Not good for the narrative.

From Robert Stacy McCain in Lessons of a ‘Sex Object:’ What can we really learn from Jessica Valenti’s memoir?

Compare this description to what Ms. Valenti says about her ‘lovely’ husband, who is forced to keep the house immaculate merely to avoid her wrath, and then ask whether you’d rather be (a) the muscle man who banged her at 16, or (b) the poor fool who ended up marrying her when she was 30.

H/T Instapundit

Related:

 

This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Cracks in the narrative, Instapundit, Jessica Valenti, Robert Stacy McCain, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

147 Responses to Not good for the narrative.

  1. Pingback: Not good for the narrative. | Aus-Alt-Right

  2. modsquad says:

    Is there a c) option, None of the Above?

  3. Heartiste would have a field day with the body language in that wedding photo.

  4. Feminist Hater says:

    Her husband was an idiot. What a fool. You don’t marry a feminist. You don’t get married full stop. Women are not serious about marriage. They don’t care about what men want out of it, they don’t care about loyalty, family values or keeping their vows. It’s wasted on them and until such a time that society deems it necessary to reinstate the protections once afforded to men, based on the understanding of the shallowness of female morality, it is walking into a soul sucking trap.

  5. feeriker says:

    Feminist Hater says:
    November 15, 2016 at 9:39 am

    Yep. There is no such thing as sympathy for any man who marries a feminist. In fact, that’s the one act that not only ris grounds for revoking a “man card,” but serves as proof of never having had one in the first place.

    Andrew Golis deserves every second and every ounce of the misery and degradation that are his life with Valenti.

  6. This woman certainly did make bad decisions.
    But when no one teaches a 14 year old girl about the fact that her emerging sexual “power” isn’t going to take her where she wants to go and others exploit that naiveté, what do we call that if not objectification?
    Early promiscuous behavior isn’t all about hypergamy, although I’m not disputing that is part of the equation. I despise victimhood mentalities, but it is a sad thing when young girls don’t receive love and protection and end up feeling their way around in the dark all the while getting corrupted by the sudden “power” of turning other people on.
    It would be nice if more girls were discouraged from this kind of self-defeating behavior in a way that wasn’t super shame heavy. Shaming doesn’t always work and sometimes backfires. A better strategy would be pointing out to young girls the long-term consequences of bad choices (and if you’re a parent to one, being very loving).

  7. Lyn87 says:

    What a pathetic pair. I’m not sure who’s worse: the ball-buster herself or her kitchen-bitch husband. Men used to be bothered by cuckoldry, now they actively seek it out. If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard some guy say that he didn’t want to marry a virgin because “she wouldn’t know what she’s doing”… I’d have a lot of dimes.

    I would say that the probability of her cheating on her husband (assuming she hasn’t done so already) is upwards of 90%, and the probability of them divorcing is similarly high.

    I wonder if she’ll feel bad about the wreckage even for a moment.

  8. @Lyn87:

    She wrote an entire book about the thing she isn’t (but desperately wanted to be) while somehow having no self-reflection what so ever. I doubt she has the capacity to feel bad about the wreckage. Straight up. She’s simply broken beyond any human ability to repair.

  9. Lyn87 says:

    Katherine,

    What you are advocating has a name: its called Abstinence-Based Sex Education, and people like Jessica Valenti fight against it tooth-and-nail, and have nothing but unbridled hatred and ridicule for anyone who suggests that young girls learn that their emerging sexuality is like nuclear fission – incredibly powerful, and incredibly dangerous unless strictly controlled.

    But controls are for men and boys… didn’t you get the memo?

    For all the nonsense I’ve heard about girls maturing faster than boys, you’d think more of them would realize that the power they have by having female plumbing is destructive unless properly channeled. But the thing that channels it into useful conduits – Patriarchy – is anathema to the likes of Jessica Valenti… even as an adult with enough years to recognize the mess she made living without controls.

  10. Bruce says:

    Dalrock, would you comment on this? “Women cheat on men who don’t do household chores.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/women-cheat-on-men-who-dont-do-house-chores-french-survey-finds/

  11. “Feminist Hater says:
    November 15, 2016 at 9:39 am
    …You don’t marry a feminist. You don’t get married full stop. Women are not serious about marriage. They don’t care about what men want out of it, they don’t care about loyalty, family values or keeping their vows. It’s wasted on them and until such a time that society deems it necessary to reinstate the protections once afforded to men, based on the understanding of the shallowness of female morality, it is walking into a soul sucking trap.”

    I couldn’t have said it better myself.
    Men need to be taught from an early age to remember everything that Feminist Hater has said above. Additionally, men need to continually keep in mind that modern women simply DON’T CARE about marriage — not nearly as much as they care about HER wedding, and what SHE can get out of the marriage (i.e., ‘cash and prizes’).
    Everything and everyone else (even her own children’s lives, happiness, and futures) are secondary.
    They’ve spent the last fifty years proving this.

  12. Avraham rosenblum says:

    The world has changed. It used to be known that being a virgin was very important. The Ketubah is 100 for a girl that is not a virgin and 200 for a virgin. Also If he was tricked into thinking she is a virgin the marriage is null to some opinions. And at least she loses her Ketubah. From the first act of sex there is always something left inside according to the Ari [Isaac Luria]. However I heard that the Ben Ish Hai said that i only when the first act is after marriage.
    I forgot all the details. But, at any rate, this is a very big deal.

  13. Damn Crackers says:

    They will divorce; Jessica will have her idea for her next book.
    What do you do with all these damaged women? No where in the Bible does it suggest to marry up whores. In fact, St. Paul literally says to avoid them.

  14. Oscar says:

    @ Katharine_Di_Cerbo says:
    November 15, 2016 at 9:56 am

    “It would be nice if more girls were discouraged from this kind of self-defeating behavior in a way that wasn’t super shame heavy.”

    Sure, it would be nice, but such a method does not exist. Shame, honor and ostracism are the methods by which cultures encourage constructive behavior, discourage destructive behavior and enforce both… peacefully, non-violently. Even Christ Himself advocated its use.

    Matt 18:15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.”

    How shameful would it be to stand in front of your church and have the entire congregation say to you, “sorry, you can’t attend this church anymore until you repent”?

  15. @Lyn – Thank you for your reply. I agree that the feminist approach to this issue is terrible. But “controls” as you put it unfortunately tend to aggravate teenagers (same with drugs etc.). What seems to work is an approach that acknowledges the desire (instead of trying to snuff it out) and provides a path to get satisfaction that is prudent and involves a long time horizon (e.g. earn a desirable marriage partner through self-development). Abstinence-based sex education can be a bit extreme in the forms I have seen. Not because it is suggesting abstinence (although that renders i useless to the religious, which is too bad), but because it seems to have a heavy shame component, which can backfire, especially in teenagers. I also don’t think that school is the best method to administer this information. Ideally it would be parents and community…

  16. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Back in the 1980s, when I was in my 20s, I assumed I’d marry a feminist with previous lovers because that was the norm. Only a “Neanderthal” would expect to marry a Victorian Era virgin.

    However, I dodged the bullet of marrying a feminist slut, because I kept pedestalizing them. (At least the pretty ones.) Ironic, I know. I was a sensitive thirsty Beta, white-knighting for feminists, but they didn’t want me, except as a friend.

  17. @Oscar – I maintain that I don’t think shame is viable, at least not for something like promiscuity which doesn’t involve a victim (unless there is cheating).
    For example, I remember reading about interventions designed to help young boys (10-15 say) with emerging anti-social traits. Punishment and shaming just pushes them farther into bad behavior, whereas very pragmatic interventions worked a lot better – “Look, I know you want to have a lot of money, but the best way to make real money is not stealing but being respectful of others and work your way up in society.”
    Telling people their impulses are wrong and bad won’t work in 2016 – the cat’s already out of the bag on that.

  18. Damn Crackers says:

    Future Jessica Valenti book title: How to Handle Living with Multiple Felines in a One-Bedroom Walk-Up.

  19. Oscar says:

    @ Katharine_Di_Cerbo says:
    November 15, 2016 at 10:27 am

    “I maintain that I don’t think shame is viable, at least not for something like promiscuity”

    I hate to break it to you, but it worked very well for thousands of years, and continues to work in the few religious communities that actually exercise it.

    “Punishment and shaming just pushes them farther into bad behavior, whereas very pragmatic interventions worked a lot better – ‘Look, I know you want to have a lot of money, but the best way to make real money is not stealing but being respectful of others and work your way up in society’.”

    Right. So, no jail time or restitution for thieves. Makes sense.

  20. Otto Lampis says:

    She is a stereotype of what the red pill warns against.

    1) sexually active young
    2) Rode the carousel and gave her best sexual years to men other than her husband
    3) Alpha widow
    4) Married beta provider around 30
    5) Does not respect her husband–he cleans the kitchen, but not fast enough to suit her
    6) Publicly disrespects her husband–read book

    Does anyone doubt her next steps?

    7) Have affair
    8) Blame husband
    9) Divorce
    10) Demand cash and prizes, because HE ruined her life

  21. Novaseeker says:

    Dalrock, would you comment on this? “Women cheat on men who don’t do household chores.”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/women-cheat-on-men-who-dont-do-house-chores-french-survey-finds/

    My understanding/experience, is that in France infidelity is both common and tolerated, for both sexes, provided it is done discreetly and the spouse doesn’t get embarrassed by it. It would be interesting if this were more or less common based on chores, but again my experience is that this isn’t viewed quite the same way in France as long as it is kept quiet and discreet and isn’t in the spouse’s face.

    —–

    As for Valenti I can’t say I am surprised by her history. She has always expressed a lot of what appeared to be very personal venom towards men in general. I wonder how much of that has to do with her father vs how much of it has to do with the various hookups and relationships and so on, but in any case that kind of visceral distaste did seem very real. Marcotte has it as well, and I’d guess she also probably has a similar history in some ways. It’s notable, I think, and relevant as well that both Valenti and Marcotte are not the ugly ducklings of the room, but neither are they the pretty girls either — this puts them in a place where they are easy targets for pump and dumps (that’s the target pump and dump demographic because easier for pump-and-dump eligible men to obtain) while at the same time being quite irritated that they do not have the same pull as the prettier girls in the room. That can be a toxic combination in this SMP.

  22. The Question says:

    This is the choice modern society has given men, and I’m amazed at how quickly even the most Blue Pilled men are picking up on it. They want to get married, but they also know the score, courtesy of open hypergamy and open cuckoldry.

    Reading about this gal’s past, all I can say is that they deserve no pity, no compassion, and no mercy. Once more, we cannot coexist peacefully with these people. To borrow from the great Hans Herman Hoppe, they will eventually need to be physically removed from our society, and I am increasingly becoming indifferent to the manner in which it is done.

  23. Novaseeker says:

    How to Handle Living with Multiple Felines in a One-Bedroom Walk-Up.

    Don’t see why she wouldn’t go the lesbian route like Gilbert and Melton — it’s definitely the “in thing” to do for women writers who find themselves divorced these days.

  24. Shame works, which is why Women are instinctively always against it.

  25. Oscar says:

    @ LG

    Bingo. Except, of course, when it’s directed at men.

  26. jeff says:

    Dalrock,

    Photos only go one way with Heartiste and is minions. I find a lot of his post funny and do read them. I posted a picture of Donald Trump and Melania where she was leaning away from him as he was leaning in. It went up and was taken down and his followers bashed my post. The reason I posted it was to show a photo shot can mean a lot, but can also mean nothing.

    Kathy,

    “…but it is a sad thing when young girls don’t receive love and protection and…”

    That is CRAP! We all have seen first hand young women receive all the love and protection they want and need. They know there are no consequences so they do what they want and cry victim.

  27. thedeti says:

    @ Katharine Di Cerbo:

    “But when no one teaches a 14 year old girl about the fact that her emerging sexual “power” isn’t going to take her where she wants to go and others exploit that naiveté, what do we call that if not objectification?”

    The lack of education of that girl is called irresponsibility.

    Girls aren’t naïve about their emerging sexual power. They understand exactly what it is, what it can get for them, and how to use that power to get things they want.

    “Early promiscuous behavior isn’t all about hypergamy, although I’m not disputing that is part of the equation.”

    It is also about selfishness, self centeredness, self absorption. It is primarily about the use of sexual power to manipulate others into doing what she wants, for validation, and to compete with her friends.

  28. thedeti says:

    “I maintain that I don’t think shame is viable, at least not for something like promiscuity which doesn’t involve a victim (unless there is cheating).”

    The primary victim in female promiscuity is the promiscuous female. Slut shaming is quite viable, mostly because women are much better slut shamers than men are. Women can shame other women far better than men ever could.

    “For example, I remember reading about interventions designed to help young boys (10-15 say) with emerging anti-social traits. Punishment and shaming just pushes them farther into bad behavior, whereas very pragmatic interventions worked a lot better – “Look, I know you want to have a lot of money, but the best way to make real money is not stealing but being respectful of others and work your way up in society.””

    Boys don’t respond to shaming as well as girls do. That said, talking to boys and reasoning with them doesn’t work all that well either. What works for boys is making them walk out the natural consequences of their behaviors.

    “Telling people their impulses are wrong and bad won’t work in 2016 – the cat’s already out of the bag on that.”

    It’s not about wrong or bad impulses. It’s about wrong and bad DECISIONS.

    Girls have impulses to sleep with badboys, thugs and dickbags. ALL girls have those impulses. That’s not bad. What’s bad are their DECISIONS to sleep with badboys, thugs and dickbags.

  29. thedeti says:

    But I forgot. Women define reality by their feelings and emotions. How they feel, their “impulses”, are “reality” to them.

  30. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Katharine Di Cerbo
    But when no one teaches a 14 year old girl about the fact that her emerging sexual “power” isn’t going to take her where she wants to go and others exploit that naiveté, what do we call that if not objectification? Early promiscuous behavior isn’t all about hypergamy, although I’m not disputing that is part of the equation. I despise victimhood mentalities, but it is a sad thing when young girls don’t receive love and protection and end up feeling their way around in the dark all the while getting corrupted by the sudden “power” of turning other people on.

    It’s pretty obvious that you didn’t even bother to read the article at Dalrock’s link. Jessica Valenti is no hard-luck story. McCain points out more than once in his piece that she had the good fortune to grow up in an upper middle-class home with two parents who went to some considerable lengths to give her opportunities that came at considerable expense to them (like an education at top-tier private university) and that she wasn’t terribly even qualified for (she ended up flunking out).

    So when young teenage girls behave promiscuously, it’s fair to blame that all on people in her life who failed to teach her to properly use her “emerging sexual power?” Okay. When I first turned 17 I started noticing that I had some new advantages in height and strength that I hadn’t had when I was just a boy a few years back. No one really gave me any lessons or advice on how to properly use that — but somehow I still managed to figure out that if I walked into a biker bar and yelled “I can beat up any man in this place!” I was sure to get my ass kicked.

    Give me a break. You want to bemoan how bad it is when young girls don’t receive love and protection, but there’s just about zero evidence that Valenti lacked either. In fact, when reading this article I’m only left with the conclusion that her life would have turned out much better if she’d received a lot more “no’s” and quite a few more rejections. Maybe if she’d had her parents tell her she wasn’t quite Ivy League material she would have ended up at a school she could actually get a degree from and where she could have learned some marketable skills. Or maybe if she’d been ignored by more of the alphas she could never tame she wouldn’t have ended up sleeping with a laundry list full of them before resigning herself to marrying a loyal but lower-tier man that she admittedly hates.

    Gentlemen, there is a lesson here, and it’s the opposite of Katharine Di Cerbo’s recommendation: Shaming is exactly what a young, would-be feminist needs to have in her life. So if you happen to have a young daughter, use women like Valenti to your advantage. Point them out to your little girl when you see them. Say to her, “Honey, do you know what that is? That’s a slut! That’s trash! Sluts and trash are horrible things to be, they lead horrible and empty lives, and it will make Daddy very sad if you ever turn out to be one!” Point and shame, early and often. It will be both good for her and good for America. It’s just a damn shame that it’s too late for it to ever be any good for a woman who’s already like Jessica Valenti.

  31. Red Pill Scare says:

    “Women’s faults are many, but men’s are only two: what they say and what they do.”

    An acquaintance of mine grew up in a household where this phrase was used frequently by his radical feminist single mother. This paradigm seems to have moved from the radical to the most vocal of feminists.

  32. Anon says:

    Is Katharine Di Cerbo an example of ‘rebuilding the mound’?

  33. thedeti says:

    Anon:

    Yes, DiCerbo is rebuilding the mound. Here’s Dalrock from “Rebuilding the Mound”:

    “One thing which is worth noting is that when the ants are rebuilding the mound they generally aren’t aware of what they are doing. Women absolutely can argue logically, but certain topics have a tendency to bring out a little known module of the rationalization hamster, the emotion to logic converter. When this module is engaged what comes out is structured in the form of a logical argument, but it is really just emotion in translation.”

    DiCerbo’s argument is emotion to logic. She’s arguing emotionally but the emotions look like a logical argument.

    So when you translate DiCerbo’s statements to what she’s really saying, it comes out like this:

    “Come on, guys! You’re just being mean! Shaming girls is not nice. If you reason with them and give them some of what they want, you’ll get what you want! Everyone will feel good that way. Your claims make me feel bad.”

  34. squid_hunt says:

    @Katharine

    The real problem with abstinence based sex education is that children are deliberately being inflamed and exposed to raw sexuality at an extremely young age. It’s deliberate.

    We’re watching a family right now deal with the results of a mother (parents are divorced, father remarried and has custody with stepmother) who would have strange men over while her daughter was in the room and have debauched sex with them. The girl is now twelve and has no idea what to do with the latent sexuality and emotional/mental results of that kind of exposure.

    Music, movies, social media, advertising, their peers, their misinformed parents all push that crap on kids until they’re consumed with it. By the time they’re in their early twenties, they’ve already been down every bad road they can find and now they have to try to live normal productive lives with all the extra resentment and baggage their experiences have left them.

    Abstinence training starts in infancy. You can’t just let your kids watch you slouching over every stranger that steps into your house. Or movie after movie where they do the same.

    It’s not about shaming. It’s about self respect. It’s about valuing yourself. It’s about keeping intimate things for those you trust, who can be trusted, who nurture you as you nurture them.

    We have completely missed the boat on this. The STD epidemic is demonstrating that it’s costing our children big time. There’s no such thing as safe sex, particularly among teens. Strict monogamous fidelity is the only cure to what ails us. You’ll never be able to convince 100%. But you can sure try.

  35. Feminist Hater says:

    Dalrock, would you comment on this? “Women cheat on men who don’t do household chores.”

    It’s fear-mongering. It’s blaming the man for the actions of the woman. It shouldn’t matter if he did chores or not, she is a cheating whore and belongs on the street. Women show time and time again they have no objective morality, besides hypergamy, all else being subjective morality based on her feelings at the time. Their reasoning for cheating is hogwash basically, a smokescreen.

    Until the protections once afforded to men to protect them from hypergamous whores are reinstated and said whores punished without sympathy, marriage is a fool’s game. Don’t do it.

  36. feeriker says:

    It would be nice if more girls were discouraged from this kind of self-defeating behavior in a way that wasn’t super shame heavy. Shaming doesn’t always work and sometimes backfires. A better strategy would be pointing out to young girls the long-term consequences of bad choices (and if you’re a parent to one, being very loving).

    Explaining this to Katherine would be pointless, but just to reiterate the obvious, the reason that pointing out to a girl the consequences of her bad choices is a futile exercise that will have no effect whatsoever on her behavior is because it requires the girl to grasp cause and effect. We all know how well the female sex does at that. This why a combination of shaming and STRICT CONTROL over women by the male authority figures in their lives (fathers, older brothers, uncles, husbands) was, until very recently, and all-pervasive practice that transcended race, culture, ethnicity, religion, and epoch.

    The most ancient of men quickly and clearly grasped female nature very early in the evolution of human sociobiology. Progressivism, far from proving that the practice of restricting women’s behavior and choices is “ignorant,” “unenlightened,” “barbaric,” and “sexist” has proved that NOT doing so is destructive not only to the very fabric of society, but to women themselves. “Freedom” for women has caused them more pain, suffering, and loss than any atavistic “patriarchy” ever could have dreamed of doing.

  37. theasdgamer says:

    But when no one teaches a 14 year old girl about the fact that her emerging sexual “power” isn’t going to take her where she wants to go and others exploit that naiveté, what do we call that if not objectification?
    Early promiscuous behavior isn’t all about hypergamy, although I’m not disputing that is part of the equation. I despise victimhood mentalities, but it is a sad thing when young girls don’t receive love and protection and end up feeling their way around in the dark all the while getting corrupted by the sudden “power” of turning other people on.

    So many TradCon problems with this…girls are “exploited” instead of sinners…”love and protection” instead of discipline…”corrupted by power” instead of born with a sinful, corrupt nature.

  38. Study after study has shown the more housework a husband does, the greater chance of divorce he faces..

  39. Otto Lampis says:

    Men do the right thing to feel pride for doing the right thing.

    Women do the right thing to avoid feeling shame for doing the wrong thing.

  40. GregMan says:

    Good God, what a hateful, awful woman. Just like pretty much every feminist. Avoid such women at all costs. Don’t even TALK to them unless absolutely necessary, much less marry one. Eeeugh.

  41. Novaseeker says:

    We have completely missed the boat on this. The STD epidemic is demonstrating that it’s costing our children big time. There’s no such thing as safe sex, particularly among teens. Strict monogamous fidelity is the only cure to what ails us. You’ll never be able to convince 100%. But you can sure try.

    The problem, I think, is that the people who make the cultural rules and mores on this don’t see it this way. They are mostly in the upper middle, and they mostly see their daughters following “The Script”, which is generally sexually-active dating in HS, college, grad school and beyond with “fun guys” (i.e., not necessarily stable guys, but fun experiences for dating and sex during the time she doesn’t want a “serious relationship” anyway), followed by “settling down” with a sensible, reasonably well-matched guy sometime between 28 and 32, and having a family beginning in the later 30s. They think that The Script works because in their world it mostly does. Most of these young women do end up marrying more or less ok, divorce rates are low, they have decent to very good families by the time they are in their 40s and so on. So the stuff that is happening between 15 and 28 isn’t really seen as being “bad”, because their daughters are able to swing it because (in most cases) they are smart enough not to let things careen out of control like Valenti did.

    The trouble is that if you have anything else wrong, like Valenti obviously does, The Script can easily derail (note, many would disagree that Valenti herself is an example of being derailed, seeing as she is married with a kid in her late 30s) for people who have much less self-control and discipline, like Valenti or Liz Wurtzel. Never mind that down the socio-economic pole it’s downright disastrous and leads to a good deal of single motherhood. The folks who are the cultural makers don’t see this because they see their daughters and those of their peers “mostly doing pretty well”, despite having slept around in quantities that would have in any other historical period be considered whorish. They don’t see the issue, because in their own small socio-economic group, the girls mostly survive this.

  42. feeriker says:

    They are mostly in the upper middle, and they mostly see their daughters following “The Script”, which is generally sexually-active dating in HS, college, grad school and beyond with “fun guys” (i.e., not necessarily stable guys, but fun experiences for dating and sex during the time she doesn’t want a “serious relationship” anyway), followed by “settling down” with a sensible, reasonably well-matched guy sometime between 28 and 32, and having a family beginning in the later 30s.

    I know I don’t need to remind the regulars here of this, but most “Christian” parents want this, the culture’s narrative, for their daughters as well.

  43. Heidi_storage says:

    @ Katharine Di Cerbo: Nah, shame works quite well on women and girls. Wouldn’t you agree we’re pretty susceptible to peer pressure? Don’t we want to look “good” for those whose opinions we care about, whatever looking “good” means to us. Dalrock has an older post on why shaming women works better than shaming men.

    The whole review makes it quite clear that Valenti is badly damaged–and not by misogyny.

  44. Dalrock says:

    @freeriker

    the reason that pointing out to a girl the consequences of her bad choices is a futile exercise that will have no effect whatsoever on her behavior is because it requires the girl to grasp cause and effect.

    I think the issue is that women process risk differently. As Novaseeker notes above they are following the script, or as some would say, the herd. This feels safe because no one is shaming the other women who do this. As a result it lulls them into thinking this very damaging behavior is just fine. It is cruelty dressed as kindness.

  45. Opus says:

    Novaseeker mentions the French. I cannot speak for their entire nation but I can say as follows:

    In another life (when I was a child) my parents were friendly with a french family, indeed my Father and the Frenchman had been friends since boyhood and so some years we would spend my father’s vacation in their villa on France’s west coast. He was an industrialist and by any standards wealthy yet they were entirely down to earth and anything but extravagant in their habits (i.e. old-money and not nouvaeux riche). His wife who I always thought looked somewhat like Jackie Kennedy was elegant, disliked ‘le rock-and-roll’ yet endured her husband’s infidelity – he had a mistress in Paris. This was entirely possible as when she was in their country chateau he would be in the Paris apartment or one of their other properties (there were a number of others) or vice versa. They seemed to get on perfectly well:; I seem to recall that the maid who lived in an apartment in the basement of the villa dealt with the household chores.

  46. feeriker says:

    I think the issue is that women process risk differently. As Novaseeker notes above they are following the script, or as some would say, the herd. This feels safe because no one is shaming the other women who do this. As a result it lulls them into thinking this very damaging behavior is just fine. It is cruelty dressed as kindness.

    That’s an excellent observation. Also making the damage done by “herd following” even more destructive is the fact that its consequences are generally not immediately obvious or acutely felt, thus making both the correlation and lessons learned more difficult to grasp.

  47. Bruce says:

    I guess one explanation for the story I linked to could be that men who do household chores are more likely to have cheating wives that don’t report their cheating (I assume % cheating was measured by self-reporting) because they have a good thing going – getting an obedient husband and still getting to cheat. Who knows.

  48. theasdgamer says:

    @Novaseeker

    Most of these young women do end up marrying more or less ok, divorce rates are low

    Seen from the UMC perspective, sure. Taking off the rosy goggles, lots of these young married UMC women have fuckbuddies and UMC marriages’ bedrooms face a slow death…which translates to adequate sex for the UMC married women with their fuckbuddies and declining sex for the UMC married men unless those men “cheat”. Of course, if there is no having and holding because the wife is saving her gina for her fuckbuddy, then exclusivity ought to go out the window for the UMC married men.

  49. Pingback: Not good for the narrative. | Reaction Times

  50. thedeti says:

    asdgamer:

    I think more than a few UMC marriages look like this. They do it “the French way”, meaning they both cheat but are discreet about it and don’t embarrass the spouse with their infidelities. But they stay together “for the kids” and because there’s so much else at stake. UMC and UC women take a huge status hit in a divorce. They and their kids will lose a lot of money. As for the cheating, it works pretty much as you’d expect: She can and does cheat much, much more often and more easily than he can and does.

  51. Her body language in the wedding photo tells you everything you need to know.
    She is repelled by his advance.
    She was never genuinely attracted to this man. And frankly, how could she be?
    The guy might as well be wearing an orange tux like that of Lloyd Christmas.

  52. Days of Broken Arrows says:

    People are focusing so much on her feminism that they’re missing what’s right in front of their faces: She’s also Italian-Catholic. As someone who comes from this background, I cannot urge people enough to avoid the women, whose concepts of sex and men is warped by the religion and culture. What she’s done with feminism (although she’d deny it) is amplified the paranoia and hatred of men that was stoked by the teaches of lesbian nuns or maladjusted lay-teachers.

    To put it another way, Ms. Valenti is the hipper, more modern incarnation of the nasty old nun who put you in detention because you were holding a girl too tight at the eighth grade dance. In Valenti’s world, it’s an eternal school dance and every man needs to be punished for his “transgressions,” even if they’re only in the mind of her and not the man himself.

    This isn’t the place for me to go on about the failings of the Catholic religion, but I will say that I think it’s teachings never did jibe with the Protestantism and the U.S. should have thought twice before bringing so many Catholics onto its shores. Say what you will, but as a Catholic (who doesn’t follow the religion, obviously) I will contend that Ms. Valenti is the product of Catholic church in more ways that either she or the church would admit or even understand.

  53. feeriker says:

    Dalrock must be wrong:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/women-cheat-on-men-who-dont-do-house-chores-french-survey-finds/

    Or maybe the French are unique. (Or the article is flawed.)

    Cardinal Rule of Adult Thinking Number 12:

    “If an outlet of the Mainstream Media asserts something as fact, automatically assume that the truth is the polar opposite of that asserrtion.”

  54. White Guy says:

    BillyS, how are you doing today brother? You holding in there? I hope your day has already been filled with lifting weights and eating what ever the heck you want!

  55. jeff says:

    Men do the right thing to feel pride for doing the right thing.

    Women do the right thing to avoid feeling shame for doing the wrong thing.

    +1000% of what I see. And when they are caught or bad comes of what they did, it was their father’s, boyfriend, husband’s fault.

  56. That was depressing, until I realized that Mr. McCain was writing a satirical piece about what he believes is in her memoirs. Ha ha!

  57. theasdgamer says:

    @Katharine

    Telling people their impulses are wrong and bad won’t work in 2016

    I’ve never heard anyone saying this. Saying that having sex outside of marriage is wrong is a very different message. The no-sex-outside-of-marriage message likely won’t work in 2016 with young women who see their friends riding the cock carousel. Gotta corral those fillies and keep them away from the slut-herd. That means forming their own non-slut herd. It’s an investment of time and energy to do that.

    Women should marry young and college education should be modified to support this. Women also have to be educated about how to mateguard themselves…don’t friend men who aren’t their husbands or relatives on facebook, don’t give out their phone nos. to strange men, etc.

  58. LawDog says:

    This article is another example of what I see around me all the time, which is that in our feminine-primary social order, men concerned with the dictates of Christianity have two options: (1) celibacy; or (2) marriage that involves relentless fitness-tests that, eventually, thanks to the forces of law and order arrayed against men, you are destined to fail.

  59. Anon says:

    I can’t fathom why Valenti is even famous as a ‘feminist’ at all. There is virtually nothing about her biography that differs from millions of other ‘feminists’. It is only because she had some peripheral contact with the Clinton team in the 90s?

    Otherwise, why?

  60. Anon says:

    Novaseeker,

    Don’t see why she wouldn’t go the lesbian route like Gilbert and Melton — it’s definitely the “in thing” to do for women writers who find themselves divorced these days.

    It is harder to get lesbian CS cash and prizes than to trap a male..

  61. Lost Patrol says:

    At first I thought this was too far off topic, but somehow the revealed feminine psychology seems to me to track with the post and comments.

    “Survey: Women troops feel undervalued and unappreciated” : http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/swan-survey-women-troops-vets

    Only 24 percent of military women said they think military leadership does enough to publicize their work.

    “When asked to rank the three most pressing issues facing women troops and veterans, access to women-specific health care in the Defense Department, access to women-specific health care in VA and access to mental health programs topped respondents’ list.”

    Oh, and even though the deck is stacked against them individually and collectively; and no one is giving them adequate publicity, this – “80 percent said they would recommend enlisting to other women.”

  62. Anon says:

    Oh, and even though the deck is stacked against them individually and collectively; and no one is giving them adequate publicity, this – “80 percent said they would recommend enlisting to other women.”

    These are the words of individuals who know for a fact that they will never be in any real physical danger, despite being in the military..

  63. Spike says:

    Jessica Valenti is a gift to the Manosphere that keeps on giving. First she rebels against her father, despite him giving everything to her that he could. Then she makes idiotic choices at college – in study choices, in relationships, with drugs. The only thing missing is a “brief, torrid lesbian affair”.
    Since she is indulging her selfishness, she progressively gets bitter, hating on feminine and sweet women who are attractive to quality men. Out of options, she manages to snag Golis, who hasn’t quite woken up to the fact that the bakery he bought has been selling 4-day old stale buns at top price, having given them away to bums when they were fresh.
    Speaking of Golis, I can see his future: She will rage through the house like a ball-busting, sex-denying harpy, escalating to complete psychopathy. He will end up going to seek professional help because there is something wrong with HIM, never HER. “His-fault” divorce will follow.
    The saddest part of this is that her story is in no ways unique. The Western world is littered with stories EXACTLY like hers. Every heroine thinks she is special. Every heroine thinks she’s been hard done by. Every heroine is bitter because she’s been pumped and dumped, multiple times.
    It may be a forlorn hope, but will any liberal think tank / feminist ever link these anecdotes together to work out that are a statistical and demographic disaster?

  64. Gunner Q says:

    jeff @ 11:04 am:
    “I find a lot of his post funny and do read them. I posted a picture of Donald Trump and Melania where she was leaning away from him as he was leaning in. It went up and was taken down and his followers bashed my post. The reason I posted it was to show a photo shot can mean a lot, but can also mean nothing.”

    Interesting. Heartiste turned me on to physiognomy & body language and while the analyst in me would love to buy in completely, it’s definitely more art than science. Still have that pic around?

    Anon @ 4:08 pm:
    “I can’t fathom why Valenti is even famous as a ‘feminist’ at all. There is virtually nothing about her biography that differs from millions of other ‘feminists’. It is only because she had some peripheral contact with the Clinton team in the 90s?”

    ‘I did not have sex with that woman, Jessica Valenti. I mean, Monica Lewinsky. Let’s start over.’

    But really, it’s probably because she isn’t ugly. Most feminists who spend their beautiful years snorting cocaine off horse cocks look like it, if you know what I mean. Good marketing means you put the best-looking fruits in front.

  65. Anon says:

    Speaking of Golis, I can see his future: She will rage through the house like a ball-busting, sex-denying harpy, escalating to complete psychopathy. He will end up going to seek professional help because there is something wrong with HIM, never HER. “His-fault” divorce will follow.

    Everything you said is correct except the bolded part. This may be a plus for Golis, not a punishment. For one thing, I bet Valenti no longer shaves her legs.

    Even here, too many men think that it is only ever the woman who denies sex, and the man never does not want it. Quite often, it is the man who would rather not, particularly with a less than attractive harridan…

  66. feeriker says:

    (2) marriage that involves relentless fitness-tests that, eventually, thanks to the forces of law and order and the enabling false, feminine-primary theology of the churches arrayed against men, you are destined to fail.

    Fixed. Sorry, but that bolded part is too important to leave out.

  67. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Days of Broken Arrows: She’s also Italian-Catholic. As someone who comes from this background, I cannot urge people enough to avoid the women,

    I’ve noticed that on these blogs, Italian men warn against Italian women. Mormon men warn against Mormon women. Jewish men warn against Jewish women. I’ve also heard to beware of Russian, Asian, and Latin women.

    Truly, there is no safe female ethnicity out there. No ethnic or religious background guarantees a good wife.

  68. RICanuck says:

    I am surprised that Andrew Valenti fights back sometimes. He doesn’t come across as high T. But I remember reading a Jessica Valenti column where she discussed her abortions. One of them was after her marriage. Andrew Valenti is a feminist, so probably ‘supported’ her decision.

    But there is a deep unquenchable resentment and anger at someone who would kill his child. Protection of one’s own children seems to be hard wired into normal men.

  69. T. Chan says:

    Re: shame, cuckolding, etc. — I’d recommend Whit Stillman’s adaptation of Austen in Love & Friendship — does Kate Beckinsale’s character glamourize evil? I think she may have some measure of the audience’s sympathy but I don’t think there is a temptation to see her following of her self-interest and emotion is something laudable. Her protagonist is definitely a contrast to the typical Austen heroine.

  70. T. Chan says:

    Re: Catholics

    Actually, Italian Catholics are reputedly more “sex positive” than, say, Irish Catholics. Yes they may agree that fornication is a sin but they don’t have hang-ups about sex.

  71. Alex says:

    Katharine_Di_Cerbo,

    “promiscuity which doesn’t involve a victim”

    As you pointed out yourself, the promiscuous woman is a victim of her own poor choices.

    There is nothing wrong with shaming a slut. In fact, that’s exactly what should happen. A girl must be taught what a powerful gift her sexuality is and that it shouldn’t be negligently squandered, as sluts do. Boys and men are often shamed for their terrible behavior. Only recently (the last couple decades) has it become taboo to shame women for their terrible behavior.

    “Telling people their impulses are wrong and bad won’t work in 2016 – the cat’s already out of the bag on that.”

    What a crock of shit. Have you ever raised a child? A LOT of what you do is to teach them their impulses are wrong and bad. Sadly, many people, such as yourself, thinks this guidance should stop at puberty. One of the most important lessons parents should be teaching their children, including girls, is the power of sex and how morally and spiritually degrading it is to abuse it.

    It’s dangerously stupid not to do that, as is evident from the linked article.

  72. Anon says:

    Actually, Italian Catholics are reputedly more “sex positive” than, say, Irish Catholics. Yes they may agree that fornication is a sin but they don’t have hang-ups about sex.

    I always wondered why Irish women marrying Italian and Mexican men was SOOO much more common than the other way around…..

  73. feeriker says:

    Protection of one’s own children seems to be hard wired into normal men.

    That’s absolutely true, but Andrew Valenti (yes, that should be his married surname, as all kitchen bitches should be known by their wives’ surnames) is NOT a normal man. Anyone who would knowingly marry a feminist is not normal. In fact, they barely merit the term “man.”

  74. Boxer says:

    But really, it’s probably because she isn’t ugly. Most feminists who spend their beautiful years snorting cocaine off horse cocks look like it, if you know what I mean. Good marketing means you put the best-looking fruits in front.

    Makes sense, and it correlates with many other celeb feminists, who also manage to hit 5-6 on female attractiveness scale (see also Rebecca “Skepchick” Watson, Anita “video game kook” Sarkeesian).

    Valenti is one of the few feminists who doesn’t have the aura of a big ugly bull dyke (Marcotte), a gargantuan fattie (Lindy West) or a hideously ugly nerd (Jen McCreight). She’s not a looker, but I banged tons of women like her. In low light and if they behave, they can be moderately appealing. When you’re selling something as disgusting as feminism, every little bit of sex appeal counts.

  75. Boxer says:

    Dear Lyn87:

    If I had a dime for every time I’ve heard some guy say that he didn’t want to marry a virgin because “she wouldn’t know what she’s doing”… I’d have a lot of dimes.

    I’ve heard this too, and it’s laughably stupid attempt at ego defense.

    Sex isn’t rocket science. Animals do it in the barnyard. Put two clueless dorks away in a private suite after the wedding and (miracle of miracles) they’ll manage to figure out how to screw each other before the night is over.

    There is a slight twist, though. Playas don’t seek out virgins for one-night stands, because the bonding process is real, and it’s a lot of pressure to get rid of her after the fact. Easier to just bang a ho’ that you can toss into the trash heap when the fun is over.

  76. Luke says:

    T. Chan says:
    November 15, 2016 at 8:02 pm
    Re: Catholics

    “Actually, Italian Catholics are reputedly more “sex positive” than, say, Irish Catholics. Yes they may agree that fornication is a sin but they don’t have hang-ups about sex.”

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

    From Liberalpedia, as of 2014, Italians averaged a TFR (total fertility rate) of 1.37, while the Irish averaged 1.94. (~2.15 is replacement rate in a Western country.) I know, I know, that’s not a perfect analogy, but it does seem a counterpoint.

  77. Anon says:

    Luke.

    I meant in America, where these groups come into contact.

    I mean, why would Irish Catholic women ever meet Italians, much less Mexicans, outside of the US?

  78. Anon says:

    Huh!

    All this time, I had no idea that the Rip Van Winkle story (which I last read in the 5th grade) was heavily built around men wanting to avoid their wives’ nagging :

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

    This was written 200 years ago, and the period the story was set in was earlier than that (either side of 1776). Men being nagged by their wives to the extent that it was the bane of their existence was a big deal long before any modern timeframe…

  79. Spike says:

    feeriker says:
    November 15, 2016 at 3:16 pm
    Dalrock must be wrong:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/15/women-cheat-on-men-who-dont-do-house-chores-french-survey-finds/
    Or maybe the French are unique. (Or the article is flawed.)

    Cardinal Rule of Adult Thinking Number 12:

    “If an outlet of the Mainstream Media asserts something as fact, automatically assume that the truth is the polar opposite of that assertion.”

    And yet, there’s a grain of truth in this article, feeriker.

    It mentions, right near the end that 55% of French men are unfaithful, as opposed to 32% of French women.
    It would seem that French men being denied sex and driven insane by feminist-inspired ball busting wives are a far bigger problem – by 24% – than men not being “kitchen bitches”.
    But alas, I do forget: Women are always the victims!

  80. Avraham rosenblum says:

    As for the critique on Catholics a few comments up above I thought to mention that there are positive things about the Catholic faith. I think the argument of L Luther was that the Catholic faith is all bad. That does not seem realistic to me. It is more likely to have some good and some bad.

  81. Boxer says:

    Dear Avraham:

    As for the critique on Catholics a few comments up above I thought to mention that there are positive things about the Catholic faith. I think the argument of L Luther was that the Catholic faith is all bad. That does not seem realistic to me. It is more likely to have some good and some bad.

    One must credit the Catholics for still having the balls to tell people the difference between right and wrong. Catholics (still) tend to tell people who are getting divorces, abortions and jail sentences that they’re smarmy pieces of shit that need to reform themselves.

    What I see from Protestants and Jews is, at best, an acknowledgement that such people might be making bad decisions, before blaming all manner of other, unrelated factors for the crap behavior, then giving the miscreant a cookie and letting him go do it all over again.

    Catholics also (like Jews) have very interesting logical arguments for their faith, that Protestants lack completely. When I talk to Protestants, it’s all about the feelz, with no appeals to reasons whatever. That approach probably works well for a lot of people, but I don’t find it personally very compelling.

    So, yeah, if I were to convert to something and become religious, It’d be the Catholics I’d join. I’m sure they’re not perfect, but their interpretation appeals to me on many levels.

  82. Opus says:

    I like the photo: it is autumn [fall] with the leaves on the ground. One can tell that it is America and not England because although the land is deliciously green that barn is typically American – but why is that brute of a man lowering over that little woman – he doesn’t even remove his hands from his pockets – and forcing himself on her. The brute! What she needs is to embrace Feminism and thus rid the world of misogynists.

  83. Jim Christian says:

    Heh, she was all over DC starting maybe 2003 everyone down there knew who she was. She showed up a little after the war started, SaddamII. She was a protester for all seasons. She had an office at NOW, Planned Parenthood, she used to hang out at Washpost, Brookings and bars all over Arlington, Pentagon City. Bet she has an enormous peg count. She used to write whacknut Op/Eds for Washington Post, but she got a little too loopy for even them. If they carry her anymore, it’s just guest hit pieces. By this timeline, she got too loopy for WashPost about the time she quit doin’ coke. This half-a-fag she married, is he ever under HER thumb. Valenti is right you know, she IS hairy and a little ugly. In any case, she’s sporting more testosterone that her homo-lookin’ hubby.

    It ain’t the coke, it’s the girl. She was screwed up long before the first line disappeared up that Electrolux of a nose of hers. But hey, it’s a livin’! They must be kickin’ up the bucks living in NYC, or if they live in Britain from time to time? Planting stories on Bernie, she’s gonna wind up back in DC as a Press Secretary, or Deputy. Maybe she’ll become Hillary’s new Grrrl Friday. Chief of Staff. The job will be to keep all men out of the Administration.

  84. Jim Christian says:

    Comment from before the election, it all holds except of course, Valenti is toast with the Trumpening, ha! Valenti is a bottom feeder of the lowest order..

  85. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Boxer. I had one or two ideas about your comment. One idea was an essay that I was looking at which highly corroborates your statement about Protestants being all about the “buzzz..”
    http://www.banner.org.uk/res/charismatics_history.pdf

    I have heard a few more critiques of Protestants over time. One I think important critique is virtual virtue. That is once one has said some statement with absolute clarity and sincerity he is she is automatically saved and justified. “Virtual reality” virtue. At that point one hopes the person’s deeds will change but that has nothing to do with his being saved since he is saved by faith alone.

    Another thing is “only Scripture,” which can mean anything to anyone. It was thought to be clear. Then people began to realize it is not clear so they went for what the author meant. Then it became clear that no one knows what the author meant so instead went for what people at the time thought he meant. Then that gave way to other interpretations ad infinitum.

    Sorry for making this note too long. I just wanted to sum up for myself some of the ideas that i had on the subject.
    Of course there is a lot of positive things about the Protestant movement but I have not organized my thoughts about that this minute. Just off hand I think what was good about the whole thing was an attempt to get to personal faith as versus being saved because of being part of an institution. But even that does not seem so great. Certainly the Catholics were aware of the concept of “mortal sin.”

  86. Oscar says:

    Don’t congratulate women when they get engaged or married, because it reminds feminists of their cats.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/15/its-not-fair-liberals-say-stop-congratulating-engaged-couples/

    “’Landing a husband’ is not something you ‘achieve’, [Ashley] Mateo reasons [at Redbook]. What’s more, if you consider getting engaged an achievement, then clearly you view ‘not being engaged’ as a failure of sorts.

    ‘[F]or the sake of this argument, that you’re the marital equivalent of someone sleeping in their parents’ basement at 30’, she explains further. ‘It implies failure on the part of the un-engaged, and that’s uncool’.”

    But, remember, shame doesn’t work on women.

  87. Lost Patrol says:

    I casually cruised through some of the works by feminists referenced here and via the embedded links. (Because I always learn new personalities at Dalrock, and after meeting them wish I hadn’t, but better to know who and where they are).

    The hatred of men is palpable, unrelenting, and free ranging; apparently encompassing all men for all time. It is the old “all men are pigs”, but in a thousand new flavors. Many of the women writing, speaking, and teaching classes along these lines – evils of male privilege, patriarchy, or even white male privilege – were raised, protected, and advanced in their lives by the very men they now decry. Presumably, some of these men loved those little girls, and were loved by them.

    What is it about the most advantaged women in history of all creation, that makes them spit on their fathers, grandfathers, and essentially the entire line of their people back to the beginning?

  88. Novaseeker says:

    What is it about the most advantaged women in history of all creation, that makes them spit on their fathers, grandfathers, and essentially the entire line of their people back to the beginning?

    Envy. Goes back to the garden. The only difference today is that it is enabled and weaponized, and that developed over the course of a few centuries due to men being oversympathetic (also goes back to the Garden). It’s the core problem of humanity as stated in Genesis clearly enough: women are extremely envious of power, and men are extremely likely to give in to them.

  89. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    Don’t congratulate women when they get engaged or married, because it reminds feminists of their cats.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/11/15/its-not-fair-liberals-say-stop-congratulating-engaged-couples/

    And yet, she demolishes the other feminist full court press, the push to stop viewing staying married a success and divorcing a failure. She closes with:

    So, if you get engaged, I will send you my best wishes, I will tell you how happy I am for you, I will exclaim “HOLY SHIT I’M BLINDED BY THIS!” when I see your beautiful ring… I just won’t say congratulations anymore. When you get through twenty years of marriage together unscathed? Then I’ll tell you congratulations. Now, that’s an achievement.

  90. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    Envy. Goes back to the garden. The only difference today is that it is enabled and weaponized, and that developed over the course of a few centuries due to men being oversympathetic (also goes back to the Garden). It’s the core problem of humanity as stated in Genesis clearly enough: women are extremely envious of power, and men are extremely likely to give in to them.

    Brilliantly put. I especially like the concept of feminism as weaponized envy.

  91. feeriker says:

    What is it about the most advantaged women in history of all creation, that makes them spit on their fathers, grandfathers, and essentially the entire line of their people back to the beginning?

    The men in their lives indulged and spoiled them and, far from being grateful, the women turned on and bit the hands that fed them and haven’t stopped (largely because so many men seem to enjoy getting their hands bitten repeatedly and keep going back for more).

    There’s a lesson here, and an obvious solution to the problem, but modern men don’t have the gonads necessary to implement it.

  92. Oscar says:

    @ Dalrock says:
    November 16, 2016 at 8:38 am

    “And yet, she demolishes the other feminist full court press, the push to stop viewing staying married a success and divorcing a failure.”

    It’s almost as though women are designed for a purpose and can’t escape that design or its purpose. But, designed by whom? I wonder.

  93. Hose_B says:

    @ EVERYONE EXEPT KATHARINE

    I’ve been on here awhile. Taken the red pill hard at the END of a 17year blue pill marriage. I respect Dalrock, his insights and many of the insights of his commenters, HOWEVER……In ths case (and others though not noted) I clearly see a woman who is making every attempt to contribute.She has well thought out ideasand presented them rationally. Many of the commenters simply dismissed her BECAUSE she is female. One post stated that even if a girl sounds rational and reasonable………still dismiss her beause she doesn’t kow what she is saying. Guys, this is sexism and that is NOT what we are working towards. Headship is not sexism. Christianity is not sexism. Guys…….MEN……….We are above this.

    @Katharine Di Cerbo

    Much of what you stated is true. Adolescents (of any gender) are ignorant of the power they have. Sexual, physical, emotional. It has been alluded to that since Valenti had a “privileged” childhood, then this is all hypergamy. I find that to be woefully shortsighted. While I cannot prove this, my instinct tells me that her parents were probably UMC (or very much trying to be). Her parents most likely told her the basics…..dont steal (much), Dont lie (much)…….mixed into a lot of 1st and second wave feminism. If they were trying to get ahead, Its very possible that she didnt get the good guided instruction. Titus 2:3-5 tells us what older women should be teaching to young women. This doesn’t happen today…………Even in church cultures.
    What you are describing is the consequence of modernism. Women used to work all day preparing the food and the house. Girls helped their mothers. It gave them time and opportunity to teach them how to be a wife and mother. As we got more “modern” it took less of the day to actually prep food and clean. Plus, a massive amount of the labor force took off to Europe to fight Hitler. Women took up the positions in the factories and then didn’t want to return back home. Hello Fifties and Sixties. Nowadays, mom is most likely working outside the home. Maybe there is a nanny to “take care of the children”, but no doctrine would be allowed.
    Even for women still actually RAISING their kids. How to behave as a sexual being isn’t discussed, at least not on the Conservative side. The liberal left is inundating girls with the message that their body is theirs. They can do what they want with it. It should never be “given” to anyone…..only loaned with permission. Meanwhile the church is giving only shame.
    To your point of using shame……..You’re right. Its bad…..but not because its not effective. Its bd because of the other side of the coin. A small amount of shame can be effective. Large amounts have no impact OR will destroy a girls sexual health by making ALL sex shameful. I have personal experience in the DAMAGE a shameful outlook on sex can bring to marriage. Her parents (“Christians”) didn’t teach her about sex except that she MUST remain a virgin until married. No real instruction on good marital sex life. All done in the name of sexual purity. It worked….sort of. She was a virgin when I married her. We have had trouble ever since. They relied on the Church teachings to ensure purity. They also did not explain biblical headship and submission to her. The Church is soft on truth and will RARELY talk about a positive christian sex life. They are also NOTORIOUSLY soft of preaching biblical submission.
    It is the use of shame without instruction. The use of fear without instruction. The use of intimidation without instruction that leads to the Alt-right and Alt-left extremes. Biblical instruction is neither.
    Valenti was never convinced of her worth as human being. Most likely her parents fault (though they may have tried hard). She discovered a sexual power that she didn’t understand. Maybe she isnt capable of understanding the power. The nuclear fission analogy is spot on.

    Good instruction MUST come before the shame of failing that instruction.

    Adam and Eve were naked. And they felt no shame. Only after they acquired the “knowledge of good and evil” (something humans are not equipped for and were never intended for) could they feel shame.
    .

  94. White Guy says:

    Whiteknight in the house!

  95. White Guy says:

    She’s a big girl, if she wants to stick around and defend her ideas here, she is more than welcome too. But women in this forum do not need men (Hose B) to defend them, don’t be ‘THAT’ guy.

  96. Cane Caldo says:

    @Hose

    Some of what you say is true. I want to address what is not true. You wrote:

    Headship is not sexism. Christianity is not sexism.

    Is that true? Sexism just means there are differences in the sexes. Have you confused sexism with misogyny? Misogyny, like misandry, is a degraded form of sexism, and not the same thing.

    Guys…….MEN……….We are above this.

    Above what? Are you above recognizing sex differences? Are you above recognizing that the head is above the body; as God’s world and the Bible instruct us? If so, then you believe yourself to be above God’s rule.

    Meanwhile the church is giving only shame.

    This is straight-up false. You are deceived. Some Christians (though very few) do instruct women against fornication with shame, and you are right that the great majority of Christians do not positively instruct women about sex, marriage, the husband’s headship, the wife’s submission, etc. What you’re missing is at least three things:

    1) The much greater opprobrium against sinfulness directed towards men. Instruction towards men is that they need to repent and be disciplined, so that perhaps they will be forgiven. Women are instructed to demand forgiveness, and forgiveness should be expected…which destroys forgiveness as a demand for hospitality destroys hospitality.

    2) Christians practice pacifism against women, but bloodthirst against men. A man who used “foul language” in a single Sunday School class would be reprimanded in harsh terms. A woman who wore immodest clothes to Sunday School every week would hear nothing.

    3) Among Christians (along with the whole Western world), leadership is always under suspicion and threat. Rebellion is always above suspicion or threat; it is assumed to be worthy of excuse and valid.

    That is not a program of teaching women “only shame”. That is a program of encouraging women to abuse their sexual power and to reject submission.

  97. Dalrock says:

    @White Guy

    She’s a big girl, if she wants to stick around and defend her ideas here, she is more than welcome too. But women in this forum do not need men (Hose B) to defend them, don’t be ‘THAT’ guy.

    I have to give both Katharine_Di_Cerbo and the other commenters credit for avoiding what ordinarily would have become a first rate hamster hunt. After she (completely unprompted) blurted out that slutty women shouldn’t be shamed for being slutty, she avoided going into full mound rebuilding mode, and the rest of the commenters showed great restraint. It was only after this was averted that the concern troll showed up, who while fully agreeing with the ideas of the sphere, was concerned that we might appear sexist (just like the Bible and reality).

  98. Anon says:

    who while fully agreeing with the ideas of the sphere, was concerned that we might appear sexist (just like the Bible and reality).

    Funny how whiteknights are always late to the party, and are more strident about pushing feminist narratives than average women.

    Hose-B was not dismissed ‘because she is female’. There are (a few) women here and elsewhere who say the right things…

    On Quora, there are tons of manginas desperately posting questions like “What can I as a man do to further feminism? How can I help?”, with absolutely no answers from women, only other manginas.

  99. Feminist Hater says:

    Reread every response to Katherane, they were all fine and dandy. No personal attacks. Calling out her stupid ‘shaming doesn’t work’ mantra, sure, and good calling out it was. Shame works so well.

    Shaming is a lost art, it needs to come with consequences. Shaming a slut but then feeding her does nothing, shaming her and leaving her to starve sends a shockwave through all the other women in the vicinity. You don’t want to end up like Cheryl Slut, do you?!

  100. Avraham rosenblum says:

    There seems to be some difference between shaming for sins that are between man and fellow man an sin between God and man. The later case has clear permission from the book on slander by Israel Meir HaKohen in ch 4 as long as the sin is not just a one time event but done on purpose on a constant basis and private rebuke has done nothing.

  101. Oscar says:

    @ Feminist Hater says:
    November 16, 2016 at 11:37 am

    “Shaming a slut but then feeding her does nothing, shaming her and leaving her to starve sends a shockwave through all the other women in the vicinity.”

    That’s not an option for Christians. Christ always leaves an opportunity for repentance and restoration. The key, though, is REPENTANCE. Without REPENTANCE there can be no forgiveness, and definitely no restoration. That’s the part that the Church ignores these days.

    The model for this process can be found in 1st and 2nd Corinthians, which give us a real life example of a man who was excommunicated for having sex with his step mother, repented and was restored.

  102. Feminist Hater says:

    I still don’t see that not leaving a chance for repentance. However, they need to suffer consequences regardless of their repentance. We don’t let murderers off or rapists or thieves.

  103. Oscar says:

    @ Feminist Hater says:
    November 16, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    “I still don’t see that not leaving a chance for repentance. However, they need to suffer consequences regardless of their repentance.”

    That depends of which consequences you mean. Earlier you wrote:

    Feminist Hater says:
    November 16, 2016 at 11:37 am

    “… shaming her and leaving her to starve sends a shockwave through all the other women in the vicinity…”

    Let’s look at how Paul instructed the Corinthian church to deal with the man who had sex with his step mother.

    In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul instructed the Corinthian Christians to excommunicate the pervert.

    1 Cor 5:3 For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this. 4 So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present, 5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a][b] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

    Now, let’s see what Paul instructed the Corinthian Church to do when the sinner repented.

    2 Cor 2:5 If anyone has caused grief, he has not so much grieved me as he has grieved all of you to some extent—not to put it too severely. 6 The punishment inflicted on him by the majority is sufficient. 7 Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him. 9 Another reason I wrote you was to see if you would stand the test and be obedient in everything. 10 Anyone you forgive, I also forgive. And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, 11 in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes.

    Got that? “7 Now instead, you ought to forgive and comfort him, so that he will not be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. 8 I urge you, therefore, to reaffirm your love for him.”

    Does that sound like “leaving him to starve”?

  104. Boxer says:

    Dear Oscar:

    My bro Feminist Hater is good at rhetoric and often speaks metaphorically, and I think this is one of those occasions. Can’t speak for him, of course, and I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’m wrong.

    No one in the USA (woman or man) is in any danger of physical starvation. Even the homeless hoboes I meet downtown, who block the sidewalk with their shopping carts as they scream at traffic, seem well fed, and not at all emaciated. Nearly all of them are starved of meaningful social relations, though; and while that’s too bad, it’s understandable.

    I think that if a woman starts hoeing, she loses any real claims on her husband/boyfriend, and perhaps, if her behavior is bad enough, even on her father or male relatives. The threshold for tolerating crap behavior is higher in the case of blood relations, but the threshold still seems to exist. If my own sister started being a nuisance, I’m sure I’d eventually get sick of her and cut off contact. In that regard, I think that social ostracism is less cruel than just a natural consequence of being an asshole.

    Boxer

  105. Oscar says:

    @ Boxer says:
    November 16, 2016 at 12:34 pm

    “My bro Feminist Hater is good at rhetoric and often speaks metaphorically, and I think this is one of those occasions.”

    Even if that’s true, does the restoration Paul instructs look like anything that resembles metaphorically “leaving him to starve”?

    “I think that if a woman starts hoeing, she loses any real claims on her husband/boyfriend, and perhaps, if her behavior is bad enough, even on her father or male relatives.”

    We agree, but that’s not what I’m referring to. Paul instructed the Corinthians to excommunicate the pervert. They obeyed. But, AFTER HE REPENTED, Paul instructed them to restore him to fellowship. Apparently, they obeyed again.

    The problem with the modern Church that they’re stuck in 1 Cor 5:1-2.

    5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud!

    That’s the problem with the modern Church. Sexual immorality exists in the Church and the Church not only tolerates it, THEY’RE PROUD!

  106. Oscar says:

    “AFTER HER REPENTED” was supposed to be “AFTER HE REPENTED”, meaning the perverted man the Corinthian church first tolerated, then excommunicated, then restored to fellowship after he repented.

    [D: Fixed.]

  107. feeriker says:

    The problem with the modern Church that they’re stuck in 1 Cor 5:1-2.

    5 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife. 2 And you are proud!

    That’s the problem with the modern Church. Sexual immorality exists in the Church and the Church not only tolerates it, THEY’RE PROUD!

    It suddenly occurs to me to wonder if perhaps one of the reasons why in such situations it is the MAN who is punished by the church and not the woman is because these verses make no mention of the step-mother in this case being punished or ex-communicated (assuming, of course, that she was a member of the Corinthian church as was her step-son, which is unclear from Scripture).

  108. Feminist Hater says:

    While you guys can pussy foot around the issue, comforting slutty women is not something I’m going to do. It’s just not within my realm of ability. Especially when it extends to them forcefully taking money out of my wallet through force such as government taxes and welfare largesse, i.e. single moms. This constant ideal of taking care of these sinners when they continue to sin is a no go, they should starve. Starve the beast, that is my mantra for single moms, welfare abusers, government enablers and Churcian imbeciles.

    If a slut repents, fine, let her in but I am not suffering the consequences for her sins, that is for her and Jesus to bear.

  109. Feminist Hater says:

    If they excommunicated the man for his sins, that is exactly what I am talking about. They didn’t excommunicate him and then feed him while he continued to sin, did they? No. And that is the point, until such a time as these women actually truly repent and beg for mercy and comfort and become nuns for the good of themselves and God, I’m not interested in their plight, they can literally, starve.

  110. Oscar says:

    @ Feminist Hater says:
    November 16, 2016 at 1:55 pm

    “Especially when it extends to them forcefully taking money out of my wallet through force such as government taxes and welfare largesse, i.e. single moms. This constant ideal of taking care of these sinners when they continue to sin is a no go”

    You’re completely missing the point.

    There is nothing either in my writing or the Scriptures about government welfare or tolerating unrepentant sinners.

  111. Oscar says:

    @ Feminist Hater says:
    November 16, 2016 at 2:01 pm

    “If they excommunicated the man for his sins, that is exactly what I am talking about. They didn’t excommunicate him and then feed him while he continued to sin, did they? No.”

    You’re still missing the point. Restoration can only happen AFTER repentance, but AFTER repentance, we are commanded to restore.

  112. Feminist Hater says:

    The opposite of ‘letting them starve’ is ‘feeding them’, i.e. welfare or donations. Are you questioning letting sinners starve or letting repentant sinners starve? I’m a bit lost as to your exact problem with my initial statement..

  113. Feminist Hater says:

    You’re still missing the point. Restoration can only happen AFTER repentance, but AFTER repentance, we are commanded to restore.

    I don’t think I am. I think you are missing the point I made. You shame the slut by starving her until she repents. Either with food, attention or comfort.. This serves as a warning to her and others around her who may have been persuaded to join her.

  114. Oscar says:

    @ Feminist Hater says:
    November 16, 2016 at 2:07 pm

    “The opposite of ‘letting them starve’ is ‘feeding them’, i.e. welfare or donations.”

    Seriously? Government welfare is the only way you can think of that a person can be fed?

    “Are you questioning letting sinners starve or letting repentant sinners starve?”

    As I’ve already stated, we are commanded to excommunicate unrepentant sinners, and restore repentant sinners.

    Feminist Hater says:
    November 16, 2016 at 2:10 pm

    “I think you are missing the point I made. You shame the slut by starving her until she repents.”

    That is inconsistent with what you wrote earlier.

    Feminist Hater says:
    November 16, 2016 at 12:06 pm

    “I still don’t see that not leaving a chance for repentance. However, they need to suffer consequences regardless of their repentance.”

    I then stated at 12:23 pm; that depends on which consequences you mean.

    You never explained what consequences you mean. I can’t read your mind. So, if you want me to understand your point, you need to explain what consequences you mean.

  115. Feminist Hater says:

    Okay, I get your issue now, it’s with my second statement. Sorry, yes, once the person has repented I don’t see on issue with comforting them, the consequences in that case are more social, not physical.

  116. Feminist Hater says:

    Social in the sense of limited chances to marry, be in positions of authority and such.

  117. Feminist Hater says:

    Seriously? Government welfare is the only way you can think of that a person can be fed?

    Seriously, no. It isn’t the only way but it is the predominate way. The state has taken over the Church when it comes to social welfare and it does so by the force of government.

  118. Oscar says:

    @ Feminist Hater says:
    November 16, 2016 at 2:29 pm

    “Social in the sense of limited chances to marry, be in positions of authority and such.”

    Okay, so we agree. I simply misunderstood you.

    “The state has taken over the Church when it comes to social welfare and it does so by the force of government.”

    We agree again. The Church needs to take back its responsibility to care for the poor and needy. Mercy is the Church’s responsibility. Justice is the government’s responsibility. When they try to do each other’s jobs, they fail miserably.

  119. BillyS says:

    Thanks for the concern White Guy. I am doing well overall. A few bumps when something reminds me that my wife is no longer here, but God has helped me get through those, so I continue along.

    We were together for a long time, so I don’t expect this to be easy, but I can and will make it through.

  120. Isa says:

    The point is rather that at 14 it is too late. The time to discuss proper behavior is before the hormones get going and secondary sexual characteristics appear. Speaking to teenagers of any sex about sexuality that were never previously educated is an exercise in futility. They are so cocksure and hormoned up that nothing will enter the brain other than do what feels good.

    In any case, 14 year olds sleeping around speaks to poor parental education and a lack of surveillance. They may not understand the messages their clothes and demeanor send, but their parents and the older boys they are sleeping with do. It is also quite telling that on average the younger the female, the older the “boyfriend” is likely to be.

    I know many people whose 14 year olds have 20 year old boyfriends, but of course he’s just interested in her personality (according to the mother), and he would be dead if he touched her (according to the father). I’m not sure what they would have in common besides sex, and as 14 year olds cannot marry in most countries, the man is unlikely to have honorable intentions.

  121. Gunner Q says:

    Avraham rosenblum @ 6:52 am:
    “Another thing is “only Scripture,” which can mean anything to anyone. It was thought to be clear. Then people began to realize it is not clear so they went for what the author meant.”

    Are you saying female pastors might be okay after all? Because nobody really knows what Scripture says, right? When Christ said “Nobody comes to the Father except through me”, he could have meant “me or my mother” and we just don’t know? Come on now, the only people who are uncertain about basic Christianity are devils and women. Liars and their dupes.

    Don’t tell me I’m not smart enough to think for myself or judge the behavior of my leaders. That way lies Reformation.

    Oscar @ 2:06 pm:
    “You’re still missing the point. Restoration can only happen AFTER repentance, but AFTER repentance, we are commanded to restore.”

    Remember why the father took back the Prodigal Son? Because he was family. Not because he was needy. Women can screw up a lot and still be forgiven, but if she spits on her marriage vows and disowns her husband then she doesn’t get to come back. This is Biblical; it is, in fact, the Unforgiveable Sin.

  122. feeriker says:

    I know many people whose 14 year olds have 20 year old boyfriends, but of course he’s just interested in her personality (according to the mother), and he would be dead if he touched her (according to the father). I’m not sure what they would have in common besides sex, and as 14 year olds cannot marry in most countries, the man is unlikely to have honorable intentions.

    If this was a nation of well-established, cultural, moral, and religious traditions that saw six-year relational gaps in that age range as normal (or at least not unusual), then it would be generally unremarkable.

    Given what American life and culture are today, however, any parents of a 14-year-old girl who react to her having a 20-year-old boyfriend with anything other than “OH, HELL NO YOU DON’T!!!” are either irresponsible or profoundly mentally retarded. Either way, they prove themselves unfit to be parents.

  123. Hose_B says:

    @ WhiteGuy.
    I am not a whiteknight. I did not post that to defend Katherine. I posted it to remind those of us here who have forgotten. God help any man on here that dares to think a woman may have a valid thought

    @Dalrock
    I am surprised by you. I had thought until today that you were a fair and reasonable human being. I am neither a white knight nor a troll. If you’d like me off your site, simply say so. If your goal is to simply bitch, then I will leave. If your goal is to help people, this isn’t the way.

    @Cane_Caldo

    “Some of what you say is true. I want to address what is not true. You wrote:

    Headship is not sexism. Christianity is not sexism.

    Is that true? Sexism just means there are differences in the sexes. Have you confused sexism with misogyny? Misogyny, like misandry, is a degraded form of sexism, and not the same thing.

    Guys…….MEN……….We are above this.

    Above what? Are you above recognizing sex differences? Are you above recognizing that the head is above the body; as God’s world and the Bible instruct us? If so, then you believe yourself to be above God’s rule.

    Meanwhile the church is giving only shame.

    This is straight-up false. You are deceived. Some Christians (though very few) do instruct women against fornication with shame, and you are right that the great majority of Christians do not positively instruct women about sex, marriage, the husband’s headship, the wife’s submission, etc. What you’re missing is at least three things

    Cane…… Sexism is not simply that there is a difference between men and women. And No, I did not confuse it with misogyny.
    Sexism is about discriminating (or in this case dismissing) Based SOLELY on the basis of sex. She CANNOT have a decent thought because she is a woman.
    Misogyny is the HATRED of women
    Misandry is the HATRED of Men

    And none of what I said in any way implies that I think the head is above the body or that I am above Gods rule. Poorly executed political spin.\
    As to the Church, with all due respect, you sir are the one deceived. Or you havent been in a Baptist church in the last century. All I have heard from the church is the surface “Be pure cause adultery and fornication is a sin.” They do not teach real substance. Something that has been illustrated here many times. Katherines point was that teaching and explaining to young girls may work better than shaming. AND SHE IS RIGHT!!
    My ex grew up in the church. Her whole concept of sex is that it was saved for marriage. They accomplished this by shaming her about sex. The net result is a virginal bride who has a million hangups about sex. And a young husband who has no clue whats going on. I have fought bad church influences my entire marriage. (so basically my entire adult life). Early on I did not know enough to realize I needed to fight it. As I said, I was very blue pill until finding this site a year or so ago. Even in my blue pill days, none of this sat right. I almost abandoned Christianity because what I was being told from churches and my wife didnt fit what I was reading and understanding. I must be wrong, right???
    Now, I make sure that I teach my kids about scripture and sex and marriage. And I make sure to pay double attention to what they are getting spoonfed, by the church, by the media, by the world.

    And lastly to the Anon who spouted about whiteknights being late to the party……..Screw you. I work. You’re anon. Your opinion means nothing. Dalrock…….guys like this are the trolls.

    Good day to you

  124. Avraham rosenblum says:

    Gunner: I did not mean to get into the whole area of how to interpret. I did not mean there is no such thing as the simple explanation.

  125. Kevin says:

    Shame is a perfectly acceptable vehicle of disciplin for individuals and society. When it comes to moral rules in society everything needs to be on the table. Creating moral societies involves teaching the why of rules – it helps people follow Chastity to understand why our bodies are sacred and that we are holy as we were created by God. Those are fundamental. But letting girls and boys know that sleeping around is disgusting and they become disgusting and lose social standing by doing it. There is no single method of influencing others from doctrine to shame to fear if bad outcome to inspiring them.

  126. ManlyMan says:

    @Hose B- Look the new and improved female side version of IBB is back.

  127. Oscar says:

    @ Gunner Q says:
    November 16, 2016 at 6:01 pm

    “Remember why the father took back the Prodigal Son? Because he was family. Not because he was needy.”

    A repentant sinner is family.

    “Women can screw up a lot and still be forgiven, but if she spits on her marriage vows and disowns her husband then she doesn’t get to come back.”

    Restoration does not necessarily mean remarriage. If that ship has sailed, then it has sailed. For example, if Scott’s first wife wanted to reconcile, the Godly answer would be “too late”.

    “This is Biblical; it is, in fact, the Unforgiveable Sin.”

    The only unforgivable sin is unrepentance.

  128. Cane Caldo says:

    @Hose_B

    I am surprised by you. I had thought until today that you were a fair and reasonable human being. I am neither a white knight nor a troll. If you’d like me off your site, simply say so. If your goal is to simply bitch, then I will leave. If your goal is to help people, this isn’t the way.

    So much for your stand against shaming, Hose_B.

    Cane…… Sexism is not simply that there is a difference between men and women. And No, I did not confuse it with misogyny.
    Sexism is about discriminating

    Yeah, that’s what I said. You see: To notice difference is to discriminate.

    I have a theory that most men reject truth when they first hear it. Then, six months later (and in the case of men who really seek the truth), they will spout the truth back to you. They don’t acknowledge that truth’s proximate source. They think they arrived at it on their own.

    See you in six months.

  129. Lost Patrol says:

    I have a theory that most men reject truth when they first hear it. Then, six months later (and in the case of men who really seek the truth), they will spout the truth back to you. They don’t acknowledge that truth’s proximate source. They think they arrived at it on their own.

    Witness. Multiple counts.

  130. Isa says:

    @feeriker

    Exactly. Age gaps are rather the norm in human history, although 14 is too young on the whole to give birth safely, and the babies are prone to health issues. Average marriage age for women historically is around 18-22, so prime fertility and safety.

    The only woman I know who had plugged in parents in this situation, well, the “dating” couple were IB homeschooled baptists. They had a hands off courtship and married when she graduated high school. That is perhaps the best modern example of how things worked historically, and she is quite happy with a number of children.

  131. Feminist Hater says:

    Hose B,

    If shame doesn’t work, why are you using it?

  132. Hose_B says:

    @feminist Hater
    I never said shame doesn’t work. I said that it isn’t always the best method and can produce negative results when used inappropriately. As I clearly gave examples to.

    Which, in your esteem would work better? Barraging my daughter with Sex is a sin, Sluts are bad, sex is shameful. or actually explaining what the body is for, how God designed us, How he intends for us to live within marriage and outside of it??

    As for Valenti, her parents didnt do it and barring some “Paul-like” transformation, she will keep being deceived.

    I think some have forgotten 2 Cor 4:4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel that displays the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

    Note that it says “the god of this age” (Little g) This is Satan. Valenti is blind. No real mystery.

  133. Feminist Hater says:

    Which, in your esteem would work better? Barraging my daughter with Sex is a sin, Sluts are bad, sex is shameful. or actually explaining what the body is for, how God designed us, How he intends for us to live within marriage and outside of it??

    You’re being silly now. You start with teaching them properly. It’s when they don’t listen and continue to sin that you use shame and punishment.

    We have a generation of sluts now who can’t be told ‘no’ because it offends them and offends you. They need shame, they need to be told no, they need punishment for nothing else will work at this point. You would keep on doing the same stuff that has led to this problem. Kind words, it won’t work, the problem is too far gone at this point.

  134. Hose_B says:

    You’re being silly now. You start with teaching them properly. It’s when they don’t listen and continue to sin that you use shame and punishment.

    I am being silly?? You just restated my point from first post.

    ” Adolescents (of any gender) are ignorant of the power they have. (or the consequences of misusing that power)………

    To your point of using shame……..You’re right. Its bad…..but not because its not effective. Its bad because of the other side of the coin. A small amount of shame can be effective. Large amounts have no impact OR will destroy a girls sexual health by making ALL sex shameful.
    It is the use of shame without instruction. The use of fear without instruction. The use of intimidation without instruction that leads to the Alt-right and Alt-left extremes. Biblical instruction is neither.
    Good instruction MUST come before the shame of failing that instruction.

    Adam and Eve were naked. And they felt no shame. Only after they acquired the “knowledge of good and evil” (something humans are not equipped for and were never intended for) could they feel shame.”

    To those who bothered to read and understand, Thank you.

  135. feeriker says:

    Hose B,

    If shame doesn’t work, why are you using it?

    He’s using it on MEN. To a good mangina, that’s not only perfectly OK, but required.. It’s using it on women that’s a cardinal sin.

  136. Oscar says:

    @ Hose_B

    “Biblical instruction is neither. Good instruction MUST come before the shame of failing that instruction.”

    Did anyone here – anyone at all – state that Biblical instruction about sex is unnecessary, or that it shouldn’t come before the shame of failing that instruction? Can you provide a quote? Because if you can’t, you’re arguing against a straw man of your own creation.

    Speaking of Biblical instruction, what does the Bible instruct us to do with a member of the congregation who will not repent of his/her sin?

  137. Hose_B says:

    @oscar
    This will be my last post on this topic. It has become circular with no attempt at understanding. Just accusations instead of or posing as questions. It is rather like talking to my ex wife. But to reply directly to your question………

    Katherine: “It would be nice if more girls were discouraged from this kind of self-defeating behavior in a way that wasn’t super shame heavy.”

    Oscar:
    Sure, it would be nice, but such a method does not exist. Shame, honor and ostracism are the methods by which cultures encourage constructive behavior, discourage destructive behavior and enforce both… peacefully, non-violently. Even Christ Himself advocated its use.

    Oscar, you claim that such a method does not exist. I disagree. Discouraging girls from this kind of self defeating behavior is the job of the parents and older women. Titus 2:3-5 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good, 4so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

    This is where we fail. Valenti’s parents certainly failed. Now she is responsible for herself and it is most likely too late for her. Doesn’t absolve her any more than Moses’s “speach problems” absolved him from earning Gods’ anger.

    Darwinian says “Gentlemen, there is a lesson here, and it’s the opposite of Katharine Di Cerbo’s recommendation: Shaming is exactly what a young, would-be feminist needs to have in her life.”
    Now after that, he does mention using that shame to show what a slut or trash looks like. but that is the first mention of teaching anything. And even then, it falls shallow. It leaves open the “this is what trash looks like so as long as you look different than this, you’re OK.”

    So much for your strawmen. I’m not going to go through all of it. Everything after that was simply clarifying the snap judgement of the offended. “Shame” is a tool. To be used wisely, discriminately, and in conjuction with all of the other tools God has equipped us with, such as teaching, and yes, Grace for the blind.

    And with the risk of following you down your rabbit hole……………We treat unrepentant sinner as we would pagans or tax collectors……….
    So the question is………How should Christians treat pagans or tax collectors?
    Dalrock, that would be a good post for you to tackle.

  138. Feminist Hater says:

    To your point of using shame……..You’re right. Its bad…..but not because its not effective. Its bad because of the other side of the coin. A small amount of shame can be effective. Large amounts have no impact OR will destroy a girls sexual health by making ALL sex shameful.
    It is the use of shame without instruction. The use of fear without instruction. The use of intimidation without instruction that leads to the Alt-right and Alt-left extremes. Biblical instruction is neither.
    Good instruction MUST come before the shame of failing that instruction.

    For 50 years this shit has been tried. It doesn’t work. Feminism destroyed girls sexual health, don’t look at us for someone to blame. That is all feminism. Instead of fighting feminism, the Church brought it hook, line and sinker and gave girls all a free ride. Girls cannot follow one simple rule – no sex before marriage- not before the fall and not after, instruction will not work on them.

    Young boys simply do not have the same power as young girls when it comes to sexuality. Not in the same universe. Society either restores the authority to men to discipline their wives and daughters or this continues. Shame is a good tool, and you are a wet rag too scared to do what must be done.

  139. Feminist Hater says:

    Large amounts have no impact OR will destroy a girls sexual health by making ALL sex shameful.

    You forget yourself, when a slut is a slut I do not care one whit about her sexual health. She belongs in a Nunnery if she repents. That is all. The ONLY women I care about when it comes to her sexuality is a virgin, or else is worthless for our little discussion about instruction. A virgin can be instructed by her father and then her husband. A slut can only be shamed into submission and then dragged off the the nearest Convent for her redemption.

  140. Oscar says:

    @ Hose_B

    “Oscar, you claim that such a method does not exist. I disagree. Discouraging girls from this kind of self defeating behavior is the job of the parents and older women. Titus 2:3-5 Older women likewise are to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine, teaching what is good”

    You just repeated the method that I advocate, so why are you arguing with me? While you’re at it, why do you not see that the method you just described has shame built into it?

    If the older women teach the younger women “to be reverent in their behavior, not malicious gossips nor enslaved to much wine”, then by logical extension they teach that violating such behavior is shameful.

    How can you not see that?

    “So much for your strawmen.”

    It’s not my straw man, it’s yours. I asked you to provide a quote in which someone stated that Biblical instruction about sex is unnecessary, or that it shouldn’t come before the shame of failing that instruction. You didn’t because you can’t. You can’t because no one here wrote any such thing. No one here wrote any such thing because no one here believes it.

    In fact, it’s just the opposite. We’ve had dozens of discussions about Titus 2 in this blog, just during the time I’ve been here, and I’m one of the newer commenters. Everyone here already advocates the Titus 2 solution. You write as though you think we’ve never considered it.

    “We treat unrepentant sinner as we would pagans or tax collectors……….
    So the question is………How should Christians treat pagans or tax collectors?”

    I already answered that question above.

    1 Cor 5:5 hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,[a][b] so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.

    That’s what Christ men when he

    Matt 18:17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.

    Now, do you think that being brought in front of the entire congregation, having your sins exposed and told that you can’t attend church anymore might fell a little bit shameful?

  141. I liked when my white knight😉 said something to the effect of you should only “shame should come AFTER someone fails good instruction.” And I’m good with that.

    I think what really got me going was when I read that Jessica Valenti lost her virginity at 14 and was hit on by teachers in high school. FOURTEEN. That is very young, and that mad me sad to read. Where were her parents?

  142. Dalrock says:

    @KDC

    I think what really got me going was when I read that Jessica Valenti lost her virginity at 14 and was hit on by teachers in high school. FOURTEEN. That is very young, and that mad me sad to read. Where were her parents?

    I imagine they were teaching Valenti the same things Valenti is so earnestly teaching 14 year old girls now.

  143. Oscar says:

    @ Katharine_Di_Cerbo says:
    November 17, 2016 at 1:48 pm

    “you should only ‘shame should come AFTER someone fails good instruction’. And I’m good with that.”

    Which is what all of us have been saying all along. Dalrock’s entire blog is devoted to good instruction – primarily for men, but also for women. The same is true of many other sites in the Christian men’s sphere.

    “I think what really got me going was when I read that Jessica Valenti lost her virginity at 14 and was hit on by teachers in high school. FOURTEEN. That is very young, and that mad me sad to read. Where were her parents?”

    They probably thought that teaching their daughter that such behavior is shameful would “just push her farther into bad behavior”.

  144. Nate says:

    Surprised no one brought up Roissy’s 2009 March Beta of the Month Nomination for Valenti’s husband (in response to Valenti’s self-absorbed article detailing their, at the time, upcoming marriage). They truly deserve each other.

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/04/03/march-2009-beta-of-the-month/

    It’s been 5 years since I graduated college and I am at the point where I am seeing more than a few girls I used to know going the Valenti route, with facebook as their blog. Drugs and partying -> men suck (now that they won’t date me). It’s sad, but not unexpected.

    -FFY

  145. Anon says:

    Nate,

    It’s been 5 years since I graduated college and I am at the point where I am seeing more than a few girls I used to know

    The fact that you avoided them and this whole trap free of cost and pain is a huge victory.

    There are TONS of age 55-60 men who are getting socked with divorce right now, but still think in terms of old paradigms. Almost all contemplate suicide, and a few do it.

    You owe womankind nothing other than gina tingles that are given when you are receiving pleasure from them as well.

  146. BillyS says:

    Gunner Q,

    Remember why the father took back the Prodigal Son? Because he was family. Not because he was needy. Women can screw up a lot and still be forgiven, but if she spits on her marriage vows and disowns her husband then she doesn’t get to come back. This is Biblical; it is, in fact, the Unforgiveable Sin.

    I would accept my wife back if she showed true repentance and I was not otherwise connected to a different woman.

    I believe that is consistent with what the Scriptures require. It would also be a miraculous thing since repenting is quite hard for her. (Not just tears of repentance for a brief period, but repentance that could be seen.)

    I do not expect that to happen.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s