fairly close to completely stop talking to me and block me on all social media just because I wrote a post defending a sexless husband’s viewpoint.

    With men, the consequences for writing about these things and letting their church read it, could mean losing their jobs, seriously damaging their reputations, and affecting their families’ stability. I guess you could argue that if they were really serious about Christ, then they’d let go of all that and be bold for Him anyway… I’m not completely sure.

  221. Neguy says:

    Dalrock, would you please email me on the address I’m using to comment from? I’d like to talk with you about the program I’m currently starting to actually push back on some of this stuff.

  222. lozozlo says:

    Everyone (especially those – ‘man up and take by your country/church’ types) should take Bluepillprof’s story about his brother to heart – his *own brother*, after having been betrayed and utterly destroyed by that whore of an ex-wife, *still* sided with the feminine imperative and it’s obvious lies when presented with the clear truth.

    Think about it – if the clear truth told by one’s own brother, after having been through a severe betrayal that should have put these truths into very clear perspective, is not sufficient to convince someone of the red pill, then what will?

    Society is so thoroughly gynocentric, and this gynocentrism is so hardwired, that there is no hope of something so flimsy (to the mostly irrational masses) as reason will change anything.

    Seriously folks, there’s no hope – there never was.

    The best you guys can do is pull a Kaminsky and go MGTOW / ghost.

    Focus on your faith and your (the few number of red-pilled) bros, and ignore the hoes.

  223. joshtheaspie says:

    And Jason, once again, says “Do this”.

    More so, there is this constant artificial association between saying “I cannot do that” or “That would not be productive” with “defeatism” and “nihilism” without actually establishing the connection, just an assertion.

    If you tell a man to jump off a cliff with no equipment and fly, is he a nihilist of he says no?
    If you tell a man to fix his internet connection by beating his computer with a hammer, and he declines the not only non-productive, but harmful action, do you accuse him of defeatism? No.

    So obviously, though the examples above are very different, they establish the principle that saying “that won’t help” or “that isn’t doable” is not inherently incorrect, cowardly, or something to excoriate for.

    Now for an analogy for the current situation.

    Now, if you were having a computer problem, had already rebooted the computer, and 10 different people each came by, and each told me separately, to try rebooting the computer… mightn’t I get understandably annoyed with them? Even more so, if they insist that my problem would be fixed, if only I’d reboot my computer, while I’m telling them I already have?

  224. Dragonfly says:

    Kevin “The unrepentant cads and PUA work against the Christian at every step – but they can survive in the world single and sinning with the sluts. The Christian man is left frustrated.”

    ^It’s actually starting to appear like even the PUA’s are getting married or desperately wanting to once they’re 10+ years into the lifestyle🙂 It’s a very unfulfilling lifestyle for many as they start to get older. They start to wonder about having kids, they start to long for much more than just temporal fwb’s or their soft harems. It might be left over from a blue pill dream, but still from what I’ve seen, quite a few PUA’s eventually get married, have kids, and live a life very similar to traditional Christians.

  225. lozozlo says:

    @Paniym

    You called it right there – no reasoning from observation or the Scriptures is going to work – you would have as much success gesticulating wildly in front of a blind man.

    The modern church and society *cannot see* beyond the feminine imperative – it is a matrix through which they filter all of reality – and they will twist, pervert, or outright ignore all that does not worship woman. Every time. As you say, only great pain can liberate one from the blue-pill, and even then, only a small percentage of individuals.

    Jason is just another tradcon armchair general gleefully ordering men to their deaths to serve his own agenda. Red-pill men are totally outnumbered and outgunned – this is not a war we can win, as things like truth and logic and totally useless against the FI-powered armor of our enemies. I wonder if Jason is some old dude who thinks that things are not materially different from the1950s? A lot of tradcons seem to think so…

    Remember that just like John 3:16 is a well known Bible verse in Christianity, the modern church and society have their own version – the follow instead Oprah 3:16 –

    “Verily, Oprah saith unto thee, “The woman’s heart is pure and lovely, and no defilement hath entered therein. For it is full of niceness and good feelings and rainbows and unicorns. But the heart of a man is wicked and uncaring, for it is always full of meanness, tainted by porn addiction and XBOX. Thy snowflake princess canst not err, excepting that a man hath forced her to it.
    It be-eth not her fault.”

  226. technovelist says:

    Hey Dal, have you read this book?
    “Taken Into Custody: The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the Family”
    http://www.amazon.com/Taken-Into-Custody-Against-Marriage/dp/1581825943/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top?ie=UTF8

    I haven’t read it but the reviews indicate that it is a scathing indictment of exactly the horrors that you are talking about in this post.

  227. Heh, frankly I’m surprised no one has brought up the example of JoJ as to why it’s a bad idea to start teaching men in the Church.

  228. @BPP
    Your experience with your brother is similar to the reaction of men here when confronted with what the Bible actually says about marriage and sex. It’s so disconcerting that they’d rather shoot the messenger than examine the message.

    Want to have some fun? Start responding to the “Man Up and marry the slut” campaign by pointing out the young guys can’t marry her because she’s already married. The problem isn’t that she’s a slut, it’s that she’s some other mans’ slutty, adulterous wife. Genesis 2:24 => Exodus 22:16-17. See the comments below to Tom.

    @Kevin
    Pornagraphy is a serious sin
    Please point to the passage in the Bible that identifies viewing pornography as a sin. According to Romans 4:15 and 5:13, if pornography is a sin you should be able to point to that portion of the Law that identifies it as such.

    @They Call Me Tom
    As has already been mentioned by many in these discussions of the decline of marriage, the problem is not the lack of boys willing to ‘man’ up, but rather the lack of girls willing to ‘woman’ up… and further the lack of any call from social, political, and religious leaders for girls to do so.

    Be thankful. Exodus 22:16-17 says the virgin is married to the guy she gave her virginity to unless her father refuses to allow it and annuls the marriage. It is not possible to “marry” a woman already married to someone else and such a situation is nothing more than state and church sanctioned adultery. Don’t walk away, run. However, if you find a non-virgin that looks like marriage material, the Bible has a couple of solutions for you.

    The easiest way for her to deal with her marriage is to confess what she’s done to her father, go over Exodus 22:16-17 and Numbers 30 with him so he understands the situation and ask him to annul the marriage. He has the authority to do that, but if he does he will bear her guilt.

    If Daddy isn’t around or refuses, the question is whether her husband is a Christian. If he isn’t, then the prohibition on Christians getting divorced doesn’t apply to him and assuming she’s banged other guys after him, her non-believing husband can legitimately divorce her for adultery and thus she’s free. Given that she’s married to him until he divorces her, she’s free to offer him physical incentives if that would help her get what she wants.

    If her husband claims to be a Christian, she should demand reconciliation with him to force the issue. If he refuses, he’s in violation of 1st Peter 3:7 (“Husbands, live with your wives…”). If he’s married to another woman he’s also in violation of Exodus 21:10, not providing her with equal food, clothing and conjugal rights. If this is the case, he fails the litmus test of 1st John 2:3-6: He is a liar and the truth is not in him. Therefore, Matthew 18:15-18 applies. Go to him, confront him, return with witnesses and finally take it before the elders of your church for excommunication. That makes him the non-believer who will not consent to live with her and thus she’s free.

    And guess what? Every one of those solutions are straight from the Bible, but every one of them requires that the woman recognize the authority of God to make the rules, take responsibility for her actions and act accordingly… and we all know there’s nothing a churchian cuck hates worse than seeing a woman held accountable for her actions.

    @Jason
    Why are you guys so terrified of talking to your bishops, of leading bible studies, of trying to set up some reform in local churches, of mentoring lonely people in the church? These are not Herculian tasks.

    Feminism within the church cannot be addressed without identifying and addressing the false doctrines that support feminism. In the same way that trying to explain Red Pill knowledge to a blue pill beta who’s been inculcated in the FI all his life, pointing to what the Bible actually says will elicit a violent reaction from Christians, especially those in leadership. In the same way that bluepillprofessor was attacked by his brother when he tried to pry his brother’s head out of his ass, witness the attacks on me at this blog when I’ve pointed to what the Bible actually says about women, marriage and sex.

    In the same way that BPP’s brother claimed he was wrong, saying ” “I don’t want to hear anything about your “hate women” bullshit and how women are the cause of the problems in the world. You need to get over it” and “You just trick your wife into having sex and and treat her badly;” I’m told I’m taking Scripture out of context, I’m a false teacher, a liar, a heretic, etc..

    Think about the second set of books that Rollo has written about. Men were taught from the old set of books and think the old set of books are the ones with the rules that apply. Learning there’s another set of books that have the real rules is a very difficult and painful lesson for most men. In the church, the real books (the Bible) was replaced with a new set of books (the traditions and teachings of the church) so long ago that these rules that aren’t in the Bible carried over to the Protestant church after the reformation, everyone was raised with them and it’s a case of “everybody knows…” to the point that nobody studies what the Bible actually says.

    Churches are businesses. Literally. Over 99% of all churches are incorporated not-for-profit business entities that provide services to the general public of a religious nature. That’s why you find them listed in the business section (yellow pages) of the phone book. I repeat, they are businesses that provide products and services of a religious nature in return for money, and ANYONE who has a negative impact on the cash flow has to GO. I recall talking to a guy a few years ago who was thrown out of his church because he was teaching the men about game… and it upset the women. I have been asked to leave several churches because I dared to challenge the narrative with what the Bible actually said.

    This isn’t about truth because churchian cucks can’t handle the truth. The truth is so simple it can be laid out in 450 words:

    Genesis 2:24 is the grant of authority by God to the man to initiate marriage. That passage says the man leaves (intent to marry) and cleaves to his wife (consummates the marriage) and the two become one flesh. The grant of authority was not limited to one wife, and we see from the rest of Scripture that God regulated, condoned, commanded and participated in polygyny. While Genesis 2:24 is the grant of authority to initiate marriage, it does not grant the authority to the man to terminate marriage. Jesus made that point in Matthew 19. When He was asked what the grounds for divorce were He quoted Genesis 2:24 and said there were none (“What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.”) The Pharisees then asked, if there are no grounds for divorce, why did Moses say we could divorce our wives? Jesus responded, saying “For the hardness of your hearts Moses permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way.” Again, Jesus pointed to the fact the authority to initiate marriage did not contain the authority to terminate marriage.

    Yes, the Law “permitted” a man to divorce his wife, but as Jesus said, only in cases in which the wife committed sexual immorality. Christians claim they are no longer under the Law, but they use the Law to justify divorce and completely ignore 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 where Jesus forbid His Christian bondservants to divorce, the only exception being if they were married to an unbeliever who left them.

    Exodus 22:16-17, in keeping with Genesis 2:24, says that a man who seduces a virgin is married to her, the exception being if her father refuses and exercises his right under Numbers 30 to annul her agreement. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 says the man who is discovered taking the virgin by force is automatically married to her with no exceptions. The only reasonable explanation for the dichotomy of the father being able to annul the marriage if his daughter is seduced but can’t if she’s taken by force is found in Numbers 30. The virgin seduced agreed to the marriage with the act of giving away her virginity and thus the father can annul that agreement, but the virgin forced made no such agreement and there is nothing for the father to annul. I suspect that the virgin who was forced against her will but not discovered might, after a bit of reflection, realize that she was an active participant and there *was* an agreement on her part for her father to annul. Bottom line? If she isn’t a virgin she is married UNLESS her father annulled the marriage when he heard about it.
    _______

    That was simple, but the second set of books for Christians say a marriage isn’t a marriage unless it’s sanctioned by the church, so sex with a virgin isn’t the consummation of her marriage. That meant the church created a whole new class of sin that doesn’t exist in the Bible called “premarital sex.” If you don’t believe me, get Dave to give you his lecture on fornication.

    And NOBODY in the church wants to touch the implications of Genesis 3:16 because the message is clear: AWALT. Churchian cucks who were trained from childhood to romanticize, idolize and pedestalize women recoil in horror at the fact that ALL women are cursed, hypergamous creatures who must be ruled over to protect them from their own solipsism and hypergamy. It’s a horrible message so they’d rather just shoot the messenger or claim NAWALT, which is to deny the curse and claim the Bible got it wrong.

    @Paniym
    It’s my opinion that they can only be awakened by their personal traumatic bluepill experience (or the experience of someone close to them). Like I said……No amount of argument or scripture quoting will ever work.

    While I agree with you, I won’t shut up because if nothing else, I want the churchian cucks to have absolutely no excuse when they stand before the Lord one day. Luke 12:47-48. They deserve every stripe of punishment they’ve earned and I don’t want a single one of them to have the excuse of not knowing the truth. What they need to hear in that day is “Bind this worthless servant and cast him into the outer darkness” or perhaps even “I never knew you. Depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.” Why? Because “In vain they worship me, teaching as doctrine the traditions of men” and in so doing “They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are unwilling to move them with so much as a finger.” And for what their support for feminism has done to the children of wrecked and destroyed marriages, in the day they finally stand before the Lord to get the justice they deserve… I want them to fondly wish they’d had a millstone tied around their necks and were cast into the sea when they hear their sentence.

  229. ray says:

    “Finally, what’s with your extreme pessimism and nihilism, Dalrock, your shibboleth that nothing you or your readers could actually do in their churches would be effective, that only blogging is the only path open to you and your readers? Why are you guys so terrified of talking to your bishops, of leading bible studies, of trying to set up some reform in local churches, of mentoring lonely people in the church? These are not Herculian tasks”

    You mis-characterize Dalrock’s statements, and add material he didn’t express. You want men here subject to your ‘bishops’ and ‘pastors’ and to modern church-systems. You cannot fathom that God doesn’t live in your fine buildings.

    Bible-studies IS being led, thanks for bringing that up. It’s being led by this site-owner, on the subjects under his purview, largely exposing apostasy in those very churches that you believe ought exercise authority over the men here. I say many of these men are finding their way just fine, to the truth of themselves and of their nations, and to King Jeshua.

    If your ‘religious leaders’ are in such need of these waters (and they are) then let them come out to it humbly and learn humbly, without their robes and titles and attitudes. Heck it’s even free here! Unlike most of your ‘churches’.

  230. Kevin says:

    @Artisnal Toad

    If it easier to just say, “I beleive pornography is a serious sin” we can leave it at that. I am not of the persusian that the Bible contains instructions for every scenario and every situation – I have church leadership and the Holy Spirit for that. I think the spirit clearly tells me pornography is a sin. I understand you disagree, but I feel very confident that pornography has no good for the Christian man or woman.

    Alternatively you could try to convince me of the “goodness” of pornography because if it not condemned in the Bible I am sure it is also not celebrated or encouraged.

  231. Kaminsky says:

    @lozozlo,

    Loving your posts right now. Good work. Playing around with ‘Oprah scripture’ could be endless entertainment.

    “(especially those – ‘man up and take back your country/church’ types)”

    I call those guys the ‘Broadswords.’ The (tiny) manosphere contingent that is figuratively honing their steel deep underground, staring into the kiln fire and awaiting the call ‘unto the breach’. It’s a fantasy. One needs only survey their own set of friends to see how hopeless it would be to try and collect men in the kind of numbers required for a bulk push. I’m not trying to disparage the groups who are dedicated. I’m not saying ‘give up’. Any move or effort for men’s place in society is admirable and should be continued, but certainly stay realistic and navigate things as an individual first and foremost. If men as a whole can’t open their mind to the redpill only days after having their life destroyed then what can you say? An alarming percentage of males are simply dominated animals, lower-on-the-food chain animals at this point. They can’t be helped. Things came together to make this the absolute low point for males in the gender war. But one can stay active if possible. It’s like making a small donation to a cause. You do it and get back to your own interests and life. Just be realistic, I guess.

    I didn’t set out with the intention to be a paint by numbers MGTOW, but it ends up being the logical route, mostly since I stayed unmarried/childless long enough for it come clear as the most rational way, (imo, of course.)

    I think the culture will move on its own towards minimalism, if not MGTOW. The mini-home trend, improvement in decent, cheap clothing like Target etc. are some examples. The millenials who I dislike in general, actual seem to have quite a non-material outlook and that will take root. A move to the simple life is going to pay off with a lot of emotional reward on top of the economic. From there, MGTOW might naturally follow a lot of the time. So it could be a natural move. Urban life is worth far less culturally, thanks to the net and a world of products deliverable to any location. Gardening/gentleman farming might pick up in popularity. But when the guys who would have made 150k decide they’re happy making 50, paying less tax, and once those EBT’s start to tighten up. Hooo boy. Don’t ask me.

  232. Heh, frankly I’m surprised no one has brought up the example of JoJ as to why it’s a bad idea to start teaching men in the Church.

    I thought of it immediately, but struggled to make a thumbnail sketch of it. It lacks some deserved weight if stated in a high view brief summary.

    My family voted with feet, which some may see as the wrong choice. I walked my boys out of several sermons as they were teens and the pastors were man bashing. The three of us were conspicuous. So we left several churches and finally found one with a 35 year old man preaching, who simply doesn’t indulge subjects that tickle women’s ears. Having subsequently met him over lunch and after having -the talk-with him I am 100% comfortable. The young man has a history with divorce and family dysfunction and he came away, not a supplicant, rather as a deeply committed Christian who doesn’t see any need to supplicate to a gender at all. Not one word of it. He doesn’t even do Mothers and Fathers Day sermons.

    Its fairly small, 300 folks, compared to some of the bigger churches Ive invested in in my past, but post red pill (now 11 years) its by far the best Ive seen.

  233. The point that is germane is that one needn’t start churches. In fact we once fell in with a church starter, early 90’s, who peeled us away from the Disciples of Christ church we were part of, and we supported the tiny group for as long as we could manage, only to find we had been duped. We were painfully young newly married parents.

    The second foray into similar saw a man take money from us and abscond.

    Test the spirits, even your own, before flippantly saying we need to all start churches.

  234. Anonymous Reader says:

    Here, Dalrock, I have a great idea, in the interests of efficiency. Just post the text below a few times in every comment thread under a different name. Change a few words and it can be posted with a female handle.

    “Look At Me! I’m Doing It Right! If You Are Not Doing It Like Me You Are Doing It Wrong! Be More LIke Me, You Bad Men!”

    “Simplify, simplify” – Thoreau

  235. enrique says:

    lozozlo: read Rollo’s post about Triage and Last Rites. I just had a buddy (who is Red Pill) who had a buddy who was so deep in the matrix that he couldn’t even understand the concept of his Manginahood, even when his g/f hit him hard on the back of the head at a trendy bar. My buddy related how he simply could NOT get through, and meanwhile the g/f treats him like dog crap–I explained that sometimes, you wipe the blood off your surgical tools, read last rites and move on. You may still be “Friends”, but not to any depth. It’s like being buddies with an alcoholic and watching them drink in front of you.

  236. @Kevin
    I think the spirit clearly tells me pornography is a sin. I understand you disagree, but I feel very confident that pornography has no good for the Christian man or woman.

    The point I was making was not that porn is a good thing, but that the Bible doesn’t specifically say it’s a sin and Romans 4:15 and 5:13 are very clear that where there is no Law there is no transgression and no sin is imputed. There are certain commands and prohibitions specific to the church that fall in the same category as the Law, but your comment falls in line with Romans 14:23, “that which is not of faith is sin.” That’s a matter of faith and conscience and that’s great. For you.

    However, the whole thing about porn = adultery is total BS and it must be opposed. It starts with people not knowing what lust is and this causes people to completely misunderstand what Jesus was saying in Matthew 5:27-32. The only way the man who lusted after the woman committed adultery with her in his heart was if she was a married woman, because adultery requires a married woman. Looking on a woman who is eligible to marry with desire is not lust. Looking on your wife with desire is not lust because in both cases that desire can be legitimately fulfilled.

    With respect to matters of conscience, Romans 14:23 and James 4:17 speak loudly, but hand in hand with that are the admonitions not to judge. In 1st Corinthians 5 and 6 where the *church* is commanded to exercise church discipline, the subjects they are to judge are matters of sin, which are violations of the Law. Again, Paul’s example of the man who had his fathers wife being not just a violation of the Law but a death-penalty offense. All the other examples are violations of the Law or specific prohibitions for the church.

    Thus, porn not being a violation of the Law and not being something specifically prohibited to the church, the admonition not to judge holds. Sure, ask the questions:

    “How does looking at porn bring you closer to God’s righteousness?”
    “Does looking at porn conform you to the righteousness of Christ?”
    “Would your porn habit cause others to stumble?”

    These are all fair questions, but while you can ask these questions, you cannot answer for another person- only for yourself.

    As a rule guys who look at porn do so in order to get aroused and then masturbate. Perhaps the problem would go away if their wives obeyed 1st Corinthians 7:4 instead of complaining about their husbands… and in the final analysis this is one of those matters in which we are instructed not to judge. Romans 14:4 “Who are you to judge the servant of another master?”

    What about the single guys? While there is nothing in the Law, there is a specific prohibition against using a prostitute in 1st Cor. 6:15-16, so that is obviously forbidden and a sin. However, there is nothing in either the Old Testament or the New Testament that says a FWB relationship with a widow or a legitimately divorced woman is forbidden or a sin in any way.

    Perhaps it isn’t wise. Perhaps many would feel convicted in their conscience that it was a sin and thus for them it is a sin. But, like masturbating to porn, there is nothing in the Bible that says it’s a sin. So, what about the guy that’s living in a culture that is literally saturated with sex and sensuality, but everywhere he looks he can’t find a woman who is eligible to marry. Wait, no, there’s a 50-something y.o. widow over there, and while she’s very agreeable to working something out there’s no way she could give him children. So, his choice is exercise self control (easier said than done, he’s really high-T), masturbate to porn or work out a deal with the merry widow. You know, because even though the Bible actually supports the idea, he thinks polygyny is wrong. Those are the guy’s choices because the alternative is doing what all the church leaders are telling me to do:

    “Man up and marry a slut!” That’s a real problem because those church leaders refuse to accept that according to Exodus 22:16-17, said slut is in all likelihood married and in telling him to marry her they are telling him it’s okay to commit adultery.

    Aren’t you glad you were specifically commanded not to judge in situations concerning things like porn? Because if weekend gigs with a merry widow isn’t a sin and it isn’t adultery, how is fapping to porn a sin, much less adultery?

    Alternatively you could try to convince me of the “goodness” of pornography because if it not condemned in the Bible I am sure it is also not celebrated or encouraged.

    The point is the Apostle Paul did not celebrate or encourage marriage and his advice was that marriage was, rather than being “goodness” a distraction that caused the person married to be concerned with the things of the world rather than be focused on the things of the Lord. Paul neither celebrated or encouraged marriage (just the opposite), so how does the lack of encouragement or celebration of something in the Bible equate to that thing being a sin?

    His advice that because of immorality (that word again- ‘porneia’) each man should have his own wife and each woman should have her own husband can reasonably be read as saying that each man should have his own wife instead of someone else’s wife and each woman should have her own husband rather than someone else’s husband. It isn’t nearly as much an instruction to get married as it is an instruction to arrange your life so that you aren’t in sin.

  237. PokeSalad says:

    STILL waiting for Jason to enlighten us all on what hes doing to advance the cause….

  238. feeriker says:

    STILL waiting for Jason to enlighten us all on what hes doing to advance the cause….

    That would be telling the rest of us that we’re not doing enough to advance the cause (in other words, he’s playing the self-conferred role of “Red Pill Commissar”).

  239. Easttexasfatboy says:

    Older guys on this site realize that most folks will never change. That’s just the way it is. Marriage is very risky to those who ate aware. However, Scripture points out that wisdom is to be highly sought after, giving the idea that it’s rare. So, here we are, watching feminism overreach everything. If you are a serious student of the Bible, you know that we are up against the wicked spirit forces, or demons, if you will.

    The Bible equates rebellion with Spiritism. The penalty for either is death. So, the daughters of Eve are rebelling again. We will win if we stay on God’s side. However, that reward may come after our death.

  240. lozozlo says:

    Loving your posts right now. Good work. Playing around with ‘Oprah scripture’ could be endless entertainment.

    Thanks! It’s late where I am so I’m too tired to follow-up further right now, but in any event I do think that there is potential for more insight into the FI via the study of Oprah’s scriptures.

    I’m not sure who came up with Oprah 3:16 first though…wish I could claim credit but I’ve seen it floating around.

    First I saw it though was here IIRC.

  241. mrteebs says:

    Novaseeker said:

    Because of that, most the advocates are people who have been burned, and the non-burned tend to look on the burned with suspicion, rather than looking at the system with suspicion.

    I have been reading here for about 18 months now and concur with this observation. For me, it took being tasered not once but twice before I was ready to question what I was being taught by christians regarding marriage. The defective lines of code in the programming run deep – particularly when you have to confront the fact that the king’s cupbearer is the one administering the toxin rather than protecting you from it.

    The first taser was my wife of 18 years frivorcing me. It merely drove me to double down on blue pill behavior, blame myself, and hold her only minimally accountable. Only after remarrying and seeing wife #2 nearly destroy my son and me with illogical fitness testing to see who I loved more – all to bolster her misguided notions of loyalty and love – did I wise up and start to understand the clear message in Gen 3:16 about female nature after the fall and their besetting sins/proclivities. For almost every man reading here, there was probably a similar defining moment that he can point to when the tipping point occurred and he realized for himself the insanity of continuing in the same course of action yet expecting that this time it would turn out different.

  242. mrteebs says:

    I might add that what both situations had in common – and the inconvenient truth I was forced to acknowledge – was that mostwomen, not just some, will elevate their feelings to such a level of urgent primacy that they supersede even the destruction of a marriage or a child’s psychological well-being, and they will do so with the full approval of their own consciences when left to their own devices.

  243. Jim says:

    “mrteebs says:
    January 25, 2016 at 2:20 am”

    They don’t have elevate their feelings. It is their default position. Most are unwilling to push that side for the good of the husband and family.

  244. Spawny Get says:

    They’re not even able and/or willing to put aside their feelings in their own interests. What hope have the rest of us and society in general?

  245. Dave says:

    @Artisanal Toad:

    You never tire with this your unbilical and destructive views.
    Care to explain how you can reconcile this:

    The point I was making was not that porn is a good thing, but that the Bible doesn’t specifically say it’s a sin and Romans 4:15 and 5:13 are very clear that where there is no Law there is no transgression and no sin is imputed.M

    With this:

    You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28?

    Or you’re saying when you look at a woman engaging in pornography, as a hot-blooded heterosexual man, you do not lust after her? And don’t start that semantics about “adultery” vs “fornication”; they are both sexual sins.

    Or, what about this:

    Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,…and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19-21

    So, what is lasciviousness, again? According to Dictionary.com,
    lasciviousness = “arousing sexual desire”; “inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd:”

    So, you are saying that watching porn does not arouse sexual desire? It does not incline to lustfulness? Are you this bold to twist the word of God, and heap on yourself swift destruction?

  246. I might add that what both situations had in common – and the inconvenient truth I was forced to acknowledge – was that mostwomen, not just some, will elevate their feelings to such a level of urgent primacy that they supersede even the destruction of a marriage or a child’s psychological well-being, and they will do so with the full approval of their own consciences when left to their own devices.

    This is where the female mental filing system gets to be like the scene inside the worm hole on interstellar. Multiple realities and pathways that can be drawn upon to recall as the actual reality and used to justify what is happening in that moment. Its an uncanny skill, literally. Its not devious or premeditated. There is no organic intelligence great enough to intentionally deploy such skills.

    Its odd that women eschew statistics generally while seeming to operate inside a window of reality that extends one minute into the future enabling them to use probabilities to pull the right stuff in the right way from the past in order to make a statement that allows them to FEEL like they are right…..note….didnt say to BE right.

  247. nick012000 says:

    @Dave: >Or you’re saying when you look at a woman engaging in pornography, as a hot-blooded heterosexual man, you do not lust after her? And don’t start that semantics about “adultery” vs “fornication”; they are both sexual sins.

    Words have meanings. When you’re discussing the law (or the Law), those meanings can diverge from the common parlance. “Lust” in this context means something different than the day-to-day meaning of the term; so does “adultery”. In this specific instance? No, you do not commit neither lust nor adultery, unless the woman is already married to someone else, a temple prostitute, or a relative.

    >Or, what about this: *snip* Galatians 5:19-21
    In the original Greek, that’s “aselgeia”: http://biblehub.com/greek/766.htm Reading that, I’m pretty sure that someone watching porn is not committing aselgeia, though the porn actresses themselves probably are. It’s not actually a sin, though, unless you transgress the rules God laid down to govern sexual conduct.

    >So, you are saying that watching porn does not arouse sexual desire? It does not incline to lustfulness?

    It might arouse sexual desire, but lust isn’t sexual desire, it’s *forbidden* sexual desire. It’s not lust for a man to feel sexual desire towards a woman unless they’re married, a relative, or a temple prostitute.

  248. Dalrock says:

    @nick012000

    It might arouse sexual desire, but lust isn’t sexual desire, it’s *forbidden* sexual desire. It’s not lust for a man to feel sexual desire towards a woman unless they’re married, a relative, or a temple prostitute.

    In 1 Cor 7 Paul explains that marriage is the only proper way to channel sexual desire:

    It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.

    8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    If you burn with passion, then marry and have regular sex so that Satan does not have an opening to tempt you. It is true that pornography isn’t adultery, no more so than being angry with your brother is murder. Lust is adultery in the heart, and anger is murder in the heart. But these are still sins.

  249. Caspar Reyes says:

    Adultery = possibility of questionable paternity = adulteration of seed. Sticking my thang into another man’s wife is adultery. No paternity was ever in question because someone looked at nekkid pitchers or at a live woman or jacked off to images. No possibility = no adultery. No one is proud of looking at pornography, but all things are lawful, even if they are not all helpful. What you do in your closet by yourself is your business between you and God, and that should be the end of the discussion. Often, pornography “issues” are merely a chance for certain people to stir up drama and get attention.

    Not that you can’t judge the actions of others by an objective standard, but you can’t judge others by Jesus’ standards for self-examination. Matt 5:28 is an example of a way to judge your own standards, but using it as a hammer to beat others with is hypocritical and a violation of “take the log out of your own eye…” in the same passage. You can never take the log out of your own eye. You can never get deep enough to find pure motives. Allegory: Eustace as a Dragon in Dawn Treader.

    Teaching as Matt Walsh does, stuff like “Men: Your Porn Habit is an Adultery Habit”, is grandstanding to be seen of men (or women), like making long public prayers or trumpeting your alms in the marketplace, whose modern day equivalent seems to be facebook video selfies in the vein of “me buying Chick-Fil-A and giving it to some homeless lowlife!”

  250. @Kevin On porn: “Alternatively you could try to convince me of the “goodness” of pornography because if it not condemned in the Bible I am sure it is also not celebrated or encouraged.”

    Not pornography but SEX is very much encouraged. Have you read the Song of Solomon lately or would you rather follow the obtuse dictates of the incel Saul rather than ancient and equally Holy scripture?

    I do agree that the Greek word Porneo (the actual word NOT adultery) used by Jesus in His divorce exception statements. The exception means basically any sexual sin so porn CAN BE grounds for divorce. Is porn a sexual sin? What is the source of the sin? I believe the source would be the violation of one flesh and the call for husbands and wives to satisfy their spouses sexually.

    So…if a man is obsessed with porn and is taking away from his wife that which is rightfully hers then he is sinning. If a man turns to porn after repeated sexual denials then he is not taking anything from the wife and there would be no sin.

    I find it vulgar and obvious that women using the Threat Point and the well worn tactic of titillation and denial in order to seize control of the relationship is celebrated in church even though it a clear and obvious sin while men viewing porn as a way to gain release that has been SINFULLY denied to them by women is thought of as grounds for divorce and the men are told to suck it up and double down on “nice.”

    > in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power.

  251. Not pornography but SEX is very much encouraged. Have you read the Song of Solomon lately or would you rather follow the obtuse dictates of the incel Saul rather than ancient and equally Holy scripture?

    Are you denying Paul’s conversion to Christianity?

  252. PokeSalad says:

    That would be telling the rest of us that we’re not doing enough to advance the cause (in other words, he’s playing the self-conferred role of “Red Pill Commissar”).

    It’s like having our very own Driscoll right here to help. We are blessed.

  253. I really wish I’d archived the account of Joe from Jackson’s experience when he essentially did exactly what Jason is suggesting by starting a Red Pill mens’ group in his church. The end result was his being ejected (excommunicated?) from his evangelical church by the church counsel of men with their wives being present and orchestrating the whole process.

    If anyone has links to those comment threads I think they’d serve to highlight the mistakes in Jason’s assertions. From what I’m reading he’s suggesting the same top down approach MRAs endorse while shaming men in a similar manner that Matt Walsh or Mark Driscoll employ. I won’t speak for Dalrock, but my own approach has always been a bottom up one. Awaken one man at a time on a personal, individual level. I do that with my blog, I do that with the 2 books I’ve published and I do that with the 14 years of discussion and exchange with men who then carry that awakening to the men they believe are ready to hear about Red Pill realities.

    Modern churchianity has been co-opted in whole by the feminine imperative to the point that doctrine, and eve scripture itself is being rewritten and reinterpretted to accommodate it. The Holy Spirit is literally conflated with the purposes of the Feminine Imperative.

    https://donalgraeme.wordpress.com/2015/11/24/the-mammon-trap-replacing-the-holy-spirit/

    Dalrock has, for over half a decade, documented instance after instance of exactly the dynamic I described. There are so many examples of the insaturation of the feminine-imperative, so many personal and public accounts it’s an indictment of any churchian’s personal agenda to ignorantly turn a blind eye to it. Either that or this shift has taken place so deftly they honestly can’t see it.

    When I made the assertion that the Feminine Imperative has replaced the Holy Spirit, I don’t, of course, mean that in the literal sense. What I mean is that the imperative has become part of church culture’s social doctrines. When you have high profile christians proclaiming that women are “closer to God than men ever could hope to be” you start to see how the FI is becoming more and more comfortable in exercising its influence more openly.

    When your doctrine revolves around, soft, malleable, men raised to defer and serve women, to pedestalize their mysterious “more godly” wonder, and hope against hope one will deign to tolerate a poor, bewildered christian man (who must forgive all her past indiscretions), you can see how this social hierarchy starts. When you have christian men like Matt Walsh or Mark Driscoll shaming and deriding (AMOGing) other christian men for not carrying that water as a sexual strategy then you can see how the FI has infiltrated the church with the “lets you and him fight” social convention.

    In a spiritual sense, the Holy Spirit is still what it’s always been, but the FI has appropriated the doctrinal concept of the Holy Spirit in a cultural sense in order to effect its ends. High profile religious men then pick up this appropriation to effect their own sexual strategy (churchian Game) by using it as a means to identify better with the women they hope will improve their status with.

    While I think Jason may be employing a bit of this himself, the call to action needed to get back in the fight and ‘do something’ about the complete undermining of the masculine in the church isn’t something Red Pill christian men want to risk for themselves, their marriages, their reputations, their careers, etc.

    What’s going to be required isn’t “fixing” the present state of the feminized church – it’s going to require a schism. Men will need to found a new franchise of christianity based on Red Pill awareness and conventional masculinity that is biblically founded. I don’t see this happening without a huge amount of conflict, but there you go. There simply is no ‘fixing’ the present state of churchianity.

    http://therationalmale.com/2014/10/09/game-works/

    Doing Something

    What is the manosphere actually ‘doing’?

    This is the first critique I expect from from a poor debate opponent – disqualifying the strength or validity of a premise by the ‘success’ or lack thereof of a proponent’s efforts to enact or convince others of that premise.

    By this logic, one could make the case that the MRM is an utter failure, but it still doesn’t mean they aren’t correct in their efforts.

    As I mentioned on the Christian McQueen Show, I’m of a bottom up, or an inside – out mind when it comes to enacting red pill ‘change. The manosphere is raising awareness and this needs time (maybe even a generation) to mature into personal consciousness and then popular consciousness.

    It’s difficult to quantify the ‘results’ of the manosphere, red pill awareness and Game because its effects are individually subjective at this stage. There isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t receive an email, a forum/blog comment or a tweet about how my book or what I’ve written on the blog has changed (or literally saved) a man’s life.

    That’s not meant to gloss myself, but rather to illustrate a point – the red pill (and Game) is doing something, it’s changing minds and lives. It’s not rallying men in the streets and waving banners, nor is it effecting legal or social policy (yet), but it’s making men aware of their condition and changing their beliefs.

    No hate for what the MRM is doing, I recognize the intent and applaud it, but thus far it’s been impotent in effecting “real change in policy”, while red pill awareness has done more for men individually. For all of the MRM’s efforts to enact public change, all it takes is one White Knight in a position of authority to say “GTFO you misogynist creeps!” Now imagine in the future a man who’s red pill aware in a position to effect that policy.

    Real change isn’t going to happen directly it’s going to happen indirectly, on a man by man basis. And not just publicly but personally.

    That change will happen in men’s relationships with their wives, daughters and sons. That change may simply be a form of ‘civil disobedience’ in not marrying at all, or holding women accountable for their open embrace of hypergamy and their AFBB sexual strategy and only marrying / supporting women who make an effort to control their hypergamy.

    That change will happen in the workplace and hiring practices. That change will filter into men’s better understanding as the red pill spreads and men reassume some of the social frame control the Feminine Imperative unilaterally legislates and provide to women now.

    The red pill is ‘doing’ something, it’s planting the seeds for a greater shift in gender power with every man who becomes aware of how women ‘are’ and what they will predictably do.

  254. AnonS says:

    Update on former roommate deep Churchian blue pill. I was early Red Pill when they got engaged and tried to increase his vetting. She seemed like she would pass as a unicorn, she even answered “would you leave me if I became abusive”, with “no, my duty is to win you back without a word”. But now they are separated because of his ‘porn addiction’. Don’t know if they can reconcile but she wants him to leave the house for a time and it looks like it will just setup the standard Churchian emasculating dynamic. Now he is going the standard, “I have a broken and contrite heart, and just need more accountability”, I don’t think he can hear any Red Pill advice.

    As former roommates with a room now open, he is planning to stay with us starting today for an unknown amount of time.

    Not sure how to get any change in his thinking. I may just be his only advocate saying “do you feel like all your emotional investments have been dismissed?” while everyone else he knows will parrot the same Churchian advice of emasculate yourself more to win her back. Don’t know if he will shut down questions like, “was she affection enough to meet your needs?” by refusing to lay any blame on anyone but himself.

    I might just be able to push barbell training and maybe Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu to get him outside of his head and feel more dominate. That’s all I have so far.

    This is the first time I’ll be seeing this dynamic play out right in front of my eyes.

  255. Novaseeker says:

    If you burn with passion, then marry and have regular sex so that Satan does not have an opening to tempt you. It is true that pornography isn’t adultery, no more so than being angry with your brother is murder. Lust is adultery in the heart, and anger is murder in the heart. But these are still sins.

    Indeed, yes. We can affirm that pornography is not adultery without de-sinning it.

  256. Anonymous Reader says:

    No hate for what the MRM is doing, I recognize the intent and applaud it, but thus far it’s been impotent in effecting “real change in policy”,

    A concrete example: child custody after divorce. The 1970’s – 80’s was the era of “default mother custody 100%”, allegedly the “best interests of the child”. There have been some changes in the last 20 years, and now in some states joing custody is the default. It is still rare to see a divorced father with sole custody of a child. A huge amount of work went into moving the custody-meter a bit, in some states. One could consider that a small victory for the MRM / MRA’s.

    And no one notices, of course, because the “win” is so relatively tiny. Men who pop off in comment boxes about how “We should just get together and END DIVORCE” are deluding themselves, or maybe posing in some kind of Live Action Role Playing (LARPing), a sort of online version of a costume party.

    Nova’s right. Far too many people have not just a monetary investment (the divorce industry, the HR grevience industry, the counseling industry, etc.), not just an emotional investment (women will pop off about “FAIRness” pretty easily any time feminism is criticized in even the mildest of terms) but a mental investment. “This is the way it is. I can live with this.” in a sense.

    Men don’t herd the way women do. It’s ironic how often AMOG-wannabes reveal their own ignorance about the differences between women and men in their pronouncements. And that leaves us with the grassroots approach, where men teach other men the truth about women and men. That leaves us with various little pockets of resistance in the androsphere, and how the word propagates out.

    It’s worth noting that more and more media outlets are limiting comments on articles, or even doing away with them. In my opinion, that is due to the pushback they’ve been getting in comments, and a lot of that pushback has been pretty Red Pill. We’ve moved beyond the “ignore you” stage into more open hostility, and that means progress is being made.

    It would be a good thing if ignorant men, young and old, would try to learn something before they presume to order others around by proclaiming “YOU’RE NOT DOING IT MY WAY, YOU’RE DOING IT ALL WRONG”, leading to a lot of woof-woof-woofing to see who is the Big Doggie in the playpen. This would be good if for no other reason than all that woof-woofing is a waste of time.

    I’d rather be explaining to a man whose wife is openly contemptuous of him “why she is that way” and what he might be able to do to cool her down, than skim through yet another round of “I’M A BIGGER DOG THAN YOU”, including “I’M A BETTER CHRISTIAN THAN ANYONE, MY HUMILITY ALONE PROVES THAT”. Not mentioning any names, nope. Just making an observation.

    Finally, in closing, I’m reading Antifragile. It’s an interesting book and highlights how top-down “solutions” seem quite prone to lead to more problems that lead to more top down “solutions” that lead to more problems, a feedback loop that becomes unstable. The USSR being one example, the housing bubble another, and IMO Feminism is yet another.

  257. OKRickety says:

    Rollo Tomassi said on January 25, 2016 at 12:01 pm
    I really wish I’d archived the account of Joe from Jackson’s experience when he essentially did exactly what Jason is suggesting by starting a Red Pill mens’ group in his church. The end result was his being ejected (excommunicated?) from his evangelical church by the church counsel of men with their wives being present and orchestrating the whole process.

    If anyone has links to those comment threads I think they’d serve to highlight the mistakes in Jason’s assertions.

    I think Joseph of Jackson gives his account starting from this comment in October 2012:
    Debasing Marriage

    Note: I found this with my knowledge of Google search. I have wondered if there is a way to “index” all of this blog including the ability to find commenters and dates. Anyone know a way?

  258. Dalrock says:

    @AnonS

    Now he is going the standard, “I have a broken and contrite heart, and just need more accountability”, I don’t think he can hear any Red Pill advice.

    As former roommates with a room now open, he is planning to stay with us starting today for an unknown amount of time.

    Not sure how to get any change in his thinking. I may just be his only advocate saying “do you feel like all your emotional investments have been dismissed?” while everyone else he knows will parrot the same Churchian advice of emasculate yourself more to win her back. Don’t know if he will shut down questions like, “was she affection enough to meet your needs?” by refusing to lay any blame on anyone but himself.

    I wouldn’t frame it this way. He is looking for a way to sacrifice himself, and you will only play into that reasoning. Instead I would focus on not compounding his first sin (pornography) by abandoning his wife and leaving her without a head. He wants to abandon his wife (by giving up on leading her), because headship is hard and uncomfortable when he considers the fact that he is not without sin. Stress how cowardly and cruel this is. Imagine an officer on the battlefield who ran away after being disciplined, leaving his troops to fend for themselves. Even if the officer didn’t run away, to stay and follow where he has an obligation to lead is cowardice. Yes it is hard to be a husband when you have failed, but his wife still needs a husband, and she can’t just go get another one. Consider Christ’s words to the woman at the well:

    The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.”

    Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.”

    That she is rebelling against having a husband to lead her is all the more proof that she needs this. He may not be able to get her to follow/submit, especially with the church undermining him, but his obligation is to do everything he can to protect his wife from falling further into this rebellion.

  259. Anonymous Reader says:

    vohlman
    @anonymous, Yes, I haven’t commented here much in the past. I blog and write on marriage issues and was pointed here by a friend after I posted the Matt Walsh article to some of my FB groups.

    So you don’t know anything about the blog, or Dalrock, but you “know” that you need to tell other men “DO IT LIKE ME!”, is that correct? And echoing Dalrock, were you aware of Matt Walsh’s bad habit of trashing other men when you came to post here?

    I have been married for (Von yells to ask his wife) 26 ish years, I have six children, five children in law, and four grandchildren and counting.

    Congratulations. That is quite an accomplishment in the modern world. It is very rare. When I work with 20-something people, I find that about 40% of them come from homes broken by divorce. So you and yours are not at all typical in the world today. You might bear that in mind when issuing orders to other men.

    Do you know personally any men who have been divorced by their wives? Do you know personally or perhaps 2nd hand of any men who have killed themselves while in the process of divorce? I ask because many men here and elsewhere do know such things. I know of men who did everything you suggest, and they wound up frivorced anyway.

    In general we have attended churches that place a high view on marriage, children, etc.

    Well, that’s nice and vague. When a man proclaims up front that all other men have to do is be just like him, I expect more details. So again, tell me how many churches you have turned around, personally? How many pastors or priests you have personally confronted about their errors?

    You’re demanding that men here follow you. Surely you don’t mind if we determine your leadership qualities first?

  260. >Are you denying Paul’s conversion to Christianity?

    Not at all but I am denying that every word he wrote must be followed as if it were Holy Scripture. Call me a heretic (again) but Paul said over and over again that he was talking “as one who has known the risen Jesus” or something like that. Well guess what? I have also known the risen Jesus! So is whatever I write Holy Scripture? I for one certainly hope it is not.

    When Paul says “Not I, but the Lord” I will treat it as infallible Holy Scripture but when he says things like “I THINK” as in “I think everybody should avoid sex and be celibate like me (AFTER I got to screw around and orgy it up as a Roman Patrician when I was younger) then I certainly think what he wrote is NOT infallible Holy Scripture- especially when it largely contradicts the letter and wholly contradicts the Spirit of entire Books of the Old Testament.

    Not a single syllable the Lord uttered contradicted the Torah. Yet Churchians practically ‘worship’ a MAN who claimed to see Jesus after the fact. A MAN who writes constrictive missives clearly limited to his Corinthian/Ephasus/Roman/Jewish audience and further we are expected to expand his SUGGESTIONS far beyond his intended audience and apply them in another context SOLELY to further the FI and the Holy Hamster.

    Forget it.

  261. enrique says:

    Anonymous Reader: I am not sure which group you are specifically referring to, but many of the Red Pill men are not trying to just say “let’s end divorce”, it’s more like, let’s stop entering into the marital contract in the first place and/or having kids, etc. That’s not the end-all, be-all, but the first step isn’t to get married then work to end divorce, it’s to get men to wake up to the immediate threat of marriage, to their future children, finances and health.

    There’s nothing wrong about that, tactically.

  262. Call me a heretic (again) but Paul said over and over again that he was talking “as one who has known the risen Jesus” or something like that. Well guess what? I have also known the risen Jesus! So is whatever I write Holy Scripture? I for one certainly hope it is not.

    You over read what I was saying. I’m not calling you a heretic. You called him by his name before he was converted by Jesus and became Paul. By calling him Saul, you are not acknowledging his conversion. Hence the question.

  263. The Question says:

    @ Rollo Tomassi

    “What’s going to be required isn’t “fixing” the present state of the feminized church – it’s going to require a schism. Men will need to found a new franchise of christianity based on Red Pill awareness and conventional masculinity that is biblically founded. I don’t see this happening without a huge amount of conflict, but there you go. There simply is no ‘fixing’ the present state of churchianity.”

    The only people who will move more quickly than the feminists to destroy this kind of RP church will be churchanity itself, if for no other reason than to “prove” to the feminists how they aren’t evil misogynistic men who beat their wives while forcing them to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen – unlike those bitter men who are intimidated by strong independent women.

    They may not have to hide in the catacombs like in the time of the Roman persecution, but my guess is their meetings won’t be openly advertised on the street corner, either.

  264. Looking Glass says:

    @BPP:

    On the topic of the Apostle Paul, that’s a seriously unforced error. The celibacy/sex stuff is really easy.

    Step 1: Do you “burn”?
    Step 2: If yes, get married. Hump like rabbits.
    If no, work for what the Lord has appointed you. And be assured that you are, quite truly, more blessed. Especially as you have more “head space” free to work with.

    @Rollo:

    I’ve been interacting lately with a good, Christian Man. A gentleman much older than I am. And the little things I notice about the Boomer set confirms a lot of what is really going to be the issue: the Red Pill is *death* to a significant part of the Boomer Generation cultural conception.

    What we know to be true is going to destroy people. A lot of Christians are going to find out, to the brutality of their self-identity, but the “double-edged sword” that the Lord wields is like. It will not be pretty. Which is why the Truth is spread like it always is: one person at a time.

  265. Dave says:

    Not at all but I am denying that every word he wrote must be followed as if it were Holy Scripture. Call me a heretic (again) but Paul said over and over again that he was talking “as one who has known the risen Jesus” or something like that. Well guess what? I have also known the risen Jesus! So is whatever I write Holy Scripture? I for one certainly hope it is not.

    If you carefully note the approach of the early Christians to Christ’s second coming, you’d realize that they expected him to come in their lifetime. Paul did not write any of his epistles with the intention of teaching Christians 2000 years later; he wrote to specific people about specific things.

    God chose to preserve Paul’s writings for us, so He must count them for something. Granted that the apostle made clear distinctions between God’s express revelation to him and his own judgements on specific matters, we must never forget his apostolic authority in the church. I would want to follow Paul’s advice rather than come up with something entirely new.

    And, yes, every word that Paul wrote and that was preserved for us is part of the holy scripture. If not, which part would you like to excise?

    Once we start to pick and choose among God’s preserved words, we are on a slippery slope, and we expose ourselves to error.

  266. Looking Glass says:

    @The Question:

    Eventually, a lot more of the “manosphere” set will realize there is such a thing as “Intelligence Services”, who have been active parts of all major powers for the past few hundred years. You can learn a lot from them. Especially if you can recruit some retired hands for planning. It helps that most of them will be Purple Pill as a matter of course, most of them quite Red Pill, given what type of work they did.

  267. vohlman says:

    @Anonymous,
    It is the duty of every Christian to preach the truth. It seems an odd requirement to have to ‘know’ a blog before one posts there. If one agrees with the blog, then one posts will meet approval, if one disagrees, disapproval, and if mixed then, well, mixed. But why should that change whether or not one posts?

  268. MarcusD says:

    Pro-Life Movement…What about abstinence? (…)
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=996581

  269. Jason says:

    Rollo, before there was the “feminine imperative” that made life difficult for Christian men, there was the “racist imperative” in America, the corrupted “medieval imperative,” in Europe, the “Roman Empire imperative,” at the beginning of Christianity. God was able to work though through brave Christians in the catacombs, through reformed Protestants and Catholics like Luther, Calvin, St. John of the Cross, and Teresa of Avila, through Martin Luther King and Rosa Park, as well as countless individual Christians who will be forever unknown – to refer to the three later eras. As long as humble and faithful Christians act, there is no reason that shouldn’t happen in this era.

  270. Anonymous Reader says:

    Enrique
    Anonymous Reader: I am not sure which group you are specifically referring to,

    There’s several up thread.

    but many of the Red Pill men are not trying to just say “let’s end divorce”, it’s more like, let’s stop entering into the marital contract in the first place and/or having kids, etc. That’s not the end-all, be-all, but the first step isn’t to get married then work to end divorce, it’s to get men to wake up to the immediate threat of marriage, to their future children, finances and health.

    Yes, I know. I’ve been here for a few years. I also was active on Spearhead for several years. I have a clue on this topic.

    I’m referring to those men who opine that all we gotta do is just march on the state capitol and demand that mens-fault divorce be repealed and that will be that. Only a complete naif would make such a claim. If you read my previous postings carefully, you’ll see that I’m quite aware of what it takes to get legislation signed into law, and it ain’t easy to do when the machine is opposed to you.

    So I’m a bit impatient nowadays with men saying silly stuff just to make themselves feel better.

  271. PokeSalad says:

    It’s interesting that you continually reference Luther as an example of a Christian who ‘took action,’ and ‘got things done,’ since he……..provoked a schism.

  272. Anonymous Reader says:

    Looking Glass
    I’ve been interacting lately with a good, Christian Man. A gentleman much older than I am. And the little things I notice about the Boomer set confirms a lot of what is really going to be the issue: the Red Pill is *death* to a significant part of the Boomer Generation cultural conception.

    Yes, yes it is. People don’t like to admit they were wrong, and even more so after too much time. Imagine being told “Yeah, you believed all that egalitarian stuff for 40 years, it’s crap – and what’s more, it’s the reason your first wife left you and your second wife treats you like a child one day and a whipping boy the next. You can fix it, in fact only you can fix it”. Death to any number of parts of the typical AFC Boomer’s worldview.

    It’s surely a tough pill to swallow. But there’s men at Rollo’s in their 50’s who are going about the business of fixing up their LTR or marriage, so it can be done, if a man is determined enough.

  273. Anonymous Reader says:

    vohlman
    It is the duty of every Christian to preach the truth.

    Do you understand the difference between preaching to men and ordering them around?

    It seems an odd requirement to have to ‘know’ a blog before one posts there. If one agrees with the blog, then one posts will meet approval, if one disagrees, disapproval, and if mixed then, well, mixed. But why should that change whether or not one posts?

    Well, for a start by reading first one might just find out if the topic has been addressed before or not.

    Now, tell us how many churches you have turned around, how many religious leaders you have corrected, and how many divorced men you know. If you are here to actually participate in a dialog, these things should be easy.

  274. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jason, same questions to you as to vohlman.
    How long have you been married, how many children do you have, how many churches have you personallly turned around?

  275. Jason says:

    Thanks for your response Boxer. While obviously disagreeing, I appreciate how you at least read all of my comments seriously and carefully.

    Concerning your point about tactical thinking, I don’t disagree. Prudence is an important virtue, as St. Thomas and Aristotle argued, and Dalrock’s followers shouldn’t just throw darts hoping that one of them hits the target (I’m being provacative here to make my assertion). A certain finesse is called for, in which one perseveres over time and pursues a Plan B if Plan A doesn’t accoplish its objectives, and then a Plan C if Plan B also falls by the wayside. I do think that is the sort of example that Empathologian provides above in the comments, although perhaps not exactly analogous to what I’m saying here: he went to different churches it would seem until he found the one that was good for his family. He acted like a Christian and a man, and just didn’t throw up his hands when the first few pastors didn’t work out. And while one should wait for the ripeness of events and not proceed rashly, there is a lot of low-hanging fruit out there now waiting to be picked, that needs to be picked in order to help those many who are currently in need – and not 50 years in the future when it might be more opportune. Or to again use the Biblical metaphor, there are mustard seeds to be planted at this moment which could develop into places of refuge that can resist what may become an increasingly dark age. (And such Rod Dreherian Benedictine options needed to evolve now, and not just be planted on the spot sometime in the future when they will inevitably be infantile and unable to deal with the great challenges that exist in any age.)

    As far as what is to be prudently done, I do think I provided a reasonable formula of what Christians can concretely do in their churches to live out their faith above, although I’m sure others here can provide much better ones. To refer again to a good example, I’d estimate that 10 percent of Christian men in churches are simply clueless about what it means to be a Christian man who is attractive to women – they just don’t know, whether because they weren’t taught well by their parents or their pastors or whatever. Therefore, a reasonable Plan A may be simply for Christians to take such individuals under their wing and mentor them on how to be good men and women. Obviously that can often be done privately, with little risk of others meddling with their foolish theological or psychological shibboleths. That in and of itself could do so much good if even a few Christians applied themselves to doing that.

    Then, a Plan B could be to talk to ministers or bishops about what could be prudently and reasonably done in churches: starting a lay group, a Bible study, denying Communion to the divorced in order to demonstrate the importance of marriage, and so forth. And let’s not mince words here, Boxer: if you’re afraid to talk even to your own damn minister or most right reverend about what you think is for the good of the church, you’re not being as wise as a serpent and as innocent as a dove, or realistically dealing with the feminist imperative, or whatever excuse somebody might make in the comments here. You’re just a coward, and should no longer consider yourself a Christian or a man, or even a decent person who has the simple courtesy to tell his pastor the mistakes he is making.

    To illustrate Plan B with a concrete example then, perhaps some college students at a Catholic university may want to start a lay group that stresses the importance of family and marriage, as well as the unpopular idea of wifely submission. Or maybe some Gen Xers, finding the divorces of their own parents repugnant, want to start such a group in their own parish. These individuals then approach their priests and bishops and ask for approval. Will many of them get rejected? Perhaps. Will all of them? Probably not. And the issue of finesse again raises its head here: it would make much more sense to raise such an idea to, say, a Chaput of Philadelphia than perhaps a Nolan of New York, in a traditionalist or Greek Catholic parish rather than a progressive suburbon one.

    Then if Plan B doesn’t pan out (and if enough Catholics make such a suggestion to use my above example, it shouldn’t always – I’d suspect 20 percent of the time, if 10 individuals were to make a proposal to 10 bishops and priests, the minsisters would say that sounds great, go to it), then you go to Plan C, which would involve starting lay groups outside the perview of the official church with other likeminded individuals. (I’ll leave to the Catholic, Orthodox, and mainline readers to discuss whether than would be in accordance with canon law; obviously evangelicals have more flexibility here.)

  276. @Jason, clumsy dodge.

    However, I think you’ll find the feminine imperative has been in existence since we evolved from our hunter/gatherer beginnings:
    http://therationalmale.com/2013/01/02/the-feminine-imperative-circa-1300/

    The feminine imperative is baked into women’s biology and has been extended more or less successfully throughout human history.

    And as far as your Rosa Parks analogy goes, start reading Joseph’s comments here:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/debasing-marriage/#comment-59433

  277. vohlman says:

    @anonymous reader,

    Again will remind you that we have gone to churches that have a high view of marriage. And I think you mistake my ministry, which is not to ‘turn around church’ but to promote young, fruitful, marriages. And I have done that. The details are in many cases protected by privacy, since many of my discussions have been very private, but there have been… several… people who have married, or married earlier, because of our ministry.
    Thanks for asking.

  278. Jason says:

    Whatever Rollo. Have you even read a history of the church?

  279. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jason
    Dalrock’s followers

    Interesting assumption on your part. What do you suppose it tells us about you?

  280. Anonymous Reader says:

    vohlman
    Again will remind you that we have gone to churches that have a high view of marriage.

    Yeah, you mentioned that. So what?

    And I think you mistake my ministry, which is not to ‘turn around church’ but to promote young, fruitful, marriages.

    Oh, is that what you are doing here? You give the impression of being a blowhard whose sole interest is in telling other men what to do, i.e. you “lead” and they “follow”.

    And I have done that. The details are in many cases protected by privacy, since many of my discussions have been very private, but there have been… several… people who have married, or married earlier, because of our ministry.
    Thanks for asking.

    You are being evasive. Why is that? What are you trying to hide?

  281. AnonS says:

    Dalrock –
    “I wouldn’t frame it this way. He is looking for a way to sacrifice himself, and you will only play into that reasoning. Instead I would focus on not compounding his first sin (pornography) by abandoning his wife and leaving her without a head. He wants to abandon his wife (by giving up on leading her), because headship is hard and uncomfortable when he considers the fact that he is not without sin. Stress how cowardly and cruel this is. Imagine an officer on the battlefield who ran away after being disciplined, leaving his troops to fend for themselves. Even if the officer didn’t run away, to stay and follow where he has an obligation to lead is cowardice. Yes it is hard to be a husband when you have failed, but his wife still needs a husband, and she can’t just go get another one.

    That she is rebelling against having a husband to lead her is all the more proof that she needs this. He may not be able to get her to follow/submit, especially with the church undermining him, but his obligation is to do everything he can to protect his wife from falling further into this rebellion.”

    Thanks for the advice, but wouldn’t this require him to first see his wife’s behavior as rebellion and not her “being more holy and God like”?

  282. Jason says:

    Concerning whether Dalrock’s commentators have actually done something, obviously a few or some have (which I really admire), and it would seem that quite a few of those have had difficulties. But whether more can and should be doing something, I think the proof is in the pudding. Look at the comments in this thread. Basically, with the exception of you and Dragonfly (thanks Dragonfly – I think you expressed my sense of things quite well, better than I did – I would suggest everybody scroll above to see what she wrote), it seems that all that people can do is take shots at me, and suggest that nothing can be done. Rolla and others have mentioned this JoJ situation, and seem to argue than because of ONE failure then there is nothing more to do – the Femine Imperative is immutable and utterly incapable of being resisted. They don’t want to look to the past, it appears to me, and see that church reform has ALWAYS been a struggle, that it has always been a case of God working straight with crooked lines.

    If Rollo and others want to talk about the particular failure of this church plant or a man trying to reform his church or whatever (I don’t know the situation), then I think this is where the discussion should begin, and not end. I would think questions would be posed, about mistakes that were made in this situation and what alternative plans should be pursued in the future. Again, to get to the original point I made near the beginning of this thread: it seems to be this would be a good forum to discuss things that could be done, what works and what doesn’t work. Catholics, for example, could swap stories of what they have done, and what others could do in their parishes and communities, their successes and failures, what ideas should be rejected and what institutions should be built upon. I know that with myself, it’s important to have specific tasks that I actually perform if I want to accomplish something, since it is so easy for me to be lazy and fearful otherwise. Perhaps some of the commentators here could do a much better job that I do in setting up concrete forumalas that they can follow for themselves, where they can also hold each other accountable, to allude to what Dragonfly said above.

  283. Jason says:

    I didn’t see anything about Rosa Parks in that link Rollo; but I wish that fellow well who is conducting his Bible study.

  284. That fellow was run out of his church by the male counsel at the behest of every one of their wives for holding a Red Pill men’s independent bible study at restaurants and his home.

  285. Jason says:

    Sorry Rollo, I only had time to skim over your post on chivalry; unfortunately, I cannot give your excellent writing (I’m not being facetious here) the attention it deserves. If I understand your argument though, you seem to be saying that medieval notions of honor have given today’s men very inappropriate and mistaken ideas about how to respond and effectively relate to women. To which I would respond: definitely. That’s why it’s important, at least in my opinion, for there to be mentors, lay groups, and such outside of the blogosphere (for after all, few people read blogs, and anyway the personal touch of a person physically being there for you will always be more worthwhile than communicating with somebody over cyberspace), to combat the FI in all its manifestations (which after all, is just a form of original sin that has been around since Adam and Eve, or in a more scholarly sense since hunter-gatherers as you point out). Sin will always take different forms in different eras; responding to it creatively will always involve new reform movements that deal with new challenges and a constantly changing world. As I have argued, the FI IS NOTHING NEW as a general phenomenon – it’s just a new form of sin that the church currently has to address, as it confronted other similar and just as powerful manifestations of original sin in the past.

  286. Jason says:

    Obviously it’s horrible, Rollo, that a guy was run out of his church like that by foolish women. But when has that sort of thing NOT happened in the history of Christianity?

  287. The Question says:

    @Rollo Tomassi says:
    “That fellow was run out of his church by the male counsel at the behest of every one of their wives for holding a Red Pill men’s independent bible study at restaurants and his home.”

    The male counsel was just exercising “servant headship?”🙂

    @Jason

    “Obviously it’s horrible, Rollo, that a guy was run out of his church like that by foolish women. But when has that sort of thing NOT happened in the history of Christianity?”

    When Richard Wurmbrand was ostracized by American churches in the 20th Century for talking about the horrific torture he suffered under the communists behind the Iron Curtain, the correct response by Christians should have been to get rid of their heretical church leaders and replace them with men who weren’t water carriers for the Marxists – not question Wurmbrand as to what he was doing besides “preaching” about it.

  288. Jason says:

    Thank you everybody for your comments, even those who think I’m very offbase. To those I unintentionally and wrongly offended, I apologize. On occasions I get emotional about things I believe and ruffle feathers. Rather than continuing the pot then, it’s probably best for me to bow out at this point.

  289. Jason says:

    To stir the pot, rather.

  290. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sorry Rollo, I only had time to skim over your post on chivalry; unfortunately, I cannot give your excellent writing (I’m not being facetious here) the attention it deserves.

    If you do not even attempt to understand what a man is saying, then you are not actually communicating with him.

    Talking AT people is not the same thing as talking WITH people.

    If you are going to present yourself as a strategist, it would be a good thing if you acted with some strategy.

    You remind me of an apprentice carpenter I knew years ago who was quite the know-it-all. He tried to out-bluff a man on a job site who just happened to be a master finish carpenter on a job site…he just looked like a day laborer. Guess who wound up looking for a new job?

  291. feeriker says:

    Obviously it’s horrible, Rollo, that a guy was run out of his church like that by foolish women. But when has that sort of thing NOT happened in the history of Christianity?

    I’ll invite you at this point to cite one example, documented by reputable historical evidence, of any man in the pre-modern era being run out of his church at the behest of women.

  292. Anonymous Reader says:

    vohlman, I’ll ask you again how many divorced men you know of. The reason is simple, you are all about people getting married by your own words.

    That reminds me of quite a few women, who like the idea of getting married very much, but who are not nearly so interested in being married.

    Say, where’s your blog, again?

  293. Anonymous Reader says:

    Jason
    it seems to be this would be a good forum to discuss things that could be done, what works and what doesn’t work.

    What leads you to believe that something like that has not already been going on?
    Given that you can’t be bothered to read anything before posting and that you are too proud to ask questions before telling other men what to do, I guess you just would have no clue what has and has not been discussed here over the last 6 or more years.

    Am I being too subtle? Not clear enough?

  294. Looking Glass says:

    When Jason first popped up, I couldn’t quite nail down what seemed off. I finally got it after these last exchanges.

    He’s a Churchian that sees a problem to fix. I’m very specifically seeing a type that ends up running Youth Camps for the children of Christians during the summer. Earnest people, though the “Heart for the Lord!” is really questionable. It’s their own misplaced sense of idealism that they actually are serving. (Seen a whole lot of those types outright leave the Church. Puts to lie everything they had previous said about their life in the Lord.)

    It doesn’t make him dishonest, but his “go-getterness” is always the undoing of those types. Running into situations blind and without backup is what normally causes them the most problems. There’s a reason part of the Fruit of the Spirit is “patience”.

    As for vohlman, either a really well disguised troll or, more likely, a Man that’s been able to operate out of a much easier environment, allowing for not needing to understand the more brutal details of the reality of modern “marriage”. But what we know around these parts still holds: modern “marriage” is wholly down to the Woman’s prerogative. That’s why Men end up playing a game, only to lose. Because the game is setup for them to fail.

  295. You know I’m all for Jason making the same attempt at creating a Red Pill men’s bible study group at his church in the same vein as Joe from Jackson did.

    He seems to have the zeal and I’d honestly love to read about how that experiment plays out for him in his church.

  296. vohlman says:

    @anonymous,
    letthemmarry.org

  297. JDG says:

    Jason says:
    January 25, 2016 at 4:41 pm
    Concerning whether Dalrock’s commentators have actually done something, obviously a few or some have (which I really admire)…

    Still waiting to hear what you are doing.

  298. Dragonfly says:

    “What leads you to believe that something like that has not already been going on?
    Given that you can’t be bothered to read anything before posting and that you are too proud to ask questions before telling other men what to do, I guess you just would have no clue what has and has not been discussed here over the last 6 or more years.”

    AR, it’s more of the fact that it’s a lot of complaining now a days, I’ve seen quite a few complaints from manospherians that it’s getting hard to read the comments section because it’s mostly complaining and going around in circles. Aside from Joseph of Jackson, no one can really cite another person who is actually doing something that drastic in their everyday life that affects the people in your every day life. And JoJ happened 3-4 years ago now, it’d be nice to read weekly of things people are proactively doing to make changes instead of the norm that is getting even original manospherians tired of reading comment sections.

    Blogging “effectively” so that your real life acquaintances wouldn’t throw you out of their church, may be a start or something to look into. Would you have to engage with A LOT more criticism and from people you actually know, who teach your children Sunday school, who work with you or your wife… people who may have power over your life? Yes, you would. Would you have to treat the people who come to your blog with a lot more respect than is generally shown here? Yes, you absolutely would, your commenters could offend your wife’s boss, your children’s Sunday school teacher, or your pastor himself and you would have to deal with the consequences of it alone because it’s your blog (and you run it or are responsible for it and what happens here). Blogging with real life people reading so that you could bring up topics that would otherwise never be discussed, would have real life consequences and bring a whole new aspect of accountability for your secret blog. Would you have to moderate comments and make sure it’s a civilized discussion? Yes, to be respectful to the people reading from your real life, to be “effective” and not offensive to them, you would.

    “So yes, engage your pastor and bishop, but do so in a way that is most likely to be effective.” [Dalrock]
    This could be applied to your blog, you could engage the people in your church (or in anyone’s church that reads here), but it would require a lot of changes in order for it to be civil for the people in your every day life, your wife’s life, and especially your children’s life.

    And side note…. It’s interesting that no one wants to critique what JoJ did wrong, if there was anything he could have done differently, and anything as in… like Dalrock actually said, to make himself more “effective” in his church instead of getting thrown out of it.

    I’m just one woman’s opinion, but to me it looks like JoJ probably shouldn’t have been trying to teach game right away, but rather focus on godly masculinity, and kept it as something completely unaffiliated with the church. He probably shouldn’t have hit on hypergamy and women’s true nature so hard at the beginning so that he had angry and grieving men in his first few weeks of doing his “Bible study.” Angry and grieving men act very differently, and sometimes alarmingly so to outsiders. Of course their friends and family (church family especially) will want to know why they’ve changed and where they got this “disturbing” information. So of course having newly angry and grieving single men in his church affected the way his church leaders saw his “Bible study” and started ordering people to leave. He should have never called it a “Bible study” in the first place (which it looks like he changed once the church started punishing men who were going). I’m not trying to be harsh, and I admit I’m judging from an easy place to critique, but I’d be interested in what others thought he could have done differently and specifically, what he could have done so that he was more “effective” with his church leadership?

  299. The Question says:

    Dalrock

    Have you ever written a post about how Red Pill men might handle attending a normal church? Any tips from your own experience? You’ve mentioned before your wife dealing with the whole “did he takes notes?” nonsense, but I’m trying to figure out best practices because honestly it’s harder than it seems. Some of it I suppose requires ordinary tact (a work in progress for me), but at the same time it’s difficult to not say anything when someone expresses the Blue Pill as gospel truth, especially when it’s to young men who are bound to be harmed if they take the advice. It’s also difficult to interact with people without these issues coming up during conversations in study groups or when discussing the Bible. How do you handle it yourself without feeling like you’re hiding what you believe?

    It’d be nice to have a Red Pill church, but in the meantime for most of us it means going to a regular one if we want to corporately worship or find any kind of fellowship.

  300. greyghost says:

    A good way to influence a church is to privately speak with the paster and or edlers. Don’t speak with the intent of changing their minds but with the intent of seeding doubt in their teachings..
    I personally speak to men I come in contact with on red pill topics. Even a casual conversation with a stranger. You would be surprised at the agreement you get. Forget California those men are effeminate off the chart for man talk.
    I’m going to participate in the Return of Kings meet up http://www.returnofkings.com/78021/full-city-listing-and-meeting-points-for-international-meetup-day I don’t know what to expect but should be interesting.

  301. AR, it’s more of the fact that it’s a lot of complaining now a days, I’ve seen quite a few complaints from manospherians that it’s getting hard to read the comments section because it’s mostly complaining and going around in circles.

    It only seems like complaining to you because you limit yourself to adopting the perspectives of Sunshine Mary and InsanityBytes rather than reading and understanding the countless comments from men who’ve fundamentally saved their own live because of Red Pill awareness.

  302. greyghost says:

    men who’ve fundamentally saved their own live because of Red Pill awareness.

    Rollo
    This is true no way I could survive my marriage as a blue pill chump.

  303. The Question says:

    @ greyghost

    Which city are you meeting up at?

  304. @Jason, you may want to read through a few of these before you start your Red Pill ministry:

    http://www.returnofkings.com/?s=Church

  305. greyghost says:

    Dallas, Tx Hope no ice

  306. The Question says:

    I’m in the People’s Republic of Seattle. I’m tempted to go but definitely worried about trollers or whatnot.

  307. greyghost says:

    Don’t worry show up any way. Might even get a chance to meet Bill Price. ( the spearhead) .

  308. Dragonfly says:

    lol Rollo, I wasn’t at all speaking about myself thinking that way

    Read this:

    https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/the-manosphere-through-time-my-perceptions/#comment-45982

    this:

    https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/the-manosphere-through-time-my-perceptions/#comment-45995

    and this from Buena Vista:
    “I think people like Rollo and Dalrock are interesting and thoughtful, but the commenters are so predictable and rote — red pill or christian red pill, respectively) that I find it as annoying as listening to media interviews with dipshit “likely voters.””

    and this
    https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/the-manosphere-through-time-my-perceptions/#comment-46020

  309. Dragonfly says:

    And that’s just from one post, I’ve read similar laments on other blogs, from people who DO understand the anger, etc. but still are getting tired of the complaining.

  310. Anonymous Reader says:

    vohlman, thanks. I’ll go and look.

    But again, how many divorced men do you know or know of? How many men have you known or known of who committed suicide at some part of the divorce process?

    Why won’t you answer those relevant questions?

  311. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dragonfly
    AR, it’s more of the fact that it’s a lot of complaining now a days, I’ve seen quite a few complaints from manospherians that it’s getting hard to read the comments section because it’s mostly complaining and going around in circles.

    I’m sure it seems that way to you and others. I won’t deny the validity of your experience on that issue. However, it doesn’t seem that way to me, for various reasons.

    I will admit that my patience with concern-trolls isn’t what it used to be.

  312. enrique says:

    http://www.provenmen.org/

    Curious, has there ever been a study within the Christian church or faith (or by any one of the thousand or so denominations) about porn use? Furthermore, with any breakdown by sex? Just seems to be an OBSESSION with men and masturbation (let’s be frank, that’s what this is about…not about the mere viewing of porn, it’s all about men being “satisfied” somehow).

    Does any church address purity or any of this, with women? Are there great Driscollian sermons admonishing women to “be done with those old worn out dildos and vibrators”…or porn itself?

  313. Anonymous Reader says:

    The Question:
    One thing that I’ve done a few times with churchgoing, middle aged men, is drop the “Where is that in the Bible” rock into the pond. Some man mentions his wife snapping the word “Sexist!” in his presence, ask him “Where is that word, sexist, in the Bible?” – see what reaction you get. I have seen men become incredulous, then thoughtful, then grin. On the other hand, one can get purple-faced rage, too, because of the large number of White Knights that can be encountered. But it’s a way to Game churchgoing men who claim to be Bible based. “Show me where it is”.

    Or point out to a middle aged man the fact that 40% of college students come from divorce-busted homes, and wouldn’t it be a good idea to go out and look for college men to invite to church functions? Not to play matchmaker, but just to show them what a normal married world looks like.

    Now, this stuff may not work in a megachurch for various reasons, starting with the large number of single mothers one tends to find in such places…

  314. greyghost says:

    OT slightly
    Speaking of single moms check this out https://www.rt.com/usa/328991-daycare-teacher-fight-club/

  315. enrique says:

    Pardon me, but I am fascinated by this aspect of Christianity. Since this guy is so public about his private past, and celebrates 20 years being married and porn, affair and masturbation free…would it be improper at all to ask that his wife make such a pronouncement?

    Would it be improper to ask, “has your wife masturbated, EVER, in the last 20 years?” (let alone the rest), or would The Only Real Man in the Room (™) cry, “Hey buddy, now THAT’s a little too personal…say, what’s your obsession with Mrs. Joel Hesch’s sexual habits, anyway? It’s not like her very public husband’s comments about HIS sexuality as a matter of downstream shame have any relation to what any woman (or man) should know about HER habits. It’s his website. Sheesh. Weirdo.”

  316. The Question says:

    @Anonymous Reader
    “One thing that I’ve done a few times with churchgoing, middle aged men, is drop the “Where is that in the Bible” rock into the pond.”

    I’m hesitant to post actual anecdotes here, but I’ve done this before and it is actually what led me down the path to the Red Pill. The reactions I received were so bewildering and angering that I knew something was wrong. I didn’t realize at the time, but I was seeing glitches in the Matrix.

    My experience with trying to converse with church men on this is they are akin to Cypher; they know the Matrix isn’t real but they insist on staying plugged in because they either have so much ego-investment in the FI or they’re terrified of standing up to it that they will cut you off before you say anything RP truths.

  317. Kaminsky says:

    @Dragonfly,

    Blog posts that run 100-500 deep with comments are not going to be flawless. Sometimes you have to learn to skim. Certainly my favorite blogs have VERY regular commenters who sometimes you have to ignore. Other guys, you’re drawn to their takes every time because you’re familiar with them. This particular set of comments is all over the place with interesting takes, links and various subjects. I am surprised you would try to write it off as complaining. Be careful that you’re not doing this;

    Men’s true issues=complaining.

    I only say that because the cultural default for about 98% of people (male and female) is to employ that above formula. The formula leads to more complaining so there is some element of perpetual motion there.

  318. I found Dalrock over at Instapundit and followed him here a few weeks ago. I’ve read all the posts and many of the comments. I’ve been following the comments on this post since it was posted. My response to much of what has been said is yes, yes, and yes. You guys are onto something. I hope I’m welcome to post something that’s on my mind.
    I’ve been leading a men’s group for 21 years. I’ve seen marriages ruined by feminist counseling, men caught on the merry-go-round of pleasing their wife, and I was pushed out of a church because they impugned on me what an assistant pastor had said. (I was on the committee that hired him, and was a three week holdout to not hire him). I just want to maybe impart a little wisdom.
    After the fall, Adam and Eve hid from God, and covered there condition. Those actions reflecting their changed condition. They hid because of what the did (guilt), and covered there imperfect condition (shame). Since then we are all born with a strong awareness of our guilt and shame. Through Christ we have been forgiven our disobedience, and are no longer condemned for who we are. Our identity is no longer sinner (It is no longer I but sin that dwells with in my members).
    Shame is emasculating. When we feel shame, we often feel like little boys. It’s often how churches control their members, as if they are the accusers of the brethren. It is also one of the tools women use to control men. We should fight tooth and nail against shaming as it is not of God. Individually we should fight the feeling of shame within ourselves. This is hard, as internally we often go from “I screwed up” (guilt), to “I’m a screw up”, without realizing it. But, we have a new identity in Christ, we are his brother, friend, beloved, part of the Royal Priesthood, the list goes on. We need to fight for that freedom (from shame) for ourselves. Now guilt is a good thing. We can go before our Lord and ask for forgiveness. Guilt without shame is conviction.
    I’ve said all this to encourage you all to be careful not to attack each other on a personal level. That is shaming. When you say something is wrong with someone you are speaking to their identity. If they profess to be believers we should assume they are. Disagreeing and offering other opinions is one of the ways we find truth. Somewhere in all that has been said in this thread is truth, Godly truth. It’s up to us to recognize it.
    Jason, you last posting hurt my heart. You sounded defeated. Now a lot of people were frustrated with your postings, and they felt you were challenging their motives and actions. Hear what they were saying. Honestly own what is yours, and don’t let it affect who you are in Christ.
    To the rest of my brothers, I hope you take what I’ve poorly written, and see it with the heart it was intended. You are fighting a battle worth fighting. Thanks for letting me join you, Ray

    [D: Welcome Ray.]

  319. Boxer says:

    I’m in the People’s Republic of Seattle. I’m tempted to go but definitely worried about trollers or whatnot.

    SJW fags and feminists are physical cowards, and only seem to dare a confrontation when they’re a massive majority. If you see a huge crowd of bluehairs, you can always walk on by like you’re just a random pedestrian. I doubt you’ll have any trouble. The most these losers do even when they outnumber us ten-to-one (as at U of T) is to pull fire alarms and childish nonsense like that.

    The only real precaution I might take is not to go in any sort of uniform which connects you to your business, in case someone starts a twitter campaign. There’s almost no chance of that, though. Go have fun with some nice people if you want, and tell the feminists to go to hell if they don’t like it.

    Boxer

  320. [D: Welcome Ray.]
    Thanks

  321. feeriker says:

    Does any church address purity or any of this, with women? Are there great Driscollian sermons admonishing women to “be done with those old worn out dildos and vibrators”…or porn itself?

    What I’m about to say will no doubt be answered with at least a couple of “MY church absolutely does that!” As a general rule, however, the answer is no, not ever. Other than perhaps a few “fringe” churches associated with extremely traditional and/or fundamentalist sects (e.g., Mennonite, Amish, Radical Anabaptist), no, churches in English-speaking North America ever “admonish” women about sexual sin or remind them of their obligations to the marriage bed as wives. “Christian” churches in America are so thoroughly co-opted by modernism (which of course includes feminism) and so deeply captured and governed by the FI that none dare speak out about such issues. The quickest way to empty collection plates and pews, to say nothing of pursuit and harrassment by mobs of enraged churchian harpies, is to hold women accountable for their behavior. It is just.not.done.

  322. @Jason

    This is if you are still reading this thread. I’ve been reading Dalrock since 2013 and his blog was one of my first introductions to the Red Pill. As for what I am doing in terms of taking any action, I’ve shared it in one of the recent threads on this blog. You can read it here – https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/we-need-to-focus-on-respect-instead-of-fairness/#comment-199443

    I’m just attempting to introduce the concept slowly and starting with the pastor who is “mentoring” me. Just as Rome wasn’t built in a day, Red Pill concepts will, I think, take some time to sink in. Right now, the pastor’s sole response to what I’ve shared is that it’s culture-specific, i.e., Paul’s letter in Ephesians, in the context of Chapter 5:21-22, deals with the culture there and then. We live in the 21st century and in modern times, and therefore, it no longer applies to us. He didn’t respond to my quip that God’s Word is eternal.

    And thanks to other commenters, I’ve revisited JoJ’s comment and the idea of starting an informal men’s group to help the younger guys sounds good. But I know it may be perceived as something that my church frowns upon and that the majority of the Baby Boomers from the congregation may not like this.

    I wish I have the gumption to do or think more about this; and I am not sharing this to toot my own horn (and what I’ve attempted to do pales in comparison with what some others might have done). It’s just to let you know that there may be men out there who are doing their bit.

    And this is where I covet the prayers of righteous men here for I am getting married this May and we’re in the process of buying our first home (which costs US$370,000 for a 1,313 sq ft apartment): I was ousted from a new job I started last September due to office politics and will be unemployed starting 1 March.

    Thanks in advance.

  323. feeriker says:

    @CORP:

    Brother, rest assured that you are in my prayers. I’m going through something similar (several “somethings,” actually) right now and absolutely understand what you’re up against.

  324. @Dalrock

    With respect to anger and murder, I would look first to all the times the Lord God is described as burning with righteous anger. We also find that Ephesians 4:26 says:

    Be angry and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger

    It is thus difficult to take the idea that “anger is murder in the heart” as a blanket statement that *all* anger is murder in the heart and thus sin without creating an antinomy with Ephesians 4:26. However, the point about lust and adultery stands. Lust is a desire that cannot be legitimately fulfilled and in the context of “lusting is adultery in the heart” it applies specifically to a married woman. No married woman, no lust. Lust = adultery in the heart = sin.

    Lacking any prohibition in the Law identifying porn as a sin, it is a matter of conscience and therefore something over which we are not to judge the brother. But it isn’t just about judging, though. The command not to judge in matters of conscience points to Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, which are specific commands to not add to or subtract from the Law. When someone stands up and points their finger saying “Using porn is sin!” when God chose not to, they are literally adding to the Law and thus in violation of the Law as well as the commands not to judge their brother.

    In my previous comment I intentionally compared the use of porn with having extra-marital sex with a widow because it reminds me of an old joke about recognition. In the same way that Jews don’t recognize Jesus as the Messiah and Baptists don’t recognize one another in a liquor store, modern Christians don’t recognize that God’s commands and instructions are binding on them.

    The lack of prohibition, condemnation or consequence anywhere in the Bible for having extra-marital sex with a widow or a legitimately divorced woman simply emphasizes the magnitude of the fact that taking a woman’s virginity means she is married to the guy that does it. No marriage license? No ceremony? No solemnization by a third party? So what? God says they’re married because they met HIS requirements for marriage. And what does that mean to Christians today? Apparently… nothing.

    The elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about, the #1 problem in the church today, is adultery. Not feminism, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, women in leadership positions or any of the other problems the church faces, but adultery. According to the CDC and other groups (various polls) the percentage of people who are virgins when they marry is about 5%. When the population is restricted to those in highly religious groups, that percentage increases to 20%, which means that in highly religious groups 80% of those getting officially “married” are not virgins.

    The problem is that according to Exodus 22:16-17, a virgin is married to the man she gives her virginity to. Her father has the right to annul the marriage after the fact (she’s no longer a virgin), but how often does that happen today? The text is clear that the only outcome for the deflowered virgin is marriage to the man who did it and the only question is whether her father will annul the marriage. Some have questioned why I claim the father’s right to annul the marriage is derived from Numbers 30 (which details the right of the father to annul *any* vow or “rash statement by her lips by which she has bound herself”) and scoff at the idea that having sex somehow becomes a vow of marriage. Pay attention, OKRicketty.

    * The seduced virgin *agreed* to the act, which, by law, is the consummation of marriage. The father has the right to annul her agreement because Numbers 30 give him the right to annul *any* agreement or vow she makes.

    * The virgin taken by force does not agree to the act. If they are discovered, the father has no right to annul the marriage. Why? Because she didn’t make any agreement he can annul.

    Genesis 2:24 states marriage is the result of the intent of the man to marry (he leaves his father and mother) and in cleaving to his *wife* he becoming one flesh with her. Exodus 22:16-17 is the Law concerning sex with virgins and it says the act of deflowering a virgin is the consummation of the marriage to her. The virgin knows she is a virgin and the virgin knows (or should know) that the Law says giving her virginity to a man is the act of marrying him. Literally, it is the consummation of her marriage. Therefore, giving her consent to being deflowered is likewise giving her consent to marry the man. It is a physical act that does something that cannot later be undone. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 states that even when the woman does not consent to the act, the Law is still clear that subject to an exception, the act of taking her virginity is to initiate her marriage to the man that did it.

    If, in the case of the virgin who was forced (rather than seduced) they are discovered, the virgin’s lack of consent cannot be denied and thus there is no agreement which her father can annul and the text states they are married with no exceptions. Obviously, being discovered means there is no question about lack of consent on the part of his daughter. Carefully reading the text, we see that it DOES NOT state the virgin taken forcibly is automatically married if they are NOT discovered.

    What does that mean? I believe it means that if they are not discovered, sometime after the fact, upon reflection, the girl and her father may reach the conclusion (even giving her the maximum benefit of the doubt) that her behavior invited the attack and she thereby did, by her actions and behavior, indicate some level of consent or agreement to the act which he can then use to annul the marriage. How does that work? Imagine this conversation:

    “Dad, I was raped!”

    “No, Honey, you weren’t raped, you gave him your consent. You went out with Leisure Suit Larry. Seriously… Leisure Suit Larry? You were dressed like a raging slut, you got roaring drunk and you passed out on his couch. What did you expect to happen? You may as well have walked into the Islamic center naked wearing a blindfold.”

    “Dad, nobody has the right to rape me no matter what I’m wearing or how drunk I get!”

    “Honey, are you sure about that? Because as of this moment you’re married to Leisure Suit Larry and the only thing I can do is annul your consent to the marriage. No consent, no annulment. Now, are you sure your behavior and actions didn’t give him a green light to jump you? In fact, how do you know you didn’t vocally give him your consent? You were probably blacked out way before you passed out and there weren’t any witnesses.”

    [Shocked silence]

    “You know Dad, now that I think about it, I guess I was asking for it, so… yeah… you could say I gave my consent in a round-about way.”

    “So, you didn’t get raped?”

    “No, I have to take responsibility for my actions and drunken regret sex isn’t rape. I gave my consent.”

    “Honey, I do not approve of what you did and I am annulling any agreements or consent you gave Leisure Suit Larry. He is not your husband and I will bear your guilt in making that decision. You are now confined to quarters until further notice or until we know you aren’t pregnant, whichever comes first.

    I’m reminded of the old saying that “When you get her undressed, if her bra matches her panties, you aren’t the one who decided to have sex.”

    The view that the virgin who was forced but not discovered may or may not be married depending on later reflection on the circumstances and her father’s decision on the matter is supported by Deuteronomy 22:13-21, the case in which a woman officially gets married and her husband accuses her of not being a virgin. If it is found that she was not a virgin, the penalty is death. That begs the question of what the crime is. Prostitution is not a crime. Fraud is a crime, but not a death penalty offense. Adultery, however, is a death-penalty offense for both parties involved.

    If the father thought his daughter was a virgin it obviously means he did not know she was married and did not annul it. It does not matter whether she was seduced and hid it or was taken by force and hid it, she is a married woman. As a woman already married, her “official” marriage to another man was adultery and not only on her part. Because of her deception she caused an innocent man to commit adultery as well. The fact that she publicly claimed to be a virgin and married the guy proves his innocence in the act of committing adultery and thus only the woman is to be put to death.

    An alternate view of this passage is to claim that she lost her virginity while she was betrothed, which is a case of either rape or adultery. It it was rape she had an obligation to make it known and identify her rapist. What if she gets pregnant? If she was a willing participant then it’s a case of adultery because as a betrothed woman she is legally married to the guy who hasn’t consummated his marriage to her yet. Both of these views fit the facts, but in light of Deuteronomy 22:28-29 I think the former works better. Still, under either view she gets the death penalty because there is literally no way she is not guilty of adultery.

    This situation of “giving your virginity to a man is a de facto agreement to marry him” is the same for the man. He knows that taking the woman’s virginity is the act of marriage to her and thus in doing so he is announcing his intent to marry her by the act of taking her virginity. Again, it is an act which once done cannot later be undone.

    This is the situation we find ourselves with in the church today. Since a married woman cannot marry another man while her husband is alive, the official “marriage” that occurs later (unless it’s to the man she gave her virginity to) is not a marriage at all but rather a state and church sanctioned adulterous union. It does not matter how white her dress is, how elaborate the ceremony or how many people came to witness it, a married woman cannot legitimately marry another man while her husband is still alive. We know this because Romans 7:1-3 says

    “Or do you not know, brethren (for I am speaking to those who know the law), that the law has jurisdiction over a person as long as he lives? For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then if, while her husband is living, she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man.

    Some here claim we are no longer under the jurisdiction of the Law, but this is not supported by the text because Paul also states:

    “So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” Romans 7:12

    And thus the commandment “Thou shall not commit adultery” also still applies, and even most modern-day Christians would agree to that.

    But, everybody would rather argue about feminism and porn. I understand. Really, I do. Because any discussion of adultery is to raise the question of whether a person is or is not married to the person they publicly claim to be married to and God’s Word is rather specific on that point, so nobody wants to go there.

    In my opinion, all of the problems we see with so-called “marriage” today have their root in the fact that the vast majority of so-called “marriages” are not marriages at all- they are state or church sanctioned adulterous relationships. This is the central point nobody wants to face because the problem is of such magnitude that it dwarfs everything else. It’s not like porn where you can point your finger at someone else, because in this case way too many guys will have to *own* this and it comes down to two questions:

    1. Are you the man that got your wife’s virginity?

    2. Did her father annul her marriage to the man she gave her virginity to?

    If the answers are no and no, then according to the Bible, you “married” another man’s wife and you are living with her in adultery. Unless, of course, the guy that took her virginity was dead when you married her. In that case you married a widow.

    The issue of divorce in the church is not nearly as much of a problem as people think it is. Why? Because you have to be married in order to get divorced. If the couple wasn’t actually married because the woman was already married to another man, they are living in a state of adultery, not marriage. Is it such a bad thing when the adulterous union finally self-destructs? Or is the truly bad thing that Christians refuse to believe God, who said very clearly in Genesis 2:24 that a marriage begins when the man leaves, the two cleave and they become one flesh? And God even gave further instruction in Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 to emphasize the point that as a matter of Law, taking a woman’s virginity is the act of marrying her.

    Yet, this is so unacceptable to the church that the people who should have enough wisdom to see the problem for what it is refuse to see and refuse to teach what God has said. Why? Because it not only means (for the majority) that THEY are living in an adulterous relationship, but the majority of the members in their church are likewise openly and notoriously living in adultery. How long do you think a pastor will have a job if he preached that message? It’s so much easier to have a discussion about porn, after all, *I* don’t have a problem with porn… But let the subject change to adultery (a death-penalty offense, BTW) and everyone can agree that adultery is really bad and they will condemn it as sin. Then show them what God said about when and how a marriage is initiated and suddenly there is a thundering silence followed by an explosion of anger. The implications of the message are so bad and the practice is so pervasive that the message is unacceptable. Better just to shoot the messenger and get back to condemning porn and feminism.

    (Dave, that was your cue to jump in and call me a false teacher. Go Dave Go! )

    Yes, the message hurts. I know because after reflecting on the text I had to admit that even though I thought I did everything right, I “married” another man’s wife and lived with his wife in an adulterous relationship for many, many years. And my beautiful children? That makes them bastards. So, yeah, it hurts, but if anything, the fact I was frivorced means I was saved from having to make the really difficult decision of repenting of my adultery. That’s Romans 8:28 “And we know that God causes all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.”

    Why did the 113 men in Ezra 10 have their names recorded for all time? Is it because they violated the command of God and took foreign wives when God said you shall not do that, or is it that when confronted with God’s Word, they repented and put their wives (and children in some cases) away?

    (That’s the feminist white knight cue to point and shriek, “forget about what God said, this is about a man’s obligation to take responsibility for wife/kids!!!”)

    What about Good King Josiah? Ironically, that’s the namesake of my firstborn son. Josiah was the grandson of the most evil king ever to rule over Israel or Judah and he ascended the throne at the age of 8. At that time the book of the Law had been lost and the people did not know the commands of God. Funny how that happens… back then all it took was making the books disappear. Today people have the books but the leaders tell people not to study the Law, that the Law is dead and no longer applies to the Christian. Well, back in Josiah’s time, during the renovations of the Temple a copy of the book of the Law was found. It was taken to the King and read to him and when he heard it he tore his robes and wept.

    Why? Because upon hearing the commands of God he realized that not only had he sinned, but that all the people he was responsible for as king had sinned as well; by violating God’s commandments and worshiping foreign gods. You know, kind of in the same way that the church has adopted adultery as the standard for marriage. King Josiah dedicated his life to eradicating the idolatry in the land and getting the people back to the worship of God, to the point that God described him as the greatest king ever, saying there were none like him before and none came after him who served the Lord with all their heart, all their might and all their strength.

    Just as in the time of Josiah, the requirements of God have been hidden from His people. Not knowing the truth, they have sinned. Why do they not know the truth? Because a long, long time ago the church decided, without authority and contrary to the Law, to usurp the authority of the man to initiate marriage and seize that authority for themselves. To support that the church began to teach false doctrines, claiming that taking a woman’s virginity did not initiate marriage because marriage only began when the church approved it. Today, we reap the fruit of that poison tree the church planted. We call that fruit “feminism” and the feminist desire to maximize women’s sexual options (“Having sex doesn’t mean you’re married!”) while minimizing the mens’ sexual options has resulted in adultery on scale that boggles the mind.

    This is one of those situations in which bringing up the issue in a serious way will cause that individual to (in all likelihood) to be ejected from his church in short order. It is literally the equivalent- not of pissing in the punchbowl in full view of everyone, but waiting until the party is going and then showing them a video of you doing it before anybody got there.

    This problem will continue as long as girls are taught that giving their virginity to a guy is “premarital sex” instead of what the Bible calls it: the consummation of her marriage.

    Without a serious discussion of the issue, that will never be taught. Serious discussion is difficult because the message is so bad that it’s far easier to shoot the messenger. (Hi Dave!)

    Serious discussion of the issue is impossible unless men and women who are capable of studying the Bible actually study the issue and then talk about it.

    My final thought on the subject is back to Josiah. He sent men to the prophetess Huldah to inquire of the Lord after he heard the words of the book of the Law.

    “She said to them, “Thus says the Lord God of Israel, ‘Tell the man who sent you to me, thus says the Lord, “Behold, I bring evil on this place and on its inhabitants, even all the words of the book which the king of Judah has read. Because they have forsaken Me and have burned incense to other gods that they might provoke Me to anger with all the work of their hands, therefore My wrath burns against this place, and it shall not be quenched.”’

    But to the king of Judah who sent you to inquire of the Lord thus shall you say to him, ‘Thus says the Lord God of Israel, “Regarding the words which you have heard, because your heart was tender and you humbled yourself before the Lord when you heard what I spoke against this place and against its inhabitants that they should become a desolation and a curse, and you have torn your clothes and wept before Me, I truly have heard you,” declares the Lord. “Therefore, behold, I will gather you to your fathers, and you will be gathered to your grave in peace, and your eyes will not see all the evil which I will bring on this place.”’” So they brought back word to the king.

    I believe that with the blood of over 50 million murdered babies crying out and the church overflowing with adultery and all manner of perversions, sooner or later the Lord will judge this land. Still, there is hope. In Josiah’s time all it took was one man. I’m just the watchman on the wall yelling about what I see. What the people do with that warning will determine their fate.

  325. greyghost says:

    Mean while in Europe
    http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2016/01/russians-teach-migrants-lesson-in.html
    The president wants to bring this to America. And people wonder why Putin and the Russians are cheered. Do the men here have what it takes to stand up to evil.

  326. greyghost says:

    Check this out Reality “bites’ hard enjoy the decline

  327. joshtheaspie says:

    @Jason, Dragonfly:

    Why, exactly, do you expect people to stop kvetching the same way (or getting less and less patient) when people keep poking them exactly the same way time after time? Particularly when those people doing the poking completely ignore a lot of the information they’re given, on how that poking has happened before, and they’re not doing anything new?

  328. joshtheaspie says:

    @greyghost

    Wow, that video is one of the best examples of man bad/woman good combined with male hyper agency / female hypo agency (“male agressions”, “women are becoming victims”), PLUS Women’s Rights, Men’s Responsibilities (“Women’s rights, and I really defend them”, “don’t have any male who can stand up, who can fight, who can fight back”).

    And later, it gets even more explicit. “What does that even mean, a male revolution? A fight, you think, for male rights in Europe?” “No, no. It’s very simple. It means that men needs to take responsibility. To-to go back to the old male virtues. To defend women, the children, and the culture.”

    Oh, and even commentary that women needing men to protect them, doesn’t mean that they are weaker than the men are. Reality check here. In that specific area? That’s exactly what it means.

    By the way, where is the call for men to aid and protect each-other from attack, given that men are more likely to be attacked in the first place?

  329. feeriker says:

    “No, I have to take responsibility for my actions and drunken regret sex isn’t rape. I gave my consent.”

    Said no woman, EVER.

  330. feeriker says:

    greyghost says:
    January 26, 2016 at 4:10 am

    Alternate title for that RT video: “Pissing and Shitting in the Well That I’ll Eventually Have to Drink From”

  331. Mark Citadel says:

    “Christian movies about husbands and fathers reliably degrade the role of married men.”

    This is so important. Just because a media item has ‘Christian’ in its description, some naive souls are suckered in. 99% of current media is anti-Christian or anti-Traditional in one war or another. Read books. Old books.

  332. enrique says:

    @greyghost , that was painful to watch.

  333. enrique says:

    The lady is right, in some ways, but her “The men need to take responsibility” goes back to the whole issue of reliance upon men when convenient…when feminists are hiding under tables, demanding men to protect them when they have hurt men their entire lives.

    A TRUE “male revolution” in Europe or here, comes with a demand list. You want defense? Allow armed militias that are not harassed by the White Knight government. You want us to fight? Change the Family Court laws. It absolutely HAS to come with demands for rights along with the responsibilities.

  334. JohnK says:

    I direct the reader’s attention to this recent piece by Bai Macfarlane, who founded Mary’s Advocates.

    Bai was divorced by her husband, a ‘professional Catholic,’ who had a ‘ministry’. He’d begun to get special private messages from the Holy Spirit that divorce was the best course for them both. Along with his abandonment of his marital vows, he and his lawyer got Bai ‘talking crazy’, essentially by getting her, as part of the ‘healing process’ to concede – in detail – that she bore her share of responsibility for the marriage. (Her husband was and probably still is particularly smart and capable in many ways). This got her declared ‘unfit’ and she also lost custody of their four children. He then sought an annulment in the Catholic Church’s tribunals, which Bai resisted vigorously up to and including appeals to the Vatican, to no avail. As far as I’m aware, she still considers herself married to her spouse, despite everything.

    That Bai has been so unsuccessful is noteworthy, of course; that she continues nonetheless, remains faithful to her vows despite her spouse’s unfaithfulness, and that Mary’s Advocates exists –are these not reasons to yet hope?

    https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/two-wrongs-dont-make-a-right-is-the-church-handing-its-authority-to-no-faul

    “Bai Macfarlane is director of Mary’s Advocates, an organization dedicated to strengthening marriage, eliminating forced no-fault divorce, and supporting those who have been unjustly abandoned by their spouse.”

    Title: “Two wrongs don’t make a right: Is the [Catholic, ed.] Church handing its authority to no-fault divorce courts?”

    Pull quote:

    “Plenty of fair-minded men would only agree to start raising children with a wife who promised to cooperate with him in raising those children in an intact home, and promised to stay with him through old age “till death do us part.” These men, rightly sense that an injustice occurs when a woman withdraws from marriage, even though her husband has done nothing grave, like dangerously abusing her, or committing adultery. The canon law restricting a Catholic from filing for divorce without the bishop’s permission could be instrumental in protecting these men from unjust divorce decrees sought by their Catholic wives. Implementing the canon law could help a disgruntled wife choose to work with those experienced helping couples, rather than paying divorce lawyers.”

  335. mrteebs says:

    Matt Walsh is not yet 30 years of age – he was 27 in 2014 according to a Huffington Post page where some of his articles are aggregated. I cringe when I think of myself and what I thought I knew at that age, along with the confidence borne of naïveté rather than by reason of use.

    I don’t fault Walsh for his youth per se, but there’s just a whole lot he doesn’t yet know. Timothy was young, too, but he also had Paul as a mentor. Walsh has, who? Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so the fact that he may make a few good observations does not make me less wary. Also, that he apparently has penty of female fans who love to repost his “wisdom” on Facebook only serves to heighten my wariness.

  336. Dalrock says:

    @AnonS

    Thanks for the advice, but wouldn’t this require him to first see his wife’s behavior as rebellion and not her “being more holy and God like”?

    Yes. But this is the right question at least. If you start by telling him he should look to his own needs you will never get there. If you challenge him for failing his wife, the next logical step in the conversation is what you just brought up. The next problem is that while Scripture is very clear on this, modern Christians have created a cottage industry in rationalizing everything Scripture says that offends feminists. So the plain reading of Scripture (as well as how Christians have interpreted that Scripture for all but the last 50 or so years) is on your side, but Christian conventional wisdom is against you. It won’t be easy, but at least it is the right conversation.

    In a nutshell, he wants to lay down his life for his wife in Christian love. This isn’t the problem. The problem is he has a terribly malformed understanding of what a husband’s sacrificial love is. A husband’s sacrificial love isn’t “The Love Dare”, which is submission. 1 Pet 3 tells wives to win their husbands over without a word, and while modern Christians despise that message as God gave it to us, they absolutely love it once they switch the roles of husbands and wives. He is trying to be a great Christian wife; what he needs to do instead is focus on being even a good Christian husband. Instead of trying to win her over without a word, he should be focusing on washing her in the water of the word.

  337. Gunner Q says:

    enrique @ January 25, 2016 at 9:20 pm:
    “Does any church address purity or any of this, with women?”

    There’s lip service about it, unavoidable in the wake of 50SOG, but in my area even male porn use has dropped off the Churchian radar. I guess either California law is brutal enough the threatpoint isn’t needed or all the frustrated men are gone so there’s no point.

    Ray Cardinale @ January 25, 2016 at 10:04 pm:
    “When you say something is wrong with someone you are speaking to their identity.”

    This is often true but a fault on the other guy’s side. If a man cannot tell the difference between himself and his ideas/behavior then he cannot tell the difference between a criticism and a physical assault.

    Confrontation tends to work better than reason for unplugging guys from the Matrix because it hits that “I am Christian so whatever I do is automatically Christian” fallacy. Also, human nature is such that most people respond better to fanaticism and fervor than calm philosophical discussions. I wish it wasn’t true but it is.

  338. vohlman says:

    @dalrock
    >>In a nutshell, he wants to lay down his life for his wife in Christian love. This isn’t the problem. The problem is he [and our entire culture] has [have] a terribly malformed understanding of what a husband’s sacrificial love is.

    Truth.

  339. vohlman says:

    @Dalrock,
    Speaking of a terribly malformed understanding…
    http://juniaproject.com/5-myths-of-male-headship/

  340. I and many other men don’t care to change the Church or society. I am fully in the ‘enjoy the decline’ camp and enjoy the downward spiral immensely. Feminism and the destruction of the father has allowed men like me to get away with having to provide for a family and society and instead shift those burdens to manginas, feminists and single moms. I thank them.

    Why would I want to change this? Why would I want to or need to take on the burden of family and children even if they were to supply some sort of respect and I could lead them without being busted in the arse by feminists and the state. The allure has been lost already, the single life is far superior in every way.

    I’m past most of the anger phase, I’ve worked myself through that and the anger over a lost family life and I have obtained a level of contentment I didn’t think possible. I enjoy the stress free life I live, I enjoy the work I do and I enjoy the leisure time I now have available. I have new interests that I am fully content to explore without the responsibility of a family or the responsibility of maintaining society. I don’t care if it fails, it isn’t my problem anymore.

    To fix this problem and get women back into line is not my problem, life is better without them in it. Jason and others need to do the work themselves and stop trying to shame men who no longer care.

    Really, have you ever thought… what happens when it all stops… what? Nothing… It ends, life ends, so really, don’t get uptight about it, just enjoy what little of it you have left and let the rest burn. It’s not your problem.

  341. Dalrock says:

    @vohlman

    Speaking of a terribly malformed understanding…
    http://juniaproject.com/5-myths-of-male-headship/

    Good stuff, including my personal favorite, the claim that “Head” doesn’t mean leader, it means source. She claims the word has never been studied, but Wayne Grudem tore this one up. Strangely though, even though Grudem is on the CBMW board, they are circumspect about knocking the fallacy down.

    Truth

    The degree to which this has saturated Christian culture is the reason I didn’t add any caveats. Based on the small amount AnonS has shared, there is no real question as to what his former roommate is doing.

    letthemmarry.org

    Nice. I see that it is your site. I’ll have to check it out. One thing I’ve written about on the topic is the perverse replacement of the father for the role of the groom in order to fill the gap between when young women would marry under 1 Cor 7 and when feminism says they should marry. The father becomes the stand in for the man he is preventing his daughter from marrying.

    The other aspect that stands out is the bizarre elevation of the concept of a celibate boyfriend. I’m not talking about a reasonable period of chaste courtship and engagement, but the adoption of the idea of the boyfriend as an official (and by definition indefinite) step in the process, only without sexual contact. Men are castigated for not wanting to sign up for this very foolish position. This ties in with our modern error in thinking, where we invert the relationship between marriage and romantic love. Instead of marriage being the moral place for sex and romantic love, romantic love becomes the moral structure for sex and/or marriage.

  342. Bdawg16 says:

    feeriker says:
    January 25, 2016 at 11:44 pm

    “Does any church address purity or any of this, with women? Are there great Driscollian sermons admonishing women to “be done with those old worn out dildos and vibrators”…or porn itself?”

    In my opinion and take it for what it’s worth, I think very few do. And I understand you were framing your question specifically to purity. I’m just responding to include addressing the sin of feminism overall.

    Point in case, I listen to sermons on sermonaudio.com, which basically leans fundamentalist in most of the sermons they post. In other words, you won’t find Joel Osteen, Mark Driscoll, TD Jakes or any woman pastors like Beth Moore or Joyce Meyer.

    I was searching for sermons that address feminism and it’s effects on marriages. Of 1,061,000 plus sermons, I found a whopping 51 sermons that even touch on Feminism. Some of them are pretty solid but only a handful really get to the heart of the matter. And I haven’t found one yet, and I’m still going through them, that addresses how wicked the family court system is.

    So, long story short. a whopping 0.0048% of sermons posted deal with feminism. I realize stats are what they are and we can twist them to suit our beliefs. But my initial impression of the low number of sermons being preached on what many people, along with myself, consider to be a major issue in society and the church, does not appear to be worth discussing in the 21st century church.

    Maybe that will change one day. I hope so.

  343. Jim says:

    “Dalrock says:
    January 26, 2016 at 11:18 am ”

    And notice what it says at the bottom of the comments section Dalrock.

    Let me translate it. Here is what these cunts really mean: “You are NOT allowed to question the gynocracy. We tell God what to do, he doesn’t tell us”.

    This is what happens when you let them out of their cages.

  344. feeriker says:

    Rollo said:

    Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse…

    Curiosity peaked, not ever having heard of these people, I visited their website (http://www.enjoyingmarriage.org) and eventually worked my way to the “Teaching Materials” page (http://www.enjoyingmarriage.org/Teaching—Resources.html).

    In outlining their seminar based on their book, they’ve included a section titled “Eight Responsibilities of the Husband,” featured prominently below the title of which is a quite from Ephesians 5:25, followed by a link to an excerpt of the section in the course, no doubt an invitation for men to get a quick advance glimpse of where they’re failing their wives.

    Following this is a section titled “Four Responsibilities of the Wife” (yes, only four – and no hyperlink for women to check out an excerpt telling them where there might be room for some improvement in performance).

    Would anyone care to guess what they DON’T list as a wife’s Number One Obligation?

    I won’t spoil it for you and will let you check it out for yourselves. You’ll also be at least mildly amused at what they apparently believe IS a wife’s primary responsibility.

    I’ll stop right here, as Dalrock could probably milk out a whole series of posts on this.

  345. feeriker says:

    Curiosity piqued. Sorry!

  346. Damn Crackers says:

    @AT – I think, according to your logic, that in today’s world the father annuls her independent daughter’s many “marriages” by default. It is “her” decision, not Daddy’s.

    I think you have many interesting Biblical interpretations, which may be accurate. Since I’m not a Biblical scholar, all I can say is OT law on marriage is pretty much in line with most cultures throughout the world. “No one better touch my daughter unless he marries her!” No one, even in my opinion what the OT and NT say, gives a shit about who bangs a widow or non-Temple prostitute. As I said before, I think St. Paul as in many of his letters was addressing a real screwy group of believers in Corinth who either were banging Aphrodite prostitutes or trying to have prostitutes in their own Christian community to draw new members. There has been much written about Corinth at the time.

  347. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2016/01/24) – The Reactivity Place

  348. The Question says:

    @ Rollo Tomassi

    From the book’s description: Topics include Putting the Past Behind/Creating a New Beginning;

    Translation: How to get your husband to accept his retroactive cuckoldry without expecting you to put out for him like you did for those “hawt” guys.

  349. Anon says:

    Good stuff, including my personal favorite, the claim that “Head” doesn’t mean leader, it means source

    Diabolical. The sleight of hand converts the man to a credit card, and retroactively pretends that this is what the Bible wants.

  350. OKRickety says:

    vohlman said on January 26, 2016 at 10:51 am
    Speaking of a terribly malformed understanding…
    http://juniaproject.com/5-myths-of-male-headship/

    This is a fine example of the blind leading the blind. That is, an egalitarian woman teaching a woman about male headship or, for that matter, anything about the Biblical roles of men and women, especially that of husbands and wives.

    The comments, of course, are primarily accolades from Team Woman interspersed with denigration of any dissenting opinion.

  351. Looking Glass says:

    Rick & Charlotte couldn’t even spring for a decent free webpage design. Geez.

  352. Looking Glass says:

    http://www.rsgm.org/about/ Scroll down a bit.

    Rick runs a church that meets on the UoN @ Reno campus. Though I’m coming up short on any social media or website links. But I’m also not looking hard.

    Two things come to mind. Firstly, this man runs an actual Mission, yet something he also works to do doesn’t work for the Lord. On many levels, that’s what hurts about Churchianity. It twists & profanes the Good for evil’s ends. The second is he almost doesn’t need eyeliner. He’s got a lot of Tanning booth effect going on, I think. Which is what is popping out.

  353. Looking Glass says:

    http://www.journeychurchreno.com/index.html

    Came up in trying to find details on the book, oddly enough.

  354. Looking Glass says:

    Considering Joseph of Jackson came up, I can shed a little light on his activities after the fact. It’s been a while since I’ve been in contract with him, so I’m not perfectly certain what he would like shared of his activities. But I can say this. Follow the logic of someone that’s become good at organizing and teaching, yet he does not want to establish his own church. Then realize I pointed out up page about the existence of Intelligence Services.

    Hopefully, his activities, vis a vis churches, should be obvious. I’m glad he figured out that is what was best as well.

  355. ray says:

    “Dragonfly: AR, it’s more of the fact that it’s a lot of complaining now a days, I’ve seen quite a few complaints from manospherians that it’s getting hard to read the comments section because it’s mostly complaining and going around in circles.”

    Ah. Complaining that you don’t like other people (i.e., men) complaining. That’s been a very effective tactic of the gynarchy over the past century.

    ‘Course you could just, you know, not read those ‘hard’ pages and comments? Oh and, p.s., those complaining about complainers are just going around in circles! :O) Yeah thanks for that. Guess that’d be the OTHER complainers, eh?

    This is the warning before the hammer. If you are upset or discomfited by ‘manospherian complaints’ then this would be an excellent time to relocate to another solar system. The hammer is coming and next to that, these few (and largely ignored) expressions of unpopular truth will appear mild. . . indeed, almost be forgotten instantly, and you will not even recall having been tasked by complaining men! You won’t have the time, and neither will anyone else.

    So, see there? Something to look forward to after all.

  356. Dragonfly says:

    AR, your comments even from years ago are great to read, I’m amazed that you still participate so much, and I wonder if you don’t miss some of the old people that aren’t here anymore, that used to provide really great discussions?

    Seeing the reaction to Jason’s observations makes me wonder if this is becoming an echo chamber though, where any dissenting or critical views are shut down right away (even when some are valid)? I thought echo chambers were something critical thinking individuals didn’t want? I’ve seen the complaints that these blogs turn into echo chambers inevitably, but I didn’t believe it, and that’s not a good thing!

    Echo Chamber:
    “Participants in online communities may find their own opinions constantly echoed back to them, which reinforces their individual belief systems. This can create significant barriers to critical discourse within an online medium. Due to forming friendships and communities with like-minded people, this effect can also occur in real life. The echo chamber effect may also prevent individuals from noticing changes in language and culture involving groups other than their own. Regardless, the echo chamber effect reinforces one’s own present world view, making it seem more correct and more universally accepted than it really is.”

  357. dragnet says:

    @Dalrock

    “The other aspect that stands out is the bizarre elevation of the concept of a celibate boyfriend. I’m not talking about a reasonable period of chaste courtship and engagement, but the adoption of the idea of the boyfriend as an official (and by definition indefinite) step in the process, only without sexual contact. Men are castigated for not wanting to sign up for this very foolish position.”

    You’ve addressed this before but it never ceases to amaze me. For me, it’s probably the most mindboggling thing about the modern Christian dating/marriage landscape.

    The modern dating game sucks for everyone, but as a non-believer I am at least having sex with the girls so they have skin in the game–literally. I really cannot fathom being in the position of devout young Christian men and having to be a celibate boyfriend for months or possibly years at a time. And then, upon finally marrying, being expected to submit to my wife’s authority.

    The community I hail from is very religious (Protestant) and so I’ve witnessed the celibate boyfriend phenomenon up close. And most of the guys just go along with it, incredibly. I tend to hold believers in high-regard, but these young men have always look/felt like suckers to me.

  358. Echo chambers only thrive when the forum host(ess) deletes, censors, mods, bans or scrubs old incongruous posts and dissenting opinions in comment threads.

    Something to keep in mind while you’re making your daily blog rounds.

  359. Easttexasfatboy says:

    I browse various sites daily. It seems that those who practice censorship are stale and flat. The best thing is vigorous debate. For example, Vox Day is a wide open site, but you had better be able to intelligently defend yourself, and you best be able to prove your suppositions. It ain’t dull.

    As others have said, red pill isn’t difficult. Women are hardly saints, but are veering way off the track. Imo, this is how society dies.

  360. Spike says:

    dragnet says:
    January 26, 2016 at 5:22 pm
    @Dalrock

    “The other aspect that stands out is the bizarre elevation of the concept of a celibate boyfriend. I’m not talking about a reasonable period of chaste courtship and engagement, but the adoption of the idea of the boyfriend as an official (and by definition indefinite) step in the process, only without sexual contact. Men are castigated for not wanting to sign up for this very foolish position.”

    Signing up for the position of celibate boyfriend isn’t appealing. That’s a no-brainer. The big question that lurks like the proverbial Elephant in the Room is what effect has this had on Christianity as an institution.

    The Cult of The Boyfriend has only been around since Victorian times or slightly before (maybe 200 years), and even then it has only really taken off in the Anglosphere, where coincidentally, Feminism has its strongest following. Catholic Europe, where my parents came from, considered it a stupid concept and discouraged both myself and my sister from the practice. For them, you were interested in someone, you asked all of the relevant questions and either proceeded to engagement or broke off the relationship (of course, for those inclined, there was the cat-house for sexual release). My own dating period was three months, after which I was engaged for another three after which I married.

    Christian pastors have not done their homework on The Cult of the Boyfriend, and as a result, they think it normal. However where they err is that in the secular world, sex is part of the equation, while in the church, celibacy is expected ( as you say, men are castigated).They then seem surprised that the current generation of 18-30 year olds – particularly young men – no longer attend church, date outside the church, are no longer are interested in marriage, and no longer produce young families when the parents are of prime reproductive age. Remember that it is the young men who are the most idealistic and the strongest movers.

    Is it still possible to attend a church youth group where there are quality girls, if you are a young man with marriage on his mind? Are they any different to their secular sisters?

  361. If you want to “do” something, the something is almost always going to be leading by example.

    I have a few men that listen to me, and that’s the way it’s going to stay for a while. You can only affect people who listen which inevitably takes a long time because part of it is they have to trust you.

  362. joshtheaspie says:

    @Spike,

    Well, White Knights will say “Of course you can! If you haven’t found that yet, the churches you’ve visited stink!” even if you’ve visited 50 or 60 different churches in your area. Which, in and of itself seems like a really big knock against Churchianity, if you stop and think about it.

    60 year olds married for 40 years will talk about an experience that’s 40 years out of date, while the marriages of those like Matt Walsh have yet to be proven.

    So my answer is “there is no reliable evidence that you can. There is lots of evidence that you can’t. So if there are such groups out there, they are rare. A group that appears seemly is going to be more common than one that is actually virtuous.”

  363. Kaminsky says:

    Jason’s posts were not ‘shut down right away’. People argued with him for over 250 messages. This long debate with Jason here is the exact opposite of an ‘echo chamber’.

  364. PokeSalad says:

    Note how a 250-message-long debate, that ended when Jason chose to abandon the field, is reframed as “shut down right away.”

  365. greyghost says:

    More attention needs to be paid to greyghost

  366. greyghost says:

    The exchange with Jason is good for people to see and also good practice for the commenters

  367. Gunner Q says:

    Damn Crackers @ 2:08 pm:
    “Since I’m not a Biblical scholar, all I can say is OT law on marriage is pretty much in line with most cultures throughout the world”

    I am a Bible scholar. OT law is absolutely not in line with most ancient cultures. God didn’t start Israel from a blank slate to help them fit in with their neighbors.

    OT laws fall into three general categories: keeping the Jews a separate people from their neighbors like the ban on intermarriage; daily living laws like sanitation; and religious laws like morality and the Levitical priesthood. Sanitation and monotheism were serious game-changers and of course the “we’re not like you” laws didn’t help them follow the crowd.

    This means the Mosaic Law is useless as a standard of conduct for us Gentiles. The Great Commission tells us to live among unbelievers as examples and “salt of the earth” instead of avoiding them; and the religious laws are obsolete because we now have Christ.

    As a basis for morality, well, remember the Pharisees could obey the Law letter-perfect while murdering Christ for blasphemy.

  368. Kaminsky says:

    @greyghost,

    What a find with that video of the Danish feminist. If there were such a thing as a Master’s Degree in the manosphere, you could show the candidate that video and have him break down all the elements of the female mind displayed. Point by point;

    -Let’s you and him fight
    -Shit-testing
    -Extraordinary lack of accountability
    -collectivism to the depths of her soul
    -A form of AF/BB…In that men have to be both ends of behavior to meet females’ changing needs. Meek and placid during the forty years of feminist play-acting fun-time, now all of a sudden a different kind of man is needed.
    -Victim/victim convenient duality. Victorious feminists imposed their will and opened borders, now they’re victims and it’s up to men to clean it all up.
    -Equalist/androgynous when it suits whatever need, strong gender roles when it suits whatever need.

    So amazing.

  369. greyghost says:

    Kaminsky
    She is normal. The women arguing points was also a normal woman that absolutely feared the loss of the FI world. Both women are behaving as normal women. Any man that thinks women will end feminism (basically stop being who they are) is a fool not worth saving.
    I found the video at Chateau Hartiste’s coment section. we should all spend some time there. RED PILL Christian men are really needed by this world.

  370. donalgraeme says:

    @ Spike

    Is it still possible to attend a church youth group where there are quality girls, if you are a young man with marriage on his mind? Are they any different to their secular sisters?

    For the most part, no. Such women are few and far between. And they usually get snapped up pretty quick by the most attractive men in the group. Most women will be more alike their secular sisters than not.

  371. feeriker says:

    Point by point;

    “Intractable solipsism” belongs in that list as well.

  372. Boxer says:

    Dear Greyghost:

    The way I see it, all these women were wandering around unchaperoned on New Year’s Eve looking for dick and attention, and they found some. The fact that it wasn’t on their terms is the only problem.

    Of course, Kebab should be expected to conform to the norms of our society… but if we put aside emotions for a moment, isn’t he just behaving like one of these skank-ho women, who were out barhopping and getting drunk in the streets? These women could have conformed to good social mores too, but they wanted to be “strong” and “empowered” and they “don’t need no man”.

    Let’s face it, if you step forward and white-knight some woman, and if you succeed and bring her to safety, there is a very real danger that she will phone in a complaint about you, simply because these same types tend toward drama queen antics. Normal women who go out with their husband on NYE are not who we are talking about here. These are generally bar skanks who are being molested.

    She is normal. The women arguing points was also a normal woman that absolutely feared the loss of the FI world. Both women are behaving as normal women. Any man that thinks women will end feminism (basically stop being who they are) is a fool not worth saving.

    Feminism is cultural capitalism, in that it reduces every interaction to some goony value exchange, whereby women are always looking at what they’re getting out of any little thing they do (sex, a smile, whatever). With this in mind, men who live in feminist society are fools for helping any woman they don’t know.

    Only help your wife or daughter, and then only if she is a good woman, who won’t call the cops on you later and have you charged for oppressing her with your chivalry. Women have for years demanded their freedom. Now it is time to let these feminist type women enjoy their independence.

    Boxer

  373. greyghost says:

    Boxer

    Let’s face it, if you step forward and white-knight some woman, and if you succeed and bring her to safety, there is a very real danger that she will phone in a complaint about you, simply because these same types tend toward drama queen antics. Normal women who go out with their husband on NYE are not who we are talking about here. These are generally bar skanks who are being molested.

    This maybe a motivation for the lack of action on the part of European men. Or worse the men there are so beaten down by law they see no need to defend European women. Even the police don’t seem to care.

    Only help your wife or daughter, and then only if she is a good woman, who won’t call the cops on you later and have you charged for oppressing her with your chivalry.

    This is where I am at and have been for a few years. The wife catches me on a bad day and I know where and how my children are she maybe on her own. It is not as automatic as it should be. The judgment will be based on value of the saved. If the judgment is based on fear of being reported on to the law she is on her own and that is automatic no hesitation walk away and enjoy the decline. (BTW that thought is not there the comment is for discussion purposes)

    For those interested the collapse and burn is what is happening in Europe. Keep an eye on Germany and Sweden.

  374. Spike says:

    greyghost says:
    January 26, 2016 at 4:10 am
    Just watched the video you put up, gg.

    Iben Thranholm recognizes the need for men to protect women, no doubt. her interviewer is still living with the fairies at the bottom of the garden.
    The problem with Ms Thranholm is this: what incentive do European men have to “man up”when it comes to protecting their women? More “strong”women, more “ïndependence”, more separation, more divorce, more alienation from their children, more feminism. It’s about as appealing as being a celibate boyfriend.

  375. @Gunner Q said

    “I am a Bible scholar…

    the Mosaic Law is useless as a standard of conduct for us Gentiles.

    You don’t seem to be in agreement with the Apostle Paul, who said:

    “So then, the Law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.” Romans 7:12

    And let’s not forget 2nd Timothy 3:16-17

    “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.”

    In fact, Romans 4:15 and 5:13 state clearly that the Law defines what sin is and is not:

    “For the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, neither is there violation. 4:15”

    “for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. 5:13”

    Bible Scholar (BS), your scholarship also seems to have overlooked the fact that the prohibitions in the New Testament on issues like sexual morality are *defined* in terms of what the Law says. Adultery, for example, is the act of a married woman having sex with a man she is not married to.

    Tell me, BS’er, was your wife a virgin when you married her? Because the command of the Law, “thou shall not commit adultery” is holy and righteous and good. So, if your wife wasn’t a virgin when you married her, the only question left is whether her father annulled her marriage to the guy she married when she gave him her virginity. Since good Christian girls don’t tell their fathers about things like that, it’s probably a pretty safe bet that he didn’t, but maybe she did. And maybe, just maybe, you hit the marital jackpot and married a virgin. But, odds are you didn’t.

    Even assuming a BS’er like you is a member of a highly religious group, odds are running 8 to 2 that you married another man’s wife. In Romans 7:3 the Apostle Paul said marrying another man’s wife is adultery. But don’t argue with me, take it up with God. Tell Him that His Law which is holy and righteous and perfect is useless as a standard of conduct. Tell Him that Genesis 2:24 and Exodus 22:16-17 don’t apply to you. Go ahead. I’ve got plenty of popcorn.

    You say the Law doesn’t apply to you because you’re in Christ? Wow. Who is Jesus? Well, BS’er, you should know the answer to that: He is the WORD made flesh, and when He was made flesh, the only WORD was the Law and the prophets. He even commented on that, saying that not the slightest stroke or shading of the pen would pass away from the Law until all things were complete. Worse yet, for BS’ers like you who claim His Law is “useless as a standard of conduct” is what Jesus said in Matthew 7:23:

    “And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.'”

    Are you sure this is the hill you want to die on? Even if you are the greatest BS artist of all time, if you deny him before men, He will deny you before His Father in Heaven. He is the WORD made flesh, so when you deny the WORD, you deny him.

    And let’s not forget the litmus test of Christianity, 1st John 2:3-6:

    And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says ‘I have come to know Him’ and does not keep His commandments is a liar and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.”

  376. Damn Crackers says:

    @Gunner Q –

    Are you saying there is no agreement with the OT law and say, the Code of Hammurabi?

    I never said that all laws were the same. All I’m saying is most cultures took their daughters virginity seriously. Anybody have a disagreement with this statement?

  377. Jim says:

    “Let’s face it, if you step forward and white-knight some woman, and if you succeed and bring her to safety, there is a very real danger that she will phone in a complaint about you, simply because these same types tend toward drama queen antics. Normal women who go out with their husband on NYE are not who we are talking about here. These are generally bar skanks who are being molested.”

    Well, even if women didn’t so that let’s find out what else would happen. Let’s say men got together and fended off the Muslim horde. What would happen? Women and pussified males would go back to supporting feminist laws that forces men to remain serfs as they are now. So that means we’ve fended them off only to defend the same damn system that destroys the lives of men. Uh, no thanks.

    So after all that fighting we’d be back where we started. Men STILL wouldn’t be the subordinate in the family, with no rights to his own property, income or children while women continued to get cash prizes in divorce. They would still falsely accuse men of rape, sexual assault, domestic violence and so on. You’d also be fighting for having to censor yourself to prevent offending the Holy Walking Vaginas so that you don’t get beaten by white knights, lose your job or end up in the back of a squad car. You’re only fighting to continue your slavery to women and their sugar daddy (government). You’re nothing but a slave.

    The day I’m legally entitled to be the boss of my own house and not have to look over my shoulder everywhere I go wondering if some random cunt is going to ruin my life by pointing a finger (IOW when the masses of pussified males open their stubborn eyes) while the women are put back in their place (this time with even more restrictions than before) THEN I’ll be happy to evict the invaders. Until then the little bitches can defend themselves.

  378. desiderian says:

    Donal,

    “For the most part, no. Such women are few and far between. And they usually get snapped up pretty quick by the most attractive men in the group.”

    This is because they’re no longer being taught how to be feminine/good wives and their natural instincts in that direction are being unnaturally suppressed. As I’ve reinforced my wife’s femininity (and pointed out how her beloved grandmother embodied it), her capacity to express it (and enjoy expressing it) has grown as she’s happier than she’s ever been.

    The same is true with men and masculinity, so the bar’s not terribly high for becoming one of the “most attractive” men, snagging one of the good girls, and raising her right.

  379. greyghost says:

    Jim
    You have nailed it. There is no reason to fight. They will fight to defend the system and policy that keeps them as second class. That is the Achilles heal of the military in a civil war scenario. They will be fighting their liberators. Keeping in place a government culture that calls them racist, homophobe, sexist, creeps, abusers, etc. ( even the church is in on it) He is paying child support on a child that is not his and all the while he is fighting to protect the people back home draining his bank accounts. Basically the ultimate BETA chump fighting and dying to maintain the laws, culture, and churches of misandry.
    For those of you torn between saving the west and the let it burn this is the reason for let it collapse. Look at it like this you are 60 lbs lighter lost half you r family to death and home and all personal wealth gone riding around in a wheel chair. Then president Hillery Clinton comes on talking about building a monument to honor the LGBT warriors and how much women and children have suffered and “never again” with new laws of misandry. That is who you are fighting to keep in place.

  380. nick012000 says:

    >They will fight to defend the system and policy that keeps them as second class. That is the Achilles heal of the military in a civil war scenario. They will be fighting their liberators. Keeping in place a government culture that calls them racist, homophobe, sexist, creeps, abusers, etc.

    Government studies have said that in a modern American civil war scenario, about half of the military will defect to the rebel side. It’s one of the reasons why Obama was so intent on purging the officer corps and replacing them with PC drones.

    >Then president Hillery Clinton comes on talking about building a monument to honor the LGBT warriors and how much women and children have suffered and “never again” with new laws of misandry.

    You’re implying that Hillary Clinton stands a chance of winning the election, when she’s going to be campaigning from her jail cell soon enough.😉

  381. greyghost says:

    Hillary was used for conversation and effect. I’m actually rooting for Trump.

  382. Don Quixote says:

    Artisanal Toad says:
    January 26, 2016 at 3:26 am

    The elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about, the #1 problem in the church today, is adultery. Not feminism, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, women in leadership positions or any of the other problems the church faces, but adultery. According to the CDC and other groups (various polls) the percentage of people who are virgins when they marry is about 5%. When the population is restricted to those in highly religious groups, that percentage increases to 20%, which means that in highly religious groups 80% of those getting officially “married” are not virgins.

    The problem is that according to Exodus 22:16-17, a virgin is married to the man she gives her virginity to. Her father has the right to annul the marriage after the fact (she’s no longer a virgin), but how often does that happen today? The text is clear that the only outcome for the deflowered virgin is marriage to the man who did it and the only question is whether her father will annul the marriage. Some have questioned why I claim the father’s right to annul the marriage is derived from Numbers 30 (which details the right of the father to annul *any* vow or “rash statement by her lips by which she has bound herself”) and scoff at the idea that having sex somehow becomes a vow of marriage. Pay attention, OKRicketty.

    * The seduced virgin *agreed* to the act, which, by law, is the consummation of marriage. The father has the right to annul her agreement because Numbers 30 give him the right to annul *any* agreement or vow she makes.

    Very interesting thoughts.
    Jesus said: “whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” The situation you have described would equate to; whosoever marries a ~married~ woman commits adultery, hmmm… sounds valid but messy.
    So what about the virgin birth? Mary gave her virginity to the birth of God’s Son.
    The marriage existed in the betrothal agreement not in the consummation. Joe and Mary were married without the sexual act. Does this mean there are 2 ways for a girl to get married? Or are both required in your opinion?

  383. infowarrior1 says:

    @Boxer
    ”So actual Marxist societies weren’t really Marxist, but Capitalist societies were/are?”

    The 60’s subversion did not occur in soviet societies. As detailed by a former Soviet Agent:

    Again you seem to be ignoring my point that classic communism is about worker’s rights and economic equality.

    Yet they still maintained classic sex roles which indicates they did not apply Marxism to the sexes. Equality of the sexes is what the west is experiencing today.

  384. joshtheaspie says:

    Here are a video how the term “Cultural Marxism” came to be, through the Frankfurt School. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYu6qhd88_M

  385. Boxer says:

    Here are a video how the term “Cultural Marxism” came to be, through the Frankfurt School.

    Kooky internet conspiracy theories are neither convincing nor interesting. Why not just give chapter and verse in one of the works authored by someone associated with the Frankfurters?

    Boxer

  386. Robin Munn says:

    Artisanal Toad,

    When I reminded you that as an admitted polygamist, you are unqualified to be in church leadership and to teach the Scriptures, you refused to listen to me. This is the second time I’m telling you. You are mishandling the Word, and teaching false doctrines. Stop it, repent, and listen to those who are qualified to teach.

    And since you seem to think that I’m only saying that because I can’t refute you, I will refute your analysis of Exodus 22:16-17, on which the rest of your argument hangs. First, let’s look at Exodus 22:16-17. I’ll quote from the ESV translation since I’ve found it to be a good combination of literal (well-suited for Bible study) and readable in English, but we’ll look at the Hebrew for our main analysis since all translations might get minor points wrong.

    “If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.” (Exodus 22:16-17, ESV)

    We are not in disagreement over the meaning of most of this. The passage you are misunderstanding is the last part of the first sentence, “and make her his wife”. You are asserting that by seducing her and sleeping with her, he has already married her, and the bride-price must be paid to acknowledge a marriage that already existed. But the ESV’s translation suggests that further action is needed before she can become his wife: he must “make her his wife” after he has slept with her.

    Okay, but that’s a translation. What’s the Hebrew say? The http://biblehub.com/text/exodus/22-16.htm page has a very handy set of transliterations and Strong’s numbers to look at other places where these words are found:

    mā-hōr (מָהֹ֛ר), surely
    yim-hā-ren-nāh (יִמְהָרֶ֥נָּה) he must pay the dowry
    lōw (לּ֖וֹ) for her
    lə-’iš-šāh. (לְאִשָּֽׁה׃) [to be] his wife

    “He must pay the dowry for her [to be] his wife.” That could mean that they are already married and he must pay the dowry to acknowledge the fact, or it could mean that she will become his wife after they pay the dowry. How can we tell which one it is? Well, the best way will be to look at how לְאִשָּֽׁה׃ (lə-’iš-šāh, “[to be] his wife”) gets used in other parts of Scripture. Does it acknowledge an already-existing marriage, or does it represent a marriage that is about to begin? And at http://biblehub.com/hebrew/leishshah_802.htm we find many other uses. Italics mark the translation of לְאִשָּֽׁה׃ in the following passages:

    Genesis 2:22 – “The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib …” (There’s a sense of “becoming” something here, though it doesn’t talk about marriage)

    Genesis 12:19 – “Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her for my wife?” (Again, a sense of “becoming” here: the action happened in the past, but לְאִשָּֽׁה׃ marks the transition from not-married into married)

    Genesis 16:3 – “So after Abram had been living in Canaan ten years, Sarai his wife took her Egyptian slave Hagar and gave her to her husband Abram as his wife.” (Again, the transition from not-married into married.)

    Genesis 20:12 – “Besides, she really is my sister, the daughter of my father though not of my mother; and she became my wife.” (Same as Genesis 12:19 and 16:3 – the action of becoming.)

    Genesis 24:67 – “Isaac brought her into the tent of his mother Sarah, and he married Rebekah. So she became his wife, and he loved her; and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.” (Same.)

    … I’ll skip several of the 55 verses here, since they’re all pretty consistent. Feel free to look through them for yourself if you think I’m cherry-picking, but in ALL of them that I looked at, לְאִשָּֽׁה׃ conveyed the sense of “becoming”.

    So by looking at the Hebrew, we’ve seen that Exodus 22:16 commands that if a man seduces an unmarried virgin, he must marry her properly, and pay the appropriate bride-price to her father. NOT “he is already married to her”, but “he must do right by her and let her become his wife.”

    And much of the rest of what you wrote — your condemnation of so many people for adultery, for example, hinges around your interpretation of Exodus 22:16. But as we have just seen, your interpretation doesn’t fit the passage, and when that linchpin is pulled out, the rest of your argument falls apart. Men who marry non-virgins are unwise, I’ll certainly agree with you on that one. But since Exodus 22:16 does not say that their wives were married to the men they committed fornication with, their now-husbands are not adulterers, merely unwise. And so on: most of your points fall apart once your incorrect interpretation of Exodus 22:16 is refuted, because it’s one of your premises that the rest of your argument hangs on.

    Now, as I said before, you are not only wrong, but you are also exercising a leadership position that you are Biblically unqualified for. Stop teaching false doctrine.

  387. feeriker says:

    Government studies have said that in a modern American civil war scenario, about half of the military will defect to the rebel side. It’s one of the reasons why Obama was so intent on purging the officer corps and replacing them with PC drones.

    Let us hope that that estimated desertion rate is accurate and may the pernicious trend of institutional degradation continue. PC drones in the officer corps are completely ineffective at anything and the very last thing in the world I want to see is an effective, combat capable military force to be used for both imperial misadventures abroad and domestic repression at home.

    The good news is that the U S. military is institutionally incapable of even recognizing and understanding, let alone fighting, a Fourth Generation war.

  388. Damn Crackers says:

    @Boxer

    I am always interested in your posts, but I am curious about your background and where you’re coming from. Are you a Marxist (hints: Marx avatar, knowledge of Marcuse, etc.)? Do you think capitalism is responsible for feminism? How do you think the feminists would react if you told them they were tools of capitalist oppression?

    Honestly, I think we are way past describing feminism as a Capitalist/Marxist or corporate/government movement. It is all identity politics all the way down.

  389. enrique says:

    @feministhater: You summarized what I am seeing, even if not explicitly stated, in the millennial men that work with and around me. As a Gen-Xer (who’s been there, done that with Family Court, etc) I marvel at the younger guys who completely have their eyes wide open, whereas my generation grew up with Reagan ideals and relatively rare divorce rates–with fathers still in charge. Huge cultural/social shift in the last 30 years, so no doubt, you are on target.

    @Kaminsky, great break down of that video. If any group of men DID try to take action, they run the risk of being charged with a crime–by their own government, convicted by own people. I was thinking about that here in the States. While it goes on everywhere to be sure, there were very serious attacks on Whites in the Baltimore area in the last year, including groups of whites (men and women), and had any group of white men banded together to fight off the black dudes (which can easily be done, anecdotally speaking), if charged with an assault/battery, etc, those white men would have been convicted by a jury of whites, who, sitting in a comfortable jury room, months later, are FAR REMOVED from the reality of what was occurring at the time. Not to confuse self-protection with overt Racism, but that’s the very reason George Burdi (inspired American History X) gave up…his own people convicted him and he asked “why bother?”

    The (white) elite ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT ALLOW whites or Christians to defend themselves, see the news today about Germany arresting some dude running a “right wing” website.

  390. Emily says:

    My own husband recently commented that any young man with an interest in the gospel would have a good pool of young women to choose from in a church we are familiar with. There are actually fewer eligible young men. Are they quality girls? I have no reason to think otherwise. Maybe it’s just a fluke. I don’t envy young people today, especially young men. It really is difficult.

  391. Boxer says:

    I am always interested in your posts, but I am curious about your background and where you’re coming from. Are you a Marxist (hints: Marx avatar, knowledge of Marcuse, etc.)?

    I don’t think there are any Marxists left in the world, really. He was an interesting old Hegelian, who wrote boring work, that people took far too seriously, for far too long.

    Re: Marcuse and the Frankfurters, I think it’s generally funny to see the ignorant babblers trot out conspiracy videos to excuse the fact that they’ve never read any of the people they obsess over, and don’t know any of the material they claim to lecture on. Ex-soviet agents don’t have anything to say about the Frankfurt School. In reality the Frankfurters were banned from the USSR and a couple of them (Lowenthal, Marcuse) worked for capitalist news agencies and intelligence services to try and overthrow it.

    Do you think capitalism is responsible for feminism? How do you think the feminists would react if you told them they were tools of capitalist oppression?

    I think calling feminism an outgrowth of capitalism is more accurate than calling it an outgrowth of Marxism, though it might be even more descriptive to call feminism “cultural anti-marxism”. Feminists indulge in all the things Marx criticized (reification of the relationship and a devaluation of the individuals within it, fetishizing fancy clothes and consumer goods over actual human interests like marriage and monogamy, etc.)

    Boxer

  392. Emily,

    My own husband recently commented that any young man with an interest in the gospel would have a good pool of young women to choose from in a church we are familiar with. There are actually fewer eligible young men. Are they quality girls? I have no reason to think otherwise. Maybe it’s just a fluke. I don’t envy young people today, especially young men. It really is difficult.

    Except,

    1. The vast majority of both men and women are physically unattractive (overweight or obese). No one is going out on a date with someone they don’t find attractive.
    2. The bigger pool of women tend to overlook the pool of men there. Just. Not. Attracted.
    3. Neither men or women are ‘quality’ candidates just because they go to church. In fact, I’ve said this before but I’d estimate that probably less than 10-20% of Christians in churches are actually saved.

    Most just go there because it’s “the right thing to do,” or “their parents made them go,” or “it’s a tradition,” or the worst and most prevalent one which is “I’m going to live my life the way I want, but I have God as a backup plan in case something goes wrong.” God is basically their accessory that they only put on Sundays.

    Now, this is basic Christian stuff. How many of these women actually want a Biblical marriage where she is to submit to his headship and respect him because he is her husband? From what I’ve seen there’s a lot of lip service to this, but actions always prove otherwise.

  393. Damn Crackers says:

    @Boxer

    This passage always struck me as strange in the Comm. Manifesto:

    The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
    He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production. For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce community of women; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
    Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other’s wives.
    Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalised community of women. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.

    For Marx and others, they saw marriage as a giant wife swap. Is modern marriage or lack of marriage any different than today? Also, I thought it was interesting that Engels kept two women at a time.

  394. Boxer says:

    Damn Crackers:

    What do you suppose the second word in that long quote means? I’m not asking you what the entire quote means. It’s obvious you don’t know. Just the second word. The one that starts with b-. What does it mean?

  395. This city is afraid of me. I have seen its true face. The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout “Save us!”… and I’ll whisper “no.”

  396. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dragonfly
    AR, your comments even from years ago are great to read, I’m amazed that you still participate so much, and I wonder if you don’t miss some of the old people that aren’t here anymore, that used to provide really great discussions?

    Flattery won’t get you anywhere, dearie, but thanks for the compliment anyway.
    Some of those men are still active on line, just in different ways. Novaseeker posts a comment when he has something to say, for example. Cail Corishev comments elsewhere. Deti is here and there.

    Seeing the reaction to Jason’s observations makes me wonder if this is becoming an echo chamber though,

    Men aren’t women, you know. Dalrock’s kitchen isn’t the hottest one around, but it can be pretty warm. And appealing to “Other guys are complaining about tone, ohmygosh, aren’t you concerned?” won’t affect us much because … men aren’t women.

    Novaseeker probably summed it up as well as anyone can a few years back when he observed that the manosphere / androsphere is more of a “clearing house” than anything else. Bear in mind that a lot of men still arrive at this site, or Rollo’s, or some others via a search using terms like “Why does my wife pick fights” or “Why doesn’t my wife want to have sex” or “Why is my wife such a bitch” or “Why can’t I get a girlfriend”, “Why did my wife divorce me”, etc.

    So the men that arrive here and elsewhere are often already frustrated with women. When they begin to find out that pretty much everything they’ve ever been taught about women and how to relate to them is utterly false, in fact the opposite of reality, it tends to make them pretty angry. Doubly so for those churchgoing men who trusted their parents, trusted their youth group leaders, trusted their pastors, only to find out that dearies are not the angels they are supposed to be.

    Yeah, there’s anger. Notice that men come into this or other sites bewildered or hurt or angry, and they get more angry, but then over time they come to terms with the reality of women. Maybe they go into ‘monk’ mode, maybe they become PUA’s, maybe they repair their LTR, maybe they fix their marriage, or maybe they stay stuck in anger mode for a looong time. But from observing other men as well as myself, I feel confident in stating that most men in the androsphere arrive, learn, process a lot of negative emotions, learn more and then in time move on.

    Yup. Move on. There’s a definite learning / healing process that goes on in the androsphere, and most men once they’ve gotten the information they need, and have processed the emotions that go with that, move on. Few people reallly want to stay in rehab forever, right? I know a nurse in a rehab center who works with stroke patients, she likes the work: “They come in here on a gurney and we send them out on their own feet.” There’s a bit of that going on in the androsphere.

    And since feminism, the current instantiation of the Female Imperative, is all around us there’s really no limit to the number of disappointed, betrayed, angry men out there who will in time find the androsphere and add to the “tone problem”. Except that there is no “tone problem”, not really. Betrayed men coming to terms with betrayal ain’t gonna be sipping their tea out of Spode china with their pinky up, so to speak.

    My solution to comment threads here and elsewhere that become full of what I consider to be futile or irrelevant woof-woof-woofing is often to just scroll down further, or skip comments entirely. Because at least some of those men are often venting emotions that have been bottled up for years, with no legit outlet – can’t say “why was she such a bitch to me when I was so good to her?” in any church men’s group that I know of, can’t say that at work, can’t say that pretty much anywhere…but the androsphere.

    The tone police should find a better hobby, in my opinion, because worrying about how There’s Something Wrong On The Internet And It Should Be Fixed is a low percentage game to play.

  397. Anonymous Reader says:

    My own husband recently commented that any young man with an interest in the gospel would have a good pool of young women to choose from in a church we are familiar with. There are actually fewer eligible young men. Are they quality girls? I have no reason to think otherwise. Maybe it’s just a fluke. I don’t envy young people today, especially young men. It really is difficult.

    The 80/20 rule applies to women in church as well. I’m reading through Dataclysm: Love, Sex, Race and Identity by one of the founders of OKCupid. It’s an interesting read since he’s working with a fairly big data set courtesy of the men and women who chose to join the matchmaking site. One of the confirmations in that book, much to his surprise, was the fact that men tend to rate women’s attractiveness in a linear fashion (1 to 5) but women tend to find only the top 20% of men attractive.

    Those young women in your church are very likely overlooking men who would be adequate to good husbands, because of hypergamy. I’ve seen this in some of the college people I work with myself. Furthermore an imbalanced male/female ratio seems to only exacerbate this, hence the ongoing hookup culture (or whatever it’s called now) on college campuses.

    Your husband is likely not really seeing what’s going on; a young man with an interest in Christianity may have a good pool of young women to look at, but that pool may well be uninterested in him at this time…

  398. Anonymous Reader says:

    PS: I’ve seen women aged 20 to 25 (college / post college age) marry in the last few years. In every case that woman really wanted to be married right now. Lots of young women want to be married someday

  399. Coloradomtnman says:

    Wanted to make sure you saw this Dalrock…. The comments are making me ill.

    https://www.facebook.com/NaghmehAbedini?fref=ts

    [D: Nothing comes up for me on that link, but I’m not on facebook. Is it regarding her filing against him yesterday in family court?]

  400. Emily says:

    @Deep Strength
    I get what you’re saying. Obesity is a huge problem in this country and attending church doesn’t guarantee anything either. However, if someone at least appears to have a genuine interest in the gospel, that is a good sign. Only God knows who His own are. The ratio of eligible men to women in any given church will vary. Our culture doesn’t support Biblical marriage anymore and probably never will again in our lifetime. Sad, but there it is. Still, I’m encouraged at what I’m seeing in a few churches.
    I will say that most of the girls in that church are not obese.

  401. Damn Crackers says:

    @Boxer

    I don’t know if you are getting snarky, but I did declare it was a strange passage that I fully didn’t understand in context of the entire Com. Man.

    If you are sincerely trying to be instructive, I am going to first give my understanding of the bourgeoisie and then an actual definition from Marxists themselves:

    Me

    – A member of the capitalist ruling class, by whatever the person who utters the phrase actually understands what capitalism means to be

    Marxists.org
    – Bourgeoisie – The class of people in bourgeois society who own the social means of production as their Private Property, i.e., as capital.

    Bourgeoisie Society – Bourgeois Society is the social formation in which the commodity relation – the relation of buying and selling – has spread into every corner of life. The family and the state still exist, but – the family is successively broken down and atomised, more and more resembling a relationship of commercial contract, rather than one genuinely expressing kinship and the care of one generation for the other; the state retains its essential instruments of violence, but more and more comes under the sway of commerical interests, reduced to acting as a buyer and seller of services on behalf of the community.

    I’m not here picking a fight. I am merely curious about the origins of some of our terminology and when people claim feminism arose from either Capitalism or Communism.

  402. Damn Crackers says:

    @Boxer

    Also, the ruling class swapping wives isn’t particular to late Capitalism. Just read any of the Roman satirists about the proclivity for adultery. The Romans practically made a sport of it.

  403. craig says:

    “[D: Nothing comes up for me on that link, but I’m not on facebook. Is it regarding her filing against him yesterday in family court?]”

    http://www.ktvb.com/story/news/local/2016/01/27/naghmeh-abedini-releases-public/79401320/

    The money quote:

    “I do deeply regret that I hid from the public the abuse that I have lived with for most of our marriage and I ask your forgiveness. I sincerely had hoped that this horrible situation Saeed has had to go through would bring about the spiritual change needed in both of us to bring healing to our marriage.”

    What nerve. Remember, she originally said she regretted making it public; now she regrets not making it public sooner. And now she says that her hope was that Iranian torture would improve their marriage.

  404. Boxer says:

    Damn Crackers:

    No worries. If I assumed you were picking a fight I’d never have answered you.

    Uncle Karl saw infidelity and “the system of wives in common” as a symptom of the decadent false consciousness that he Insisted was an outgrowth of capital. What you think he is advocating is the subject of his critique, in fact. If you read him you’ll see what I mean.

    Do you have a source for Engels being a polygamist, btw? I’d love to know more about that.

    Boxer

  405. The Question says:

    @ Deep Strength

    “2. The bigger pool of women tend to overlook the pool of men there. Just. Not. Attracted.”

    Chances are the quality girls have a list of requirements for the man they’ll marry similar to this….

    …..and none of the men in the church “fit the bill.”

  406. Boxer says:

    Also, the ruling class swapping wives isn’t particular to late Capitalism. Just read any of the Roman satirists about the proclivity for adultery. The Romans practically made a sport of it.

    Well, his book is called Das Kapital, not Der Kapitalismus, and that’s the reason. Capital has, in Marx’s opinion, been warping our sensibilities since we invented it, which was a long time before capitalism became the dominant western ideology.

  407. Coloradomtnman says:

    Yes – here is the text of her post earlier today:

    Dearest Friends,
    Saeed landed in Boise yesterday and had a wonderful reunion with the children. They will be spending more and more time together in the coming days. I am so happy for this long waited reunion and for the joy that I see in my children and in Saeed. Nothing can make me happier than seeing those whom I love be happy and free from the pain that they had been under for the last 3.5 years.
    I am so thankful for the thousands of people who have responded to my pleas and helped work toward Saeed’s release. His imprisonment was unjust, and was an extremely difficult ordeal for him and all of us who sought for his release. I worked tirelessly night and day toward that end for three-and-a-half years. Nothing has made me happier than seeing Saeed freed from his chains and in American soil. Thank you for all of you who stood with us and made this happen.
    I do deeply regret that I hid from the public the abuse that I have lived with for most of our marriage and I ask your forgiveness. I sincerely had hoped that this horrible situation Saeed has had to go through would bring about the spiritual change needed in both of us to bring healing to our marriage.
    Tragically, the opposite has occurred. Three months ago Saeed told me things he demanded I must do to promote him in the eyes of the public that I simply could not do any longer. He threatened that if I did not the results would be the end of our marriage and the resulting pain this would bring to our children.
    I long more than anyone for reconciliation for our family and to be united as a family. Since Saeed’s freedom I have wanted nothing more than to run to him and welcome him home It is something I dreamed about the last 3.5 years. But unfortunately things did not work out that way and our family has to work through reconciliation. I want our reconciliation to be strictly based on God’s Word. I want us to go through counseling, which must first deal with the abuse. Then we can deal with the changes my husband and I must both make moving forward in the process of healing our marriage.
    In very difficult situations sometimes you have to establish boundaries while you work toward healing. I have taken temporary legal action to make sure our children will stay in Idaho until this situation has been resolved. I love my husband, but as some might understand, there are times when love must stop enabling something that has become a growing cancer. We cannot go on the way it has been. I hope and pray our marriage can be healed. I believe in a God who freed Saeed from the worst prisons can hear our plea and bring spiritual freedom.
    I love you all. God will see us through. Thank you for your prayers and support. We need them more than ever.
    Love
    Naghmeh

    (posted verbatim)

    The comments are enough to make me vomit.

    Here is the Ada County record: http://bit.ly/1QsLY3m

    Christian Post Article: http://bit.ly/1ZTd2LY

  408. Coloradomtnman says:

    My prediction is that this is a Temporary Restraining Order filing in Ada County; she is playing off a well known script. The most comical part is that nobody would even know Naghmeh’s name if her husband had not been imprisoned and now she is using the PR Bully Pulpit to slander him in public and get the jump on him in a courtroom.

  409. Boxer says:

    Coloradomtnman et al:

    Sounds like some feedback is due our feminist heroine. She can be found on twitter. Note that it’s best to be civil as we realtalk her and her supporters.

    Boxer

  410. @AR: Especially for churchy ladies with cushy lifestyles, male anger is scary. Female anger, particularly for christian women, however is transformative:

    http://www.eewc.com/viewpoint/transformative-anger/

    For the churchy set men shouldn’t have anything to ever be angry about because to the feminine conditioned mind it comes off as childish, vindictive, bitter, complaining – really everything opposite of the transitional anger women are entitled to and should be empowered by.

    Angry men steal and corrupt the righteous anger only women should be justifiably entitled to, thus you get Dragonfly’s impression of the ‘sphere.

  411. This is an excellent study in the biases of attribution of anger women have about men:
    http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/unify_uploads/files/Galperin%20et%20al%202013%20(trait%20anger%20attribution%20bias).pdf

    Women have an innate bias to presume male anger.

  412. Damn Crackers says:

    @Boxer

    Cool. Not sure if you ever read this article on Engels, but it appears he was doing two sister’s at the same time:

    http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-friedrich-engels-radical-lover-helped-him-father-socialism-21415560/

  413. The Question says:

    Accusing men in the manosphere of being angry begs the question: Angry about what?

    If I punch someone in the face for no reason and get dragged off to jail and then have a court hearing, telling the judge the defendant is “just angry” would not work well for a legal defense.

    It’s the same with the “you’re just bitter” accusation. Bitter about what?

  414. Boxer says:

    Damn Crackers:

    Cool. Not sure if you ever read this article on Engels, but it appears he was doing two sister’s at the same time

    Thanks bro! I have not visited the article yet, but will tonight.

    Amusing to note that the mythology surrounding Engels always has him as a deeply committed monogamist, who had a “secret marriage” to a woman named Burns. I remember learning this from an elderly true-believer, so it wouldn’t surprise me to find it a myth.

    In any event, the idea of a “secret marriage” is one which is apropos here. I think serious patriarchs should just have a non-state sanctioned marriage, or maybe even a hermetic marriage ceremony without witnesses. If the wife decides to split in that case, child support would be due, but no alimony, and it would be easy to dispute any attempt at a family court action in that regard.

    Boxer

  415. buckyinky says:

    This seems somewhat significant to me. Taylor Marshall is a fairly well-known conservative Catholic blogger, and appears to approve of what Dalrock is saying in this post. MarcusD may especially find this interesting if he’s still reading.

  416. joshtheaspie says:

    @Boxer

    You remarked on the term Cultural Marxism, and questioned the term. I took the time to find you a summary of why the term came about. If you are not satisfied with the resource, you are welcome to look for ones that are more to your liking, but I do not care to take the time to do your book-pulling for you.

  417. Boxer says:

    You remarked on the term Cultural Marxism, and questioned the term. I took the time to find you a summary of why the term came about. If you are not satisfied with the resource, you are welcome to look for ones that are more to your liking, but I do not care to take the time to do your book-pulling for you.

    Because you can’t. You have no sources nor references, despite the fact that the Frankfurters work has all been published and is readily accessible. If you really disagreed with them, one would think you’d at least read something yourself and formulate an argument (I realize this is hard work, but serious people do that sort of thing).

    You have lectured on subjects you know nothing about, and continue to make a fool of yourself. In one sense it’s humorous, but you’re also making us all look like kooks and crazies by association.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  418. nick012000 says:

    Boxer, knock off the faux-scepticism. The Frankfurt School’s influence on Cultural Marxism is undeniable. They literally *invented the term*; they talk about it in their papers. The idea that it’s a conspiracy theory is Leftist whitewashing, and an attempt at covering their tracks to delude the masses.

  419. Boxer says:

    Dear Nick:

    Boxer, knock off the faux-scepticism. The Frankfurt School’s influence on Cultural Marxism is undeniable. They literally *invented the term*; they talk about it in their papers.

    Then cite the specific source in which they *invented the term*.

    I have close to the entire corpus right here, on my bookshelf, in my house. We’ll read together.

    The idea that it’s a conspiracy theory is Leftist whitewashing, and an attempt at covering their tracks to delude the masses.

    I’m sure you’ll pull some references *real soon now*

    Regards,

    Boxer

  420. nick012000 says:

    http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/
    http://www.vdare.com/articles/yes-virginia-there-is-a-cultural-marxism
    http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=8183

    Here, multiple articles detailing the connections between the Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism. You don’t need to read their works, when it’s already been well-chronicled already. I strongly recommend that you take their corpus of writings out into your backyard and burn them to purge their demonic influence from your home.

  421. joshtheaspie says:

    @Boxer

    No, Boxer. A topic came up that I had limited knowledge about from a number of references to it I’d read, and what I’ve allocated the time to look into so far. I took some time to provide you with what I could, out of an admittedly limited understanding. The limitations of which I would have told you if asked, but which I thought would be understood.

    Perhaps next time, instead of asking rhetorical questions as though they were serious, and feigning ignorance, you could save us all some time next time, rather than pretending not to know where the term comes from. Then, neither of us would have had to waste time on this back-and-forth.

    Do you want me to explicitly state that I have not read the works of those at the Frankfurt school? “I have not read the works of those at the Frankfurt school.” The statement that I do not have the time or inclination to be your book-puller remains true. If I had that time, I’d much rather spend it actually doing the reading myself, or furthering other pursuits which have, thus far, outranked that research in importance.

  422. @Robin Munn

    When I reminded you that as an admitted polygamist, you are unqualified to be in church leadership and to teach the Scriptures, you refused to listen to me.

    When I demonstrated that your interpretation of qualifications for church leadership is incorrect, I pointed out that all you’ve done is voice an ill-informed (although traditionally Catholic) opinion and you haven’t seen fit to respond. I quoted one of the greatest living Bible translators, Spiros Zodhiates, and gave you his notes on that passage that indicate you got it wrong. But, gosh. You didn’t respond to that at all. You just keep parroting your claim that you’re right. I’m not the one who appealed to authority, you did. Deal with it

    I have also never claimed to be a polygamist. Polygyny is a different story, but after doing some serious soul-searching, I think the only claim I can make in that area is that I’m an adulterer of rather fantastic proportions… because to the best of my knowledge the only thing I’ve never done with a woman was take her virginity and thus I’m pretty sure that every single woman I’ve ever had sex with was married to another man. Whether they knew it or not. However, I have confessed that and repented of that and I have purposed in my heart that I will never place my penis in another man’s wife again.

    You claim my argument hinges on Exodus 22:16-17 even though I made it clear that it begins with Genesis 2:24 and takes other passages into consideration as well. I even quoted all the relevant passages. Let’s start with what Genesis 2:24 said because it directly impacts your analysis.

    Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they *shall* become one flesh. ESV

    For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they *shall* become one flesh. NASB

    So, we see the man leaves his father and his mother, demonstrating intent to marry. We see that he (holds fast / joins to) his *wife* and they *shall* become one flesh. When, Robin, and by what act, did she become his wife? When, and by what act do they become one flesh? Does this holding fast and joining to occur at one point and then at some future point they become one flesh? Keep in mind that the word “shall” is imperative and means that nothing stops it from happening.

    You are quibbling over the exact moment they are married and implied in that quibble is there is some condition other than the father annulling the marriage that would prevent them from being married. I suggest you take this in light of what Jesus said in Matthew 19;4-5. Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 (you know- the ‘one flesh’ thing) and said “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

    With what act, Robin, did God join them as one flesh? I believe that when you have answered that question you have answered the question of when they are married. Let’s take a look at 1st Corinthians 6:16 shall we?

    “Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a harlot is one body with her? For He says, “The two will become one flesh.”

    If having sex with a whore is the act of becoming one flesh with her, then the act of taking a woman’s virginity is to become one flesh with her. Robin, they call that act the “consummation” of the marriage for a reason and with respect to Exodus 22:16-17 and the context of marriage, it should be obvious that the *act* of taking her virginity is to marry her.

    To say they are married upon the act of breaking her hymen is consistent with the text because there is no form, ritual or ceremony prescribed for marriage and the authority to initiate marriage is given to the man- not the family, community, state or church. The only thing described in Genesis 2:24 is the man leaving and the two joining, and with that the two *shall* become one flesh. Not at some future point in time, but with the physical act of becoming one flesh.

    We’ve now established that the man and woman in Exodus 22:16-17 have met *all* the criteria for marriage under Genesis 2:24 and they are now one flesh by the physical act of the man taking her virginity. What, exactly, is left for them to do to truly be married?

    Are you claiming that men who do not pay a dowry to their father-in-law are not married? If that’s the case, do you know *anyone* today who is married?

    Are you saying that a dowry must be paid, in full, prior to a marriage actually being a marriage? Again, if that’s the case, do you know of anyone today that is married?

    Is it possible, Robin, that the answer to your point is they must be publicly recognized as being married? Because that seems to be a reasonable way to read the text that puts all the various passages in harmony. They are married with the act, in private, and they are required to be publicly proclaimed as husband and wife. I’d say that’s the right thing to do, wouldn’t you? But that doesn’t detract from the fact they are already married. And it makes perfect sense for the man to have to pay an amount equal to the dowry but not get to keep his wife. He married her, done deal. Her father annulled it, cancelling the deal after the fact. He still owes the money, but we won’t call it a dowry because that implies he gets to keep her.

    You said:

    So by looking at the Hebrew, we’ve seen that Exodus 22:16 commands that if a man seduces an unmarried virgin, he must marry her properly, and pay the appropriate bride-price to her father. NOT “he is already married to her”, but “he must do right by her and let her become his wife.”

    The technical term for what you’re doing is called eisegesis, reading into the text what you want it to say, not reading out of the text what it is saying. It appears you want there to be some way they are not married and you are reading that into the text. How does a man “let a woman become his wife” after he’s already become one flesh with her and the text says they are to be married? Perhaps, again, he does what is right and they are publicly proclaimed as husband and wife now that they took care of all the other details?

    You carefully avoided Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which states that if the man takes the virgin by force and they are discovered, they are married. No exceptions. He has to pay 50 shekels (that’s a *high* price, BTW), and he can never divorce her all of his days. But, the fact is, they are married. No other outcome. If you are claiming some other act makes them married, where is that act listed or described and why wasn’t it listed in Genesis 2:24 or in Exodus 22:16-17?

    You also avoided Numbers 30, which gives the father the authority to void/annul *any* agreement his daughter makes in her youth living in his house when he hears of it. The virgin seduced gave her agreement and virginity to the guy. The virgin taken by force did not. The woman seduced can have her marriage annulled by her father, the woman taken by force cannot have her marriage annulled by her father if they are discovered. Why do you suppose that is, Robin? Maybe it’s because in the one case there was an agreement for Dad to annul and in the other there was no agreement and if they were caught there is no way to claim there was an agreement that could be annulled? And notice that if the the taking of her virginity by force was not discovered, the text is silent on what happens. Could it be that Dad and his daughter are going to have a chat and maybe find that she did agree to something that he can annul? Do you really think that a father isn’t going to be looking for loopholes after his daughter was raped if it comes down to her being forced to marry the guy?

    I find your argument completely lacking in support, inasmuch as your reading of the text implies there is something else other than the act of taking her virginity that makes them married. Again, when we focus on the outcome, they became one flesh, they are married and the man must pay the dowry. If the father annuls the marriage they are no longer married and the man must pay an amount equal to the dowry because he still owes that for the marriage that no longer is a marriage. If the father does not annul the marriage they are married. There is no other outcome and even if there is *something* else that must take place (as you imply), he *must* marry her (your words) so that would make this “in-between” phase a betrothal period, which is legally a marriage. You don’t get to have your cake and eat it.

    Given the destruction divorce is wreaking within the church, this is actually just the issue Church leaders need to get behind. Why? Because the total responsibility for this falls on the women and there is no way for that to be denied. “My body, MY CHOICE!” Remember? With just about everyone guilty, nobody has to stand up alone, it’s more like an AA meeting: “Hi. I’m Joan, and I’m an adulteress.” “Hi Joan!”

    But, Robin, let’s get back to your issues with the qualifications of elders. Since you have taken it upon yourself to speak with authority and to rebuke me, by your acts you are making the claim of having the authority to do so. That being the case, since you brought up the issue of whether one has the authority to teach, I think we need to examine your qualifications.

    Robin, was your wife a virgin when you married her? If not, did her father properly annul her marriage to the man she married when she gave him her virginity? If your answers are no and no, then you, sir, are an adulterer and you need to confess that and repent of it. As one who has studied this quite a bit, it comes down to the woman you’re living with being married to another man. The adultery ends with her marriage to him.

    Maybe he’s dead. If that’s the case you’re living with a widow. If he died before you put a ring on her finger, congratulations, you married a widow. If he died later I suggest a quiet, private renewal of vows.

    If her father is still alive and assuming this will be the first time he’s heard of the fact that she married some guy years ago and didn’t tell him, she can go to him, confess her sin, explain what the text says about her actions and ask him to say 10 simple words: “As God is my witness, I am annulling your marriage.” That’s all it takes and he bears her guilt.

    If her father isn’t around any longer, someone should go to the guy she’s married to (assuming he isn’t a Christian) and get him to give her a certificate of divorce for the cause of porneia (adultery in this case). If the man was not a Christian at that time they separated, or if he claimed to be a Christian at that time but now no longer claims to be a believer, it’s all the same. He can give her a certificate of divorce for reason of adultery since that is an issue that (he not being a Christian) would fall under the Law. It really doesn’t matter if the woman was a Christian at the time as long as her husband was not (or later proved himself not to be).

    If her father isn’t around and both she and her husband were Christians when they separated, then nothing can be done because the instruction to Christians in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 is two Christians who are married to each other are not permitted to divorce. Since your wife has separated herself from her husband (in violation of the command not to) she is commanded to stay single or be reconciled to her husband. Obviously she did not obey that command and the two of you are living in a state of adultery and need to repent of that.

    And, yes, I can completely see that if you are one of the 80% of people in highly religious groups that didn’t marry a virgin that you would be looking for every possible reason to disregard this whole issue; why you are motivated to split hairs over *when* the marriage takes place and ignore the fact that she is married to the man she gave her virginity to.

    If this is the case for you, not only does it mean you’re living in a state of adultery, but it also means you are wholly unqualified to be an elder or deacon of your church until you have confessed and repented of your sin. And maybe not even then, but that’s something for your church to worry about.

    It will be interesting to hear your response.

  423. Boxer says:

    Dear Nick:

    First you wrote:

    The Frankfurt School’s influence on Cultural Marxism is undeniable. They literally *invented the term*; they talk about it in their papers.

    Then I asked:

    Then cite the specific source in which they *invented the term*.

    Predictably and laughably, you post a bunch of links to online kook-rants, authored by people who have never read them.

    You realize that when you make a claim, you may be expected to back it up with sources, right? This is the way serious men struggle toward truth.

    As we both know, you’ve never read any of the works you’re pretending to lecture on, despite the fact that most of this stuff is up on the internet and can be read for free. Keep babbling, though. It’s entertaining.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  424. Boxer says:

    Dear Josh The Aspie:

    Try not to be defensive.

    No, Boxer. A topic came up that I had limited knowledge about from a number of references to it I’d read, and what I’ve allocated the time to look into so far. I took some time to provide you with what I could, out of an admittedly limited understanding. The limitations of which I would have told you if asked, but which I thought would be understood.

    Which works have you referred to? I’ve seen no first-order references at all.

    Perhaps next time, instead of asking rhetorical questions as though they were serious, and feigning ignorance, you could save us all some time next time, rather than pretending not to know where the term comes from. Then, neither of us would have had to waste time on this back-and-forth.

    I don’t consider the Socratic dialogue to be wasted time. Try and put away the phony ego nonsense and see if you can learn something about this interaction. I don’t waste my time trying to lecture about the Frankfurters. I mostly do this because I want more men to get better at writing written arguments.

    Do you want me to explicitly state that I have not read the works of those at the Frankfurt school? “I have not read the works of those at the Frankfurt school.” The statement that I do not have the time or inclination to be your book-puller remains true. If I had that time, I’d much rather spend it actually doing the reading myself, or furthering other pursuits which have, thus far, outranked that research in importance.

    Citing sources that you’ve never read is a problem, no? It’d be like arguing that the author of Dalrock blog is a misogynist who has written articles on his blog encouraging men to play grab-ass with random chicks on the street. When (and it’d be when, not if) the claimant was asked for a source, he’d post links to Amanda Marcotte and Manboobz, who made that claim.

    The problem with all these conspiracy theories is that the sources are mostly online, free for anyone to read. You’re going to run into people like me, who have read them all and written peer-reviewed journal articles on the original sources, who will have to say “he’s an internet kook” when people wonder where you’re pulling all this nonsense from. Sadly, it makes everything else you say suspect.

    Boxer

  425. Boxer says:

    Hey AT/Robin Munn:

    I’m enjoying the discourse here. It’s thoughtful and low on insults.

    Is it possible, Robin, that the answer to your point is they must be publicly recognized as being married? Because that seems to be a reasonable way to read the text that puts all the various passages in harmony. They are married with the act, in private, and they are required to be publicly proclaimed as husband and wife. I’d say that’s the right thing to do, wouldn’t you? But that doesn’t detract from the fact they are already married.

    Admittedly, I’m partly irked by this due to the fact that, by your standards, I have about 1000 different wives at this point.

    In any event, you keep posting stuff from Genesis. Would you agree that when we read this in context, we’re reading instructions to illiterate people in matriarchal prehistory? God seems to give those directives to Adam, Eve, and their kids, who didn’t really have a community and were alone among a lot of savage outsiders.

    I think we should respect the traditions that have grown up since then.

    http://www.torah.org/advanced/weekly-halacha/5762/toldos.html#

    Marriage, to civilized people, is the ritual that grew up around monogamy. Man is the animal that makes rituals, as Jung liked to remind us. Animals and savages and trilobites all have sex. I don’t think that anyone would argue they have the rights of married couples. Concepts like law and justice are something that only civilized people have.

    Thoughts?

    Boxer

  426. nick012000 says:

    >Predictably and laughably, you post a bunch of links to online kook-rants, authored by people who have never read them.

    Dude, read the fucking articles you smarmy motherfucker, or else I’m going to dismiss you as a paid divide-and-conquer shill from now on. VDARE is a respected conservative news outlet, the Accuracy in Academia is a respected scholarly group, and the final link was written by a high-ranking retired Navy officer who is also an academic Doctor. None of them are kooks, and by dismissing them like that, you’re heavily undermining your own position.

  427. Boxer says:

    Dear Nick:

    Dude, read the fucking articles you smarmy motherfucker, or else I’m going to dismiss you as a paid divide-and-conquer shill from now on.

    Mindless hostility and vulgar language don’t really increase your credibility here.

    VDARE is a respected conservative news outlet, the Accuracy in Academia is a respected scholarly group, and the final link was written by a high-ranking retired Navy officer who is also an academic Doctor. None of them are kooks, and by dismissing them like that, you’re heavily undermining your own position.

    Unlike you, and the kooks you cite, I’ve read the original source material. I’ve also written articles disagreeing with Frankfurter positions, a couple of which have been peer-reviewed and published. Your “demon-possessed books” and “cultural Marxism” (which you can’t even define) arguments don’t rise to the level of anything I am going to take seriously.

    Do some reading, and come back to me when you have some relevant arguments, OK scrub?

    Boxer

  428. Pedat Ebediyah says:

    DS writes:

    “Now, this is basic Christian stuff. How many of these women actually want a Biblical marriage where she is to submit to his headship and respect him because he is her husband? From what I’ve seen there’s a lot of lip service to this, but actions always prove otherwise.”

    I wholeheartedly concur.  I may have mentioned once that I was recently, unbeknownst to me at the time, being vetted by two women for LTR to possible husbandry duties.  LOL

    One determined that I was quite possibly suffering from Biblioatry, and the other just couldn’t break through my anti-egalitarian, anti-feminist, anti-SJW, and anti-gynocentric world view.

    Both of them were so called Christians.  Both of them were low key sluts, and both of them when asked – by me – “are you sure you really want a Christian man, a devout one at that?”

    “It depends on what your interpretation of devout – is”, said one.

    “I guess I just didn’t know enough about what you believe”, said the other.

    What I told them is that I believe what the Bible says.  If they don’t believe what the Bible says, then therein lies the problem.

    My parting statements, after being eliminated from contention by both of them:

    “Seems to me that being married under those  (Scriptural adhering) circumstances would be oppressive to you.  If you really don’t believe His Word, then why would you even consider marrying someone who does.  That’s goofy.  Plus, I’d prefer to have a help-meet, not a student.”

  429. joshtheaspie says:

    @Boxer

    When someone unnecessarily attacks your character for an attempt to be helpful, to defend oneself is natural and just.

    At no point did I claim to have read first order sources. I have read a number of news articles that have made mention. I have also not personally watched hundreds of hours of video on honey bees, but if someone asks how a hive is organized, I will offer my limited knowledge that the Queen gives birth to workers and drones, and that if a hive grows too big, a new queen will be born, and the hive will split. If someone asks, I will admit that this is second or third hand information.

    Since this conversation doesn’t really solve a purpose, and since you have made repeated unsupported assertions about my conduct, I am done with it. I wish you a good day.

  430. @Boxer
    Admittedly, I’m partly irked by this due to the fact that, by your standards, I have about 1000 different wives at this point.

    First, they aren’t *my* standards, I showed you exactly where they came from. They’re *God’s* standards. That said, if you’ve nailed about 1000 virgins that puts you way, way out of my league. I always preferred some experience and I honestly don’t think I have ever nailed a virgin. It’s possible, back in high school, but I don’t think so.

    The basic rule is, virgin has sex => married. Father annuls marriage => no longer married, no longer a virgin. Woman not a virgin has sex =/= married without consent to marry and agreement to marry on the part of both man and woman.

    Therefore, the daughter who loses her virginity is married. If her father annuls the marriage she is not married but she”s not a virgin. Now, *here* is the point that most Christians don’t even see: there is no prohibition on having sex with such a woman, be she the non-virgin and not married, the widow or the legitimately divorced woman. There is literally no mention of this in the Law, anywhere, and that goes so far as to include prostitutes (not cult-prostitutes though). This is confirmed by the story of Samson, a Nazerite who used prostitutes but the Spirit of the Lord stayed with him (it was not a violation of his Nazerite vow, not being a transgression of the Law) and the Spirit of the Lord did not depart from him *until* he violated his Nazerite vow by having his hair cut.

    1st Corinthians 6:15-16 contains a specific prohibition that applies to Christians forbidding them from joining the members of Christ to a whore by becoming one flesh with her. Whores, not widows, legitimately divorced women or women who for whatever reason are not virgins and not married (their father annulled their marriage).

    So I’m pointing to this YUGE problem of “marriages” in the church in which the wife is actually married to another man, which is known as adultery. Is there a way out? Yes, but it begs the question of whether these women actually want to be “married” to the man they’re with. I’d guess that in 80% or so of the cases they can get out of their marriage to the guy they gave their virginity to. But, what does that mean? It means that the women, once free from the husband of their youth, are no longer in bondage to the Law concerning adultery and they are free to bang any guy they want.

    Seriously.

    Once free from their husband they married when they gave him their virginity, honestly, how many of these women are going to refuse to actually marry the guy they’ve been living in adultery with for years? Think about it. This isn’t a case of them having to come up with an excuse to divorce the husband they are repulsed by, this is a case in which there is a command to repent, to stop sinning (committing adultery) and go and sin no more.

    “You mean, if I’m divorced, I can bang Chad Thundercock without being married to him and it isn’t a sin?”

    “The Bible does not say that is a sin, but it does say that if you know that the right thing to do is to stay with the man who fathered your children and you choose to leave him, that is a sin.”

    “But, if I leave him because we’re living together in adultery and then get my real marriage annulled or get a divorce, I can do what I want?”

    “Pretty much, but you have to ask yourself if that is what Jesus wants you to do and whether banging Chad is the righteous thing to do.”

    “But if I’m committing adultery with the father of my children, that’s no different from committing adultery with Chad, is it?”

    “Nope. It’s still adultery.”

    How fast do you think women would move on something like that? Tell her that she’s living in adultery with her “husband” because she wasn’t a virgin when she married him. Get her father to annul the marriage she concealed from him and she’s free to fuck anything that moves. Seriously, how fast do you think the women would be all over that?

    Is it any different from what no-fault divorce has created? Yes. First, it requires recognizing that God has standards we are to live by. Second, it’s a move in the correct direction of conforming our lives to God’s standards. Third, it’s a fruit-check, for by their fruits you shall know them.

    When the smoke clears and the crying is done, things will have been set right. Because sluts are gonna slut. There will be a huge pool of women who have proved they are not worthy of marriage to anyone, but that’s OK, giving them the pump and dump isn’t a sin. In fact, they deserve it. And the mature women of God who are capable of faithful marriage will shine like beacons in the midst of their sisters filth and depravity.

    But, this is all so very predictable.

    Start reading at Isaiah 3:12 (which perfectly describes what we see today) and notice that God has said He will humble the women. And after He has humbled them what happens? Isaiah 4:1-2. The “branch of the Lord” reference indicates that this prophesy takes place during the Church period because the branch of the Lord is the church and Christ is the true vine. The branch that abides in the true vine will bear much fruit, but that which does not abide in Him will not bear fruit and it will be cut off and burned.

    This also ties in with another prophesy, Romans 1:18-32, which, appears to be aimed squarely at the times we live in now. First God gave them over to impurity, that they might be degraded in their bodies. Then He gave them over to depraved passions and they gave up the natural function for the unnatural. My position is the depraved passion is feminism because the natural function is for men and women to marry and have children. Finally he gave them over to depraved minds and we see the evidence of people everywhere that are just plain bat-shit crazy.

    Yes, we live in interesting times.

    Would you agree that when we read this in context, we’re reading instructions to illiterate people in matriarchal prehistory?

    No, for it is written, “All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness that every man of God might be adequate and fully equipped for every good work.”

    You also said:
    I think we should respect the traditions that have grown up since then.

    It is written, In vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the traditions of men.”

    There is a place for tradition, but when it runs counter to God’s standards it should be placed in the garbage can where it belongs.

  431. MarcusD says:

    She divorced me because i left dishes by the sink
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=997170

  432. nick012000 says:

    >Mindless hostility and vulgar language don’t really increase your credibility here.

    Just because I might be abrasive doesn’t make me wrong.

    >Unlike you, and the kooks you cite, I’ve read the original source material.

    They’re not kooks, you fucking shill. They’re legitimate media sources and scholarly organizations.

    >I’ve also written articles disagreeing with Frankfurter positions, a couple of which have been peer-reviewed and published.

    If that was true, you’d know that the links I published are legitimate authorities, both in the media and in academia. Is it the government that’s paying you to shit up Dalrock’s comment section, or are you just doing it for free? Fuck off, shill.

  433. Opus says:

    I am sitting at my laptop. In front of me I can see Dialectic of Enlightenment, Minima Moralia, Stars Down to Earth, The Culture Industry, Aesthetic Theory, three other books about music and various other writings of Theodor W. Adorno. He was part of the Frankfurt School was he not? – lived and after a brief sojourn in Los Angeles returned to and died in Frankfurt, so he can’t escape the tag – yet I am pretty certain that the words Cultural and Marxism are never placed one after another in any of those books. Had they done so I am sure they would have jumped out at me. The trouble with Adorno is that for him it is always 1913 – at least that is where he would like to be with the Kaiser head of the German State no jazz, no talkies and with he, Adorno together with Arnold Schoenberg retiring on a Sunday (probably joined by Alban Berg and Erich Korngold) to an elegant house in an upmarket strasse in Vienna for the purpose of playing quartets by Joseph Haydn. That at least is what happened when they were in Los Angeles though regrettably I forget the name of the particular road – just off the coast to the north of the centre of L.A.

  434. nick012000 says:

    Did you read the articles I posted the links to? Even if they may not have used the exact words “Cultural Marxism” in that order, they still invented it; they just worded it more abstrusely because they were academics.

  435. Boxer says:

    Dear Nick:

    So, the Frankfurters didn’t use the words you used, which you are unable to define, but you know they invented the underlying concept, despite the fact that you can’t cite title/page, and you admit that you’ve never read any of their works, and don’t really know too much about the underlying concept.

    Did you read the articles I posted the links to? Even if they may not have used the exact words “Cultural Marxism” in that order, they still invented it; they just worded it more abstrusely because they were academics.

    OK dear. Whatever you say… lol

    Boxer

  436. Boxer says:

    Dear AT:

    First, they aren’t *my* standards, I showed you exactly where they came from. They’re *God’s* standards. That said, if you’ve nailed about 1000 virgins that puts you way, way out of my league. I always preferred some experience and I honestly don’t think I have ever nailed a virgin. It’s possible, back in high school, but I don’t think so.

    Well, if that’s the standard, then I estimate my wife count is somewhere over fifteen and less than thirty. In my defense, guvnor, all but a couple of those women withheld that minor detail until we were already banging away. I consciously and with knowledge aforethought banged exactly two virgins in my life, both when I was but a teenage kid, thus by feminist standards, I have never had sex at all, and am still completely untouched and ready to ascend to celestial glory.

    The basic rule is, virgin has sex => married. Father annuls marriage => no longer married, no longer a virgin. Woman not a virgin has sex =/= married without consent to marry and agreement to marry on the part of both man and woman.

    Again, I can see that as a very sensible arrangement, in the case where there is no civilization at all. Problem is that we have communities now and ways of recording marriages.

    There is a place for tradition, but when it runs counter to God’s standards it should be placed in the garbage can where it belongs.

    The wedding at Cana in the New Testament didn’t just happen when the dude fucked the chick. It was a ritual and a ceremony. We assume that JC himself approved of this, since he did miracles in support of the party.

    In any event, I’ll concede that you know the NT better than I do, which is why I enjoy your articles, (whether or not I find them practical).

    Incidentally, have you been following the sad tale of Pastor Saeed? That wife of his seems to be making a real effort to prove all the worst stereotypes of the androsphere, in as short a time as possible.

    Women, I love them for their honesty.

    Boxer

  437. Don Quixote says:

    @ Artisanal Toad

    My understanding of the Genesis record goes like this:
    1) God makes Adam aware of his need for a partner.
    2) God decides upon a prearranged marriage*, and creates a suitable helper for Adam and brings her to him.
    3) These events conclude with the famous words [Gen.2:24]. It sounds very much like they were husband and wife before the two became one flesh.

    * The prearranged marriage is the model for the Lamb of God to the elect ‘Bride of Christ’.

  438. MarcusD says:

    @Nick

    https://www.google.com/search?q=%22cultural+marxism%22&biw=1896&bih=852&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F1%2F1800%2Ccd_max%3A12%2F31%2F1965&tbm=bks

    Though there is a lot of discussion surrounding the term itself, I am more curious about where the attributes ascribed to it came from.

  439. MarcusD says:

    WordPress appears to have messed up the link, so here it is again: https://goo.gl/vOH0IO

  440. Dragonfly says:

    AR – not trying to flatter, you, if anything I tend to speak what I think and feel almost too freely….

  441. @Boxer
    Well, if that’s the standard, then I estimate my wife count is somewhere over fifteen and less than thirty.

    And you shamelessly give *me* a hard time about polygyny.

    Now be nice and look those girls up. They’re probably on facebook. If you think theyve banged at least one other guy since you (and that’s pretty much a given, right?) then send each of them a nice card with a certificate of divorce and thanks for the memories.

    When you’re done you can go back to giving me a hard time about polygyny.

    @Don Quixote

    The point is the consummation of the marriage is also known as the “marriage act” and it specifically refers to sex. Genesis 2:24 is the authority to initiate marriage. Genesis 3:16 says the man will “rule over” his wife. Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 continue what was stated in Genesis 2:24 with specific detail. The contextual similarity of both Exodus 22 and Deuteronomy 22 is that in both cases the father was not consulted and the man took the virgin without his permission. In the first case he talks her into it and in the second case he takes her by force. In accordance with Numbers 30, in the first case the Father can annul the agreement she made and in the second case, if they were discovered then it’s obvious that she made no agreement he could annul and thus they are married.

    This is no different from a marriage in which there was a betrothal period, followed by the consummation of the marriage. While the betrothed woman was considered married, it is the consummation of the marriage that makes her a wife. The physical act of taking her virginity is what turns a woman from a betrothed virgin into a wife. Get it? What if you skip all the preliminaries and jump her? You took her from a virgin to a wife in a matter of seconds.

    Everyone is busy trying to find a way in which there is something else that has to be done, but take the Exodus 22 passage and drop the part about the dowry (that’s no longer done). It says “If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, his wife.” Then comes the part about the father refusing, which is afterward, completely in line with Numbers 30.

    There is no further act listed or referenced, they are married. The only thing left is to publicize it and let everybody know. But, maybe somebody wants a ceremony. OK, fine. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t already married.

    The impact of that passage is they are married and after that the father can annul it, but to annul it (refuse to allow it) does not alter the fact they were, for whatever period of time, married. So, even if Dad says no, the guy still owes the money. It isn’t a penalty because it’s the price one pays for virgins.

    I realize that everybody wants to find a loophole here, anything to make it so we aren’t surrounded by institutionalized adultery. Bad news, it’s not there. Anyone who says, like Robin Munn, that there’s a future tense to this and something else after they have sex makes them married misses the point. There is no other act, ceremony, ritual or anything listed, described or referenced that is required. In other words, there isn’t anything that *not* be done that would cause them *not* to be married.

    Is a ceremony required for a marriage? Really? Define ceremony. What does it consist of? What is an adequate ceremony? Do we tell Cupcake that she isn’t really married because her flower bouquet wasn’t big enough? That they didn’t say the right words so they aren’t really married? C’mon. Back up to the issue of authority and that’s the Man. Anything other than the intent and consummation is for him to decide.

  442. Robin Munn says:

    @Artisanal Toad –

    Haven’t looked at this thread in a few days, so I missed your response. Let me try and answer you.

    I didn’t avoid Deuteronomy 22:28-29, I simply skimmed your post too quickly to notice that you’d spent a lot of time there. So okay, let’s look at it too. Since we agree about most of it, let’s look at the part where we disagree: the part of verse 29 where it says that she either must become or has become his wife. What does the Hebrew grammar imply?

    According to http://biblehub.com/text/deuteronomy/22-29.htm, the relevant words are:
    ṯih-yeh (תִהְיֶ֣ה) “she shall be”
    lə-’iš-šāh (לְאִשָּׁ֗ה) “his wife”

    We’ve already looked at lə-’iš-šāh (לְאִשָּׁ֗ה), so let’s look at ṯih-yeh (תִהְיֶ֣ה). http://biblehub.com/hebrew/tihyeh_1961.htm shows 165 occurrences of this form of the word. You can see them for yourself: most of them are translated as “become”, “will become”, or “shall (other verb)”. There are a few cases where it’s a present tense, like Leviticus 15:19 (“When a woman has a discharge, and the discharge in her body is blood, she shall be in her menstrual impurity for seven days …”) Here both the word has and the words shall be were תִהְיֶ֣ה in the Hebrew.

    As for Genesis 2:24, here are the steps it lists:

    1) Leave his father and mother
    2) Cleave to his wife (some translations phrase it as “be joined to”)
    3) They shall become one flesh

    It doesn’t specify any particular form for step 2, but nearly everyone thinks that that’s the “get married” step. Some sort of intentional thing, not to be more specific, where the two proclaim that they will be bound to each other as husband and wife. Usually done publicly, because if you get married secretly and then start living together openly, people will think you’re committing fornication, and it’s good for the neighbors to know that you’re not actually sinning. But you rightly point out that the Bible doesn’t specify any particular form, public or private, for the “be joined to his wife” part.

    But everywhere throughout the Scripture, the passages talk about becoming married and having sex as two separate steps. They’re supposed to happen in that order, but if the having sex part happens first, the man is expected to make it right and get married to the woman whose virginity he has taken (Exodus 22:17, Deuteronomy 22:29). Another example: Shechem and Dinah. He took her by force, then wanted to make it right afterwards. Two separate steps. Joseph and Mary are an interesting case, because Matthew 1:24 says that he “took her home as his wife”, but did not have sex with her until Jesus was born. But at the same time, Luke 2:5 says that she was “pledged to be married to him” when they went to Bethlehem. (Both of those quotes are from the NIV; the ESV has “he took his wife” and “his betrothed” respectively). Which does support the idea that unless the marriage is consummated, you can’t really consider yourselves married. But then, almost everyone agrees with that idea: for example, the Catholic church (whom I disagree with about many theological points, for the record) will issue an annulment to anyone whose marriage was not consummated. And yet, almost everyone disagrees with the idea that having sex automatically makes you married. Now, either nobody before you has noticed the inconsistency between those two positions, or else there is no inconsistency between them.

    Finally, I’ll answer your question about authority to teach:

    Robin, was your wife a virgin when you married her?

    Yes, as a matter of fact, she was. (And so was I). Since I expect you’re probably going to tell me next that women lie about that all the time so I can’t really know (and there are such things as hymen reconstructive surgeries), I’ll just say that I know not just because of the physical evidence of our wedding night, but also because it was abundantly clear that she had never seen an adult man naked before our wedding night.

    So even by your extra-Biblical standards, I’m actually married to my wife (and nobody else), and she is married to me (and nobody else).

  443. Don Quixote says:

    @ Toad:
    I’m enjoying this discussion but I still disagree with your definitions. My understanding of a bastard child is a child born out of wedlock or the result of sexual sin.
    Deut.23:3 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD…
    John 8:41 …Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication…
    How does this work with your sex = marriage definition?

    Consider that God told Hosea to take of wife of whoredom. What makes the difference between whoredom and wifedom? <== I just invented this word.
    And why were not Solomon's concubines considered wives?

    Toad said:

    Is a ceremony required for a marriage? Really? Define ceremony. What does it consist of? What is an adequate ceremony?

    That’s an excellent question.
    Every race, tribe and/or culture have some kind of ceremony for marriage. If two families consent to the marriage then there is going to be some kind of occasion for the joining of the happy couple.
    Consider the marriage of the Lamb, its been about 2000 years in the making, will God’s Son be eclipsed by son’s of Adam? I think not.

  444. Robin Munn says:

    Another response to Artisanal Toad, re: the qualifications for elders.

    Earlier in this thead, you said:

    “I quoted one of the greatest living Bible translators, Spiros Zodhiates, and gave you his notes on that passage that indicate you got it wrong. But, gosh. You didn’t respond to that at all.”

    I didn’t respond to that one at the time because I never saw that response. I don’t read Dalrock every day nor do I often re-read older comment threads, and by the time I read Dalrock again, there was a new post up. But now that I’ve seen your response, I’ll respond to it, VERY briefly since I have to be out the door in about ten minutes. I’ll try to write a longer one later on.

    Here’s the Spiros Zodhiates commentary you quoted, with my own emphasis on one sentence:

    “The husband of one wife” does not mean that he, the bishop or the deacon, was never married before. Nor does it mean that in order to be a bishop or a deacon, one must be married. Paul was certainly considered both a bishop and a deacon, and he was never married. If this meant that a bishop or a deacon was never to have been married before then it would excluded a remarried widower. But the Apostle Paul in Romans 7:1-3 places no restriction upon a widower to remarry. In the case of divorce, neither the Lord Jesus nor the Apostle Paul places such a restriction on a divorced person who was the innocent party in the unfortunate and God-hated divorce process which is the result of a man’s sinfulness.

    One of the meanings of this expression, but not the principle one, is that the bishop or deacon should not be married to more than one woman simultaneously. The expression mias gunaikos is known in Greek grammar as an attributive genitive, which is equivalent to an adjective, and would have been better translated as “a one-woman’s husband.” Not a ladies’ man, in other words. The total context speaks of the moral conduct of the bishop and the deacon. He should be one totally dedicated to his wife and not be flirtatious. Paul brings out the same thought in the similar passage in Titus 1:6 where the expression is exactly the same, except as pertaining to a woman that she should be one man’s woman, not flirting with other men.”

    See that sentence I bolded? It’s not the principle meaning, because the main focus is on the bishop’s or deacon’s general behavior. But one of the requirements is that the bishop or deacon not be polygynous.

    The text you yourself quoted in defense of your argument actually refutes it. I am in complete agreement with Spiros Zodhiates on this point. But you, apparently, are not.

  445. Robin Munn says:

    Okay, the blockquote tag is apparently forbidden in this comment section. For clarity, the quote in my previous comment is two paragraphs long. It starts with the words “The husband of one wife”, and ends with the words “not flirting with other men.” Those are Spiros Zodhiates’ words; the rest, except where I quote Artisanal Toad, are mine.

  446. @Robin Munn

    The quote in question:

    One of the meanings of this expression, but not the principle one, is that the bishop or deacon should not be married to more than one woman simultaneously. The expression mias gunaikos is known in Greek grammar as an attributive genitive, which is equivalent to an adjective, and would have been better translated as “a one-woman’s husband.” Not a ladies’ man, in other words. The total context speaks of the moral conduct of the bishop and the deacon. He should be one totally dedicated to his wife and not be flirtatious. Paul brings out the same thought in the similar passage in Titus 1:6 where the expression is exactly the same, except as pertaining to a woman that she should be one man’s woman, not flirting with other men.”

    It appears you see what you want to see, which is why in your word analysis you ignore the principle meaning in this passage in favor of a lesser one, but in other areas, like what you quoted in a previous comment:

    We’ve already looked at lə-’iš-šāh (לְאִשָּׁ֗ה), so let’s look at ṯih-yeh (תִהְיֶ֣ה). http://biblehub.com/hebrew/tihyeh_1961.htm shows 165 occurrences of this form of the word. You can see them for yourself: most of them are translated as “become”, “will become”, or “shall (other verb)”. There are a few cases where it’s a present tense, like Leviticus 15:19

    You don’t seem to be willing to accept that the *present tense* is an acceptable translation in that case because you want to see a future tense. In any case, I have another comment addressing this.

    @Don Quixote

    I’m enjoying this discussion but I still disagree with your definitions. My understanding of a bastard child is a child born out of wedlock or the result of sexual sin.
    Deut.23:3 A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD…
    John 8:41 …Then said they to him, We be not born of fornication…
    How does this work with your sex = marriage definition?

    Taking the virginity => marriage to her. So, what happens later after she’s banged a few more guys and finally finds the one that meets the majority of the 413 points on her checklist and she “gets married” to him?

    Romans 7:2-3a says “For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband. So then, if while her husband is living she is joined to another man, she shall be called an adulteress”

    When the guy does what I did and purports to marry a woman who is not a virgin, whose father in no way annulled her marriage to the guy she willingly gave her virginity to, they both commit adultery and their children born of that adulterous union are bastards.

    Sounds ugly doesn’t it? Yet, if adultery is not sexual sin, I truly do not know what is. And see how hard this hits the church if the studies are correct and that even in “highly religious groups” 80% of the women are NOT virgins when they walk down the aisle? It’s a hell of a mess.

  447. @Robin

    Once again, you’ve avoided the argument completely and you’re quibbling over what *exact moment* they are married. In doing so, even though you admit there can be an alternative reading by your word analysis, you overlook any reading of the text that doesn’t agree with you and claim I’m wrong. I’ll make one final point that I haven’t brought up yet.

    Since your wife was a virgin when you married, you may have noticed something a bit unusual that happened during the consummation of your marriage. Before I get to that, however, please notice what God said in Malachai 2:14 when He referred to the wife of the man’s youth, his wife by *covenant.* Implicit in that statement is the wife of his youth is his wife by covenant, but perhaps a later wife might not be. But let’s leave aside speculation on the later wife and focus on the covenant marriage with the wife of his youth.

    Have you ever looked at the times God instituted a covenant and the fact it always involved the shedding of blood? God sacrificed animals to make the clothing for Adam and Eve (Genesis 3:21) and they were given instruction to make blood sacrifices (see Cain and Abel). Noah sacrificed to God after the flood (Genesis 8:20-9:17) and God made His covenant with Noah, putting His bow in the sky as an everlasting sign of the covenant. Abraham sacrificed to God when he came to the Land God sent him (Genesis 12:7) and God promised that land to him and his descendants, forever. The Mosaic covenant was implemented with sacrifices according to the Law. The New Covenant was implemented with the sacrifice of Christ’s blood on Calvary. You should know these things.

    You may have noticed that the covenant marriage you initiated with your wife was sealed with her blood in the act of consummating your marriage by becoming one flesh with her, and God designed it to be that way. Is it so hard to believe that the shedding of the virgins’ blood in the consummation of the marriage to her is sealing of the covenant of marriage to her, a covenant that is not to be put aside? Why does this only apply to the virgin and not to the widow or divorced woman? That takes us back to the speculation of Malachi 2:14, but the fact is, taking a woman’s virginity is the act of marrying her while there is nothing said about a widow or divorced woman, except that they are free to choose, meaning their consent is required.

    Every point I’ve made you’ve avoided, preferring instead to focus on a shaky linguistic argument that does not stand up to textual analysis. If, as you claim, there is a marriage at some future point, please explain what further detail is required for marriage. You have already admitted the text is clear that lacking annulment by the father, a marriage takes place and there is no other outcome other than marriage.

    The consummation of the marriage is the physical act of becoming one flesh, which also has a spiritual component because as Jesus said, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” The consummation of the covenant marriage to a virgin seals the covenant with her blood which is shed by the physical act of becoming one flesh. It is an act that can be done only once, which is reflected in the text “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

    Yet, you are trying to say that this act does not initiate a marriage, that they are married at some future point by some unspecified act. Yet, you admit that in some cases the word shall is interpreted elsewhere as being in the present tense. Why, specifically, is the text to be taken here in the future tense and not in the present tense, other than a desire on your part?

    But, let’s look at the word “wife” in these passages.

    A virgin betrothed is legally married but she is not the man’s wife, she is his betrothed, his fiancee’. It is the act of consummating the marriage that takes her from being a betrothed virgin to being a wife. Notice in Exodus 22:16-17 AND in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 that both times the word “wife” is used. Not “betrothed” but “wife” is the word used to describe the post-virginal *status* of the woman.

    I already suggested a reasonable reading of the text that comports with your desire to see a future tense to the term shall be, that any future action be that the marriage, which was of a surreptitious and clandestine nature, be publicized and announced. Your refusal to answer to that point informs me you reject it because you are unilaterally rejecting the idea that taking the woman’s virginity is to initiate marriage to her.

    That only leaves the question of why you are fighting so hard on this point.

    Please explain your theory of the case. Feel free to cite Scripture because you know that’s what I want to see.

    I truly don’t think you have the slightest iota of a clue just how much I wish I were wrong about this. But, unlike you and most all the other guys here, I’ve literally studied this subject for years. I did not read the text looking for something to contest in order to nullify what the text says because a plain reading of the text indicated it disagreed with what I’d always been taught; instead, I studied it carefully to discover what it actually says. In an effort to discover why the teachings of the church are so much in conflict with what the Bible clearly says, I also studied the history of the church and marriage, a study in which James Brundage’s book “Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe” is invaluable. Other valuable resources are “Medieval Marriage: Symbolism and Society” by David. L. d’Avray and “Law, Marriage, and Society in the Later Middle Ages: Arguments about Marriage in Five Courts” by Charles Donahue, Jr. Professor Kevin MacDonald of UC Santa Barbara is another contributor with a fascinating monograph on Socially Imposed Monogamy in the 1995 Occidental Quarterly.

    In general, what I’ve found is that the issues of marriage, divorce, polygyny and female sexuality are inextricably bound together.

    The major passages in the study of the initiation of marriage are Genesis 2:24, Genesis 3:16, Exodus 22:16-17, Deuteronomy 22:28-29, Numbers 30 and Deuteronomy 22:13-21 all together. Collateral passages included Numbers 6 and Judges 16 (the Nazerite vow and the story of Samson); Judges 21 (the taking of the virgins from Shiloh by the men of Benjamin), 1st Corinthians 6:15-16, 1st Corinthians 7:10-15 and 39, Matthew 5:27-32, Matthew 19:2-9 and Malachi 2.

    The major passages concerning divorce are Genesis 2:24, Genesis 3:16, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:2-9, 1st Peter 2:18-3:2 and 1st Corinthians 7:10-15.

    The major passages concerning polygyny are Genesis 2:24, Exodus 21:10, Deuteronomy 25:5-10, 2nd Samuel 12:8, Jeremiah 31:31-32 and 1st Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6. I already shared with you Dr. Zodhiates view on the translation of 1st Timothy 3:2, but I’ll note that his view is completely in line with the fact that God regulated, condoned, commanded and participated in polygyny, therefore it is silly to think that such a marital status is inferior to that of monogamy when it comes to the character of elders and deacons in the church. I responded to your objection on that in a previous comment.

    The study of the authority structure within marriage as well as behavior within marriage has as its major passages Genesis 3:16, Numbers 16, 1st Peter 3, Ephesians 5 and 1st Corinthians 7. There are so many collateral passages that it isn’t germane to try to list them all.

    It is obvious that you truly want there to be a way to avoid admitting that taking a woman’s virginity is to marry her because the implications of that is to categorize the vast majority of so-called marriages within the church today as adulterous unions WITH NO WAY AROUND IT. I also suspect you’ve got enough intelligence to understand the point I’m raising is more serious than anything else effecting the church today, which is why one of the first things you did was to attack me, personally, rather than the argument I’ve made. Quite literally, everything else pales in comparison and that being the case, to admit the problem, address the problem and work toward solving the problem means the church will suffer enormous damage to its credibility and the name of Christ will suffer because of this. Likewise, I think you have enough integrity to realize that if I’m right, something has to be done. That is why you are fighting so hard to avoid having to accept what Scripture plainly says here.

    And look at what you’re arguing. Seriously. After already admitting that Exodus 22:16-17’s only outcome if the father does not annul the marriage is marriage, what is the point you’re trying to make about the *exact* moment they are married? What is the point, other than to support the idea they are not *actually* married with the consummation of their marriage in order to claim they are not married AT ALL at some future point? That is completely contrary to the text and the claim introduces some requirement for marriage that is completely unsupported by the text. So why do it? Because the truth hurts and it’s far easier to wave a magical exegetical wand to make it all go away than deal with the truth.

    The conclusive rule pertaining to marriage, from time immemorial whereof the memory of man runneth not to the contrary, is that a marriage not consummated is no marriage at all and subject to annulment at any point in time up to the physical consummation of marriage. In fact, the consummation of the marriage is the sine qua non of marriage. To deny that is to claim some other act, rite, ritual or ceremony is actually the act of marriage, which is completely unsupported by Scripture. The Law is clear that taking a virgin’s virginity is the act of marriage and if that means the church needs a thorough housecleaning to deal with the rampant and outrageous adultery that’s been perpetrated through ignorance of God’s Word… an ignorance fostered and encouraged by the church’s false doctrines, so be it.

    What you perhaps don’t quite understand is that while cleaning it up will be ugly, knowingly leaving things as they are is even worse. This isn’t a case of doing more damage, the damage is already being done. It is said that when one finds one’s self in a hole, the first rule is to stop digging.

    Read Ezra 9 and 10. Read 2nd Kings 22-23, the story of Josiah the King. Both Ezra and Josiah were confronted with a problem like the one I’m pointing to and in both cases their decisions on how to handle the problem were blessed by God. Especially Josiah, who by the Lord’s testimony was the greatest of all kings to ever rule over Israel and Judah. Greater than his father David and his father Solomon.

  448. Robin Munn says:

    @Artisanal Toad –

    Yet again, my response is going to not address all of your arguments, because there are dozens. I’ll just say that you should definitely refrain from assuming that if I don’t address any one given point, it’s because I’ve chosen to skip over it because I know I have no answer. It’s far more likely that I’ve skipped over it because I don’t have time to answer all your points (you appear to have far more time for Internet discussion than I manage to pull together), so I’m picking and choosing the ones that seem most important to address.

    I’ll start by saying that my first approach was to point out your disqualifications to teach, rather than to address your argument, because your argumentation so far had convinced me that you were simply looking for loopholes to justify a sinful lifestyle. (Your “there is no prohibition on having sex with such a woman, be she the non-virgin and not married, the widow or the legitimately divorced woman” comment was particularly bad in that regard, because that sure sounds like the sin of fornication to me, and here you were saying “The Bible allows it, go ahead”.) However, you’ve managed to convince me that this is not your primary intent, and that you’re truly trying to find what the Bible really says.

    In which case, I need to shift the focus of my arguments. I am not, as I thought I was, addressing an unrepentant sinner who’s looking for loopholes and does not deserve the dignity of being treated like a serious Bible scholar. I am, rather, addressing someone who truly cares about Scripture as much as I do, and who has made several serious errors in his reading of Scripture. So I’ll address you in that respect, instead of as I was doing before. Congratulations on changing my mind, by the way: it’s not often I see someone who’s throwing around ad hominems at everyone who disagrees with him, making me think he’s not rational on the subject, and yet later on I decide that he really does have a rational reason for his arguments and is worth engaging on a rational level.

    The funny thing is, as I read your response, that several of the things you accuse me of are the very things I believe you’re doing. For example, you say that I “don’t seem to be willing to accept that the *present tense* is an acceptable translation in that case because [I] want to see a future tense.” And yet, the future and/or imperative tenses are by far the most common translation of that term — “become”, “shall be”, etc., and the present tense is only rarely, if ever, mentioned. I brought it up because it would be intellectually dishonest not to mention the evidence against my own case, slim though it may be when weighed against the mountains of evidence for my case. But when I see you completely disregard said mountains of evidence and simply assume that because the present tense is a possible reading, therefore it must be the correct reading, I become convinced that you are looking for a particular meaning rather than seeking to know what the passage actually means.

    I should, at this point, note the Scriptural interpretation approach that I’m bringing to the table. I firmly believe that God intends the Scriptures to be accessible to anyone who approaches them with an honest mind and willingness to be taught by the Spirit. I do not think that he intended to “hide” any kind of “secret knowledge”, accessible only to the enlightened, in Scripture. (Indeed, many of the apostle’s epistles address the problems of the various Gnostic heresies, which taught precisely that — that there was “secret” knowledge available only to the select few.) And therefore, I believe that if there is a plain, obvious reading of a Scriptural passage, then that’s the reading you should take. (Note that I did not say a “literal” reading — some things, like various prophecies, are clearly metaphorical. For example, Jesus was not literally a lamb.)

    And the plain meaning, that appears quite obvious to me, of Exodus 22:16-17 is that it is a command for the man to marry the former virgin whom he has seduced. Not an acknowledgment of a marriage already existing, but a command to do the right thing and make things right (after first having done the wrong thing — it’s a kind of restitution). Likewise with Deuteronomy 22:28-29 — the plain and obvious reading is that it’s a command, just like all the commands in the verses around it. (“If this happens, you shall do this. But if this is the case, then you shall instead do this.” And so on.) So when I see you reading it as a present-tense acknowledgment of something that has already happened, I see someone ignoring the plain, obvious meaning of Scripture — which is usually a sure sign of someone making a major error.

    … And I’ve run out of time yet again; I have to go. You won’t hear back from me for at least twelve hours, and more likely twenty-four. I’ll just say one last thing before I go: you asked me why I’m fighting so hard on this point. I’m fighting because Scripture is vitally important, and getting it wrong has dire consequences. And your misunderstanding of the nature of sexual sin has already led to you saying that certain kinds of fornication are not sinful. (E.g., the sentence I quoted above about sleeping with a widow or legitimately-divorced woman not being prohibited (for an unmarried man, I assume, since I don’t think you intend to say that adultery is okay).) So it’s my view of the vital importance of Scripture that’s leading me to argue so hard against this.

  449. @Robin

    I agree with almost all of your points, especially the parts about Scripture not being occult and difficult to understand but rather open and understandable, but with the caveats that the study of Scripture requires time and work, and the understanding of Scripture is grasped on an intellectual as well as spiritual level. In other words, Scripture can have a clear textual meaning that can be grasped as the literal meaning of the text, but the same passage can have multiple different meanings to people at different points in their spiritual growth and maturity.

    Anyone who has seriously studied the Bible has had the experience of reading a particular portion of the text and upon returning the same text after the passage of some time derived new meaning from the same passage. I’m sure you’ve experienced this.

    While this is one of the wonderful things about Scripture and our interaction with both the Holy Spirit and the text itself, there is also the great danger of using a private interpretation (spiritually derived applying to the individual, not plainly apparent in the text as applying to all) as the foundation or support for doctrine. One of the reasons why this is such a great danger is it lends itself toward an occult view of Scripture, that only one who has sufficient spiritual insight is able to grasp the “higher truths” of what Scripture is saying. Unfortunately that tends to be a more popular approach as it satisfies the desire to be perceived as greater than those around us. It’s all about pride and ego.

    Personally, in light of the context of the book of Romans as well as the repetition of the point, I believe that Romans 4:15 and 5:13 should be taken as a doctrinal statement, just as I believe that Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 is a doctrinal statement that is reflected in the final command found in Revelation 22:18-19.

    I should point out that I do not subscribe to dispensationalist theology, but rather covenant theology. The major work on that is “That You May Prosper: Dominion by Covenant” by Ray Sutton, for which he was awarded a ThD by Oxford University. It’s published for free in electronic format and available here. The covenant theological perspective does have an impact on my exegesis, particularly with respect to issues pertaining to marriage and family relations.

    God created three specific covenant entities and to the head of each gave specific authority and to each gave a specific mission. The family, for example, has the husband as the head and the mission of “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, take dominion over it.” The church has the pastor (bishop if you will) over it and the mission to “Go forth and make disciples of all men.” The state has as its head the governor (king, whatever) and the mission of enforcing the law and punishing evil-doers. However, this separation of entities with separate heads in authority and separate missions is a design that does not entitle one entity to meddle in the affairs of the other. Just as the state has no God-given authority to dictate the liturgy of the church, the church has no authority to dictate the method of marriage or the regulation of a man’s household as long as he complies with God’s Law (the choice of the individual as to whether to obey the state or obey God is another discussion entirely). All are under the same Law, that which was given by God and it is from God that all derive their authority. Note that the discussion of church discipline in Matthew 18 and 1st Corinthians 5 both cover only specific violations of either the Law or specific directives of the New Testament as they apply to Christians. In all matters of conscience we are commanded not to judge (Romans 14:4).

    All that to say that there was a time when I agreed with the views of Dr’s Scofield and Ryrie, thought J. Vernon McGee was one of the greatest Bible teachers alive and was of the opinion that you had to graduate from DTS in order to really be able to rightly divide the word of truth. That was a time at which we would probably have been in almost complete agreement, judging by things you’ve said.

    However, long and careful study has led me away from that. Our current disagreement on 1) when a marriage is initiated and 2) by what act a marriage is initiated is probably as good an example as any. You have been focused on the *when* using a very narrow textual analysis and I have been focused on the *what act* using a broad meta-analysis because that determines (to me, anyway) the *when* as to the marriage. To put it in manosphere terms, we are battling over which frame should be the decisive one in determining the call, which is a situation I don’t like because the two should be complementary, not opposed.

    In this particular case, I am not arguing an esoteric point that doesn’t effect more than an extremely small fraction of a percentage point of Christians, this is an issue that has the potential of turning things in the church upside down. In case you missed it, my broader point is that having sex with a virgin (absent an annulment by the father) is to marry her. My narrower point in keeping with my exegesis of the issue is that the marriage occurs at the point they become one flesh and she loses her virginity.

    It appears from what you have written that you are in agreement with my broader point but in disagreement with the narrower point, which implies a desire for the “gentlest possible” reading of the text in order to grant some wiggle room. But, this isn’t about when the marriage occurs because in agreeing with my broader point you admit the incredible problem of adultery in the church today. We are actually arguing about something more fundamental than that.

    The doctrinal point of difference we seem to be disagreeing on is you appear to be pushing for an interpretation that leaves the traditional Catholic doctrine in place, that the Church is the arbiter of when a couple is married. I support what I see as the Biblically correct doctrine of saying neither the church or state has anything to do with the initiation of marriage because God gave that authority to the man in Genesis 2:24. Thus, it appears we are really arguing the issue of the question of who has the authority to initiate marriage using the subject of when the marriage occurs.

    How do you see it?

  450. One note- when I said “The church has the pastor (bishop if you will) over it” I was speaking of the individual local church. Christ had John write to the “angel” (pastor) of each of His seven local churches. Christ, of course, is the head of the body of Christ which is the universal church consisting of all believers, not the guy with the funny hat. So, don’t think I was saying Christ is not the head of His church.

  451. Don Quixote says:

    Great work guys [Artisanal Toad and Robin Munn], I would just like to add my $0.02.
    My understand has always been simple: That marriage exists in the covenant not the consummation, this has been challenged by Toad’s contention that marriage exists in the consummation not the covenant. But many of the examples put forward show there is serious truth in both positions.
    1) Adam and Eve, the union was initiated by God not Adam, agreed upon and lastly consummated.
    2) Isaac & Rebekah, Jacob & Rachel et al had consent [covenant] and lastly consummation
    3) Joseph and Mary, the marriage existed in the covenant not in the consummation.
    4) Jesus and His bride, the marriage has not be consummated, does it exist? Yes.

    Alternatively
    1) The virgin who plays the harlot in her fathers house, this example ticks all the marriage boxes but it is unknown unless she is pregnant or someone says something. This is the typical girl next door, who later on officially marries and most people understand that she has screwed around but now she is going to settle down.
    Artisanal Toad has made the contention that this is adultery, but in my understanding it is playing the whore without a covenant, aka fornication. This is my simplistic definition:
    Fornication = illicit sex without a marriage covenant.
    Adultery = illicit sex within a marriage covenant.
    Its not without its problems but it works in most applications.

  452. @Don Quixote

    My understand has always been simple: That marriage exists in the covenant not the consummation, this has been challenged by Toad’s contention that marriage exists in the consummation not the covenant.

    No, I did not say that. What I actually said was this:

    The consummation of the marriage is the physical act of becoming one flesh, which also has a spiritual component because as Jesus said, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” The consummation of the covenant marriage to a virgin seals the covenant with her blood which is shed by the physical act of becoming one flesh. It is an act that can be done only once, which is reflected in the text “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

    As I said to Robin, we seem to be arguing the issue of who has the authority to initiate marriage using the subject of exactly *when* the marriage is initiated. Given that Genesis 2:24 is the grant of authority to the man to initiate marriage, and given what the passage says, and given the following instruction, what I see is the initiation of marriage at the loss of virginity and not some future point with some future act yet to perform or *permission to be garnered.*

    Artisanal Toad has made the contention that this is adultery, but in my understanding it is playing the whore without a covenant, aka fornication.

    Fornication

    This is where you’re having a really hard time wrapping your head around what I’m pointing to. The term “fornication” is an English word that describes a sin or class of sins and is most often used to translate the Greek word “porneia.” The problem is that all your life you’ve been taught a meaning for the word “fornication” that is completely unsupported by the Bible.

    Romans 4:15 and 5:13 are very clear that in the absence of a specific point of Law, there is no violation and no sin imputed. In other words, it is impossible to violate a law, rule or regulation that doesn’t exist and “sin” is literally defined as a violation of God’s Law.

    There is no prohibition anywhere in the Bible on a virgin having sex with a man, married or single. In fact, what the Bible says is it is the beginning of their marriage.

    There is no prohibition anywhere in the Bible on a man, married or single, having sex with a widow or a divorced woman outside the bounds of marriage.

    Therefore, these acts cannot possibly be fornication because these acts are not violations of the Law and therefore cannot be sins.

    Fornication is sin. These acts are not sin so they cannot be fornication. The problem you”re having is the result of the church implementing rules that go way, way beyond what the Bible says. In doing so they violated Deuteronomy 4:2 by adding to the Law and subtracting from the Law. We are having difficulty communicating because I’m trying to go with what the Bible says and you’re using terms and meanings from the Catholic church which disagree with the Bible.

    I call adultery on the case of the woman in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 because either way the facts actually fall, she’s committed adultery.

    1. She gave her virginity to a guy and hid the fact***. Therefore, her father did not annul the marriage and thus she is very much a married woman, some other man’s wife. Romans 7:2-3a informs us that a married woman who is joined to another man while her husband is still alive is called an adulteress. Adultery is a death penalty offense.

    2. She was a virgin when she was betrothed, but got seduced during the betrothal period and thus was no longer a virgin when she married the guy. That’s adultery because she was legally married (though not yet a wife) to the man she was officially marrying.

    Either way, adultery is the only death penalty offense that fits the crime and no matter how it gets sliced, she committed adultery, but it’s possibly worse than that. If she was already a married woman when she got engaged then her act of joining herself to another man was an act of adultery not only for her but for him as well.

    ***It may be that she didn’t hide it, her father decided that’s what she should do. Or maybe he suspected and said nothing. There is a reason why she was to be stoned at the doorpost of his house rather than outside the city gates, because implicit in the death sentence is some level of imputed culpability on the father for if nothing else, not keeping tabs on his daughter.

    Adultery requires a married woman. Adultery can only be committed with a married woman. As I’ve already pointed out WRT the term fornication, a married man can have sex outside the bounds of his marriage and not be in sin. Adultery is not just a sin, it’s a death penalty offense. Since a married man having sex with an unmarried woman who is not his wife is not a sin (unless she’s a cult prostitute WRT the Law or a money-for-sex prostitute WRT the New Testament), it isn’t adultery.

    If a married woman has sex with anyone other than her husband it is always adultery. Therefore, the only way for a man to commit adultery is to bang some other guy’s wife. Which is what just about everybody you know is already doing. I used to do it. Unless you’re like Robin Munn and both you and your wife were virgins when you got married, you’ve done it and maybe you’re still doing it.

    Adultery, the gift that keeps on giving.

    Feminists say: “Having sex doesn’t make you married! Women decide when they’re married and when it’s over! Virginity doesn’t matter because I’ve still got the box it came in!

    The Church says: “Having sex doesn’t make you married unless you’ve gone through our ceremonies, rites and rituals because we decide what marriage is and we decide when a couple is married.”

    GOD said: “Standard equipment on every virgin is a tamper-proof seal. Breaking the seal in the act of becoming one flesh means you’ve sealed the covenant with her as your wife. In other words, you break it, you bought it. Now, who are you going to believe. The crazy cat women, the guy with the funny hat or Me?”

  453. jsr says:

    @AT

    I see you mentioned Ray Sutton in a respected manner. I am curious about your view of him in light of another book he wrote “Second Chance”. He claimed that the death needed to free a spouse from the law of marriage could be a covenant death, not necessarily a literal one (like in the garden).

  454. Don Quixote says:

    Artisanal Toad says:
    February 2, 2016 at 7:10 am

    What I actually said was this:
    The consummation of the marriage is the physical act of becoming one flesh, which also has a spiritual component because as Jesus said, “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” The consummation of the covenant marriage to a virgin seals the covenant with her blood which is shed by the physical act of becoming one flesh. It is an act that can be done only once, which is reflected in the text “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

    As I said to Robin, we seem to be arguing the issue of who has the authority to initiate marriage using the subject of exactly *when* the marriage is initiated. Given that Genesis 2:24 is the grant of authority to the man to initiate marriage, and given what the passage says, and given the following instruction, what I see is the initiation of marriage at the loss of virginity and not some future point with some future act yet to perform or *permission to be garnered.*

    Ok, we have some minor differences here. Gen.2:24 is not the grant to initiate marriage, it is the final act in a process that has already occurred:
    1) Prior to Adam’s creation God had marriage in mind.
    2) Next God makes Adam aware of his need for a mate.
    3) Then God creates a suitable helper, and brings her to him.
    4) Adam’s approval of these events [consent] Gen.2:23.
    5) And last but not least… Gen.2:24 And consummation. Its not clear if they had sex then or in Gen.4:1

    Fornication

    This is where you’re having a really hard time wrapping your head around what I’m pointing to. The term “fornication” is an English word that describes a sin or class of sins and is most often used to translate the Greek word “porneia.” The problem is that all your life you’ve been taught a meaning for the word “fornication” that is completely unsupported by the Bible.

    Romans 4:15 and 5:13 are very clear that in the absence of a specific point of Law, there is no violation and no sin imputed. In other words, it is impossible to violate a law, rule or regulation that doesn’t exist and “sin” is literally defined as a violation of God’s Law.

    There is no prohibition anywhere in the Bible on a virgin having sex with a man, married or single. In fact, what the Bible says is it is the beginning of their marriage.

    There is no prohibition anywhere in the Bible on a man, married or single, having sex with a widow or a divorced woman outside the bounds of marriage.

    Therefore, these acts cannot possibly be fornication because these acts are not violations of the Law and therefore cannot be sins.

    Ok, again we disagree.
    We disagree about having sex with a widow and a divorcee.
    Leviticus 21:14&15
    A widow, or a divorced woman,
    or defiled, or a harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people as wife.

    So it’s not lawful for a priest to marry a widow, but banging her is ok? I’m not seeing it. Can you put together a more convincing argument regarding this point? A friends with benefits relationship with a widow is illicit sex without a covenant, aka fornication.

    Jesus said: whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. IMHO This cannot be whitewashed as holy matrimony, no matter how much of a victim she may or may not be. Jesus’ statement stands without exceptions and applies in all circumstances.
    If marrying a divorced woman equates to adultery, how much more is it adultery just banging her? Her first covenant is still in force.

    Fornication is sin. These acts are not sin so they cannot be fornication. The problem you”re having is the result of the church implementing rules that go way, way beyond what the Bible says. In doing so they violated Deuteronomy 4:2 by adding to the Law and subtracting from the Law. We are having difficulty communicating because I’m trying to go with what the Bible says and you’re using terms and meanings from the Catholic church which disagree with the Bible.

    And I think you have underestimated the limits put upon a christian believer regarding sexual conduct. I could be wrong but I am not convinced by your arguments.

    I call adultery on the case of the woman in Deuteronomy 22:13-21 because either way the facts actually fall, she’s committed adultery.

    1. She gave her virginity to a guy and hid the fact***. Therefore, her father did not annul the marriage and thus she is very much a married woman, some other man’s wife. Romans 7:2-3a informs us that a married woman who is joined to another man while her husband is still alive is called an adulteress. Adultery is a death penalty offence.

    Your point is compelling.
    But it must apply to all female divorcees, as Rom.7:2&3 specifically address this directly. Not just those you have identified in the circumstances above. You must be consistent in your application of these verses. I won’t be convinced by any bull$h_t divorce apologetics on this.

    Removed previous comments I agree with.

    Adultery requires a married woman. Adultery can only be committed with a married woman. As I’ve already pointed out WRT the term fornication, a married man can have sex outside the bounds of his marriage and not be in sin. Adultery is not just a sin, it’s a death penalty offense. Since a married man having sex with an unmarried woman who is not his wife is not a sin (unless she’s a cult prostitute WRT the Law or a money-for-sex prostitute WRT the New Testament), it isn’t adultery.

    If a married woman has sex with anyone other than her husband it is always adultery. Therefore, the only way for a man to commit adultery is to bang some other guy’s wife. Which is what just about everybody you know is already doing. I used to do it. Unless you’re like Robin Munn and both you and your wife were virgins when you got married, you’ve done it and maybe you’re still doing it.

    Adultery, the gift that keeps on giving.

    I have been divorced for over 20 years. I have no intention of ever remarrying.

    Feminists say: “Having sex doesn’t make you married! Women decide when they’re married and when it’s over! Virginity doesn’t matter because I’ve still got the box it came in!

    The Church says: “Having sex doesn’t make you married unless you’ve gone through our ceremonies, rites and rituals because we decide what marriage is and we decide when a couple is married.”

    Agreed. Man has made many extra rules.
    However don’t doubt that the sting-is-in-the-tail. We are bound by our vows no matter how stupid they are. If you got married in a protestant church of some stripe [and many catholic too] you most likely took the standard vow. You are bound by that vow until death.

    GOD said: “Standard equipment on every virgin is a tamper-proof seal. Breaking the seal in the act of becoming one flesh means you’ve sealed the covenant with her as your wife. In other words, you break it, you bought it. Now, who are you going to believe. The crazy cat women, the guy with the funny hat or Me?”

    Thanks for your time and effort, I have really enjoyed this thread.
    P.S. Don’t underestimate the guy in the funny hat. And I’m gunna steal that tamper proof seal quote.

  455. @Don Quixote
    But it must apply to all female divorcees, as Rom.7:2&3 specifically address this directly. Not just those you have identified in the circumstances above. You must be consistent in your application of these verses. I won’t be convinced by any bull$h_t divorce apologetics on this.

    Huh? Deuteronomy 22:13-21 does not mention divorce at all so I really don’t have any idea how you equate that with Romans 7;2-3. Seriously. The woman, if found not to be a virgin when she got married, was to be stoned to death because no matter what the details involved what she did was an act of adultery. So, I’m really not seeing how you got the issue of divorce out of this.

    Likewise, Romans 7:2-3 does not mention divorce either.

    As of right now, according to what Scripture says on divorce,

    A woman who was divorced by her non-Christian husband for sexual immorality is legitimately divorced, she is no longer married and free to remarry (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

    A Christian woman whose unbelieving husband will not consent to live with her and leaves her is free to remarry (1st Cor. 7:39).

    Those are the only two instances in which divorce is legitimate, according to Scripture. Under the Law, no wife had the right to divorce her husband (and don’t even think of trying to claim Exodus 21:10-11 says she does) for any reason. Under the New Covenant, the wife has the right to take whatever legal measures might be necessary in the case in which her unbelieving husband left her because in such a situation she is free.

    From that perspective, I’d say well over 99% of all divorces are illegitimate, meaning the couple is not actually divorced. However, the point is well made that one who was never married cannot divorce. Current studies show that only about 5% of the general population are still virgins when they marry, so given the fact that the number of non-virgin women whose father actually annulled their marriage to the guy they gave their virginity to is so small as to approach zero, it seems that 95% of the divorces out there aren’t actually divorces, they’re just cases of people living in state-sanctioned adultery legally dissolving their adulterous union..

    If you got married in a protestant church of some stripe [and many catholic too] you most likely took the standard vow. You are bound by that vow until death.

    Only if you actually got married. Those vows are null and void if you made them in a fraudulent ceremony, the ceremony being fraudulent because the woman standing next to you was some other man’s wife. Honestly, it’s comments like that one that convince me of the lack of comprehension.

  456. Damn Crackers says:

    @AT “Since a married man having sex with an unmarried woman who is not his wife is not a sin (unless she’s a cult prostitute WRT the Law or a money-for-sex prostitute WRT the New Testament), it isn’t adultery.”

    Where does St. Paul differentiate between cultic prostitutes and “regular” prostitutes?

  457. Pingback: The War Brides of Europe |

  458. @jsr
    I see you mentioned Ray Sutton in a respected manner. I am curious about your view of him in light of another book he wrote “Second Chance”. He claimed that the death needed to free a spouse from the law of marriage could be a covenant death, not necessarily a literal one (like in the garden).

    While I have a lot of respect for his work in “That You May Prosper” I am in complete disagreement with Sutton’s view on what he calls “covenant death” because I believe it’s contradicted by 1st Corinthians 7:10-15 and 1st Peter 3:1-2. One thing I’ve noticed is that a lot of Bible teachers are really good in some areas (the one’s they’ve really studied) but anywhere from not-so-good to downright wrong in other areas (areas they have not studied). Everyone has limitations and weaknesses and I certainly include myself in that.

    A related point is we seldom, if ever, know what kind of pressures exist on an individual that might cause them to choose any particular exegesis, but for pastors already know there is a huge threat in the form of loss of income if they take a position that’s Biblically correct but contrary to tradition. The venom directed at me should be instructive in that regard. Let’s be honest- if a pastor preached a sermon on what the Bible *really* says about women and submission he’d be looking for another job in short order with a very bad reference following him. Should a pastor preach a sermon on the initiation of marriage using the text of Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 with the conclusion that according to the Bible, at least 8 out of 10 married couple in the congregation were living in an adulterous relationship, he would be in danger of physical harm. People do not like being told what God requires of them. Remember the words of Stephen, the first martyr:

    “Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become; you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it.”

    It’s always the same, “In vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.”

    @ Damn Crackers

    Where does St. Paul differentiate between cultic prostitutes and “regular” prostitutes?

    He didn’t have to. Cult prostitutes were already forbidden and the use of a cult prostitute constituted the practice of idolatry. This is why I can’t agree with those who claim Paul was responding to sex with women from the cult of Aphrodite- no prohibition was needed because such activity was already forbidden and he did not specify so the only thing that makes sense is he was forbidding the use of garden variety sex-for-money prostitutes. What’s really fascinating is in English, it makes it sound like Paul is describing the use of a prostitute as sexual immorality and that throws a lot of Christians off.

    Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take away the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? May it never be! Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “The two shall become one flesh.” But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him. Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man [one who practices immorality] sins against his own body.

    That word in bold that’s translated as “immorality” is the Greek word “porneia” Strong’s Number 4202.

    Definition:
    Used properly, of illicit sexual intercourse in general
    Used metaphorically, of the worship of idols

    The second word in bold that’s translated as “immoral man” is the Greek word “porneuó” Strong’s Number 4203.

    Definition:
    1) to prostitute one’s body to the lust of another
    2) to give one’s self to unlawful sexual intercourse
    2a) to commit sexual immorality
    3) metaph. to be given to idolatry, to worship idols
    3a) to permit one’s self to be drawn away by another into idolatry

    Notice that at every point in these definitions there is a reference to illicit, prohibited or forbidden sexual activity or idolatry. “Illicit” or “unlawful” sexual intercourse is detailed in the Law with specific prohibitions on the various things that are proscribed. Romans 4:15 and 5:13 specifically says that if there isn’t a prohibition to violate then there is no transgression and it isn’t a sin. In other words, lacking a prohibition the act cannot be illicit or unlawful.

    The word that is properly translated into English as “fornication” or “immorality” refers to an act that is specifically prohibited in the Law. Lacking a prohibition in the Law, a sexual act or relationship BY DEFINITION CANNOT be referred to as “fornication” or “immorality”

    It does not matter how convinced a Christian is that a particular act or relationship is fornication or immorality, if God did not forbid it, they are in error. They are wrong. That’s not my opinion, that’s what God’s Word says and no amount of arguing will change what the text actually says.

    And believe it or not, if you go through the Law very carefully you will find that it DOES NOT mention any particular sex act. For example, the prohibition in Leviticus 18:20 not to [copulate to plant your seed in] your neighbors wife does not specify an act, nor does it specify any particular orifice in which the seed might be planted. Therefore, the prohibition would include any sex act a man might commit with his neighbors wife.

    We see the same thing in Leviticus 18:22. A man is not to [copulate] with a man as with a woman. Again, with no particular act mentioned, any sex act between men is prohibited.

    The point is if one studies this long enough it becomes clear that God doesn’t care *how* the plumbing gets connected nearly as much as He cares about the *relationship* of the people connecting their plumbing. Virtually all prohibitions on sexual activity are prohibitions on sexual relationships, not sexual acts. Just about every single one is covered by the prohibitions on incest, adultery, bestiality, sodomy and cult prostitution (idolatry issues).

    There are two prohibitions that don’t fit this pattern. They are the prohibition on sex with the wife while she is menstruating and sex within the proscribed period of time after childbirth (40 days following the birth of a girl and 80 days following the birth of a boy Leviticus 12). Interestingly, the prohibition on “exposing her fountain” or “source” while a woman is menstruating is in the same class with incest, adultery, sodomy and bestiality (Leviticus 18:27-30)

  459. Molly Ellick says:

    80 for a girl child and 40 for a man child🙂

  460. That’s what I get for banging out a comment before I’ve had a cup of coffee. Thank you Molly, you can be sure I won’t mix them up next time.

  461. Don Quixote says:

    @ Dalrock: we can take this to Toad’s blog if you would prefer. Just let us know.

    Artisanal Toad says:
    February 3, 2016 at 11:40 am

    @Don Quixote
    But it must apply to all female divorcees, as Rom.7:2&3 specifically address this directly. Not just those you have identified in the circumstances above. You must be consistent in your application of these verses. I won’t be convinced by any bull$h_t divorce apologetics on this.

    Huh? Deuteronomy 22:13-21 does not mention divorce at all so I really don’t have any idea how you equate that with Romans 7;2-3. Seriously. The woman, if found not to be a virgin when she got married, was to be stoned to death because no matter what the details involved what she did was an act of adultery. So, I’m really not seeing how you got the issue of divorce out of this.

    Sorry my mistake regarding Rom.7:2&3 I was trying to run ahead of the discussion.
    I have always understood that passage [Deut.22:13-21] as her attempt to hide her sin and deceive her newly acquired husband into marriage without her virginity. The explanation you have provided sheds another light on that. These 2 views summarised are below, correct me if I misrepresent you view:
    1) In my understanding she committed rebellion, fornication and then later on deception regarding her virginity.
    2) In your explanation is she committed rebellion, marriage[?], and then adultery by deception.

    Both explanations sound good except for the different implications, as in Rom.7:2&3.

    Likewise, Romans 7:2-3 does not mention divorce either.

    Agreed. And perhaps this is not a suitable example in the context of Deut.22:13-21 because death resolves any lingering doubts regarding the status of the fornicating fiancee.

    As of right now, according to what Scripture says on divorce,

    A woman who was divorced by her non-Christian husband for sexual immorality is legitimately divorced, she is no longer married and free to remarry (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

    I’m not sure how you’re presenting this? According to Moses she is free to remarry. According to Jesus she is not free to remarry and retain the righteous standing of His atonement.
    Jesus repeatedly taught; “whosoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery”. Perhaps you could provide a better explain of your position? If I understand your view correctly here it suggests that her adultery is the way to be free of her husband…?

    A Christian woman whose unbelieving husband will not consent to live with her and leaves her is free to remarry (1st Cor. 7:39).

    Again we disagree. We have been through this previously. If you or anyone is interested in this my reasoning is here:
    http://oncemarried.net/various-objections.html#What%20about%201Cor.7:15?

    [Remove comments I agree with]

    Under the New Covenant, the wife has the right to take whatever legal measures might be necessary in the case in which her unbelieving husband left her because in such a situation she is free.

    Again I disagree. Your contention is that the scripture gives a wife the authority to usurp her husband’s position is wrong. She is bound as long as he lives. Now you make an appeal to the nanny state for her rebellion, they will welcome such requests with cash and prizes.

    From that perspective, I’d say well over 99% of all divorces are illegitimate, meaning the couple is not actually divorced. However, the point is well made that one who was never married cannot divorce. Current studies show that only about 5% of the general population are still virgins when they marry, so given the fact that the number of non-virgin women whose father actually annulled their marriage to the guy they gave their virginity to is so small as to approach zero, it seems that 95% of the divorces out there aren’t actually divorces, they’re just cases of people living in state-sanctioned adultery legally dissolving their adulterous union..

    If you got married in a protestant church of some stripe [and many catholic too] you most likely took the standard vow. You are bound by that vow until death.

    Only if you actually got married. Those vows are null and void if you made them in a fraudulent ceremony, the ceremony being fraudulent because the woman standing next to you was some other man’s wife. Honestly, it’s comments like that one that convince me of the lack of comprehension.

    Again this discussion has been difficult for me because for the last 25 – 30 years I have understood that passage from a slightly different perspective. When reading your arguments I have to reprocess the implications in a slightly different way. Thanks again for your time and effort.

  462. @Don Quixote

    I wish there was an easy way to explain this in twitter-sized comments, but that isn’t possible. You might want to read this over several times before trying to rip it apart.

    On your blog you said:

    If in 1Cor. 7:15 the apostle Paul gives grounds for divorce and remarriage, then he blatantly contradicts himself in 1Cor.7:39 and again in Rom. 7:2 For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. And contradicts the ‘whosoever’ doctrine of Jesus.

    I think this sheds some light on the problem. You are describing what is known as an “antinomy” which is where there is a contradiction in the interpretation of several portions of Scripture. Antinomies are not allowed. The problem is the Apostle Paul *did* give grounds for divorce and remarriage in 1st Corinthians 7:15 and there is no contradiction with the rest of the text. I perceive that the antinomy you have identified is the result of several issues, chief of which is your misunderstanding of divorce.

    What I’d like you to do is consider what I’m saying, knowing that it disagrees with pretty much everything you’ve ever been taught. The people who are responsible for this were some of the most brilliant minds who have ever lived and they dedicated their lives to study in an era unencumbered by electronic distractions. They tinkered with their doctrine for about a thousand years and in some cases they modified the wording of Scripture to suit their ends. The doctrines they laid down were so pervasive and culturally accepted that translators found it very difficult to not default to the established doctrines when they translated the text.

    [Some translation problems were honest mistakes, especially in the King James version, because for that translation the text went from Greek to Latin to English. It wasn’t until a hundred years later that we got the first Greek to English lexicon (the Liddle Scott James), but the fact remains that the translators sometimes had to choose what they thought was the best interpretation of words that have different variations in meaning. In those cases their presumptions and biases induced by their culture had an impact.]

    The book of Deuteronomy is somewhat misunderstood. Some call it a sermon, some call it a restatement of the Law, some call it the last message from Moses to the people. It’s all of that and more, but one key point needs to be made about Deuteronomy and that is this; many of the passages in Deuteronomy represent judgments that Moses made while sitting as the judge of Israel. The concept is known as “stare decisis” which means ‘once decided, always decided.” Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is one of these, as is Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and 28-29. I can point to many others, but suffice to say that *because* these were the judgments that Moses made, they became part of the Law and the Law cannot be changed. We must take it as an article of faith that God intended these judgments, or at worst, that God permitted them. In any case, it is part of God’s Law. To go further into that discussion is to get into dispensational vs covenant theology and I’m not going there today.

    We must keep in mind who Moses was (the man who spoke to God face to face) and what his authority was (leader and judge of Israel). Lest you think that I am claiming that Moses made mistakes in the Law, I am not. Sometimes things go off course from the original plan, as is the case of the judgment on divorce, but Moses was the servant of the Lord and God backed him up completely.

    As I’ve already pointed out, Genesis 2:24 is the authority to initiate marriage, it is granted to the man (and no other person or group), it is not limited (polygyny is permitted) and it does not contain the authority to end a marriage, only to begin one.

    On the subject of divorce, in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 Moses gave his judgment, sitting as the judge of Israel. We know this was a judgment of Moses because of the commentary by Jesus in Matthew 19. “Moses permitted you…” Jesus was the Word made flesh and He knew God’s will better than any person ever born. When asked what the grounds for divorce were He cited Genesis 2:24 and pointed to the lack of authority to end a marriage. The Pharisees brought up the judgment of Moses and Jesus pointed out “but from the beginning it has not been this way.” That means two things:

    1st, He made a statement that divorce was not part of God’s original plan.
    2nd, He acknowledged that under the Law, divorce is permitted.

    Then, He gave the famous “exception” that just about everybody gets wrong because of the doctrines they’ve been taught. Not because they’re stupid or because they don’t study. The problem is somewhat akin to reading a map. First, you orient the map to the terrain. Once that’s done you can take your bearings, plot your course and do what you need to do. However, what just about everyone overlooks, because it is so basic, is the legend on the map is the guide for interpreting everything on the map. Change the legend and while everything appears to work, you don’t understand what you’re looking at and wind up making wrong decisions. Especially if there is a strong emotional desire to believe the legend.

    In Matthew 19 Jesus responded to what Moses said in Deuteronomy 24:

    When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house…” Deuteronomy 24:1

    As you already know, the two prevailing schools of thought at that time were those of Rabbi Hillel and Rabbi Shammai; Hillel claiming divorce was permissible for virtually any reason and Shammai claiming that it was only justifiable in cases of adultery.

    Jesus interpreted what Moses said in the strictest terms, saying “If any man divorces his wife, except for the cause of ‘porneia’…”

    I won’t go over the definition of porneia again, but a good proxy in English is “marital unfaithfulness.” Look at the structure of the language Jesus used: IF a man divorces his wife [for any cause] EXCEPT for marital unfaithfulness, THEN…

    Structurally, we see there is a differentiation between those divorces for marital unfaithfulness and all other divorces. With respect to the “all other divorces” group, Jesus said

    “and marries another woman [he] commits adultery.”

    Here’s the first problem with what we see. Adultery is a crime that involves a married woman and without a married woman there can be no adultery. So, the ONLY way the man who is in the group of “all other divorces” can be committing adultery is if the woman he marries is someone else’s wife.

    Please keep in mind that Jesus could NOT change the Law without being in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32. Transgressing that command would have been a sin, which would mean He wasn’t the Messiah. Therefore, Jesus was NOT making any change to the Law by creating some new definition of adultery. K?

    That point is critical. Jesus was NOT introducing something new here. Yet, there is another problem with the text, in that going by the early manuscripts, there are actually three versions of this text:

    1. “If any man divorces his wife, except for the cause of ‘porneia’ and marries another woman [he] commits adultery.”

    2. “If any man divorces his wife, except for the cause of ‘porneia’ he makes her commit adultery.”

    3. “If any man divorces his wife, except for the cause of ‘porneia’ he makes her commit adultery and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

    I believe there is a reason that #1 is the preferred choice of translators, because what it says in English supported false church doctrine that forbid a man from having more than one wife. Still, the meaning becomes clear if we look carefully at the context (talking about all the cases in which the woman was divorced for some reason OTHER than ‘porneia’) and then look at the word “another” to see what it means. That word, in Greek, is “allos” (Strong’s 243) and it is defined as:

    ” another of the same kind; another of a similar type.”

    Knowing that adultery is a crime in which a married woman is required, the text tells us:
    **A woman divorced for any reason other than marital unfaithfulness is not legitimately divorced, she is still married.
    **Such an illegitimately divorced woman commits adultery if she marries another man.
    **The man who marries “another” (of the same kind; of a similar type) illegitimately divorced woman commits adultery.

    Takeaway points:

    1. Matthew 19:9 is NOT speaking of a legitimately divorced woman who was given a certificate of divorce by her husband and sent away because she committed marital unfaithfulness.

    2. Matthew 19:9 is focused solely on the woman who was NOT legitimately divorced for marital unfaithfulness, a woman who is STILL MARRIED but has the legal status of a divorced woman.

    3. To marry such a divorced woman is to commit adultery.

    4. Jesus is NOT saying that *all* divorced women are illegitimately divorced and thus still married and He is NOT saying that a man commits adultery if he marries a legitimately divorced woman.

    There is literally no way around this. Under the correct conditions (marital unfaithfulness) the LAW permits a man to legitimately divorce his wife and that divorced woman may legitimately marry another man without committing adultery. He who marries a legitimately divorced woman does not commit adultery. The point of Deuteronomy 24:4 was that the woman who defiled herself with marital unfaithfulness and was sent away was not allowed to return and be restored as a wife, even if she was at a later point free to remarry. It was not the divorce that defiled her, neither was it her legitimate marriage to another, it was her own actions that were judged by her (original) husband as serious enough that it warranted divorce. To take her back was to accept her infidelity.

    BUT, that isn’t the end of the story. Return to what Jesus said earlier in the passage when He said “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” and “but from the beginning it has not been this way.” He was pointing to Genesis 2:24’s lack of authority for the man to end a marriage as the original plan for marriage but in NO WAY did Jesus deny that the Law allowed men to legitimately divorce their wives for reason of marital unfaithfulness.

    SO… with that understanding we turn to 1st Corinthians 7:10-15 (For clarity’s sake I’ve put the translator’s alternative translations in brackets)

    “But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave [depart from] her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce [leave] his wife.

    But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her [leave her]. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away [leave her husband] . For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband [the brother]; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.”

    The first thing we should notice is there are two authorities speaking in this passage, and they are addressing two different groups. In verses 10-11, the Lord Jesus Christ is addressing His married believers, meaning two Christians who are married to each other. This is important because for two married Christians wedded to each other, there is no divorce. There is literally nothing that can end the marriage other than death and no exceptions to this rule.

    Context: I know you guys get really tired of me bringing this up, but part of the context here is that the man is authorized to have more than one wife. Notice that if the wife leaves, she is commanded to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to her husband. Not her ex-husband. However, the husband is given no such command because he is authorized to marry another woman. In other words, no wife has the right/ability/authority to sentence her husband to sexual starvation by leaving him and then remaining chaste, unwilling to reconcile herself to him.

    This command is completely in accord with what Jesus said in Matthew 19:3-9. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” However, without providing an explanation or details, He implies that perhaps the time might come when a wife must choose to violate the command not to leave her husband, perhaps because staying would be worse. If she does so the text is clear that she is still married and not authorized to marry another.

    Again, we have two authorities speaking to two groups. Christ was speaking to those who were wed in unions in which both man and woman are Christians. Paul takes up the instruction beginning in verse twelve, beginning with the words But to the rest I say, not the Lord…” and he made it clear that what followed was from him, speaking with his apostolic authority rather than a direct command from the Lord.

    Again, Christ spoke to Christians married to each other, Paul is speaking to the rest. What are the rest? The text makes it clear that Paul is speaking to those unequally yoked, the unions in which the Christian is married to an unbeliever. The text also makes clear “the rest” are not in the same category as the first group.

    First, to “the rest” comes the command to stay with the unbeliever and not leave them, send them away or divorce them IF the unbeliever consents to the relationship. The reason is the believer in the relationship sanctifies the unbelieving spouse as well as the children.

    Then comes what is known as the “Pauline privilege” in which Paul says:

    “Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace.”

    Notice I put the word “bondage” in bold. Let’s compare that to 1st Corinthians 7:39 and then look at definitions:

    “A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord.”

    Bondage: Translated from the Greek word “douloó” (Strong’s 1402)

    Cognate: 1402 doulóō – enslave (passive, “become enslaved”), focusing on the status of being a bond-slave. In contrast to the other verb-form of the same root (1398 /douleúō), 1402 (doulóō) stresses the results (effects) of enslavement. That is, what automatically goes with belonging to another. See 1401 (doulos).

    Bound: Translated from the Greek word “deó” (Strong’s 1210)

    I bind, tie, fasten; I impel, compel; I declare to be prohibited and unlawful.

    In Matthew 19 Christ made it clear that there was to be no divorce. That is the rule. However, because of the Law, there is one exception to the rule and Christ defined exactly what that exception is.

    In 1st Corinthians 7 Christ made it clear that for His bondservants married to one another, there is to be no divorce, no exceptions. He is free to command His servants and He has done so. However, for those servants of His who are unequally yoked, they are commanded to remain as they are, married to the unbeliever. The one exception to this is if the unbeliever will not consent to live with them and leaves. At that point they are no longer in bondage to that person.

    There is no more a contradiction between the statements of Christ in Matthew 19 than there is in 1st Corinthians 7. The rule is given, the exception to the rule is stated and the rule is again re-stated, just as it is stated in other places in Scripture (Romans 7:2). Notice what Romans 7:2 says and pay attention to the text:

    “For the married woman is bound by law to her husband while he is living; but if her husband dies, she is released from the law concerning the husband.”

    The Law provided a way for a husband to unbind himself from his wife, leaving her unbound from him, but only for marital unfaithfulness on her part.

    In the same way, the instruction in 1st Corinthians 7:15 states that a believing wife who is married to an unbeliever who will not live with her is no longer bound to him (no longer in bondage to him).

    This exegesis creates no antinomy and 1st Corinthians 7:15 is thus in harmony with verse 39 as well as with Romans 7:2 and follows the same pattern laid out in the Law in Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and exposited by the Lord in Matthew 19:3-9, so I leave you with the words of the Lord in Matthew 19:10-11

    The disciples said to Him, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given.”

    Now, lest you think I’m some kind of apologist for divorce (which is a real hoot if you’ve read the stuff I’ve written about divorce over the past few years), consider the four groups of women who were at one time married but now are *legitimately* no longer married and thus eligible to marry again, in descending order of the likelihood that you’d ever meet one:

    The first group are those legitimately married women who have an unbelieving husband (and it doesn’t matter if the wife is a believer or not). He, not being a Christian and subject to the “house rules” that servants of Christ are, is free to legitimately divorce his unfaithful wife and be free from her. Such a woman is legitimately divorced by her unbelieving husband and free to remarry.

    The second group are those legitimately married women whose husband died. They are known as widows and are free to remarry (If she is a believer, she must marry another believer).

    The third group are those Christian women who were legitimately married to an unbelieving husband, but ONLY those cases in which the unbelieving husband would not consent to live with them and left. In those cases the believing woman is no longer under bondage and is free to marry another (but only if he is in Christ).

    The fourth group are those women who, in their youth and while living in their father’s house under his authority, entered into a marriage by giving their virginity to a man; and their father, upon hearing about it annulled that marriage in the day he heard about it.

    Group one women were guilty of betraying their husband. Group four women were guilty of betraying their father. Group three women may or may not have been culpable in driving their unbelieving husband away, so only the widow is free from any charge (although it’s always possible she’s a black widow who murdered her husband and didn’t get caught).

    Every member of these groups possess three characteristics: They are free to remarry, they are no longer virgins and their consent to marry is required, as opposed to virgins, whose consent is not required. The other thing about these gals is you’ll almost never meet one of them because if you noticed, I said “legitimately married” and the vast majority of “wives” both in the church and without are *not* legitimately married to the guy they claim to be married to.

    Everyone has problems with the fact that every non-virgin is either married or she’s been married. The only “never-married” woman you can possibly meet is a virgin. Now, I’m not in the mood to discuss “vaginal virgins” in this age of anal and casual blowjobs, but I will draw the line in accordance with the text that a woman is either virgin, married or previously married. No other choices.

    What makes Christians scream in frustration is if you search Scripture you’ll find that NOWHERE is having sex with one of these women outside the bounds of marriage forbidden, prohibited or condemned in any way. It is therefore not sinful behavior. It cannot be described as “fornication” of “illicit sex” because those things are sin and having sex outside the bounds of marriage with one of the women in those four groups is not a sinful.

    Am I saying that guys should go ahead and do it? No. Just because something isn’t forbidden does not mean it’s wise, healthy, beneficial or good. In fact, it doesn’t mean it couldn’t be a sin. Please pay attention: Just because something isn’t prohibited does not mean that it couldn’t be a sin. While not prohibited or condemned, the act could be a sin IF it is “not of faith” (Romans 14:23) or IF the person knows that for them, *not* having sex outside of marriage is the right thing to do, in which case not doing what they know to be right is a sin (James 4:17). However, in both these cases it’s a matter of conscience and we are commanded not to judge in such matters.

    Let’s say you met a nice woman who is *eligible* to marry (meaning she’s either a virgin or one of the four groups listed above). You get to know her, you like what you see, you talk it over with her and the two of you agree to get married. *Because* you have the intent to marry her and *because* she has given her consent to be married, having sex with her will be the consummation of your marriage to her because nothing else is required. If she is a virgin, her willingness to give you her virginity is her consent to be married to you.

    If life were a movie, everything could be perfect, but life doesn’t always work that way. Let’s say you’re seeing a woman who is eligible to marry, getting to know her, and although you have not yet decided you intend to marry her… things get out of hand, physical urges take over and you have sex. You haven’t sinned and neither has she. Or, maybe you have. That all depends on your conscience or her conscience. Yes, it happens, but what about intent? Was your intent really to find a suitable wife, or was your intent just to get laid? The fact there is no bright red line with sin on one side and righteousness on the other side means that intent counts for a lot. At least, that’s my way of thinking. What’s the difference between a slut and a whore? Is it the money or the attitude? Isn’t it reasonable to ask the same question about the men?

    But, let’s say you’re seeing a woman and she isn’t eligible to marry (meaning she’s already married, whether she knows it or not) and for whatever reason you have sex with her. That is what is known as adultery. What I know to be true is that virtually any “single” woman a guy meets that isn’t a virgin is already married and banging her is adultery. And… can you trust her if she tells you she is a virgin?

    At this point any man seriously considering marriage to any non-virgin woman should go over the passages in question with her and her father, explain what they mean, have her confess to her father and ask him to annul her marriage. Failing that, locate the guy she gave her virginity to and if he isn’t a Christian get him to give her a certificate of divorce. Failing that, the only question is whether he’s willing to live with her as her husband. If he won’t, she’s free because he’s the unbelieving husband who won’t consent to live with her. If he is willing, her choice is to be reconciled with her husband or to remain separate, unmarried and chaste. Her choice.

    The only way out for a Christian woman who married a Christian man is if she married him while in her youth, living in her father’s house and he didn’t know about it. Not having given his approval, he has the right to annul the marriage in the day he hears about it and Numbers 30 doesn’t have any time limits. If he won’t (her guilt would be on him) then she’s stuck with the guy she married until the day he dies.

    Nobody has to like it, they just have to obey.

  463. Don Quixote says:

    Thanks again Artisanal Toad for you effort. Although I don’t agree with everything above, I will consider what you have said over the coming days…weeks. I may or may not respond. Peace in Jesus name.

  464. vohlman says:

    I think he meant I Corinthians 7:12-13.

  465. Keith MacDonald says:

    As a Roman Catholic, marriage is a sacrament of my faith. However, I have never been married, nor have any of my 3 brothers (we are in our 40’s and f50’s now). There is no percentage in it for men. Women can do everything men can do (except lift heavy objects, cut the grass, clean the garage, replace the gutters, change the oil in the car, etc.)

    Remaining single has many advantages, women are unbridled about premarital sex and freely offer it. Feminism’s byproduct has been freedom for me and my brethren and I wholly embrace it. My brothers are all well educated, we all have richly successful careers, multiple homes, travel extensively, don’t have to ask permission to go to a baseball/football/basketball/hockey game. We can watch car races all day on Sunday without being denigrated for behaving like “adolescent boys”. We can own fast cars, date fast women, not visit with in-laws and fight about holidays. I can leave the toilet seat up, towels on the floor, build model airplanes in the dining room, watch movies with gratuitous violence and do all of this while wearing gym shorts and a t-shirt. In other words, things I could never do if I was married.

    I realized early on that I did not need to get married to have children either. I adopted my cousin’s 2 children when their parents were unable to care for them. They have been the joy of my life and are now grown and in college. I am proud of them and they are a credit to their family and society and all of this was accomplished without an acrimonious marriage. Both of these children tell their friends that they were raised by 4 fathers, me and my brothers). News Flash: Men can be good parents too.

    Men are portrayed as buffoons and incompetent morons by popular media and nearly every television broadcast. Imagine if women were portrayed this way, it would be the shriek heard around the world.

    If a female is unhappy, she needs to blame herself, not her husband/boyfriend/partner. I will never agree with the idea that elevating a women’s sense of self worth must be accomplished by denigrating men.

    Enuff is Enuff.

  466. Jim says:

    You’re living the dream Keith.

    News Flash: Men can be good parents too.

    Actually we make even better parents than women when we put our minds to it. There is a lot of evidence that proves a child is far more likely to become a criminal if raised by a single mom than either by both parents or a single dad.

    you know, I see all of this crap so easily and yet so many people are so fucking blind to all this. It’s just outright insanity. But I guess people see and hear what they want.

  467. Pingback: Honor Dads

  468. Pingback: Why am I so much better than other men? | Dalrock

  469. Chip Pacer says:

    Fantastic observations as always ! And re: the Mom’s Night Out’ and the ‘hapless’ reference and observation: society in general has seen us as hapless for years as portrayed by the ‘Al Bundy’s’ in sitcoms to the dads who turn blenders on with the top off in carpet cleaning ads. But what has been most disappointing to me is how our pastors perpetuate this image and thinking. In our church the annual Women’s Retreat has to end after dinner on Saturday nights so that the women can be home on Sunday morning ‘to make sure that the kids get to church and are presentable’.

    Thanks pastor. Never mind that I run a multi-million dollar business – without my wife around on Sunday and if it were left up to me, the kids would resemble something in between ‘The Little Rascals’ and ‘The Flintstone Kids’ at church on Sunday morning. That is, if I got them to church at all.

  470. Pingback: Did Jesus Really Say A Man Commits Adultery If He Marries A Divorced Woman? | Toad's Hall

  471. Pingback: Why Marriage Is a Lie (not Gonna Get It, Part II) « HOLY HELLFIRE

  472. Pingback: Why doesn’t this 28 year old manboy want to become respectable? | Dalrock

  473. Pingback: What Prager and Wilcox are selling. | Dalrock

  474. EastBay1 says:

    Let’s see… We men should invest in and sign a legally binding contract on a rapidly depreciating cock carousel rider. She has a 66-75% of unilaterally terminating the contract. The contract has a 50% rate of failure, and said failure results in financial and psychological devastation.

    But hey, let’s just all “man up” and get married anyway. After all, if we try reeeeeeely hard, Cuckstianity will save us, eh Dalrock?

  475. Pingback: Good advice for interesting times. | Dalrock

  476. Jim says:

    Let’s see… We men should invest in and sign a legally binding contract on a rapidly depreciating cock carousel rider. She has a 66-75% of unilaterally terminating the contract. The contract has a 50% rate of failure, and said failure results in financial and psychological devastation.

    But hey, let’s just all “man up” and get married anyway. After all, if we try reeeeeeely hard, Cuckstianity will save us, eh Dalrock?

    Exactly. There’s no point. I won’t have a cunt sit in my house who holds a gun in her hand and has the power to pull the trigger anytime she damn well feels like it and actually get rewarded for it while I can the shaft. No thanks. MGTOW all the way.

  477. Lost Patrol says: