The fear of confonting sexual sin by women.

This last week I’ve been writing about the fear of confronting sin by women in the form of abortion.  But the fear of confronting sin by women is pervasive, and therefore twists nearly all modern teaching on women and sin.  It doesn’t just show up with regard to abortion, it shows up with women’s discontentment in marriage, women envying and usurping men’s roles, wives denying sex, and wives usurping headship.  And of course, it also twists modern teaching on women and sexual sin.

At Dr. John Piper’s Desiring God, Pastor Matt Chandler describes a traumatic experience where he tricked an unrepentant adulteress into attending church, only to have the pastor teach that sexual sin is ugly.

My freshman year of college I randomly sat next to a twenty six year old single mother…

Me and some of my crew would go over to her house and babysit her daughter. She was actually in an extramarital affair at the time with a married man, and so we would talk through that and the wisdom in that. This is the relationship we had, just kind of serving her and trying to explain to her spiritual things…

And so I said a good friend of mine is in a band, he is playing, why don’t you come hear him.  And so she agreed, she thought it would be a concert.  I knew better, it was shady, it was excellent.

The music was excellent, but during the sermon the pastor preached on the ugliness of fornication and adultery;  this made the woman Chandler had tricked into attending uncomfortable.

Clearly this traumatic experience has impacted the way Pastor Chandler teaches about sexual immorality.  When discussing sexual sin, Chandler is careful to frame women’s sin as caused by a man.  Just like women are victims of the abortionist they pay to kill their unborn child, they are the victim of the men they seek out for illicit sex.  In his sermon Women’s Purpose Chandler speaks to single mothers:

…maybe, God help you, you got involved with a boy who could shave, where you got caught up with a guy who looked like a man but ended up not being one, and now you have a child, God is going to enter that space and he’s going to be merciful and gracious. So don’t lose heart.

Notice that there is no repentance required because the fault for the woman’s sexual immorality lies with the man she had sex with.  He either wasn’t good enough for her to marry, or refused to marry her after they had sex.  This is the complementarian spin on women’s sacred path to marriage.

Similarly, in Woman’s Hurdles Chandler prays for the men women didn’t find good enough to marry, or who wouldn’t marry when the woman decided she had found the one who needed to commit to her:

Father, for men in this room who prey on insecure women with wounded hearts, Father, I just pray over these men a type of weight on their souls that would be crushing. Father, I thank you that you do not take lightly wolves hunting down your daughters and that there would be a day that these men, hollow-chested boys in grown up bodies will cry out as you come for mountains to fall and that the mountains will flee before your coming.

I thank you that you are a just judge who will not handle lightly boys who can shave who take advantage of your daughters. I pray that there might be repentance for these men for the salvation of their own soul. Enter these spaces.  They’re complex and hard. I pray for my sisters. Help us.

Again, repentance for sexual immorality is only for the men, even though this is a sermon on women’s sins.  In fact, if you do a word search in Hurdles for the word repent, you will find four instances of the word.  On page 4 he tells men they need to repent if their wives feel the temptation of feminist resentment.  On page 18 he tells women to repent if they have been trying too hard to be perfect wives and mothers.  On page 19 he prays that God will sooth the women in the audience as they repent of their perfectionism.  Finally, also on page 19 he tells men to repent for causing women to sin sexually (the quote above).

As just another example of this, Matt Schmucker writes* in Sex and the Supremacy of Christ (edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor):

We do not want a brother standing at the altar on his wedding day looking at his beautiful bride only to imagine behind her the boys and men who took advantage of her and robbed her of the trust and confidence that she now needs for her husband. We do not want a sister standing at the altar on her wedding day looking at her handsome groom only to imagine behind him a string of relationships with girls and women he failed to honor, and knowing that images in his head from pornography use and past flings may stick with him for a long time.

*HT Darwinian Armenian

This entry was posted in Complementarian, Dr. John Piper, Pastor Matt Chandler, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

271 Responses to The fear of confonting sexual sin by women.

  1. Pingback: The fear of confonting sexual sin by women. | Neoreactive

  2. Novaseeker says:

    It’s really hard for me to understand the motivation.

    Is it the desire to refrain from offending women, based on the fear that if they do, women won’t come, and, because women make up a large percentage of their congregation, their churches will fail?

    Is it based on a stubbornly wrong interpretation of Genesis 3?

    Is it based on some kind of Victorian tradition, based on the patriarchal system, where men are to “cover” for the crimes and sins of their wives, even though this patriarchal system no longer applies?

    Is it based on a failure to actually read the Gospels, where Christ rebukes women for sinning (and sexual sins, too), telling them to repent?

    Or is it because they are simply feminine men — men who worship women as goddesses on Earth and denigrate men as walking evil?

    It’s very hard to understand what the actual motivations are, but the behavior is truly bizarre.

  3. …maybe, God help you, you got involved with a boy who could shave, where you got caught up with a guy who looked like a man but ended up not being one, and now you have a child,

    Once again, Christian AMOG Game in effect. What I see taking place is the complete carte blanch absolving of women’s moral agency while simultaneously redefining manhood to align with everything even peripherally involved in men’s accountability for women’s lack of moral agency.

  4. Feminist Hater says:

    Lol, what a tard! His chest is full of hot air!

  5. Out of Nod says:

    @Novaseeker According to Quick facts on the gender gap (http://churchformen.com/men-and-church/where-are-the-men/) 61% of the church crowd is typically female. Pastors usually draw their paycheck from their congregation. When I was at Mars Hill, I remember Mark Driscoll stated that women gave more often then the men did and if this is true, women provide more for the pastors lively hood. Pastors are not going to “attack” the people who provide for their lively hood.

  6. Novaseeker says:

    Pastors are not going to “attack” the people who provide for their lively hood.

    Right, well that would be the first motive I mentioned then. Perhaps it really is as simple as that.

  7. Sean says:

    I wonder how much of this is due to so many of these AMOG “pastors” of the CBMW type having daughters. They pedestalize their daughters, think they can do no wrong, let them come Sunday in stretchy pants and a baggy sweater that’s too short and won’t do anything about it.

    I have only heard one sermon on modesty. Albert Martin from NJ lit into his congregation. He did in the way those that preach God’s sovereignty yell at the top of their lungs to repent, believe but, when it comes to the women in the pews, immediately look for ways around the topic. Wish I had a link ….

  8. Daniel says:

    He delights to insult promiscuous men calling them “wolves”…”who prey”…”hollow chested” and “boys who can shave.” I was touched by his apparent love for the sinful woman, but I sense no love for sinful men.

  9. Neguy says:

    I just read Chandler’s new book on dating and marriage. It uses a scriptural scaffold (Song of Solomon) but is basically a secular advice book. That’s almost inevitable since the Bible does not really talk about dating as we have it today. It’s blue pill to the max even where red pill truth is literally staring us in the face. He does note that men want sex, and they want their wives to be eager for sex with them not merely doing it out of duty, and that women more often than men are the ones holding back the sex. So it’s not monolithically bad, but still 90% blue pill. He uses himself as an example of what not to do at any time, but his wife is completely pedestalized.

  10. Matt Robison says:

    I’ve heard that “Jesus wants the rose” story from someone else, with slight differences, so I think it might be an apocryphal bogeyman.

    While it’s true that Jesus died for that rose, Jesus also tells the rose to “go and sin no more.”

  11. thedeti says:

    “It’s really hard for me to understand the motivation.”

    Most men in general are terrified of women’s emotional reactions to pretty much everything. It’s because, as you’ve said before, most men will get drawn into a woman’s frame on things like this, Men will respond to women’s emotional reactions with emotional replies of their own.

    Man states X is sin, women engage in X, therefore women are sinning when they engage in X.

    Women respond emotionally with justification, explanation, outrage, anger, hurt, pain, etc.

    Men reply with logical response “I understand you are hurt/mad, but X is still sin and you are sinning when you do X”

    Women put fingers in ears and say LALALALALALALA I can’t hear you!! And NO SEX FOR YOU! And I am not coming here ever again because Men are assholes!”

    Men reply with “Don’t react that way. It’s just a fact that X is a sin. Why is this such an issue?”

    Women respond by refusing to attend church, refusing to attend a particular church or set of churches, go all Lysistrata on their husbands, and generally start isolating and withdrawing from their husbands.

    It’s an attempt to draw men out of logic and into the emotional frame, because most men cannot communicate with a woman effectively without entering her “emotional” frame. Most women tune out men who aren’t appealing to her emotions.

    Men are terrified of this. So they say something to help her emotions feel good, and avoid the whole rigmarole above.

    Also: In my example exchange, note the men gradually backing away from logic and starting to appeal to emotion. First it’s all logic. Then it’s asking “why is this an issue”. It goes from “YOU are sinning when YOU do X” to “It’s a fact that X is a sin”.

  12. thedeti says:

    AND:

    The moment a man enters her emotional frame, he’s lost. Because emotions and feelings are women’s domains. A man cannot win once he starts engaging her emotions about “X is a sin and women are sinning when they do X”. A man cannot win once ANYTHING enters the emotional/feelings realm.

  13. Athor Pel says:

    Of the women that Jesus healed or dealt with directly he required them to repent. He flat out told them all to “sin no more”. I don’t remember Him asking any of them about which man they should blame for their sin.

    If a pastor does not do what Jesus did then the pastor does not love Jesus and therefore has no part in the kingdom of God.

  14. Novaseeker says:

    They pedestalize their daughters, think they can do no wrong, let them come Sunday in stretchy pants and a baggy sweater that’s too short and won’t do anything about it.

    Oh, this is everywhere now, and it’s a nuclear issue that nothing can be done about.

    Just an aside. My workplace went fully casual last year, with the proviso that clothing needed to be tasteful, no shorts, micro-minis, flip flops, etc (this is pretty much always directed at the women, mind you, because the guys just show up in jeans and a shirt anyway). Anyway, so, the women who can pull it off are generally turning up in clothes that do not reveal much skin at all, if any, but may as well have been painted onto their bodies. Both stretch leggings and super-tight jeans, and both worn with 4 inch heels, of course, to accentuate the display, with tops that do not go further than the waist. This clothing is, of course, highly inappropriate for an office, but it is impossible to complain in the current atmosphere without the complaint backfiring against you — and that’s the case even if a woman were to complain about it. In the current environment, you simply cannot say anything at all about a woman’s sartorial choices without being deemed a toxic misogynist, full stop. So they dress pretty much as they like — no they don’t turn up in flip flops and halter tops, but they push right up to the line of things that are not explicitly forbidden by the rules, and then if guys are actually noticing them, of course that would be harassment. It’s insane.

    Now, of course, the office is one thing and church is another, but really, I can understand why pastors won’t call this out. The current environment simply forbids men from calling out women on their dress — it simply cannot be done, even in the context of a church. The culture does not permit it — it condemns it, and turns it around against the man who does so, while supporting the woman in her choices — basically the man is called out for even noticing how the woman is dressed (he must be filled with evil lust and impure thoughts to even notice such things, no?), while the woman is supported for “dressing confidently”. This is pretty much in all contexts — offices, churches, what have you.

  15. SnapperTrx says:

    These men cut off their testicles to spite their own sex. Shame on them! They are not preaching the gospel of Christ, which is “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!”, but the gospel of self, which is the gospel of satan! They preach that women have no sin! (If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.”). Woe to those who use the word of God to deceive, and woe to those who know the word of God, yet continue to BE deceived! Both will suffer the same fate!

  16. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    Pastors are not going to “attack” the people who provide for their lively hood.

    Right, well that would be the first motive I mentioned then. Perhaps it really is as simple as that.

    I don’t think it is simply financial. See Chandler in the video. Calling out women’s sin, calling it ugly, makes him profoundly uncomfortable. He doesn’t say it in the clip, but obviously the woman he tricked into attending the sermon was unhappy with him, and her being unhappy was extremely painful for him. He wanted to be her nice guy Christian white knight, but ended up being involved with her confronting the ugliness of her sexual sin instead. One feels good. The other does not. I think it really boils down to that.

    Calling out the sins of men is easy, and feels heroic. Calling out the sins of women is hard and makes you feel bad. They will rationalize and get angry and tell you what a terrible man you are. As a result Christian men very strongly tend to focus on what is easy and feels good, while doing whatever it takes to avoid what is hard and makes them feel bad.

  17. BubbaCluck says:

    Menfolk, especially the ones that shave, are doing a whole lot of raping! After all, the women are never at fault. This staggers my mind.

  18. Looking Glass says:

    @Novaseeker:

    Remember that the paradoxical assumptions of the Blue Pill is that Men & Women are extremely similar AND Men should White-Knight for Women (because that’s “Manly”). Add in the fact that all Christians are now “of the world” not just “in the world” and it’s quite frankly just “in the water”.

    Further, being a “professional” Christian generally doesn’t pay great if you’re in it for the Lord, but it’s a great way to make money if you’re in it for the Money. Always important to understand. (A good study of why RCC or Orthodox Priestly practices ended up as they have mostly revolves around anti-corruption measures. Money being a big one.)

  19. hoellenhund2 says:

    This cannot continue forever. The narrative about women lacking any agency will have to be jettisoned when the West turns into an all-out matriarchy.

  20. enrique says:

    “Me and some of my crew would go over to her house and babysit her daughter. She was actually in an extramarital affair at the time with a married man, and so we would talk through that and the wisdom in that. This is the relationship we had, just kind of serving her and trying to explain to her spiritual things…”

    I call this blackSpeak. It’s a way of framing things, as African-Americans often do, with a type of reversal to avoid the reality of the facts (honed from decades of hearing them speak). Never mind his “crew” comment, his whole “we would talk through that and the wisdom in that.” which obviously is nonsensical, sounds like Tavis Smiley’s “I mean, if you want to go there, we can speak to that…” It is rhetoric, words without meaning or substance, or words that often contradict the spirit of what is actually intended or the inference of the listener. What “wisdom” does he speak of? He actually means, “lack of wisdom”, but he doesn’t want to say that, because like all White Knights, he self-edits anything that could be perceived as offensive to his largely White Female audience.

    Note that this is a woman who let various men babysit her daughter….(problem #1); that these “men” were up for “serving” her (#2), and that they were trying to explain “spiritual things” (#3).

    In other words, they were doormat manginas serving a used up whore.

  21. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Nova,

    Is it the desire to refrain from offending women, based on the fear that if they do, women won’t come, and, because women make up a large percentage of their congregation, their churches will fail?

    Yes.

    Is it based on a stubbornly wrong interpretation of Genesis 3?

    No. They just ignore it. Genesis doesn’t pay the bill. Women do.

    Is it based on some kind of Victorian tradition, based on the patriarchal system, where men are to “cover” for the crimes and sins of their wives, even though this patriarchal system no longer applies?

    No. I don’t think even a tiny fraction of these pastors understand what it means to be Victorian.

    Is it based on a failure to actually read the Gospels, where Christ rebukes women for sinning (and sexual sins, too), telling them to repent?

    No. They read it. They just ignore it. Got to pay the bills.

    Or is it because they are simply feminine men — men who worship women as goddesses on Earth and denigrate men as walking evil?

    No. Its just money is all.

  22. feeriker says:

    It’s really hard for me to understand the motivation

    Out of Nod’s response is definitely on the right track. It’s not just financial power that deh wimminz hold over the church, but social and legal too.

    Simply stated, our society is an example of Briffault’s Law on steroids. Not only the extinction of the Patriarchy, but the fact that modern “men” have allowed the feminists to condition them to feel revulsion at the very idea of assuming masculine power and authority means that the vagina will continue to reign supreme in all things.

    Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll, John Piper, and every other pedestalizer of women from the pulpit has his balls in an invisible set of plumber’s clamps, clamps held by his wife. If he even hints at trying to curb the FI from the pulpit, his wife, with extra muscle provided not only by other women in the congregation, but secular women, white-knight men, the media, and the forces of the State, will crush his balls to a pulp and ruin him. That’s right: like every other churchian woman, Misses Pastor’s belief in God and the Bible goes only as far as it comports with the FI. Cross that line in the sand and attempt to make her do what God comands and she’s Eve in the Garden again, only this time with an earthly army of demons at her side, proclaiming “Ok, God, go ahead and throw me out of the Garden. Unless you strike me dead right now, THIS GARDEN IS MINE, I’M NOT MOVING, AND I’M IN CHARGE here, so go ahead and do your dirtiest! … Yeah, I thought so…”

    Christian “men,”including most pastors, clearly don’t really believe in the power of God either, or don’t trust Him to work in accordance with His plan. Otherwise they would be waging aggressive warfare against all things feminist, even their own wives, knowing that the Lord has their back. If He is for us, who can be against us?

    TL;DR version: God probably isn’t in any hurry to give strength to wishy-washy men who fear men –and women– more than they fear Him. Thus the status quo…

  23. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Dalrock,

    I don’t think it is simply financial.

    I do think it is simply financial.

    See Chandler in the video. Calling out women’s sin, calling it ugly, makes him profoundly uncomfortable. He doesn’t say it in the clip, but obviously the woman he tricked into attending the sermon was unhappy with him, and her being unhappy was extremely painful for him.

    Pain is fine. Not paying a mortgage is not fine. The single mom was NOT going to give Chandler any money no matter what he said or didn’t say. So if she just walked off in anger and that made him feel bad, so what? What is she going to do tell him he can’t help her for free anymore? She is still going to want him to babysit her child for free while she goes and hops on that married man’s d-ck. That doesn’t change. Maybe she is aware that he isn’t supportive of that, but that is okay so long as he is still volunteering his time.

    It’s just money. Follow the money. That is why what you do here is so important. You aren’t paid. So you are free to follow the Bible just as it is and be Christlike. People can come and go as they choose and no one has veto power over your income based on your words. That is a very powerful spiritual position that you have created for yourself Dalrock.

  24. Looking Glass says:

    @feeriker:

    “Among the gospel churches Christ is now in fact little more than a beloved symbol. “All Hail the Power of Jesus’ Name” is the church’s national anthem and the cross is her official flag, but in the week-by-week services of the church and the day-by-day conduct of her members someone else, not Christ, makes the decisions. Under proper circumstances Christ is allowed to say “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden” or “Let not your heart be troubled,” but when the speech is finished someone else takes over. Those in actual authority decide the moral standards of the church, as well as all objectives and all methods employed to achieve them. Because of long and meticulous organization it is now possible for the youngest pastor just out of seminary to have more actual authority in a church than Jesus Christ has. ”

    A.W. Towzer – http://www.awtozerclassics.com/articles/article/4938678/86408.htm – 1963.

  25. This kind of thing works mainly because men are more prone to analyze themselves rather than assess external causes of misery and suffering. Women are more prone to externalize because it is part of their nature.

    It’s the old provider vs. nurturer dynamic that is built into our genetic code. Women generally hate being told that their problems are mainly caused by their own choices. It is no coincidence that the nanny welfare state grew just after women attained the right to vote in the US.

  26. feeriker says:

    Of the women that Jesus healed or dealt with directly he required them to repent. He flat out told them all to “sin no more”. I don’t remember Him asking any of them about which man they should blame for their sin.

    That’s the “meanie,” “misogynist” Jesus in action, the Jesus who tries to make her think she’s an adult with moral agency. He makes princess very uncomfortable, so she and her pastor skip over that part of the Gospel (when they read the Gospel at all). Much nicer to read about the socially conscious, loving Jesus who turns water into wine and feeds thousands of people from just a couple fish and some slices of bread.

    If a pastor does not do what Jesus did then the pastor does not love Jesus and therefore has no part in the kingdom of God.

    See my comments in my previous post above. I think we’re all pretty much in agreement that the pastoral profession today contains more “dead wood” than live vines, which certainly explains a lot.

  27. Hank Flanders says:

    I don’t know where y’all go (or went) to church, but I’ve visited a lot of different churches, and I just don’t see that the congregations are predominantly made up of women. I look around for single women or even just groups of women, which may or may not include single women and almost invariably see men sitting next to the women. These are not just attractive women I’m seeing with guys, either, but it definitely includes those.

    I believe I’ve heard deti ask the question of where the good, chaste single women in church are, but lately, I’m wondering where the single women are period. The megachurches may be exceptions, but I’ve typically had problems with the teachings there and figure a woman who goes there is likely “empowered” by the likes of a Chandler-type pastor, meaning she probably wouldn’t make a great wife. Maybe I’m wrong, though.

  28. innocentbystanderboston says:

    feeriker,

    That’s right: like every other churchian woman, Misses Pastor’s belief in God and the Bible goes only as far as it comports with the FI. Cross that line in the sand and attempt to make her do what God comands and she’s Eve in the Garden again, only this time with an earthly army of demons at her side, proclaiming “Ok, God, go ahead and throw me out of the Garden. Unless you strike me dead right now, THIS GARDEN IS MINE, I’M NOT MOVING, AND I’M IN CHARGE here, so go ahead and do your dirtiest! … Yeah, I thought so…”

    That’s right. And pregnant women will come from all over the planet to cross the Rio Grande to get into this “garden” and give birth right here knowing full well that the demons will not toss her out. Feminist imperative uber alles.

    Christian “men,”including most pastors, clearly don’t really believe in the power of God either, or don’t trust Him to work in accordance with His plan. Otherwise they would be waging aggressive warfare against all things feminist, even their own wives, knowing that the Lord has their back. If He is for us, who can be against us?

    No they don’t. Their thinking is if God had their back, then government and law enforcement would as well. This is obviously NOT the case so of course, they have no real faith. They want to eat, pay their mortgage, and stay (at least on outside appearances) happily married. They don’t want a restraining order, to pay alimony, and to pay child support as a result of preaching the Gospel.

  29. innocentbystanderboston says:

    feeriker,

    See my comments in my previous post above. I think we’re all pretty much in agreement that the pastoral profession today contains more “dead wood” than live vines, which certainly explains a lot.

    I think what needs to happen is Christ needs his own “Bill Maher” to speak out for Him. What I mean by that is only an attractive, well educated, well read, extremely intelligent, independently wealthy, never-married, and childless man (a Bill Maher) who is totally devoted to Christ and God’s word in the Bible (NOT Bill Maher) might set things straight. When he speaks publicly, everyone would listen. It needs to be that kind of a man, a man who has NO FEAR of government authority to take away everything he has worked so hard for because no woman has complete and total veto power over his words, beliefs, and livelihood. It would be a man who has NO FEAR of the feminist imperative because no woman would be in any position to jeopardize anything he is trying to accomplish. But as far as I can tell, at the moment Christ doesn’t really have a Bill Maher to speak truth-to-power. So we are stuck with these Driscols and Chandlers.

  30. feeriker says:

    Looking Glass says:
    April 7, 2016 at 3:22 pm

    Yup. And I believe Towzer wrote that well over half a century ago, when there were still traces of sanity in both church and society at large. He would no doubt be horrified to see things as they are today.

    If you were to read Towzer’s paragraph to a churchian CEO today, he would either squirm in discomfort, react in defensive anger, or shrug and sigh, adding “well, sure, but we live in the real world and we’re all flawed, sinful humans* needing God’s forgiveness.”

    (*the default and preferred churchian excuse/self-conferred cheap grace offering)

  31. feeriker says:

    Their thinking is if God had their back, then government and law enforcement would as well.

    What is both hilarious and blasphemously horrifying is how many American “Christian” men, mostly evangelicals, and especially pastors truly believe that God, government, and the cops are the REAL holy trinity (or substitute “the military” for any one or the other three; you could even remove God as one of them and they’d be unfazed/unoffended).

  32. Paniym says:

    To me it just seems that it’s over. Been a Christian for 45 years. I don’t see anyway that the modern western church can be rescued from the duplicity and female pedestalization so ingrained in the christian culture. Only one thing can save the Church……The complete destruction of our society and the forcing the church to go underground via persecution. So bring it on…..I’m just so sick of it. At this point I welcome it…..

  33. innocentbystanderboston says:

    I don’t see anyway that the modern western church can be rescued from the duplicity and female pedestalization so ingrained in the christian culture.

    The only way the modern western church can survive, is in rouge places like this (this forum.) That’s it.

    Outside of rouge forums, Christ needs an extremely smart, attractive, educated, well spoken, well read, never-married childless financially independent man, to speak publicly on His behalf. Only then can the “narrative” be re-set back towards God and away from the feminist imperative. This man does not exist.

  34. Hoyos says:

    @HankFlanders

    I’m going to speak generally, there are exceptions.

    A lot may depend on where you are geographically. There are places where younger people who are more likely to be single congregate, typically larger cities. This isn’t a “lured away by bright lights” phenomenon, but that’s just where the economic opportunities are for the younger demographic.

    Don’t count out the mega churches. Finest Christian single woman I ever dated went to Second Baptist in Houston. Finding a church that’s “right” can sometimes be such a task that you just end up picking one; hey, it’s better than never fellowshipping or receiving the Lord’s Supper. I suspect some women are this way as well.

    On a personal note, I went through a period where I just trusted God to provide someone for me. Then I went through a period where I realized I needed to do my part. Now, I’m back at the beginning of just trusting God. It’s like the old Bruce Lee quote about a punch being a punch.

    This I will say. The evangelical bubble in the south is a different world. It manages somehow to be both sloppy and incredibly strained at the same time frequently offering neither strength or comfort. There are so many people who are real genuine Christians, but the attempt to force a “Christian” solution that is at odds with nature has produced some of the greatest weirdness between men and women possible. Christians from foreign countries seem way more “normal” about it, and by foreign I mean Canada. Not perfect, but less ineffably weird.

    So too late but long story short, there may not be a real solution without a geographic or lifestyle change.

  35. GeminiXcX says:

    These pastors should start by giving Genesis 6 a reading; regarding The Father’s daughters who ‘were taken advantage of’ by all the ‘alpha’ bad-boys that turned the earth into a cesspool of violence. What happened when the flood-waters came?

    If I remember the account correctly (which I do), God drowned every single one of these women, and their offspring.

    -GXcX

  36. Sean says:

    @ Nova: The current environment simply forbids men from calling out women on their dress anything.

    There, FIFY.

  37. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Correct Gemini. Only the 3 girls who were lucky enough to marry Noah’s 3 beta sons, were spared. The rest, dead.

  38. Novaseeker says:

    independently wealthy, never-married, and childless man

    But wouldn’t most Protestant Christians read that kind of man as gay, irresponsible or both? From what I can see, voluntarily single adult men are not beloved in American Protestantism. Seems like that would undermine his ability to speak, and bring him under attack by men and women alike.

  39. dragnet says:

    @ Novaseeker

    “It’s very hard to understand what the actual motivations are, but the behavior is truly bizarre.”

    An overlooked part of this: that this is just pure Beta Game, plain and simple. These pastors have Alpha status but a Beta mindset, and so they leverage Beta game (ie, absolving women of sin as qualification for womens’ intimacy) as part of a sub rosa sexual strategy. Even though most of these pastors are not consciously seeking intimacy with the female members of their flock, their deeply ingrained ideas about to accomplish this–and the status that accrues to it–are the subroutine that influences how they behave toward women (and men) more generally.

    Yes, they are protecting their pocketbooks, but they’re also running Game—as do we all.

  40. hoellenhund2 says:

    What I mean by that is only an attractive, well educated, well read, extremely intelligent, independently wealthy, never-married, and childless man (a Bill Maher) who is totally devoted to Christ and God’s word in the Bible (NOT Bill Maher) might set things straight.

    Huh? Fuck that. In that case, your religion is crap. You might as well start thinking about inventing a new one.

  41. dragnet says:

    @ Rollo Tomassi

    “Once again, Christian AMOG Game in effect.”

    Agree wholeheartedly with this.

  42. Patrick Albanese says:

    I’ve stopped going to my men’s Bible study until they are finished with a DVD series they decided to buy. 3 guys on camera beating up men. Original sin is Adams fault, etc. you know the drill.

    And it hit me that these “Pastors” and “leaders” are really full of themselves. They’ve got it all figured out. We all need to be just like them. They are playing Alpha Male in the room.

    They come across as pick up artists to me. Their message is directed more towards the women than the men. They are telling the women they’ve done nothing wrong. Other than hooking up with a man who does not meet their standards. In other words, not them.

    Mother’s Day is coming up, followed by Father’s Day. I’m already preparing myself for the sermon disparity. “Mothers are wonderful. Dads need work.”

    And they wonder why men don’t like church.

  43. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Nova,

    independently wealthy, never-married, and childless man

    But wouldn’t most Protestant Christians read that kind of man as gay, irresponsible or both? From what I can see, voluntarily single adult men are not beloved in American Protestantism. Seems like that would undermine his ability to speak, and bring him under attack by men and women alike.

    But, well…. that’s okay. So he comes under attack, so what? That’s fine. In his unique position (where he has money to live and no worries about government authority making his life h-ll if his wife goes feral on him for attacking feminism) whoever he is, he is in the unique position to withstand any attack. The attack (whatever it is) could not harm him. In that sense, his spreading the great news of Christ at thee expense of feminism, he is truly doing the work that the apostle Paul spoke of when he said it would be better to NOT be married, to NOT be encumbered.

    Being a true Christian in this day and age is hard, very hard. You are always under attack. And you need to be vigilant in your defense. An attractive, intelligent, educated, well-read, childless, unmarried man, people are going to listen to him (even in anger, fury, and vengence.) In that sense, he would draw the similar love and disdain that Trump does today (albeit for entirely different reasons.) But he must be unmarried because (due to the feminist imperative) those true pastors who are trying to spread the good news of Christ during this time of feminist imperative, they are trying to serve TWO masters (their wife first, then God.) As well all know, it doesn’t work that way.

  44. elovesc35 says:

    I’d rather hear that pastor from Chandler’s freshman year than his weak preaching. Chandler doesn’t have a clue.

  45. Feminist Hater says:

    The more these Pastors open their traps, the more men just walk away. They must keep at it!

  46. I think it’s high time men acknowledge that modern Christian culture simply does not have men’s best interests as part of its doctrine anymore. Christianity in particular is for women.

    Church culture is openly hostile towards any expression of conventional masculinity that doesn’t directly benefit women and actively conditions men to be serviceable gender-loathing Betas.

    I recently read a study that our current generation is the least religious in history and I think as far as men are concerned much of that disdain for religion is attributable to church culture’s constant and open ridicule and debasement of men’s endeavors or anything characteristically masculine.

    That’s not an indictment of faith, but rather a fairly measured observation of the way feminine-primary church culture has shaped that faith. In the future, any man with a marginal capacity for critical thought will avoid the church and religion for the obvious misandry it espouses; the only religious men you will find will be those raised into a life of religiously motivated Beta servitude.

    Religious men will be synonymous with a Beta mindset.

    Better to look after your self-interests and repent of the sin later than commit to an institution that openly seeks to indenture you. I realize that might be anathema to the more determined religious men here, but just understand that this is the pragmatic, deductive future that the contemporary church is presenting to men.

    The problem now is that church culture ultimately informs and restructures doctrine and articles of faith.

    http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god/god-our-generation/rise-evangelical-feminism
    http://www.christiantoday.com/article/3.challenges.for.christian.feminists.and.egalitarians/83518.htm

    This and endless variations of the feminization of religion across every denomination and sect, and not just christianity, is why religion is openly hostile to any semblance of conventional masculinity.

    Church is no place for a single man and is just a formality for the man married to a religious woman at this point in time. I cannot fathom an adult man with any self-respect finding anything attractive about the modern church. What is there in the present church to convince any insightful man that it would benefit him, intrigue or enlighten him spiritually, enough to get him to actively participate in it?

    Either there is nothing for him there, or he is despised and denigrated, either openly in a faith altering way or discreetly in resentment, or in pandering ridicule of his juvenilized maleness.

    Yes, I realize that faith is something personal that should be set apart from churchy social influence, but as I said the culture of a church is a manifestation of the doctrine and collective belief system. That culture ultimately modifies and informs the faith itself, thus with every successive generation that social influence becomes an article of the faith for the next. That’s how you come by vichy male pastors like Matt Chandler who actively promote a church atmosphere that is hostile to men.

    Better to laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints, especially when the ‘saints’ are the priestesses of the Feminine Imperative.

  47. David J. says:

    @Dalrock: “Calling out the sins of men is easy, and feels heroic. Calling out the sins of women is hard and makes you feel bad. They will rationalize and get angry and tell you what a terrible man you are. As a result Christian men very strongly tend to focus on what is easy and feels good, while doing whatever it takes to avoid what is hard and makes them feel bad.”

    This. And not the financial motive. I’m very familiar with Piper — I have and have read many of his books, have met him and heard him speak in person, have listened to countless sermons and seminar presentations, know people who know him, etc. On many, many other issues, I agree with him and appreciate his unapologetic, politically incorrect stand. There is no way his imbalance on this issue is due to fear of financial repercussions.

    So, I think you’re correct that it’s driven by an ingrained bias against men/fear of women/chivalry. I’m sorry to say I shared that mindset for most of my marriage — deeply grieving my sin (whether or not she was aware of it) and despising myself while generally giving her a pass or minimizing her sin. The fastest cure for Piper, Chandler, et al. would be the same thing that cured me: a frivorce (or perhaps a frivorce of one of their sons). But I would never wish that on them. Someone who knows them personally and has their ear is going to have to go to work on them in one-on-one conversations. Falsely accusing them of greed-induced fear will never work and will only be counter-productive, destroying the credibility of any red pill message to them.

    It occurs to me that the knee-jerk assumptions and accusations by many here that pastors are blue pill because they are afraid of losing church offerings isn’t any better (or any more accurate) than the “I’m the best man in the room” sermons you do such a good job of critiquing for us.

  48. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Novaseeker,

    I just thought of another great advantage, a supreme advantage for the never-married childless man in spreading the good news of Christ in an effort to destroy feminism, he gives white-knight AMOG pastors like Chandler and Driscoll no weapons with which to attack him.

    (Chandler) “Sir you in attacking marriage today, saying how awful it is for men, attacking single moms, leaving them in shame for the sins of men who left them in their dire straights, you are doing a GREAT DIS-SERVICE to your sisters in Christ don’t you know that?”

    (Single-Childless-Intelligent-Great Looking-Alpha Male) “How?”

    (Chandler) “Look at how you are making your sister’s in Christ feel!!!! Christ loves them, why can’t you?”

    (Single-Childless-Intelligent-Great Looking-Alpha Male) “I do love them.”

    (Chandler) “But look what you are saying about them??? Have you no soul sir!!! Just because you can shave does not mean you can shame them??? Christ didn’t shame you!!!!”

    (Single-Childless-Intelligent-Great Looking-Alpha Male) “No He didn’t. But Christ would shame you Pastor Chandler You have never called a single mom out on her sin. You only shame men.”

    (Chandler) “How Dare You!!!!”

    (Single-Childless-Intelligent-Great Looking-Alpha Male-now shrugging shoulder) “How dare I what?”

    ……

    You get the idea. You could keep going like this, but it would never come to that. Chandler is a preacher, not an arguer, not a deep thinker. He would never agree to any kind of spiritual debate with a red pill man that could challenge his blue pill churchianity. But you get the point. The man of which I speak, his life would truly be unassailable. And in this day in age, that is kind of what we need if we want a true discussion on how the feminist imperative has corrupted the word of Christ and God’s laws.

  49. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Rollo,

    Church is no place for a single man and is just a formality for the man married to a religious woman at this point in time. I cannot fathom an adult man with any self-respect finding anything attractive about the modern church. What is there in the present church to convince any insightful man that it would benefit him, intrigue or enlighten him spiritually, enough to get him to actively participate in it?

    At the moment? (shrugs) Nothing.

  50. Novaseeker says:

    Rollo —

    I would say this.

    I think that it can differ depending on where you are. In Protestant Christianity there are pockets where it is not that way. In very traditional/Latin communities, there are also places where it is not that way. In Eastern Orthodoxy, there are many places where it is not that way (we have the advantage, in this sense, of having non-Western roots and orientation), although there are other places where it is corrupted in this way.

    The point is that as corrupt as the obvious, large churches may be, there are still places where people can be the Church in a faithful way, depending on where you are, and what your confessional affiliations may be.

    As a Christian, I can’t endorse staying away from the Church entirely — even if that means, for, say, Protestant Christians, founding a new church. Either you can find a place, or if there is no place where you are, you can make a place.

  51. Andrew says:

    In reality, the “financial” motivation is false logic anyway. If your church draws men, women will want to come (plus, men are more likely to invest in a long-term cause). If your church primarily draws women, this will only draw weak men

  52. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Andrew,

    In reality, the “financial” motivation is false logic anyway. If your church draws men, women will want to come (plus, men are more likely to invest in a long-term cause). If your church primarily draws women, this will only draw weak men

    You got it backwards. It is not about drawing men or women. It is instead about the belief that wives pick the church. The wife is going to pick the church that the family attends because SHE wants to go to church. But SHE is ONLY going to attend (and donate to) a church that is preaching feminist imperative churchianity that makes her feel good about her sin as virtue. The moment a pastor starts preaching true words of Christ at the expense of the feminist imperative she will leave and take her family and their donations with them. And now the church is broke and the pastor has no money. And if her husband says he likes the church she will threaten to frivorce him and take his money. And so it goes….

  53. Pingback: The fear of confonting sexual sin by women. | Reaction Times

  54. Fifty Seven says:

    I call BS.

    No man who wears a tope V-neck sweater has, or has ever had, a “crew”.

  55. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Novaseeker
    But wouldn’t most Protestant Christians read that kind of man as gay, irresponsible or both? From what I can see, voluntarily single adult men are not beloved in American Protestantism. Seems like that would undermine his ability to speak, and bring him under attack by men and women alike.

    The church does indeed despise a happy bachelor; I’ll personally attest to having seen and experienced that myself. But as for the gay part . . . . well, I’m starting to suspect that may not be a hurdle even in the conservative churches for too much longer. I stopped by John Piper’s “Desiring God” website about a week ago and found a rather curious headline:

    “HOMOPHOBIA HAS NO PLACE IN THE CHURCH.”
    Link here: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/homophobia-has-no-place-in-the-church

    I’m still holding onto my prediction that it’s just a matter of time before you see supposedly “Biblically faithful” ministries like this dumping Christ in in exchange for full allegiance to the SJW gospel. But the upside to this is that in embracing their new hypocrisies, the church is also likely to provide us — however unintentionally — with a whole lot of new loopholes to exploit and humiliate them with. The modern evangelical church is long overdue for some good, old-fashioned black-knighting

  56. Hank Flanders says:

    Thanks for the comments, Hoyo. Could you give some examples of what you’re talking about regarding the “evangelical bubble” of the South and the details you listed there? That sounds like an interesting topic, as I’ve never lived anywhere besides the South, so there may be something different here that I’m not even aware of.

  57. The Question says:

    All this demonstrates what I’ve long suspected; church can actually be a dangerous place to be for a single man. It’s dangerous spiritually because you’re surrounded by people who, as Rollo has pointed out repeatedly, conflate the Holy Spirit with the FI. They don’t even realize it and because of this they will view and treat any Red Pill man as being unchristian. They will imply through their actions and words that if you do not comply with the FI then are not right with God.

    Furthermore, it’s a dangerous place to be because it is ground-zero for where girls go when they decide to hop off the carousal. Churches have become beta male factories. Whether consciously or not, the girls know it’s where they will find an obedient beta provider who is both ignorant about their own potential with women and unsuspecting about the intentions of women suddenly interested in them. There’s no threat he might compromise her position as de facto authority because he will enter into her frame rather than force her into his.

    None of that may not affect the Red Pill man directly but it means it is impossible to keep a low profile or avoid trouble. Simply by being good at being a man they will stand out. And all one of these women have to do is imply or suggest they are interested in him and the entire church will pressure him into dating and marrying her, and chances are they will take any other outcome as an answer without running him up the flagpole.

    It’s not a place where men can find support on how to be better men. It’s not where he can find counsel as to what is best for him. It will always be what’s best for him filtered through what’s best for women and how he can better serve the FI.

    In the future I anticipate the young men will be openly taught embracing their own cuckoldry is a sign of their devotion to God.

  58. Boxer says:

    Minor thing, but the title contains a typo. Conf*r*onting. Great post!

  59. Anonymous Reader says:

    This pedestalizing goes beyond being a safe haven for a carousel-riding slut, her BB after years of AF. This is right up at the edge of encouraging, or even demanding, that Christian men should submit to cuckolding – AF-BetaCucks.

    This is accepting open hypergamy as the norm.

    PS: Chandler sure is fond of the phrase “boys able to shave”, isn’t he? It’s almost like he’s projecting something….

  60. dragnet says:

    @ The Question

    “Furthermore, it’s a dangerous place to be because it is ground-zero for where girls go when they decide to hop off the carousal. Churches have become beta male factories. Whether consciously or not, the girls know it’s where they will find an obedient beta provider who is both ignorant about their own potential with women and unsuspecting about the intentions of women suddenly interested in them. There’s no threat he might compromise her position as de facto authority because he will enter into her frame rather than force her into his.”

    You’re onto something here. The secret of the church being chock full of beta marks is out—to the extent that guys are Roosh’s forum are wondering why Bree Olson, a retired porn star, isn’t taking advantage of that fact. A choice quote:

    “If she was smart, or actually wanted to hustle her whore past she should become a motivational speaker for young women on how being a whore is a bad life choice. She is not drugged out looking, or a plastic surgery monster yet. She has a “look” like she should be some sort of christian housewife at her age…but she’s not, and she and the RVF know why.”

    https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-54698-post-1259918.html#pid1259918

    And this:

    “All she needs to do is disappear from the public eye for awhile, join a megachurch and then hit the motivational speaker circuit warning women on the dangers of whoredom. She does that for a few years and eventually some thirsty chump in the pews will buy her born-again-virginity act and will put a ring on it–guaranteed.”

    https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-54698-post-1260013.html#pid1260013

    Really amazing that it’s become common knowledge that the men in the pews are really just sheep to be sheared.

  61. Neguy says:

    Here’s a direct video link to that “Women’s Hurdles” segment. It’s basically an imprecation.

  62. Anonymous Reader says:

    Chandler;
    Me and some of my crew would go over to her house and babysit her daughter. She was actually in an extramarital affair at the time with a married man, and so we would talk through that and the wisdom in that. This is the relationship we had, just kind of serving her and trying to explain to her spiritual things…

    Let’s unpack this. It appears that Matt Chandler was a blue pill Beta in college, and he decided to be Captain Save A Ho. We all know why blue pill Beta men do that, they are hoping to get sex. Blue pill Betas are extremely afraid of women having bad feelings. So when he got her to go to church, ’cause of the band [*], when the preacher called out sexual sin she got bad feelings, and that upset Chandler because he’s a White Knight. Plus his chances of getting laid by her were gone, but we aren’t supposed to notice that.

    Seems to me that a lot of his guilt over this episode is the issue of his own sexual desires for this woman entwined with being the indirect cause of her bad feelings. Isn’t he supposed to take that to God and get over it, rather than wallow in it for years? Well, I leave that to those better versed in the Bible than I am.

    [*] I wonder if that guy was Roddy RockbandDrummer, and Chandler was trying to emulate him in playing Cap’n SaveA Ho?

  63. Neguy says:

    Well, WordPress embedded the video, but not at the start point in my link. Cue to 53:50.

  64. greyghost says:

    When did being Christian become synonymous with being a pussy. what happened to manifest destiny and the crusaders. Today to know and under stand “game” is bad. Being red pill is completely out of the question. much less telling a woman she is wrong. Christian today are afraid to call a slut a slut. When did this happen?

  65. Hoyos says:

    @HankFlanders

    Hope it’s ok if I discuss this in the comments Dalrock, don’t want to clog up the thread.

    In the South, evangelical Christians reached a critical mass unlike most of the US; there have been enough of us that we have developed a somewhat unique Christian culture, one that I believe has been marred by disconnection from the Christian past and other Christians. Short version, we’ve mostly been talking to ourselves.Combine this with an unbiblical, I think, overreaction against extra Biblical knowledge and we’ve gotten into a mess.

    We’ve gotten into a habit about reading things into the Bible that aren’t there and declaring things Christian or not somewhat randomly. So you wind up with a Church that might condemn Jesus for drinking wine and encourage a woman to divorce her husband for unbiblical reasons. Dont get me wrong, I’m a son of the south and I love that our churches have been so aggressive on the gospel, but we don’t feed the sheep and refuse to listen to Christians from the past, as if God only speaks to us and only recently. I hope this answers your question.

  66. Neguy says:

    @Anon 7:01, if you want to get an insight into Chandler’s blue pill mind, here are some excerpts from his recent marriage books about he and his wife dating

    When I began dating my now-wife, Lauren, I lived in Abilene, Texas, and she lived in Longview—about five and a half hours apart by car. At that time I worked at a church, was in school full-time, and traveled occasionally for speaking engagements. On a typical weekend, I would finish speaking Friday night around eleven o’clock, get in my car, and drive to Longview. I’d arrive at the house of Lauren’s parents sometime in the early morning, sleep for a few hours, then wake up, spend time with Lauren through lunch, get back in my car, and drive home to Abilene so that I could be at church Sunday morning. I did this for a year. It was not a very healthy or convenient schedule. But it never felt crazy to me—never. Looking back on it now, though, I think, Man, that girl had some voodoo on me or something. I was in the car fourteen to sixteen hours in a thirty-eight-hour period every week just to spend four or five hours with her.

    More:

    Before I met Lauren, I was always the guy who thought, Is there really a woman out there who’ll get to know the real me and still say, “Yeah, I’ll spend the rest of my life with you”? I had serious doubts about whether that woman really existed. And then all of a sudden, I met her. The kind of excitement that resulted was the kind that had me driving long distances for long periods of time as often as I could, and I never felt bothered at all by it. In fact, I felt eager and energized at the prospect. That’s different from the kind of excitement I had being merely infatuated by a girl.

    And the clincher:

    I do know that God is sovereign over all things. I do believe he is at work in space and time. I know this because when I was in college leading a rather large Bible study, I was often put in the uncomfortable position of Christian girls becoming interested in me—except they weren’t really interested in the real me, but rather in whatever image they had of me because of my influence and position. They got pretty good at working the image too, doing whatever they thought it was I needed to see in a godly girl. In a Christian college there are also a lot of girls hoping to meet and marry someone in ministry. They want to marry a pastor (I think that’s because they don’t quite understand what we do). This desire is built around so many assumptions. It was in the midst of all this that I met Lauren. As I said before, we lived about five hours away from each other. She knew I led a Bible study, but she wasn’t thinking I taught a thousand people—she was thinking I had a few guys over to my apartment for fellowship and a little teaching. Right off the bat, the image projection, the interest being based on an idea or aspiration, just didn’t exist with Lauren. She didn’t know anything about the impressive veneer or the reputation. She was interested in me. I found that wildly attractive. I could clearly see God at work in that. I could have easily been swayed by the efforts of the other girls to impress me. I could have been swayed by their claims to be impressed by me. I know that God was at work because he brought me into this relationship with a godly woman who wasn’t putting forth an image. And I was very excited by the reality that someone wanted to get to know me—not me the preacher, not me the speaker, just me. For more than a year, Lauren’s and my relationship was long-distance, conducted almost entirely on the phone aside from my weekend visits. It wasn’t until later that she showed up where I taught and said, “Wow.” But I knew she loved me before she saw that stuff, so I could trust her. I will give you this credit on the idea of “the one.” I know there is a “one” for me. Her name is Lauren. She was Lauren Walker; now she’s Lauren Chandler. And here’s how I know she’s “the one”: she said yes.

  67. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hank Flanders
    I don’t know where y’all go (or went) to church, but I’ve visited a lot of different churches, and I just don’t see that the congregations are predominantly made up of women.

    It’s not a uniform distribution. Based on a biased sample on travel in various parts of the US, I’d say that the more socially conscious the church, the more women. I’ve been in churches with women preachers presiding where most of the people in the pews were women clearly over 40, with a few older men scattered around, and one or two families with children. The sermon was a dreary blob of prog-tard pap that could have dribbled out of the editorial page of any major daily. I’m no Bible expert but I’m pretty sure Jesus never taught about nuclear power, for example. Yes, that was part of the sermon. No, I don’t feel up to dredging details from my memory. The denomination doesn’t matter, any of several of the mainline Protestant churches are like this.

    Hmm. I should go back to some of those with my new, corrected Glasses on and look for post-epiphany women, shouldn’t be hard to find them.

    The few megas I’ve been in look closer to 50-50, but really I can’t examine a crowd of over 1,000 in any detail. I do see what appears to be babymommas along with mixed couples of some sort or another plus gaggles of post-Wall dearies. So there are unmarried women there.

    Now, those churches that are stricter, ie. no women preachers, no women leadership, no women teaching men – they tend in my limited experience to be made up mainly of families with some number of widows / widowers, a few bachelors and old maids, and that’s pretty much it. If near a college and there’s some effort made, there might be a few college students, until graduation.

    A serious churchgoing man may have to engage in “missionary dating”, or he may have to meet a woman in some mega and then pull her out of it, or he may have to resort to the online sites – I know of three marriages in the last five years that happened that way.

    Just to throw out some red meat in the water…and I could be wrong in this impression…unmarried women seem to kind of vanish from churches between the age of, oh, 22 and 30 for some reason or other. Maybe Matt Walsh, John Piper and Matt Chandler could put their heads together and figure it out. I’m sure it’s the fault of men, one way or another.

  68. Anonymous Reader says:

    Patrick Albanese
    They come across as pick up artists to me. Their message is directed more towards the women than the men. They are telling the women they’ve done nothing wrong.

    That’s a very interesting and cogent point. I’m pretty sure that part of being a successful PUA is non-judgementalism. Explicitly telling women “Oh, I won’t judge you” in many cases. Because managing her feelings is a part of pickup. (It’s also part of married Game, for those Game haters out there lurking.)

    Plus, echoing Dragnet, Beta Game is totally nonjudgemental. That’s important to the Beta Bux part of the system. It’s how we are drifiting towards Beta Cucks, too.

    So…you are describing what could be called BetaBibleBoy game, with heaping non-judgementalism to avoid any bad feelings. What could possibly go wrong, eh?

  69. Anonymous Reader says:

    David J.
    The fastest cure for Piper, Chandler, et al. would be the same thing that cured me: a frivorce (or perhaps a frivorce of one of their sons). But I would never wish that on them. Someone who knows them personally and has their ear is going to have to go to work on them in one-on-one conversations.

    Based on what I’ve seen of Piper, he would not, he could not hear any words said. His world view is so deeply wrapped up in pedestalization of women that his very identity would be at stake. As you rightly note, men don’t give up their illusions easily or lightly, it often takes a pretty serious blow or loss to make them reconsider.

    Falsely accusing them of greed-induced fear will never work and will only be counter-productive, destroying the credibility of any red pill message to them.

    Why do you say it’s false? It’s in their financial interest to pedestalize women, and paraphrasing Mencken, it’s very much not in Piper’s interest to actually learn anything true about women.

  70. Gunner Q says:

    IBB @ 3:37 pm:
    “What I mean by that is only an attractive, well educated, well read, extremely intelligent, independently wealthy, never-married, and childless man (a Bill Maher) who is totally devoted to Christ and God’s word in the Bible (NOT Bill Maher) might set things straight.”

    That isn’t how God does business. 1 Corinthians 1:26-30. God has no intention of allowing us to believe He needs the help of sexy, powerful, charismatic Elites, or that He considers the nerdy and unattractive to be of low value.

    Novaseeker @ 4:33 pm:
    “From what I can see, voluntarily single adult men are not beloved in American Protestantism. Seems like that would undermine his ability to speak, and bring him under attack by men and women alike.”

    Having been in those churches, my best guess is it’s less about hostility to bachelors than unwillingness to share the reins of power and desperation to maintain the status quo. Even fathers aren’t allowed a voice in church doctrine or activities.

    What’s a Protestant supposed to do when both the Protestant world and Catholic world believe only professional clergy should be permitted to speak in church? Start a blog, I guess.

  71. Neguy says:

    @David J,

    The fastest cure for Piper, Chandler, et al. would be the same thing that cured me: a frivorce (or perhaps a frivorce of one of their sons). But I would never wish that on them. Someone who knows them personally and has their ear is going to have to go to work on them in one-on-one conversations. Falsely accusing them of greed-induced fear will never work and will only be counter-productive, destroying the credibility of any red pill message to them.

    I am in fact a personal acquaintance of one of those A-listers and am connected to this nexus of people.

    I do plan to take a run at having private conversations with these folks and try to unplug them from the matrix.

    I’m actively working on this. Before I do anything I am going through an extensive time of prayer about it. Also, I am in the process of reformulating the manosphere material into a form they are more likely to accept. As you note, the current ‘sphere, useful though it is to us, is not credible with these people. Also, I have to have words that obey Paul’s instructions: “Don’t sharply rebuke an older man.” This is so directly counter to the narrative, I can’t give them an easy out to reject it. And even then, only the Holy Spirit will be able to dispel the fog around their eyes.

    I’m not sure how long it will take before I’m ready. I just started on writing up my reformulation of the red pill concepts (though am drawing on an earlier quick and dirty iteration). I’ve done a thorough deconstruction of one of these guy’s material already, but would like to do for a couple more at least. (Chandler may be up next). This is all very time consuming. To be thorough, to be scrupulously fair and accurate, and to get the tone right is a huge amount of work. I’ve done a lot already but there’s much more to go.

    I’m already trying to soften up my own pastor, who is part of this group. I feel pretty good that if I push hard, I can get face time with some of these guys and have enough credibility to get them to consider what I say (and invest time in some reading). When and if that happens, I’ll try to show back up here and give a report.

    By the way, it seems likely to me that they are already familiar with the ‘sphere. I routinely see Dalrock and others linked when I google search on their names for various material. The SEO here is pretty good. Somebody almost has to have forwarded them something at some point in the last several years.

  72. Sean says:

    Neguy:

    I pray for you in those conversations but, personal experience with someone of that ilk, it will not go well. Rather like telling the inelect about Christ, actually.

  73. desiderian says:

    “It’s very hard to understand what the actual motivations are, but the behavior is truly bizarre.”

    I don’t think it’s fear.

    (1) They don’t act fearful. In fact, they’re more the opposite – full of themselves and their own self-righteousness. In times of great conflict, only the sociopath doesn’t feel fear (only the courageous function well despite it). It’s the socipaths preying on weak (weak for sociopathy) women that Dalrock is highlighting. Their sociopathy allows them to put on a facsimile of the coolness under pressure of the best men.

    (2) If it were fear, that would mean they actually believe that women are culpable, but are merely afraid to tell them. What evidence suggests that they believe any such thing?

    What I think has happened is that these men have forsaken God and set up an idol to themselves in his place.

    They offer women their own grace (by looking the other way from their sins) in place of God’s and offer to (re)create women in their own, grossly-inflated self-image (notice the words they use to describe the “amazing” women they know: strong, powerful, independent – always masculine adjectives).

  74. Neguy says:

    @Sean, thanks.

    @desiderian, It’s not fear in the sense that they are too cowardly to speak the truth. They honestly believe this blue pill stuff. It’s just like the world. Men are so conditioned to the feminine-centric narrative that they are not even aware of it.

    But I can tell you these people are in fact saturated with fear. It’s the same fear that keeps everyone here posting under a pseudonym. (AFAIK there’s a grand total of two Christian ‘sphere people posting under their real identity: Vox Day and Sunshine Thiry). They are afraid of the same repercussions as we are, hence their behavior. It’s another reason the ‘sphere has no credibility. It’s hard for us to criticize them for being fearful when we are all hiding behind screen names.

  75. desiderian says:

    Sean,

    “I pray for you in those conversations but, personal experience with someone of that ilk, it will not go well. Rather like telling the inelect about Christ, actually.”

    It’s a big ilk. I’d agree with you on someone like Osteen, who won’t touch the topic of sin with a ten-foot pole for men or women. He just has no concept of what he’s supposed to be doing. I think he may be mildly retarded.

    Some of these pastors do get it mostly right in the ministering to men, though, and most of them were raised in a church that was doing things right by men and women. Those pastors you can still reach. One fruitful avenue may be to look at how the present preaching trends cut off women from the fruits of repentance. That’s still FI, but it can be used as a little bit of a Trojan Horse.

  76. desiderian says:

    Neguy,

    “It’s the same fear that keeps everyone here posting under a pseudonym.”

    I don’t post under a pseudonym out of fear. My name is David Warner. I live in Cincinnati, OH. I chose that pseudonym because I’ve come to agree with Erasmus that the Protestant schism was a mistake that weakened the Church. I’m likewise committed to reforming our current institutions from within (and the help of folks without).

    Erasmus’s fervent and unyielding Christian faith and orthodoxy has also been largely forgotten, and I think it’s something worth remembering accurately, given current prejudices born of base ignorance, so I try to embody that spirit as well as I can.

  77. Neguy says:

    @desiderian, props to you, my brother! I mean that.

  78. mike says:

    Dalrock , you do ever recommend men attend couples counseling with any pastoral type? It appears that nearly all can’t help themselves but to amog the guy coming to him for advice in front of his wife/fiance.

  79. donalgraeme says:

    @ Rollo

    What you say might be true about most Protestant Churches, and perhaps even many RC ones, but the Traditional parishes I’ve attended are nothing of the sort. Guys, if you are looking for a place where Christian men are respected, try a Traditional Latin Mass Church or Eastern Catholic Church. For the most part, they are a whole ‘nother world.

  80. mmaier2112 says:

    This garbage just infuriates me. I am an awful Christian but this Matt Chandler turns my stomach, sounding like he cannot speak his mind without crying. It’s unworthy of a man who believes he knows his place with Jesus Christ. My faith makes me strong. I hope I never do Him the dishonour of sounding like a weeping vagina if I speak of Him.

  81. A Visitor says:

    “When discussing sexual sin, Chandler is careful to frame women’s sin as caused by a man.”

    NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What a lie!!!!!!! It takes two to tango, period!!!!!!

    Women hold equal culpability in sin, period. End of discussion. Ah!!!! Just reading why Chandler does makes me want to punch him in the face. hard.

    “Chandler prays for the men women didn’t find good enough to marry, or who wouldn’t marry when the woman decided she had found the one who needed to commit to her”

    Guess what, Chandler? They have a say in it too. If they won’t say yes, it’s on them. I’ve got no sympathy for them, whatsoever.

    “I thank you that you are a just judge who will not handle lightly boys who can shave who take advantage of your daughters. ”

    Does that include charlatans like Chandler who undoubtedly make money of said women? What a friggin’ hypocrite!

    “We do not want a brother standing at the altar on his wedding day looking at his beautiful bride only to imagine behind her the boys and men who took advantage of her and robbed her of the trust and confidence that she now needs for her husband. We do not want a sister standing at the altar on her wedding day looking at her handsome groom only to imagine behind him a string of relationships with girls and women he failed to honor, and knowing that images in his head from pornography use and past flings may stick with him for a long time.”

    Well, both sides should stop having pre-marital sex and stop looking at porn. Yes, I said it. Women consume porn, too. But, to do both things would require both sides, including infallible women, take responsibility for their actions. We can’t have that now, can we?

    “Is it the desire to refrain from offending women, based on the fear that if they do, women won’t come, and, because women make up a large percentage of their congregation, their churches will fail?”

    @Novaseek That’s my where my money is.

    “It’s very hard to understand what the actual motivations are, but the behavior is truly bizarre.” It’s infuriating is what it is.

    “I have only heard one sermon on modesty. Albert Martin from NJ lit into his congregation.”

    @Sean, there was a priest shortly at a parish, shortly before I arrived there (he was gone before I got there), in Texas that minced no words about modesty. The word is that he used to eject women from the parish during Mass that were dressed skimpily. We really need some good homilies on damnation, sexual sin, and modesty (all in separate homilies, ideally). Any RCC priests reading this, take note! I’ve never heard one, as long as I can remember, whether it’s been at a Novus Ordo, Tridentine, Maronite, or Byzantine parish. That’s across five states and three foreign countries, by the way.

    “Women respond by refusing to attend church, refusing to attend a particular church or set of churches, go all Lysistrata on their husbands, and generally start isolating and withdrawing from their husbands.”

    @thedeti The key is to get a woman, who has no romantic interest in you, to advise you how to communicate on their level. It works.

    “If a pastor does not do what Jesus did then the pastor does not love Jesus and therefore has no part in the kingdom of God.’

    @Athor Pel Thank you!!!!

    “Anyway, so, the women who can pull it off are generally turning up in clothes that do not reveal much skin at all, if any, but may as well have been painted onto their bodies. Both stretch leggings and super-tight jeans, and both worn with 4 inch heels, of course, to accentuate the display, with tops that do not go further than the waist. ”

    @Novaseeker

    The one time I’ve ever heard someone, outside of family, tell women they need to watch what they wear, especially at the risk of tempting men, was a grade school religion teacher.

    “In the current environment, you simply cannot say anything at all about a woman’s sartorial choices without being deemed a toxic misogynist, full stop.”

    They all imbibe feminism to an extent as it, like liberalism, is in the air we breathe. The more ardent ones, which you describe, are full blown feminists who complain about any perceived slights against TEAM WOMAN.

    “Menfolk, especially the ones that shave, are doing a whole lot of raping! After all, the women are never at fault. This staggers my mind.”

    @BubbaCluck, I don’t shave🙂 Guess it means I can’t be doing a whole lot of raping, or any for that matter!

    “Matt Chandler, Mark Driscoll, John Piper, and every other pedestalizer of women from the pulpit has his balls in an invisible set of plumber’s clamps, clamps held by his wife.”

    @feeriker That made me smile! Thank you!

    “I cannot fathom an adult man with any self-respect finding anything attractive about the modern church. What is there in the present church to convince any insightful man that it would benefit him, intrigue or enlighten him spiritually, enough to get him to actively participate in it?”

    @Rollo Speaking as a Catholic, I can say there is plenty. You just have to know what parish to go to Mass to on a (at least) weekly basis. The rest of it takes care of itself.

    “When did being Christian become synonymous with being a pussy. what happened to manifest destiny and the crusaders. Today to know and under stand “game” is bad. Being red pill is completely out of the question. much less telling a woman she is wrong. Christian today are afraid to call a slut a slut. When did this happen?”

    @greyghost, As to the crusaders, people were lied to that Islam is a religion and that is peaceful. Christians today afraid to call sluts sluts probably happened when they decided it wasn’t their place, etc.

  82. The Question says:

    @dragnet

    Since I’ve taken the Red Pill I can identify the epiphany phase girls fairly easily. The first place they go for beta providers is to the Bible studies or groups. Their preferences are for men who have a well established career and a mortgage (hence the term “eligible bachelor”). However, the amount of beta behavior they will tolerate in a man depends on the amount of time they’ve been in this epiphany stage. It’s getting to the point where women will avoid marriage because simply having a good paycheck isn’t enough. A lot of these gals have their own career via the corporate boyfriend and don’t need them.

    @ Dalrock

    Far be it for me to speculate as to Matt Chandler’s personal anecdote, but I think it’s pretty clear what went on.

    “My freshman year of college I randomly sat next to a twenty six year old single mother…”

    Sure, Matt. In reality he probably saw her in a class and sat next to her and thought she was absolutely cute and sweet and wonderful. Only later on, possibly much later, he found out she was a single mother through an affair. Because he had already put her on a pedestal by then, he had to find a way to rationalize her into being a victim so it wouldn’t contradict his preestablished beliefs about the nature of women. And I’m sure she played the victim part to the hilt and got him to feel so sorry for her so he would babysit for her. Good grief.

    Think about that. Twenty six years old. This means that this gal had a bastard child through an affair before at least twenty five.

    “so we would talk through that and the wisdom in that.”

    I understand the desire to not condemn, but really? Talk through the wisdom in that? The way he puts it infers she might have had a good reason to think there was wisdom in what she did. As though she didn’t really know what she was doing.

    How well did that go?

    Considering how this story ended, I think we all know the answer. If Matt had actually gotten through to her she wouldn’t have felt “judged” but would have agreed with the sermon.

    Again, she felt judged because she hadn’t changed and Matt had to again rationalize her response as being righteous indignation despite being a single mother as the result of adultery.

  83. Spike says:

    Matt Chandler runs dangerously close to Pharisaical condemnation with his “weight on the soul” comment. He is in a position to help by condemning women’s sexual sin, thusnallieviating the burden. Alas, no.
    One friend told me that calling out women feels wrong, like beating up old people. I told him the Manosphere truth: The State is on their side. He agreed, but still felt it was wrong. I imagine this is how Chandler and other pastors think.
    So, we will have to continue with the status quo, opt out, or be content to marry Rollo”a proverbial “sluts who fuck like prudes”.
    The only hope for this current scenario is that women collectively come to the realisation that, courtesy of the Net and the Manosphere, men have wised up, so the charade is over.

  84. embracingreality says:

    2 Timothy 4:3 “For the time will come when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but, having itching ears, will heap to themselves teachers after their own lusts. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

    In this day and age nobody gets into or stays in a pulpit of any significance without continuously telling people what they want to hear. It’s a popularity contest all the way. Is any preacher in the country better at telling people what they want to hear than Osteen? Is any preacher more successful? Law of attraction, telling people what they want hear with style and sincerity is the only way to the top of the modern church.

    The women won’t endure the sound doctrine and weak men, Just like Adam in Genesis, will just do what the women tell them to do. Many strong Christian men who know biblical truth have already left the church. Count me out. If the Apostle Paul, John the Baptist, any biblical Apostle or Christ himself anonymously stepped into the pulpit of most any modern church and preached the truth of the gospel as it comes off the page of scripture people would begin walking out within 10 minutes. Preach this week in and week out and I suspect the average church would reduce by 2/3’s in a month. Most of these modern churches are built on the personal appeal of the flatterers the congregants most adore.

  85. oldfashionedfellow says:

    Wasn’t the Trump pro-life outrage, the final confirmation for all still in doubt, that no courage or fidelity to truth on the part of “Christian” men will be forthcoming?

    The men will continue to cower and abet this madness, and the women are incapable of correcting course on their own, even if they get that something’s wrong. Can’t we just accept that it’s going to take a full-scale civilizational collapse for this mess to be sorted out?

    Mind you, even unrepentant women will readily absorb church language regarding their emotions (see the link), even if they’re open and proud sluts. But they’ll never realize their predicament, or have the wisdom to change it.

    http://elitedaily.com/dating/making-a-casual-relationship-something-more/1385773/

  86. The Question says:

    @ Darlock

    To understand men like Matt Chandler & Company one has to realize they believe a basic principle you’ve touched on before.

    “The difference however is that Christians are now teaching that God designed women to only be attracted to good Christian men.”

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/06/13/dont-blame-heartiste-for-the-equation-of-alpha-with-virtue/

    I’ve personally heard this come from many Blue Pill churchians’ mouth and this belief causes them to ignore blatantly bad behavior in women. They truly believe women innately desire to marry good men, so when they act feral these men automatically try to explain it away as some man’s responsibility. Her brothers. Her father’s. The man’s. Anybody but hers.

    So for Chandler and others when women behave like this single mother their assumption is that the woman was fooled into thinking the man was godly and was deceived. But how can you think that when the man was already married? This is why he said he talked to her about “the wisdom in that.”

    Notice he didn’t say he talked to her about “the folly and foolishness in that.”

    Notice he also focused on the pastor’s sermon and that it stuck with him for years afterwards. It gives him great distraction to avoid thinking about why the woman would intentionally seek to potentially destroy a marriage and irresponsibly bring a child into this world without a father to be fully involved (since Matt had to play babysitter for her).

  87. The Question,

    Simply by being good at being a man they will stand out. And all one of these women have to do is imply or suggest they are interested in him and the entire church will pressure him into dating and marrying her, and chances are they will take any other outcome as an answer without running him up the flagpole.

    No church is going to “force” a single alpha male in its congregation to date/marry a member of its congregation OR ELSE! That does not, nor has it ever happened… anywhere. To believe that the church will run him up the flagpole if he turns her down is to believe in unicorns farting rainbows. Lets be red pill, and live in reality. Besides, all he has to say (if even one person pressures him to save a church-Ho) is that he is seeing someone else right now. He’s not available. Done. Over.

  88. David J. says:

    @Neguy: Best wishes for some success!

  89. Regarding white-knighting, I’m guessing that somewhere along the way I have developed a “weaker sex”, AWALT and patriarchal frame. I think women are weak and in need of protection and that the man that does this will be targeted by basically all of society as a villain. Unless the only side of this they are willing to demonstrate is self sacrifice. Telling a woman not to walk into a dark alley dressed as a hooker is “blaming the victim” but to men like Chandler following her in there to get knifed is the pinnacle of masculinity. Framing society to control that woman and teach her not to go down there is not.

    We have to be willing to be self sacrificial enough to be villains in my opinion. I chalk up Chandler’s unwillingness to confront his own discomfort as sheer cowardice. If it has a vagina he is afraid of it, and mostly he is afraid of displeasing it. I don’t really wonder what his parents modeled for him.

  90. I think I really miss Deti’s hamsterlator here, maybe a white knightolator, or omegalator? Anyway, here goes:

    “When I was a dewy eyed virgin I creepy omega stalked a hot “older” heroine (by way of single-motherhood).

    Me and some of my fellow orbiters would go over to her house to babysit her daughters so she could get some hot alpha cock from her baby daddy. So after her baby sitting during her booty calls we would establish that we were completely okay with anything she did as long as she let us remain in close orbit with her. We just kind of kept orbiting her and explaining why we were creepy omega’s willing to help her tear down a marriage, hoping that eventually we would convert her to wife up status.

    Eventually, we stepped up our Captain Save-a-Ho game and actually invited her to “Church” only to have the numbskull Pastor actually tell her what she was doing was bad. How dare he. “

  91. Looking Glass says:

    On a bit of self-reflection, I think what kept me proto-Red Pill during my Youth really came down to simply having having standards. God obviously set what those standards are and it was my job to hold myself to them, however badly I managed that.

    What seems like basic Christian Theology turns out to be revolutionary in today’s Modern Church. Scary, that.

    @Neguy:

    I would normally recommend setting things up in questions that attack the paradoxes in their theology. But also realize, if they’re a published author, that they really don’t remember much of what they’ve written unless you provide them copies. (There’s also the “I believed that then, maybe not so much now” effect.) So you’re not going to beat them with their own logic because they don’t truly have solid logic to fall back upon.

    The “play” really goes in one of two ways. Either you have to be the smartest Man in the Room or you have to subtlety undercut them. “Preaching the Gospel” at them won’t work over the short term. (You need only do that if you’re going to “brush off your sandals” to them.) Since most Men can’t realistically pull of the first one, your direct option is undercut their assumptions.

    What you’re dealing with is their melded Worldly Assumptions masquerading as their assumptions about God. If you hit them bluntly & directly, they’ll just fall back to their assumptions and never question them. This is why it’s usually important to keep things a bit vague, as they’ll place their own assumptions within that vagueness and fill-in the details in their own mind. (If this sounds familiar, it should…) But the core concept you’ll want to get them wrapped around is “Are you responsible for your actions?”. Once you’ve established that with them, their own assumptions about the world are going to smack headlong into each other. That’s where you’ll see the response. Just be extremely well prepared for the responses.

  92. LeeLee says:

    This sermon, or at least the Jesus wants the rose part, because that’s the part that gets passed around in Evangelical circles, made me cry when I first heard it. Because it is true, Jesus does want the rose, and that’s something beautiful about him.

    The important thing to realize is that just because Jesus wants the rose doesn’t mean human men will, at least not for marriage. The rose is still damaged and unattractive, the rose may be non-functional in human society because it has gone too far and destroyed it’s ability to fulfill it’s created purpose.

    There are serious consequences for being a dirty, wrecked rose. It’s not a joke, it’s not a small thing. It’s also not an irredeemable situation where Jesus is concerned. It’s important to balance these things. Chandler goes much too far in one direction.

  93. PokeSalad says:

    I was driving out of town yesterday along a route I had not been on in six months or so……I saw a new, enormous construction site along the road that was new to me. Was it a football stadium? A new high school? A new shopping mall? As I drove by, I looked for the “coming soon on this site!” sign to see what it was going to be.

    “Coming Soon – Church of the Highlands!”

    Great. Just great. :/

  94. Hoyos says:

    @LeeLee

    Yes, it is serious. That’s also why it’s important to feel genuine pity for the attractive woman; the more attractive she is the odds are no has ever told her the truth.

    Think about it, how sane would you be if no one is being honest with you and it was so pervasive that you never actually saw it? At some point you have to have some common sense and of course women have their own minds and moral agency but men have at least some responsibility to tell the truth to women when it’s sensible to do so.

  95. Snowy says:

    I watched the Bree Olson retired porn star video. She only regrets having done porn because of the social consequences, such as being disbarred from working with children and entering the medical profession. She dislikes being called a slut and all the other names that go with it. It was fun, she loved doing porn, and she made heaps of money out of it, but she regrets the after-effects; the effects upon herself…me…me…me!

  96. Moses says:

    There seems to be a common theme here: Women avoid accountability for their behavior at all costs. Nothing is ever their fault. It’s all men’s fault.

    I get now why the Bible instructs women not to speak in church. And instructs carefully about the husband’s headship.

    The ancients understood women far better than we do.

  97. The Question says:

    @innocentbystanderboston

    My comment did not say they would literally force a man at gunpoint to do anything. It’s that he will not be able to attend the average church without having to deal with these expectations and pressures and nothing he says or does will placate them.

    Why would he think that is worth it?

    His “I’m seeing someone right now” comment only works as long as no one asks further questions (When can we meet her? Do we know her? Bring her sometime….are you still dating that gal? What’s her name?). I speak here from personal experience.

    I’m also referring to Red Pill men, not alphas. Why would a unmarried Alpha who didn’t grow up in the church go to church unless it’s to pick up girls? Even there, he’ll be spotted quickly because men like Chandler are looking for them.

    If a RP man is a former nice church guy there are very powerful expectations that he will be the beta provider for some gal at some point. This is one of the reasons why Rollo Tomassi says men sometimes need to “ghost” people who knew them before they became Red Pill. The perception of them from before is so strong they can’t let it go. Part of that perception for nice church guys is that they will follow this pre-written script.

    If there’s little to no pressure on him it’s probably because he’s not well connected to the congregation or there’s no marriage-age women, just families and old people. Again, what’s the point of that for a single man?

  98. Jim says:

    The ancients understood women far better than we do.

    All this equality BS and the ongoing program of creating weak, effeminate little boys is the reason for that. And it is damned hard to get these pussies out of that way of thinking. They think they’re “being mean” if they don’t kowtow to the vagina 24/7. It’s like being surrounded with mindless robots.

  99. Hank Flanders says:

    I read the context of Chandler’s repentance comments in that “Woman’s Hurdles” message, and at first, I thought maybe Dalrock’s summation of them was unfair, as Chandler mentions repentance rather ambiguously near the top of page 18 and doesn’t necessarily tie it to a specific sin, including the “sin” of trying too hard to be perfect. However, I then read on down the page and noticed that Chandler had this to say: “In the end, the buckets that dominate and drive female sinfulness are the disordered desires that take place when we compare and the disordered desires that take place when we believe we have to be perfect.” I’m not aware of any scripture that supports the notion that we’re not to desire to be perfect, and Matthew 5:48 seems to go quite the other way, but regardless, Chandler apparently thinks a desire to be perfect is the root of all evil for women. Therefore, the dominating force behind women’s sins comes from their desires to do nothing but good (i.e. their desires to be perfect). This is truly amazing stuff.

  100. Gunner Q says:

    PokeSalad @ 8:43 am:
    “Was it a football stadium? A new high school? A new shopping mall? “Coming Soon – Church of the Highlands!”

    Great. Just great.”

    Don’t worry, it’ll be a football stadium soon. Chicks can spend money but they have trouble earning it.

  101. innocentbystanderboston says:

    LeeLee,

    Jesus does want the rose, and that’s something beautiful about him.

    The important thing to realize is that just because Jesus wants the rose doesn’t mean human men will, at least not for marriage. The rose is still damaged and unattractive, the rose may be non-functional in human society because it has gone too far and destroyed it’s ability to fulfill it’s created purpose.

    Correct. And the Rose has to remember that Jesus wants it but not for marriage. Jesus wants the Rose the follow and worship him, not to marry and have sex with him. Jesus is not going to have children with and support that Rose. So although what Chandler said is correct, it is really irrelevant. And even if you explained it this way, I do believe that Chandler would reframe your argument to suit his. He would never even dignify the valid point that you have made. He can’t dignify it. To do so would mean he has to turn in his white-knight beta orbiter card. That will never happen.

  102. OKRickety says:

    Chandler writes:
    I was in the car fourteen to sixteen hours in a thirty-eight-hour period every week just to spend four or five hours with her.

    How does a weekly trip of 5.5 hours each way become 14-16 hours, and how does Friday 11 PM to Saturday (11 PM?) become a 38-hour period?

    I greatly doubt that Chandler has a great understanding of the Bible (or anything else) when he makes illogical claims involving simple math.

  103. Boxer says:

    God forgives who he will forgive, and it’s not on us to pass judgment on that or even try to understand it. But as IBB said, this is very different from finding a worthy woman to marry.

    Young bros face a lot of perils in marriage. The statistics don’t lie. Women with lots of sex partners are much more likely to divorce a good man than women who are chaste or have low (1 or 2) partner count. Why run the extra risk?

    http://www.ounce.org/pdfs/cmfsi_2005-03_premsexcohabit_teachman.pdf

    Forget about the hot bar skanks you meet in the sunday morning nightclub. Find a serious woman who is committed to the family life, even if she’s a plain jane type*, and marry her instead.

    Boxer

    *No matter how hot the skanky one might be now, she’ll probably look worse than the plain jane in 10 years anyway.

  104. Casey says:

    Just in case you missed the point of the sermon………
    “Women Good…….Men Bad”

    Gender Studies 101 to a perfect ‘T’.

  105. Boxer says:

    Dear Snowy et.al.,

    I watched the Bree Olson retired porn star video. She only regrets having done porn because of the social consequences, such as being disbarred from working with children and entering the medical profession. She dislikes being called a slut and all the other names that go with it. It was fun, she loved doing porn, and she made heaps of money out of it, but she regrets the after-effects; the effects upon herself…me…me…me!

    As some astute playa over at RVF noted: if Olson actually regretted doing pr0n, she wouldn’t be selling it in the adults only section of her own web page. She doesn’t regret doing it, and wants to keep all the rewards, she just doesn’t want to continue paying the social cost of it.

    I have no doubt that she is basically honest. There is a social price for being a ho’, and women are social animals. This ties directly into the abortion question.

    Best thing pro-life people can do right now is join in with those few moral men who denounce the women who seek abortions. I enjoyed the film about “babies are murdered here” because that’s the hard truth that is necessary if we’re going to confront this crap. If you become a porn star or go to the abortion clinic, you will be outed and shamed. That’s as it should be.

    Boxer

  106. innocentbystanderboston says:

    The Question,

    My comment did not say they would literally force a man at gunpoint to do anything. It’s that he will not be able to attend the average church without having to deal with these expectations and pressures and nothing he says or does will placate them.

    Well of course he can!

    (Nosey Parker) “Hi My alpha-male bachelor, why are you here?”

    (Alpha-male-bachelor) “To serve and worship God, to serve and worship Christ. I am church hopping at the moment and I want to see if I am a good fit here. And (look around the building) I like the people.” Then smile.

    That’s it. That is all I ever did.

    Why would he think that is worth it?

    Maybe for him it isn’t. For me it was. I liked the people. And I enjoyed the sermons.

    His “I’m seeing someone right now” comment only works as long as no one asks further questions (When can we meet her? Do we know her? Bring her sometime….are you still dating that gal? What’s her name?). I speak here from personal experience.

    When the nosey parkers started that, I just said that we just started seeing each other. And if they came back in 6 or 8 weeks (or whatever) and asked the same question, I would say that I am not seeing her anymore, but that I am seeing someone else who is also new. You can do this…… for years. I suppose, even decades. It gets you off the hook and they will get the message that you will not be bringing anyone to church.

    I’m also referring to Red Pill men, not alphas. Why would a unmarried Alpha who didn’t grow up in the church go to church unless it’s to pick up girls? Even there, he’ll be spotted quickly because men like Chandler are looking for them.

    To serve Christ. Some time young alpha men simply need to be part of a church party because that is the only way they feel Christ in their life. It might not be that way for you I, but it is that way for some single men. I was a Deacon at my church at age 19. I served God. I wasn’t there to pick up any girls, ever. I never asked one out. And (well) there weren’t any there anyway. It was all old married and widowed biddies. But for me, it was my home for Christ.

    If a RP man is a former nice church guy there are very powerful expectations that he will be the beta provider for some gal at some point. This is one of the reasons why Rollo Tomassi says men sometimes need to “ghost” people who knew them before they became Red Pill. The perception of them from before is so strong they can’t let it go. Part of that perception for nice church guys is that they will follow this pre-written script. If there’s little to no pressure on him it’s probably because he’s not well connected to the congregation or there’s no marriage-age women, just families and old people. Again, what’s the point of that for a single man?

    Just serving Christ. There is great comfort (even for a young single man) to know that you have a “home” for that on Sunday morning where you feel welcome to feel the presence of Christ. It was important to me when I was younger. YMMV.

  107. Chris says:

    With regard to the Matt Chandler video, I don’t think he was trying to lessen the woman’s sins; in fact, he mentions that he and his friends were ministering to her and trying to get her to turn away from them. And when they finally got her to relent and attend one of their church services, it was led by one of those “True Love Waits” Harrisites who wanted to get the young adults in the audience to hate their sexualities as much as he did.

  108. Casey says:

    There have been several comments about the church’s motives being financially based.
    I agree wholeheartedly, money is what drives the church.

    Simply put, churches are a business model. That business model has had to reinvent itself as women have more and more of their own money to spend (or money liberated from the tyrannical grip of her ex-husband).

    The first priority of ANY business is the following: “You have to sell”.

    The church has always been selling, it’s just that, at present, the product being sold has changed into this unrecognizable pile of dog shit.

    Women are the greater portion of church membership, and they don’t want to sit back and listen to how awful the modern woman behaves. After all, they are paying for this sermon.

    It is simply inescapable, and doesn’t stop at the threshold of the church. Women are being placated to in all avenues of life.

    As Dalrock has stated before, it has become ingrained on our CULTURE.

    The fix is nowhere to be found, and women believe their own press at this point.

  109. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Casey,

    It is simply inescapable, and doesn’t stop at the threshold of the church. Women are being placated to in all avenues of life.

    You are not kidding when you said that. Hey guys, Dalrock, you’ll love this placating!

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-04-08/the-right-way-to-regulate-prostitution

    France decided this week, after almost three years of deliberations, to switch to the so-called Swedish or Nordic model, which exists in Sweden, Norway, Iceland and Northern Ireland: Sex work is legal, but paying for it isn’t. Johns will be fined 1500 euros ($1,700) for the first offense and 3,700 euros for the second…..

    ….The logic behind the “Swedish model” is ostensibly feminist, but essentially abolitionist. It’s a way of banning prostitution while putting the onus on the client rather than the prostitute, who is viewed as a passive victim of sexual exploitation.

    Feminism is the cardinal virtue. And feminism hates prostitution. But if feminism hates anything MORE than prostitution, it hates women being accountable for anything.

  110. Casey says:

    @ IBB

    The same legislation has been tabled in Canada. I expect it has become law, but haven’t looked.
    Agreed, accountability is nowhere to be found.

    Get caught patronizing a prostitute, and she goes free.
    The ‘john’, however, will lose everything.

  111. The Question says:

    @innocentbystanderboston

    “There is great comfort (even for a young single man) to know that you have a “home” for that on Sunday morning where you feel welcome to feel the presence of Christ. It was important to me when I was younger.”

    Yeah, I had a nice tiny working class church that served that purpose in college. But they sang traditional hymns and had a masculine pastor. They also had the Eulogy. They minded their own business and didn’t tell anybody what to do.

    Most churches in my area are Six Flags Over Jesus.

    It’s hard to take comfort or find a home in a place that turns young boys into little maidens and teaches girls to act like men.

  112. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Get caught patronizing a prostitute, and she goes free.

    Of course. Its legal. What she is doing is legal. It has to be legal, that is the ONLY WAY government is denied any authority in incarcerating her.

    The ‘john’, however, will lose everything.

    Of course. Its against feminism. He has to pay, never her. It simply must be that way. It can be no other way.<br.Women are not moral agents.

  113. Casey says:

    I believe the larger problem (for our gatekeepers) here, is that if men can legally but sex…….they will; as an alternative to the risk plagued institution currently masquerading as ‘marriage’.

    Men are motivated by sex.
    If marriage/relationships become SO untenable, they will look to an alternative.

    The alternative has to be equally unpalatable in order to keep ‘fresh meat’ entering into the ‘divorce industry grinder’.

    BTW……..Divorce is a cash motivated business as well.
    Which is why the rules or ‘outcomes’ surrounding divorce are so women friendly.

  114. AnonS says:

    @Novaseeker According to Quick facts on the gender gap (http://churchformen.com/men-and-church/where-are-the-men/)

    Interesting does that site address the problems or is it just standard BS.

    “More than 90 percent of American men believe in God, and five out of six call themselves Christians. But only one out of six attend church on a given Sunday. The average man accepts the reality of Jesus Christ, but fails to see any value in going to church.”

    Makes me want to start an “Iron Church” with unpaid male leadership (all having read and agreed to Dalrock and RM).

    Rent out Crossfit space on Sunday morning.

    Play Medieval sacred music (Templar Chant): https://goo.gl/FZ07Et

    Communion

    Heavy theology teaching (play these Sunday school videos by PHD teacher): http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-3-podcast

    Male only break out workshops: Barbell training, Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu, public speaking / Charisma training and Red Pill.

    You can have some girl classes in barbell training (actually get girls in shape), cooking and nutrition, and charm school.

    No paid leaders or preachers (performers), just have teachers to guide lesson and discussion.

    If it gets big you can hire a Chaplain that will visit people in the hospital.

  115. innocentbystanderboston says:

    b0xer,

    Best thing pro-life people can do right now is join in with those few moral men who denounce the women who seek abortions.

    When I did the on-line dating thingie before I met my wife, I was seeing a woman who told me in her profile that she didn’t smoke. Then (about 4 weeks into our “relationship”) she forgot and “lit up” in her car. I asked about that and she told me that she just put non-smoker in her profile to increase the hits/responses from men. Well that was honest, even if she wasn’t. I dumped her that night. She was NOT happy about that.

    Same thing for abortions. When I’ve found out that the woman I was seeing had an abortion (or two) in her past, I would generally dump her. I would wait until the end of the evening or dinner (or whatever it was) after she told me, and then I would just break it to her that things weren’t working out and that was it. That was the only way I could “denounce” it. I don’t know how effective I was in helping to slow its growth, but the way I looked at it, I was helping the pro-life movement in some very small personal way.

  116. Anonymous Reader says:

    bluepillprofessor
    They truly believe women innately desire to marry good men, so when they act feral these men automatically try to explain it away as some man’s responsibility

    This is part of it. There’s also the belief that women are innately monogamous, which has been rather well exploded on this site. It is pedestalization in both cases – “men bad, women good”.

    There’s also the belief that women are innately loyal, or they naturally care what men think. I’m still shaping up an opinion on that – it seems to be at least partly learned behavior, not innate.

  117. Novaseeker says:

    The thing is that if they ban prostitution and pornography, there will be a violent revolution at some stage, backed by massive sexual frustration.

    In any case, in the US, prostitution is illegal almost everywhere, but almost never enforced against aside from cases of trafficking and “rings” (due to concentration of revenues the state wants to tax). In the US, almost all prostitution is private, very discreet and very hard to enforce against apart from stings which are rare. So even if the law changed in the US (it’s not like johns can’t get charged now .. they can), it wouldn’t change much. For the most part, prostitution is a tolerated crime, provided it is reasonably voluntary and doesn’t involve pimps or trafficking. I’m pretty sure it’s the same in Sweden. The legislation is posturing more than anything else.

  118. Novaseeker says:

    he mentions that he and his friends were ministering to her and trying to get her to turn away from them

    Right, by babysitting for her when she was off fucking a married man. Nice ministry there. The “facilitate single mothers committing adultery” ministry. Great gig.

  119. Stig says:

    AnonS 11:59

    Muscular Christianity. Yeah! Sign me up.

  120. Novaseeker says:

    if Olson actually regretted doing pr0n, she wouldn’t be selling it in the adults only section of her own web page. She doesn’t regret doing it, and wants to keep all the rewards, she just doesn’t want to continue paying the social cost of it.

    Right. She also does cam shows still today apparently. She is still in the “biz”, although she blames that on the aftermath of her very prominent, Charlie Sheen concubine, career. Yet she refuses to change her look, which would be easy enough to do, or to take down her website and stop hustling men on cam shows. It’s all bullshit to me. She’s a whore, and a lesbian whore at that, and she likes hustling men. She just doesn’t like being called out. Boo hoo.

  121. Novaseeker says:

    Therefore, the dominating force behind women’s sins comes from their desires to do nothing but good (i.e. their desires to be perfect). This is truly amazing stuff.

    It’s just feminist. It isn’t amazing or surprising. We just have to recognize that almost all people in the US today, and including almost all who say that they are either not feminist or that they are anti-feminist, are, in fact, feminist in their core worldview. Yes, they bend it and twist it around their own peccadiloes, but at the end of the day, what rules are feminist ideas, like women’s main issue being under pressure to be perfect. That’s a feminist idea. He has imbibed it and baptized it because he is a de facto feminist, regardless of what he says. In the US today, 50%+ of feminists are de facto feminists who reject the label — rejection of the label does not mean that they are not feminists. People like him are busy doing the work of a feminist goddess in reinterpreting the Gospel in a feminist light so that they can not lose church members.

  122. feeriker says:

    We’ve gotten into a habit about reading things into the Bible that aren’t there and declaring things Christian or not somewhat randomly.

    In other words, Legalism has replaced Biblical Christianity.

    Go figure.

  123. innocentbystanderboston says:

    People like him are busy doing the work of a feminist goddess in reinterpreting the Gospel in a feminist light so that they can not lose church members.

    Correct. This is why all pastors should be voluntary, lay pastors (not paid.) That would fix it. Because if people leave, it wouldn’t matter. Take the $ out of the equation.

  124. Dalrock, we are having a similar discussion on Married Red Pill about whether marriage is ever a good idea. One of our Mods is saying it is- so long as you are not a weak man who might screw up the glorious egalitarian vision of marriage, and so long as you vet everything perfectly, and so long as you are the best Alpha option she will ever have. This thread has broken 400 comments to make it the most hotly argued thread ever on MRP.

    https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill/comments/4dr5cc/i_would_do_it_again/

    His argument is not quite that women are perfect creatures and anything they do wrong is the fault of men, but I think it is unfortunately close to the same argument. It really boils down to: All the arguments against marriage are immaterial if you are a strong man because anything a woman does wrong is the fault of a man. Of course anything a man does is also his fault. Got it.

  125. Which begs the question: If a tree falls in the forest and there is no woman around to hear it. Is it STILL the man’s fault?

  126. innocentbystanderboston says:

    feriker

    In other words, Legalism has replaced Biblical Christianity.

    Go figure.

    This drove Pastor Gungor crazy in one of his you tubes. He was confronted with a problem at his own church where a member came to him in tears saying that his wife was stepping out and having an affair. So the pastor talked to the wife and she said that yes, she was, that she was very much enjoying it and wanted it to continue, that she didn’t love her husband anymore but under no circumstances was the pastor in any authority to do anything about it. She contacted the church and told them that if they tried to exclude her and her bf from the building, she would see them in court. And the pastoral-relations board told him that “legally” there was nothing that they could do to help her husband, nothing. And he was like… “LEGAL! LEGAL!?!?! She is openly violating the top ten laws!!!!!”

  127. The Question says:

    @ bluepillprofessor

    I was having this discussion with a Blue Pill churchian a while back. I kept pointing out that no-fault divorce allows a wife to leave her husband for whatever reason and get the cash and prices. Even if she doesn’t, the ability to do so at any time is there.

    His argument was the same as this guy; if I did exactly as I was supposed to and I married the “right” girl and loved her like Christ loved the church and blah blah blah, then it wouldn’t happen. If I found the “right” woman she would never, ever divorce.

    Of course, he couldn’t really explain how one really knows if one is marrying the “right” woman until one of you dies and leaves the other windowed or they meet you in court.

    That’s not marriage. That’s a threesome with the state. Marriage is a covenant between a man and woman in the sight of God. It’s death til you part. It’s not “until the husband stops giving his wife the tingles.”

    I also pointed out to him that my hypothetical wife under his logic gets to decide if I’m “doing the right thing.” That’s not marriage either. It provides men with no room to grow, no room for error. It’s impossible to lead because you’re constantly wondering if your decisions fit within the definition of what your wife thinks. Meanwhile, she can do no wrong and has no pressure to keep her word.

    Honestly, that Reddit post was disappointing. It’s something Matt Walsh would have written.

  128. Dalrock says:

    @BPP

    That sounds like what I define as posture 2 in Hostage Negotiator for Life?

  129. feeriker says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:
    April 8, 2016 at 1:44 pm

    I’m betting that that “church” is a 501c3 corporation, so it might just be true that the slutty whore wife would have had grounds for legal action if they tried to de-fellowship her. That being the case, my question to the cuck husaband would be “why are you a part such an association?”

    The pastor in this case is:

    1. A coward (imagine that). If he does not have sufficient faith in the God he claims to worship to know that said God will have his back when he disciplines a church member, then he needs to find another line of work that doesn’t involve leadership or faith.

    2. A fraud. See point number one, plus the whole 501c3 thing (or the whole corporate church thing even without the IRS’s blessing).

    “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? And in thy name have cast out devils? And in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” ~ Matthew 7:22-24 (KJV)

  130. American says:

    And the denial continues unabated by people like Chandler who misrepresent God’s word on issues like this and receive a paycheck for doing so.

  131. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    The thing is that if they ban prostitution and pornography, there will be a violent revolution at some stage, backed by massive sexual frustration.

    Banning porn is going to require control of the Internet on a par with the Great Firewall of China. Not saying there aren’t people willing to do that, of course. There’s a rather NSFW link floating around that demonstrates some sort of Japanese apparatus in combination with a virtual reality eyegoggle – no, I’m not going to post it – that indicates where we are heading. The Incel may soon be able to have a virtual sexual experience that’s more than good enough, and if VR takes off for other infotainment purposes there won’t be any real way to stop it.

    Banning prostitution is risible. More like “banning low end” prostitution – I’m very skeptical that high end escorts, the kind that UMC men like, will ever be seriously banned. The new French law that appears modeled on Swedish law – “illegal to solicit for sex, not illegal to offer it for money” – will only affect the old-school prostitutes who work streets or selected locations. Heck, one France Press article I read had a quote from a hooker who complained that she “didn’t want to use the Internet”. So again, in order to shut down prostitution in the modern world, a serious control of the net is required.

    Plus both of these leave out obvious grey areas – what’s “cam-girl” action, is it prostitution or not? There’s plenty of amateur porn going on out there. And what about the whole “sugar daddy” subworld, is that prostitution or is just, hmmm, middle aged men “mentoring” women under 30?

    We have tied the legal system into a pretzel to try to satisfy the Female Imperative’s desire for fried ice – men’s sexuality must be controlled, but only in a way that pleases women, and please, please, please don’t tie down the Alpha’s!

    Tangentially, and riffing off of my own comment about UMC men & escorts, readers should bear in mind that Novaseeker is probably an outlier. The upper middle class, and the upper class, in all the Western countries is not religious in any sense of the word. Sure, 100 years ago Mencken could refer to the Episcopalian church as “The Republican Party at prayer”, but he’s still dead and the mainline Protestant churches have changed. I suspect someone from the 1910’s would barely recognize them now. My guess is the UMC and UC are mostly agnostics, to small “a” atheists, and so they don’t even perceive these issues the same way a middle class, churchgoing man sees them.

    That has some implications for the longer term; the Davos set can’t understand why Alabama passed a freedom of religion (“no, I don’t have to bake a wedding cake for you two men”) law, and are hostile to the very idea (see: Disney and other multinationals leaning on the Gov. of Georgia not to sign a similar bill into law). This disconnect between the UC / UMC and the MC is part and parcel of the current political campaign as well.

  132. innocentbystanderboston says:

    feriker,

    The pastor in this case is:

    1. A coward (imagine that). If he does not have sufficient faith in the God he claims to worship to know that said God will have his back when he disciplines a church member, then he needs to find another line of work that doesn’t involve leadership or faith.

    2. A fraud. See point number one, plus the whole 501c3 thing (or the whole corporate church thing even without the IRS’s blessing).

    Pastor Gungor was told by the pastoral-parish relations committee that he could NOT take action (they didn’t allow him to) because they didn’t want to be sued. So he was allowed to council the husband but (in the end) had no real authority… to do anything. That wasn’t the way he wanted it. But it is what it is.

  133. thedeti says:

    GIL:

    A worthy successor to the Hamsterlator. Maybe I’ll bring it out of retirement.

  134. thedeti says:

    @ Neguy:

    “there’s a grand total of two Christian ‘sphere people posting under their real identity: Vox Day and Sunshine Thiry”

    Sunshine is not part of the manosphere. She’s more or less disavowed the manosphere, for many of the same reasons that Susan Walsh did. Except that Sunshine got doxxed by the FreeJinger mob, which was pretty shitty.

  135. innocentbystanderboston says:

    The upper middle class, and the upper class, in all the Western countries is not religious in any sense of the word. Sure, 100 years ago Mencken could refer to the Episcopalian church as “The Republican Party at prayer”, but he’s still dead and the mainline Protestant churches have changed. I suspect someone from the 1910’s would barely recognize them now. My guess is the UMC and UC are mostly agnostics, to small “a” atheists, and so they don’t even perceive these issues the same way a middle class, churchgoing man sees them.

    I think its the opposite. I’ll explain.

    In Charles Murray’s book “Coming Apart” he talks about the UMC and the UC (in Belmont Massachusetts, Mitt Romney’s home of all places) being very religious, while the LMC and LC having absolutely no religion at all. Of course this was just in the white community. What changed (said Murray) from 1910 to 2010 is not that the UMC is less religious. It is instead that the UMC is less critical and judgmental of the LMC and LC if those choose a secular life. The UMC of today that IS religious is admittedly NOT going to judge and NEVER shame those who live secular. The UMC doesn’t try to set a trend to have the LMC follow. They used to do that, used to shame and judge, they wont anymore. A liberal would call this “progress.”

  136. thedeti says:

    IBB:

    No, I think AnonReader has it more or less correct here. THe UMC on up in the US is not religious in any sense of the word; and not just in the sense of no judgment and no shaming.

    The UMC and UC in the United States isn’t religious. They don’t live religion in any way. Religious faith doesn’t inform any aspect of their lives. Religion doesn’t affect, influence or inform their work, their leisure time, their family lives, their vacationing, their selection of friends or material goods they use, their purchases, their retirement planning, the foods they eat, or their inner thoughts. They do not adhere to or observe any traditional religious disciplines like praying or fasting or scripture reading. They do not regularly attend worship. They do not tithe or give a portion of their earnings/assets to their home churches or religious organizations.

    So, no, I wouldn’t agree that the UMC on up is still religious; but that they’ve somehow learned to avoid judging and shaming so as to “go along to get along”.

  137. feeriker says:

    Pastor Gungor was told by the pastoral-parish relations committee that he could NOT take action (they didn’t allow him to) because they didn’t want to be sued. So he was allowed to council the husband but (in the end) had no real authority… to do anything. That wasn’t the way he wanted it. But it is what it is.

    So this pastor, if he has any integrity or spiritual fruits at all, has a choice to either

    1. Tell the “church’s” “pastoral-parish relations committee” that they’re the equivalent of the pharisees of Jesus’s day, with all that that implies, and that as long as that body exists and continues to do the destructive, ungodly, man-pleasing/God-defying things it does, he has no place in their “church” and will seek a mission elsewhere in a REAL church that fears God more than man. OR

    2. Roll over, take the biscuit and the slap across the snout, grovel and whimper, lick the hands of Caeser’s proxies masquerading as Christians, and resign himself to his role as CEO of a “New Christian Church” (a much more marketable and potentially lucrative skill than that of pastor of a real New Testament church).

    No need to tell me which choice he ultimately made.

  138. hoellenhund2 says:

    The thing is that if they ban prostitution and pornography, there will be a violent revolution at some stage, backed by massive sexual frustration.

    That causation sounds rather far-fetched in a world of dropping testosterone levels, numerous media distractions and increasingly repulsive (fat, snarky etc.) women, not to mention the notion of banning porn and prostitution.

  139. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti to GIL
    A worthy successor to the Hamsterlator. Maybe I’ll bring it out of retirement.

    No, no, no, Deti. A WhiteKnightLator would be a complement to the Hamsterlator. It would totally be complementarian, don’t you see?

  140. The Question says:

    Just to clarify a previous comment of mine; I said eulogy when I meant liturgy. A little bit of a difference there, hehe.

  141. innocentbystanderboston says:

    feeriker,

    So this pastor, if he has any integrity or spiritual fruits at all, has a choice to either

    I got it wrong. I was close, but not exactly there. Husband finds out wife is cheating and he tells the church to remove her. The church was not going to take any action against her in removing her from church authority because of legalism. This really drove Mark Gungor…. nuts.

    Here is the youtube

  142. Jim says:

    I look at these “pastors” and it makes me glad I’m not a Professional Christian. It’s too dependent on kowtowing to the current femicunt/libtard degeneracy to tell the truth.

  143. Yoda says:

    The Feminine Imperative in full view it is.
    Corrupts all in its wake it does.
    Christianity no different it would be

  144. enrique says:

    Poor, put upon, white women–remember, you wanted this (and voted for it for 50 years, via progressive politicians). Suck it up:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-bathrooms-transgender-north-carolina-women-men-perspec-0408-20160407-story.html

  145. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Casey
    Get caught patronizing a prostitute, and she goes free.
    The ‘john’, however, will lose everything.

    Funny to note how this is a complete inversion of the way the “conservatives” think the abortion laws should work.

    With prostitution, they’ll say that the industry is evil — but the client who wants the service performed should be punished while those who offer and sell the service go free. With abortion, they’ll say that the industry is evil — but the client who wants the service performed should go free while those who offer and sell the service should be punished.

    . . . . And they’ll never see the slightest inconsistency in holding both positions at the same time.

  146. Novaseeker says:

    So, no, I wouldn’t agree that the UMC on up is still religious; but that they’ve somehow learned to avoid judging and shaming so as to “go along to get along”.

    Yes, they think, mostly, that they are far too smart and clever to be religious — they know better. The non-judgmentalism is also virtue-signaling.

  147. Novaseeker says:

    Sunshine is not part of the manosphere. She’s more or less disavowed the manosphere, for many of the same reasons that Susan Walsh did. Except that Sunshine got doxxed by the FreeJinger mob, which was pretty shitty.

    Yes, she bounces on the fringes of it, though, with people like Donal and Deep Strength. But she never really was manosphere anyway, more sort of trad Christiansphere, which some overlap with the manosphere, but mostly is its own thing. This blog is one of the overlaps.

  148. Novaseeker says:

    @AR —

    Banning prostitution is risible. More like “banning low end” prostitution – I’m very skeptical that high end escorts, the kind that UMC men like, will ever be seriously banned.

    Yup. Can’t really ban what you can’t see. Most of the truly high end “courtesan” types aren’t even on the net and operate by connections and word of mouth. And the guys who frequent them are very high end. No way that’s ever getting enforced against, really — fairly impossible to do even if the law enforcement folks wanted to, which they don’t. I mean they already don’t enforce much against internet prostitutes, and those girls are hiding in plain sight. The courtesan types are pretty much invisible by comparison.

    Novaseeker is probably an outlier. The upper middle class, and the upper class, in all the Western countries is not religious in any sense of the word.

    True.

    There are some who attend church services, of course, as a form of virtue-signaling, and also as a form of having some kind of community in an otherwise dislocated existence. But it isn’t deep religion for most of them — again, they’re too smart for that, in their own minds. Someone like me makes their eyes roll (I’ve literally gotten that more than once, as you can imagine). Their religiosity is best described as “moralistic therapeutic deism”, and really doesn’t go much further than that for most of them (there are exceptions).

  149. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    When I was in my 20s, during the atheist phase of my life, I advocated pro-feminist, pro-abortion positions. Not because I felt strongly about those positions, one way or another. I did so because I thought that’s what women wanted to hear. I thought that being “pro-choice” would improve my chances of attracting a pretty girlfriend. As a Beta male, I always tried to tell women whatever I thought would please them.

    I think there’s a deep-seated male sexual instinct to try and please women. Even if the man, such as this pastor, is not trying to pick up women in his congregation, it feels good on a sexual-psychological level to bask in female approval.

  150. Pathfinderlight says:

    Deti hit the nail on the head. I recall a young woman that I’d gone to a Catholic school with. As a 20 something, she’d told my mom that she’d never heard that having sex with your boyfriend is a sin. This is a woman who’d gone to a reasonably orthodox Catholic school and had the gospel preached to her every day in the classroom. As I’d had roughly the same upbringing, I know she’d HAD to have encountered that idea before.

    So why would a woman and man get different things out of that similar upbringing? Emotional memory. Women naturally connect memories to what is strongest for them emotionally, often to the exclusion of everything else. Conventional wisdom states that women can’t be taught in a negative way. Game teaches us this is false. You have to be willing to sacrifice the relationship, but it IS doable. My Catholic upbringing was about as non-judgemental as you could get. You had to read between the lines and understand the terminology to put together what they were saying, but it was there. A determinedly zero fucks given girl would be completely oblivious.

    Male culture of not challenging women merely seals the deal in this sort of environment. It doesn’t have to be particularly cowardly because plenty of men will simply keep their heads down, away from the wrath.

  151. @ Novaseeker et al

    “moralistic therapeutic deism”

    Money replaces God for the UMC and UC. Money is throw at problems and makes them go away in most cases. There is very little introspection for character faults that may have caused problems and certainly not much repentance.

    Jesus becomes just some accessory you wear occasionally when you feel bad.

    Matthew 6:24 “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and [m]wealth.

  152. >>@Greyghost: “When did being Christian become synonymous with being a pussy?

    The Feminine Imperative began it’s conflation with the Holy Spirit with Eve.

    Since then they have expanded the Holy Hamster’s reach and now it is near complete. The answer I believe is about 1980, the same time when women seized effective control of marriages.

    @AR: “unmarried women seem to kind of vanish from churches between the age of, oh, 22 and 30 for some reason or other. Maybe Matt Walsh, John Piper and Matt Chandler could put their heads together and figure it out.”

    He wins the thread. I think they must be working on their careers and just don’t have time for church?

    BTW it is 19-28 or so. The homely and overweight often start Beta hunting at 28 (because they hit the wall faster, obviously) so you will occasionally see some 28 megalopolis in the pews. It is 19 because, while they start Alpha riding at age 15 or 16 these days, there are still some going to church because daddy makes them.

    @negay: “I do plan to take a run at having private conversations with these folks and try to unplug them from the matrix.”

    Good luck with that. I pray for your success but unplugging the plugged in…….sigh.

    Whenever I get such notions I just repeat to myself: “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.”

  153. feeriker says:

    …so you will occasionally see some 28 megalopolis in the pews

    Oh, man, you bastard … I had mouth full of food when I read that and now I’m choking and ROTFLMAOing at the same time!

  154. cptnemo2013 says:

    Reblogged this on MGTOW 2.0.

  155. Novaseeker says:

    Money replaces God for the UMC and UC. Money is throw at problems and makes them go away in most cases. There is very little introspection for character faults that may have caused problems and certainly not much repentance.

    To some degree.

    I’d argue, though, that it’s more about social virtue-signaling on whatever issues the current culture considers virtuous. For example, leading contemporary virtues are inclusion, diversity, multiculturalism, embracing LGBT, embracing female empowerment and so on. So you go to a church that emphasizes these, say a progressive mainline church, as the focus of the gospel message in the present tense, and you both (1) affirm to everyone else your obvious virtue per these measures and (2) feel self-reinforced in your own self-image of your own virtuosity (or lack thereof) relative to these measures. It’s satanic, of course, because these measures are not God’s measures, but that’s what’s going on.

  156. BillyS says:

    I don’t think it is simply financial. See Chandler in the video. Calling out women’s sin, calling it ugly, makes him profoundly uncomfortable.

    This was a fair ways back now, but I would agree with Dalrock that I do not believe the financial motivation is as strong in this as some of you think. I have known several pastors throughout my years and none were highly motivated by money. They had plenty of other flaws, but preaching for money was not a common one in the circles I interacted with.

    I am sure some do, but simply being blue pill is explanation enough and we don’t need to add additional motivations. Some pastors had their own rough background and may feel guilty about their past stupid behavior, overlooking the fact that women do just as much (or more) stupid behavior, especially in today’s environment.

    Too many logical reasons for that behavior, so we don’t need add to it.

  157. BillyS says:

    IBB,

    It is instead about the belief that wives pick the church.

    Maybe that is true in Boston, but it has never been true in my family, and I am almost at 30 years of marriage now. I definitely seek my wife’s input, but she doesn’t pick the place. I stop going if it is not appropriate and we will ultimately change.

    You also do not account for human stupidity enough. This is not Wall Street (the movie) here, this is real life. People are driven by many things. I had been wrong on some blue pill / red pill issues in the past, but money had nothing to do with them. Perhaps money is your only guidance in life, but some of us follow the Scriptures more, or at least attempt to do that.

  158. Robin Munn says:

    In the case of prostitution, the “don’t punish the prostitutes” idea has some rationality to it — because many (though not all) prostitutes are literally slaves. (In the case of many, they thought they were signing up for a hard but decent job, like factory work — and by the time they discover the true intentions of the people they’ve trusted, it’s too late: they’ll be beaten or starved if they try to run away.) If someone is a slave, forced to commit a sin because otherwise they will be beaten or starved, I don’t really want to punish them. God has the wisdom to sort out how much culpability they bear vs. how much the person forcing them to do it bears, and I’d rather err on the side of mercy in that case.

    But when a woman gets an abortion, it’s usually not because someone is threatening her.

  159. seventiesjason says:

    Again…..these same “leaders” and “experts” on Scripture will ponder on “why men don’t want to come to church”

    I am not saying “men need to be absolved of responsibility”

    BUT…….

    Here we go again……there will be “conferences” and “workshops” and more sermons like this. More books, podcasts, and meetings of the leaders of Western Protestant Christianity discussing this issue again. There will be “new” man-up groups. There will be all kinds of resources and tools for “real men of God” to step up and “man up” and be that “servant leader” of their household…..

    To the single men already in the church, more shame, more belittling, more sermons made to tickle the ears of the women in the congregation………more blame. At the “mens fellowship” I attend at a large AG church on Tuesday……we all got a bold lesson about how we men need to come home after a long day….have that serving towel over our arm and be ready to treat our wives like the queen she is…..

    Even IF I wanted to get married at this point….all I hear from too many Christian brothers who are married, and are my age or a tad older / younger:

    My wife never wants sex / my wife is on antidepressants and blames me / my wife demands me to help more in the house and when I honestly try all she does is corrects me or find fault in it / I work two jobs and she still tells me I am not there for her or the family / I am in the doghouse right now I had to work late and didn’t get her permission

    The list goes on………why would any Christian man want to get married? All I hear is that it is a “dreadful” outcome for a Christian man…….

    And sermons and like this from Chandler / Platt / Piper / Dricoll / Noble / Young and the like are driving more men who indeed are solid away from this.

  160. @Hoyas: “how sane would you be if no one is being honest with you and it was so pervasive that you never actually saw it?”

    Holy reversal Batman! If the whole world were not being honest with me it would be so hard to actually see the truth. Imagine if men were faced with a world like that……somebody should invent a metaphor that describes this situation. Maybe something from that old sci-fi movie: The Matrix?

    @Deti: The Hamsturlator: I have several posts claiming to have borrowed your hamsturlator and yes, you should definitely bring it out of retirement for the next generation.

  161. desiderian says:

    Nova,

    “I’d argue, though, that it’s more about social virtue-signaling on whatever issues the current culture considers virtuous. For example, leading contemporary virtues are inclusion, diversity, multiculturalism, embracing LGBT, embracing female empowerment and so on.”

    There’s more than one current culture, though.

    What you’re picking up was what was edgy forty years ago when the present PTB were teenagers. Those PTBs are going to push that stuff regardless how the world has changed and often to the detriment of their own credibility. That gives it an over-sized prominence and doesn’t necessary reflect what’s on the mind and in the heart of today’s man.

    Particularly, the best among us, like yourself and Dal, for instance.

  162. feeriker says:

    Here we go again……there will be “conferences” and “workshops” and more sermons like this. More books, podcasts, and meetings of the leaders of Western Protestant Christianity discussing this issue again. There will be “new” man-up groups. There will be all kinds of resources and tools for “real men of God” to step up and “man up” and be that “servant leader” of their household…..

    But of course. As Casey reminded us upthread, it’s a business, this churchianity. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars are raked in through endless “discussions,” lectures, books, symposia and general perpetuation of problems, both real and imagined. It is in no one’s best interest ( no one who is power, anyway) to actually solve any of these real problems, especially those as low priority and unpopular as why men don’t pollute churches with their misogynist, sin-filled presence.

    Oh, and here’s a thought: ever wonder why none of these churches put any serious emphasis on prayer? I mean organized, focused, sincere, contrite, fervent prayer as a body? They yammer about it constantly on Sunday mornings, but never seem to actually DO very much of it. It seems to literally work miracles when it’s done regularly, yet for some reason churchians just can’t be bothered to stop being churchian for long enough to, y’know, maybe ask God for help in solving their problems.

    Naaaaah, too much effort involved.

    To the single men already in the church, more shame, more belittling, more sermons made to tickle the ears of the women in the congregation………more blame. At the “mens fellowship” I attend at a large AG church on Tuesday……we all got a bold lesson about how we men need to come home after a long day….have that serving towel over our arm and be ready to treat our wives like the queen she is…..

    So tell me: why do you continue to subject yourself so masochistically to such manginic nonsense? If a “men’s fellowship” does nothing but tear men down, it does more harm than good, no?

    Even IF I wanted to get married at this point….all I hear from too many Christian brothers who are married, and are my age or a tad older / younger:

    My wife never wants sex / my wife is on antidepressants and blames me / my wife demands me to help more in the house and when I honestly try all she does is corrects me or find fault in it / I work two jobs and she still tells me I am not there for her or the family / I am in the doghouse right now I had to work late and didn’t get her permission

    To which I would respond to such a man’s complaints with a very direct, unsubtle, un-PC question:

    “If your marriage is as dysfunctional as that of any unbelieving couple, what do suppose that says about the strength of your faith –both of you– or your knowledge of and absorption of God’s message on marriage as set down in Scripture?”

    “The list goes on………why would any North American Christian man want to get married to any North American “Christian” woman? All I hear is that it is a “dreadful” outcome for a Christian man…….”

    FIFY for clarity.

    First of all, this is illustrative of the fact that almost all of couples you’ve met and known are churchians as opposed to Bible-reading-and-adhering Christians.

    Second, as I never tire of telling young, single American men, Christian or not: if you want to have even a slim chance of finding a woman suitable for marriage, get a passport and start learning at least one foreign language.

    And sermons and like this from Chandler / Platt / Piper / Dricoll / Noble / Young and the like are driving more men who indeed are solid away from this.

    This isn’t going to go over well with most men, but I really believe more and more Christian red-pill men need to adopt an “enjoy the decline” attitude where the currently established and incorporated churches are concerned. Once you realize how irreversibly deep the rot is, that the institution is too fargone to be reformed and that the patient cannot be saved, you conserve your resources and energy for more productive endeavors. In this case it means finding likeminded men, single or not, and organizing your own church that adheres to biblical precepts on marriage and the proper roles of the sexes. Then start reaching out to the captives in Egypt (i.e., blue-pill churchian men trapped in both heretical, misandric “churches” and loveless, Godless marriages to churchio-feminist landwhale-harpies).

  163. @DA: “With prostitution, they’ll say that the industry is evil — but the client who wants the service performed should be punished while those who offer and sell the service go free. With abortion, they’ll say that the industry is evil — but the client who wants the service performed should go free while those who offer and sell the service should be punished.

    . . . . And they’ll never see the slightest inconsistency in holding both positions at the same time.”

    There IS no inconsistency. Whatever helps women is good. Whatever calls for women to account for their behavior is bad because men are completely responsible if a woman does anything wrong. The law is not being interpreted inconsistently. They are VERY consistent.

  164. Pingback: Pope Francis “Values” Feminism | The Noticer

  165. Feminist Hater says:

    This was a fair ways back now, but I would agree with Dalrock that I do not believe the financial motivation is as strong in this as some of you think. I have known several pastors throughout my years and none were highly motivated by money. They had plenty of other flaws, but preaching for money was not a common one in the circles I interacted with.

    These guys are in it for the money. They have always been charlatans, they will always base their preaching on the lowest form of self, and rake in the money, because that is what people want to hear. I don’t believe a Pastor or Preacher when they are running million dollar worshiping seminars and other such rackets.

  166. Opus says:

    Robin Munn appears to know of Prostitutes by reputation rather than in person. I have met dozens of these ladies, and the idea that they do what they do under some form of duress is laughable; that at least is the position in London but perhaps it is different elsewhere – though Steve Moxon in his Woman Racket says not – and agrees with my experience.

  167. This is a side note but protestants aren’t the only ones who are afraid to call out sexual sin by women. Pope Francis’s recent apostolic exhortation on the family included all of the familiar tropes bashing men while praising motherhood and women out of reason. No mention of women pushing divorce, abortions initiated by women, or the increasing prioritization of careerism over the family. Francis, like most other liberals or unthinking “conservatives” isn’t living in reality. Without a return to facts and hard data, it becomes easy to ignore the problems of our day or fit them into an “acceptable framework.” Thus the feminine imperative replaces the gospel.

    https://thenoticerblog.wordpress.com/2016/04/09/pope-francis-values-feminism/

  168. jonakc1 says:

    http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/sunday-morning-with-the-simpsons

    that website is full of feminist tones

    here the husband is at home looking after the kid while the wife goes to church

    such a concept would have been unheard of in pauline and OT times…
    embarrassment for the man…

  169. They Call Me Tom says:

    For what it’s worth. I’m guessing that the great majority of Roman Catholics would point out that Pope Francis is not a Roman Catholic.

  170. feeriker says:

    For what it’s worth. I’m guessing that the great majority of Roman Catholics would point out that Pope Francis is not a Roman Catholic.

    Amongst themselves, yes. In public, when among heretics or non-believers, they still defend him.

  171. Gunner Q says:

    Anonymous Reader @ April 8, 2016 at 2:28 pm:
    “Banning porn is going to require control of the Internet on a par with the Great Firewall of China. Not saying there aren’t people willing to do that, of course.”

    Hmm, is this the real purpose of Net Neturality? I know there’s more to that issue than what has been publicly said.

  172. Novaseeker says:

    Robin Munn appears to know of Prostitutes by reputation rather than in person. I have met dozens of these ladies, and the idea that they do what they do under some form of duress is laughable; that at least is the position in London but perhaps it is different elsewhere – though Steve Moxon in his Woman Racket says not – and agrees with my experience.

    Yes, but more fundamentally, it would be easy to tailor laws that target specifically trafficking and pimping, and not the typical situation of an independent internet hooker who is nobody’s slave, and does it on the side on a part-time basis when she isn’t at work/school. If we’re worried about enslaved women, well then we can tailor laws about that, instead of targeting all men who are sadly enough purchasing sex, and treating the typical independent internet hooker as a victim of these men.

  173. BillyS says:

    There IS no inconsistency. Whatever helps women is good. Whatever calls for women to account for their behavior is bad because men are completely responsible if a woman does anything wrong. The law is not being interpreted inconsistently. They are VERY consistent.

    It is either this or a money drive. Some may make money catering to this, but I would agree this is more the motivation than the money.

    People will pursue the path of focusing only on evil men in spite of any financial impact. They may ultimately make some money off that approach, but they are not doing a logical cost benefit analysis and pursuing the more profitable (in their view) way. They are following their feelings, and that is the core risk.

  174. Don Quixote says:

    Off topic:
    There is a great story unfolding in Lebanon concerning an Australian 60 minutes film crew. The 60 minutes crew were somehow suckered into paying $115K towards an attempted abduction of children off the streets of Lebanon. The 60 minutes crew are in jail, and they deserve a long sentence. They acted on their feminist folly and now they are learning a red pill truth at the hands of Hezbollah.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-09/channel-nine-paid-for-botched-child-abduction-statement-says/7313012

    Australians [and Christians] don’t seem to be able to come to terms with the fact that Sharia family law is more just than Western family. Now the 60 minutes crew can learn that fact in prison. I doubt they will learn anything though, they are so self righteous.

  175. feeriker says:

    @DQ:

    Amazing, the story you linked to. The outcome was perfectly predictable too.

    Lebanese authorities say they have uncorroborated evidence Nine paid for the operation, which saw the children of Australian mother Sally Faulkner snatched off a Beirut street. It appears to have been an attempt to get the children back to Australia after their Lebanese father, Ali el-Amien, took them to Lebanon last year and refused to let them return.

    As someone who spent years studying Arabic and Islam and who spent plenty of time in the Middle East, I have just this to say: I have ZE-RO sympathy for any Western non-Muslim woman who marries a non-Western Muslim man and who then finds herself in mizz Faulkner’s situation after having kids with him. Any one of these stupid bints who had made even a minimum effort to educate themselves in the cultural, religious, and social moors of that part of the world (which I guarantee you NONE of them did) instead of succumbing to the gina-tingly bad-boy-craving impulses (which I guarantee you ALL of them did), they would have never even considered doing somethimg so reckless and idiotic.

    Somebody needs to tell Sally Faulkner the harsh, ugly truth: she has lost her children. Forever. If she had used common sense –or better yet, had a strong father or male relative to restrain her from making the most foolish choice of her life– she would never have put herself in this tragic situation in the first place. Now she’s getting a free education in the reality that Western women and the egalitarian “rules” they hold so sacred don’t apply in many parts of the world – like the one she foolishly chose to marry into.

    Here’s a free puece of advice to all the other stupid Western bints out there who are tempted to … whatever the equivalent of “mudsharking” is inre Middle Eastern and Asian Muslim men: perform shahada and convert to Islam. You’re marrying a Muslim, so there is no reason for you not to adopt his faith too. Ironically, it might even give you a reed-slim chance of getting access to your children (being a Kafr will guarantee that you have NO chance when within the jurisdiction of Islamic courts). Otherwise, if you’re going to do something terminally reckless and stupid, make it something that will kill you instantly. Like using a loaded double-barrel shotgun as a dildo.

    One final note: retired military commandos will tell you that going into a foreign country with the intention of kidnapping your child and exfiltrating is a laughably moronic B movie plot. Only an idiot would attempt it in the real world.

  176. Don Quixote says:

    feeriker says:
    April 9, 2016 at 8:25 pm

    As someone who spent years studying Arabic and Islam and who spent plenty of time in the Middle East, I have just this to say: I have ZE-RO sympathy for any Western non-Muslim woman who marries a non-Western Muslim man and who then finds herself in mizz Faulkner’s situation after having kids with him. Any one of these stupid bints who had made even a minimum effort to educate themselves in the cultural, religious, and social moors of that part of the world (which I guarantee you NONE of them did) instead of succumbing to the gina-tingly bad-boy-craving impulses (which I guarantee you ALL of them did), they would have never even considered doing somethimg so reckless and idiotic.

    [remove excellent comments]

    I agree with your sentiments and conclusions. What I find amusing is that a major Aussie News Network is now embroiled in this mess. They think they have the moral high ground because they are blinded by their feminist egalitarian views.
    Tonight [Sunday] when the 60 minutes crew get on their soap box I’m sure they will be spinning it for all its worth, trying to garner support from their ignorant viewers, and no doubt they will go crying to the Foreign Minister [also a woman] and put pressure on her to start crying as well. I will be sitting back with a beer laughing my ass off.

    I have been using this story to promote some much need red pill truth in the local christian community. I doubt they will pay attention.

  177. feeriker says:

    Tonight [Sunday] when the 60 minutes crew get on their soap box I’m sure they will be spinning it for all its worth, trying to garner support from their ignorant viewers, and no doubt they will go crying to the Foreign Minister [also a woman] and put pressure on her to start crying as well. I will be sitting back with a beer laughing my ass off.

    I have to assume by default that Australia’s 60 Minutes is every bit as awful as its American counterpart (which I stopped watching years ago). If I’m correct it means that in this particular story in which two ideologies popular with the media left, feminism and Islam, are in opposition to each other, the feminine-primary side (Sally Faulkner) will be covered favorably while her ex-husband and his countrymen and co-religionists will be painted as savage, misogynist, child abusing terrorist animals. Well, until next week anyway, when the same people clash with European Christians, at which point they become hero martyrs in the face of western imperialism.

    And of course Sean and Sharon Sheeple will never notice the journalistic propagandistic sleight of hand.

  178. enrique says:

    In Islam, we believe that most children, particularly if older than say, 7 or 8, belong to fathers–at least as a set-point, with mothers getting visitation as permitted by the FATHER’s family.

    I crack up at Western men and Feminists (most of whom overlap in core principles as noted on this blog) who have a problem with Sharia and “the way it treats women”, while ALL of these same people, have no problems with the current US family law system, which is Sharia law for womenz.

    Imagine a US, where women are literally hunted down for “not paying child support” (often due to loss of a job, or unrealistic standards to begin with)–while their ex-husbands lived off the public dole (welfare)…or even more often, worked menial jobs, sometimes only 20 hours a week to hold up “their end of support”.

    RE: WOMEN WHO HAVE HAD AN ABORTION, a personal story.

    On the Abortion issue, someone way up in the thread mentioned: I was thinking about this issue–how do trust and/or relate to a woman who has had an abortion (as disclosed to a man). I’m married so the dating situation doesn’t apply, but I have an aunt, who happens to be an Assemblies of God Christian fanatic (in all ways except male headship), who is in her late 60s now. She ran the carousel, from all accounts, married the Beta male in her late 40s…but had a long-term common law marriage with a Jew, and aborted their child. That relationship ended of course, but when she was trying to give me her “testimony” she told me about the abortion and how “God’s grace” was enough and all this. I kinda knew about the abortion as early as when I was a late teen , but just to hear it a few years ago from her. I swear, I looked at her and I realized how bat shit crazy this woman was–and that she was a murderer on top of it.

    It’s cliche to say, but seriously, how do you EVER relate, trust or care about a woman who knowingly killed her own child? They know it, you know it…they know it’s murder. She knows it. She freakin went into a clinic in the 70s and had her baby murdered for her convenience.

    She’s a monster in my eyes.

  179. Boxer says:

    It’s cliche to say, but seriously, how do you EVER relate, trust or care about a woman who knowingly killed her own child? They know it, you know it…they know it’s murder. She knows it. She freakin went into a clinic in the 70s and had her baby murdered for her convenience.

    That’s it, bro.

    The feminist doesn’t even care about her own children; yet, she whines and cries that no one cares about her. It’s a two way street, hoes.

  180. enrique says:

    I would have no doubt that this particular aunt (who passes as quite normal and successful in every other area of life, and happens to even now, still be a near model in looks), wrapped her abortion story around her personal life struggles to net the beta male she did, about 20 years ago. I met him a couple times back then, even before I was red pill, I knew like anyone would–this guy had paid his way into the business so to speak. He was really fat, ugly and had tons of cash.

    Makes you wonder, when women like this ultimately wind up poisoning their husbands later in life–hey, you knew she was a murderer when you married her. You went all in. What makes you think you’d be any different when YOU became an inconvenience?

  181. Pingback: Children of Men |

  182. Don Quixote says:

    feeriker says:
    April 10, 2016 at 1:31 am

    I have to assume by default that Australia’s 60 Minutes is every bit as awful as its American counterpart (which I stopped watching years ago). If I’m correct it means that in this particular story in which two ideologies popular with the media left, feminism and Islam, are in opposition to each other, the feminine-primary side (Sally Faulkner) will be covered favorably while her ex-husband and his countrymen and co-religionists will be painted as savage, misogynist, child abusing terrorist animals.

    Exactly.
    I watched [suffered] the 60 minutes show last night and they didn’t say a word. Obviously following their legal counsel. But I have no doubt when they present their side of the story it will be framed exactly as you have described, with lots of tears for the camera. And probably little or no mention of the fact that the children are Lebanese [according the ABC website] citizens.

  183. Reading this article and others like it on Dalrock’s blog make me glad (!) that I left the Christian church years ago and have Gone My Own Way since I was in my early thirties. And do these ‘Christian’ (Churchian, really) preachers and leaders really expect men to buy this misandric feminist drivel, no matter how much they conceal it in a ‘Holy Cloak of Righteousness’? Only the weak-willed and beaten-down shells of men that were raised by divorcees and single mothers will — any man with a spine and self-pride will quietly leave to Go His Own Way.

    And WRT ‘enrique’:
    “Makes you wonder, when women like this ultimately wind up poisoning their husbands later in life–hey, you knew she was a murderer when you married her. You went all in. What makes you think you’d be any different when YOU became an inconvenience?”

    His comment reminds me of an old comment by another MGHOW: (paraphrasing from memory) “Should we be surprised that women who kill their own helpless unborn children, will also lie under oath and swear falsely in court, destroying some man’s life and reputation — all because her marriage to him became ‘inconvenient’?”

  184. Anonymous Reader says:

    The Republican controlled legislature of Utah decided recently that porn is a major public health issue. So far as I can tell this only applies to the kind of porn that men prefer. Not a surprise, really, but interesting in the larger context.

    https://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2016/04/10/is-porn-immoral-or-a-public-health-crisis/

  185. Pingback: Donal Graeme

  186. feeriker says:

    So far as I can tell this only applies to the kind of porn that men prefer.

    But of course. Don’t you know that only men read/view porn? Women would never dream of doing such a thing.

    Actually, this being Utah we’re talking about, there’s a better than average chance that this is exactly what the blue-pill Mormon legislators truly believe.

  187. greyghost says:

    This guy is more common sense Christian than these preachers Dalrock has on display. Red pill always seem to lead to scripture even from a PUA. Truth and Christianity go hand in hand. This guy has also written many times the alpha male that gets the pussy is not necessarily good for society.
    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2016/04/09/monotheistic-religions-may-encourage-paternal-investment/

  188. Robin Munn says:

    @Opus –

    That’s why I said “not all”. Even in SE Asia where I live, and where “human trafficking” is rampant, there are plenty of women who go into prostitution because it’s easy money for them. But I’ve also talked with missionaries who work with women who were rescued from sexual slavery. Both categories exist with prostitution, whereas the number of women who were forced into abortions is minimal. (Except in China during its former one-child policy days, but that’s not the subject we’re dealing with here.)

  189. Anonymous Reader says:

    Even in SE Asia where I live,

    A discussion of the recent law change in France, apparently based on the laws of Sweden, brings Robin Munn out of the woodwork…from South East Asia…

    Non sequitur of the week. Congrats.

  190. Chris says:

    It’s no coincidence that the state that’s been toying with Mormon theocracy for so long has some of the highest preponderances of porn use. From what I’ve read, Mormonism is one of the most genophobic denominations of the faith.

    The collective Church would be much better off not portraying human sexuality as a proverbial Pandora’s Box.

  191. embracingreality says:

    Robin Munn is of course right about the the vulnerable young women who are forced into prostitution, real victims of predators some who are men and some who are women. Everyone should be horrified about this.

    The unwilling prostitute however is hidden in a system that exists and is only made possible by those who willingly participate in it. Trying to blame prostitution on one gender or the other is futile. Greedy, slutty women who were giving sex away for free until they figure out they have something marketable are the favorite scapegoats around here but don’t forget about the pimps who exploit or the johns who can get over their urge. Its a complex problem but drug addiction fuels the women in the system 90% of the time. Eliminate the drug problem and the prostitution problem would be manageable, neither one is going to happen anytime soon.

  192. innocentbystanderboston says:

    BillyS,

    Maybe that is true in Boston, but it has never been true in my family, and I am almost at 30 years of marriage now. I definitely seek my wife’s input, but she doesn’t pick the place. I stop going if it is not appropriate and we will ultimately change.

    Well, good for you. That’s great. That is the way it should be. But in most marriages I think if the husband put his foot down and said no we are not attended that church anymore, lets try this one over here, the wife would go see a divorce attorney and take the kids and half all his stuff. She would rather end the marriage than listen to any pastor tell her to submit, that is never going to happen.

    Church and those sermons are about accommodating HER priorities, HER comforts, and HER worldview, not the Bible, not God’s law.

  193. Scott says:

    If you have a FB account, this guy needs some education. (Hopefully this takes you right to the post in question)

  194. mrteebs says:

    IBB,

    It was actually the reverse with me. My wife got offended by a leader in our current church and rather than go through the discomfort of reconciling, she wanted to leave the church. I said “No. We aren’t going anywhere until God tells me.”

    That is as it should be.

  195. Jim says:

    mrteebs says:
    April 11, 2016 at 10:35 pm

    IBB,

    It was actually the reverse with me. My wife got offended by a leader in our current church and rather than go through the discomfort of reconciling, she wanted to leave the church. I said “No. We aren’t going anywhere until God tells me.”

    That is as it should be.

    Good man. Glad to see you had enough balls to do your duty.

  196. Boxer says:

    Scott: Happy to help with this tonight.

    Herbie Marcuse sounds like you feel that men should have all the responsibilities, and women should have all the rights. sorry pal, not going to happen. men are responding rationally to incentives and staying away from women who aren’t worthy of marriage. if you want that to change, teach girls to stay virgins, rather than becoming toxic whores beginning at age 15.
    Like · Reply · Just now

  197. greyghost says:

    That dale dude is delusional if he thinks his marriage is normal. Any time she wants she can have him kicked out of the house. It’s the law of the land.

  198. Looking Glass says:

    @Scott:

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

    The guy literally makes his living as the embodiment of Churchianity. It’s probably not possible to get through.

  199. greyghost says:

    embracingreality
    How many of those poor girls enslaved by the sex dealers would not be there if they were in dads home doing laundry and home work waiting for dad to introduce her to one of his work buddies son. Life has consequences for all in the end.

  200. Isa says:

    @greyghost
    In SE Asia? Likely the family sold the very young girl to the pimp. Living as close to the edge as many families do means they exploit any resource to maintain their future, i.e. their sons. I’ve had business dealings recently in the area and the entire scene is quite depraved. Different case for the 13+ year old from the country who moves to the city. She again goes to support the family, but there isn’t the coercion that the 7-8 YO faces.

    But to be on topic, prostitution has always been quite open in France, especially Paris. Women I know who had the misfortune to be on the wrong street at noon have been approached by men, who when rebuffed asked if it was merely too early for them to be serviced. Rather funny stories, as the prostitutes next door could have worn coats outdoors and still got clients rather than their skivvies in the dead of winter. The enforcement of the new law will continue to be, as it ever was, nonexistent. The French really aren’t keen on investigating the sex life of other people.

  201. PokeSalad says:

    If you have a FB account, this guy needs some education. (Hopefully this takes you right to the post in question)

    I’m sure Chandler could use an assistant pastor or two…..this guy is tailor-made.

    Nice hover-hand, simp. Can’t even hug your wife for a publicity pic?

  202. greyghost says:

    Nice Catch PokeSalad That hover hand stuff combined with the man up comment shows his wife has him on the supplication leash. That face book comment while dressed as a chest thumping was pussy worship to supplicate the wife. Big tell

  203. thedeti says:

    Off Topic:

    The saga of Saeed and Naghmeh continues. Here’s the electronic docket sheet from the case of Naghmeh Pahani vs. Saeed Abedini, still pending in Ada County, Idaho.

    https://www.idcourts.us/repository/caseHistory.do?schema=ADA&county=Ada&roaDetail=yes&partySequence=2657867&displayName=Abedini%2C+Saeed

    This looks to me like all out war. It is not a typical grounds hearing followed by property settlement. It looks to me like they are fighting over temporary custody of the children – an issue that in most domestic relations cases is resolved fairly quickly, by agreement. Saeed is not going quietly into that good divorce night.

  204. thedeti says:

    I suspect Naghmeh expected Saeed to roll over after having been worn down by 3 years of doing hard time in Iran. She probably thought Saeed would agree to everything she demanded. Much to my pleasant surprise, he’s said “nope, and if you think you’re going to dangle me with my kids and trumped up abuse claims, you’ve got another thing coming.”

  205. Dalrock says:

    @Scott

    If you have a FB account, this guy needs some education. (Hopefully this takes you right to the post in question)

    Note that he crosses his legs like a woman does. Outside of pictures of men trying to supplicate to their wives, I don’t recall ever seeing a man sit like that. It literally says balless. You can see the same thing with this guy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3026146/Husband-pens-moving-essay-appreciation-wife-stay-home-mom.html

  206. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Dalrock,

    Men so focused on their dreams, their visions, and their desires they find themselves wealthy, known, and alone.

    Like Bill Maher. Or Weird Al Yankovick. Or Leonardo DiCaprio. Or Al Pacino.

    It doesn’t make any difference if it is Dale Partridge or Tucker Carlson or “pastor” Driscoll or “pastor” Chandler, all these guys have one thing in common: they fail to understand that shaming men into marrying a slut doesn’t work anymore. I don’t know if it ever really worked but it doesn’t work now. Men respond to incentives and disincentives. Its as simple as that. And there just aren’t any incentives for men, only disincentives. When Dr Helen Smith tried to calmly and evenly explain this to Tucker Carlson, it was like he was looking at her with 3 heads. He just didn’t get it and he never would. None of them do. So instead of trying to reason, they go back to their shaming tactics. That is all that they have when they don’t have logic.

    Just last night, I was sitting in a living room with a spiritual leader at a church that I sometimes attend. I am not member, but I know of this church body and its policies regarding marriage. Well, this commercial comes on for “Nationwide Insurance” where it shows this guy saying he would never get married (then he gets married) , never have kids (he has two), and never move to the suburbs (you see him washing his Honda in a suburb driveway.) And he and I are laughing. And then I mention to him about how this commercial, in an effort to appeal to a certain demographic, does not in anyway reflect what is happening for young men today, that they are almost uniformly boycotting marriage altogether. And this “spiritual leader” starts nodding and says that is terrible but its true. And I started giving him some red pills in his living room and he cuts me off with “….so basically, young men are just greedy?” Well I said they largely figured out that they only way they get to keep all their stuff that they worked so hard to earn is to never marry. So he just smirks and says “…yup, just greedy.” So I up the bets. I ask him, “Well do you blame them?” And of course, he alters the narrative, “Well marriage worked for you?” And I returned back to the narrative, “Yes it did. But it doesn’t for a lot of people. And I repeat my question, do you blame them?” And he stopped looking at me and started shaking his head…. no. No he didn’t blame them. He just couldn’t say that because his wife was in the next room. And I followed up with a comment that if a man remains single he gets to do whatever he wants, that a woman doesn’t have any veto power, any “authority” over how he lives his life. And this guys starts shaking his head in agreement and sadness and tells me that this country is going to Hell in a hand basket.

    Tucker Carlson understood the logic of what Helen Smith was telling him. I think spiritual leaders understand logic. They just don’t want to dignify logic when it comes to young men making rational decisions to “opt out” of the marriage market and stay lifelong bachelors. So they sweep all the logic under the rug and revert back to shaming mode. That is all that they can do.

  207. Hank Flanders says:

    While the ramblings of people like that facebook guy or the subject of that dailymail article no longer surprise me after umpteen “man up” articles and videos, particularly from Christian men, what does continue to surprise me but maybe shouldn’t is that women (and some men) are so easily duped by it all. I search in vain for comments from women who see through the charade. Do women really not at least consider the possibility that they’re being played, that pandering men’s motives might be self-serving, that it’s easy to call yourself a man and other (anonymous) men boys and that doing so shows arrogance, something women claim they dislike but yet, as we’ve seen, give praise to men who do it? I’m just going to chalk women’s praising of guys like this up to NAWALT, but I’d just like to see an example of one who isn’t.

  208. Scott says:

    Dal-

    I did notice that. I sit like that sometimes, but only in certain situations, and if I am wearing a business suit (Pretty rare now).

    Heres a quick run down of how the comments are falling into place on that thread:

    He has thousands of followers and likes, which appear to be a pretty good cross section of FB users.

    There is roughly a 50/50 split between men and women comments. Most of the women are cheering the post on with “amens” and what not. And most of the men, while not making canonical “red pill” kinds of statements are basically offering a version of “why do I have to live your life and get married/have kids to be a man?”

    They are not taking the shaming bait.

    A very small group of women are also making this type of statement–basically “if women are allowed to pursue their dreams and have fun for their 20s and 30s, why can’t men?” This is at least equitable.

    Finally, interspersed within the comments at a very small number of them clearly influenced by “red pill” conventional wisdom.

  209. Caspar Reyes says:

    @Dalrock

    If you have a FB account, this guy needs some education. (Hopefully this takes you right to the post in question)

    Was there a link with that that got whacked? I can’t work it out.

  210. innocentbystanderboston says:

    And most of the men, while not making canonical “red pill” kinds of statements are basically offering a version of “why do I have to live your life and get married/have kids to be a man?”

    They are not taking the shaming bait.

    Good. I’d be surprised if many men ever took the shaming bait. That is the worst reason to man up and marry a slut. But I’m real happy that they aren’t taking it…. nowadays.

  211. feeriker says:

    Nice hover-hand, simp. Can’t even hug your wife for a publicity pic?

    Probably because last time he tried to hug her she pushed him away in disgust. She’s prlbsbly as repulsed by his supplicating mangina feminine behavior as we are.

  212. feeriker says:

    probably as repulsed …

  213. Scott says:

    Going back and looking at it though it is pretty disheartening to see the post 185k likes and 144k shares.

  214. Dave says:

    Here’s the electronic docket sheet from the case of Naghmeh Pahani vs. Saeed Abedini

    Holy Molly! This doesn’t look good at all. She is already using her maiden name, even before she completes the divorce process!

  215. Naghmeh didn’t disappoint, She made it obvious that the whole media complicit thing was a very hastily orchestrated attempt to set the advance narrative that allows women to bend reality to fit the one they create.
    There were three problems (at least). Publicity, The natural respect afforded a man imprisoned in Iran, and finally the lack of time to frame things according to her version of reality.

    Now that filing divorce is old news, when do we get to meet her alpha?

  216. Dalrock says:

    @Caspar Reyes

    Was there a link with that that got whacked? I can’t work it out.

    Yes. For some reason I can’t see the link when I use Firefox with Noscript, but I can see it in Chrome. Hopefully this will work.

  217. Dave says:

    Much to my pleasant surprise, he’s said “nope, and if you think you’re going to dangle me with my kids and trumped up abuse claims, you’ve got another thing coming.”

    Imprisonment does not soften people; it hardens them. Saeed has been pushed to the brink many times when he felt he had practically lost everything this earth could afford. He sure as heck is not afraid to lose his kids. Or his freedom. Or his name. He has already learnt to live without them for years. So Nagmeh will have to try much harder to faze him.

  218. Caspar Reyes says:

    Got it; thanks.

  219. Looking Glass says:

    Wow, I hadn’t actually mentally noticed the hover-hand, but I had noted that the picture really looks odd. I should have looked at the hand. I mostly just noted the body position.

    I’m not so big on pointing out the legs just due to seating setups can dictate some leg positioning. (Though the link to that UK article screams far, far more things.) I was more caught off by his Wife looking at something else. He clearly is looking at whoever is taking the picture, but she doesn’t seem interested.

    But that hover hand, geez. She’s your Wife and you can’t even hold her?

  220. Dalrock says:

    @Scott

    I did notice that. I sit like that sometimes, but only in certain situations, and if I am wearing a business suit (Pretty rare now).

    I had to google that, and seeing men in suits do it looks much more natural.

  221. Dave says:

    “I’m A Guy Who Learned To Walk In Heels And I Apologize To All Women”
    http://elitedaily.com/humor/men-in-heels/1447865/

  222. Scott says:

    Dal-

    like this,

  223. hoellenhund2 says:

    It doesn’t make any difference if it is Dale Partridge or Tucker Carlson or “pastor” Driscoll or “pastor” Chandler, all these guys have one thing in common: they fail to understand that shaming men into marrying a slut doesn’t work anymore

    The also fail to understand that such shaming wasn’t even common in the bad old patriarchy they are supposedly nostalgic about. Men were expected to become good potential husbands and assortatively marry women that were good potential wives, and were shamed if they refused to do so without a good reason. They weren’t expected to marry sluts. Back then it was normal for sluts to end up as spinsters living in poverty, without children, without support, shunned by the community. People accepted is as normal because, well, why shouldn’t it be normal? Today, of course, the social consensus is that sluts should have an equal chance of marrying, because so many women are sluts. If men stopped marrying sluts, marriage would pretty much disappear.

  224. hoellenhund2 says:

    what does continue to surprise me but maybe shouldn’t is that women (and some men) are so easily duped by it all. I search in vain for comments from women who see through the charade. Do women really not at least consider the possibility that they’re being played, that pandering men’s motives might be self-serving, that it’s easy to call yourself a man and other (anonymous) men boys and that doing so shows arrogance, something women claim they dislike but yet, as we’ve seen, give praise to men who do it?

    Practically all of them see through the charade. Not even feminists respect these idiots.

  225. innocentbystanderboston says:

    If men stopped marrying sluts, marriage would pretty much disappear.

    It already disappearing. This has been happening ever gradually since 1969.

    http://www.prb.org/Publications/Articles/2010/usmarriagedecline.aspx

    Look at those charts. That is frighteningly bad, almost End of Days, Book of Revelation… bad.

  226. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Among the total population ages 18 and older, the proportion married dropped from 57 percent in 2000 to 52 percent in 2009. This is the lowest percentage recorded since information on marital status was first collected by the U.S. Census Bureau more than 100 years ago.2 Among women, the proportion married dropped below 50 percent (to 49.9 percent), so the number of unmarried women (including those who are separated, widowed, divorced, and never married) outnumber married women, possibly for the first time in U.S. history. In 2009, there were an estimated 59.5 million adult women who were married, compared with 59.8 million women in other marital categories.3

    I mean… WTF!?!?!

    In 2013, for the first time ever in our nation’s short history, the number of people (just people) in this country 18 and older that were married, dipped below 50%. I believe we dropped to 48.5% last year. The United States of America simply can’t exist as a nation without marriage. At all. Period, the end. Too much of the bedrock of our nation’s character (its laws, customs, culture, religion, everything) DEPENDS on marriage simply being there. Take that away, and you can forget about illegal immigration, global warming, Islam, the $19 trillion in debt, all of it as being a problem for this country.

  227. Boxer says:

    Back then it was normal for sluts to end up as spinsters living in poverty, without children, without support, shunned by the community. People accepted is as normal because, well, why shouldn’t it be normal?

    Playas were also shunned in the good old days. Bank loans, membership in Freemasons/Elks/Odd Fellows, holding office or any sort of public service was totally off-limits to unmarried men (and often divorced men too). Steady employment was usually unavailable to unmarried men. Even crappy assembly-line work was offered as “married men only need apply” as late as the 1950s-1960s.

    What confirmed bachelors or “playboys” existed before the west went decadent were usually born into great wealth, which shielded them from society’s scorn. Even in those outlier cases, though, when you read history, there is always the assumption that there is something wrong with a man who isn’t married (he’s thought to be gay, impotent, crazy, sterile or mentally retarded.) Boo Radley is an avatar of the bachelor as he usually existed in 19th-20th century America: shunned by all normal people, hidden away in the basement or attic of his father’s house as an adult, no social or professional prospects, a total outcaste.

    If we want a healthy society, this is what we have to get back to. Marriage needs to be a reward for men, and inversely, the denial of marriage to society’s losers and parasites needs to be seen as a consequence of personal failure and deficiency.

  228. Hank Flanders says:

    hoellenhund2

    Practically all of them see through the charade. Not even feminists respect these idiots.

    On what are you basing this? The commentary suggests otherwise.

  229. Sarjeet Kaur says:

    I’m a Punjabi Canadian and in the part of the world I was born, Punjab, India, sex selective abortions are normally not decided upon by the mother but by her father in law, mother in law and husband. My own mother was almost forced to abort me and she was forced to abort the female fetus that came after me because, “one girl is enough”, my grandfather and father said at the time. The Indian states in which sex selective abortion is a common practice are now facing skewed sex ratios which are creating big problems in those states. Not only that, here in Canada sex selective abortion is also an epidemic among Punjabi Canadians. I’ve had three daughters and no sons. My grandparents think I’m a failure because of that.

  230. hoellenhund2 says:

    The huge difference, Boxer, is that nobody tries to convince women to marry players, or companies to give players the same opportunities as to married men. Women are free to mistreat players out of spite and revenge, and society will let respons with a slap on the wrist because the consensus is that players who incur female anger for whatever reason are shitbags who had it coming. And any media whore is free to insult players in any manner without having to fear any social repercussions.

  231. hoellenhund2 says:

    It already disappearing. This has been happening ever gradually since 1969.

    Yet sluts seem to be having no problem finding husbands.

  232. Hank Flanders says:

    Well, I guess I get your point, hoellenhund2, about these men not actually getting respect. Men who put women on a pedestal don’t get respect, but as we’ve seen, they still get public approval and praise from women, and it’s as if those women don’t understand what’s really going on.

  233. hoellenhund2 says:

    On what are you basing this? The commentary suggests otherwise.

    Of course the *commentary* suggests otherwise. Women will cheer these idiots on, tell them how great they are, how fortunate their wives are etc. But words are just words. No woman respects them, because they know in their guts that these guys are losers who live under the wife’s thumb, getting meager amounts of lame sex, saddled with enormous responsibility and so on. They are just useful idiots to be milked, manipulators to be used against men. As soon as they commit any thoughtcrime, feminists turn on them instantly without mercy. No matter how much you try to suck up to feminists as a man, they will never accept you as an equal, and do away with you as soon as they feel like it.

  234. innocentbystanderboston says:

    If we want a healthy society, this is what we have to get back to. Marriage needs to be a reward for men, and inversely, the denial of marriage to society’s losers and parasites needs to be seen as a consequence of personal failure and deficiency.

    This is what feminists really want. Because it gives even more power to women. And why? Because men are forced to “chase women” in this model to try and “catch-a-wife” so that society will think he is a decent, upstanding man. This will grant a man access to many of societies privileges. Feminism doesn’t have this society leverage anymore.

    No, the leverage the feminism has sought (and succeeded in getting) regarding marriage is the ability to NUKE the marriage at any moment. As Dalrock stated over-and-over this has created a transfer-of-headship within the marriage from husband to wife. This is a cardinal virtue of how marriage MUST exist in partnership with feminism. The cost of this leverage (death of marriage 1.0 and birth of marriage 2.0) was the obliteration of marriage (and all its privileges) as an institution.

  235. innocentbystanderboston says:

    hoellen,

    Yet sluts seem to be having no problem finding husbands.

    Huh? Of course they are having trouble. They are having terrible trouble. If they weren’t having problems there wouldn’t be thousands and thousands of best selling books like these….

    http://www.amazon.com/All-Rules-Time-tested-Secrets-Capturing/dp/0446618799/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1460493673&sr=1-1&keywords=the+rules

    Marriage (as an institution) has simply vanished for a significant portion of women in this country. Read that book “American Dream” and be absolutely frightened about the story of three different generations of women living in the world of welfare, public housing, and food stamps who not only have never been married, they have never even been to a wedding!!!!

    Sluts are having huge problems catching a man. Its bad and getting worse day by day.

  236. Hank Flanders says:

    hoellenhund2

    Of course the *commentary* suggests otherwise. Women will cheer these idiots on, tell them how great they are, how fortunate their wives are etc. But words are just words. No woman respects them, because they know in their guts that these guys are losers who live under the wife’s thumb, getting meager amounts of lame sex, saddled with enormous responsibility and so on. They are just useful idiots to be milked, manipulators to be used against men. As soon as they commit any thoughtcrime, feminists turn on them instantly without mercy. No matter how much you try to suck up to feminists as a man, they will never accept you as an equal, and do away with you as soon as they feel like it.

    Yeah, I see what you mean. Here I was thinking women were just being naïve. I guess I was the one being naïve.

  237. craig says:

    hoellenhund2 says: “…The huge difference, Boxer, is that nobody tries to convince… companies to give players the same opportunities as to married men.”

    What?? With a few specific exceptions, it is currently against the law for prospective employers to inquire about marital status, or to discriminate in hiring on those grounds.

  238. Boxer says:

    This is what feminists really want. Because it gives even more power to women. And why? Because men are forced to “chase women” in this model to try and “catch-a-wife” so that society will think he is a decent, upstanding man. This will grant a man access to many of societies privileges. Feminism doesn’t have this society leverage anymore.

    Apples and oranges. Read my original article.

    Patriarchy as it was practiced up until 70 years ago was pretty good at balancing male/female power. Men weren’t allowed to get away with the playa lifestyle, and women weren’t allowed to be sluts.

    Boxer

  239. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ 3:14 pm:
    “Boo Radley is an avatar of the bachelor as he usually existed in 19th-20th century America: ”

    Not hardly. Soldiers, sailors, priests and frontiersmen are all masculine careers for which bachelorhood was recommended and sometimes coerced in American history. I also doubt bachelor lumberjacks, miners and railway workers were heavily stigmatized. Which means the most heavily shamed bachelors just happened to be the stay-at-home paychecks and high-status types like doctors who make the most desirable husbands from womens’ point of view.

    In other words, bachelor-shaming was early Feminine Imperative. One wonders why, if marriage was so rewarding, the unmarried had to be punished so severely.

    IBB @ 3:44 pm:
    “Sluts are having huge problems catching a man.”

    Yep, it’s called paternity testing.

  240. Boxer says:

    Dear Gunner Q:

    Not hardly. Soldiers, sailors, priests and frontiersmen are all masculine careers for which bachelorhood was recommended and sometimes coerced in American history.

    You don’t know much about American history. Read some books. (Note that in the spirit of Lukács, you can glean as much from simply watching prole Hollywood films about the era).

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047472/

    I also doubt bachelor lumberjacks, miners and railway workers were heavily stigmatized.

    Your doltish ignorance would be humorous if it weren’t so tragic. It’s amazing how clueless people are about their own society.

    The railways were built by Irish criminal fugitives and Chinese coolies — most of whom had wives back in the old countries. Turn the tee vee away from whatever pr0n you’re used to and look up Transcontinental Railroad on PBS. Miners were almost all expected to marry (look up Robert Hayashi’s “Haunted by Waters” for a specific example). Lumberjacks tended to be teenage kids (it’s too hard on the body to do much past 25). Again, it doesn’t take much to get minimally familiar with what you’re pretending to lecture about.

    I’m usually not this rude; because I enjoy arguing, but it helps to have opponents who actually know something about the topic they’re pretending to lecture on. Simple google searches will clear up all your doubts about this crap.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  241. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Patriarchy as it was practiced up until 70 years ago was pretty good at balancing male/female power. Men weren’t allowed to get away with the playa lifestyle, and women weren’t allowed to be sluts.

    That is a non-starter for feminism b0xer. They want it both ways.

  242. Boxer says:

    That is a non-starter for feminism b0xer. They want it both ways.

    They want fried ice. Fuck ’em. A healthy society made women shut it about what they wanted, and it’ll return again.

  243. innocentbystanderboston says:

    I agree. Problem is, ours is not a healthy society b0xer

  244. Boxer says:

    I agree. Problem is, ours is not a healthy society b0xer

    Did you even read the article you responded to?

  245. hoellenhund2 says:

    With a few specific exceptions, it is currently against the law for prospective employers to inquire about marital status, or to discriminate in hiring on those grounds.

    Of course it’s against the law. That doesn’t stop employers from discriminating based on marital status and other attributes all the time. Women love to complain that companies discriminate against mothers with small children, and childless married women who appear to have plans to have children soon. There’s also discrimination against single men, because they are assumed to work less hard due to not having dependents, to be more likely to change jobs due to being more flexible, and generally be less likely to put up with all sorts of shit as employees. Yet I don’t see anyone out there arguing that bachelors should get as much social respect and status as married men. Advocacy for sluts is already a small media industry in the West. We are implored not to hurt their feelings, not to judge them, not to question their sexual choices. Is there anyone who speaks up for bachelors?

  246. hoellenhund2 says:

    Huh? Of course they are having trouble. They are having terrible trouble.

    They aren’t having any trouble finding husbands. They are having terrible trouble finding husbands who are sexy enough and yet dependable enough at the sime time for their taste.

  247. greyghost says:

    hoellenhund2
    I’ll speak for Bachelors “stay single my friend”

  248. Hey, did anyone think about…
    HOW MANY PEOPLE GOT HURT BY THE THORNS ON THAT ROSE?

    Obviously, this is my metaphor for the wake of destruction that dick teases leave in their wake, in addition to how soiled they become.

    Now there is something to be said about Christ wanting even the lowest of the low — he does make a good point in that respect — but if being marriageable is of any concern, there is something to be said about a slut being used up and being of little or no value to any man who is worth a shit (desperate 40 year old virgin losers who make a paycheck and will throw themselves down to the first broad who pats him on the head notwithstanding, of course). There is no way to fix that problem, so I guess that the takeaway of this is that worn-out sluts need to ashcan their dreams of finding a husband and just focus on the afterlife, which is more important anyway, all and all.

  249. Don Quixote says:

    Sarjeet Kaur says:
    April 12, 2016 at 3:24 pm

    I’m a Punjabi Canadian and in the part of the world I was born, Punjab, India, sex selective abortions are normally not decided upon by the mother but by her father in law, mother in law and husband. My own mother was almost forced to abort me and she was forced to abort the female fetus that came after me because, “one girl is enough”, my grandfather and father said at the time. The Indian states in which sex selective abortion is a common practice are now facing skewed sex ratios which are creating big problems in those states. Not only that, here in Canada sex selective abortion is also an epidemic among Punjabi Canadians. I’ve had three daughters and no sons. My grandparents think I’m a failure because of that.

    God bless your efforts Sarjeet, you are not a failure for keeping your offspring. I’m sure you will get a son if you keep trying…

  250. feeriker says:

    God bless your efforts Sarjeet, you are not a failure for keeping your offspring. I’m sure you will get a son if you keep trying…

    Even if he doesn’t ever have any sons, God has blessed him with beautiful daughters who will hopefully one day make loving and supportive wives.

  251. Damn Crackers says:

    @Boxer @Gunner Q – Here is a fun article about the changing ideas of bachelorhood in the US during the late 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. The average age of marriage, as well as the stigma of bachelorhood, changed throughout the time periods.

    http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/04/18/a-history-of-the-american-bachelor-part-iii-the-20th-and-21st-century/

  252. innocentbystanderboston says:

    Good article Crackers. I think the part that stuck out the most for me was that in 1860, 60% of bachelors lived at home with mom and dad whereas we are at about 19% of bachelors doing the same today. Everyone talks about how there are too many bachelors returning home to mom and dad but that is really not the case. I’d argue that is more the case of the 1860 bachelor knowing that he simply has to help out on the family farm. That IS his job, planting crops, sheering sheep, castrating bulls, slaughtering hogs and steer, harvesting crops, gathering eggs, oh and don’t forget to milk the cows twice a day (including at 4 in the morning, wake up son.) And you don’t get a paycheck son. You get room and board and an allowance.

    So yeah…. of course I think for the 19% of bachelors living at home today, there are no cows to milk or bulls to geld. They have a 40-45 hour a week job somewhere, 49-50 weeks a year (2-3 weeks for vacation with the bros.) Oh and they give their parents a check (maybe just a very small one say 10% of their weekly pay, but a little something) for room and board. And if they are a delinquent, the XBox and their bong can wait for them to wake up whenever they get around to it.

  253. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ April 12, 2016 at 6:36 pm:
    “The railways were built by Irish criminal fugitives and Chinese coolies”

    Yes, I know. Did the railway bosses refuse their labor unless they PROVED they were married before sending them to work in the middle of nowhere?

    “Lumberjacks tended to be teenage kids (it’s too hard on the body to do much past 25). Again, it doesn’t take much to get minimally familiar with what you’re pretending to lecture about.”

    Especially since I have lumberjacks in my extended family who worked it long past age 25.

    It was not historically normal for bachelors to be social pariahs. There was too much hard, dangerous, important work to be done. Pressuring desirable men to marry was one thing but the child molester treatment was entirely another.

  254. Boxer says:

    Damn Crackers:

    Here is a fun article about the changing ideas of bachelorhood in the US during the late 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries. The average age of marriage, as well as the stigma of bachelorhood, changed throughout the time periods.

    Thanks bro! I love that blog, by the way. It’s totally subversive but does a good job of flying under the radar.

    More semi-off topic stuff…

    A new study has linked the phenomenon [of marriage] to sexually transmitted diseases, arguing that monogamy could have evolved because it offered protection against the threat of infection.

    http://www.techinsider.io/sexually-transmitted-diseases-might-have-driven-us-to-be-monogamous-2016-4

  255. Sarjeet Kaur says:

    “God bless your efforts Sarjeet, you are not a failure for keeping your offspring. I’m sure you will get a son if you keep trying…”

    Not trying. Which also irks my grandparents.

    “Even if he doesn’t ever have any sons, God has blessed him with beautiful daughters who will hopefully one day make loving and supportive wives.”

    My daughters are beautiful to me and my husband but I’m under no illusion they will be beautiful to most men. Unlike many others in our families, my husband and I have decided to live strictly by the rules of our religion. He wears a turban over his uncut hair whereas most of the men in his family do not. Myself and my daughters similarly do not remove any of our body hair. None of it. We come from a hirsute ethnicity as well. Even amongst the young men in our community who are similarly as strict, many of them will not consider marrying women who are just as strict if that strictness results in physically unappealing features. Understanding this we have not in anyway forced our daughters to strictly follow this rule, but so far all three of them have gladly chosen to do it. They are very devoted and dedicated girls.

  256. Pingback: He didn’t know it was her turn. | Dalrock

  257. Pingback: A contemplation on male sitting style | Morally Contextualized Romance

  258. anonymous_ng says:

    “@Scott

    I did notice that. I sit like that sometimes, but only in certain situations, and if I am wearing a business suit (Pretty rare now).

    I had to google that, and seeing men in suits do it looks much more natural.

    When John T. Molloy wrote Dress For Success, sitting like that was a practice of the upper class, the executives. Men of the lower class sit with their legs crossed ankle to knee.

    These days? Who the hell knows.

  259. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sarjeet, there are other Sikh communites in North America including various ones in the US. It may be necessary for your daughters to look very widely in search of a suitable husband. Some Sikhs in the US are converts, who might agree with / welcome strict adherence to religous tenets.

  260. Hank Flanders says:

    I’d like to know where this guy goes to church, so I can attend there (not that I actually believe his alleged “experience”):

    http://matthewljacobson.com/2016/04/18/one-thing-marriage-make-every-husband-tremble/

  261. Hank Flanders says:

    Hoyos

    We’ve gotten into a habit about reading things into the Bible that aren’t there and declaring things Christian or not somewhat randomly. So you wind up with a Church that might condemn Jesus for drinking wine and encourage a woman to divorce her husband for unbiblical reasons. Dont get me wrong, I’m a son of the south and I love that our churches have been so aggressive on the gospel, but we don’t feed the sheep and refuse to listen to Christians from the past, as if God only speaks to us and only recently. I hope this answers your question.

    Well, this is all likely true, but I would think it goes for much of the modern church in general. Anyway, thanks for the explanation.

  262. Pingback: Clearing the Christian marriage market. | Dalrock

  263. American says:

    And the Swedish people can’t figure out why their divorce rate now ranks number nine in the world and a majority of children in Sweden are born out of wedlock. The feminist insanity has reached such a fevered pitch, with so many draconian legal liabilities, that men are just walking away from it.

  264. >>>>” Pope Francis’s recent apostolic exhortation on the family included all of the familiar tropes bashing men while praising motherhood and women out of reason. No mention of women pushing divorce, abortions initiated by women, or the increasing prioritization of careerism over the family.”

    Proving it is not about men and women but about the Leftist agenda. Marxism simply put on panties in order to win.

    Also, note the 280,000 likes on the FB post. Notice the LOUD cheers from the studio audience whenever anyone parrots the female imperative or benefits women or harms men. Marxists call it being aware of your class (female) and acting with class consciousness (the FI). When the poor oppressed proletarian (women) develops class consciousness (accepts the FI as primary) and act as a group (to further the FI) they cannot be stopped.

  265. “Me and some of my crew would go over to her house and babysit her daughter. She was actually in an extramarital affair at the time with a married man, and so we would talk through that and the wisdom in that. This is the relationship we had, just kind of serving her and trying to explain to her spiritual things…”

    In addition to the fact that, as a preacher, he will need to sell out the Gospel in order to make a living wage, I am always thinking about the OTHER driving force that corrupts men: SEX.

    It is remarkable to me that, as a Christian, only he and his ‘crew’ could go over to her house, and take care of the slutty milf’s daughter. Weren’t there any women in the congregation who would help out a fallen Magdalene? The desire for sex at 20 can cloud our judgement severely, and he was cringing inside at the preacher’s words against sex sin. A nice anodyne “let’s stop being judgmental” sermon would ease both her conscience and his.

    Pastors are in a power position, and they usually know the power that they have over women in the congregation. They are in the alpha slot. Of course, they want to sabotage other men and they want to raise themselves to a high SMV. The women in the congregation can idolize, not only an Alpha, but, also, can ‘get them next to God’. Sadly, all will miss that mark.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s