Time and fantasy.

Picking up from my last post, the root of declining marriage rates isn’t just that there are substitutes to marriage, but that marriage itself has been degraded for many decades.  Time is our enemy here, because inertia has delayed the effects of our war on marriage from becoming fully evident.  Each new generation of men is slowly starting to respond to the radical changes we have made to marriage, and this is changing their perceptions of marriage.  The first generation of men who grew up watching the societal celebration as fathers were tossed out of the house en masse were largely unfazed;  nearly all of them went on to marry.   Yet with each new generation witnessing the same pattern we are slowly burning through an enormous reservoir of goodwill from men.

But there is another way that time is our enemy, and this is that as young men are waiting for their future wives to tire of having sex with other men, there are plenty of diversions available to pass the time.  A young man knows that his future wife won’t likely be in the market for marriage for roughly a decade.  Instead of knocking himself out today to signal provider status while he waits, the temptation for a young man is to focus instead on video games, porn, legal marijuana, and now even a pint sized virtual girlfriend:

Pastor Fiene is concerned that young men will be too distracted by fantasy women to notice how feminine, selfless, submissive, and meek modern young women are.  What should worry him instead is that the fantasy women young men are turning to demonstrate by contrast just how aggressive, masculine, and bossy modern women are.

There are after all two opposing fantasies at work here.  The pathetic young man above with the virtual girlfriend is engaging in one fantasy, but men like Fiene are trying to sell an equally absurd fantasy.  The longer a young man engages with fantasy submissive women, the harder it will be for conservative Christians to convince him that what should turn him on is a bossy woman.

Time is the enemy in other ways.  The longer a young man waits for women to be interested in marriage, the more he will be taught about the realities of modern marriage.  He will watch movies like Fireproof and learn that a husband’s primary job is to constantly remain on guard, always scrambling to keep his contentious wife from becoming unhappy and divorcing him.  This same message will be endlessly reinforced in articles like The secret to a happy marriage may be an emotionally intelligent husband, where he will learn that women are better at marriage because they have years of practice being catty, self centered, and dramatic:

When boys play games, their focus is on winning, not their emotions or the others playing. If one of the boys get hurt, he gets ignored. After all, “the game must go on.”

With girls, feelings are often the first priority. When a tearful girl says, “we’re not friends anymore,” the game stops and only starts again if the girls make up. In “The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work,” Dr. Gottman explains, “the truth is that ‘girlish’ games offer far better preparation for marriage and family life because they focus on relationships.”

Related:  Losing control of the narrative.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cracks in the narrative, Disrespecting Respectability, Fantasy vs Reality, Feral Females, Marriage, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

243 Responses to Time and fantasy.

  1. Damn Crackers says:

    It’s Brave New World where only the Alphas and the Epsilons have the orgy porgies. Pass the soma, please.

  2. Pingback: Time and fantasy. | @the_arv

  3. Damn Crackers says:

    Dr. John Gottman likes to have bulls plow his wife on 1st and 3rd Saturday evenings after sunset:

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

  4. Anonymous Reader says:

    Elsewhere in the androsphere there are men who claim that sexbots will render women obsolete. That may happen for a minority of men, but I expect higher resolution video that approaches virtual reality to get there first. The porn video companies are already working with high res VR equipment in an experimental way.

    So in time, the average man who shells out enough money will be able to have a virtual reality experience with a woman who is not bossy, not whiny, not contentious but actually willing. Far as I can tell, despite all the bizarre niches, that’s what the majority of commercial and amateur porn is: one man with one clearly willing woman..something that is rare enough, men are willling to pay to see it in a voyeuristic fashion.

    Turning the church leaders like Fiene on their heads is easy: if women were living up to their side of the bargain, most men would ignore porn. They’d be too busy with their wife in the bedroom.

    In “The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work,” Dr. Gottman explains, “the truth is that ‘girlish’ games offer far better preparation for marriage and family life because they focus on relationships.”

    This excerpt makes clear just how female-dominant modern marriage is supposed to be, and in fact has become in far too many cases. It’s even worse than it looks, because Gottman is a perfect example of gradual betaization. Reading his research from the 1980’s vs. now is striking. In the past, he accurately found “contempt by wife” to be one of the four indicators of divorce in the next few years, or a miserable marriage. In his more recent work, Gottman just refers to “contempt”, in a classic “Men Do That Too!” rationalization.

    If I remember right, Gottman has been divorced at least once, back sometime in the 70’s or 80’s. That might explain some of his interest. He’s also remarried, and that would explain his feminine perspective. His recent books have been mostly rehashes of previous work, with some badly written feminist ranting for a last chapter.

  5. Cindy says:

    ” In “The Seven Principles for Making Marriage Work,” Dr. Gottman explains, “the truth is that ‘girlish’ games offer HORRIBLE preparation for marriage and family life because they focus on BLOWING UP relationships IF THEY DON’T GET THEIR WAY.”

    FIFH

  6. Neguy says:

    You may be interested in this new study:

    https://www.barna.com/research/trends-redefining-romance-today/

    For instance, between 2000 and 2016, the relational makeup of those aged between 25 and 39 shifted dramatically. In the 16 years since 2000, the amount of single people in the 25-29 range rose 9 percentage points (from 50% percent to 59%), and the amount of single people in the 30-39 range also rose 10 percentage points (from 24% to 34%). From a different angle, during the same time period, those groups saw similar shifts in the number of those married. In the 16 years since 2000, the amount of people married in the 25-29 range dropped 7 percentage points (from 43% to 36%), and the amount of people married in the 30-39 range dropped 8 percentage points (from 65% to 57%). These are massive shifts, most pronounced among those in their twenties and thirties, toward a broader move to delay marriage among younger Americans. If you were in your late twenties in the year 2000, you were much more likely to be married than if you were that same age today. These figures are staggering considering the relatively short time period in which they occur. The census bureau statistics from 2011 corroborate these broader shifts. Americans are getting married later and later.

    From what I see around me, there’s no wholesale failure (or choice) for women not finding a husband by age 40 (in contrast to Asia, where there are big increases in the number of never married 40 year old women). Just later marriage. If we see a big spike in women who are 40 and never married, that will really tell the tale.

  7. Anon says:

    but I expect higher resolution video that approaches virtual reality to get there first. The porn video companies are already working with high res VR equipment in an experimental way.

    Of course. The ‘sexbot’ meme only exists to distract opponents enough so that VR blindsides them and it is far too late for them to do anything about it..

    VR wins over sexbots for at least 5 reasons, as has been discussed many times.

  8. Frank K says:

    “The longer a young man waits for women to be interested in marriage, the more he will be taught about the realities of modern marriage. He will watch movies like Fireproof and learn that a husband’s primary job is to constantly remain on guard, always scrambling to keep his contentious wife from becoming unhappy and divorcing him.”

    And once the toothpaste has been squeezed out of the tube, it’s next to impossible to get it back in.

    What is hilarious about movies like “Fireproof” is that while they are intended to persuade young Betas to stay on the plantation, they have the unintended effect of being red pill factories.

    “Instead of knocking himself out today to signal provider status while he waits, the temptation for a young man is to focus instead on video games, porn, legal marijuana, and now even a pint sized virtual girlfriend”

    Pray tell why any young man would go out of his way to show that he’s a provider, which is the epitome of betahood? So he can end up marrying Chad’s sloppy seconds? This isn’t a binary choice. Just because he isn’t willing to prostrate himself before a worn out carousel rider doesn’t mean he has to become a neckbearded loser who plays video games, etc. He can focus on himself, bettering himself for his own sake and not become a future alimony payer who only gets to see his kids every other weekend, and only if he pays the ransom fees.

  9. Wood Chipper says:

    Given the sweetness and gentleness of the virtual girlfriend in the video, I’ll put money down that modern women will find this more degrading than pornography.

  10. Anon says:

    Remember to send this *second* article to Pastorbator Fiene on Twitter as well. He is really doubling down in response to the first article :

  11. Novaseeker says:

    Just later marriage. If we see a big spike in women who are 40 and never married, that will really tell the tale.

    Yes, we won’t really be able to tell until the people who are now in their 20s are in their late 40s, 20+ years from now, really. It does seem to be a generational shift towards rather later marriages, now moving well into the 30s from where it recently was in the mid to late 20s. Question is how many of those singletons will still end up getting married, and that’s anyone’s guess given how social mores are changing at the speed of light currently.

  12. The Question says:

    I think the root cause of this entire problem is a fundamental belief that men are obligated to get married. This drives much of the inaction by the church to fix marriage in any way. Just as a government can always go to taxpayers to bail them out if they spend too much, the church can always just tell men they are morally required to marry come hell or high water. There is no fear or dread that men won’t marry because it is assumed they must.

    Notice that underneath all arguments by churchies for men to marry sidestep the “benefits” of marriage and instead focus on the duty side of it. Nevermind the advantages or lack thereof, you need to marry and stop whining about it. Nevermind how the rules have changed or the laws or how women aren’t women, anymore. That duty must remain paramount above all other considerations, because it is the only foundation upon which the church can advocate for modern marriage.

    The moment they concede that men are not bound by any moral or spiritual rule to marry, then entire narrative must shift toward why men would want to marry and what women offer them in marriage, and there’s only so much rationalization that can occur without being easily picked apart.

  13. Gottman has done good research on the nature of martial interactions, but, like all Moderns, I would never expect him to have any understanding of causality.

    @Anon:

    Sadly, I’m still responsible for the “sexbots are coming” meme around these parts. Was that ever a hilarious thread at Sunshine Mary’s place. But you are correct that VR is going to be the bigger hit. At least in the States.

    Japan Man is a whole other kettle. They’ll eventually invent “close enough” sex bots to cover “close enough” human interaction. That’s important because being a Japanese male is an effort in being crushed your entire life.

  14. Lyn87 says:

    Wood Chipper,

    I suspect you’re correct about that. While GateBox Girl isn’t overtly sexual, she’s submissive… and useful. One of the first things I noticed about it was that when the guy texted his GateBox Girl, she… wait for it… texted him back (immediately, and in full sentences)! She also performed services for him, like waking him up, advising him to take his umbrella, and turning on the lights. She didn’t bitch at him, either. One of the deliberate “touching” moments of the video was as he approached his apartment and looked up to see his lights on, and she literally floated when he came in the door. If that’s not a metaphor for what the young men in “Pastor” Fiene’s congregation want in a woman, I don’t know what is. Too bad he can’t be bothered to drill that onto the heads of the young women in his congregation… if he did, the problem he’s complaining about would largely solve itself.

    A sexbot or other “self-help” device allows women to feel superior and grossed out – but GateBox Girl would likely hit a lot closer to home. At some level the girls know they’re not supposed to be riding the carousel, but they also know that they ought to be feminine in some fashion. GateBox Girl shows that, when it comes to femininity, even a waifu-in-a-jar kicks their asses.

  15. Frank K says:

    “GateBox Girl shows that, when it comes to femininity, even a waifu-in-a-jar kicks their asses.”

    And just wait until the hologram is full sized and not confined to the jar. Even if he can’t actually touch her, she will become a major success.

    As for full sized female holograms, look at this Hatsune Miku video.

  16. One of the things I’ve noticed among Male-targeted media out of Japan is that the females are generally far more appealing to deal with than any human female counter part. This is part of the aghast response to the Waifu trend. (The other side is that the Men most deeply in that trend are the lowest of the low ranked Men. They’re always acceptable to mock.)

    But make no mistake, the Japanese are less than a decade from making a really solid Waifu Bot. And “she” will blow away the competition because the reality is that nearly all Women are utterly annoying. Add in cooperative programming and we’re entering really interesting sci-fi territory.

  17. Joseph Horro says:

    I love reading both your articles and comments 🙂

    [D: Thank you. Welcome.]

  18. gdgm+ says:

    After I viewed the YouTube on “Gatebox” at the top of this OP, it then showed me a choice of another interesting video on the topic. Maybe a bit long at 12 min 36 secs, but it also makes some good points, called “Judgemental Journalist Grossed Out By Gatebox”:


    (Warning language in video – a “c” word is used a few times)

  19. Opus says:

    I know what these Japanese really do: on the way to work it’s chikan on the bus, likewise, on the way home and when they do get home they die in three days after watching a video tape. Virtual sex: I’ll believe it when I see it and not a moment before. One Monday morning walking as I often did Mondays, along an, at that time, fairly empty Oxford Street I came across a small woman whose face was covered with hair (combed forward). ‘Hello, Sadako’ I said, doubtless, greatly to the young woman’s surprise. ‘ring ring’ there goes my phone.

  20. Jeff says:

    I remember when I started college, I tried to do everything evangelical Christianity told me to do – I prayed, read my Bible, regularly attended church, didn’t drink, didn’t look at porn, and didn’t date non-Christian girls. I tried asking out girls I met at the evangelical Christian college group I attended. One dated me for six weeks and dumped me, and the rest rejected me. I discovered that all of these girls preferred dating alpha male frat boys who didn’t attend church at all, and these girls regarded us church guys as a bunch of dorks. It was at this point that I started looking at porn. It wasn’t that I wasn’t asking out Christian girls because I was looking at porn. I was looking at porn because I was asking out Christian girls and getting rejected and finding out they preferred non-Christian guys were more “alpha” (I wish the Manosphere would have been around when I was in college).

    Also, I remember that some of my friends in the college group did end up dating a few of the girls. All of these guys were virgins, and they were often heart-broken to find out that the girl they were dating had already had sex with some non-Christian guy she had dated previously. Years later, in my late twenties, when I was dating my future wife (whom I met in a church setting), I was a virgin and found out that she was not; she had sex with two non-Christian boyfriends. I did forgive her, and we have gone on to have a very happy marriage, and a good sex life. But sometimes, I will have a relapse of “retroactive jealousy” and feel tormented, anxious, regretful, betrayed, and bitter. So, I really hate it when pastors scold young Christian men and tell them that they are less virtuous than women and need “feminine virtue” in their lives.

  21. Carnivore says:

    Creepy video. The tiny figure behind the glass reminded me of the miniature Altaira that Morbius imagined in the Krell plastic educator.

  22. Dalrock says:

    @The Question

    I think the root cause of this entire problem is a fundamental belief that men are obligated to get married. This drives much of the inaction by the church to fix marriage in any way. Just as a government can always go to taxpayers to bail them out if they spend too much, the church can always just tell men they are morally required to marry come hell or high water. There is no fear or dread that men won’t marry because it is assumed they must.

    Notice that underneath all arguments by churchies for men to marry sidestep the “benefits” of marriage and instead focus on the duty side of it…

    It is an interesting question. You and I both agree that even when the topic is (feigned) fear that men won’t marry, the subtext is that there will always be an abundance of men chasing a more valuable supply of would be wives. The Federalist post would be yet another example of this.

    But I don’t think the reason they don’t sell benefits is because they expect men to marry out of duty. I think they know that nearly all young men still want marriage, and the duty angle is a round about way to appeal to this desire while misleading them to believe that respect is on offer. We see this with the whole “Ward Cleaver is a stud!” angle. Grow up and be a man! is the headline, but the real message is mostly unspoken (and get laid like tile).

    Granted we are seeing the beginnings of a panic, or we wouldn’t have the slew of articles complaining about the shape of men. But the driving force is still greed, not fear.

    The moment they concede that men are not bound by any moral or spiritual rule to marry, then entire narrative must shift toward why men would want to marry and what women offer them in marriage, and there’s only so much rationalization that can occur without being easily picked apart.

    Shifting from moralizing to selling the benefits of feminist marriage would be a disaster for them. How do you promise respect for men who marry without showing that respect for men who are already married? You can’t. And respecting married men is out of the question, as the whole system is founded on contempt. Moreover, this would only happen if they perceive a real shift by men against marriage.

  23. SnapperTrx says:

    Necessity is the mother of invention. Where flesh and blood females lack in being their mans cheerleader, a digital solution has been developed. A man with little to no female prospects will happily accept praise from a digital one. Men have been receiving digital praise from video games for thirty years now, it’s nothing new to them. Add in a cute little anime hologram that will EVENTUALLY be augmented with hentai content and compatibility with VR gear and watch these men come running, cash in hand.

  24. Frank K says:

    What is so risible about the absurd “Ward Cleaver is a stud!” angle is that most young people today have never heard of Ward or they have a very minimal knowledge of his character. Heck, I’ve never even seen the show, and I’m in my 50’s!. When Churchians try to use him as some kind of example just goes to show how utterly clueless they are.

  25. Anon says:

    What works with Japanese men may not be popular outside of the Confucian cultures…

    BUT, if a 6-inch, animated hologram can make even a 1% reduction in the effort men put into contemporary real women, then VR sex circa a few years from now will make a 30-50% reduction. Remember, it does not have to be a perfect duplicate. It is also about convenience, time and money saved, discretionary time crowded out, etc.

    The effects will be uneven. 6s, 7s, and 8s will see the biggest reduction in the attention they presently get. Women outside of that range (on either side), less so. 37 y/o women will be uninteresting to even 55 y/o men.

    PM/AFT aggregated some user reactions to 2016-era VR sex here.

  26. Frank K says:

    I forgot to mention, in Japan one can buy desktop software to program Hatsune to sing and dance on screen. I suspect that the folks at Gatebox will soon offer a similar package to customize the Waifu in a jar.

    What is so interesting about this is that it goes to show that men will overlook the lack of sexual contact with the Waifu as long as she is cheerful and pleasant. Throw in a few bots and she can keep house for him and maybe even cook his dinner.

  27. Anon says:

    Dalrock,

    Moreover, this would only happen if they perceive a real shift by men against marriage.

    But isn’t this already more ominous than a strike, since the marriage signal has been deteriorating, and nothing on the horizon seems like it could turn it around?

    Perhaps the cucks are just noticing the marriage signal beginning to erode (since their observations are 40 years behind anyway)..

  28. Damn Crackers says:

    For Archer fans:

  29. Nate says:

    There’s no stopping the landslide of the collapse of the west. The only thing you can do is brace yourself for the impact when we finally hit the bottom. I for one will not sacrifice young men by advising them to marry on the off chance they win the lottery and find a good woman to marry, just because I feel uncomfortable about watching my civilization crumble because young men are unwilling to to become fodder for gynocentrism. I am one of the last of generation X, and I have watched as my most of my generation of men have been decimated by theirs wives through divorce, alimony and child custody law. These pathetic cuckolded pastors and priests trying to shame young men into marrying this generation of mentally ill women are the scum of the earth. If the only way to keep the ship floating is to patch it with the bodies of innocent men, then I say let the ship sink and build a new one.

  30. Nate says:

    Here’s one of these feminine, selfless, submissive, and meek modern young women Pastor Fiene wants you to marry, young man:

    Any takers?

    Here, better read this first before you decide:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-surrey-38891663

  31. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    “But I don’t think the reason they don’t sell benefits is because they expect men to marry out of duty. I think they know that nearly all young men still want marriage, and the duty angle is a round about way to appeal to this desire while misleading them to believe that respect is on offer. We see this with the whole “Ward Cleaver is a stud!” angle. Grow up and be a man! is the headline, but the real message is mostly unspoken (and get laid like tile).”

    The problem with Prager & Co. is that they can’t sell marriage as a duty because they don’t frame it as a religious matter. They sell is on benefits, and it is why their videos are so horrendously ineffective.

    Honest question: Is there a single man out there who watched the “Ward Cleaver gets laid” video found it anything but stupid? It’s adults trying to sound cool by using immature language.

    But like you said, what else do they have? They can’t tell young men to be Ward Cleaver because marriage is how you earn respect. What idiot buys that?

    This is why the “marriage is a religious duty” frame is the only compelling narrative in the discussion and will remain so. It is also why – to borrow from Rollo Tomassi – it is critical the feminine imperative replace the Holy Spirit in the church. If the church does not make marriage a religious duty for men regardless of circumstances, there is no other institution with similar influence and control that can compel them to do so.

    Something to consider when speaking with pro-marriage people: inquire if they believe marriage is a religious duty irrespective of circumstance. It matters, because it sets the stage for all the arguments that follow.

  32. Firesox says:

    Women made their choices. Men are making theirs now. It’s obvious that women without being controlled by a righteous man are useless creatures who sow the seeds of destruction of any civilization. Better to have a sex bot in that case.

  33. Anon says:

    Honest question: Is there a single man out there who watched the “Ward Cleaver gets laid” video found it anything but stupid?

    Unfortunately, a lot of budding cuckservatives in the comments of that video were in agreement. They deserve no sympathy from us when the grinder converts them into petfood…

    Remember that Jim Geraghty married a single mother the same age as him (or possibly older), as a bottom-tier man, he, like Manboobz Futrelle, is desperately trying to change to rules of society to make him be placed at somewhere other than the rock bottom that these two currently reside at.

  34. GW says:

    “Pastor Fiene is concerned that young men will be too distracted by fantasy women to notice how feminine, selfless, submissive, and meek modern young women are. What should worry him instead is that the fantasy women young men are turning to demonstrate by contrast just how aggressive, masculine, and bossy modern women are.”

    This really isn’t a fair reading of Fiene. He never claimed modern women–let alone Western, secular, modern women–perfectly encapsulate feminine virtue. His point was that there is more that makes a woman attractive than her sexual appeal, thus pornography is depriving men of the fullness a healthy marriage would bring. He argues that decent women will seek to improve and cultivate their feminine virtue once pursued by godly men. Sure, in this essay he is not discussing the role radical feminism plays poisoning the minds of young women, but he is hardly claiming women are fine as is. He’s essentially saying that women become more feminine, and thus closer to how God intended them to be, due to healthy relationships with men. That’s not something a feminist would argue.

    Furthermore, it’s laughable to think porn plays no role in the decline and is merely a symptom (as the top commenter seemed to think) and that young men are passing up opportunities for sex due solely to negative personality traits of young modern women. All the negative consequences associated with modern-day marriage he lists–no-fault divorce, hostile family courts, etc.–aren’t relevant when discussing why sex rates have declined among teenagers. Are young men really passing up possible sexual encounters with their female classmates because they find them too severe and unfeminine, or has the internet given them a way to alleviate sexual urges without risking the embarrassment and awkwardness which comes from rejection? The feminist-leaning legal system may be the reason why the 30-year-old eligible bachelor with a successful corporate job foregoes marrying, but it is hardly the reason why the high-school senior skips prom.

  35. Tarl says:

    Apropos of marriage as a moral/religious duty, one problem with that is that attending church actually is a moral/religious duty (if you are a Christian, anyway), but male church attendance is down in the toilet and far lower than female attendance. Obviously the “you must do this because it is your duty” message isn’t getting through, and that’s a duty that’s relatively harmless except for the hour you sit there being bored. “It is your moral/religious duty to get married even though this brings many costs and drawbacks, and few benefits” — much harder sell.

  36. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @Frank K
    What is so risible about the absurd “Ward Cleaver is a stud!” angle is that most young people today have never heard of Ward or they have a very minimal knowledge of his character. Heck, I’ve never even seen the show, and I’m in my 50’s!. When Churchians try to use him as some kind of example just goes to show how utterly clueless they are.

    There are modern equivalents to Ward, but using one of them would have only shined a spotlight on what a raw deal it was for a man to take his role. Try a thought experiment here: Just suppose that Prager U video had replaced Ward with . . . . Phil Dunphy from Modern Family. On the surface, their roles are similar: Both married fathers, both reliably working day in and day out at a job for money that they bring home to share with the family. Except that Ward did it for a wife and kids that deferred to his authority in a friendly town that respected him as the head of his household. Phil does it for a career wife that upstages him in the business world and second-guesses him at home, kids who backtalk and disregard him, and a surrounding world where his “model” of marrying young to a woman and raising her kids is celebrated as just one of many possible family options, and in no way “better” than any of them.

    Anybody watching that video would’ve laughed their ass off at the idea of Phil being a “stud.” Which makes a much graver point than Prager U would like to mention: There’s no profit in being Ward unless you can do it in Ward’s world . . . . . and the 1950s are dead.

  37. Tarl says:

    VR won’t be better than sexbots unless there’s some sort of interface that let’s you feel physical sensations and not just “put on goggles and look at stuff”. Is that the assumption behind “VR will beat sexbots”?

  38. John Gottman was born in the Dominican Republic to Orthodox Jewish parents. His father was a rabbi in pre-WWII Vienna. John was educated in a Lubavitch yeshiva elementary school in Brooklyn, and currently identifies with Conservative Judaism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gottman#Personal_life

    I thank Jesus that conservative Jews are upholding Jewish standards.

    However, IMHO, Christians should have Christian psychology, Christian ethics, etc. so that Jews can focus on the important prayers, rituals, and practices of Jewish religion. Thus I don’t think Gottman should be preaching or teaching Christians about psychology or ethics.

    Happy compromise: Gottman can teach Hebrew language courses, and Christians can get their ethical advice from Christian priests.

  39. Anonymous Reader says:

    GW
    This really isn’t a fair reading of Fiene. He never claimed modern women–let alone Western, secular, modern women–perfectly encapsulate feminine virtue. His point was that there is more that makes a woman attractive than her sexual appeal,

    He argues that decent women will seek to improve and cultivate their feminine virtue once pursued by godly men.

    Well, let’s review Fiene’s actual words:

    As men pursue women, however, they come to develop a more robust appreciation of what women have to offer them beyond physical beauty and sexual gratification. They become more exposed to the various feminine virtues—things like kindness, compassion, selflessness, loyalty, tenderness.

    The words are plain. Fiene is saying that women are kind, compassionate, selfless, loyal and tender, all men have to do to find this out is pursue them. You are making things up.

    but he is hardly claiming women are fine as is

    Er, that is exactly what he is doing. Look, it’s ok for you to have a different opinion, but making stuff up and pretending it’s fact is just not going to work.

    Furthermore, it’s laughable to think porn plays no role in the decline and is merely a symptom (as the top commenter seemed to think) and that young men are passing up opportunities for sex due solely to negative personality traits of young modern women. All the negative consequences associated with modern-day marriage he lists–no-fault divorce, hostile family courts, etc.–aren’t relevant when discussing why sex rates have declined among teenagers.

    How many sex ed and rape prevention mandatory sessions have you attended, GW? When were you last in high school, some time in the previous century? The K-12 public schools are very difficult places for boys now, and the uni’s are worse. None of this is a secret, to people who don’t live in a bubble where “Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them!” is just a cute T-shirt saying, rather than a policy statement. Teaching boys that they are bad people because they have male genitals in the “all men are rapists” mode might just turn them away from the girls, you know.

    Conservative feminists like you and Fiene are going to have to come to grips with reality someday. Why not sooner, rather than later?

  40. @Tarl:

    Wireless devices with basic motors. It’s a matter of the VR being there before it’s profitable to make them. The tech has been there for over a decade.

    @GW:

    On the concern trolling level, I give you a 3 out of 10.

    What turns off teenagers to sex? How about somewhere around 1/3rd of high school age females being fat & bitchy? Even horny teenagers have some standards.

  41. N. Vandenberg says:

    “…waiting for their future wives to tire of having sex with other men …”
    The Lutheran churches know full well that this goes on and excuse it under the phony pretext of being loving. The Lutheran churches use closed communion as a weapon to supress dissent to their pro feminist stance ( pro-divorce, tolerance of cohabitation and their feminist oriented deaconess program). The usual charge that is leveled against those who object to feminist policies is that they have violated the 8th commandment and therby cannot partake of Holy Communion.
    Pastor Feine, by making up false caricatures of men, has broken this commandment already.
    It is not true that a significant number of men are unmotivated, directionless basement dwellers who spend their time masturbating to porn. It is not even true for a fraction of men. Most men I know have manly hobbies (woodworking, archery, martial arts, technical and computer related avocations, fishibg, hunting, target shooting and restoring automobiles). Pastor Feine and his ilk publish these articles to ingratiate themselves to the aging baby boomer feminist men and women that comprise their congregations. The LCMS membership is mainly 60 year olds.

  42. Sharrukin says:

    GW says:
    February 10, 2017 at 3:31 pm

    Are young men really passing up possible sexual encounters with their female classmates because they find them too severe and unfeminine

    Why wouldn’t they? Most guys aren’t attracted to a ball-buster and they don’t see the time, effort, or the possible downsides worth what is offered.

    or has the internet given them a way to alleviate sexual urges without risking the embarrassment and awkwardness which comes from rejection?

    Yes. This too.

    but it is hardly the reason why the high-school senior skips prom.

    That would be despair. You don’t keep trying to draw water from a dry well, particularly one that is so unpleasant.

  43. Boxer says:

    Anon writes:

    Remember to send this *second* article to Pastorbator Fiene on Twitter as well. He is really doubling down in response to the first article

    Your wish is granted.

    I assume feminist preachers are welcome here in the comments section to debate their creative interpretations of the text. If Pastorbator Fiene is as manly as he claims, he ought to jump in and defend his position.

  44. Anon says:

    Boxer is doing God’s work. Singlehandedly doing the activism that MRAs (Men’s Rights Authors) don’t do, to expose these slimy, lusty, cucked Pastorbators.

  45. TheLastCoyote says:

    Wikipedia says John Gottman is married to wife #3. I’m betting she’ll eventually be plaintiff #3.

    I’ve been single. I am married. I prefer single. When my youngest gets her drivers license in a few years, I may be looking to hit the road then.

  46. Pingback: Time and fantasy. | Reaction Times

  47. Lyn87 says:

    “If Pastorbator Fiene is as manly as he claims, he ought to jump in and defend his position.”

    It’s highly doubtful that he will, although one or two of his water-carriers like GW might do a drive-by. Guys like that generally aren’t looking for honest debate: they’re looking for “Amen”s from the pews. Remember when “Pastor” Sam Powell got similar treatment? He didn’t dare leave his safe space where he had the mod hammer to filter out badthought, which he used on me and, IIRC, Oscar.

    The thing about a lot of “leaders” is that it makes them very uncomfortable to be challenged by people who aren’t willing to cede them the argument based on their credentials or position. Since their arguments won’t stand up to scrutiny, all they have is their titles. Refuse to acknowledge them and force them to debate, and they’re just one more weak sister getting bitch-slapped in the comments section.

    It’s not just pastors. I’ve argued apologetics with “scientists” with impressive credentials, but when they try to play that as a trump card I shoot it down post-haste. “I don’t care where you were indoctrinated: let’s examine your claims on their own merits, shall we?” (Then they find out how much of their “knowledge” is based on the most unlikely of presuppositions, at which point they usually call me intransigent – without grasping the irony – and run back to their safe spaces.)

    The feminist slant of chuchianity, as typified by Fiene, isn’t hard to argue against – they do it all the time themselves when it comes to particulars if you pin them down – but feminist thought is so much a part of their underlying paradigm that they don’t even think about it. It ends up being the lens through which they see everything. I’m sure Feine doesn’t think of himself as a feminist, and he would probably agree with what GW wrote earlier, but that’s not the point. The point is that only someone who has internalized the underlying tenets of feminism would look at the phenomenon he’s looking at and reflexively place all the blame on men, when ever a cursory examination of the problem reveals that it’s mainly the consequences of women not possessing the virtues he ascribes to them. One can only surmise that he’s incredibly naive… he probably has no idea what the collective notch-count of the girls in his church’s youth group is, and even he might be shocked to find out. Of course he’ll never know. In fact, he very much does not want to know.

  48. Per Desteen says:

    @ Dalrock

    Sometimes your work is like a two edged sword. On the one hand it incenses me to fire and brimstone lecturing (which I keep internally bottled up), and on the other it it’s a huge flashing danger sign that keeps me from going back to church. I’d rather read and pray on my own that have to tolerate Churchian SJWs. Heck, I have even considered going to a Russian Orthodox church simply for its traditionalism.

    Keep it up.

  49. Anon says:

    Lyn87,

    I’m sure Feine doesn’t think of himself as a feminist,

    Oh, he emphatically insists that he is opposed to ‘feminism’. Of course, we all know what that means :

    a) He is ‘opposed to abortion’.
    b) He thinks the way to reduce abortion is to punish MEN, hence he is enthusiastic of ‘child support’ laws that are not only unconstitutional and un-Christian, but are more worthy of North Korea than any proper society..

    That is the extent of his opposition to ‘feminism’ : Abortion is bad, so punish men. When that does not work, punish men more..

  50. As a single 25 year old man who turned down a valentine’s day date for this Tuesday… at her place… with her going on about how much she wants to cook us dinner… I would agree with the original guy a little. Porn does play a part. A small part. A few thoughts.

    1. Most girls in porn are at least somewhat attractive, in a healthy weight, and have long hair. That’s a far cry from girls you meet around town or on a dating app. Healthy weight, long hair, and cute face makes a real life girl above average and gives her a high dating value.

    2. My generation (whites guys that is) are plenty aware of how horrible it would be if you accidentally knocked a girl up.

    3. I’m 25 and was born in 91, when the purity until marriage was the rage. Maybe you believe the Bible says sex outside marriage is a sin. Cool, we will agree to disagree. That aside, it means a ton of millennial christians were raised by adament christian parents who think virginity is next to godliness. If you’re a virgin sex seems amazing. If you’ve only had sex a handful of times, then you know it’s not that life changing and you can live just fine without it. It’s like deciding if you want to spend money on drinks or not.

    4. Is sex really worth it?

    5. Congrats christian parents! You’re teaching your sons that sex while single is very bad. Do you think they’re stupid enough to marry just for sex when they get out in the real world, after seeing the hell that is marriage in christian church? Having heavy guilt after sex really kills your desire for it, so it helps you just move on and put very low priority on it. Hope you didn’t want grandchildren ever!

  51. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Looking Glass

    There have been a few articles in the popular press about Real Dolls, and how lifelike they are getting. I dunno about that, but they look pretty bulky. Whereas the VR with extra parts would not be bulky, it would fit in a dresser drawer. Now add webcams…

    You know, I just realized how out of date any article in the religious press about porn is; these articles might as well have been written 25 years ago. Pre-VAWA, pre world wide web, pre webcam, pre smartphone with streaming video, pre Goodreads. These churchgoing generals are fighting not the last war, but maybe two wars ago.

    Peak feminism, peak gynocentism, peak misandry – obviously we are not there yet.

  52. The Question says:

    Thought this Facebook post today by Mike Cernovich was relevant to the discussion.

  53. @AR:

    They aren’t fighting two wars ago. They’re coming up with rationalizations to never look at their own habits. Can anyone say Statusbook? 🙂 Or following any part of the Bible that isn’t useful for virtue signaling.

    As for the VR tech, it’s Headset and an extra device. Without getting either too graphic or into the technical aspects of the hardware, you’re really just talking some basic actuators that can run some rather basic code. You could literally have “internet connected sex” on less bandwidth than a 56k modem. We’re really not talking about a huge technical leaps needed to pull it off. Moving your character around in a MMORPG requires more actual data than would be needed.

    I want to say I saw a tech demo of a physical motion device (for the deaf + blind) a decade ago that would cover the similar tactical response technologies. The fact I can think up so many business opportunities in this field makes me wonder why they haven’t happened yet. (Or, maybe, they’re already active and I just have quite wonderfully avoided them.)

  54. Rayce Carrington says:

    You people dont realize how much women are watching porn now, some porn sites report that that 50% of the credit cards used on their sites are owned by females. Our society will never recognize that fact but it doesnt change the truth

  55. King Alfred says:

    At least we are beginning to see some occasional acknowledgement that many women are simply not wife material: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/02/08/society-is-creating-new-crop-alpha-women-who-are-unable-to-love.html

    I believe this was noted on a previous thread but it is also relevant to this discussion.

  56. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    “Ward Cleaver is a stud!” Ward Cleaver is wholly fictional. That’s not his wife. Those aren’t his kids. That’s not even his house, his car, his job. Trying to manipulate a fantasy to tell people fantasies are bad is . . . right up these dinks’ alley, apparently.

    And in the “Give ’em enough rope” category:

    He argues that decent women will seek to improve and cultivate their feminine virtue once pursued by godly men.

    Remember, no matter what, it’s always, ALWAYS men’s fault.

  57. Hose_B says:

    There is a movie on one of the streaming sites called “HotBot” where some teenagers accidentally receive the prototype for the most advanced sexbot. Of course she is everything guys want (sweet, agreeable, helpful, horny) until the little step sister from his moms new biracial hubby meets her and “tells her about Jesus.” Then the next scene she is an uptight bitch.
    Very very sad……but most likely true enough

  58. Anonymous Reader says:

    LookingGlass

    They aren’t fighting two wars ago. They’re coming up with rationalizations to never look at their own habits. Can anyone say Statusbook? 🙂 Or following any part of the Bible that isn’t useful for virtue signaling.

    Some of it is cluelessness, usually in the older ones, but the younger ones? Rationalization is a pretty simple explanation. It also would explain why they don’t engage critics: they cannot. But where does that leave these pastors, eh?

    As for the VR tech, it’s Headset and an extra device.

    Yeah, I know. It’s not technically complicated at all. But I’m thinking we should just let that topic alone, here.

  59. Just Saying says:

    what should turn him on is a bossy woman.

    Hahahahaha…. What should turn him on is whatever turns him on – PERIOD. And a bossy woman (usually ugly as sin as well) isn’t it… Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy bossy women mostly because I only want them for an evening then they can find some sucker, and they have never met a man that doesn’t kowtow to their BS. Woman like being put in their place – it really is that simple. So as soon as I call them on their BS I’m orders of magnitude ahead of the little boy that tries to appease her BS.

    Of course, I don’t want her for anything more than an evening of fun for me. She can enjoy it – or not. If she doesn’t she’s free to leave – they never do. They may bitch about it later, but that night they will be compliant and submissive to what a man wants. I laugh as all of the pansies that pass for men these days – keep being that pansy, women enjoy being treated like a woman and you aren’t doing it right.

    Listen, or not – it really doesn’t matter to me. All I want is a different woman when I want a different woman. I have women that aren’t bossy that like to pay at a “relationship” and that’s fine as long as it’s on my terms. One of the reasons that I enjoy women that enjoy women and sharing – we have something in common, enjoying women and no woman is in competition with me when it comes to the bed room, as long as I’m enjoying both of them, I really couldn’t care less about anything else….

    So keep trying to confuse the young guys – you’re just making sure there are more enjoyable young women for us older guys that enjoy the young-stuff.

  60. Hose_B says:

    @kingarthur

    That was actually a fairly decent article…..
    “The roles may have changed, but the rules haven’t. All a good man wants is for his wife to be happy, and he will go to great lengths to make it happen. He’ll even support his wife’s ideas, plans or opinions if he doesn’t agree with them. That’s because a husband’s number one goal is to please his wife. If he determines his wife cannot be pleased, that’s when the marriage is in trouble.”
    I don’t agree with “all a good man wants” and all, but “if he determines his wife’s cannot be pleased”………..that is gold.
    A good man does want his wife to be happy. A good man will go to great lengths to be happy, including things he doesn’t agree with……..because he WANTS to please his wife. Most good men do. Failing to please her feels like failure.

  61. Anonymous Reader says:

    Rayce Carrington
    You people dont realize how much women are watching porn now, some porn sites report that that 50% of the credit cards used on their sites are owned by females.

    We realize it. It’s the church leaders and older church people who are clueless.

    Our society will never recognize that fact but it doesnt change the truth

    Won’t be surprised if the next turn of the You Go Grrl is all about embracing teh porn as sexual liberation because Where Have All The Sexy Men gone, frankly. But I also won’t be surprised if the current blatant hypocricy continues, either.

    O O
    Excellent. “Ward Cleaver” was an actor, on a TV show. It was a show on TV. So was “Married with Children”, and so is “Modern Family”. You know, Prager and Geraghty are just engaging in some kind of re-enactment or role playing. But If I get a velour shirt and shave my head, no matter how many props I buy I’m still only play acting at being Captain of the Enterprise.

    Prager and Geraghty? Play actors. Or maybe role players. But not serious leaders of anything.

  62. Pariah says:

    Pastor Fiene, if you’re reading this, know that you will be judged by God for not loving the truth enough to actually teach the truth.
    “Christian” women who lose their virginity before marriage make me sick. I’ve made up my mind that the only way I am going to get married is if I can find a wife who is still a virgin.
    So either you, mister Fiene, get over your inflated pride and start learning the truth before you add more words against your account, or you’re just another worker of iniquity posing as a minister of God. In the words of Luther, “May God punish you, I say, you shameless, barefaced liar, devil’s mouthpiece, who dares to spit out, before God, before all the angels, before the dear sun, before all the world, your devil’s filth.”

  63. Dale says:

    Cindy said: “‘girlish’ games offer HORRIBLE preparation for marriage and family life because they focus on BLOWING UP relationships IF THEY DON’T GET THEIR WAY.”

    +1. Funny how the religious nutcase did not see that in his own argument.

    The Question said: “… the church can always just tell men they are morally required to marry come hell or high water. There is no fear or dread that men won’t marry because it is assumed they must. ”

    Yup. I caught one pastor preaching the lie that a man needs to marry. I contradicted him with 1 Cor 7, which says 4/5 times that we are not required to marry, and 3 times says that it is BETTER to not marry. Too bad modern pastors lack the grade 6 reading level required to understand these difficult ideas. Or rather that they lack obedience to God.
    I admit we should not expect a pastor, or anyone, to remember every verse in the Bible. But when you are in the act of serving as paid-religious leader for the 20s age group, I do expect you will be familiar with the Scriptural topics that will be of significance to that particular group. Such as marriage, where women should focus their time/training (Titus 2:3-5), where young men should focus their time/training (Titus 2:1-2, 6-8, Jos 1:8-9, etc.), whether an unworthy woman should be invited into your home as wife (Jos 24:14-15), etc.
    But apparently, as a man who has to work for a living, it is normal for me to know the Bible better than the religious professional who is paid to be religious all day.

    @Frank K
    Thanks for the link of the full-size hologram. It linked to a second video, that showed two holograms interacting, moving around each other on the same stage. I did not think that was possible.

    I wonder how long before a solid object, such as a person, can be in the projection field without it wrecking the holographic image.

  64. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hose_B
    A good man does want his wife to be happy. A good man will go to great lengths to be happy, including things he doesn’t agree with……..because he WANTS to please his wife. Most good men do. Failing to please her feels like failure.

    Hold that thought. Now consider: why does her happiness matter? Where in the Bible does it say that a husband’s job, his purpose, his mission is to make some woman happy?

    Given that women’s moods are constantly shifting on a 28 day cycle, it is obvious she’s going to be discontented or even flat out unhappy some number of days per month. Whose job is it to learn to cope with that hormonal shift, his or hers? If she was living alone with cats, would it be the cats job to make her happy?

    These are rhetorical questions, but not intended to pick a fight. Because there is a connection between a man getting yelled at for putting the towels away “wrong” and a man going to great lengths to make his wife happy.

    Paraphrasing Dalrock, “If you’re getting yelled at, you’re doing it wrong”.

  65. Hose_B says:

    @Pariah
    “I’ve made up my mind that the only way I am going to get married is if I can find a wife who is still a virgin.”

    Being a virgin is no real indication. If she was indoctrinated in the “sex must be purified by romance” or any of the other traps, her virginity will be as useful as an std test.
    If submission is a bad word to her, pass. If she constantly competes with you, pass. If she doesnt know that following “Gods plan” means following YOUR lead, pass. Considering what most women get told in Church…….I wish you luck and happy bachloring.

  66. Hose_B says:

    @AR
    I agree with you. At no time did I say that it’s the husbands JOB to make his wife happy, nor even his responsibility. What I said is that most good men WANT to make their wife happy. And I acknowledged the lengths that some men will go to try to achieve that hurculean task.
    Satan is also aware of this desire to please. He regularly exploits it. The desire to please your wife isn’t bad………the willingness to forget Gods word to please her is.

  67. Novaseeker says:

    You people dont realize how much women are watching porn now, some porn sites report that that 50% of the credit cards used on their sites are owned by females. Our society will never recognize that fact but it doesnt change the truth

    Yep, as Anonymous Reader notes, we do know about this, but it isn’t generally talked about in the mainstream, because most people assume it isn’t taking place.

    It’s clear that the lower in age you go, the more porn is being watched/has been watched, when it comes to women, but it’s also clear that certain kinds of porn are being made specifically to cater to women (some of it being made by women-only porn businesses as well). So I think we’re well on our way, actually, to porn being the new fempowerment meme … I suspect the lodestone will be the lack of eagerness many women have to admitting that they view visual porn, especially porn made for them (more stories and plots, different angles, more attractive men, etc.), given how that would dilute their current chorus of critique for men using porn. Still, I think that, too, lessens a lot the lower in age you go.

  68. Otto Lamp says:

    This is why the “marriage is a religious duty” frame is the only compelling narrative in the discussion and will remain so.

    This strategy depends on men no reading the Bible. Paul was pretty blunt that men are not required to marry.

    http://masculinebydesign.blogspot.ca/2013/09/marriage-is-optional-for-christians.html

  69. SirHamster says:

    This strategy depends on men no reading the Bible. Paul was pretty blunt that men are not required to marry.

    … if they don’t burn with passion.

    Going by porn consumption, that is the vast majority of young men.

  70. Novaseeker says:

    Furthermore, it’s laughable to think porn plays no role in the decline and is merely a symptom (as the top commenter seemed to think) and that young men are passing up opportunities for sex due solely to negative personality traits of young modern women. All the negative consequences associated with modern-day marriage he lists–no-fault divorce, hostile family courts, etc.–aren’t relevant when discussing why sex rates have declined among teenagers. Are young men really passing up possible sexual encounters with their female classmates because they find them too severe and unfeminine, or has the internet given them a way to alleviate sexual urges without risking the embarrassment and awkwardness which comes from rejection?

    It actually isn’t that. That always existed before internet porn. Teenaged boys have been masturbating like mad long before there was broadband internet and smartphones and tablets. The difference, of course, is that there is endless variety, which makes it more interesting for guys, most of whom have a taste for variety. But it isn’t that the internet gives them a way to release their urges — they’ve always had that, even with their father’s/uncle’s stack of playboys in the garage. What the internet porn does is provide this in endless variety, which real world women and girls can’t compete with unless the guy in a complete player and at the top of the male food chain sexually.

    It isn’t that porn gives a way to these guys to avoid being rejected, but rather it makes more of the girls less attractive because he has an endless variety of very attractive girls to choose from in porn, so far fewer of the real world girls are attractive to him. He has visual access to girls that only guys at the top of the male food chain have, and he has it in infinite variety. That is more attractive than the average girl is (who very well may reject him, as an average guy, anyway), because she can’t compete with that. Put that together with the fact that she very well may reject him — and frankly if we are talking about teens, it’s generally the case that on the male side most of the sex is being had by the guys at the top — they have sex with the girls throughout the top half, not just the girls at the top — and it’s quite obvious what is going on. He gets better return on investment by masturbating to an endless variety of images of truly beautiful women (the kind only the top men have actual sexual access to on a regular basis) than he does striking out with average girls who are his market peers but who, because of the totally laissez-faire market, have sexual access to top 20% guys.

    In that scenario, you can see why so many of these guys use porn a lot (note I am not advocating using porn, I am actually someone who advises young men against it, but I do understand, at least, why they are doing what they are doing).

  71. @AR:

    Agreed on dropping the VR topic. I’ve already realized that most of the “business” in that area seems low skilled in their planning.

    For the older set, the environment has changed so rapidly, and most are so unaware of it by temperament, that I’m willing to write them off as fools that helped kill the Golden Goose. The sub-50 set, however, isn’t free & clear on this. They really do go for putting their head in the sand as much as possible. I would wager most likely because the instant you start looking, they’re going to hate themselves and what they’ve become. (Sound familiar? )

    But for anyone *working* in a Ministry, the reason is always pretty clear: only the insane cut their own throat. Not everything in life is about economic self-interest, but economic self-interest always wins out over other considerations when they’re involved. For any pastor, you’re always going to get a negative response the instant they feel that is threatened.

  72. I believe one of the college studies put it at 60% of the Women and 45% of the Men were having regular sex, but it was something like 8% of the Men were capitalizing ~40% of the Women. Which sounds about right. 1 in 12 Men absorbs the attention of all of the Women.

    Women fall for the Apex Fallacy thinking because they live with it as their assumption about life.

  73. Samuel Culpepper says:

    @Jeff:

    “I was dating my future wife (whom I met in a church setting), I was a virgin and found out that she was not; she had sex with two non-Christian boyfriends. I did forgive her, and we have gone on to have a very happy marriage, and a good sex life. But sometimes, I will have a relapse of “retroactive jealousy” and feel tormented, anxious, regretful, betrayed, and bitter. ”

    Because you are a normal man and God did not intend for marriage to have such a thing within it. The bigger problem lies in the adultery that we are perpetuating by taking these used woman to wife. You need to look closer at Genesis 2:24, better yet look at Artisanal Toad’s chart, its exhaustive:

    https://artisanaltoadshall.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/the-lie-that-caused-the-adultery-epidemic/?wref=tp

    And why did you cave and “wife up” a woman like this? No better option? Desperate to have kids? Too lazy to keep looking? I would like to know as I have a similar story, except I had partaken of whores before I lost my mind and married a divorced woman. Those ghosts from the past don’t go away and there is no shame in admitting it. Hardly a day passes that I don’t feel like a fool for having yoked myself to a cad’s leftovers. But for kids, I would be gone now.

  74. David says:

    I am 36 no kids was engaged once five years of my life destroy by the evil of one woman over the last two years I have took stock of my life, my brother’s lives, my friends lives and only see pain and ruin that can be laid at the feet of women. I have decided women aren’t worth the effort and certainly not worth the risk. I make good money have only men for friends and have realized that I’m very happy. Money in the bank, no drama in my life, all kinds of hobbies and modern distraction. What can a woman offer that would be comparable.

  75. Isa says:

    @Novaseeker The variety is exactly the problem, and oddly the same one created by dating apps like tinder. An abnormal amount of variety and glut of choice, with the side benefit of anonymous sexting or sex snapchatting etc. Why would anyone find the run of the mill person interesting? Carefully curated filtered photos or makeup and lighting crews don’t exist in meat space, so your 10 online is a 8 in real life or worse. There are interesting studies that overabundance leads to paralysis in decision making, just continual window shopping or withdrawal.

  76. Isa says:

    Also, one of my side gigs has a forum that I lurk on. Perfect example of branch swinging today.

    “So, my boyfriend and I have been together for 5 ½ years. I am 25 and my boyfriend is 47. I know big age difference. Well, I have started realizing that I can never have a future with him. Meaning, having him as a husband and children. He has four kids from previous relationships and is now fixed. When we first met I was okay with not having kids or getting married, but now as I got older I do know I want that in my life. He also has a lot of health problems. He is diabetic and has COPD. I started smoking when I met him and I hate it now, but can’t quit. He was in a car accident 3 weeks ago (not at fault), and it really messed him up. He can’t work, can barely walk and is just always tired. He has a tiny income anyways, but it got us by and now we are just on mine. He was diagnosed with degenerative disc disease after the accident, and will probably be on pain meds the rest of his life.

    My happiness level has gone down so much since then. We can’t do anything together, including sex. Ironically, I met this guy last fall online, and we have been talking since then just as friends and crushing on one another. He is 27 and wants the same things in life as I do. We both have strong feelings for one-another. I love my boyfriend, but also don’t because I can’t have a future with him. This other guy, he makes me so happy, we talk, text, snap and Skype. We live on opposite sides of the country and I am planning on going to him in May, but he said I could always come out whenever I want, he will get the ticket.

    I don’t want to leave because my boyfriend is hurt, I feel selfish, but I also want a future.”

    The responses range from:
    “It would be best if you leave him. Technically you are cheating on him right now and I don’t think that he deserves to have someone who isn’t all there for him and someone that would feel miserable being with him. He needs someone that will be supportive and love him for him. If you can’t be that for him then you need to leave and be with someone you can be happy with.”
    to
    “He had his life….married at one time. Experience that fist time feeling of having his first child. To enjoy watching all four of his kids grow up. Your never going to have that awesome experience with your bf. Your 25yrs old don’t watch your life pass you by. Go be happy! There’s nothing selfish about that! He’s 47yrs old he’ll understand and if doesn’t than he’s being selfish!!”

  77. cnystrom62 says:

    OFF TOPIC: Passengers (2016) is a great move and remarkably anti-feminist for a Hollywood movie. Man finds himself alone. He takes a woman. She finds true happiness and fulfillment only when she learns to be his companion and helper. Amazing! I can only speculate that that is why the reviews were so down on it.

  78. “being a Japanese male is an effort in being crushed your entire life.”

    Can confirm.

    The man in the video
    1) takes the bus to work
    2) has a dead end office job
    3) lives in a single-bedroom cramped apartment

    I don’t intend to denigrate the man at all, since that description fits a large portion of (Japanese) men; but honestly, how many women would WANT to marry him? How many are told they should? That he’s the best they can expect to do?

  79. Pariah says:

    Samuel Culpepper, I agree with your view that sex = marriage. That is why I refuse to have anything to do with a woman who hasn’t remained a virgin.
    It’s pretty obvious this teaching isn’t popular….

    I hate this world we live in… I hate it, I hate it, I hate it!! And I can’t sit idly by and simply participate in endless discussions – action has to be taken. If no action is taken by men to start preaching the truth then any further discussion regarding the abysmal state of the church is pointless and nothing but vanity. Does anyone else see this? Does anyone else understand? ACTION HAS TO BE TAKEN – NOT JUST INTELLECTUAL DISCUSSIONS. True Christian men need to start banding together, taking a stand, and preaching the truth!

  80. Novaseeker says:

    The variety is exactly the problem, and oddly the same one created by dating apps like tinder. An abnormal amount of variety and glut of choice, with the side benefit of anonymous sexting or sex snapchatting etc. Why would anyone find the run of the mill person interesting?

    Exactly right. What I was taking issue with was the idea that it is “new” that masturbation took the edge of sexual neediness off enough to dissuade young guys from approaching due to rejection issues. It’s more that they are not interested in approaching because the porn is perceived to be better than what they would be approaching, in this market.

  81. Johnycomelately says:

    I don’t really see women pushing the marriage theme, it seems it’s more like pastors going in to bat for them without being asked, pro active feminism. I guess it pains them to see single moms and carousellers struggling with repairs and cash shortages.

    I don’t know of any women pinning for marriage, all I see is women pinning for extra money to ‘live’ and if it’s attached to a man so be it.

    I’m sure corporate white collar affirmative action will eventually cure them of their money woes and not bother them with the pesky task of putting up with beta bucks for extra pocket money.

  82. Anonymous Reader says:

    So while prominent blogging preachers are busy trying to rebuild the feminist mound by shaming men for not being Ward Cleaver, here is what the avant garde, the fashionista metropolitians are pushing.

    http://www.vogue.com/article/palomo-spain-fall-2017

    This is the extreme example. But the more prosaic is already here.
    In the last month I’ve seen two transvestites, both men in their 20’s, near college campuses out in flyover country. Not in some alternative bar or coffeehouse, but walking on the sidewalk in the middle of the afternoon. Skirt, long hair, little shoes, some makeup, but clearly a man in a dress or skirt. Not on the California coastline or in Berkeley or in the East Village of Manhattan or some part of Miami, no, in boring Middle America. Not regular churchgoers, I’m sure. But merely by being out there, they change the public square a bit.

    Having won the homosexual acceptance gambit, the elites are now pushing outright transvestism on us. As Novaseeker has pointed out several times now, the rate of change has accelerated. But all the church leaders are still reacting at the old, 1970’s, pace in their church office bubble.

  83. Anonymous Reader says:

    PS: My apologies, that Vogue link is Not Safe For Work and I wouldn’t let anyone under 18 see it, either. It isn’t overt porn, but it is disturbing.

  84. 2020 vison says:

    “And why did you cave and “wife up” a woman like this? No better option? Desperate to have kids? Too lazy to keep looking? I would like to know as I have a similar story, except I had partaken of whores before I lost my mind and married a divorced woman. Those ghosts from the past don’t go away and there is no shame in admitting it. Hardly a day passes that I don’t feel like a fool for having yoked myself to a cad’s leftovers. But for kids, I would be gone now.”

    All of the above, Mr Culpepper. At 32 I was exhausted from being a virgin man and dating over two dozen women, not a single one a virgin, almost all evangelical. By every second date I was pressured to have sex. My future wife had only had PIV with one man and AS and OS with another. I thought she was a prize, as I had never dated anyone so chaste. My regret is not following your lead and treating the women I dated as the concubines they had made themselves to be.

  85. feeriker says:

    Given the sweetness and gentleness of the virtual girlfriend in the video, I’ll put money down that modern women will find this more degrading than pornography.

    Yup. Every time a modern flesh-and-blood woman encounters a virtual version, it’s as if she’s staring into a mirror and seeing Godzilla staring back at her.

  86. Opus says:

    I was just five years of age, up where the red double-decker and the green double-decker buses used to turn-round. A shop, now long gone, had a small vending machine on the pavement and so to acquire the candy I placed my penny in the slot and turned the handle. Along with the gob-stopper (of which my mother would not have approved) I also received a small ‘cigarette card’. On one side of the card was the monochrome photograph of a woman (who I now assume must have been Betty Grable – so this is your fault America) on a treadmill wearing a one piece bathing suit and looking back over her shoulder and on the other side – I have never forgotten – so I could obviously read quite well – the name of the model and the description ‘star of stage and screen’. This seemed to me to be a wonderful thing and for a long while I kept the card (having consumed the candy or as we would say, sweet, at once) .

    I have since that time seen photos of many females frequently wearing even less than the woman on the treadmill but I have to say that I cannot think – contra Nova- that that has ever had any detrimental effect on my desire for the real thing and whether fat or slim, tall or short, young or old, educated or less-so, let alone even-tempered or otherwise. For myself at any rate – the two are entirely separate. If I am wrong about that and my libido has been affected by a far too high consumption of erotica – to my great embarrassment my Mother when I was just fourteen came across my stash thereof – why could she not have had the Nelson touch? – yet in those days everything was very soft-core – then I must conclude that had it not been for the erotica I would have been even more Rapey than I obviously since have been.

    Should you be wondering what I just five years of age was doing out in the village on my own I should explain that I would catch the bus to and from school, unaccompanied and then walk the lane a half mile or so from my parent’s home. This was entirely normal behaviour in those days though I now recognise that standing on the open-deck platform of a red double-decker with one leg out in the air, hanging on to the bus with the other – which I enjoyed doing – is a very dangerous thing to do; I once appeared in Coroner’s Court for the Widower of a woman who had died having fallen to her death in similar circumstances.

  87. Samuel Culpepper says:

    @Pariah:

    I agree, we are trying to be too smart by half with all of this intellectual speak for what is a simple answer . . . stop marrying whores!! This includes you, me, the whole damn manosphere, PUA’s, Betas, Alphas, Omicrons and whatever the hell other alphabet soup this discussion creates.

    Someone please explain to me how this won’t work . . . it did before. I personally agree that Ward Cleaver was a good role model for young men to follow and what did he get in return . . . June! June’s character was exactly what the commenters in this forum and others claim they want . . . a woman who is attractive, feminine, submissive , of good spirit, domestic and yes NOT a used up whore!! I loved watching that show as a kid and my kids love watching that show now and I encourage it rather than all of the garbage out there today; Andy Griffith is another one.

    So for all of you young guys who have yet to take the plunge, you have to ask a very simple preliminary question of any prospect . . . Are you a virgin? If she says yes, then proceed to vet her; I would suggest reading the Bible together before committing (this will take about a year), in which time you will flush out the inner feminist in her should one be lurking. There is no reason for men to be surprised that their wives were actually new wave feminists; a thorough Bible study together will reveal this. If the prospect is offended that you asked or replies in the negative, simply move on to the next and don’t give her another minutes thought. Simplicity and clarity wins this game, no need for all of this nuance. This is how I am raising both my son and daughter, such that should they go down the same path that I did, they will have no one to blame but themselves. My generation didn’t have this guidance as we were raised by either Tradcons who got their June Cleaver or hippies who just didn’t care . . . both equally out of touch with reality.

  88. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Anonymous Reader, the headline of that Vogue article is telling:

    Palomo Spain: “The Most Amazing, Beautiful, Decadent, Evil Thing” at the New York Men’s Shows

    The word Evil is italicized in the headline, just in case Christians might miss it and not be offended.

    I first noticed this around the 1980s. Advertisers using words like decadent, wicked, and sin in positive fashion. I remember some dessert treat being described as sinfully delicious.

    Advertisers, like Hollywood and the media in general, have long been gleeful in their assaults on Christian culture. Have long tried to undermine Christian culture in both the U.S. and Europe.

  89. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Pariah: “I hate this world we live in… I hate it, I hate it, I hate it!! And I can’t sit idly by and simply participate in endless discussions – action has to be taken.

    In my younger days, I tried to take action. I participated in Republican, conservative, and libertarian politics, as if that might make a difference. I volunteered my time and donated money. But things have only gotten worse.

    Now in my 50s, I’ve mostly given up on action. As a reluctant MGTOW, I’m just trying to ensure my longterm economic and physical well-being.

  90. gdgm+ says:

    Perhaps OT, but related: Didn’t realize there’s another new girl “holiday” just before Valentine’s Day, which is also coming up…

    https://nypost.com/2017/02/09/galentines-day-give-us-a-break/

  91. King Alfred says:

    The simple fact is that most of the women on the shelf don’t actually possess any of the good qualities the pastors advertise. and yet most of the get husbands when they finally decide they are ready for one. I am genuinely perplexed by this latter phenomenon but I believe extreme window dressing with the full assistance and resources of the church is a major contributor.

  92. I actually gave a red pill speech at Tostmasters on the incredibly dwindling marriage rates in the United States. Everyone in the room looked at me like I had 3 heads. Apparently, none of them were aware that our current percentage of people over the age of 18 that are married is hovering just over 48%, the lowest marital rate in all of US history. One lady started to cry saying something akin to “…why hasn’t the media told us about this??? This is a crisis! What is happening?” She has a couple teen aged daughters and the thought that maybe only one of them will ever get married (if she is lucky) is frightening to her, a complete non-starter.

    I think people should be scared. But no one is talking about this.

  93. Otto Lamp says:

    SirHamster says:

    This strategy depends on men no reading the Bible. Paul was pretty blunt that men are not required to marry.

    … if they don’t burn with passion.

    Going by porn consumption, that is the vast majority of young men.

    Paul also bluntly said that married couples weren’t allowed to deny each other sex, because it would lead them into temptation.

    But, today’s standard is the wife can deny her husband sex anytime and for as long as she likes. So, marriage today is no longer the cure for “burning with passion” as it is no guarantee the husband will have a reliable outlet to quench his burning.

    In fact, he is in a worse position than pre-marriage.

  94. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    gdgm+, this line stands out: Billed as “Galentine’s Day,” it’s increasingly being pushed by restaurants and brands as a Feb. 13 girl-power alternative to Valentine’s Day.

    There’s that irritating phrase again.

    And the women in the photo illustrating the article appear to have the cognitive levels of children. The woman on the right, of a mentally retarded child.

  95. Boxer says:

    IBB:

    I actually gave a red pill speech at Tostmasters on the incredibly dwindling marriage rates in the United States. Everyone in the room looked at me like I had 3 heads. Apparently, none of them were aware that our current percentage of people over the age of 18 that are married is hovering just over 48%, the lowest marital rate in all of US history. One lady started to cry saying something akin to “…why hasn’t the media told us about this??? This is a crisis! What is happening?” She has a couple teen aged daughters and the thought that maybe only one of them will ever get married (if she is lucky) is frightening to her, a complete non-starter.

    I think people should be scared. But no one is talking about this.

    180^180

    If this was recorded, I’d love to see it on youtube, too. 4th wall trolling in meatspace. It just doesn’t get better than this. My hat’s off!

    Boxer

  96. To rehash an old topic I researched, I don’t think the Bible actually condemns sex between singles.

    Paul mentions fornication specifically in Corinthians and specifically talks about a man sleeping with his father’s wife… he mentions fornication in relation to prostitutes. Jesus mentions a wife committing fornication as the only reason for divorce. Jesus says fornication, not adultery, in KJV. Think about it. If your wife has sex with someone not you, it’s adultery, no? So why did Jesus say fornication, not adultery? Can you only divorce her if she had sex when she was single?

    NIV replaces fornication with “sexual immorality” which makes more sense.

    Leviticus 20 goes into explicit details on sexual sins. Adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, a man with his sister, a man his aunt, a man with his father’s wife, a man with his brother’s wife, etc. Exodus 22 talks about how if a man seduces a virgin he has to pay the bride price she would have gotten to the father and marry her. Deuteronomy 22 talks about rape.

    Fornication=sexual sin=a whole category of sins, not just one sin. The Old Testament explicitly goes down lists of sexual sins… maybe you think the Bible left out unmarried sex because it’s so obvious. But it didn’t forget murder. You can find explicit verses for dare I say, every sin. Lying, bearing false witness, adultery, murder, being a drunk, being a sloth, etc. Proverbs has a whole section about how if you sleep with your neighbhor’s wife he’ll kill you and a prostitute can be had for a loaf but an angry husband will kill you.

    So did God just forget to mention to include a single sentence in the entire law? Coveting made the 10 Commandments but unmarried sex only is mentioned explicitly if she’s a virgin? Dalrock did mention the verse about “drink from your own well.” Think about that too. God gave the 10 Commandments, the entire law, (and was harsh enough he said to execute children who curse their parents) but forgot to mention unmarried sex? Only David mentioned it hundreds of years later? That says God is pretty shoddy at writing the law.

  97. The new version of “nobody puts baby in a corner” is “Nobody puts Gatebox girl in a blender”

    Am i the only one who saw the blender? Or, to parody another millennial product favorite, that thing could be a Sexpresso Machine…..”pod all all the sex you want with Sexpresso”

  98. Jason says:

    When the discussion in the two men’s “accountability” groups I attend turns to this topic we have the typical “bold” answers given:

    “Boys need to move out of mommy’s basement, get a job, get an education, quit playing video games, and watching porn…..there are plenty of women in church who need a ‘man’ not a boy”

    I usually reply with “Which man in this church, in this room who is single is living in mommy’s basement? What man do we know is playing video games all day? What single man in this room is unemployed by choice?”

    Then its changed to “Well, if men actually really repented of sin, lived like Jesus….their fruit would show, and women….studies show this…..are attracted to men who have a purpose, a plan and drive in their lives.”

    My replies fall on deaf ears. These “pharisees” of church married-masculinity today have been fed the same lie so many times, they refuse to actually believe that anything else could be the cause. It’s always porn, video games, and laziness. They all just think that if men just stopped these behaviors, all would be well!

    I also ironically find it funny, that they all talk like this can be solved quickly and easily because “we’re men” and yet none of them minister, walk with, encourage, show, demonstrate, talk to all these “men” that they bemoan.

    I tried to politely explain once that their attitude shows all these “men” that you really have no idea about them. It’s always: Accept Jesus, come to church, and suddenly you will magically become a real man

    according to them

  99. Boxer says:

    Dear Jason:

    When the discussion in the two men’s “accountability” groups I attend

    Serious question: Why do you attend these feminist indoctrination sessions?

    If you’re going to go to some feminist church, and listen to a feminist preacher, you have a positive duty to 1. never give anyone at the institution any money, and 2. make fun of the teachings, take the piss out of the pastorbator, and otherwise introduce a healthy contempt for feminism among the other men who (for whatever reason I can’t fathom) actually sit through such claptrap.

    In the end, I think you’d be much better off just studying the religious texts you like on your own, with a goal of finding some serious, hard brothers to join you in an authentic communion meeting sometime. Protestants have a definite advantage here.
    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18%3A20&version=KJV
    Your own rules allow and seem to even encourage this.

    But, what do I know? I’m just one guy with an opinion.

    Boxer

  100. I went to a men’s group at North Metro church here in Kennesaw like 4 years ago… they had the main service of the college group called “Echo” then men’s groups. I went, not knowing.

    They were literally discussing how wrong it was to go and approach a woman just because you thought she looked good. One fat guy was going on “I feel so bad knowing what sexual sins I will carry with me when I meet my future bride… I mean, I’m still a virgin but if the thoughts and desires I’ve had.”

    Bleh. Vomit.

  101. Jason says:

    Thanks Boxer!

    I view them as not as important, but the men (all older) need to see a man in their ranks who isn’t putting up with this rhetoric, and doesn’t live like “all the studies show” or what the big-shots in evangelical manhood are saying almost daily now

    I am a bit of an odd-man-out in my church, and I don’t mind but I will admit I have found much more of a pure solitude of who God is, and what Jesus Christ stood for when I am camping, hiking in His creation. I find so much comfort in my own prayer closet (and some nights tears flow, cries out to God happen too).

    I would so much like to meet a few like minded men IN church, but that is really impossible…and probably asking for too much today.

    I like your insights Boxer, and thanks for the links!

  102. RedPillPaul says:

    @archerwfisher

    Sex outside of marriage is a sin. God intended One man with One wife.

    Your comment about God being shoddy about the law…..tells me you really dont have that much respect for him. Thats ok for now, you are still learning/growing and hopefully on a quest for TRUTH.

    The righteous shall live by faith. You know what that means? It has many deep meanings acually but one thing it means, in a practical way, is It means believing things about God as if they were true and acting on them as if they were true.

    “God is a shoddy god” goes against him being all knowing and all powerful all good ect… How can you believe he is all knowing/powerful/good/perfect and he be shoddy at the same time? The righteous choose to believe and act on the second part than the first part that seems right, your assertion that God is Shoddy.

    It sounds like you just want justification to “sin” without feeling guilt. A lot of modern women do that. Dont do what the group of people you dislike do. Its more honest to say “i know its a sin, GOd gave me free will, and i choose to love my self and gratify the flesh more than to love God” though your approach has some form of ‘diminished guilt/plausible deniability but that wont fly when we are all dead and standing before him.

    I think Artist toad may have been influencing you in this particular topic

  103. Jason says:

    archerwfisher

    Understood. I went to a large mega-church for their Wednesday night service this past week ( a church that claims it is bold n’ biblical). Well, the sermon was about “love” (Valentines Day is upon us) and all the men were “reminded” to “not forget” about their wives in the announcements….

    So, love…..yes, love is what Jesus was all about……the sermon then drifted to the usual ‘boys’ in the church who serial date, date without ANY intention to ever marry the girl they went on a date with…the quote that stuck was

    “Ummm, guys…….if you go on a date with a Godly woman in this church, you should have the intention of marriage. Not just something to do because you are bored. You don’t date any woman unless you have the intent to pursue marriage. It is your job as a man to guard her heart! If you want to get to know a woman, pray, pray, pray and pray your light will shine and she will know that you are worthy to take her out.”

    applause from the congregation

    I got and left at this point. I wasn’t noticed. Over 500 people here. That is a good thing about these larger churches……they never notice you leaving.

  104. Loyd says:

    @Pariah

    “Christian” women who lose their virginity before marriage make me sick. I’ve made up my mind that the only way I am going to get married is if I can find a wife who is still a virgin.

    In reading various comments on forums, a lot of women will simply lie about being a virgin and do everything they can to cover that lie, in order to date/marry a man who wants a virgin or a more chaste woman.

    What things do you look for to determine whether a woman is really a virgin?

    Some secrets come out unintentionally in conversation, you can often get information from her friends or listening to them talk, etc. Others look at physical signs like if she has a tattoo then they’d say it’s likely she’s had a handful or more of sexual partners, or any number of other things.

    Just curious what you (or others) use as indicators of virginity?

    (Assuming the man and the woman he chooses to date aren’t having sex while dating).

  105. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Loyd: What things do you look for to determine whether a woman is really a virgin?

    If you want a virgin, do not tell her that you want a virgin.

    Women lie. If they want you (for marriage, sex, whatever), they’ll tell you whatever they think you want to hear. If you indicate you want a virgin, they’ll claim to be virgins.

    When talking to a woman, try to sound tolerant and open-minded. Indicate that she can speak freely to you, and that you will not judge. Woman hate being judged.

    If she feels she can speak freely, if she feels comfortable, she’ll be more likely to let slip her secrets.

    I suppose cops, interrogators, and intelligence officers use the same technique. They try to put the subject at ease.

    I’ve taken women on dates where they began talking about their “exes ” (by which they often mean an ex-boyfriend, not necessarily an ex-husband). I let them speak freely, nodding encouragingly, indicating that I’m not judging. That I sympathize.

    On the inside, I am judging and weighing everything they say. But on the outside, I’m smiling and agreeing, to encourage them to continue revealing themselves to me.

  106. Samuel Culpepper says:

    Loyd:

    See my response above to Pariah. Ask her point blank when you go on the first date/coffee/ etc. If she answers in the affirmative, then proceed to see her but also invite her to study the Bible with you. If she accepts, proceed. Do this for the amount of time that it takes to read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation . . . this is about a year if you have good study habits. The parts of the Bible re: marriage, sex, patriarchy and headship will “flush out” the inner feminist if she has one. The study of Deuteronomy 22: 13-30 will be particularly telling re: her own chastity. Make no bones about it that you expect any woman that you take to wife, to have an intact maidenhead. Watch her responses closely. After a year long study together and of course sampling her cooking, I think you will know if she is worthy. This is the best any man can do.

  107. Gunner Q says:

    Opus says:
    February 11, 2017 at 3:47 am
    “I have since that time seen photos of many females frequently wearing even less than the woman on the treadmill but I have to say that I cannot think – contra Nova- that that has ever had any detrimental effect on my desire for the real thing ”

    Agreed. Endless variety is great but an ordinary girl who actually likes you beats a million ultra-supermodels who will never know your name. Porn is not inherently damaging, it’s just an inferior substitute to service a mandatory need. The Churchians are being much less than honest when they box young men into a sexual corner then pretend to be horrified when the inevitable happens.

    Red Pill Latecomer @ 10:11 am:
    Pariah: “I hate this world we live in… I hate it, I hate it, I hate it!! And I can’t sit idly by and simply participate in endless discussions – action has to be taken.”

    In my younger days, I tried to take action. I participated in Republican, conservative, and libertarian politics, as if that might make a difference. I volunteered my time and donated money. But things have only gotten worse.”

    Same here. The only way to fight back is to live well. The one and only reason all this fools and vandals do what they do is to make you miserable. They hurl insults when you quit their game and mutter in frustration when they hear of your latest adventures.

    I give every year a theme. This year it’s demolition derbies. Last year was water slide parks. Before that was spelunking. Before that was SCUBA. Next year might be birdwatching. I go outside, find stuff to do, and you know what? Every day the Obamination passed another atrocity was a fine day for a hike or massage or trip to the game store or dinner with friends. I can’t hear you riot, Barbie, because tonight’s sunset over Big Sur is amazing.

    Hit ’em where it hurts, in their total inability to be happy.

  108. Lyn87 says:

    Jason,

    That’s awful. Once again it’s up to the men to prove how worthy they are of the women – whose virtues are simple assumed.

    Geez… it’s like those guys have never heard of a little book known as “The Holy Bible.” I’m familiar with it, and it doesn’t say anything about women being the fountains of goodness those pastors seem to think they are. In fact, quite the opposite. It talks about things like “weaker vessels” who need their husbands to “wash them in the Word,” and who need to “submit to their husbands” and to “remain silent” in church.

    But it’s always the men and never the women who need to be admonished, right? Women never need to be reminded not to sin, right?

    Wait… that can’t be right.

    Your guy even indirectly and unknowingly acknowledged the truth himself when he said it’s up to the guys to “guard the hearts of the church girls they date.” Otherwise it doesn’t make sense: you wouldn’t hire a suspected thief to guard your jewelry box, would you?. If the women are already known to be virtuous, while the men still have to prove that they are worthy of being with creatures of such innate virtue, shouldn’t SHE be the one guarding HIS heart? And what does all of that say about the women going on those dates? Does he really think their marriage intentions are any greater than those of the guys?

    If he wasn’t trying so hard to twist this into a “man bad – woman good” thing, he would say:

    “Ummm, ladies… if you go on a date with a man, you should have the intention of marriage, which means you should only date Godly men. Dating is not just something to do because you are bored or want an ego boost. You don’t date any man unless you have the intent to pursue marriage. It is your job as a woman to guard him against temptation! If you want to get to know a man: first, become a worthy woman; and second, pray, pray, pray and pray your light will shine and he will know that you are worthy to be taken out.”

    Like that’s ever going to happen…

    As for walking out… I’m pretty happy in my church – the leadership is entirely and unabashedly male, but tomorrow there’s going to be a guest speaker who’s going to be talking about marriage. I don’t know what he’s going to say, but I doubt it will be as on-point as what goes on here every day, and may be pretty bad. Either way, we won’t have to walk out since we’re not going to be there to begin with.

  109. Dale says:

    @2020 vision
    >My regret is not following your lead and treating the women I dated as the concubines they had made themselves to be.

    You are being disrespectful to concubines, by lumping them in with the women you dated. Concubines were women who were loyal to one man. Perhaps they were slaves, instead of free women, but they were for only one man.
    Even “prostitute” would not be fair. Prostitutes are transparent about what they are doing. They make no claim to be looking for a husband; they only want your money.

    The word you are looking for is “harlot”. Or “slut”, if you prefer modern terminology.

    @RedPillPaul
    >Sex outside of marriage is a sin ……..

    I notice that you provide not one verse from Scripture, as you lecture the guy who provided 3 references as the basis for his reasoning.

    Regardless of which view is correct, it is disappointing to see a man provide a poor response to a good example. Views not directly based on Scripture are going to be based instead on our human reasoning, the churchian traditions we have been taught, the principles from our (feminist) culture, etc. Col 2:8 tells us to not do this. See also 1 Cor 1:25, 1 cor 3:18-20, Prov 3:5-7, Josh 1:8-9, Matt 15:1-9, etc. http://www.BibleGateWay.com makes it easy to read those passages.

    As men, we should reason from facts, not feelings or opinions. And in the realm of theology, the only valid facts come from God; the rest is (foolish?) opinion.

    In this particular case, the centuries-old tradition of a “church wedding”, or a “clegy-approved marriage”, which is completely extra-Biblical, is likely informing your views. I.e., reasoning based on “human tradition… rather than on Christ” (see passages listed above for the full text).

    @Loyd
    >What things do you look for to determine whether a woman is really a virgin?

    An unbroken hymen. If you/she are uncomfortable with a personal examination prior to investing more than a certain amount of time in the relationship, then suggest a woman whom you trust with your life to do the examination.
    If the marriage candidate finds being judged on her past actions unacceptable: You now know whether she wants to retain the “right” to view herself, and to be viewed by others, as a good woman even after obvious, significant disobedience. (Yes, it is true that (some may say) the Bible does not explicitly forbid sex before marriage, but the punishment required by God in Deut 22 for the non-virgin bride has a very clear message, at least to me.) Do you really want to trust your life, and the lives of your children, to this woman who clings to the “right” to be promiscuous?
    If the marriage candidate fails the test: You have your answer. Or better yet, read God’s answer in Deut 22, as mentioned above.

    A non-virgin, non-Christ follower could possibly be considered for marriage. God allowed people to marry (which happens in most cases when a virgin has first-time sex), divorce, and re-marry; not that this was not God’s ideal though, see Matt 19. Only women who submit to Christ, and are therefore Christians, are forbidded to divorce and remarry (1 Cor 7). But, for the Christian man who follows Christ, the condemnation given at the end of Matt 5:31-32 may be viewed to forbid this option. So the option of marrying another man’s ex-wife may only be available when both are not Christ-followers.
    Ex 22:16-17 hints that, in one scenario, a non-virgin woman can be viewed as not having been married. Thus she would be eligible for marriage, although she is not nearly of the same worth.

    It is sad that many “Christian” girls are vastly less appropriate than the non-Christian women who are open to becoming Christians. And no, I did not say the pre-Christian non-virgin woman is better than the Christian virgin; that should be obvious.

  110. Dale says:

    Sheesh, I apparently need a proof-reader.
    “not that this was not God’s ideal though, see Matt 19.”: That clause should have only one “not”, instead of a double negative that says the opposite of what I intended.
    “forbidded” = “forbidden”

    @Gunner Q
    I give every year a theme. This year it’s demolition derbies. … I can’t hear you riot, Barbie, because tonight’s sunset over Big Sur is amazing.

    That’s great. This can allow you to focus on the positive, instead of dwelling on the sins of others; Phil 4:8.

  111. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Dale, An unbroken hymen.

    Of course, some pastors would say that this test unfairly excludes “born again virgins.”

    And who are you, a lowly male, to question the “born again” virginal status of an angelic “bride of Christ”?

    Indeed, he’d say that your obsession with hymens is doubtless caused by porn addiction.

  112. Jason says:

    Lynn…..I am a uniform wearing soldier in The Salvation Army (Salvationist). My local Corps is mostly women, and it isn’t too bad there (but far, far from an Army For God)….but my fellow men there are mostly pretty spineless. Sad actually because for the fact that The Salvation Army was built by MEN who had boots in the mud to save the dying, the broken, and the lost on the streets….whatever the cost! There is still a ton of righteousness that does happen through many of our programs in the name of Christ at The Salvation Army. The attitude I see within the Salvation Army is the usual “God knows my heart / you can’t judge anyone / Jesus loves everyone” yes, all true statements……but where is the ‘blood and fire’? Where is the conviction? The repentance? The study and application of The Word?

    I attend other churches here and there to see what is going on, and for the most part……….not a whole lot as well; and I live in the ‘bible belt’ of California (central valley)

    Thanks for the reply! Very pleased about your church, it’s always good to hear about churches that are striking out into the wilderness and are unabashedly unashamed of men!

  113. RedPillPaul says:

    @ Dale,

    sex out side of marriage Its sexual immorality no matter how you cut it. Jesus was perfect. Did he have sex while here on earth? We are to be Holy as your father in heaven is Holy.
    I get what your saying about “CITATION!” do you know what i mean when i say “CITATION!”?

    Point being, any argument that condones sex outside of marriage is a direct assault against holiness. Any argument that tries to move the goalpost to what “holiness” is just an atempt of the human heart to justify its own evil desire.

    I get the desire for mental gymnastics to justify sex outside of marriage. I only outline things in this way on THIS blog because it is more Christian focused (not churchianity focused).

    Are you of the OPINION of sex outside of marriage is not a sin? What is marriage? It is suppose to be between man (man and woman) and God, no clergy necessary.

    I am not saying this to excuse the behavior of women in church or the cucks in chruch. Men want sex. do you want God more than sex?

    You can call it “lecturing”. What I see, is a heart issue. If you want worldly advice? GO slay as much pussy as you want and fxck consequences. Women arnt snowflakes and their feelings are just as important as yours. Their desire to fulfill their own selfish desires only means you have a right to act the same way because…equality.

    Going off the assumption that sex outside of marriage is not a sin is more for the heart to not feel guilt than something to do with doctrine. A lecture to tell someone of what state thier heart could be in.

  114. thedeti says:

    @ Dalrock (from comment to The Question):

    “I think they [traditional conservatives and those chastising men] know that nearly all young men still want marriage,”

    I don’t know about this. I’m not sure it’s that simple. Two things here. First, it’s probably more accurate to say that tradcons believe that nearly all young men still want marriage, but only because that’s the only legitimate place for sex. Most young Christian men want marriage for precisely this reason, in my opinion.

    Second, I am not myself convinced that nearly all young men today want marriage. What nearly all young men want today (as they’ve always wanted) is sex. The prime reasons men wanted marriage until about, oh, 40 years or so ago, is because marriage was the only legitimate, more or less guaranteed, route to sex, and because in marriage they won’t have to work nearly so hard to get sex. Yes, married men got a family, social status, respect in and out of his family, responsibility, and the authority to carry out those responsibilities. But they got sex, legitimate “guaranteed” sex, and that was the real selling point.

    But of course, everyone knows that marriage doesn’t necessarily equal sex anymore, and marriage has been eviscerated of nearly all of its prior meaning and significance, as you’ve discussed. But I really don’t think men have ever really wanted marriage for its own sake; they’ve wanted to have legitimate sex with nearly unlimited sexual access to one woman. That was the prime selling point and it’s all but gone now.

  115. Boxer,

    If this was recorded, I’d love to see it on youtube, too. 4th wall trolling in meatspace. It just doesn’t get better than this. My hat’s off!

    I am going to record the next one. Put it up on youtube. Should have been doing that from the beginning. I could do my “no one is getting married and here is all the data” speech again without any difficulty. I did a speech on unilateral divorce law, on the labor force participation rate of men aged 25-54, and in a couple months I’ll be talking about “tracking” in primary and secondary education and how half our students graduate high school not knowing anything in the information age. I’ll follow that up with people allowing their children to labor for “free” as unpaid interns only because everyone else that sends their kids to college are doing it (creating an internship arms race.) Getting people to cry in my speeches about how awful the world is now (and no one is talking about it) is entirely easy for me since I have found the red pill.

  116. Johann Bachmeer says:

    Hos 4:10  For they shall eat, and not have enough: they shall commit whoredom, and shall not increase: because they have left off to take heed to the LORD.

    Is that not what women have been doing openly with impunity without remorse for the past 60+ years in overdrive and yet folks wonder why our population is declining, any nation that gives itself to whoredom shall be destroyed (the fantasy is the whores think themselves chaste or some other rationalization, and given enough time, data and experience even the most idealistic of men grow cold and wise)..

    Also, how depraved can we go, well historically most civilizations were destroyed when these 3 things were made public policy: Adultery, whoredom and sodomy. The civilizations were razed, burned and utterly destroyed, read Lev 18 and 20, every crime in there they seek to have practiced openly.
    By the 50’s Adultery was made into a noble thing (when a woman did it)
    By the mid 60’s child sacrifice was made into a right aka abortion
    By the 70’s as was whoredom
    By the late 90’s so was sodomy
    Now literal and spiritual transvestism has been made public policy
    Only 3 things remain till the sins of America is full and ripe for destruction: pedophilia, incest and bestiality, once all those things are permitted how would Modern America be any different from Ancient Canaan? (Which the Jews utterly destroyed, man, woman, child and beast all put to the sword).

    Gen 15:16  But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again: for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet full. 

    For all that America has done yet open judgement has not come for it is not yet its time, but think on this: God utterly destroyed Jerusalem for rejecting Christ in the Jewish-Roman War, and that was a great slaughter, he spared not his own people, how much less will he spare America, a nation which says in words it is Christian yet in deeds deny it and openly practice all the above save the last 3.

    America was founded a Christian nation therefore the Siege of Jerusalem is a good model to give an idea of what our destruction shall be like, therefore I would not surprised when war finally does to America for this to come to pass as it did during the Siege:

    Deu 28:56  The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter, 
    Deu 28:57  And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.

    Say what you will about me, but who here can deny that given the mentality of modern women that they would not kill their husband, son, daughter and newborn, boil them and eat them given a prolonged starvation due to war and the famine comes therewith:
    For the illustration of this, take the following story as related by Josephus (f);”a woman, whose name was Mary, that lived beyond Jordan, illustrious for her descent and riches fled with the multitude to Jerusalem when besieged carrying with her her substance, and what food she could get that were left to her by the spoilers; where being pressed with famine, she took her sucking child, killed it boiled it, and ate half of it, and then laid up the rest, and covered it; and when the seditious party entered the house, they smelt it, and demanded her food, threatening to kill her if she did not deliver it; which when she brought forth, declaring what she had done, they were struck with horror; to whom she said, this is my son, and this my own deed; eat, for I have eaten; be not more tender or softer than a woman, and more sympathizing or more pitiful than a mother.”

  117. RedPillPaul says:
    February 11, 2017 at 1:16 pm
    @archerwfisher
    Sex outside of marriage is a sin. God intended One man with One wife.

    ————
    Can you then please show me where it says in the Bible that sex between an unmarried man and woman is a sin? The Bible gives explicit lists and details about illicit/forbidden sex in Leviticus, Exodus, and Deuteronomy. Jesus talks about how you can only divorce your wife for sexual immorality, and Paul explicitly hits on prostitution and a man sleeping with his father’s wife, and talks about how couples should not deny each other sex lest they tempt to adultery.

    Can you show me a Bible verse saying sex between an unmarried man and unmarried, betrothed woman is a sin?

    The Bible goes into great detail on what are sexual sins, spelling out many situations I would never think of. Such as in Leviticus 22 (NIV version copied)

    If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death.
    11 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
    12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads.
    13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
    14 “‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you.
    15 “‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal.
    16 “‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
    17 “‘If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible.
    18 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people.
    19 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible.
    20 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless.
    21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless.
    22 “‘Keep all my decrees and laws and follow them, so that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out.”

    —————————————

    Can you show me where the Bible says sex between an unmarried man and woman is a sin? Please?

  118. thedeti says:

    @ Novaseeker:

    “So I think we’re well on our way, actually, to porn being the new fempowerment meme”

    Maybe. I think we might be closer to having female polyandry as the new fempowerment meme. That is, “alternative” sexual/marital/cohabitation arrangements serving women’s interests. We all know what they are: Woman in open marriage to beta provider, where both are free to have sex with others (but we know how that works out – she gets way, way more sex than he does).

    Or woman married to beta provider, both living with alpha man who has sex with wife and might or might not sire the children, while beta provider gets sex sometimes.

    Or woman breadwinner married to SAHD and who cheats on the downlow when she feels like it.

    We know that men will be under increasing pressure to accept “marriage” that looks like this. Because after all, he gets married to be a father and to support a family, right? He gets those privileges, so he should not care who she has sex with or who actually sires the children. Caring about those things is so “Leave it To Beaver”, so backward, so reactionary. And if he does care about them he’s sexist, immature, insecure, and controlling. Marriage isn’t intended to be this evil patriarchal institution where he “owns” her sexuality. It’s supposed to be a place where everyone can get what they want, and what she wants is sex with hot men.

    Oh, beta hubby, you can go have sex with other women (snort heh). You’re free to do that (if you can). We all should get what we want; and if you want her to have sex only with you, well, you’re just an insecure controlling patriarchal sexist, and we can’t have that anymore.

  119. thedeti says:

    @ Nova:

    “What the internet porn does is provide this in endless variety, which real world women and girls can’t compete with unless the guy in a complete player and at the top of the male food chain sexually.”

    And it’s free. It costs nothing more than an internet connection and a laptop. (There is no reason anymore to pay money to rent videos at a video store or on pay per view; or to purchase adult magazines like Playboy.)

    And it’s accessible 24/7/365, everywhere.

    And it’s discreet and ubiquitous at the same time. No embarrassment associated with rent or purchasing adult material from retail stores where others might see you; or in having them around your house where others might see them. At the same time it’s available on a smartphone or laptop, anywhere, anytime.

    And it’s exceedingly easy to get and find.

  120. Sharrukin says:

    archerwfisher says

    Can you show me where the Bible says sex between an unmarried man and woman is a sin? Please?

    Exodus 22:16-17 ESV

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

    Fines

    Deuteronomy 22:13-21 ESV

    “If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, ‘I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,’ then the father of the young woman and her mother shall take and bring out the evidence of her virginity to the elders of the city in the gate.

    Sounds like she was supposed to be a virgin at her wedding.

    Deuteronomy 22:23-24 ESV

    “If there is a betrothed virgin, and a man meets her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them to death with stones

    I think they mean it.

  121. RedPillPaul says:

    @archer2fisher

    No, i can not specifically point out that. I am aware of all the verses you cited and more.

    I am going to make an assumption of you here. I could be worng but I assume that you want sex (I assume you enjoy sex if you are not a virgin and enjoy “alone time” if you are). Really , its a universal assumption thats not specific to you.

    Are you tring to find a justification to enjoy what you want to do? We are not required to marry. Even Jesus disciples say “its better not to marry if this is so” (Matt 19:4-10 This one is for you Dale…CITATION!) but it dont mean we wont “burn with passion”

    Those two above, is a start but its not enough to give you a satisfactory answer.

    I am of the opinion and treat as fact, that when you get to know God more, you will understand the meaning between the lines.

    Here is a “for example”/food for though. People who really havent read the Bible and only spew out cliches.

    “God of the Old testament and new are different” is what they say. I say “NOPE”. God is a Spirit. The spirit in the old and new are the same and very in line. If they seem diffent to you, you will be stuck in some theological purgatory until you come to the realization that the old and new is the same God.

    Building off of this, you start to have a better understanding of what God’s intent was. Like the Matt 19 that Jesus talks about and the permanence of divorce, how can that stand and there not be some contradiction? Jesus explains that its mans wickedness that Moses permitted divorce.

    I guess a different way of seeing it (“There is no where in the Bible that premarital sex is a sin”) There is no where in the Bible that says getting a blowjob from a tranny is a sin. It say sleeping with another man as with a woman is a sin. It says cross dressing is a sin (all these are in old testament leviticus/number/duetornomy mostly in leviticus and a repeat of info in the other books) but not BJs from a tranny so i guess its permitted (yes i know, a crazy extreme example…or is it)

    That is really in contradiction to the spirit of what is being written down in Gods laws.

    I get it. I do. David, a man after Gods heart, fell due to a woman (Bathsheba). Solomon, in all his wisdom, down fall was all the women. Samson…woman. Adam…..woman.
    So many examples but there are atleast two constants. Woman being the tool (that brings destuction), and mans desire for woman being the cause (to weild that tool to the detriment of the weilder or the one who desires.

    MEN WANT SEX!

  122. Gunner Q says:

    Dale @ 3:02 pm:
    “This year it’s demolition derbies. …

    That’s great.”

    Anybody who attends CIOMA Destruction Derby in Firebaugh, late April, will see me in passing. Here’s last year’s highlights. I love how the drivers wear cervical collars from the start.

    These guys are also making America great again:

    http://www.datefest.org/Attractions/Robosaurus-WorldsLargestTransformer/tabid/1665/Default.aspx

    Yeah, when politics becomes too much, go outside and play. Do something stupid or pay idiots to be stupid on your behalf. Buy the shirt & hat so they can be stupid next year, too!

  123. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lyn87
    tomorrow there’s going to be a guest speaker who’s going to be talking about marriage.

    This guy? https://www.paultripp.com/
    I ask because some people on the very edge of my social circle are enthused about him.
    No idea why that is, don’t know a thing about him. It’s just a name that came up the other day.

    The business of being an expert preacher looks odd to me. Traveling around the country preaching to strangers about their own lives, rather than being a preacher to one church and getting to know everyone. It reminds me of the old definition of a “consultant” – someone who borrows your watch, then charges you to know what time it is.

  124. @AR:

    Pre-WW2 is was pretty common because a lot of communities didn’t have dedicated preachers in much of the Midwest.

  125. RedPillPaul says:
    February 11, 2017 at 4:41 pm
    @archer2fisher
    “I am of the opinion and treat as fact, that when you get to know God more, you will understand the meaning between the lines.”

    Really? If the Bible requires a lot of “understanding the meaning between the lines” when it comes to sins, why does he explicitly spell out sins and their punishments? He’s not subtle about it. He explicitly gives punishments and consequences if a man sleeps with a *virgin* and if a man sleeps with a *betrothed* virgin or rapes a betrothed virgin. Why did he explicitly narrow what he was talking about if he meant all unmarried women? That’s like how baptists say “God condemns being a drunk. Therefore drinking wine is wrong because it intoxicates you. This is clearly God’s heart.”

    RedPillPaul says:
    February 11, 2017 at 4:41 pm
    @archer2fisher
    “I guess a different way of seeing it (“There is no where in the Bible that premarital sex is a sin”) There is no where in the Bible that says getting a blowjob from a tranny is a sin. It say sleeping with another man as with a woman is a sin. It says cross dressing is a sin (all these are in old testament leviticus/number/duetornomy mostly in leviticus and a repeat of info in the other books) but not BJs from a tranny so i guess its permitted (yes i know, a crazy extreme example…or is it)”

    If you get a bj from a tranny you’re having sex with a man–a tranny is just a man pretending to be a woman. The Old Testament clearly says that if a man has sex with a man they are to be killed. So yes, the Bible is explicit, a man who has sex with a tranny needs to be put to death.

    “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

    Sharrukin

    You listed three very good verse sections. All of those explicitly only apply to virgins and/or betrothed virgins. The Old Testament makes clear that betrothal is extremely serious, such as how raping an virgin requires the perpe to marry her, but raping a betrothed virgin is a death penalty for the perp. Betrothal is practically the same as marriage.

    Why would God explicitly dictate those cases for if a man seduces a virgin, or in the other case a betrothed virgin, if he meant all women? If you take a woman’s virginity, the Bible is clear you have responsibilities and it’s very serious. Why is it explicitly about virgins only, if God meant all women? Wouldn’ the just say “if a man seduces a unmarried woman and lays with her, he must marry her”? Why instead does Scripture say “if a man seduces a virgin”?

    You can say I’m looking for a loophole. Why would a perfect God leave loopholes in his detailed laws and 10 Commandments? Wouldn’t a perfect God make perfect laws? Nothing missing, nothing needs adding? Why would all knowing God explicitly say those commandments are about virgins if he actually meant any unmarried woman?

  126. Anonymous Reader says:

    Looking Glass
    Pre-WW2 is was pretty common because a lot of communities didn’t have dedicated preachers in much of the Midwest.

    The circuit rider existed in other places, too, but they kept returning to the same place on a schedule. These “expert preachers” are more like motivational speakers, flown in for a conference who then fly away and don’t come back. To me, it looks a lot like Tony Robbins seminars.

  127. Loyd says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer
    @Samuel Culpepper
    @GunnerQ

    Thanks for the responses!

    Yeah, I’ve found that asking and acting non-judgmental is one of the best ways to find out and just listen to her answers. I’ve at times given a broad range, and said something like “whether you’re a virgin or it’s 24 or whatever number” and she may reply “Oh it’s nothing that high, I’ve only been with 5 guys” or an answer along those lines. Even if she lies and says four when it’s fourteen or whatever number, it can still give insight as to what she’s done and certainly whether she’s a virgin.

    @archerwfisher

    The Pharisees accused Jesus of being “a child of fornication,” or, in other words, a child born out of premarital sex. We know fornication (or sexual immorality) includes many things, but in this passage it refers to premarital sex.

    And the Bible says to “Flee fornication.”

    If fornication includes pre-marital sex, and this passage suggests it does, then you are to flee it. If you don’t, it’s a sin.

    I’ve been thinking of writing a post on this.

    Also Dalrock, Lyn87, and others commented a lot in another post and refuted the premarital sex isn’t a sin argument and used plenty of biblical verses and examples.

  128. RedPillPaul says:

    @fisher
    Because the law was for Gods people. they are expected to live a certain way. unmarried women were suppose to be virgins. The assumption is that God is seeing his people as he intended them, perfect and judges on that standard, perfection.

    And besides, the laws of God are for the people of God.You cant apply american laws to a chinese man in china. After Jesus, we Gentiles have more leeway but the jews are suppose to be a people of God who live a certian way as an example for the whole world (i think Israel is failing hard in that respect). This opens up a theological can of worms (are you saved by the law or grace through faith, you know, the stuff Paul argues about).

    Its fine if you want to find a loophole outside of being a Christian. Infact, its A-OK to have that loophole as a churchian. Only Christians spend an eternity with God (trinity) and a sign of being Christian is someone who loves Jesus to the point that they do what he commands. That is proof of showing that an individual loves Jesus. 1peter 1:15 be holy as I am holy.

    You have free will. God gave it to you. You can do what you want with it. You can keep yourself ignorant of the fact so you conscience wont bear witness against you (while here on earth). Dont change the fact that we have to answer to God. You can live your life here on earth thinking that there is no God, That is your choice to. The righteous shall live by faith. Its through faith that people believe we have to answer to God.

  129. Sharrukin says:

    archerwfisher says:

    Why would God explicitly dictate those cases for if a man seduces a virgin, or in the other case a betrothed virgin, if he meant all women? If you take a woman’s virginity, the Bible is clear you have responsibilities and it’s very serious. Why is it explicitly about virgins only, if God meant all women? Wouldn’ the just say “if a man seduces a unmarried woman and lays with her, he must marry her”? Why instead does Scripture say “if a man seduces a virgin”?

    The Hebrew word is “almah,” is “young woman.” “Almah” can mean “virgin,” as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins.

    The Greek Pathenos is the same. Young woman or virgin.

    Maiden from Old English – virgin, girl or servant.

    If she wasn’t a virgin, she was a harlot.

    There was never any other assumption.

  130. Loyd says:
    February 11, 2017 at 5:14 pm
    @archerwfisher
    “The Pharisees accused Jesus of being “a child of fornication,” or, in other words, a child born out of premarital sex. We know fornication (or sexual immorality) includes many things, but in this passage it refers to premarital sex.
    And the Bible says to “Flee fornication.”
    If fornication includes pre-marital sex, and this passage suggests it does, then you are to flee it. If you don’t, it’s a sin.
    I’ve been thinking of writing a post on this.”

    Paul did write to “Flee fornication” or sexual immorality, depending on whether you like the KJV or a modern translation. He’s also explicit that he’s talking about how sex with prostitutes is a sin–when you look at the section instead of taking two words. We are playing straight, and if the verse means what you say, looking at it in some context won’t harm, will it?

    From the NIV:
    “Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.[c]
    18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.”

    And no, the Pharisees didn’t accuse Jesus of being born out of wedlock. Jesus basically accused them of being the child of the devil and they protested that they are truly God’s children, not actually satan’s children like he just accused them of. John 8:38 (NIV) and onward:

    “38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.[b]”
    “Abraham is our father,” they answered.
    “If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, “then you would[c] do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”
    “We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”
    42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own;

    Again. The Bible is incredibly explicit on what are sins and what is not. It even lists having period sex as a sin, and the punishment is exile from your people. So why would it explicitly list consequences for sleeping with or raping a virgin or betrothed virgin, but only that? Why didn’t it just say “If a man seduces an unmarried woman who is not betrothed then xyz.” Instead it specifically cares only about virgins and betrothed virgins.Why? Did God forget to include things he meant to write? Or is it simply not a sin, otherwise God would have included it in his perfect laws?

  131. Sharrukin says:
    February 11, 2017 at 5:22 pm
    “The Hebrew word is “almah,” is “young woman.” “Almah” can mean “virgin,” as young unmarried women in ancient Hebrew culture were assumed to be virgins.
    The Greek Pathenos is the same. Young woman or virgin.
    Maiden from Old English – virgin, girl or servant.
    If she wasn’t a virgin, she was a harlot.
    There was never any other assumption”

    Fair point I just looked up the word. “Almah (עלמה, plural: alamot עלמות, which means woman or a woman past puberty, regardless of sexual status) is a Hebrew word meaning a young woman of childbearing age who has not yet had a child, and who may be (but does not have to be) an unmarried virgin or a married young woman. It does not, in and of itself, indicate whether that woman is a virgin or not.[1”

    And http://biblehub.com/hebrew/5959.htm says it means “a young woman, a virgin.”

    If Almah can just mean young woman… what if she’s married? There are plenty of young women who are married. Let’s switch that word out. the KJV Exodus 22 says “And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife.
    17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”

    If the verse doesn’t mean virgin like most modern translations show like the American Standard or NIV, then why would he be paying a virgin dowry??

    If the word just means young woman, what if she’s married? Will he be paying her father the virgin dowry and marrying her? That obviously makes no sense.

    When you look at the possible word meanings, it only makes sense if it literally means virgin, not just young woman.

  132. RedPillPaul says:

    @archer
    in a way, everytime you have sex with someone, you are “married” to that person. You have sex after that with someone else, you just committed adultery.

    you make a better case for polygamy than fornication.

    and how, in a society that the law was for, could the scenario of fucking unmarried people come about? Someone would be married the first time they did that (in that society) and if they did that afterwards, they just became an adulterer (unless you are a guy and then take on two wives). I do get the impression in the Bible that God is “ok” with more than one wife, as long as you are financially responsible, hence, only rich men can really do the poligamy thing in a way that God is “ok” with it, or another way of seeing it is, being rich allows for the option to finacially take care of more than one woman.
    A flip side to that is bringing children into the world (even between one man and one woman). You are to be FRUITFUL and multiply, not just multiply. If you are poor, you shouldnt bring more people into the world.

    Rage Rage Rage against God all you want. Find that loophole. Proverbes 14:12 there is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death

    Hey, i could be doing the same thing, (think i am right). that verse is a reminder for us (you, me, and everyone else)

  133. RedPillPaul says:
    February 11, 2017 at 5:20 pm
    @fisher
    Because the law was for Gods people. they are expected to live a certain way. unmarried women were suppose to be virgins. The assumption is that God is seeing his people as he intended them, perfect and judges on that standard, perfection.”

    That’s not a bad reply. But if God was seeing his people as they should be, why did he make a long list of sexual sins? Why did he remember to explicitly forbid men having sex with men? Why did he feel he needed to forbid sex with animals if your answer is right? Wasn’t he laying down the law explicitly? Why would he remember things like men having sex with their daughter in laws but forget other things?

    I know you believe what you mean. But I have found what people believe and what the Bible teaches is not always the same. I know tons of people who fervently know that Christians need to tithe 10% to the Church. They don’t realize that we don’t have official levite priests anymore, and that the tithe supported God’s chosen Levites, who were priests instead of getting a land when Israel was taken.

    You think I’m full of shit but I want the truth. Here. I indeed had sex last year with a girl I had been dating for a while. No, not a virgin, not betrothed, not married. I truly want to know if that was a sin. I can find explicit verses saying cursing my parents is a sin… being drunk is a sin… stealing is a sin, lying is a sin, homosexuality is a sin, bestiality is a sin… if what I did is a sin, why can’t someone throw out a verse like they could for a hundred other sins?

    For instance, my younger sister lost her virginity to a guy at church. They claimed he should marry her since he did that. And they had an pretty flat out verse to back it up. So why can’t anyone do the same for me, if I did wrong? Instead it’s like people claiming having one glass of wine is a sin because getting drunk is a sin.

  134. And yes, I do care what the Bible says. When I was in college one foreign professor even started calling me “our resident theologian” because he would make slanted anti-christian statements and I would quickly correct him with a chapter and verse quote. What was really touching was when a girl came up to me after class.
    “Thanks.” She said.
    “For what?” I hadn’t even talked to her.
    “You said everything I wanted to say but was too scared to.”

  135. Boxer says:

    Dear Archer:

    Are you acquainted with my brother Artisinal Toad, perhaps? Your line of argument sounds much as his does.

    I like that guy personally, though I’m pretty sure I have nothing in common with him. One of the things I’ve quarreled about in the past is this idea that a married couple who have slipped up in the past are somehow committing adultery with one another — both being married to the first person they ever got jiggy with. I’m not nearly the bible scholar he is, but I’m still confident that the text doesn’t support his (your) proposition. In the first place it contradicts the (many, many times repeated) admonitions in the text that your sins might be forgiven. It also casts doubt on the many marriages (I’m sure some of whom are represented on this board) between good people who grew up in this decadent and trashy society, and cleaned themselves up after a wild youth. Moreover, I have never, ever received a straight answer when I questioned the assertion you make: that unmarried men supposedly don’t transgress the rules laid down in the text when they bang a ho (I guess if I read you correctly, you argue that such men just gain a new polygamist wife). All through the text it warns people to steer clear of hoes, and to solely get down with one’s own wife.

    In any event, this has been done to death here. I just wanted to say hello. Tell my bro AT hi too, if you get a chance. He’s been missed.

    Boxer

  136. Sharrukin says:

    archerwfisher says:

    it only makes sense if it literally means virgin, not just young woman.

    Yes, that would be the point.

    If you can figure out a way for a young woman to be a virgin when she marries, but still have premarital sex then you really are an amazing theologian.

  137. RedPillPaul says:
    February 11, 2017 at 5:43 pm
    @archer
    in a way, everytime you have sex with someone, you are “married” to that person. You have sex after that with someone else, you just committed adultery.

    That is actually one of the coolest Bible ideas I have heard in a while. But it doesn’t really make sense. Look at Scripture.

    “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife.”

    ” If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[c] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.”

    If having sex with a virgin means you two are married… why does the Bible talk about marriage as a separate act that happens later? You can’t marry a woman and then marry her again right away. If sex meant marriage wouldn’t it say something like
    “If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, she is his wife.” Or similar? Instead it lists marriage as a separate act later, that the father can veto if he likes.

  138. Samuel Culpepper says:

    @archerwfisher:

    I believe the disagreement between you and RPP lies in the premise re: marriage, that is, what constitutes marriage between a man and a woman? I think RPP, like me, believes a woman is married to a man upon his taking of her virginity; whether the two “want to marry” is irrelevant. (Genesis 2:24) So, if this woman has sexual relations with another man while the first is still living, then she is committing adultery and so is the second man with whom she sleeps. This could very well be the case with you and the “girl” you mentioned above. That would be a case of simple adultery, which is specifically prohibited( Exodus 20:14). I have to admit that the term fornication muddies the water on this subject as that term, to my recollection, does not appear in the OT. It has become synonymous with “pre-marital” sex, however I don’t think such a thing exists . . . I believe because of the reasons outlined above that sex is either marital or adulterous.

  139. And no Boxer, I don’t think sex means you are married, I think sex is sex and marriage is marriage. It’s not marriage unless you two agree to be married to each other. There’s a long list of what situations and peoples sex is a terrible sin.

    Sex with a virgin would mean today you have a duty offer to marry her. Though scripturally her dad can veto and really she obviously has the right to say no.

  140. Dale says:

    @RedPillPaul
    > Jesus was perfect. Did he have sex while here on earth?

    Your argument relies on the idea that if Jesus did not do something, then it is not moral. Otherwise your argument makes no sense.

    So, I am, according to your reasoning, living in active, repeated immorality. I work with computers for a living. Jesus never used a computer. Therefore, I am sinning every work day. Plus, even worse, I get PAID do to this. So I am serving money, not God (Matt 6:24).

    Can you understand that your logic is flawed?

    Instead of your idea that something is sin if Jesus never did it, I offer you the following idea:
    Rev 22:18-19:
    I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

    and Deut 18:20:
    20 But the prophet who dares to speak a message in My name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods—that prophet must die.

    So I suggest we be careful about putting words into God’s mouth. If I cannot find a passage that says what I want to teach, it is probably because I am wrong. Or at least, I am not understanding something. Or something is in fact wrong for me, because of MY weaknesses, but that does not make it wrong for others; read the whole chapter of Rom 14 for this.

    It is kind of ironic that you say you understand the need for citation, while continuing to argue without it yourself.

    >Are you of the OPINION of sex outside of marriage is not a sin?

    This is something that I wrote above, which seems an appropriate answer for your question; yes, it has a citation 🙂
    >If the marriage candidate finds being judged on her past actions unacceptable: You now know whether she wants to retain the “right” to view herself, and to be viewed by others, as a good woman even after obvious, significant disobedience. (Yes, it is true that (some may say) the Bible does not explicitly forbid sex before marriage, but the punishment required by God in Deut 22 for the non-virgin bride has a very clear message, at least to me.)

    And even if it is not a sin, I still would say it is foolish. Why be a woman’s toy? (See Prov 5 for a similar theme.) If she wants sex with me, she should pay for it, by giving the commitment to provide sex to me for life, not just “for now”. I have emotions; allowing a woman to toy with them by having sex with me for awhile and then leaving is not desirable.

    >MEN WANT SEX!

    +1 🙂

    @archerwfisher

    > All of those explicitly only apply to virgins

    This will unfortunately be reading between the lines, but I think only a little. As already discussed ad nauseum, the Bible does show a man who seduces a virgin is required to marry her, or if her father refuses, to still pay for her. And that adultery is wrong.
    So, if all the women were obedient to God (hah hah hah hah hah hah), then all women would be:
    a) virgins not having sex with me, or
    b) married to other men, and still not having sex with me, or
    c) widows, who … Well, the only thing I know of for them is in 1 Cor 7, which shows they are better off unmarried, but if they want they can marry a man who belongs to God. So they are likely not having sex with me either. Or
    d) my wife, who is having sex only with me.

    With the only possible exception being case “c” above, the only way for a man to have sex is to marry an eligible woman. Artisanal Toad goes into this with references on his site. I do not agree with all his conclusions/extrapolations, but he thoroughly goes through the relevant verses at least.

    As you say, God’s law is perfect. The problem is that we do not perfectly obey it. As indicated, if the women all obeyed, the PUA would have no one to play with.

    @thedeti

    >[men who pursued marriage] wanted to have legitimate sex with nearly unlimited sexual access to one woman

    In my case at least, you are absolutely correct. Without 98% sex-on-demand (I won’t ask for perfection in this one area, but close to it), I have little enough reason for marriage that I will choose to forgo it entirely. No, I did not say a woman is worthless apart from sex. But without a guarantee that I’ll get sexual gratification and sexual intimacy almost every time I want it, I am not interested in the arrangement. The benefits would be too small to justify the costs, nevermind the risks.

    >But of course, everyone knows that marriage doesn’t necessarily equal sex anymore

    You unfortunately are correct in this as well. We can reasonably predict that even the wives of the pastors and adult Sunday school teachers are not fulfilling the bargain. Any woman that chooses to be obese is obviously not too interested in fulfilling her husband’s desires for sexual gratification and femininity. Ditto for men’s clothing and haircuts, being disobedient, having a career at the expense of stuffing his children in daycare, etc. (Titus 2:3-5, Deut 22:5, 1 Cor 11, Col 3:18-21, Titus 2 again.)

    And I do not recall ever hearing it preached that refusing her husband is rebellion against God, defrauding her husband, detrimental to herself, and unacceptable. (1 Cor 7:1-9) Since the church will not even pretend to ask something of “Christian” wives in this area, I am obviously on my own. In fact, they will fight against me.

  141. Boxer says:

    Dear Archer:

    And no Boxer, I don’t think sex means you are married, I think sex is sex and marriage is marriage. It’s not marriage unless you two agree to be married to each other. There’s a long list of what situations and peoples sex is a terrible sin.

    Sex with a virgin would mean today you have a duty offer to marry her. Though scripturally her dad can veto and really she obviously has the right to say no.

    Cool. Thanks for disambiguating. I understand your position a little better now, and can’t really disagree with this interpretation. Church fathers called this “natural marriage”.

    Best,

    Boxer

  142. Lyn87 says:

    Sigh… not this discussions again. This time I’m staying out of it.
    _________________________________________

    Anonymous Reader,

    I didn’t catch the guest speaker’s name, but I’m 99.9% certain that it’s not Paul Tripp. Occasionally we get guest speakers who are friends/colleagues of our pastor that he’s known well for years. I don’t know anything about Paul Tripp, but I get the impression he’s an itinerant “Marriage Workshop” guy. I’ve never seen anyone like that in the years I’ve been going there… we’re not that kind of church.

    In any case, having taken the red pill and having spent so much time among the guys here and on other Christian sites, I just don’t see any upside to going. My wife has been sick since Friday, anyway, so we might have stayed home even if I hadn’t already decided to skip it.

  143. Boxer says:

    Sigh… not this discussions again. This time I’m staying out of it.

    You don’t want to beat the old nag’s corpse just one more time?

  144. Ofelas says:

    @Archerwfischer
    When you consider who would be the unmarried, not bethroted non-virgins, with whom sex would or not be sin, they can be either: widow, or divorcee, or seduced virgin whom her father refused to give to the seducer. These probably cover all possible options. I don’t know what exactly was the status of widows and divorcees among Hebrews, but I suppose the seduced former virgin would still remain under her father’s authority. So her having sex with some next guy(s) would mean bringing further shame upon her father’s house. And, again, I dont know what a Hebrew father would do in such case, but it obviously would be from her a clear step on a path leading to whoredom. So maybe what the scripture says about sex with harlots could be applicable in your case?
    Also, I must say that, being a non-believer, I find it somehow sadly amusing, to observe this kind of going to big lengths to prove to oneself that uncommitted temporary using of each other may possibly not qualify as sin, so it’s actually fine.

  145. Samuel Culpepper says:

    All:

    AT recommended ” Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe” by James Brundage as a good exposition on this deeply important and divisive subject. I am reading it now and it covers all of these differing interpretations and church doctrines through the ages. This is the most scholarly work that I have read on the subject. It is a must read.

  146. Either it’s a sin or it’s not. I want to know what the bible explicitly says. I grew up going to a school where they read that being drunk was bad… so they extended it that when the Bible says Jesus turned water to wine, it actually just meant grape juice. Because if you drink alcohol you’re getting intoxicated and being drunk is bad so therefore Jesus turning water to wine would be tempting people to sin.

    And yes, I think the “having sex with a virgin means you are married” is a cool idea… but the Bible doesn’t back it up. Otherwise it wouldn’t talk about marrying a virgin if you sleep with her. Because you’re married already. Why would the Bible say you need to marry a virgin if you sleep with her… if you’re already married?

    I appreciate a lot of you care enough to reply but most of the answers have been stretching, the same way A Beka Academy stretches to teach that drinking wine is wrong. I think if it was a sin… there’d simply be a verse stating so. I can find plenty of verses to back up that adultery is wrong, or

  147. Anon says:

    Dalrock said :

    Granted we are seeing the beginnings of a panic, or we wouldn’t have the slew of articles complaining about the shape of men. But the driving force is still greed, not fear.

    This is a very important distinction that is not even grasped in the ‘sphere (let alone outside of it). Dalrock is just about the only person in the world who could have discovered and flagged it.

    This is classic ‘bubble’ behavior. The progression of the bubble will be characterized by the sudden shift from ‘greed’ to ‘fear’, which will presage a popping of the bubble…

  148. Frank K says:

    “I don’t intend to denigrate the man at all, since that description fits a large portion of (Japanese) men; but honestly, how many women would WANT to marry him? How many are told they should? That he’s the best they can expect to do?”

    At least he’s a salaryman and not some schlub who works at a convenience store. But apparently that’s not good enough. He needs to be a boss and have a two bedroom apartment.

    Small wonder so many Japanese men are saying “eff it” and are choosing the herbivore path.

  149. Frank K says:

    “My future wife had only had PIV with one man and AS and OS with another.”

    Good gravy! So Churchian single women are not only not virgins, but they also regularly engage in sodomy. My wife and I are mutually the only sexual partners we’ve ever had (I think a lot people feel sorry for me when I say that). I can’t even conceive the the notion of performing an act of sodomy with her.

  150. Frank K says:

    “Perhaps OT, but related: Didn’t realize there’s another new girl “holiday” just before Valentine’s Day, which is also coming up…”

    Poor St. Valentine. He had no idea that a holiday that would enable, if not outright celebrate, fornication would be named after him.

  151. Boxer says:

    I can’t even conceive the the notion of performing an act of sodomy with her.

    Nor should you. Men who own their own rose gardens don’t hang out in public toilets.

  152. Frank K says:

    “What things do you look for to determine whether a woman is really a virgin?”

    Her facebook page is usually a good place to start. Sluts love to post their “girls night out” and “girls gone wild” pics there,

  153. Frank K says:

    “I’ve taken women on dates where they began talking about their “exes ” (by which they often mean an ex-boyfriend, not necessarily an ex-husband). I let them speak freely, nodding encouragingly, indicating that I’m not judging. That I sympathize”

    I hope you split the check with them.

  154. Frank K says:

    “We know that men will be under increasing pressure to accept “marriage” that looks like this.”

    And there will be no shortage of thirsty chumps who will agree to marrying a woman who reserves the right to have sex with other men.

  155. Frank K says:

    “The business of being an expert preacher looks odd to me. Traveling around the country preaching to strangers about their own lives, rather than being a preacher to one church and getting to know everyone.”

    I think this happens because Pastor Bob lacks the intestinal fortitude to do it, so he hires an “expert” to do his job.

  156. Adam says:

    Another issue is that old women, now devoid of a husband and a family decide to stay working in their high paying jobs, keeping young menb from getting promoted and earning the money to pay what dating a woman costs.

    Look at the first photo, an old woman giving orders to a young schmuck. These are men women have to choose from.

    The article insist these old women stay working in a intense job into their 70s is because they love their work. We know better. After running out the husband or not having a family at all, these women are lonely and ignored.

    When my parents and in-laws became grandparents, they chose very low intensity work just for a couple extra bucks for their grandchildren

  157. JT says:

    Wow that commercial is depressing Dalrock.

  158. Loyd says:

    @Fisher

    The additional verses to provide context makes the case I put forth even stronger, not weaker. Yes, Jesus accused them of being of their father, the devil. They disagree, argue about parentage, etc. Then, they throw out the “born of fornication” line using the word porneia or sexual immorality.

    Imagine an argument and one side gets testy and throws out a “dagger” and says something they think or hope will cause personal pain or “win” them the argument (and not “on points” but something personal and biting.

    Pre-marital sex being included among the acts in the word fornication fits here. Among other passages.

    After all, her husband Joseph thought she had done something and was going to put her away privily until an angel spoke to him. Imagine Mary being and looking more pregnant by the month, Joseph wasn’t the father and rumors spread. I’m sure the Pharisees knew of or heard things. Is it really a reach for you to realize, hey, they’re throwing out something very personal here and falsely accusing Jesus’ mother of having premarital sex and becoming pregnant with him? It all fits right in context of arguing over spiritual parentage and then them (the Pharisees) getting personal.

    And there’s plenty of other passages. Paul says “to avoid fornication” get married. It’s not adultery he’s worried about in this passage because he’s talking about singles and they’re not married yet. Bestiality? Sex with in laws? Really? You think he’s saying get married because that bestiality or sex with in laws thing is rampant! You might get a percentage or two in that group, but…

    The elephant in the room is premarital sex and God says (through Paul) to avoid immorality, get your own wife if you’re a man or your own husband if you’re a woman.

    So yes, you are to avoid fornication (which includes premarital sex). There’s other passages, but I’ll stop here and finish with two things.

    1. I know you say you want an answer, but deep down, would you be happy to hear that premarital sex was OK and allowed and would you find that relieving? Or asked differently, if you truly realized it was not OK and sinful, would that be a disappointment for you? Because it comes across as you hoping it’s alright. I may be wrong on that. And I know you say you’re simply wanting the truth. It’s good to examine your heart though, and really know, which I would be happier to find out, that’s it’s all good and right to do it or it’s not at all and I need to avoid it?

    2. Rightly dividing the Word is very important, and you looking very closely at each verse and in context and the original language is great.

    But sometimes, one may pick apart words and verses to such a degree in going after the letter of the law and miss the spirit of the law and what’s right in front of them. The Pharisees did that, and Jesus called them on it. They were technically “obeying” the law concerning widows and missing why the law was given in the first place. Prayerfully consider whether you are doing this with premarital sex.

    As Lyn said, he (and I’m sure many others) are not doing this again. I wasn’t there for that one, and if he or someone else wants to provide the link, there’s a thread with like 900 comments on it and buried somewhere in there is all kinds of arguments clearly showing that premarital sex is wrong and sinful. Wade through it if you like.

    All the best to you!

    Now, since I played a role is getting this post sidetracked from it’s main point, let’s see if we can get it back on track. 🙂

  159. Loyd says:

    @Anon
    “This is classic ‘bubble’ behavior. The progression of the bubble will be characterized by the sudden shift from ‘greed’ to ‘fear’, which will presage a popping of the bubble…”

    The next few years will be very interesting.

    And exactly how everyone reacts when it happens.

  160. BillyS says:

    archerwfisher,

    This is old, but bears a comment.

    3. I’m 25 and was born in 91, when the purity until marriage was the rage. Maybe you believe the Bible says sex outside marriage is a sin. Cool, we will agree to disagree. That aside, it means a ton of millennial christians were raised by adament christian parents who think virginity is next to godliness. If you’re a virgin sex seems amazing. If you’ve only had sex a handful of times, then you know it’s not that life changing and you can live just fine without it. It’s like deciding if you want to spend money on drinks or not.

    You clearly know little about God and how He made things. It may seem to have no impact, but each time you connect with someone else you make a connection that was meant for one and one only. It may directly scar women far more, but it has an impact on men too. Some (of both sexes) get away with breaking this (or seem to do so), but going outside the designed bounds isn’t good for anyone.

    And claiming sex is the same as drinks or not with dinner is completely idiotic.

    To rehash an old topic I researched, I don’t think the Bible actually condemns sex between singles.

    Yet no one here wants to marry someone who has done that. Hmmmmm….

    I strongly suspect you are just AT with another handle. Weren’t you banned?

    You are also nuts Dale. Many Scriptural responses have been given. Do some research before you jump on a single reply, or even several.

    Pariah,

    Samuel Culpepper, I agree with your view that sex = marriage. That is why I refuse to have anything to do with a woman who hasn’t remained a virgin.
    It’s pretty obvious this teaching isn’t popular….

    It is also not very Biblical. Nothing says you marry the one who you have sex with. The act is meant to only be part of marriage, but it is not marriage. Others have dealt with it before here.

    That doesn’t mean marrying a woman with past sex outside marriage is wise, just that it is not what you claim.

    Some people will clearly find any way to justify their degeneracy. Go ahead, lets check back in 40 years and see how profitable it was for you.

  161. @Loyd
    “Pre-marital sex being included among the acts in the word fornication fits here. Among other passages.
    After all, her husband Joseph thought she had done something and was going to put her away privily until an angel spoke to him. Imagine Mary being and looking more pregnant by the month, Joseph wasn’t the father and rumors spread.”

    That’s another thing the Bible is clear on. Verses taken in NIV.

    “26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”

    Mary was a virgin pledged to be married to Joseph. And she was pregnant. The Old Testament is crystal clear on that, no need for hebrew words or trying to read between the lines. Here’s the NIV version of what the Old Testament says about it.

    “23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.”

    So yes, Joseph had a virgin betrothed to marry him who was pregnant and not by the man she was pledged to. By the law, Mary explicitly was facing stoning. What’s your point? That’s something the Old Testament is crystal clear about, no need for wondering or debating.

    Also. Fornication is used in the KJV for sleeping with prostitutes, a man sleeping with his father’s wife, and according to Jesus is the only reason you can divorce your wife. Fornication today may mean premaritial sex, but it clearly did not mean so when the KJV was written, it was standing in for porneia, illicit sex. That’s why today the NIV simply says “sexual immorality.” Doesn’t it make sense that “sexual immorality” means any and all sex acts the Bible lists as sins? Like saying “if you have a felony you can’t vote.” Felony doesn’t mean any specific crime. It means a category. Like fornication=porneia=any sex act the Bible has listed as bad.

  162. I do appreciate the responses, but so far no one has shown anything but what’s already spelled out in the Bible. Paul explicitly talked about how bad it is to have sex with prostitutes and it’s fornication/sexual immorality, and the OT talks about harlots/prostitutes with verses like ‘Also the daughter of any priest, if she profanes herself by harlotry, she profanes her father; she shall be burned with fire.
    Paul explicitly referred to a sex sin listed in the Old Testament, the fornication/sexual immorality of a man sleeping with his father’s wife. Now Loyd has specifically brought up Mary and Joseph, which is spelled out in the OT, as the serious crime of a pledged virgin sleeping with another man.

    My point remains. Basically everything about right and wrong sex acts is spelled out in the Bible. If sex between two singles who are not betrothed is a sin… why isn’t there an obvious verse like everything else? Why should you even need to be reading between the lines? Murder is as obvious a sin as it gets, yet it made the 10 Commandments. Adultery is obviously bad, yet gets a ton of verses. When it comes to sex between unmarried singles, the Bible specifically touches on virgins and betrothed virgins and didn’t care about anything else. Why didn’t it just say some simple sentence like “Sex is only proper between a man and woman who are married to each other.”

  163. Loyd says:

    @Archer

    I’m pretty sure you know what my point is, but I’ll re-state it.

    The Pharisees threw out a false and personal insult against Jesus and used the word porneia, which in this context, clearly means premarital sex when they said they were not “born of fornication.”

    Ask yourself what “born of fornication (porneia)” likely means in this passage? If you want to argue it’s one of the other actions besides premarital sex, knock yourself out. It clearly seems they were directing a false and personal insult at Jesus and saying we’re not like you Jesus, you who were born out of an immoral act. If you accept that, it’s game over. Because it’s one example of porneia being used to mean premarital sex and God says we are to avoid porneia.

    But you seem to have made up your mind. Hey, you reap what you sow. Enjoy or endure the consequences, whichever they be, based on your actions. You mentioned earlier that you just want the truth. I don’t have the link handy and I don’t remember which it was, but if you are sincere in wanting the truth, search through that other post (if someone remembers which it is and will share it) and go through the comments and read others arguments. Perhaps you’ll find what you’re looking for.

  164. @Dalrock:

    Granted we are seeing the beginnings of a panic, or we wouldn’t have the slew of articles complaining about the shape of men. But the driving force is still greed, not fear.

    You bought the car about six years ago. Runs like a dream. OK, maybe you haven’t taken as good care of it as you should have. But whatever.

    It starts to make a funny noise. Give it a kick, and it dies down. Go about your business.

  165. Hells Hound says:

    This isn’t a binary choice. Just because he isn’t willing to prostrate himself before a worn out carousel rider doesn’t mean he has to become a neckbearded loser who plays video games, etc. He can focus on himself, bettering himself for his own sake and not become a future alimony payer who only gets to see his kids every other weekend, and only if he pays the ransom fees.

    In most cases it’s more or less a binary choice. In a society where founding a stable family isn’t much on the table, the average young single man won’t bust his ass at the gym, won’t bust his ass at work to be able to afford some fancy new inner city studio apartment, a new sports car, or fancy summer vacations. He doesn’t care. He won’t focus on bettering himself if that means busting his ass, working long hours etc. When the average man has worked hard, he has mostly done so because he was a family man, or was expected to become one. This has been true in every society. The simple fact is that most men don’t have great innate ambition. Their endeavors have to have a social context. The average man is content with less than the average woman, because he doesn’t care about material possessions and comfort as much.

  166. Ofelas says:

    @Archerwfisher:
    “Why didn’t it just say some simple sentence like “Sex is only proper between a man and woman who are married to each other.””
    Maybe for the very same reason why until relatively recently it was not necessary to put in a microwave oven user manual an explicit advice to not use it for drying pets when wet.
    Or, I don’t know..
    Anyways, your approach is basically: trying to put an intellectual patch over a moral hole, so to say. It won’t work well.
    Instead of arguing over quotes and lack of, in order to prove any behavior is not a sin, look at it from the perspective of responsibility (that should be maybe proportionate to the level of intimacy you share with someone), and actions and consequences, try a little introspection about the context the unmarried (non-virgins’) sex is happening in, and whether, given that context (compared to marriage), it is a good idea: how would you handle getting the woman pregnant? can you imagine her as a mother of your child? would you and her be able to make a stable home for a child? what would you do if she got seriously ill for example during your brief dating, not able to work and support herself, would you consider it your business to take care of her? (when you’ve been tapping that one). this last one you can flip also – would she be there for you in such case?…

  167. “Ofelas says:
    February 12, 2017 at 5:35 am
    @Archerwfisher:
    “Why didn’t it just say some simple sentence like “Sex is only proper between a man and woman who are married to each other.””
    Maybe for the very same reason why until relatively recently it was not necessary to put in a microwave oven user manual an explicit advice to not use it for drying pets when wet.”

    Really? They thought it was “necessary” to specifically state in Leviticus 20 that you can’t have sex with animals, you can’t have sex with your aunt, you can’t marry a woman and her daughter, you can’t marry your sister… but it somehow wasn’t needed to say sex between singles is bad because they knew it already? Meanwhile they needed it explicitly stated you can’t sleep with your father’s wife?

    Loyd says:
    February 12, 2017 at 12:12 am
    “Ask yourself what “born of fornication (porneia)” likely means in this passage? If you want to argue it’s one of the other actions besides premarital sex, knock yourself out.”

    It seems pretty blatant in the passage that Jesus accused them of being children of satan and while stating he was a child of God, and they were responding. Let’s say you’re right though and they were giving him a backhanded insult that he had been born from fornication. Mary was a pledged virgin set to be wed to Joseph. What does the Old Testament have to say about pledged virgins who get pregnant by another man?

    “If there is a girl who is a virgin engaged to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, 24 then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city and you shall stone them to death; the girl, because she did not cry out in the city, and the man, because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. ”

    As I said… fornication in the KJV means any and all forbidden sex acts. Paul talked about fornication of prostitutes and fornication of man sleeping with his father’s wife, both are mentioned in OT. Here Mary would look 100% guilty of violating another OT law.

  168. When the average man has worked hard, he has mostly done so because he was a family man, or was expected to become one. This has been true in every society. The simple fact is that most men don’t have great innate ambition. Their endeavors have to have a social context. The average man is content with less than the average woman, because he doesn’t care about material possessions and comfort as much.

    This is correct. Without the social context, there simply is no real reason for the man to push himself, to better himself. People have written books about this binary choice for men.

  169. Ofelas says:

    Archerwfisher:
    The list in Leviticus 20 naturally links to Leviticus 18, where people of Israel are warned to not do as in Egypt or Canaan, with a list of practices/behaviours supposedly common among Canaanites or Egyptians. Leviticus 20 elaborates on punishments for these behaviours, that are a selection of Canaanite atrocities. I bet in the past discussions about the topic, that other commenters mention here, somebody already must had pointed this out to you. So to answer your question: Yeah, really, why not.
    Also bear in mind the limited pool of available unmarried non-virgins for sex, as I wrote before these come from three groups of women in principle. The seduced virgin I have already addressed. Leviticus 22:13 would suggest a practice of widows or divorcees returning to their father’s house, under his authority, so looks like there were not many unmarried non-virgins freely running around, available to get fucked, back in those days, except harlots.

  170. Dale says:

    @Hells Hound and IBB
    >In most cases it’s more or less a binary choice. In a society where founding a stable family isn’t much on the table, the average young single man won’t bust his ass at the gym, won’t bust his ass at work to be able to afford some fancy new inner city studio apartment, a new sports car, or fancy summer vacations. He doesn’t care.

    You are wrong. I have never, not once, had a relationship with a north american woman that had a reasonable chance of leading to marriage with a good woman. I have had relationships, but either:
    – she was a woman who deliberately chose to be worth less than she could have, and thus I should never have been with her in the first place. Or
    – she did not allow the relationship to continue past about a month.

    In spite of the above lack of even a chance for marital success however, I have worked hard.
    I’ll admit that I am fat; currently about 10% over ideal weight. This has not always been the case however. Until past summer it was only 5%.
    With work however, I have been diligent in training myself and in subsequent work. I was making enough to support a family by age 25. I was a couple years slower than I could have been, but even so, “by age 25” does not seem a failure to me. I must admit that God provided me with the mind, skills and opportunities for this success; without God’s blessing I would not have reached the successes that I did. But I still had to work with what God very generously provided. Thank you Master.
    I suppose you can argue that any man who works hard is an exception. Well, I see many exceptions walking around then.

    A better way to consider the men who do not work hard is by asking how much of his wealth is he allowed to keep?
    If a man is having the government steal half his wealth each paycheque, to reward the woman who betrayed him and stole his children, I absolutely can anticipate that he will not pursue extra training, extra shifts, or promotions.
    If a man sees his brother or friend enduring the same theft described above, I can anticipate this second man making the same choice, even though he himself is not currently a victim.

    Men like to improve the world around them. I cannot be the only man to feel this way. But men are not stupid. Ask him to work without benefit, such as the theft described above, and many will decline the “opportunity”. That, I think, is the bigger problem.

    > The average man is content with less than the average woman
    You are correct on this point however. Men can be content with only a few toys. Granted, one of my toys cost over 10,000$, although I used it to generate more income than that.

    Even if a selfish man cares not for others around him and so chooses to no longer works as hard, once he no longer has need for more than the basics, is it reasonable to criticize him? He is not a freeloader. He is paying his own way. What is wrong with working only hard enough to provide for his own family, even if that family is only himself and his own parents? This man is not lazy; he is fulfilling his obligations. Consider these passages:
    Ecclesiastes 4:6
    Better one handful with tranquillity
    than two handfuls with toil
    and chasing after the wind.

    Proverbs 23:4-5
    4
    Do not wear yourself out to get rich;
    do not trust your own cleverness.
    5
    Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone,
    for they will surely sprout wings
    and fly off to the sky like an eagle.

  171. Kevin says:

    Gottman has published some of the most useful research on marriage, but that article is pathetic. Letting your wife influence you does not mean she wins in stupid emotional arguments. It’s just a correlation that good marriages have a leader that takes feedback from the first mate. If your wife never influences you, why did you get married to such a dummy? But unfortunately that simple concept has gotten blown up by Gottmans people who are apperently now SJWs impressed with the exceptionally rare “marriages” of lesbians and gays.

    Good research transformed to fit the narrative. Shame on you Gottman.

  172. Frank K says:

    “In most cases it’s more or less a binary choice. In a society where founding a stable family isn’t much on the table, the average young single man won’t bust his ass at the gym, won’t bust his ass at work to be able to afford some fancy new inner city studio apartment, a new sports car, or fancy summer vacations.”

    I disagree. I know plenty of young single men who earn six figures, are in shape and who are content with being bachelors. They have rejected the narrative that they have to get married. Some call themselves MGTOW, some don’t.

    Here is the thing: the carousel riders are trainingthese young men, who they regard as betas, to be lifelong bachelors as they won’t give them the time of day and prefer to cavort with bad boys.

  173. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon & Lyn87:

    Right. The Pastor(bator) defines feminism with some self-serving side issues, then scoffs at anyone who defines feminism correctly, and comes to the conclusion that the Pastor(bator) is himself a member of the movement.

    For those who are interested, here is a definition of radical feminism, written by a radical feminist. A quick read should quickly lay to rest any semantic counterclaims from feminists who LARP undercover as Christian priests.

    https://www.jstor.org/stable/466537?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

    Best,

    Boxer

  174. BillyS says:

    So Archer, are you fine with marrying a woman who has participated in the pre-marital sex you think is perfectly fine? Or are you just a hypocrite that claims you can do it all you want, but you ultimately want a virgin women who has only been with you to marry?

    The same question would apply to you Dale. Did those women who proved themselves unworthy give into you sexually? Did you decide that proved their own unworthiness? Yet you are still worthy?

  175. Dale,

    You are wrong. I have never, not once, had a relationship with a north american woman that had a reasonable chance of leading to marriage with a good woman. I have had relationships, but either:
    – she was a woman who deliberately chose to be worth less than she could have, and thus I should never have been with her in the first place. Or
    – she did not allow the relationship to continue past about a month.

    In spite of the above lack of even a chance for marital success however, I have worked hard.

    That is great. You should. You should work hard to better yourself. I did the same thing what I was a bachelor, achieved quite a bit of success. That said, I look back at how I was then and what became of my life (and the others around me in similar situations) and came to the conclusion that you and I were outliers. We were the exception, not the rule.

  176. Gunner Q says:

    archerwfisher @ February 11, 2017 at 5:55 pm:
    “Why did he make a long list of sexual sins?”

    Because human sexuality is not a mere appetite to be fed.

    Completely off-topic, because I would rather talk about ANYTHING other than retreading whether a Pharisee keeping a harem is okay so long as he’s a Skittles man, I’m sitting here drinking my vice of bottled Starbucks because I really like iced coffee and can’t even make instant, and noticed a label saying Starbucks is now using GMO in their product… when the ingredients are nothing but black coffee and sugar. Not even cream. What gives? Do liberals TRY to use this GMO stuff? But they’re the ones who protest it the most. It makes my head spin, like watching Occupy Wall Street freaks and wondering why Soros-paid idiots are protesting 1%ers like Soros. I had to check my math a hundred times when liberals protested the UN banksters in Seattle a few years ago.

  177. BillyS says:
    February 12, 2017 at 12:32 pm
    “So Archer, are you fine with marrying a woman who has participated in the pre-marital sex you think is perfectly fine? Or are you just a hypocrite that claims you can do it all you want, but you ultimately want a virgin women who has only been with you to marry?”

    I don’t want to legally marry ever. As in, no filling out marriage licenses and signing paperwork. I don’t want to give any woman that much power over me via the law, nor do I want to end up one of those couples in church where the wife thinks she can be a utter bitch or become a fatso because they’re married and he can’t do anything about it. I would be open to exchanging vows in front of witnesses if I met a great woman.

    And no, I don’t expect a virgin wife nor do I look for them. The girl I last dated wanted a serious relationship working towards marriage. I told her she’d have to be willing to keep her hair long and regularly workout like me. She didn’t like my terms.

  178. Tarrou says:

    Time is not the enemy, Time has won. The only way a man today will marry is if he is incredibly stupid. There is simply no other reason to bet another human being half your income for life that she won’t change her mind. There is no winning that bet on the merits. Some few may skate through on luck, but the wreckage of burned marriages litters our national path.

    Marriage is not “godly”, marriage is not a social institution. It is male slavery. Do what you will, stay monogamous, swear off women, or play the field. Whatever satisfies your own morality. But for the love of all that is good and right in this world, do not sign that fucking paper. If there be gods, they don’t care about the bureaucracy or the paperwork. If there are no gods, then the paperwork satisfies nothing. But there is a power that does exist, and it is called lawyers. And if you sign that document, they (and your soon-to-be-ex) own you.

  179. Spike says:

    ” Yet with each new generation witnessing the same pattern we are slowly burning through an enormous reservoir of goodwill from men.”

    Time is the enemy as you say Dalrock. Time however, is linear. Information, particularly since the invention of the Internet, is exponential. When more men, particularly Millennials of marital age, become informed, marital rates will drop off at an exponential rate. much like the ”hockey stick” graph of Global Warming fame, only downwards.

    When this happens, no amount of coercion, pleasant or unpleasant, will change men’s minds.

    What will happen? The Welfare bill will skyrocket. So will the prison population. And the Health Bill, because single women and lesbians have far worse health outcomes than married women (so much for feminism’s claims of being concerned for the welfare of women). Immigration of large numbers of non-integrating, poorly educated men from poor countries to work as cheap labor will happen. Churches will shrink and vanish, while mosques, pick-up joints and brothels will flourish.

    In short, we face a Demographic Judgement Day, similar to the one the prophet Amos said would come:
    ”Behold, days are coming,” declares the Lord GOD, “When I will send a famine on the land, Not a famine for bread or a thirst for water, But rather for hearing the words of the LORD”.(Amos 8:11)

  180. Anon says:

    Frank K,

    What is so risible about the absurd “Ward Cleaver is a stud!” angle is that most young people today have never heard of Ward or they have a very minimal knowledge of his character.

    That is right. He could not look worse if he tried. The notion that millennials would even know who that is (and would watch a black&white show from decades before they were born), is evidence of cuckservative idiocy.

    Plus, I am going to accuse him of having some homoerotic hots for Ward Cleaver. He calls him a ‘stud’. There is no evidence that women think of such a dependable man as a ‘stud’. We already know Jim Geraghty married a single mother. Maybe he really is a cuck fetishist..

  181. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    In glancing at the Pastorbator’s Twitter feed, he seems to have a high admiration for contemporary pop culture. That is not what I think of a pastor as like.

    This is, among other things, a complete lack of genuine faith.

    Plus, maybe he is just yet another mangina seeking a certain type of power position through which to establish trust and then conduct sleazy, predatory activities onto women. That is how manginas operate – they are often creepy predators in disguise. The ‘pastor’ guise is just the perfect cover..

  182. Kevin says:

    Having read whole thread some of the men going on about not marrying whores should check Dalrocks posts on “no rings for sluts” which looks at this issue. It’s good policy. I also think women should avoid men should avoid men that have not been chaste. But individual toleration for this sort of thing will vary.

    As for the men trying to hilariously argue that sex outside marriage or between singles is not contrary to God, stop trying to be Bible masters and just think about the implications of your plans in a society without birth control. It’s madness and only a mad God would allow such sexual chaos. You are just rationalizing your behavior because the Bible does not have a verse saying the obvious. The Bible does not contain detailed instructions on every sin.

  183. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    You did a great service when you started pointing out the correlation between male feminists and sexual predators. The degenerate Hugo Schwyzer is a perfect example, who claimed to be a feminist to secure a faculty position teaching queer theory at a big university, where he sexually abused the unfortunate students who were naïve enough to sign up for such claptrap. It’s amazing how similar secular male feminists and the feminist Christian priests are in thought, word and deed.

    In this case, I suspect the good pastor is a flaming homosexual. Love the pink shirt honey…
    https://thefederalist.com/author/hansfiene/
    I’d gander the men in the congregation have more to worry about, but that’s just a suspicion based on physiognomy and his apparent *you go girl* clothes/hair.

    Aside from getting jiggy with the women (men?) in the congregations — many of whom are married — lot of these preachers also eventually get caught embezzling money from their own churches. Truly a sad state of affairs. I hope Pastorbator Fiene doesn’t ever abuse his position this way, but if I were in his flock, I’d be very concerned.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  184. infowarrior1 says:

    @Kevin
    Through implication of the scriptures and natural law. One knows what is right and wrong. I mean every sexual sin is actually a form of Adultery because they are deviations from the Marital Ideal.

    And Natural Law makes certain harmful things obvious.

  185. Dale says:

    @BillyS

    >The same question would apply to you Dale. Did those women who proved themselves unworthy give into you sexually?

    You seem to have decided that I have the view that people should be promiscuous. I already repeated the above for RPP, guess I’ll repeat it for you too. Please pay attention.
    “This is something that I wrote above, which seems an appropriate answer for your question; yes, it has a citation 🙂
    >If the marriage candidate finds being judged on her past actions unacceptable: You now know whether she wants to retain the “right” to view herself, and to be viewed by others, as a good woman even after obvious, significant disobedience. (Yes, it is true that (some may say) the Bible does not explicitly forbid sex before marriage, but the punishment required by God in Deut 22 for the non-virgin bride has a very clear message, at least to me.)

    You asked, “Did those women who proved themselves unworthy give into you sexually?”
    I know this will be blunt; your question is stupid. It is stupid, as it shows that you have swallowed the feminist lie that men are the sexual aggressors; that THEY would have “give in” to ME. “Poor princess WANTS to stay pure, but the bad boys forced my special snowflake to have sex with 5 different men in 2 years as she strove to find ‘the one’.”

    In my life, I have pressured a grand total of… wait for it… zero women for anything physical. I, on the other hand, have been pressured by 6 women for something physical. One was a woman I had just met that day; and never saw again. Another was only 15 years old and from a Christian family; when her hints did not get the desired sexual behaviour from me, she flat-out asked if I wanted to “play doctor” with her.
    Someone noted in another thread that I am likely unmarried as I have failed to be good at “being a man”. Since I consistently strove to act with restraint, resisting the desire to run full steam ahead on the physical side of the relationship, I no doubt have appeared weak, or at the very least, not “exciting”. So that critique of me is likely valid. Whether a good woman should demand physically aggressive relationships is another question, but that is not what you asked.
    So no, Billy, no woman “gave in” to my mean, brutish, “partriarchal”, male entitlement behaviour.

    Your question to Archer re what he would want to receive in a wife was a wise question however. Matt 7:12.

    @ArcherWFisher
    >I told her she’d have to be willing to keep her hair long and regularly workout like me. She didn’t like my terms.

    I had the same experience, but in my case, I had only asked for one of those. So that must mean that you are twice as demanding as I am 🙂 I was informed I should love her as she was, not ask for her to improve herself.

  186. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Adam: The article insist these old women stay working in a intense job into their 70s is because they love their work. We know better.

    We do indeed. Most women do not have intense jobs. When I worked in offices, I noticed that many of the women spent their time in the office socializing, gossiping, listening to the radio, surfing the internet, leaving early, etc.

  187. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    You did a great service when you started pointing out the correlation between male feminists and sexual predators.

    Oh, yes. Hugo Schwyzer was the first. After that, Gian Ghomeshi, Manboobz Futrelle (pedo), and Eliot Rodger (mass shooter) all followed the same pattern.

    If you think about it, it is the perfect cover for a predator, really. In the case of Pastor Fiene, his Twitter feed is not much about pious themes or the Bible, but pop culture. He may be gay, and perhaps he thinks his over-the-top praise of women (absent any evidence) covers for his secret lust for the boys in the church..

  188. The dysfunctional gather with other dysfunctionals. I honestly think it’s less intentionally insidious and more a desire for a group that won’t attack the glaring dysfunction in your life. It’s the exact same thing with Socialists and why they produce echo chambers. But, like Socialists, they amplify their own dysfunction like its some Great Leap Forward virtue signaling.

    Then those on the outside are left wondering how someone broke themselves so badly; only to conclude that “Misery loves company”, as you prosecute them to the fullest extent of the Law.

  189. feeriker says:

    In glancing at the Pastorbator’s Twitter feed, he seems to have a high admiration for contemporary pop culture.

    That right there serves as more than enough to merit stripping him of his “Christian” credentials. The man, through his words and actions, is obviously more concerned with pleasing the World than with pleasing God. Just another churchian fraud. Typical.

  190. Anonymous says:

    Off-topic, but: Man commits suicide after divorce, ex-wife blames depression…
    “Surgeon Jumps from Bridge After Divorce from TV Personality Wife,” by David Li, New York Post, 12 Feb 2017
    http://nypost.com/2017/02/12/surgeon-jumps-from-bridge-after-divorce-from-tv-personality-wife/

  191. Anon says:

    Man commits suicide after divorce, ex-wife blames depression…
    “Surgeon Jumps from Bridge After Divorce from TV Personality Wife,”

    Hmm…. I wonder if she was making almost as much as him, hence shielding him from financial ruination?

    Then again, he loses custody, and his income will be imputed in CS all the same..

  192. They Call Me Tom says:

    “If we see a big spike in women who are 40 and never married, that will really tell the tale.”

    I think statistics five years from now will show that that is what is currently happening. Now, most men who they would seek out in their 40’s not only have seen the consequences of divorce as children in either their families or their friend’s families; they now as adults have also seen that women are even more heartless in divorce today than they were back in the eighties (which was bad enough). Basically conditioning plus reinforcement. Throw in to the mix that women don’t think they have to make any effort on their part to be desired as a mate… and there’s simply zero incentive for the men they’re looking for to have any interest in them long term.

  193. Anon says:

    Anecdotally, while small-town Americans still marry at 25 or so from what I can tell, the big city has worsened at a rapid rate.

    Around 2000, women still married by 28 or so.

    Around 2008, I saw 34 as an age when many married.

    Now, I anecdotally see women as old as 38-39 nailing a needy beta. The man has either decided that he will not have children, or fund the expensive IVF that the woman requires after riding the carousel until 38!

    So we could get close to a stunning reversal (just like the left saw with Trump), and the greed of cuckservatives shifting to fear..

  194. Anon says:

    Question for Dalrock and others :

    If ‘duty’ is a more compelling argument to use on men who are skeptical about the risk/reward of marriage, then why are cuckservatives like Prager U pushing ‘respect’ as the main reason for men to marry, rather than ‘duty’?

    If duty is the stronger cloak that can conceal their fraud, why use something other than duty?

  195. Lyn87 says:

    Anon,

    Some years ago I was a school teacher in the Grade 7-12 range, and the topic under discussion that day was the Cold War. Since I had been a military officer for several years by that point on both the active duty and reserve component sides, I casually mentioned that in the 1980’s when I started the general consensus was that WWIII was inevitable, and those of us on the bleeding edge were probably going to die. I didn’t give a lot of thought to it… that’s just the way it was back then.

    For me it was just an off-hand remark, but one of my male students looked at me like I’d just announced that I had a tail. The idea that we would blithely accept that state of affairs was utterly foreign to him and he asked, “Why did you do it?” To be honest, I’d never thought about it much before, so the question caught me flat-footed. I thought about my answer for a couple of seconds and responded with, “We saw it as our duty.” Think back on the millions of men who took up arms just in the 20th Century. Men from dozens of countries, motivated by… what, exactly? Surely there were a lot of reasons, but what stands out is that most of them felt what we quaintly refer to as “The Call of Duty.” Governments on all sides stoked that for all it was worth. Common to the recruiting efforts were components of both manly pride and sexual reward: a “real” man had a duty to defend/avenge/preserve “good” women (the unstated assumption was that he might expect to be rewarded by those same damsels… once the job was done, of course).

    Duty is a serious motivator, but it’s utterly useless as a persuasive tool unless you can make the guy “hear the call,” which requires him to feel some strong… something: rage, love, hatred, protectiveness, pride – it doesn’t much matter as any will do. What do guys like Feine and his ilk offer up? It’s pretty thin gruel, and unlike the assumption that “It will be over by Christmas,” men today are acutely aware that marriage isn’t a walk in the park where they’ll be showered with glory… and the grateful kisses of pretty young women.

    One example serves to demonstrate my point particularly well. Consider Edith Cavell. Miss Cavell was a nurse in occupied Belgium during WWI, and she helped Allied soldiers escape to allied lines. The Germans treated her as an enemy agent (which she objectively was), and she was sentenced to die by firing squad. After the sentence was carried out in October 1915, her death became a recruiting bonanza. Let’s be frank here, Edith Cavell was a pious woman of strong conviction and great courage, but she was neither murdered nor especially attractive, and both of those facts matter. Recruiting posters often showed her as angelic, with her hat/veil forming a halo around her idealized features, and the politicians and papers insisted that she was murdered by the Germans (just as they would insist was the fate of the dead from the Lusitania earlier that same year). Other posters showed her lying on the ground in a semi-crucifix position with German soldiers standing over her bloody corpse. In order to make men want to put on a uniform and kill “Jerries,” they offered up a moral imperative – to avenge the vicious murder of a beautiful and virtuous woman by barbarians who would do the same to your women unless you stop them. The real story (as with the Lusitania, by the way), presents a far less compelling case for marching through mud toward a line of Maxim Guns, but it served its purpose: men enlisted in droves. Looking at it from an Information Warfare perspective, it was brilliant marketing.

    Men today are starting to see through the propaganda. The women being offered up as wives aren’t victims of rapacious men – they’re whores because they want to be. They’re not loyal help-meets – they’re likely to be nags who take half your stuff and all your kids. They’re not fresh, beautiful and angelic – they’re old, fat, and slovenly. Getting guys to march into the guns of matrimonial law is a tough sell these days.

  196. Stroller says:

    @Lyn87,
    I periodically think about “duty” as it relates what goes through a man’s mind and what motivates him when he undertakes to military service – or going off to war, at the same time as I think about the oft-repeated idea that “sex is the glue”. Glue of a pair bond, glue of a family, glue of a community.
    Imagine – communities of pair-bonded sex partners dedicated to raising children together, in said communities, with other pair-bonded sex partners, also raising children and making community.

    It’s almost like it was: something worth fighting for.

    Then it’s gone.

  197. patriarchal landmine says:

    as a straight up legit victim of feminism, the stark differences between these pastors pushing feminist tradcuckery and real life couldn’t be more obvious.

    the men in my demographic will never be fooled. we survived hell. these pastors are like the eloi, but more irritating and less deserving of their status. their time has already ended.

  198. Hose_B says:

    @Stroller
    “Our first response to the six-pack Craigs of the world is this: In monetary terms alone, the financial return on marriage’s investments is substantial.”
    I never had more disposable income than when I was a 19yo (single) Lance Corporal making a grand a month. Got married, had kids. I do make more money, but it’s already earmarked and none of it is disposable. The rest of the article is the same sex,life,happiness stuff you hear. Except this article admits that cohabitation is beating out marriage in these same areas.

  199. Hose_B says:

    @PatriarchalLandmine
    To compare pastors to the Eloi is generous. although I get your analogy, it is flawed. The Eloi were “innocents” who lacked the understanding of their world. They are what the “privileged” turn into. Adult “Children” who had no clue and were basically kept around to feed the workers below.
    These pastors have a clue. They have full information in the form of the written Bible. They CHOOSE to ignore this.

  200. Stroller says:

    @Hose_B,
    Just FWIW in case it isn’t clear: I didn’t post the link as a counter-argument to the OP.
    More in the sense of : yes, indeed, the bubble is stretching its surface limits, and the old greed pump is being replaced with the new fear pump.
    Or more simply: just another punching bag for the denial of mainstream conservatism.

    The article is utterly ridiculous and deserves to be lampooned mercilessly.
    But yes – I know exactly of what you speak. Even with divorce costs sufficient to buy two 3-bedroom homes I am better off financially than I was married, or if I had stayed married.

  201. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    This line from the New York Post story on the surgeon’s suicide stood out for me:

    “Our hearts r broken that the father of my teenage children took his own life yesterday,” Jennifer Ashton wrote on her Facebook page Sunday.

    A self-serving statement. No matter what tragedies befall her family, the modern American woman still finds time to update her Facebook page. Never mind the silly way of spelling are as r.

  202. Hose_B says:

    “The father of MY teenaged children”
    That most likely sums up her outlook on this man.

  203. Novaseeker says:

    Now, I anecdotally see women as old as 38-39 nailing a needy beta.

    Yep, I saw that in a colleague of mine about 6 years ago. She (the colleague) was an admittedly hot 39yo, rewashed as Christian after years of CCing (ahem, “dating”), but found her beta boy (I met him, and yep, that’s who he is), promptly popped out a couple of kids. Now in mid-40s, no exit visas issued yet so that’s at least not bad. But it was so transparent what was happening.

  204. Hmm says:

    Off topic, but here’s a summary of the Puritans on sexual love. An antidote to some of the views expressed in earlier posts:
    http://www.meetthepuritans.com/blog/marital-love-must-be-sexual

    [D: Great find. Thanks!]

  205. Opus says:

    I often wonder whether any female has ever had any real sexual attraction towards myself and whether any apparent attraction had more to do with the woman’s hypergamy. Nothing I enjoyed more than after some minutes of conversation with a female casually letting slip what the day-job was. I would then see a sudden increase in obvious interest in me – usually – there was the woman who told me that that flat-out I was lie-ing. Heaven knows what she imagined I was supposed to looked like. I shrugged.

    Is it any wonder that so often in the old plays – such as Beaumarchais’ Barber of Seville – the Prince so as to ascertain a girl’s true feelings pretends to be a poor student, though even being a student (rater than a rough yokel) might be some clue and in an age when few people had any if much education that he perhaps had prospects.

  206. BillyS says:

    Men today are starting to see through the propaganda. The women being offered up as wives aren’t victims of rapacious men – they’re whores because they want to be. They’re not loyal help-meets – they’re likely to be nags who take half your stuff and all your kids. They’re not fresh, beautiful and angelic – they’re old, fat, and slovenly. Getting guys to march into the guns of matrimonial law is a tough sell these days.

    The fat is not always there, but the attitude almost certainly is. My wife was far from fat, but would generally pair up with overweight women and be very bothered whenever I said anything about it not being good.

    (I am definitely overweight as well, though my frame carries it more easily than some. I freely admit that and the bad effects it causes. I am also working on changing it for the record, down 20 pounds in the past few months.)

  207. BillyS says:

    Now, I anecdotally see women as old as 38-39 nailing a needy beta.

    I am doubtful I would pursue children, I could easily end up with a wife of that age if I do remarry.

    Just a general comment. I suspect I am just going to be single the rest of my life, but time will tell what happens.

  208. Boxer says:

    Off topic: a real beauty of an article out of Carlos Slim’s blog.

    Above all, fear spouses: Husbands are incomparably more deadly in America than jihadist terrorists.

    And husbands are so deadly in part because in America they have ready access to firearms, even when they have a history of violence. In other countries, brutish husbands put wives in hospitals; in America, they put them in graves.

    Much more at…

  209. Dalrock says:

    @theDeti

    I don’t know about this. I’m not sure it’s that simple. Two things here. First, it’s probably more accurate to say that tradcons believe that nearly all young men still want marriage, but only because that’s the only legitimate place for sex. Most young Christian men want marriage for precisely this reason, in my opinion.

    Whether they are right in this belief or not, we are in agreement that this is their belief.

    Second, I am not myself convinced that nearly all young men today want marriage. What nearly all young men want today (as they’ve always wanted) is sex. The prime reasons men wanted marriage until about, oh, 40 years or so ago, is because marriage was the only legitimate, more or less guaranteed, route to sex, and because in marriage they won’t have to work nearly so hard to get sex. Yes, married men got a family, social status, respect in and out of his family, responsibility, and the authority to carry out those responsibilities. But they got sex, legitimate “guaranteed” sex, and that was the real selling point.

    But of course, everyone knows that marriage doesn’t necessarily equal sex anymore, and marriage has been eviscerated of nearly all of its prior meaning and significance, as you’ve discussed. But I really don’t think men have ever really wanted marriage for its own sake; they’ve wanted to have legitimate sex with nearly unlimited sexual access to one woman. That was the prime selling point and it’s all but gone now.

    I don’t think men have in the modern age at least been this pragmatic. I do agree that men want sex, along with respect, and that marriage used to be a means for a man to acquire both. But most men are also hopeless romantics. This may be changing. However, my sense is something else is changing. I think the real danger to the tradcons selling feminist marriage is as I noted in the OP, the time delay built in to the new model. It wreaks havoc with the incentives, and there is approximately a decade for men to get side tracked. Not all men will get side tracked, but even if an extra 15% of the men drop out of the eligible pool this will create a huge shortage of chairs when the music eventually stops.

    I think it is this (still mostly pending) shortage that will ultimately set in motion the conditions for something like the mindset change you are talking about. Once fear really sets in this will cause a discussion on how we can “stop men from striking”. The intent here will be to put a bandaid on a bullet wound, but this then opens up the repressed conversation about the brutal realities of the current system. You can’t discuss fixing a system without acknowledging the problems, and since there is such entrenched support for keeping the system as is (or making it worse) this will make it difficult to get traction with a sugar coated description of the problem. The unintended side effect will be a growing awareness of the brutality of the system by the very men they are trying to win over.

    I could be wrong on this. You might be right and we are already experiencing a shift in men’s perception on marriage. But either way, I think we are in agreement more than disagreement.

  210. feministhater says:

    Above all, fear spouses: Husbands are incomparably more deadly in America than jihadist terrorists.

    Lol, I keep saying it, husbands are just so deadly that marriage should be outlawed… what do you guys think? Bet it would sit well with the divorce courts and feminists. I’m all for it. Be careful what you wish for, it just might happen.

    I am doubtful I would pursue children, I could easily end up with a wife of that age if I do remarry.

    You’re just walking into a minefield for a second time. No one to blame but yourself.

  211. feministhater says:

    Is it any wonder that so often in the old plays – such as Beaumarchais’ Barber of Seville – the Prince so as to ascertain a girl’s true feelings pretends to be a poor student, though even being a student (rater than a rough yokel) might be some clue and in an age when few people had any if much education that he perhaps had prospects.

    We do this in South African anyway. Only fools show off their wealth. It invites all manner of bad ill. It might be hijackings and house invasions here but it also includes gold diggers and those of ill repute who try to scam you. If you’re not flashing wealth, you don’t get picked up on their radar.

    It also saves immensely on frivolous spending.

  212. RedPillPaul says:

    @Dale
    > Jesus was perfect. Did he have sex while here on earth?

    You dont know a rhetorical question when you see one? You have a certain audience and you assume that there is some common knowledge of things, hence, citations shouldn’t be AS necessary because …we are in a group of people who are “Christian” (and on this blog, a lot of commentators know the BIble better than most chruchian going folks), who actually know scripture more than most. Me initially assuming you fall in that category improperly, I apologize.

    “CITATION!” written like that is mockery. . “CITATION!” is usually used by those who only use it to dismiss what was said, IE
    “Men are terrible because they divorce thier wives for younger models” (woman claiming moral ground)
    “Actually mam, women initiate 70% of divorces”
    “CITATION” (end of discussion)

    The argument by Fisher is the position that if the Bible explicitly does not mention it, then its fair game, which I infer it is motivated by his flesh desire to do what it wants without the burden of guilt or charge of sin.

    Fisher has already demonstrated that he has (selective) discernment. My example of getting a BJ from a Tranny was shot down very well by him. I tell him the Bibles position “man sleeping with a man as a man sleeps with a woman” and crossdressing forbidden.

    He counters with the same verse and gets the right answer, getting a BJ is still sexual relations and the tranny is still a man….BRAVO! but it gets disappointing that he can not, with all the versus given that have been cited, use that same discernment to put two and two together, that sex outside of marriage is a sin (fornication).

    I sense that there is a internal war within him (which is the same in all of us) where he “knows” (i know sex outside of marriage is a sin) but wished it were not so (but i want sex outside of marriage to not be a sin…so i can engage guilt free in it, so i will hold this rigid set of beliefs that if God didnt explicitly say it, its fair game).

  213. Lyn87 says:

    Billy,

    I hear ya. But in the 50 years between 1960 and 2010, the average American adult put on about 30 pounds… and it ain’t muscle. The picture next to my name (as of now – I may change it at some point in the future) is a recent one of me, so you can see that I’m not some 90-pound weakling… and the average American woman outweighs me by 25 pounds! If I found myself back on the market, I’d probably go overseas again.

    But it’s all of a piece with what those guys are selling. As if a man is obligated to feel attraction for a woman with 57 pounds of fat on her 5’4″ body (and that’s the average… half of them are worse than that), and be grateful for it. It’s not enough that the “born-again virgins” are crashing into the wall with double-digit n-counts, five-digit debt loads, and negative domestic skills, femininity, and attitudes… a lot of them will eat themselves into even greater girth once they get a wedding ring. But don’t expect guys like Feine to address that aspect of the problem any more than they address gynocentric law, or church discipline for women who blow up their marriages.

    By the way, if you’re working on change, your first priority should be to ramp down the carbs. Not only does that help with weight loss (provided you don’t just replace the calories saved with something else), but the amount of carbs the average westerner eats is toxic over time. Second priority is cardio at whatever level you’re capable, then followed by weight training and flexibility training after you’re down to a normal weight. A guy can’t outrun a bad diet, and he sure as hell can’t out-lift one.

  214. patriarchal landmine says:

  215. Gunner Q says:

    Dalrock @ 10:29 am:
    “But most men are also hopeless romantics. This may be changing.”

    It is. Just this weekend, I watched a group of blue-pill nerds at the local game store try to unplug a teen from a BPD girlfriend. They weren’t successful but these were full-on NERDS, whose idea of foreign language is Javascript & Klingon and who spend Friday night alone in a booth at Denny’s doing payroll for their regiment of mercenary swordsmen. The guys who once would faint if a girl smiled at him are now all “don’t give her more attention” and “protect yourself from a false accusation”.

  216. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Dalrock: most men are also hopeless romantics. … the real danger to the tradcons selling feminist marriage is as I noted in the OP, the time delay built in to the new model. It wreaks havoc with the incentives, and there is approximately a decade for men to get side tracked.

    It does indeed wreak havoc with the incentives.

    And men are indeed romantics. But a man’s romantic feelings are largely sparked by a woman’s physical beauty. That’s his initial attraction to her. If he marries her, and she proves to be a devoted, loving, and pleasant wife, the wife goggles come on. He’ll feel romantic love toward her even when she’s not a pretty as in her youth.

    But the older and fatter a woman is, the more slovenly, tattooed, and pierced, the shorter her hair, the louder and fouler her mouth, the more aggressive her mannerisms, the harder for a man to feel that initial spark of attraction. And without that, she will never inspire a man’s romantic longings.

  217. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lyn87, BIly_S
    I will be more specific. To lose fat, cut sugar. Cut as much as you can. That means not only no soft drinks, sweet tea, candy, cookies, etc. but also cut way back on “fruit juice”. Cut way back on processed food in general.

    I’ve known several men in the last 10 years who reduced their mass by 50 pounds in a year, nearly a pound per week, by just cutting sugar out of their diet as much as possible. Walking 30 min. per day is good for a lot of reasons, and it will help.

    Simple carbs convert to sugar in the digestive process which then spikes insulin, the extra sugar in the bloodstream will be stored as fat. This isn’t even controversial any more in science, just in doctor’s offices. But sugar doesn’t even need to convert, it just dumps into the bloodstream.

    It can be difficult, I know, to stop hitting the soda vending machine in the afternoon. Have coffee or tea with no sugar instead. It can be difficult to not start chomping snacks at home – don’t have it in the house in the first place. If you think of sugar as a drug, to be taken only for controlled purposes, it can be easier to stop putting into coffee every day. If you think of sugar as a drug, then only having a soft drink when imbibing alcohol (if you do, if not then fine) from time to time cuts that habit back.

    The USDA food pyramid was always incorrect. It’s decades out of date. But inertia is powerful.

    Returning to a more fem-relative point: “Put down the donut and step back!” is my suggestion to the modern American woman, who is something like 5’3″ tall and weighs something like 150 pounds.

  218. “Pastor Fiene is concerned that young men will be too distracted by fantasy women to notice how feminine, selfless, submissive, and meek modern young women are.”

    Then first I would suggest that Pastor Fiene stop drinking and taking drugs. And then second, perhaps for the first time in his life, take a long hard look at the American “modern young woman”.

    She is not definitely meek, submissive, selfless, and will never be mistaken for being feminine. She is none of those things.
    What he will find is women who are ignorant, perpetually indignant, loud- and foul-mouthed, jealous, depressed, unhappy, increasingly overweight and petrified of her wholesale inadequacies.

    At ages 18-25 she is a part time student, part time carousel rider of prolific proportions. Degrees, career starts and penises are her preoccupations. Any union with a modest, hard-working man is completely out of the question in her mind.

    Only at ages 25+ will she even consider long-term relationship or marriage, and by that time she must persuade a beta male (as the alpha’s have had their way) to accept her horrible decisions and mistakes and her hotdog down a hallway physiologogy.

    Yes. It’s crass, but nevertheless descriptive of the third-rate leftovers that the young working man would have to choose from.

    The idea of a young man living his life in an unfulfilled, perpetual friend zone with an electronic, software-driven female fairy is preposterous and even shameful.

    But now add some more artificial intelligence, mechanical and servo-driven limbs, feminine contours, symmetrical physique and additional programming for kindness, warmth, intrigue, adoration and sexual generosity, It’s only a few years away.
    What was once preposterous and shameful becomes not only possible but preferable.

  219. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    You can’t discuss fixing a system without acknowledging the problems,

    But you can discuss fixing a system in the context of only acknowledging some problems, i.e. ignoring that big old elephant in the room by focusing all the attention on a cat in the corner.

    We already see some of that, in the endless variations of “Man Up And Marry That Slut” (Pastor Fiene, today I am looking at you) as a “fix” for the current AF-BB system. The shaming will continue even as the number of churchgoing men that it can be applied to continues to dwindle – the white knight, woman-pedesatelizng betas (Hello again, Pastor Fiene) will just double down.

    It is already failing at the margins, so more doubling down is required. When ManUP begins to fail harder, then some other solution will be found. But given that women are now their own betas, and don’t need resources, a greater use of sperm banks by unmarried women seems more likely than any effort by the white knighting tradcons to actually change the incentives. Sure, that means more single mothers, probably with just one child, in churches – but a lot of church leaders have already decided single mothers are de facto “widows”, so the support structure is already in place within the churches. It would only make the problems that Podles documented in churches worse (more feminization, obviously) but that’s a longer term issue, and frankly I don’t see all that many church people thinking in long term ways.

    After 6 or more years at this, I’ve come to the conclusion that church leaders are deathly afraid of losing the approval of women. They’d rather preside over a dwindling congregation of babymommas, or accept polygamy / polyandry than ever tell a woman to submit to her husband. It’s not cold calculation of the pocketbook, although that may be a factor, it’s an emotional reaction. That’s why most of them cannot be reasoned out of their pedestalizing white-knight mindset, because they didn’t reason themselves into it.

  220. Melmoth says:

    Yeah, sugar and liquid calories are the culprits. The only way I can drop a few pounds is by eliminating sugar (and alcohol). You could likely go from 3500cal a day to 2200cal and stay the same weight if you’re giving your body the leeway to manufacture body fat with the insulin spikes of sugar. That’s my opinion. You’ll hear people simplify it; “Calories in/Calories out, that’s what it’s all about” but I think it’s more complex. If you’re a bit of a sweet tooth, your body’s hormonal range can manufacture fat even though you’re not eating that much really. Like that fat buddy of yours who simply doesn’t eat all that much. It’s because he knocks down a few soft drinks a day, plus a few beers too which allows his body to get all kinds of extra mileage out of his normal-range caloric intake. Hormonal manipulation is a big part of weight loss/fitness. Drop sugar (and especially ALL fruit juice/sports drink/energy tea etc) and your body’s insulin range normalizes. You’ll actually be way less hungry too which will obviously work in your favor. The most well-hidden secret, imo, is how unhealthy fruit juice is. Orange juice has the same sugar level of soft drinks. That’s a disaster.

  221. Melmoth says:

    Lyn87,

    Physical slovenliness is never given enough attention. I think it’s more interesting to get into the higher realms of sociological/theological/psychological discussion because there’s more play there but obesity is the elephant in the room. I’ve made this comment before and it’s my go-to contribution but I can’t get over it; rampant female obesity blows away all other factors when it comes to understanding the overall decline. But it comes up with Fiene. Look at how he just kicks things off with “Women are more than just beauty and raw sexuality” Wooah there! Hold up. The level of women who don’t even qualify for his discussion runs at about 70-85% these days then. Does he realize that? Did he intentionally dismiss the non-beautiful and the ones lacking ‘raw sexuality’ (because they’re 60 pounds overweight)?

  222. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS

    Not to throw a wrench in the works, but I’m going to contradict some of the advice Lyn and AR gave you above.

    I agree with removing sugar from your diet and limiting (or even removing) simple carbohydrates. However, I recommend a “strength first” approach, especially for men past 40 who are naturally losing muscle and testosterone.

    By “strength first”, I mean that – along with removing sugar from your diet – you should go through a novice strength training program that gradually, incrementally increases the weight you lift with each session. This program should focus on training the major barbell movements – deadlifts, squats, overhead presses, bench presses and (maybe) cleans*. If you can do pull-ups or chin-ups, do those too. If not, you can substitute lat pull-downs or (as I prefer) use assistance bands.

    The novice phase of strength training ends when you can no longer add weight with each session. How long that takes depends on many different factors, so I can’t predict how long it’ll take you. It might be 6 months, or it could be a year or more. In the process, you’ll get a hell of a lot stronger.

    Once your strength gains taper off, you can start a conditioning program. Strength makes it easier to ratchet up the intensity with other physical attributes, and helps prevent injury, which means you’ll be better able to maximize the benefits of conditioning.

    Strength training is better than “cardio” for fat loss anyway, and a combination of both is best.

    I recommend Mark Rippetoe’s “Starting Strength”. It’s the best novice program I’ve tried, but pretty much any novice program that employs the major barbell movements I listed above, and increases the weight you lift with each session will get you strong very quickly.

    You can read through lots of articles at the Starting Strength site before you commit to buying the book.

    http://startingstrength.com/

    Either way – whether you choose to go with conditioning first, or strength first – it’s a whole lot better than nothing.

    Good luck, sir!

    * Cleans aren’t absolutely necessary, particularly for older trainees who are non-athletes, so if you want to omit them, you can.

  223. Oscar says:

    @ Melmoth says:
    February 13, 2017 at 1:51 pm

    “… obesity is the elephant in the room.”

    Ba-dum-pum-CHING!

  224. Melmoth says:

    Gottman’s ‘girlish games work better in marriage’ because the game of marriage is over with “I do” anyway. She has his past, present and future resources on lock down right when the ring is placed and her obligations are utterly gone. So the fact that most women will regress back to sandbox power struggle antics is irrelevant anyway, unless you just want to take it for the very obvious character revelation of most modern women. Then use that information to help you navigate life more wisely. Taxpayer money funds Gottman’s roundabout simping lovesong to his wife for that bi-annual handy.

  225. BillyS says:

    Dale, you agreed with archer above, so I assumed you meant that agreement.

    I know this will be blunt; your question is stupid. It is stupid, as it shows that you have swallowed the feminist lie that men are the sexual aggressors; that THEY would have “give in” to ME. “Poor princess WANTS to stay pure, but the bad boys forced my special snowflake to have sex with 5 different men in 2 years as she strove to find ‘the one’.”

    Quit dancing around the issue. Was their willingness to have sex with you prior to marriage the factor in disqualifying them?

    it sounds like that was not the case, though it would appear the case in archer’s position, except that he has no intention to marry, so all his posturing about sex outside marriage is just like AT’s. Perhaps he is really AT under a different name.

    All your other arguments went against your own straw man, not what I asked.

  226. BillyS says:

    I agree about the carbs Lyn87. I also avoid heartburn when I stick low carb. I just need to get more structured in my eating and be dilligent about it. I lost some weight because of the divorce, but I am at a new plateau, which is good. I am around 290 now and need to get down to about 220. The charts say 190-200, but I can’t see that ever happening, given my frame.

    AR,

    I completely stopped diet sodas a while back. I have been doing Soda Stream and mixing that with a little Simply Lime juice, but I should probably just cut out the juice part. I have much less of a sweet tooth, but you are right that completely cutting that out would be best.

    I did get an Instant Pot to replace the slow cooker my wife took, and it makes some food prep very easy.

    Plain coffee is rough, but probably better, if I have coffee at all. I don’t really like the stuff, just the caffeine. I can probably live with some in unsweetened tea (in Texas of all places) and just do without otherwise.

    Oscar,

    I got that book a long while back, but I am not sure where to put things into practice. One place does have that, but they are $140 per month with very limited access times. (Plus they are CrossFit and I that seems a bit cultish to me.) I have my dad’s muscles, so weight lifting will work well. I have strong muscles without doing much of anything, so getting into shape should be well worth the effort.

    Anyone found a good approach for weights that will work with a big box gym?

    (Thanks all for the input. I know most of it already, but reinforcement is good. Motivation is a bit tougher now. I am playing too much PS4 (Destiny) and need to force myself to be more active in many ways.)

  227. Gunner Q says:

    BillyS @ 3:57 pm:
    “Motivation is a bit tougher now. I am playing too much PS4 (Destiny) and need to force myself to be more active in many ways.”

    You need a class. That’s how I find motivation. My current schedule is kickboxing 3-4 times a week with simple stretches & hand weights on the off days so I don’t lose progress. That plus an active worklife and running errands on my bicycle keep me fit & trim.

    As a bonus, gym class keeps you from evening loneliness. By the time you put exercise, shower and dinner into a weeknight, there’s no time to brood.

  228. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS

    “Anyone found a good approach for weights that will work with a big box gym?”

    That depends on the gym. As long as it has squat racks, benches and a place to do deadlifts, it’ll work. If it doesn’t, or if the staff won’t let you do deadlifts, then it won’t work.

    Obviously, professional coaching is ideal, but I’ve made due with coaching videos on YouTube.

    Filming yourself, then checking your technique, also helps. You can even upload videos onto the Starting Strength Forums and get pointers.

    http://startingstrength.com/resources/forum/forum155/

  229. Anonymous Reader says:

    Billy_S

    Sugar is added to so many things it’s ridiculous, reading labels matters more than ever. Putting half and half into coffee is better for you than putting sugar into it, if you have the lactose tolerant genes.

    (Plus they are CrossFit and I that seems a bit cultish to me.)

    Crossfit is a one-size-fits-all kind of operation. People get injured there too much for my taste.
    You can do better on your own in the garage, or at a bare bones gym, with the right technique and you don’t have to spend hours per day in the process. In fact, both Pilates and High Intensity Training are the exact opposite of the usual “exercise regimen” we get sold.

    Be sure that your core is in good shape before starting Pilates or heavy lifting, IMO.

    Just walking 30 min / day 5 days / week will help with endurance, weight reduction and general health. I don’t have the link handy but read a study from a few years back that found “people who walked 5 miles per week” tended to outlive others in their age group. Regardless of how humans got here, we are clearly made to walk, plus it costs nothing.

    This is not medical advice, I am not a doctor or a personal trainer.

  230. Lyn87 says:

    The most important muscle in your body is your heart. Start with cutting calories (carbs first – especially simple carbs), and ramp up the cardio. You’ll burn a crap-ton more energy by moving throughout the day than you will by doing 45 minutes of lifting three times a week. 290 pounds is Super-morbidly obese at any height below six feet, so weight loss is priority #1. I recommend something like this (although anything is better than nothing), and use it whenever you would otherwise be sitting in front of a screen (or stationary in any way). I routinely burn 600 cals a day or more on mine.

  231. I highly recommend a copy of Starting Strength, mostly so you at least know how to do the important lifts properly and some basic programming. (There’s an entire world of Details, so the basics are really important.)

    On the Diet end, I’ve had a good run of success of just suggesting people go Paleo. Not because I think the diet is the best, but the act of radically changing your diet is normally good for dropping a lot of body weight rapidly. Plus, there’s an entire genre of recipes someone can grab quickly enough. (If you can get to the Intermittent Fasting point, it’s really great.)

    This is something of a Christian point, but it also speaks to whole-body health: you need to work to get yourself so you can do a full day fast. Being able to fast has benefits in self-denial, self-control and faithfulness, but the main reason I normally bring it up is that the inability to Fast means your metabolism and cardiovascular systems are not in a good place. (It mostly means your body lacks the ability to adapt to a true calorie deficit and shift energy production. That’s a prelude to much more problematic health concerns.)

  232. BillyS says:

    I am 6′ 2″. Definitely too heavy, but not as bad as some. You would not guess that if you saw me though, but it is far too much.

    I just have to push myself.

    I also have some basic weight stuff at home. Barbells and a bar with weights I got a while back, but never had room to setup. I don’t want to get too heavy alone, but I could do a bit with this. Though the social aspect has merit. I need to connect with so e others as I am almost completely alone now.

    Thanks for all the input everyone.

  233. Melmoth says:

    If you’re about 70 pounds overweight then I would go after that weight first. I am a Rippetoe disciple myself and would almost never advise anyone to do anything but compound lifting under his guidance, but at 290, you ought to spend the next year walking like crazy. Like 2 hours a night if you can. Listen to blogs/music/learn a language. Invest in some really good shoes and walk like your life depends on it and maybe it does. Hike on the weekends. Get down to 220 or even 210 then start in on the compound lifts. Quit the sugar outright, particularly the stuff in juices, energy drinks etc. The liquid sugar intake is what really fires off the insulin. Cycle yourself down. Sugar is not a cold turkey thing. Your blood sugar levels would go berserk so it’s impossible, but start cycling down, substitute honey when you can, eat more fruit, but cycle down and aim for being sugar free in 6 months. When you really, really, really just have to have a coke, then have it, but only drink 3/4. Next time a coke is mandatory, just drink half then have an herbal tea with honey in it. Trick your mind. You’ve got six months. Really focus on those liquid sugars. That’s where most people get killed imo.

  234. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS

    “I also have some basic weight stuff at home. Barbells and a bar with weights I got a while back, but never had room to setup. I don’t want to get too heavy alone, but I could do a bit with this.”

    Do you have a squat rack? If so, you could do everything you need at home, even without a spotter. Safety bars can be set up in squat rack so that, if you need to bail out of a squat or bench press, you can do so safely without a spotter.

    That’s a squat stand, not a power rack, but it’s more affordable at $475, and would easily meet most recreational lifters’ needs. Of the suppliers I’ve tried, Rogue is my favorite.

    http://www.roguefitness.com/

    Again Faster is a close second.

    https://www.againfaster.com/

    They both make high quality stuff that’s relatively affordable, and their customer service is excellent. Most equipment at big box gyms is crap, but there’s no need for anyone but a pro to spend the money on – for example – equipment from Eleiko, which is the favorite of Olympic weightlifters.

    Rogue and Again Faster both make equipment that is right in the middle. Their quality is high enough that it’ll probably last you a lifetime, but it’s affordable enough that they make a home gym a viable option for most of us.

    I like the convenience of working out at home, but, if you feel the need to find a good gym, by all means do so. The camaraderie you find a good gym can be worth the membership fees all by itself. If you ever decide to build a home gym, here’s a good place to start.

    https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2014/5/15/you-only-need-these-6-things-for-a-world-class-home-gym/

  235. BillyS says:

    I do not need sugar soda at all. I also do not need diet soda anymore. I can get all the fizzy water I want with the SodaStream. The carb cravings are the bigger issue. I just need to go hardcore and push the weight down. I have lost substantial weight with low carb in the past. I just need to be faithful to that, or more likely Paleo now. I will also start the walking campaign. That will be good for keeping my mind clear too. I have plenty of audio to listen to if I need that.

  236. Hose_B says:

    @BillyS
    Paleo is AMAZING. And the “zone” plan is best imo. You don’t need to be super strict about weighing out foods or anything. And it’s simply grocery store food. Just follow the basic proportion guidelines and adjust it as you feel is appropriate. It basically inverts the proportions that we (Americans) typically eat. Large meat, with two small veggie sides is considered “healthy”. Paleo will put several larger fruit/veggie/leafy sides with a small protein and a small fats portion. FANTASTIC RESULTS.
    Only downside is that you are eating ALL THE TIME!! It is a ton of food. I was 6’0 and 240, my zone blocks were (3) 5 block meals with (2) 3 block snack and a one block near bed. Worked out maybe 3 days a week. Dropped to 195 in a few months. It is t a diet, but it is changing your diet. It’s a lifestyle shift, but one that you may love!

    If anyone would like the .pdf of the zone block plan, I would be happy to share.
    Also, I ate at restaurants occasionally (just choose with your blocks in mind) and even ate Pizza a few times. Remember it’s a lifestyle change. As Melmoth stated, cycling down in the key. Cold turkey is awful

  237. Anonymous says:

    “Won’t be surprised if the next turn of the You Go Grrl is all about embracing teh porn as sexual liberation because Where Have All The Sexy Men gone, frankly. But I also won’t be surprised if the current blatant hypocricy continues, either.”

    This was said way earlier, but having browsed some of the more edgier versions of the internet, I’ve seen women talk about videotaped porn and drawn porn comics exactly with a feminist slant.

    They say that they will enjoy the porn comics because “at least the guys are sexy,” while in the same post whining about the porn comics drawn by males because “it’s clear they’ve never had sex with a woman before, lol.” Also complains about sexism in the porn industry.

    It’s literally nothing more than an invasion of anything men like.

  238. BillyS says:

    I have a long way to go, but the discussion here was helpful at a good time. Thanks to all who gave ideas.

    https://billsmithvision.wordpress.com/2017/02/14/keeping-your-focus/

  239. Morgan says:

    It’s clear that feminists are compensating for their lack of cheerfulness and pleasantry by giving away sex. Just like a man with a terrible personality may very well compensate with an expensive car. It’s why the feminists and the sluts so easily teamed up together, it’s actually the same group. These women know their personalities are unattractive and the only way to get a man’s attention is to offer sex. There are no feminists advocating purity as a path for female self improvement because there are no feminists who believe that. I could argue that, while the sexual revolution of the 60s did immediately increase the number of women able to secure commitment from men by giving them the tool of sexual access, for the last 50 years we have been dealing with the repercussions of letting unworthy women into the institution of marriage and corrupting it from within. All family law since then has focused on making it easier for an unworthy wife to avoid all repercussions of her actions. The same thing is happening in the workplace, as more unworthy women, who don’t really want to be there, enter the workforce, the more they complain and the more special compensations they want. We are truly living in the time of the contentious woman.

  240. Morgan says:

    What women should learn from this VR gate box is that they don’t have to give away sex if they’re charming and pleasant and helpful. But sex is easier and also self serving. So they will shame what doesn’t give them value. Probably even double down on how the touch of a real woman is superior to any VR and how real women are complex challenges that real men should enjoy unpacking. While shaming men for wanting to touch a woman.

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