Riding to Lancelot’s rescue.

Several commenters have objected to my previous post, including Hugh Mann:

I think our gracious host doth read too much into these tales – I was brought up on them, and in none of the printed retellings popular in the pre-60s was it implied that the relationship of Lancelot and Guinevere was anything but a betrayal and a tragedy – THE betrayal, in that from it springs the shattering of the fellowship.

What Hollywood’s made of it since might be a different matter.

Commenter Sean Toddington also felt the need to defend Lancelot’s honor:

Firstly it is important to remember that these are fictional characters, and there are a few versions of it all. If you can’t be bothered to read the originals – Mallory is the main one – I suggest that you treat C.S. Lewis with caution.

Note that Toddington incorrectly claims that Thomas Malory’s Lancelot is the original that inspired Chrétien de Troyes.  Yet this isn’t the case, as Malory was born several hundred years later.  More importantly, both Toddington and Mann are missing the fundamental point of my previous post.  The post was not a treatise on the King Arthur legend but about the way that the concept of courtly love has transformed our moral thinking.  As C.S. Lewis explains in The Allegory of Love:

French poets, in the eleventh century, discovered or invented, or were the first to express, that romantic species of passion which English poets were still writing about in the nineteenth. They effected a change which has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched, and they erected impassable barriers between us and the classical past or the Oriental present. Compared with this revolution the Renaissance is a mere ripple on the surface of literature. There can be no mistake about the novelty of romantic love: our only difficulty is to imagine in all its bareness the mental world that existed before its coming—to wipe out of our minds, for a moment, nearly all that makes the food both of modern sentimentality and modern cynicism. We must conceive a world emptied of that ideal of ‘happiness’—a happiness grounded on successful romantic love—which still supplies the motive of our popular fiction

This transformation is so deep that we aren’t aware it ever happened, as we can’t conceive of any other way of thinking.  The concept of courtly love has infected all forms of literature, and is the philosophical foundation for no fault divorce.  Even (and especially) conservative Christian theology has adopted the concept of courtly love.  Again from Lewis:

If the thing at first escapes our notice, this is because we are so familiar with the erotic tradition of modern Europe that we mistake it for something natural and universal and therefore do not inquire into its origins. It seems to us natural that love should be the commonest theme of serious imaginative literature: but a glance at classical antiquity or at the Dark Ages at once shows us that what we took for ‘nature’ is really a special state of affairs, which will probably have an end, and which certainly had a beginning in eleventh-century Provence. It seems—or it seemed to us till lately—a natural thing that love (under certain conditions) should be regarded as a noble and ennobling passion: it is only if we imagine ourselves trying to explain this doctrine to Aristotle, Virgil, St. Paul, or the author of Beowulf, that we become aware how far from natural it is. Even our code of etiquette, with its rule that women always have precedence, is a legacy from courtly love and is felt to be far from natural in modern Japan or India. Many of the features of this sentiment, as it was known to the Troubadours, have indeed disappeared; but this must not blind us to the fact that the most momentous and the most revolutionary elements in it have made the background of European literature for eight hundred years.

Anyone who is tempted to white knight for Lancelot tales in general after reading my post illustrating the absurdity of courtly love using Chrétien de Troyes’ Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart is missing the broader point entirely.  And yet there is also a reason we use the term white knight to describe men who feel compelled to rescue women from the consequences of their own bad behavior. As Know Your Meme explains (emphasis mine):

The term “white knight” is derived from the knight-errant stock character, a medieval figure in romance literature that would perform various acts to prove his chivalry. According to Wikipedia,[1] the term “knight-errant” was first recorded in the 14th-century poem Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, but was developed as a romance genre character during the late 12th century. The first Urban Dictionary[4] definition was submitted by user Jake on November 3rd, 2004, which defined the phrase as a male who attempts to aid a woman in distress.

The “romance genre” in question is the chivalric concept of courtly love, which brings us back to Lancelot and Chrétien de Troyes.  From the Infogalactic version of the Wikipedia article referenced in Know Your Meme:

A knight-errant[1] (or knight errant[2]) is a figure of medieval chivalric romance literature. The adjective errant (meaning “wandering, roving”) indicates how the knight-errant would wander the land in search of adventures to prove his chivalric virtues, either in knightly duels (pas d’armes) or in some other pursuit of courtly love.

The template of the knight-errant are the heroes of the Round Table of the Arthurian cycle such as Gawain, Lancelot and Percival. The quest par excellence in pursuit of which these knights wander the lands is that of the Holy Grail, such as in Perceval, the Story of the Grail written by Chrétien de Troyes in the 1180s.

According to Infogalactic, while there is no canonical version of the Arthur tales, Geoffrey of Monmouth’s Historia Regum Britanniae is generally the starting point for Arthur, Guinevere, and Excalibur.  Yet it was Chrétien de Troyes who added Lancelot and transformed the story into romance:

Many elements and incidents that are now an integral part of the Arthurian story appear in Geoffrey’s Historia, including Arthur’s father Uther Pendragon, the wizard Merlin, Arthur’s wife Guinevere, the sword Excalibur, Arthur’s conception at Tintagel, his final battle against Mordred at Camlann, and final rest in Avalon. The 12th-century French writer Chrétien de Troyes, who added Lancelot and the Holy Grail to the story, began the genre of Arthurian romance that became a significant strand of medieval literature. In these French stories, the narrative focus often shifts from King Arthur himself to other characters, such as various Knights of the Round Table.

Chances are if you have a cherished tale of Lancelot, it has an embedded philosophy of courtly love and you never even noticed it.  This is after all what we love about these tales, even though we aren’t aware that the very concept was manufactured some time in the twelfth century.  We love it without being consciously aware that it even exists, because as Lewis explains it simply seems normal.  Thomas Malory’s The Knight of the Cart, as just one example, is clearly based on Chrétien de Troyes’ Lancelot, the Knight of the Cart.  In fact, it includes a nearly identical scene where Lancelot fights for Guinevere’s honor after she is rightly accused of adultery.  From the Cliff’s Notes:

That night Launcelot goes to the queen’s room, tears an iron grill from her window, cutting his hand, and at her request lies with her. Melliagaunce sees the blood on the bed in the morning and accuses her of faithlessness to Arthur. To save Guinevere from execution at the stake, Launcelot says he will be her champion and sets a day for trial by battle.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in C.S. Lewis, Chivalry, Courtly Love, Romantic Love, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

197 Responses to Riding to Lancelot’s rescue.

  1. Pingback: Riding to Lancelot’s rescue. | @the_arv

  2. It’s another one of those things where if you “feel it is good” you are going to assume it is “good.” More moral relavatism.

    “Marriage is good” is replaced with “romance is good.”

    Adultery is only wrong if marriage is good. If romance is good, then adultery is good because there’s romance.

  3. I only defend Mallory because I think it very clear that Mallory knew what he was doing.

    I go again to the oath the knights take earlier in the story. Lancelot breaks it. He breaks it SPECTACULARLY. This is not a coincidence.

    Your general point is well-taken.

  4. Candide III says:

    Not to disagree with the post, but at least in medieval Japan romantic love had its place – usually in the pleasure quarters or in the context of lovers’ double suicide (心中) – and is a subject of numerous bunraku and kabuki dramas. The wife (or the husband for that matter) was not seen as a proper object of romantic love, though, and while many stories feature men beggaring themselves and their households for one more night with the courtesan, I don’t know of an equivalent of “knight-of-the-cart” or white-knighting in general.

  5. Novaseeker says:

    “Marriage is good” is replaced with “romance is good.”

    Adultery is only wrong if marriage is good. If romance is good, then adultery is good because there’s romance.

    It’s almost at that point, I agree, but not quite. Even most secular people do not like it when someone commits non-consensual adultery — it’s pretty much one of the only things that people actually do still frown upon when it comes to sex and relationships, really. They may have sympathy for the cheating spouse (“her husband didn’t love her properly”, “she couldn’t help ut fall in love with [her lover]”, etc.), but most people still are taken aback, even if a little, by actual non-consensual adultery.

    Outside of that one context, it’s true that romance validates everything — marriage is still to some extent honored not because it is unique but because it “caps” or “certifies” an established, stable romantic relationship. The romance is the justifier, for both non-marital and marital relationships alike.

    Now, I think that we are moving towards a normalization of non-monogamy in committed relationships. It’s moving slowly, but it’s moving in that direction. It’s hard to say when consensual polygamy will be re-legalized (unlike LGBTx, they don’t have a very well-moneyed and influential lobby in both the academy and the media/Hollywood, so it could take a while), but I think that even before that time we are going to see the pushing of “consensual non-monogamy” in LTRs and marriages. The basis will be the same — pursuit of happiness/romance, with the recognition that “some people need both the fire of new romance and the comfortable, stable love of long-term, and it is selfish, mean, narrow-minded and backward to forbid this of someone you love as much as your spouse”, etc. Romantic love will be the justifier, and it will eventually be used to coaxe people to adopt a new norm of consensual non-monogamy in relationships.

    But, that hasn’t happened yet, and it’s unclear when it will actually happen. Right now, it looks like we’re taking a bit of a breather from the breathtaking pace of LGBTx-related social change that happened under Obama, so the timing is even more uncertain, I think.

  6. thedeti says:

    Yeah, I wouldn’t say “society” says “adultery is good if romance is present”. It’s more like “adultery is understandable, even tolerable, if romance is present. The people who are cheating on their spouses love each other or are sexually attracted to each other. That is a good thing. Who are we to say that this is bad? The bad part is their dishonesty with their spouses, not that they had sex with someone else or fell in love with or got attracted to someone else.”

    One reason this society is pushing for more recognition and acceptability of nonmonogamous relationships and marriages is how we see sex. What is sex? What’s its purpose? We’re moving away from sex being something that married couples do with and for each other out of sexual attraction, love and lifelong commitment. We’re moving toward sex being something that people who are attracted to each other do for fun, for a release, to scratch an itch, for validation or affirmation, or just to relieve boredom. Sex is now something people get together to do. An activity, like going to the movies together or playing video games or watching TV. It’s just something to do.

  7. theasdgamer says:

    And if romance is good, then married chastity is bad if there’s romance with a non-spouse.

  8. Frank K says:

    @theDeti – Spot on. Notice how the term “recreational sex” has been dropped from common usage? I think that it’s because now in the popular culture it’s assumed to be recreational, and nothing else.

  9. theasdgamer says:

    Even most secular people do not like it when someone commits non-consensual adultery

    If there’s luurrve, then adultery’s Ok as far as lots of women are concerned. Daytime soap operas to prove my point. And even most who care about adultery will sweep it under the rug if the extramarital affair results in marriage to the new partner.

  10. Dalrock says:

    @Candide III

    Not to disagree with the post, but at least in medieval Japan romantic love had its place – usually in the pleasure quarters or in the context of lovers’ double suicide (心中) – and is a subject of numerous bunraku and kabuki dramas. The wife (or the husband for that matter) was not seen as a proper object of romantic love, though, and while many stories feature men beggaring themselves and their households for one more night with the courtesan, I don’t know of an equivalent of “knight-of-the-cart” or white-knighting in general.

    I don’t claim any knowledge of Japan in this regard, and even if I could I can’t speak for Lewis (since the assertion you are referencing is from him). However, the distinction I think Lewis is talking about is:

    1) The careful separation of emotional sexual passion from physical sexual passion. The Bible for instance is quite approving of sexual passion in the context of marriage, exhorting men to be intoxicated with their wives. But you won’t find this artificial separation of physical and emotional passion in the Bible, and I suspect you won’t find it in Japanese literature (except for modern literature).
    2) The idea that emotional sexual passion is noble and ennobling, that it purifies us, confers morality, and makes us better as men.

  11. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    It’s almost at that point, I agree, but not quite. Even most secular people do not like it when someone commits non-consensual adultery — it’s pretty much one of the only things that people actually do still frown upon when it comes to sex and relationships, really.

    Yes. Aside from romantic love, our only constraint for sexual morality is the rule of “one at a time”. Ride the carousel all you want, but dismount from one rooster before mounting the next one.

  12. Novaseeker says:

    That is a good thing. Who are we to say that this is bad? The bad part is their dishonesty with their spouses, not that they had sex with someone else or fell in love with or got attracted to someone else.

    I think that’s basically right, but the dishonesty with the spouse part still seems to irk many people. Also, if it results in destruction of a marriage with kids, you will lose significant social standing, and some friendships, if you are educated professional types. I think this is another reason we will see a slow push towards consensual non-monogamy — consensual non-monogamy removes the “dishonesty with the spouse” part from the equation, and also deligitimizes breaking up the marriage, by either spouse, due to a spouse sleeping with, or having a romance with, someone else. If you get rid of the dishonesty to the spouse issue and the impact on the kids issue, you’re golden — another reason why I think we will see pressures in this way.

  13. DrTorch says:

    FWIW, I have never liked Arthurian legend. And Lancelot was always disgusting.

  14. Dalrock says:

    @Candide III

    Two more thoughts come to mind.

    1) Another difference that I think Lewis was referring to with respect to Japan and India is what he calls “our code of etiquette, with its rule that women always have precedence”. For example, the importance of opening doors for women, drowning so women can have extra leg room in lifeboats, etc. Think of how many women were outraged by “men’s behavior” on Costa Concordia. The ship sank at night, and the captain delayed the evacuation of the ship and refused to radio for help. Amazingly only 42 people didn’t survive out of 4,252. Yet the women on board, and those reading along vicariously, were cruelly denied the Full Titanic Experience by the thousands of men on board who refused to drown in a grand heroic (and futile) gesture.

    2) This part is strikingly similar to European thought both prior to the age of courtly love and in the centuries between the introduction of courtly love and the Reformation and Counter-Reformation:

    The wife (or the husband for that matter) was not seen as a proper object of romantic love

  15. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    I think that’s basically right, but the dishonesty with the spouse part still seems to irk many people. Also, if it results in destruction of a marriage with kids, you will lose significant social standing, and some friendships, if you are educated professional types. I think this is another reason we will see a slow push towards consensual non-monogamy — consensual non-monogamy removes the “dishonesty with the spouse” part from the equation, and also deligitimizes breaking up the marriage, by either spouse, due to a spouse sleeping with, or having a romance with, someone else. If you get rid of the dishonesty to the spouse issue and the impact on the kids issue, you’re golden — another reason why I think we will see pressures in this way.

    Interesting. If you are right, another reason we will see this is there will always need to be a distinction between good girl and slut, no matter how absurdly we draw the line. Feminists wanted to abolish the distinction, but women won’t (can’t) have it. Such an arrangement (a permitting husband) would formally confer good girl status on the variety seeking slut. However, I am not convinced this would be workable. There is as you mention the practical issue of tearing apart families, and (for the MC and especially UMC the important part) the disadvantage this places on a woman’s children. Regardless of intentions, this kind of arrangement is inherently unstable. This is the same group that approaches pre school selection as if it were college admission. The other problem is that such a husband is so pathetic that he destroys the very status she is using him for. Boring betas confer status, albeit boringly. Cucks do not.

    Lastly, I think it just stretches the “good girl” envelope too far. Right now women can embrace promiscuity with gusto prior to marriage, and then be formally declared a good girl via public ceremony/proclamation. Even with divorce, reentry into the carousel is done under the narrative of returning to their noble quest for marriage.

  16. rugby11 says:

    Lady of the lake

  17. Opus says:

    I am having here to disagree with Novaseeker. If the adultery is committed by the female then of course this will as he says be acceptable as it always has been, but adultery will not be acceptable if committed by the man. It will then be as heretofore in the man’s better interests to keep his extra-marital dalliance secret. Even if he thus conceals his infidelity it will however not be long before he is being pressured by his new romantic interest to end his marriage with a view to commitment.

    …but perhaps I am wrong. A fortnight ago i received via Visagebook a message from a scorned woman who attached to the message a fifty page print-out of various cyber-messages between her and her then lover (a married man). I know neither of these people, but I do know the married woman whom the man in question was in the e-mails boasting or perhaps confessing to having previously carried on an affair. I was not the only person to receive these texts and a copy went to the latter woman’s husband (and all his Fb friends). This latter woman denies the truth of any of the allegations and her husband is thus persuaded of his wife’s innocence.

  18. Anon says:

    Yet the women on board, and those reading along vicariously, were cruelly denied the Full Titanic Experience by the thousands of men on board who refused to drown in a grand heroic (and futile) gesture.

    Is this really something that most women want? For men to die for nothing more than female self-aggrandizing? I mean, if that is the case, then women having the right to vote is a fatally wrong policy.

    Well, Rich Lowry and other cuckservatives at National Review certainly thought so.

  19. Dalrock says:

    @Anon

    Is this really something that most women want? For men to die for nothing more than female self-aggrandizing?

    I wouldn’t say most women (but at times it does seem this way), but I see no other way to characterize the outrage by many women (and their cuckservative enablers) regarding the average male passenger and crewmember on Costa Concordia. As I noted above 99% of the souls on board were rescued, despite the conditions and the actions of the captain to thwart the rescue. Yet the men on board were roundly condemned. As the Daily Mail put it at the time in Whatever happened to women and children first?

    When the Titanic went down in April 1912, the Captain’s orders were: ‘Women and children first!’

    Although this legendary edict was never part of maritime law, it was adhered to so strictly on the Titanic that men were actually stopped from boarding lifeboats, many of which went to sea only three-quarters full.

    There were only a few exceptions to the unvarying tales of heroism: three men in steerage who disobeyed the rule — Italians, coincidentally — were shot.

    The chivalry was reflected in survival rates: 74 per cent of the women were saved; 52 per cent of the children; and just 20 per cent of the men.

    It meant that Titanic’s sinking quickly became the stuff of mythology.

    The callousness of this attitude is truly breathtaking. The message huge numbers of modern women learned from the incredibly selfless (and unneeded) sacrifice of men on the Titanic was simply that this was the blueprint for all future shipwrecks; this was what women deserved. When the men of the Concordia failed to deliver the expected romantic gesture, there was open, unashamed outrage.

  20. Pingback: Riding to Lancelot’s rescue. | Reaction Times

  21. Frank K says:

    “And even most who care about adultery will sweep it under the rug if the extramarital affair results in marriage to the new partner.”

    Oh my, yes, I have seen this in my own social circles. When the adultress marries the guy she cheated with everyone thinks it’s great that she found her “true love” and “she’s happy now.” Of course, that is all forgotten when the second marriage goes down the toilet after just a few years. Then you get to hear that “marriage is obsolete” and “relationships aren’t lifelong”.

  22. PeterW. says:

    It doesn’t detract from the main argument, but I’m going to make another small protest at the assumption that “romance” only applies to sex.

    It is a quality, aura or glamour, akin to beauty. An attitude with which we regard certain things as “special”.

    Martial skill and courage have long been regarded as “romantic” . The lone gunfighter, knight or Samurai are classic examples, even when they ride off into the sunset. The Forlorn Hope. The putting of duty before dishonour.

    “For how can man die better,
    Than facing fearful odds.
    For the ashes of his fathers,
    And the temples of his gods.”

    Or…..

    “Theirs was not to reason why.
    Theirs was but to do or die.”

    In either case, without romance there is nothing but mathematics. Did they win or lose, and how big was the butcher’s bill? Self-sacrifice becomes nothing more than a bad bargain.

    It’s no-where near the most popular conception of “romance” when applied to sex, but rightly viewed, there is romance in remaining faithful and committed in the face of temptation and disappointment. As a counter example (as I said, nowhere near as mainstream, but valid) I would toss in the novel, “The White Ladies of Worcester” http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1261486.The_White_Ladies_of_Worcester
    Set in the 12th century, the knight and the lady become engaged on the eve of his departure for the Crusades. While he is away, both parties are led to believe that the other has broken their engagement and married another. She enters a convent and he devotes himself to fighting. Years later, he returns , having learnt of the duplicity that separated them and desiring that she uphold the promise of their engagement. She is faced with the conflict between her engagement vows and her vows to God as a nun. He is determined that she must make her decision in complete integrity, even if it is against his own convictions and self-interest.
    That is “High Romance”. The submission of personal desire to duty and integrity (honour).

    I’ll further toss in the observation that the Birkenhead Drill is not sexual in nature (dead men don’t get much sex) , or about women ruling men. It stems from the Christian principle that the right use of strength is to protect the weak and to uphold the Right. Also that it’s not particularly valid to compare a culture that supports equality of value between the sexes and the necessity for consent in marriage…… with cultures that do not. We may be interpreting Lewis poorly, if we only compare the fallacy of perverted “courtly love” with the equally fallacious pagan culture of treating women and sex as objects of utility and animal lust.

  23. Snowy says:

    I particularly like Lewis’ observation that “Even our code of etiquette, with its rule that women always have precedence, is a legacy from courtly love and is felt to be far from natural in modern Japan or India.”

    However, it seems for we men born into this gynocentric first world system that it goes way deeper than simple etiquette: it seems to go to the very core of our being, our way of thinking. It seems the natural state to us is blue pill deference to women. Little wonder the red pill is so difficult to swallow, and not revert to blue pill thinking.

    Smart man, that Lewis.

  24. Random Angeleno says:

    Back during the controversy over the Concordia sinking, many red pilled men made the point that they would only care about the women they were related to and that since women usually did not show the qualities for which they might deserve protection by a stranger, those not related to them did not deserve their protection. In other words, I’ll take care of my wife/girlfriend and our mothers, and other women I’m related to, but I won’t lift a finger for women I don’t know.

  25. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    I’m really having a had time understanding how people don’t get this whole thing about the Arthur legends. They’re Christianized pagan tales. They’re very romantic and great stories – I was raised on this stuff ever since I saw the Sword in the Stone as a kid and ate up every version I could get my hands on. Yet I never once regarded any of the courtly love romantic stories as something to emulate or a source of morality. In fact, I always found them as a cautionary tale. What makes them romantic are not the relationships, but their tragic quality. Notice that none of them end well or “happily ever after.”

    If you’re looking for a source of sexual morality or biblical marriage, the last place you go to are the Arthur legends.

  26. Snowy says:

    @Random Angelano

    I guess the point is that the socio-cultural expectation is that women and children always come first, that is before men. In all things, not just sinking ships. While we can understand children getting priority, with red pill awareness, we query why women should automatically get priority. Just because? Just because…vagina?

  27. Anon says:

    Dalrock,

    I wouldn’t say most women (but at times it does seem this way), but I see no other way to characterize the outrage by many women (and their cuckservative enablers) regarding the average male passenger and crewmember on Costa Concordia. As I noted above 99% of the souls on board were rescued, despite the conditions and the actions of the captain to thwart the rescue. Yet the men on board were roundly condemned. As the Daily Mail put it at the time in Whatever happened to women and children first?

    The depressing nuance here is that it is not just that men should die to save women when a male sacrifice does save a woman (which is already wrong), they want men to die in a sacrifice even when no extra women will be saved.

    So the man is not dying to save a woman’s life, the man is expected to die even when women are not in danger in order for a script of female entitlement to play out.

    Not to mention that women use children as human shields.

  28. Boxer says:

    Back during the controversy over the Concordia sinking, many red pilled men made the point that they would only care about the women they were related to and that since women usually did not show the qualities for which they might deserve protection by a stranger, those not related to them did not deserve their protection. In other words, I’ll take care of my wife/girlfriend and our mothers, and other women I’m related to, but I won’t lift a finger for women I don’t know.

    Which is perfectly appropriate and exactly as it should be.

    In the old days, it was reasonable to defend the health and safety of random women, because any random woman you would run across would be the wife or daughter or mother of some productive member of your tribe/nation, and because you would also have female relatives that you’d want protected.

    These days, any random woman you run across in public is just as likely to be a skank-ho single mom, or a hardened feminist. No man of quality would lift a finger for any such person.

    If a woman is in trouble, and you know her to be a good solid person, then sure, you should help her out. If not, well, just walk on by.

    Boxer

  29. RedPillPaul says:

    @Anon,

    Its mens lives to be sacrificed on the alter of woman worship. At the end of the day, if you are not on a path of submission to God (Father/Son/Holy Spirit), you are on a path to be your own God (everyone wants to be god)

  30. Anon says:

    In other words, men are supposed to die even when no one needs to die.

    More proof that women having the right to vote is simply not morally sound.

  31. Anon says:

    If a woman is in trouble, and you know her to be a good solid person, then sure, you should help her out. If not, well, just walk on by.

    Ditto.

  32. the bandit says:

    @ The Question

    If you’re looking for a source of sexual morality or biblical marriage, the last place you go to are the Arthur legends.

    Most people don’t go consciously looking for their source of sexual morality. Courtly love has permeated our culture to a degree that we don’t even recognize it as a historical oddity. It didn’t get this way because people went actively looking for instruction on romance from Arthurian legend; in fact, most people today have probably never even read the Arthurian tales or know anything about them. (I’ve only read Gawain, myself.) All the same, the Arthurian tales—or, rather, the French poetical take on them from the eleventh century, as Lewis points out—is where the concept took root and grew into the massive tree in whose shade we all live today.

    When you are steeped in this courtly love from childhood, by the time you get around to actively looking for a source of sexual morality, you end rejecting its validity because it contradicts what you’ve already been unconsciously taught sexual morality must have (romance).

  33. Dalrock says:

    @anon

    In other words, men are supposed to die even when no one needs to die.

    It is actually worse. Far fewer women and children would have died on Titanic if it weren’t for the women and children first policy. The lifeboat launch was greatly delayed because the women were afraid to board without the men, and many of the boats were launched without being filled. Had they followed the same policy on Costa Concordia, many more lives would have been lost in the resulting chaos.

    The desire is for the romantic gesture even at the cost of the lives of women and children.

  34. PeterW. says:

    A further thought…..
    Practical attempts to integrate women into front-line ground combat units have consistently snagged on what appears to be an instinctive drive in men to protect (their) women. I insert (their) because comradeship in military units is frequently strong and not the same as protecting random, unknown females. (There are any amount of examples of cultures in which females from other tribes are regarded as legitimate targets.)

    So much so, that no major military nation has managed to do so successfully.

    Yes, America seems determined to repeat that mistake, and yes, men will die needlessly because of it.

  35. PeterW. says:

    Another observation when comparing medieval “courtly live” with that of its pagan predecessors, is that the Greeks, Romans and a number of other pagan cultures had created for themselves pantheons of gods who were no better than the men that they were supposed to rule. How could you condemn a man for doing what the gods themselves did? Indeed, immorality was sometimes approved by the gods, witness the divine commendation of Odysseus and a man able to come up with a lie to suit any eventuality. Clever, but not moral.

    A nominally Christian society does not have that excuse for immorality, because the Judeo-Christian tradition explicitly condemns immorality. Therefore it s hardly surprising that the immoral invent heroes whose behaviour – like that of the pagan gods – excuses their own.

  36. imnobody00 says:

    Great post. I am European and I have lived in USA and Latin America. So I know that all Western cultures have this courtly love thing. C.S.Lewis was right.

    However, I am POSITIVE that it’s FAR more extreme in English-speaking countries. This is why feminism is so virulent in these countries. Men are more prone to do anything to please women in USA than in France, Spain, Mexico or Central America. Including changing society for feminism to succeed.

    Is it the Victorian concept of “the angel in the house”? Is it the emotional Religious Awakenings? The lack of women in USA colonies? The feminine ideal of the Eternal Mother being transferred from the Virgin Mary to today’s women? (Moms have a higher status in USA, in my opinion) I don’t know.

    There are things that seems very ridicule and strange when seen from foreign eyes. Women considering themselves “goddesses” (this would be ridiculed to death by foreign women). Men considering themselves “knights” (see the Christian sci-fi author “John C.Wright” how he sees himself and his concept of romantic love, which seems pagan to me). “Something is rotten in the Anglosphere”, my friends.

  37. Anonymous Reader says:

    PeterW, it looks to me that you are dancing around with “No True Romance”. The very word “romantic” has multiple meanings, ranging from the Troubador movement Dalrock and others are pointing to from 800 or more years ago, to Jane Austin in the early 19th century, to a certain literary and artistic movement of the 19th century, to Jane Austin wannabes of the 20th century, to the thinly disguised porn novels on Goodreads right now.

    Definition by example leads to contradiction. You can’t lump Jane Austin in with 50 Shades of Grey with any credibility, to be really blunt. Plus it’s way too late to attempt to force everyone to use one preferred definition, from over 150 years ago.

    And finally, you appear to be trying to change the subject away from the long-term influence of the Courtly Romance on culture, culminating in the modern mess of marriage. Maybe you didn’t mean to do that, but it looks like it.

  38. Anonymous Reader says:

    PeterW
    Practical attempts to integrate women into front-line ground combat units have consistently snagged on what appears to be an instinctive drive in men to protect (their) women.
    So much so, that no major military nation has managed to do so successfully.

    How would you define “success” or “major military nation”? The Soviets included women of necessity in the 1941- 1945 war in various roles: aviation (transport, bomber), sniper, anti-aircraft units for example. The Chinese Communist and Vietnamese Communist forces included women in various roles. It is worth noting that these were all crisis situations, and that women were removed from military forces afterwards.

    Of course, the Communists were never affected by the cult of courtly love, either. So it appears you just proved Dalrock’s point indirectly.

  39. Oscar says:

    @ theasdgamer says:
    March 17, 2017 at 1:50 pm

    “If there’s luurrve, then adultery’s Ok as far as lots of women are concerned.”

    I posted this in the previous thread before I realized the conversation had moved on. Behold the latest addition to the genre of cuckoldry porn for women!

    Note that the story is set against the backdrop of the Armenian genocide, because – obviously – a story about Muslims slaughtering millions of Christians can’t possibly be compelling on its own, and only one thing can make it so… cuckoldry!

  40. feeriker says:

    …we query why women should automatically get priority. Just because? Just because…vagina?

    Yes, and although women hate, Hate, HATE it when you put it in terms so blunt, they will ultimately be forced to admit that, yes, vagina=a golden ticket for head-of-the-line privileges for a life extension.

  41. PeterW. says:

    AR….

    What I SAID was that romance is a quality, not confined to love or sex. The examples that I cite disprove the claim that it is confined only to sexual relationships.
    So no, nothing LIKE the “no true romance” fallacy, but on the contrary, it includes things that I find romantic, but you may not, and vice-versa.

    WRT the use of women in combat, you might care to actually read instead of skimming. The only significant military nations that deployed INTEGRATED GROUND-COMBAT units on the front line, have quietly backed away from it. The Russians no longer regard women as front-line infantry, and while the Israelis do maintain a couple of female units partly officered by men, those units are used for policing quiet borders and post-combat intelligence gathering. There is a big difference between “push-button warfare” and/or driving machines and doing what infantry do.

    The women-in-infantry trope is driven by the same silliness as all other white-knighting.

  42. feeriker says:

    These days, any random woman you run across in public is just as likely to be a skank-ho single mom, or a hardened feminist. No man of quality would lift a finger for any such person.

    If a woman is in trouble, and you know her to be a good solid person, then sure, you should help her out. If not, well, just walk on by.

    What’s really sad is that more than a few men today who’ve swallowed the RP probably look around them at the women of their own families and think to themselves “I wouldn’t lift a finger to save these bitches either.”

  43. Fatmanjudo says:

    Courtly love is viewed as superior for the simple reason that it was by choice of the parties themselves. Marriage for most of human existence is nothing more than a business transaction. Especially for those of court. Why the inclusion of male sacrifice I have no idea but it may have something to do with the fact that if found out the male will pay with his life. My two cents.

  44. Anonymous Reader says:

    PeterW
    What I SAID was that romance is a quality, not confined to love or sex. The examples that I cite disprove the claim that it is confined only to sexual relationships.
    So no, nothing LIKE the “no true romance” fallacy, but on the contrary, it includes things that I find romantic, but you may not, and vice-versa.

    In other words, an attempt to shift the topic away from the original posting.

    WRT the use of women in combat, you might care to actually read instead of skimming.

    Ironic.

    The only significant military nations that deployed INTEGRATED GROUND-COMBAT units on the front line, have quietly backed away from it.

    Yes, I clearly stated that. Thanks for agreeing.

    The Russians no longer regard women as front-line infantry,

    The Soviets never regarded women as front line infantry, as I stated: “Sniper / aviation / AAA”, remember? You might care to actually read instead of skimming.

    and while the Israelis do maintain a couple of female units partly officered by men, those units are used for policing quiet borders and post-combat intelligence gathering.

    The IDF only used women in front line combat briefly in 1948 for some reason or other that you may have heard of. Since then, not. However, you have clearly decided to shift your goalposts, because the IDF is in no way a major force along the lines of the PLA or the Red Army / Soviet Army or even the Viet Cong / NVA.

    Finally, all of this smoke you are blowing is clearly a distraction away from Dalrock’s OP.
    Are you riding to Lancelot’s rescue, perhaps?

    What’s your opinion on the OP?

  45. DeNihilist says:

    Breaking up is hard to do.

    According to this survey, women take a break up harder, but recover quicker. Men hurt less but for longer.

    http://bigthink.com/ideafeed/breaking-up-feels-different-for-men-and-women

    Yet more men off themselves after a serious break-up. Hmmm…..

  46. Anon says:

    Dalrock,

    The desire is for the romantic gesture even at the cost of the lives of women and children.

    Yes. The only good news is that too few men heeded the shaming language (apparently), and the few that did were probably manginas and cuckservatives who should face the consequences of their stupidity anyway.

    I wonder if there is any indication of what level of whiteknighting was present on the Costa Concordia, vs. not. I do recall about half of the commenters at National Review engaging in cartoonish chivalry – claiming that if they were there, they would pin down men to let women get on the boats faster, or even toss overboard the men who tried to leave before women, etc. The other half were purple pill……

  47. Anon says:

    As I noted above 99% of the souls on board were rescued, despite the conditions and the actions of the captain to thwart the rescue.

    Why did the captain thwart the rescue, and refuse to radio for help? What could he gain by that course of action?

  48. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    @PeterW

    What I SAID

    What you said (or, rather, wrote) is irrelevant. “Anonymous Reader” (not to be confused with “Anon”) is here because he’s a masochist, who delights in hostile banter. Years ago, when he was making up nonsensical lies out of whole cloth about another fella named IBB, I started to suspect that he was a feminist. In the interim, it has become clear that he’s neither smart nor stable enough to qualify for the jezebel ranks.

    The more you reply to him, the more he’ll keep dragging it out. Trust me, it doesn’t matter. He has the typical SJW dishonesty. He’s also clearly not a very happy person, and insulting him makes him feel *alive* in some sick way.

    Debate the issues with bright people who can make valid arguments.

    @Anon

    Yes. The only good news is that too few men heeded the shaming language (apparently), and the few that did were probably manginas and cuckservatives who should face the consequences of their stupidity anyway.

    A bit of a blast from the past…

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/01/21/why-wasnt-it-women-and-children-first/

    The Spearhead and Heartiste both also had excellent writeups on this funny scandal. Dedicated men can probably find them.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  49. Dismal Farmer says:

    Yes. You are right and the cucks are wrong.

  50. Rollory says:

    “In other words, men are supposed to die even when no one needs to die.”

    Have you never seen Pirates of Penzance?

    If not, you should.

  51. RandomGuyRandom says:

    I know a bit about Arthurian legend and it’s hard for me to see the connection between courtly love and modern romance
    Courtly love has it that there is never any love between a man and his wife, marriage is inherently unloving and it’s supposed to be Beyond sex so it turns into this mystical transcendent devotion not marred by fleshy love. It’s a mix between silly and vile as the men constantly debase themselves, bow, worship, and kiss ass to the objects of their affection. While there are guys who do that I don’t think this defines the popular conception of romance, if you look at romance in the media the guy who gets the chick is always a smarmy funny cocky guy, they had a show called Community where the horndog lead is just like that. I do see lots of media having guys prioritize women in ways they shouldn’t but the depth of the “m’ladyisms” you see in arthurian tales are never reached in modern media. They’re also not mandatory in arthurian legend, in Eric and Enide he tests his wife after it she says she’s worried that she’s harmed his reputation because the other knights are making fun of him because all he does is fuck his wife and never goes to tournaments or on adventures. At multiple times in the tale he tells her to hold her tongue even if it’s to warn him of danger ahead and by the end of it they’ve traveled so far and gone through so much that her clothes are in tatters and she’s near naked. This is hardly the kind of self-effacing cuck-courtly love you’d expect (it’s still outlandish and cartoonish) but it’s not like these authors start the tales by saying “I will now write a tale about courtly love”, that’s just a category created to understand the tropes they usually engage in it’s not hard and fast rules like the structure of a sonnet.

    For some added perspective The Knight of the Cart was written at the request of a female patron (whose ass is thoroughly kissed at the start of the tale), it reads more like female erotica with a knight who is perfect, amazing, inhumanly strong, etc and completely debases himself and fawns over the object of his affection (how awesome is she to get a perfect man to make a fool of himself?). Female erotica is always about hot ice, the tamed alpha male who is dominant perfect and amazing but completely devoted to and a fool for the female lead (and ideally there’s more than one man competing for this goddess among women!). Gawain and the wedding of Dame Ragnelle(might be misspelled) has the loathly lady reveal that the utmost desire of all women is to have sovereignty over men and when gawain grants her this “sovereignty” (he lets her decide whether she should be cursed to be ugly only at night or day) he’s rewarded with a beautiful wife more gorgeous than the queen, the granting of sovereignty is quite shallow though seeing as it’s only one decision.
    There’s a lot of out there moments in the knight of the cart, there’s a woman who offers lancelot her house to sleep in if he promises to spend the night with her. He agrees and the crazy broad stages her own rape by having her servants pose as brigands and she calls them off after lancelot conquers them (the subtext is she regularly does this to test the quality of knights before she’ll allow them to sleep with her!!!). She releases him because he’s all squeamish having given his heart to the queen(love only allows you one love) and later she asks if she can accompany him because in her land any woman who’s out with a knight is free to be challenged by any other knight for the right to have that woman and there’s a guy obsessed with her she wants lancelot to kill. Later on he needs to get information from this woman and he asks her by the word of her true love to answer him, IMAGINE THAT! Through all the staged rapes and knights she’s bedded perhaps she’s kept some burning ember of love for some random guy out there (God forbid it’s her husband) obviously, which is later plainly stated, love is not bound by morality christian or otherwise.
    Love is fucked up in arthurian myths, and the guy who said that the story treats lancelots sleeping with the queen as betrayal or wrong is just plain old wrong itself. When you read the story you find that Love is personalized and almost deified in the story and the story outright states that “nothing can be done wrong that’s done in the name of love”.

  52. RichardP says:

    I made a comment in the previous thread. Some thought I was linking the story of Lancelot and Guinevere to the story of Adam and Eve and the idea of predestination. I was not. To any who might be interested in the follow-up, I’ve expanded on my point here.
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/fighting-for-his-ladys-honor/#comment-230135

  53. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Today I heard an old MP3 episode (recorded in 1975) of the CBS Radio Mystery Theater. It was a ghost story. “The Special Undertaking.”

    A young man and woman fall in love. Her parents don’t approve, so he runs off to fight in the Civil War. But he deserts the army and becomes “a cutthroat,” joining a gang of robbers and murderers.

    Meanwhile, the young woman dies. Her ghost haunts the house.

    Years later, the man is wounded in a shootout. He tells a doctor and his wife that leaving this woman, instead of staying to marry her, was his “only true regret.” Then he dies.

    The doctor’s wife laments this love-crossed tragedy, and says upon the man’s death, “At least they’re finally together now in heaven.”

    Apparently, though this man was a deserter and “a cutthroat,” and though he expressed no remorse for it, his soul has been redeemed by his love for this woman (whose ghost waited for him to return), and her love for him.

    That’s a common theme in our stories. The love of a woman can redeem a man, even redeem his soul. He need do nothing more. Her love is enough to get him into heaven. Truly, women are redeeming angels.

  54. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Opus: If the adultery is committed by the female then of course this will as he says be acceptable as it always has been, but adultery will not be acceptable if committed by the man.

    True. But that doesn’t stop women from whining about a double standard, which they claim favors men. “Why is it okay for a man to sleep around, but not for a woman? How come it’s okay for a man to cheat, but not for a woman?”

  55. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Boxer: If a woman is in trouble, and you know her to be a good solid person, then sure, you should help her out. If not, well, just walk on by.

    Many years ago, I was in an online discussion. The subject of gun control and crime came up.

    A Canadian man related how he’d heard a woman screaming for help one night, on the streets of Toronto. He ran to her aid, and saw a gang of men terrorizing her. He intervened, and was badly beaten and stabbed. But the women escaped.

    All the women on the board praised this man for his heroism.

    I said that if he’d had a gun, he could have saved her without getting hurt.

    All the women jumped on me, calling me “crazy,” and saying “Imagine if he’d had a gun, and there’d been a shootout — why, someone could have been killed!”

    So, men must be disarmed, but are still expected to save random female strangers without aid of weapons. Perhaps we’re obligated to offer our bodies as a sacrificial distraction, giving the woman time to escape while we get stabbed.

  56. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    …we query why women should automatically get priority. Just because? Just because…vagina?

    There are sociobiological explanations for this genetic hardwiring.

    One man and ten women can produce ten babies every nine months. But one woman and ten men can only produce one baby every nine months. Thus, vaginas are the scarcer resource, and more “precious” for a tribe’s ability to procreate.

  57. I think you gave my post more attention than it deserved! I didn’t say Mallory was the oldest version of the legend, but he does draw together a number of earlier sources, and 90% of everything we think of as Arthurian from T.H. White to Monty Python draws on Mallory. He is certainly closer to the originals than C.S. Lewis. I distrust C.S. Lewis writings on women and relationships. I think he was extremely uncomfortable with women as sexual beings and with sex in general.

  58. Cane Caldo says:

    They effected a change which has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched, and they erected impassable barriers between us and the classical past or the Oriental present. Compared with this revolution the Renaissance is a mere ripple on the surface of literature. […] [A] glance at classical antiquity or at the Dark Ages at once shows us that what we took for ‘nature’ is really a special state of affairs, which will probably have an end, and which certainly had a beginning in eleventh-century Provence.

    In “Masterpieces of Medieval Literature”, the author talks about this extensively; driving home the point that none of the surviving literature[1] of the Germanic/Norse peoples deal with romantic feelings as a thing separate from sex. The only woman in Beowulf is Hrothgar’s wife–with whom Beowulf has no significant dealings–and Grendel’s mother. Beowulf kills her. Brynhildr is a significant character in the stories of Sigurd, but Sigurd’s attachment to her isn’t a religious-devotion-like romance.

    In the Icelandic Eddas[2a], there are stories which include women who make large impact on the stories, but none of them have a purely romantic–by which I mean extra-sexual–element. There is a story about a great man named Gunnar who married a beautiful woman with “the eyes of a thief” and who brings about his death because he once slapped her for stealing. She had two previous husbands killed for the same offense.

    However, there was a custom of the Germanic/Norse people which was activated by Romantic Fever and caused it to have a more deleterious effect than in southern Europe: Germanic/Norse and Celtic women had much greater freedom, authority, and strength than either the women of southern Europe, or those of the Near, Middle, and Far Easts.

    Once Romantic Fever took over those peoples, pedastalization of women–and thus Feminism–was probably already an unavoidable symptom. Under the infection of religious-devotion to “love”, those Germanic/Nordics had beautiful, strong, independent demi-goddesses on their hands. In more Latin lands (Italy, France, etc.) Romantic Fever didn’t elevate women to such heights.[2b]

    [1] This is significant, says Shutt, because only the most popular, the most retold, stories would have survived. The Germanic peoples were late to the written tradition and passed on their stories via an oral tradition. While it’s possible that at one time there existed stories with “romantic” elements, logic says that they weren’t popular, i.e., if they did exist, they didn’t resonate with the audience.

    [2a] Because of it’s relative isolation from the rest of Europe, Iceland was less effected by European trends. These descendants of the Norse people (and some Irish) weren’t infected with Romance Fever as early, or for as long, as the Continentals. This allowed them to become literate, yet not become severely romantic. Meanwhile, in mainland Europe, Germanic traditions were infected. So while the same stories of the oral tradition live on for a bit, they were treated as vulgar and passe…sort of like the American Coastal Elite’s view of gun-toting Bible-thumpers.

    [2b] We still see this today. My home, Texas, is to America what America is to the world. And it is absolutely lousy with strong, beautiful, independent women who are loud, obnoxious, and monstrously entitled–and the men who enable them. “Sassiness” is virulent. The majority are downright stiff-necked, crude, and ungrateful. Texans are, perversely, proud of this. Women like Sarah Palin are hugely popular down here, and seen as the epitome of conservative strength.

  59. Pingback: On the Problem of a Romantic View of Germanic Women | Things that We have Heard and Known

  60. Opus says:

    @ Red Pill Latecomer

    You answer your question addressed to myself with your own further comment at 04.15. I would merely add that in a world with ten men and one woman nine of the ten men will be dead within the year, however a world with ten women and one man will by the end of the year have a population of twenty one.

  61. feeriker says:

    All the women jumped on me, calling me “crazy,” and saying “Imagine if he’d had a gun, and there’d been a shootout — why, someone could have been killed!”

    So, men must be disarmed, but are still expected to save random female strangers without aid of weapons. Perhaps we’re obligated to offer our bodies as a sacrificial distraction, giving the woman time to escape while we get stabbed.

    The lesson learned here is women = illogical/bat-shit crazy = not worth life or limb to save. (Start out by asking “why did this lone woman put herself in the situation she found herself in?”)

    It would have been a good idea to point this out to those detractors (a less couth way to put it might have been “the screams of bat-shit crazy being attacked by bat-shit crazy make for a most harmonious music to the ear”).

  62. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    feeriker: Start out by asking “why did this lone woman put herself in the situation she found herself in?”

    Perhaps she was a Strong, Independent Woman who had no fear of being out alone at night?

  63. Gunner Q says:

    imnobody00 @ March 17, 2017 at 7:10 pm
    “However, I am POSITIVE that it’s FAR more extreme in English-speaking countries. … There are things that seems very ridicule and strange when seen from foreign eyes.”

    It makes no sense to this American, either. I just watched the movie “John Wick” on the recommendation of a friend (whose definition of a “good movie” is somebody losing a limb to a shotgun, so rather hit-and-miss, heh). But it opened with a long segment of the protagonist barely wanting to live after losing his girl. Why? I didn’t even care to watch the fights after that sob story of a tough guy moping like a chick. And this is a long-standing cinema trend.

    Maybe it’s our love of self-determination. That’s healthy for a man but not for a woman. Maybe Catholics are wont to treat men like women while Protestants are wont to treat women like men.

    Maybe it’s our gun culture. “Start nothing, finish everything” is a popular American attitude towards violence. It would explain the tendency for white-knighting if nobody thinks husbands have confrontation options except appeasement and scorched earth. That’s how it is with gunplay; you can’t shoot a guy once and then check if he’s learned his lesson, and your neighbors have a vested interest in whether a hail of bullets fly across the street. Not a good marital strategy when the female instinct is to keep pushing until pushback happens.

    Red Pill Latecomer @ 4:15 am:
    “…we query why women should automatically get priority. Just because? Just because…vagina?

    “There are sociobiological explanations for this genetic hardwiring.”

    Unless what you describe actually happens, it’s a meaningless argument. Approximately zero women in history have bred at maximum capacity (20+ babies). Evolution programmed men to value women because they can breed more but didn’t program women to actually do it? Fail.

    There’s no rational justification for valuing a woman’s life above a man’s. Both are needed to propagate the species but it’s always the man who elevates his society above African mud huts and open sewers.

  64. PeterW. says:

    Gunner….

    If you wish to do evolutionary mathematics….. Many species select for a single dominant male to impregnated dozens of females. Having a less than 1:1 male-female ratio does not affect reproductive efficiency. Losing females DOES reduce the reproductive capacity of the population.

    Every livestock farmer knows this, which is why I own 1400 breeding females and approximately 20 entire males.

    As for the anglosphere tendendency to protect females – arguably, excessively – it stems from the dual tenets of Christian tradition that (a) the right use of strength is to protect the weak and (b) that all persons have an equal inherent value before God.

  65. PeterW. says:

    What do we all say to the suggestion that romantic sexuality is strongly linked to comfort and a lack of existential threat?

    When there is extreme poverty of existential threat, the most valuable things are the ability to earn and the ability to fight. This – as my mother and grandmother knew without doubt in WW2 – meant that women did not stay at home while the men went off to fight outof chivalry, but because when it comes to marching over mountains with a full combat load on your back, women were bloody useless.

    Read accounts of events like the British Army’s retreat to Corunna during the Peninsular War in the early 1800s. When the fighting men HAD to survive and could only do so under conditions of extreme endurance, the women and children camp followers were left to look after themselves…… if they could.

    India????? Widows were regarded as surplus and commonly burnt alive on the pyres of their dead husbands.

    Africa? Women were regarded as carriers of burdens and agricultural labourers while the did the important things like hunting, fighting and drinking beer.

    I’ve said before that romance is like beauty and entertainment. It is a quality that we apply to things, not an objective reality. When more important things have our attention – like survival – they fall by the wayside.

  66. Stroller says:

    You’ve taken it this far Dalrock, you have to press court and turn your scopes to the apotheosis of courtly love, feminine worship and the Divine Feminine in the Arthurian Legend: Mists of Avalon.

  67. Frank K says:

    Speaking of Lancelot, anyone remember this guy:

  68. Anon says:

    India????? Widows were regarded as surplus and commonly burnt alive on the pyres of their dead husbands.

    Commonly? There have been about five such incidents in the last 20 years (across a country of 1.3 billion people).

  69. @Anon:

    Well, the British killed a lot of that trait out of the locals.

  70. Lost Patrol says:

    Good one Frank K. Now there was a real Chimp’s Chimp. The male chimps wanted to be him, and the female chimps wanted to be with him.

  71. Snowy says:

    @feeriker

    The more my eyes see through the red pill lens it seems the less my supposed “hardwiring” to prioritise women’s welfare influences me, including the way I view my own personal history with women, whether kith or kin (girlfriends, ex-wife, mother; I have no sisters, only two brothers).

    My mother and I are estranged, and we always have been. She’s nothing short of a first class bitch. She lives in Perth on the west coast of Australia, I’m on the east coast. In a rare moment of weakness, I phoned her a couple of years ago (she never contacts me). The subject of her bad hip came up. Apparently, she’s put up with the bad hip for years, because she’s fearful of the hip replacement surgery. She’s aware of my knowledge and expertise in these areas, my having worked in health care for the past 12 years. She asked if I would research for her who would be the the best surgeon in Perth, the best hospital/health care facility etc. to minimise her risks. I refused, knowing that no matter how painstakingly I did this job for her, she still would not be satisfied with my advice, because that’s just the way she is with me. I told her to do her own research, because I know that that’s the only thing she would be satisfied with.

    I basically told her to f-off and do her own research. We’ve not spoken since, and I have no idea, and I don’t care, what she has or hasn’t done.

    So, yes, the red pill has impacted how I view all women, including kin, and the history I’ve had with them. And it’s not bitterness, it’s just common sense; it’s guarding your heart.

  72. Dale Force says:

    The first thing I notice about the courtly romances is that the heros are completely betaized, and few such men would excite any sexual interest in a women. In the original society,trying to have sex with any of the noble ladies of the court would risk death (no laws against killing your wife’s lover, and laws against adultery) and lower class women easily available to men of status. Marriages were arranged for political and financial reasons, so betaizing the unmarried men was a wise policy. These conditions no longer hold.

  73. Luke says:

    Anon says:
    March 17, 2017 at 9:33 pm
    “As I noted above 99% of the souls on board were rescued, despite the conditions and the actions of the captain to thwart the rescue.”

    “Why did the captain thwart the rescue, and refuse to radio for help? What could he gain by that course of action?”

    He got in a lifeboat early on in the disaster, abandoning the scene and the passengers, refusing to go back and help even when ordered to over the radio by his commander, claiming that he “had fallen into the lifeboat and couldn’t get out”. A disloyal loser that should have been ceremoniously drowned the next day.

  74. Kevin says:

    I agree that the obsession with romantic love is absurd. But I continue to be confused by the connection between our bizarre expectations and courtly love. Is Dalrock arguing that there was no concept of love or romance prior to courtly love? Or that courtly love was the beginning of the perversion?

    Genesis 29 seems to be a love story. The concept of love and romance both licit and illicit is ancient. But let’s say it was not – that’s not evidence it did not exist just evidence it was not a common trope in literature. Courtly love can be the introduction or manifestation of a reality of the human condition in literature not the genesis of it. Does connecting the modern excess of romance to 800 year old pop literature help us illustrate its failings?

  75. Cane Caldo says:

    @Kevin

    Is Dalrock arguing that there was no concept of love or romance prior to courtly love? Or that courtly love was the beginning of the perversion?

    I can’t speak for Dalrock, but my view is that, due to our sinful nature, the world gets marital love wrong in many ways; and that each of these difference wrong ways play some role in perverting other wrong ways.

    You say that Genesis 29 is a love story, but it certainly isn’t a modern love story, or even a love story in the sense of being “romantic” in the sense of overwhelming emotion.

    1. Jacob loved Rachel because she was beautiful. He wasn’t “captivated by her inner beauty”. He didn’t “love her for who she was”. He wanted her to be his, and to have sex with her. Compare this to Dalrock’s post “Like a rutting buck”.

    2. There is no mention that she wanted him. Her desires are totally ignored in the story.

    3. Rachel’s marriage is secured by Jacob’s work for Laban; not by wooing Rachel.

    4. To get Rachel, Jacob has to marry Rachel’s sister, Leah. Leah is immediately and many times blessed by God. Rachel…not so much. There are similarities to Cain and Abel here. Rachel is perpetually jealous of her sister’s blessings. In the end: Rachel steals her father’s idols for herself, and secrets them away under her vagina and claims she’s on her period. Later, in chapter 35, God tells Jacob to go to Bethel and Jacob says “Put away the foreign gods that are among you and purify yourselves and change your garments. Then let us arise and go up to Bethel, so that I may make there an altar to the God who answers me in the day of my distress and has been with me wherever I have gone.” Jacob’s commands speak directly at Rachel’s theft and secreting of idols. It is not recorded that she did these things. After Bethel they go to what will be called Bethlehem, but Rachel is not allowed to enter it. She dies in the first part of chapter 36. Leah does go to Bethlehem. Later, King David will be born there in the line of her son Judah. Later still, Jesus–of both David and Judah–will also be born in Bethlehem.

    For comparison of emotional content, a good contrast to the story of Jacob and Rachel is the story of the reunion of Jacob and Esau.

    And Jacob lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, Esau was coming, and four hundred men with him. So he divided the children among Leah and Rachel and the two female servants. 2 And he put the servants with their children in front, then Leah with her children, and Rachel and Joseph last of all. 3 He himself went on before them, bowing himself to the ground seven times, until he came near to his brother.

    4 But Esau ran to meet him and embraced him and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept. 5 And when Esau lifted up his eyes and saw the women and children, he said, “Who are these with you?” Jacob said, “The children whom God has graciously given your servant.” 6 Then the servants drew near, they and their children, and bowed down. 7 Leah likewise and her children drew near and bowed down. And last Joseph and Rachel drew near, and they bowed down. 8 Esau said, “What do you mean by all this company that I met?” Jacob answered, “To find favor in the sight of my lord.” 9 But Esau said, “I have enough, my brother; keep what you have for yourself.” 10 Jacob said, “No, please, if I have found favor in your sight, then accept my present from my hand. For I have seen your face, which is like seeing the face of God, and you have accepted me. 11 Please accept my blessing that is brought to you, because God has dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough.” Thus he urged him, and he took it.

    In the Bible brotherly love is tender, and martial love is ardent. In the modern world, martial love is supposed to be tender, ardent, and all things all the time, while brotherly love has become a joke or an embarrassment. The Greek concept of Eros, particularly as it is legitimized through courtly love, leaves no room for loving your brother without seeming weak, or even homosexual.

  76. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    @ Cane
    Perhaps some of the most compelling observations from the age of the patriarchs is that men feared the LORD and not women, men worshiped the Lord and not their wives and men valued honor from other men more than the fickle admiration from their wives. (Courtly love inverts these.)

    Of course if a wife withheld honor to her husband she might find a rival, another wife of her husband, who would compete for most favored status. Polygyny in the age of the patriarchs provided some social restraints on the misbehavior of women and provided more women provision and protection in a world without the surrogate big-government-husband.

  77. Otto Lamp says:

    @Snowy,

    Go troll someplace else. You took the red-pill and that caused you to hate your mother and refuse to do even the basic son duties (like finding her a doctor).

    Troll.

  78. Boxer says:

    Dear Otto:

    Can’t speak for Snowy, but your reply to him interests me.

    Go troll someplace else. You took the red-pill and that caused you to hate your mother and refuse to do even the basic son duties (like finding her a doctor).

    Troll.

    Neither I nor my sister have spoken to our mother in many years. Dear old mom divorced my dad, took us on an international spending spree (with the help of his credit cards) and proceeded to attempt (ultimately unsuccessfully) to poison our young minds against him. With the help of USA/Canada fake family courts, her attempt was much longer and more successful than it should have been otherwise.

    This ought to serve as a little warning to all skank-ho women who are considering this as a course of action. It never works in the long run. Kids grow up and figure stuff out.

    In any event, I wouldn’t find my biological mother a physician. I’m not mad at her any more. I just stopped caring. She’s on her own.

    More generally, the threshold of total abandonment is a bit different for biological family members than for everyone else, but that threshold still exists. If someone is so selfish and chaotic as to ruin the lives of those around her, then I don’t blame anyone for wishing that person well and disconnecting. None of us knows what Snowy and his mom did, but I find no fault in him if he’s hit the point where he ejects and makes his own way, free of bad influences.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  79. Cane Caldo says:

    @Jonadab

    I largely agree with your statement, except for this bit:

    and men valued honor from other men more than the fickle admiration from their wives.

    These things aren’t in contest, or even need to be ordered one above the other. It is good for a man to honor another man, and for a man to appreciate his wife’s admiration. A man does what is good an just. He does not do things merely to attempt to manipulate admiration from others.

    Perhaps you didn’t mean that they should. I just want to be clear.

  80. Cane Caldo says:

    @Snowy

    The Bible says “Honor your father and mother”. It also says “But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” It also says “Love your enemies.”. Sometimes people are both relatives and enemies. The Bible does not say that evil actions on the part of the parent revokes this commands.

    What a Christian can’t do is let his hurt feelings–however truly deserved they are–deter him from doing good to others who ask for help. If a fellow Christian in your situation asked me what he should do, I would tell him to be honest and say to his mother exactly what he told me; that he didn’t believe she would take his advice even after seeking it out. Then see what she says, always with a willingness to find her a doctor IF she will cooperate. Maybe she instead starts an argument and tries to turn it around. If so, I’d advise him to say something along the lines of: “I’m not going to argue with you, Mother. You asked for my help. If you want my help, then tell me that you will follow my advice, and honor my work.” He would have done his part to honor God. The rest is up to her.

    Besides, it wouldn’t be much skin off his nose, considering his expertise, to find a decent doctor for a mother on the other side of a continent; like a few bucks for a street person. Not to help his mother in such a small thing would be miserly and petty.

  81. BillyS says:

    Jonadab,

    Of course if a wife withheld honor to her husband she might find a rival, another wife of her husband, who would compete for most favored status.

    Please note even a single instance of this happening.

    I think it is a straw man. Prove me wrong.

  82. Gunner Q says:

    PeterW. @ March 18, 2017 at 3:25 pm:
    “Having a less than 1:1 male-female ratio does not affect reproductive efficiency. Losing females DOES reduce the reproductive capacity of the population. … Every livestock farmer knows this, which is why I own 1400 breeding females and approximately 20 entire males.”

    Here is a map of the world. Please point to Amazonia, where humans naturally lived in 1:70 sex ratios. Or 1:10. The Muslim and African regions tear themselves apart trying to achieve a mere 1:4. Even cattle don’t exist in such ratios without the artificial environment of the ranch.

    You can’t find Amazonia. Evolutionists keep saying extreme polygamy is natural human behavior despite the fact it NEVER existed. I wish God would give me the words to explain the error in “humans are like this because animals are, even though humans fail when they act like animals” thinking. To me, seems obvious.

    I argue this tangent because it’s relevant to the OP. One can’t just say this stuff without it eventually turning into real-life action. Keep telling people that Lancelot was how knights behaved and soon, courtly love will become a real-life phenomenon. Keep telling people that it’s natural for males to mass-cull other males and soon, people will decide to marginalize and enslave men AS WE ARE SEEING RIGHT NOW.

    Evo-psych enables and justifies misandry in the exact same way that stories celebrating bad conduct twist social expectations. Which is it? Was Lancelot an honorable knight or a despicable adulterer and coward? Are 80+% of men surplus meat, or is misandry a terrible evil that will doom humanity?

    For the love of God, your fellow man and your own two little buddies, if you think misandry is bad then stop claiming men are disposable. Why is this hard? Seriously, why? These are mutually exclusive ideas.

  83. Snowy says:

    Many thanks to both Boxer and Cane for your comments. I don’t know what Otto is on about.

    If one were to apply a DSM-V diagnosis to my mum, it would likely be along the lines of BPD and/or a schizo-spectrum disorder. She’s a master manipulator. She’s a Jezebel. She’s a destroyer. She leaves a swathe of destruction behind wherever she goes. Not only did she blow up our family in the early 1970s, when I was 6 years old, but she also contributed to the destruction of my family in the early 2000s.

    For reasons unknown to me, she always singled me out as the object of all her malice and discontent, particularly when my older brother left home to start his first job. It was as if I had always been the replacement for Dad as the object of her derision, anger, malice, etc. She hated me. She ejected me.

    I’ve taken nothing but shit from my mum. Really, her suggesting that I help her with her hip replacement was nothing more than another in an unceasing line of shit-tests. What better way to keep the son you hate on the end of a manipulative string, than to have him work for you, only to throw it back in his face? I’m absolutely certain this would have happened, because it’s been the pattern with my mum for my entire life.

    You are right, Cane. I should have done as you suggested. I should have secured her word that she would honour my advice, regardless that I have never known her word to amount to anything. Unfortunately, I was not in a wonderful state of mind myself when I phoned her.

  84. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Gunner Q: Keep telling people that it’s natural for males to mass-cull other males and soon, people will decide to marginalize and enslave men AS WE ARE SEEING RIGHT NOW.

    It is natural At least according to one interpretation of Genesis 1:26. Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

    Who was God talking to? Who is the our and us? There are several interpretations:

    1. The Trinity. God was addressing Jesus and the Holy Spirit. (This is the dominant Christian interpretation.)

    2. God was addressing the angels. (This is the dominant Jewish interpretation.)

    3. God was using the Royal We.

    4. God was addressing the animals.

    According to that last interpretation, Man was made in the image of both God and animal. Man has natural animal urges. But Man also has a divine spark, a soul, a moral conscience. And so Man has countervailing moral urges, between his animal and spiritual side.

    Like an animal, it is natural for Man to take, to forcibly impregnate, to kill. But because Man has moral knowledge and accountability, when he does these thing it is stealing, rape, and murder — a sin.

    Man is torn between his animal urges and his moral conscience. The more he follows one path over the other, the easier that path becomes. Thus does he deaden or sharpen his moral conscience.

    Anyway, that’s one interpretation I read for Genesis 1:26. It’s a thought-provoking one. Of course, none of those four interpretations are mutually exclusive.

  85. PeterW. says:

    Gunner Q.

    You are attempting to argue from extremes, and end up looking ridiculous. You can’t find “Amazonia” for two reasons. The first is that we give up fighting well before we kill 98% of males. Humans aren’t suicidal, and men stop doing lethal things well before the casualty rate gets that high, out of simple self-preservation.
    OTOH, it is relatively easy to find societies in which polygamy is common. Mohammed built an entire military culture around the premis that if you die fighting you go to paradise and get lots of sex, while if you live, you get loot and as many wives as you want/support.

    The second is that men have more utility than just impregnating females. It is men who create the physical security in which the next generation can be raised. There is a TRADEOFF. If men are suicidally tolerant of risk, then there will not be enough of them left to do the job. If they are too risk-averse, they will not do the job, either.

    Funnily enough, if you look at those modern societies that have become excessively comfortable and risk-averse, you will find societies that are not breeding at a rate that will sustain their own population.

  86. PeterW. says:

    “Of course if a wife withheld honor to her husband she might find a rival, another wife of her husband, who would compete for most favored status.

    Please note even a single instance of this happening.

    I think it is a straw man. Prove me wrong.”

    BillyS.

    “Honour” includes appreciation and respect for what a man brings to the table, so to speak.

    One of the most tempting things for a man whose wife does not respect him or respect his input to the family…. is another woman who does.

  87. PeterW. says:

    Anon….
    “Commonly? There have been about five such incidents in the last 20 years (across a country of 1.3 billion people).”

    You appear to have overlooked my use of the PAST TENSE.

    The custom burning of widows alive declined rapidly after the English colonial government made it clear that the ENGLISH custom was to HANG people who burnt widows alive.

  88. @Gunner Q:

    Polygamous societies are unstable. If anyone has any knowledge of the off-shoot Mormon groups, you also know there’s a very quiet resettlement program. They have to resettle the boys that get ejected from the communities because they rapidly run out of potential wives.

    The old-order polygamous societies would have a few Men at the top that absorbed the differential that normally exists in a violent society. This is where ancient Israel found itself pretty much right after they settled in. Anything beyond the “top Men get extras, everyone else gets 1 wife” situation and the society can barely handle maintaining a field. The “value” of killing the top Man in his sleep just becomes too high.

  89. Spike says:

    The objection that ”it’s fiction” is a point needing to be raised.
    All of women’s porn is fiction. ”Fifty Shades” is fiction. ”Twilight” is fiction. ”Beauty And The Beast” is fiction. Barbara Cartland’s ”romances” (read: Rape fantasies) are fiction.

    Women raised on these fantasies absorb the unrealistic expectations of these stories and don’t critically analyse them. Commentators here call them ”The Feelz”. When the lack of them hits a normal relationship, women raised on ”the feelz” blow up relationships with the assistance of the State, harming themselves, men women, children and the society around them.

    These fictions are therefore destructive. And men don’t write them, read them or in any ways participate in them. This is exclusively a woman’s affair.

  90. Anon says:

    ‘Lancelot’ rhymes with ‘Romance-a-slut’.

  91. BillyS says:

    PeterW,

    One of the most tempting things for a man whose wife does not respect him or respect his input to the family…. is another woman who does.

    That is the claim made to encourage polygamy, but I do not see a single example of that happening in the Scriptures. Asserting it doesn’t make it a good idea.

  92. Boxer says:

    One of the most tempting things for a man whose wife does not respect him or respect his input to the family…. is another woman who does.

    Billy asked for a reference or a living example. You didn’t provide one, and this is not surprising, because there probably isn’t one for you to provide.

    That is the claim made to encourage polygamy, but I do not see a single example of that happening in the Scriptures. Asserting it doesn’t make it a good idea.

    Not only does it not happen in the text, it doesn’t happen in real life, either. Unfortunately, it does happen on tee-vee fantasy shows like “big love” and such.

    Wives in polygamous marriages do not compete for attention from their husband. Wives in polygamist marriages unionize, and all work against the husband. They always succeed in ruling over the fool who marries them, too.

    Polygamy is a step backward through history, toward the matriarchal dark ages of the distant past, where life was nasty, brutal and short (to steal a line from someone).

    Boxer

  93. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    @ Billy and Boxer
    Rival wives in the OT include:
    Sarah and Hagar
    Rachael and Leah and Bilhah and Zilpah
    Hannah and Peninnah

  94. Pingback: SENSOR SWEEP: Smoking Hot Babes, Ticket-Punching Careerists, Wonderful Magnanimity, and Noxious Aspects – castaliahouse.com

  95. Dalrock says:

    @Kevin

    I agree that the obsession with romantic love is absurd. But I continue to be confused by the connection between our bizarre expectations and courtly love. Is Dalrock arguing that there was no concept of love or romance prior to courtly love? Or that courtly love was the beginning of the perversion?

    Genesis 29 seems to be a love story. The concept of love and romance both licit and illicit is ancient.

    There has always existed an emotional aspect of sexual desire/passion. What is novel is our focus on separating the emotional from the physical and declaring the emotional aspect pure, purifying, and holy. As C.S. Lewis says, we struggle to even imagine how this was viewed prior to the transformation of courtly love. Gen 29 actually is a great example of this.

    16 Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. 17 Leah had weak[a] eyes, but Rachel had a lovely figure and was beautiful. 18 Jacob was in love with Rachel and said, “I’ll work for you seven years in return for your younger daughter Rachel.”

    19 Laban said, “It’s better that I give her to you than to some other man. Stay here with me.” 20 So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his love for her.

    21 Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife. My time is completed, and I want to make love to her.

    As you point out, in our minds this is a modern love story. How could it possibly be anything else. We simply can’t imagine otherwise.

    But take a look at the original Hebrew and how our translations cover it. I’m not trying to create the “correct” biblical interpretation, but pointing out the different frame of mind of the Hebrew words vs the massive baggage we have in English about romantic love. Here is an example of how the passage would read choosing just three different English words:

    16 Now Laban had two daughters; the name of the older was Leah, and the name of the younger was Rachel. 17 Leah had weak[a] eyes, but Rachel had a lovely figure and was beautiful. 18 Jacob liked Rachel and said, “I’ll work for you seven years in return for your younger daughter Rachel.”

    19 Laban said, “It’s better that I give her to you than to some other man. Stay here with me.” 20 So Jacob served seven years to get Rachel, but they seemed like only a few days to him because of his sexual desire for her.

    21 Then Jacob said to Laban, “Give me my wife. My time is completed, and I want to go into her.

  96. Oscar says:

    @ Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:
    March 19, 2017 at 8:44 am

    “Polygyny in the age of the patriarchs provided some social restraints on the misbehavior of
    women… ”

    That’s completely false. You have to ignore a whole lot of Scripture to avoid the patriarchs’ wives’ and concubines’ misbehavior. In fact, the envy and strife among the wives and concubines encouraged misbehavior.

  97. Gunner Q says:

    PeterW. @ March 19, 2017 at 5:24 pm:
    “You are attempting to argue from extremes, and end up looking ridiculous. You can’t find “Amazonia” for two reasons. The first is that we give up fighting well before we kill 98% of males. Humans aren’t suicidal, and men stop doing lethal things well before the casualty rate gets that high, out of simple self-preservation. … The second is that men have more utility than just impregnating females.”

    Agreed, and this demonstrates the error. Species self-preservation means men are not disposable despite “being unnecessary for the survival of the species”… which means, contra evolution, they’re necessary for the survival of the species.

    How to square that circle? By instituting slavery of non-reproducing (unsexy) men. As we are seeing. Again, and this is the takeaway, these are not morally neutral statements about humanity. Saying “Most men aren’t needed for breeding but society needs their material utility” provides the justification for misandry just as saying Guinevere was merely doing what women naturally do lays the framework for not holding sluts responsible. It must be stated clearly, she was a wicked harlot who corrupted the morals of a particular white knight.

    It must also be stated clearly that large numbers of men are needed for a healthy human society whether or not they reproduce. But this contradicts evolution so it gets left off… and exploitation of unsexy men just happens to increase rapidly as evolution becomes an accepted belief?

  98. Boxer says:

    Dalrock:

    Just wanted to encourage you to explore these semantic reconstructions in more detail, if you get the time. I doubt it’ll be as titillating to the regulars, but it serves to illuminate the structure that underlies the social changes described in usual fare here.

    Really great, man. I would never have thought of looking at the original this way. Love this stuff.

    Boxer

  99. Otto,

    Go troll someplace else. You took the red-pill and that caused you to hate your mother and refuse to do even the basic son duties (like finding her a doctor).

    Hard as this may sound, if a woman is gone full feral (BPD/NPD) you need to get away from them. You must… leave. Abandon. And why? That is the kind of woman who is going to destroy every single caring person that comes into contact with her. So unless you are the kind of man who is functionally capable of being around your BPD mother and NOT caring about her (never allowing yourself to do her bidding) then you need to get away. There is no other way.

    You can’t bring a BPD person to the doctor. You can not treat BPD. It’s impossible. Doctors largely ignore them. Paul Elam had a great article on this. Watch that movie “Girl Interrupted” and focus on the academy award winning performance of Jon Voight’s daughter Angelina Jolie. Watch how she coldly and calculatingly robs a young man of his wallet and talks a frenemy of hers (someone who took her in for the night) into committing suicide, and then calmly and coldly calls that “friend” an idiot, as she loots/robs her hanging corpse. And the whole time she is doing these things, destroying these people in her path, she feels completely and utterly vindicated and righteous about what she is doing. That is BPD. You can not help these people. They do not change UNLESS they are willing to change themselves. Only the tiniest fraction of these people ever do that. But if they DO change themselves, then they will feel nothing but remorse and sorrow for all the lives that they have destroyed. And it is in these cases where these people go the extra mile to repair that damage. Now, you don’t need to help them.

  100. BillyS says:

    Jonadab,

    @ Billy and Boxer
    Rival wives in the OT include:
    Sarah and Hagar
    Rachael and Leah and Bilhah and Zilpah
    Hannah and Peninnah

    That does not answer what I asked. Which of them were being uncooperative/unsupportive and therefore led to the other wife? That is definitely not true in the first two examples and it would be pure speculation in the third item, since we are not told anything about how he added each wife.

    Hagar was not really a wife either for that matter, but that is another issue.

    Try again.

  101. Boxer says:

    Hagar was not really a wife either for that matter, but that is another issue.

    lol – I’m glad someone else caught this. I was tempted to start a big row about it, but honestly don’t have the time. The polygamy discussion has sorta been done to death by me, anyway.

    Boxer

  102. thehaproject says:

    C.S. Lewis addressed the sexual morality of “happiness” rather directly.

    Someone turned it into a great animated doodle:

  103. SirHamster says:

    One of the most tempting things for a man whose wife does not respect him or respect his input to the family…. is another woman who does.

    That is the claim made to encourage polygamy, but I do not see a single example of that happening in the Scriptures. Asserting it doesn’t make it a good idea.

    Being a good idea is tangential to tempting. What he said sounds like a standard recipe for adultery – wife at home is being a bitch, but that female coworker always has a bright smile for him when he sees her each morning, and doesn’t that just warm his heart …

    Wives in polygamous marriages do not compete for attention from their husband. Wives in polygamist marriages unionize, and all work against the husband. They always succeed in ruling over the fool who marries them, too.

    You’ve said that about polygamy a few times, and this time it connected some dots for me about the polygamy advocates who pop up around the manosphere. They are taking the symptom of polygamy existing in ancient patriarchal cultures, and elevating it to a cause of patriarchal culture. “If only we restored polygamy, that would fix our rebellious females into being submissive second/third wives.”

    But polygamy in of itself doesn’t have the power to make beta men be alphas. It’s not the cause of Patriarchy, and “weak men” can still screw up any advantage conferred by polygamy. As you note, there are severe downsides to the practice.

    It is cargo-cult-ish. Without understanding, they attempt to mimic an aspect of the past. The most likely result if they got what they wanted is that we will still have the same problems, plus additional problems from legalized polygamy.

  104. B.J. says:

    This is really interesting to me. I read a lot of Arthurian stories when I was younger, and they always portrayed Guinevere’s betrayal of Arthur as justified due to love. I always thought that a heroic king shouldn’t have a disloyal wife and certainly not a disloyal soldier. Interesting that that part was added later.

  105. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    1. Jacob loved Rachel because she was beautiful. He wasn’t “captivated by her inner beauty”. He didn’t “love her for who she was”. He wanted her to be his, and to have sex with her. Compare this to Dalrock’s post “Like a rutting buck”.

    Indeed. So much so that he didn’t realize he had spent the night having sex with the wrong sister until the next morning!

    21 And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her.

    22 And Laban gathered together all the men of the place, and made a feast.

    23 And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.

    24 And Laban gave unto his daughter Leah Zilpah his maid for an handmaid.

    25 And it came to pass, that in the morning, behold, it was Leah: and he said to Laban, What is this thou hast done unto me? did not I serve with thee for Rachel? wherefore then hast thou beguiled me?

    And yet, as Lewis explains, the legacy of the courtly love revolution means that we can’t read stories like Gen 29 in any other way than as a love story.

  106. Boxer says:

    Dear Sir Hamster:

    But polygamy in of itself doesn’t have the power to make beta men be alphas. It’s not the cause of Patriarchy, and “weak men” can still screw up any advantage conferred by polygamy. As you note, there are severe downsides to the practice.

    This is actually the best riposte anyone has ever written. Take that as a compliment. Even Artisinal Toad (a guy with serious brainpower, despite his goony allegiance to the cult-of-the-sister-wife) didn’t break it down so succinctly.

    I don’t think you’re right, though. It seems to me that there are innate general differences that show up in men and women. Women are simply much better at deception, manipulation, and playacting than men are. (Of course, exceptions exist, etc.) Two women in the same man’s household entail, necessarily, that the man is going to be ruled over by the women. “Alpha” doesn’t work. They play him six ways from Sunday.

    You (and many other men in this comment section) may like Freud’s work Totem and Taboo. Basically he talks about individual neurotic tendencies and their correspondence to socio-historical stages that human beings went through.

    The polygynous tendency (Uncle Sig’s phrase) is something we can’t get away from. It’s hard-wired into us. At the same time, succumbing to it removes an essential layer of civilization. In order for human beings to achieve high culture and industry, we simply need to keep women in check. Enforced monogamy is the way we have done this, and the benefits outweigh the costs. Time to get back to it.

    Boxer

  107. Boxer says:

    Dear IBB:

    Hard as this may sound, if a woman is gone full feral (BPD/NPD) you need to get away from them. You must… leave. Abandon. And why? That is the kind of woman who is going to destroy every single caring person that comes into contact with her.
    […]
    You can’t bring a BPD person to the doctor. You can not treat BPD. It’s impossible. Doctors largely ignore them. Paul Elam had a great article on this.

    You’re making one of two arguments here, and it doesn’t matter which, because both are invalid.

    In the first place, I wasn’t aware that Paul Elam was a psychiatrist. Where did he go to medical school? In any event, he’s not speaking in concert with his peers. Reputable professionals have described BPD and NPD (which are two different things, mind you) and feral women don’t qualify as pathological.

    Secondly, the conflation you’re making provides cover to feral women — who are not sick, but rather are common assholes — who can excuse their crap behavior by claiming to be mentally ill when they are nothing of the sort.

    It is reasonable to have sympathy for actual sufferers of BPD and NPD. After all, they are detached from reality, can’t function in every day society, and have to be locked up in some asylum. The women you (and Snowy) describe don’t deserve sympathy or sanctuary. They’re dishonest jerks, who know exactly what they’re doing, and get a pass by feigning mental illness, often, when they’re caught, because of misconceptions like this one.

    Boxer

  108. SirHamster says:

    I don’t think you’re right, though. It seems to me that there are innate general differences that show up in men and women. Women are simply much better at deception, manipulation, and playacting than men are. (Of course, exceptions exist, etc.) Two women in the same man’s household entail, necessarily, that the man is going to be ruled over by the women. “Alpha” doesn’t work. They play him six ways from Sunday.

    Right about what? I’m only trying to describe the system.

    The Alpha attracts women and sees women at their best as they try to catch his attention; the Alpha is attracted to them in turn. This attraction gives them a soft power over him, even as he wields a hard power over them. Who’s ruling who? Can get a little complicated. A very masculine man comes with a weakness to very feminine women.

    As far as my view on polygamy, I see it more as a system that served a purpose in a world where lifespans were short, male heirs were essential, and women’s choices were marriage or prostitution.

    Not saying that polygamy is good for or with Alphas, but in that world, the average man was equipped to make it work by culture and reality in a way that us moderns are not. There is an “Alpha-ness” bonus when men are in short supply and a harsh world trains men to know survival from the cradle.

    You (and many other men in this comment section) may like Freud’s work Totem and Taboo. Basically he talks about individual neurotic tendencies and their correspondence to socio-historical stages that human beings went through.

    Your description reminds me of a certain evolutionary theory. Article points out that it influenced Freud’s thoughts, even.

  109. Boxer says:

    Dear SirHamster:

    Please see below…

    Not saying that polygamy is good for or with Alphas, but in that world, the average man was equipped to make it work by culture and reality in a way that us moderns are not. There is an “Alpha-ness” bonus when men are in short supply and a harsh world trains men to know survival from the cradle.

    I can’t agree with this specifically, only because that world still exists. Google “Colorado City, Arizona” or “Bountiful, British Columbia” for examples. For that matter, you can go to Oman or Mauritania and hang with polygamists, though it’s further afield than my own tribe. Men in these other societies are pretty much the same as men always have been.

    I do find your general point well-stated.

    As far as my view on polygamy, I see it more as a system that served a purpose in a world where lifespans were short, male heirs were essential, and women’s choices were marriage or prostitution.

    Right. It was a necessary intermediate stage from the matriarchal hell, where nobody knew who his father was, and everyone lived as wild animals, to the world of the recent past, full of rocket ships to the moon, steel bridges and antibiotics.

    Your description reminds me of a certain evolutionary theory. Article points out that it influenced Freud’s thoughts, even.

    That’s pretty interesting. The polygynist tendency isn’t really some sort of genetic memory or biological process, though. It’s more like an illustration of what you pointed out. The desire to abandon constraints and live a less civilized life is caused by the pressures of conforming to the expectations of modern society.

    Freud’s idea was that we started out living like wild animals (and the bible alludes to this with stories like Sodom, etc.) and our climb from the matriarchal hell was long and tedious. Through a series of historical stages we gradually traded our happiness (and our ability to rape, murder, steal, etc.) for the benefits of self-organization and technology. Neurotic people tend to act out in ways that correspond to earlier historical stages, because ultimately they have a problem with this historical stage’s social and legal expectations. Ultimately, they’re usually motivated by problems in their personal development, but they act out in ways that put them out-of-time, to some extent. That’s his thesis, anyway.

    Boxer

  110. Dalrock says:

    @Boxer

    Just wanted to encourage you to explore these semantic reconstructions in more detail, if you get the time. I doubt it’ll be as titillating to the regulars, but it serves to illuminate the structure that underlies the social changes described in usual fare here.

    Really great, man. I would never have thought of looking at the original this way. Love this stuff.

    Thanks. I’ll take a few min to craft the exchange into a quick post. I don’t know that I’ll do further posts with similar word substitutions on other passages, because there are very real limitations to looking up the individual words in Strongs and then coming up with a homebrew translation. The tool does have value, but it is very commonly misused and I want to be careful not to do so.

  111. B0xer,

    Paul Elam is a psychiatrist.

    https://www.avoiceformen.com/women/borderline-personality-disorder-sick-or-just-crazy-asshole/

    Let me quote Paul Elam.

    And one other thing must be incorporated into your understanding of the BPD. They are in total control of what they are doing. There is no organic factor or deficit in self control that causes what they do. Their acts are willful and premeditated. They comprehend the difference between right and wrong, appropriate and inappropriate, truth and lies, reality and fantasy.

    They frequently hold jobs and involve themselves in social situations where their destructive behaviors would quickly work against them. They often perform admirably and demonstrate a respectable capacity for self control and appropriate behavior. Any notion that they cannot help their actions, which you will most frequently hear from BPD’s or the unscrupulous clinicians who profit from their condition by helping them rationalize their behavior, is completely fraudulent.

    They know what they are doing and often enjoy it.

    There is no reaching these people. The only way they get cured, is if they cure themselves. But they don’t want to.

    It is reasonable to have sympathy for actual sufferers of BPD and NPD.

    No. It is not.

    Unlike manic-depression or schizophrenia, the BPD or NPD (anyone with a “personality disorder”) is completely aware of what they are doing and choosing the sociopathic choice. They know what it is that they are doing, know that they are harming those who care most deeply for them, and simply choose to do that anyway. That is because they are sociopaths. They do not care that they are destroying people. The only person that matters to the BPD person, is themselves.

    Dr Paul Peck referred to these monsters with personality disorder as People of the Lie.

  112. Boxer says:

    IBB writes:

    B0xer,

    Paul Elam is a psychiatrist.

    No, he isn’t. He has never passed himself off as such, either. hxxps://www.avoiceformen.com/activism/paul-elam/

    Unlike manic-depression or schizophrenia, the BPD or NPD (anyone with a “personality disorder”) is completely aware of what they are doing and choosing the sociopathic choice.

    The very definition of these pathologies, written in plain language, includes a lack of functionality and a detachment from reality. Thus, you’re wrong again.

    Boxer

  113. Pingback: Is Gen. 29 a modern love story? | Dalrock

  114. Minesweeper says:

    IBB, your right on BPD. Boxer – nope, you seem to only understand low functioning BPD, hell most politicians\ceo’s have NPD, why else would you do that crap.

  115. Boxer says:

    Dear Minesweeper:

    IBB, your right on BPD. Boxer – nope, you seem to only understand low functioning BPD

    There is no such thing as “low functioning BPD” — if there were, it’d be in the DSM, and reputable medical journals would be talking about it.

    Here’s the definition from the Mayo Clinic:

    Borderline personality disorder is a mental health disorder that impacts the way you think and feel about yourself and others, causing problems functioning in everyday life. It includes a pattern of unstable intense relationships, distorted self-image, extreme emotions and impulsiveness.

    hell most politicians\ceo’s have NPD, why else would you do that crap.

    Oh lol. People with NPD have “problems functioning in everyday life”. No politician has NPD.

    Kinda shocked that you guys are this dopey. Quit listening to hacks and phonies who pretend to be doctors. Damn people. This is like third grade level shit.

    Boxer

  116. Minesweeper says:

    @B, lol, Steve Jobs was well known to be quite a severe NPD. even from your own quote above, it dosnt say they are drooling in mental wards, they are everywhere considering some sites say they are up to 6% of the pop. No idea where seem to have picked up that this is such a serious mental illness that they have to be permanently confined. You need to pull your own head out of your ass, maybe your just in denial over this ? Prob cause mom ? A personality disorder is prob not what you think it is if you cant identify people in the gen pop who have it.

    knock yourself out and get an education this :

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=low+functioning+BPD&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

    dozens of sites.

  117. BillyS says:

    BPD has become a catch phrase to label anyone tough to deal with for many today. I raised at least one son with that and he is quite functional today. I call BS on the untreatability part.

  118. Boxer says:

    Instead of just conceding, Minesweeper doubles down with…

    @B, lol, Steve Jobs was well known to be quite a severe NPD.

    NPD is a psychiatric disorder. A diagnosis needs to be made by a physician — specifically a psychiatrist or neurologist — not some dope on the internet. Was Steve Jobs’ psychiatrist the person who diagnosed him? Where can I find reference to this.

    Naturally, you’re completely full of shit. Steve Jobs didn’t have NPD while he worked all day designing hardware and software. People with NPD can’t function long enough to have casual friendships. They’re fucked in the head.

    even from your own quote above, it dosnt say they are drooling in mental wards, they are everywhere considering some sites say they are up to 6% of the pop.

    You’re getting your information about medical conditions from “some sites” rather than actual physicians. That is your problem.

    No idea where seem to have picked up that this is such a serious mental illness that they have to be permanently confined.

    From the definition in the DSM. It’s the authority that the pros use when making diagnoses of these conditions.

    You need to pull your own head out of your ass, maybe your just in denial over this ?

    I know how to read, and I know how to find peer-reviewed journal articles and physician’s manuals, rather than googling poseurs and amateurs. That’s really all it takes.

    Prob cause mom ?

    Yes, of course. Feel free to personalize and sexualize things when they aren’t going your way.

    A personality disorder is prob not what you think it is if you cant identify people in the gen pop who have it.

    Of course! The doctors who compiled the DSM don’t know their own definitions. Only
    “minesweeper” on Dalrock’s blog knows the truth about the disorders they described.

    That’s an interesting position, but I don’t share it.

    knock yourself out and get an education this :

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?client=opera&q=low+functioning+BPD&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

    dozens of sites.

    I bet if I googled “low impact pregnancy” or “half-diabetes” I’d probably find people swearing that such nonsense exists, too. I really don’t have time, though.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  119. infowarrior1 says:

    Another argument against polygyny is the Gini Co-efficient:

  120. infowarrior1 says:

    @Boxer
    ”It’s not the cause of Patriarchy, and “weak men” can still screw up any advantage conferred by polygamy. As you note, there are severe downsides to the practice.”

    Although I would not count out polygyny as a selective mechanism against “weak men”. Genghis Khan is the prime example of an Alpha Male not only rising to his current position but slaying a lot of “weak men” and taking their wives and daughters into his harem.

    There are severe downsides civilizationally speaking and do not in any way make “weak men” have a more dominant personality but it intensifies selection for aggressive and more dominant men.

    African men of the polygynous vareity especially of the west african variety are more masculine and dominant in terms of personality compared to other monogamous african groups:
    http://evoandproud.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/polygyny-makes-men-bigger-tougher-and.html

  121. Minesweeper says:

    B,

    Read : http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/practicas_profesionales/820_clinica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf

    Its just you Im afraid that see’s this the way you do. Can you give me an example of someone you would consider as having a PD? Its just a mystical rare event according to you. According to everyone else, its quite common.

    “Here’s the definition from the Mayo Clinic:

    Borderline personality disorder is a mental health disorder that impacts the way you think and feel about yourself and others, causing problems functioning in everyday life. It includes a pattern of unstable intense relationships, distorted self-image, extreme emotions and impulsiveness.

    hell most politicians\ceo’s have NPD, why else would you do that crap.

    Oh lol. People with NPD have “problems functioning in everyday life”. No politician has NPD.”

    Your text above says that about BPD not NPD.

    No need to call me completely full of shit because we disagree, For a guy who has got great opinions, you seem quite aggressively wrong to anyone who brings this up.

  122. Boxer says:

    Dear Minesweeper:

    Its just you Im afraid that see’s this the way you do. Can you give me an example of someone you would consider as having a PD?

    IBB gave an example above: the character in his favorite hollywood film, who was locked in a mental hospital, escaped, and went around causing people to commit suicide. I would say that’s a fair depiction of one of these headcases. Unfortunately he immediately conflated this with someone who is not mentally ill.

    Its just a mystical rare event according to you. According to everyone else, its quite common.

    According to your model, everyone who does bad stuff has a psychiatric disorder. That’s simply not the case. There are plenty of grounded, sane people in this world who do bad stuff just because they’ve got bad morals, not because they’re compelled to do so by miswired skullstuffing.

    We should hold these people accountable, not pathologize them into irresponsibility.

    No need to call me completely full of shit because we disagree, For a guy who has got great opinions, you seem quite aggressively wrong to anyone who brings this up.

    I’ll argue with you in a civil way, but above you brought my family members into the discussion, so the tone changed and I responded in kind.

    Peace,

    Boxer

  123. Boxer says:

    Dear Info Warrior:

    You’re calling me out here, but you’re quoting someone else. In any event, this is an interesting little side topic.

    African men of the polygynous vareity especially of the west african variety are more masculine and dominant in terms of personality compared to other monogamous african groups

    That’s pretty interesting. Studies suggest that non-monogamy seems to reduce sexual dimorphism. Males become weaker and punier, and females become masculinized, probably to protect the young and fight off unwanted suitors.

    http://aerg.canberra.edu.au/library/sex_general/1977_Emlen_Oring_mating_system_evolution.pdf

    Me talking about this is like me talking about Freud. I’m no biologist or psychologist. If there’s one in the house, maybe he could explain this stuff.

    Best,

    Boxer

  124. Minesweeper says:

    Boxer, I wasnt trying to harm you I was trying to help you. Most guys myself included only discovered the mother we knew and all her nutty behaviour fairly late on was down to BPD. Dosnt mean its an excuse for her but it does bring understanding. only a tiny % of bpd’ers are ever diagnosed.

  125. Minesweeper says:

    “BillyS says: BPD has become a catch phrase to label anyone tough to deal with for many today. I raised at least one son with that and he is quite functional today. I call BS on the untreatability part.”

    thats great! when did the symptoms subside?

  126. Boxer says:

    Dear Minesweeper:

    Boxer, I wasnt trying to harm you I was trying to help you. Most guys myself included only discovered the mother we knew and all her nutty behaviour fairly late on was down to BPD. Dosnt mean its an excuse for her but it does bring understanding. only a tiny % of bpd’ers are ever diagnosed.

    Come on, man. You see lots of criminal types claiming this nonsense constantly, when they get caught.

    “It’s not my fault ya honor! I’ze crazy and shit! Not responsible by reason of insanity! Y’all have to let me go!”

    Sure, these people act crazy, but they’re making conscious choices, and doing this crap deliberately. Claiming they have BPD (or whatever) is almost always just a bit of theatre. I don’t buy it without a verified medical history, and you shouldn’t either.

    More importantly, when we talk about regular women as though they all have personality disorders, we relocate responsibility for their actions. Essentially we become white knights for them. This is actually very disrespectful to all the women who don’t take advantage, and who do their best to conform to good moral laws. We’re all responsible for what we do — even females.

    Best,

    Boxer

  127. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    Sure, these people act crazy, but they’re making conscious choices, and doing this crap deliberately.

    My belief is that an accumulation of immoral choices can make one legitimately insane.

  128. Cane Caldo says:

    IOW: A person can be both insane, and responsible for it.

  129. Boxer says:

    Dear Cane:

    My belief is that an accumulation of immoral choices can make one legitimately insane.

    That’s a contradiction on a number of different levels. The word ‘insane’ is a legal term. It specifically entails an inability to be held responsible. (See Black’s Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. – it’s in public domain).

    Thus an insane person is incapable of making choices, moral or otherwise. S/he is compelled by the disease.

    Moreover, a disease can only be diagnosed by a physician. There are no moral qualifications for being diseased. It’s a physical affliction.

    I hope this is helpful.

    Boxer

  130. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    Thus an insane person is incapable of making choices, moral or otherwise. S/he is compelled by the disease.

    Suppose a man on a dare purposefully jumps off a roof and is paralyzed. He can no longer choose to walk. Or let’s say that an accumulation of poor decisions (several dares gone wrong) results in a daredevil’s inability to walk. If he must walk at some later point (perhaps to escape a burning building), but can’t: It’s his fault. Just because he didn’t realize that pulling a stupid stunt would impact his ability to walk out the front door doesn’t excuse him.

    There are no moral qualifications for being diseased. It’s a physical affliction.

    That is a materialist view that I don’t share. I believe one can rewire his brain towards insanity by pulling stupid stunts like lying; whether to manipulate others or to make himself feel better. I believe he is responsible for the resultant bad wiring.

  131. B0xer, you can’t treat a personality disorder. You can’t. People with BPD and NPD are high functioning. They can hold professional jobs in society (much like Steve Jobs) make HUGE money (much like Steve Jobs) and still feel zero empathy for others in their desire to seek out and destroy anyone and all that get in their path (much like Steve Jobs.) You can not treat people with these disorders. They are sociopaths. There are no psychotropic drugs that will fix them. And I don’t need a medical credential to diagnose their problems (none of us do.) The DSM is very clear on personality disorders.

    IBB gave an example above: the character in his favorite hollywood film, who was locked in a mental hospital, escaped, and went around causing people to commit suicide. I would say that’s a fair depiction of one of these headcases.

    Correct. That got Angelina Jolie an Academy Award she most richly deserved. She was completely and totally…. BPD.

    Unfortunately he immediately conflated this with someone who is not mentally ill.

    No. What I said is that people who are BPD can’t be treated. You can’t fix them. That is because they don’t want to be fixed since they don’t think they have a problem. They are completely aware of what they are doing to others, and simply choose to continue doing what they are doing… anyway.

    In “Girl Interrupted” both Jolie and Rider (Lisa Rowe and Susanna Kasen) were BPD. They both were. And neither one thought they had any problem since both were so “high functioning.” They were not at all like the others in the asylum since both of them believed they could carry on just fine outside the asylum. In their minds, they had nothing to confess, nothing to “fix.” That is why both would have been “lifers” in the insane asylum. Or worse, they would only call themselves “sick” when it was convenient for them, to escape ALL accountability for their actions (all the while, never actually believing that they are sick.) Rider’s character was released only after she realized how totally f-cked up she was and how dangerous she was to herself (and others.) It was then that they let her go because when and if the person with the personality disorder comes to that realization, now they aren’t ill anymore. They are “fixed”, no need for treatment. But so very few ever get to that point. They just remain f-cked up all their life, remain that way until they are dead (much like Steve Jobs.)

    100+ years ago, the Catholic Church diagnosed the BPD and the NPD as possessed by the Devil. The rite of exorcism was how they tried to fix the problem. That was about as effective then as psychotropic drugs are now, that is, not the least bit effective. People of the Lie (Dr Paul Peck’s characterization for the BPD and NPD) can’t be treated, can’t be fixed by a 3rd party. Unlike every other DSM diagnosis for mental illness, those with a personality disorder only become “fixed” when they want to fix themselves. Its that simple.

  132. B0xer, let me quote minesweeper.

    Dosnt mean its an excuse for her but it does bring understanding. only a tiny % of bpd’ers are ever diagnosed.

    This is the most important thing he has said. And it is completely true. They are not/never diagnosed because they are so high functioning in society. These are clever people. They are not going to even talk to someone who could diagnose them unless they are forced to by a judge/court. They (more often than not) find a way to get along in society by marrying well, making good money, and flying under the radar of law enforcement. They just destroy so many other lives in the process of flying under that radar because they are smart enough to know the secular law all the while, incapable of feeling any empathy for others. The only thing in the world that matters to a person with a personality disorder, is themselves and their own personal comforts. You can’t reason with those people.

  133. SirHamster says:

    @infowarrior1

    Although I would not count out polygyny as a selective mechanism against “weak men”. Genghis Khan is the prime example of an Alpha Male not only rising to his current position but slaying a lot of “weak men” and taking their wives and daughters into his harem.

    You quoted my words there, not Boxer’s. I would not call polygyny the selective mechanism in your example. Rather, I’d say the environment was selective and polygyny was the equilibrium result of a “barbaric” culture. There are places that practice polygyny that do not produce Ghenghis Khans, after all.

    @Cane Caldo

    My belief is that an accumulation of immoral choices can make one legitimately insane.

    I know for a fact that I have gained sanity from following Christ. God’s truth grounds us; and my encounters with Internet atheists have only reinforced my belief that the inverse must be true – rejecting God’s truth dissolves the foundation for sanity**.

    The contrast of “crazy cat ladies” and kindly grandmothers illustrate how grounding affects the female psyche – I believe that Man needs God in the same way that women need a man. World is filled with fractal patterns.

    **Where one trait of sanity is to see the world as it is, and not mistake the output of our internal mental filters as the raw reality.

  134. Minesweeper,

    IBB, your right on BPD.

    Thank you.

    B0xer, do not get me wrong. I am not trying to hurt your feelings or make you feel bad. I agree with you like 99% of the time. I just want to make sure we are absolutely clear in how the DSM defines these personality disorders. I have done a lot of reading on this (a lot of research.) The common trait here is that there really isn’t any effective way to treat these people. They only change if they want to change, and only some small percentage ever get to that point.

  135. Boxer says:

    Dear IBB:

    B0xer, do not get me wrong. I am not trying to hurt your feelings or make you feel bad. I agree with you like 99% of the time.

    Dawg, do you not know me by now? My feelings aren’t ever hurt by words on a screen.

    This is the most important thing he has said. And it is completely true.

    No, it isn’t. The term “Personality Disorder” has a well-understood definition, and it applies to specific groups of people.

    What you guys are doing is replacing the definition of the term with a much weaker one, then pretending that you have solved the problem that your position presents, while ignoring the fact that you’ve committed a bit of semantic dishonesty. I don’t care about this per se, but I do wonder as to your motivations.

    It is possible for men and women to behave poorly on a consistent basis, without any medical reason prompting the misbehavior. We agree with this, I hope, yes?

    Boxer

  136. Boxer says:

    Dear Cane:

    Suppose a man on a dare purposefully jumps off a roof and is paralyzed. He can no longer choose to walk. Or let’s say that an accumulation of poor decisions (several dares gone wrong) results in a daredevil’s inability to walk. If he must walk at some later point (perhaps to escape a burning building), but can’t: It’s his fault. Just because he didn’t realize that pulling a stupid stunt would impact his ability to walk out the front door doesn’t excuse him.

    That’s a flawed analogy. I suppose if you could cite cases of people giving themselves lobotomies to make themselves mentally ill, I’d concede it; but that’s not really what we’re talking about here.

    That is a materialist view that I don’t share. I believe one can rewire his brain towards insanity by pulling stupid stunts like lying; whether to manipulate others or to make himself feel better. I believe he is responsible for the resultant bad wiring.

    Again, you’re dishonestly redefining the word ‘insane’ and then pretending that it helps your argument. That word has a specific meaning.

    I don’t disagree with the general Aristotelian praxis of socialization. He was a big fan of practice until good behavior becomes second nature. That’s a different issue, though. You used the word ‘insane’ to describe someone making conscious choices. That’s akin to bringing up unmarried bachelors and black sunshine.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  137. Boxer says:

    *married bachelors — jeez. I’m not on my game.

  138. B0xer,

    It is possible for men and women to behave poorly on a consistent basis, without any medical reason prompting the misbehavior. We agree with this, I hope, yes?

    No, we do not.

    If you are routinely a sh-t to everyone around you, particularly those people who care most deeply for you, then the “medical diagnosis” is personality disorder. People must feel empathy for others. You need to care. You need to love. God commands that of us. Christ commands that of us (love God the Father with all your heart and soul and mind AND love your neighbor.) Boom. God’s law. Simple as that. Any and all people that do NOT do this (on a consistent basis) who are either #1) intentionally trying to hurt other people (sociopaths) OR #2) are completely oblivious to all the damage that they do to others have a personality disorder. And most of them are never diagnosed.

    What kind of a human being are you if you lack empathy? If you harm people (possibly yourself) it is the result of one of two things: intentional or unintentional. The person who lacks all empathy cares not one bit for the damage they do whether they are sociopathic (the BPD) or unintentionally (Asperger’s syndrome.) Either way, you may have harmed yourself, or others. And if you don’t feel bad about the damage you have done, you have a personality disorder. You have a mental illness of some kind. That doesn’t mean you aren’t high functioning in your personality disorder. Dr Michael Burry and Mark Zuckerberg are both billionaires and both may be Aspies (look at all the damage that Zuckerberg unintentionally did to the Winklevoss twins and his so called best friend Edwardo Saverin? Mark didn’t feel bad about it.)

    The BPD (the “Person of the Lie”) is going to have trouble relating to others. Steve Jobs (no matter how high functioning) could never relate to people. He did not care who he harmed. And he was willing to LIE to everyone (even building products that lacked an operating system) so long as he got the approval of the public. Appearance and perception were both more important to Jobs than reality or results. Same could be said of Elizabeth Holmes and the snake oil she has been selling to the public. She is a destroyer. She does not care one bit about all the people who are dead because her product misdiagnosed people who depend (life and death) upon accurate blood work. The only thing she cares about is that the feminist community looks at her (and her so called achievements) like a goddess. Neither Jobs nor Holmes may have been diagnosed BPD, but you don’t need to have a medical credential to know that they were/are.

    A person could have stage-4 cancer, never be diagnosed, and live for 10+ years as a fully functioning person. It doesn’t mean that they aren’t sick. They are. They just aren’t diagnosed. They still need help, treatment. And (unlike the BPD) we can help these people with medication and surgery. But they are not going to get that help until they are diagnosed.

    If you are routinely a horrible person, you have a mental illness. It is unnatural for human beings to behave this way. You need to be diagnosed.

  139. Minesweeper says:

    IBB, of the 6 BPD I know – 5 female, 1 male, only 1 female was mis-diagnosed after repeated suicide attempts as a ……”bipolar”. So even under boxers standard its hopeless (physician diag) , and this is well known now. Also its easier to get funding and drug up a BiP than a BDP (like say Marilyn Monroe or amy winehouse\princess diana etc…).

    another great tell of BPD women is their almost complete inability to behave normally sexually. The chick you F**k at the bus stop 2 mins after meeting, that accuses you of rape while she is on top of you, yeah, thats BPD in a nutshell.

    Boxer, the current medical system is screwed beyond all imagination, it causes 99% if the illness in the population. Academics often put their faith in man, and its current apogee (and faith) is the medical\science system, after the financial one fell to pieces. What passes for science has utterly ruined me, they cannot be trusted with anything I think relating to the human body.

    The religion of scientism is a false god.

  140. Minesweeper says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-4336020/Courtney-Stodden-tries-mimic-idol-Marilyn-Monroe.html

    IBB, what you do think ? Both BPD ? amazing how slim marilyn was compared even to courtney and other women these days.

  141. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    Let’s deal with the definitions first:

    Again, you’re dishonestly redefining the word ‘insane’ and then pretending that it helps your argument. That word has a specific meaning.

    In fact insane does not have one and only one specific meaning. It is not only and always a word of legal use. One may use it in its legal sense, but most often it is used in a non-legal sense. And because it was I who first wrote the word insane in these comments, I am the author of this particular context, and the context is mental derangement regardless of its legal recognition.

    So, moving on…

    That’s a flawed analogy. I suppose if you could cite cases of people giving themselves lobotomies to make themselves mentally ill, I’d concede it; but that’s not really what we’re talking about here.

    I don’t believe it is flawed, and it most definitely is what we’re talking about. One’s thinking–including telling oneself lies–can have a physiological effect on a person. He can physically change his brain.

    The common view is that the material determines the mental. For example: A deficit in a hormone will cause certain deranged behavior. I believe the connection between the mental and physical goes both ways and that choosing bad behavior can create a deficit in a hormone or whathaveyou.

    A contemporary example of choosing insanity–mentally deranged behavior–is homosexuality. I do not doubt that some tests show homosexuals have smaller parts of the brain associated with sexuality, or that they have lower testosterone, or even that their genetics are different. But I believe that acting like a homosexual, or telling yourself that homosexuality is fine, or dressing like a girl can cause those impairments which we can physically measure.

    So if a homosexual comes along to me, a sane person, and says he was born gay, he has made choices, he is making a choice, and he is insane.

  142. Minesweeper,

    IBB, of the 6 BPD I know – 5 female, 1 male, only 1 female was mis-diagnosed after repeated suicide attempts as a ……”bipolar”. So even under boxers standard its hopeless (physician diag) , and this is well known now. Also its easier to get funding and drug up a BiP than a BDP (like say Marilyn Monroe or amy winehouse\princess diana etc…).

    You can TREAT manic-depression! You CAN’T treat BPD! That is the difference. The bi-polar quite often knows that they are f-cked up and want to get better. The bi-polar has EMPATHY for others. They may hurt other people, but they don’t want to, they feel bad about it. The BPD does NOT feel bad about those they hurt.

    The Bi-Polar person is not as high functioning as the BPD. That is because they are consumed with their disorder. The disorder controls every aspect of their life. Forget about maintaining a professional job, not unless they get massive help for their disorder. They love their mania stages. They love it! They are FUN-FUN-FUN to be with when they are in Mania! The bi-polar girls f-ck like rabbits when in mania (f-ck anything and everything that moves), they party, they are smiling, drinking, doing drugs, happy, always awake, always having fun! They are like happy drunks on a full-blown bender. Party time! And they make sure that everyone around them is joining in the fun with them! They love their highs. They love the highs so much they (quite often) refuse to go on the Lithium/Zoloft/Welbutrin whatever to neutralize their lows. They risk the suicidal tendencies of the lows to keep their highs. But they can be treated.

    You can’t treat BPD. These people do not think they have a problem. They are too high functioning. They are too arrogant. They are too full of themselves. And the people they hurt… meh. They can always justify that damage (if they are even aware of it.)

  143. Minesweeper,

    IBB, what you do think ? Both BPD ? amazing how slim marilyn was compared even to courtney and other women these days.

    It depends on whether or not Courtney or Marilyn cared how many people they hurt along the way. Both were hyper-focused about “appearance.” If Marilyn cared about the damage she did to Joe Dimagio, then she was probably bi-polar-1. If she didn’t, then BPD. Courtney? Of course I don’t see much that is noble, righteous, or empathetic about a 20 year old girl marrying a 56 year old man, and then divorcing him at age 22. So year, she is probably BPD.

  144. Boxer says:

    Dear IBB:

    If you are routinely a sh-t to everyone around you, particularly those people who care most deeply for you, then the “medical diagnosis” is personality disorder.

    Well, for the umpteenth time, here’s the actual definition of a personality disorder:
    http://www.psi.uba.ar/academica/carrerasdegrado/psicologia/sitios_catedras/practicas_profesionales/820_clinica_tr_personalidad_psicosis/material/dsm.pdf

    Nowhere in there does it list “routinely a sh-t to everyone around you”.

    We’re just talking past one another at this point, so we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

    Best,

    Boxer

  145. Boxer says:

    Dear Cane:

    In fact insane does not have one and only one specific meaning. It is not only and always a word of legal use. One may use it in its legal sense, but most often it is used in a non-legal sense. And because it was I who first wrote the word insane in these comments, I am the author of this particular context, and the context is mental derangement regardless of its legal recognition.

    Sorry, you don’t get to redefine words, and declare your words authoritative, based upon your participation in an argument where they help you.

    The old-school thinkers (Habermas, et. al.) call this sort of dishonesty “jiggery-pokery”. Just a bit of trivia.

    So, moving on…

    I don’t think we are. You don’t get to mangle well-defined terms on the fly, to support your arguments, bro.

    Best,

    Boxer

  146. I’ll amend my Marilyn Monroe comments this way: if Marilyn gave a damn that she was hurting Jackie when she was hopping up and down on JFK’s d-ck, then bi-polar. She was just in mania, rebelling against all authority, and having fun with Mr. President. If she didn’t care about the damage she was doing to Jackie, then…. she’s BPD. Marilyn could just justify her behavior with JFK (and later, Bobby) the way a prostitute justifies f-cking Johns that are married. After all, if the wife can’t keep a married man satisfied, the whore has to step in…. (perfect BPD rationalization hamster).

  147. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    You lie to say I redefined insane.

  148. B0xer,

    Nowhere in there does it list “routinely a sh-t to everyone around you”.

    Sure it does. From your DSM link (page 2, revised 2012)….

    2. Impairments in interpersonal functioning (a or b):

    a. Empathy: Lack of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating another.

    That IS “routinely a sh-t to everyone around you.” That IS BPD. As I said.

    So no, we are not talking past each other. You just need to read what you link.

  149. Boxer says:

    Dear IBB:

    It depends on whether or not Courtney or Marilyn cared how many people they hurt along the way. Both were hyper-focused about “appearance.” If Marilyn cared about the damage she did to Joe Dimagio, then she was probably bi-polar-1. If she didn’t, then BPD. Courtney? Of course I don’t see much that is noble, righteous, or empathetic about a 20 year old girl marrying a 56 year old man, and then divorcing him at age 22. So year, she is probably BPD.

    I’ll amend my Marilyn Monroe comments this way: if Marilyn gave a damn that she was hurting Jackie when she was hopping up and down on JFK’s d-ck, then bi-polar. She was just in mania, rebelling against all authority, and having fun with Mr. President. If she didn’t care about the damage she was doing to Jackie, then…. she’s BPD. Marilyn could just justify her behavior with JFK (and later, Bobby) the way a prostitute justifies f-cking Johns that are married. After all, if the wife can’t keep a married man satisfied, the whore has to step in…. (perfect BPD rationalization hamster).

    OK. You’re just trolling now. Ridiculous, but admittedly pretty entertaining. 7/10

    Boxer

  150. Boxer says:

    So no, we are not talking past each other. You just need to read what you link.

    You need to re-write the DSM with your own definitions. Fill it full of these practical examples.

    I need this, desperately, on my bookshelf.

    Boxer

  151. B0xer, no I am not trolling. I just know a thing or two about Manic Depression vs Borderline Personality Disorder. I can discriminate. I know the DSM. I know a thing or two about dysfunctional women. And I’m red-pill and I know the Bible. And when you understand things about human nature, how people relate (and how they don’t relate) to one another, AND you understand God’s law, everything makes sense.

  152. B0xer,

    You need to re-write the DSM with your own definitions. Fill it full of these practical examples.

    You want a practical example? Okay, how about this. This one should be easy for you if you know the DSM. Your 32 year old, three times divorced daughter moved back home with you after getting fired from her 4th job in 2 years; she wakes you and the Mrs up at 3 in the morning. She has to make mashed potatoes. She just has to have them, right now! And wouldn’t it be just wonderful if everyone in the house sat down together at 3 in the morning and had mashed potatoes?!?! Diagnose her B0xer, should take you about 2 seconds.

  153. Boxer says:

    IBB:

    While I’m certainly not without sympathy, only your daughter’s physician can make a diagnosis.

    Most of the people who have these disorders, which you fling around as though you knew something (you don’t) never bother anyone. My understanding is that the average BPD sufferer isn’t a raging bitch. She’s an incurable headcase who prefers to sit alone, all day, cutting her arms and legs. Such people really aren’t the object of my scorn. I feel sorry for them. That’s about it.

    I wasn’t joking about the rewrite, by the way. I’d buy your book.

    Boxer

  154. While I’m certainly not without sympathy, only your daughter’s physician can make a diagnosis.

    Its not my daughter. But that is the wrong answer. The correct answer is she is bi-polar (most likely bi-polar-2.) But I know that because I can read the DSM. I don’t need some damn rent-seeking credential to be able to properly diagnose these text book mental health problems the same way I don’t need to be an auto mechanic to know if my car threw a rod.

    Most of the people who have these disorders, which you fling around as though you knew something (you don’t) never bother anyone. My understanding is that the average BPD sufferer isn’t a raging bitch.

    You’d be wrong.

    She’s an incurable headcase who prefers to sit alone, all day, cutting her arms and legs.

    The cutters could be the suicidal BPD. They don’t care that they are hurting everyone around them by hurting themselves. They cut themselves because they want to kill themselves by bleeding to death. 9% of them do succeed in this act of murder.

    http://www.bpddemystified.com/self-injurious-behaviors-and-suicidality-in-borderline-disorder/

    They don’t see any purpose in their lives. They don’t think their life matters one bit so…. WTF difference does it make if they live or die? When your whole identity is wrapped up in how others perceive you, and you look at your life as one that adds no value, you might start cutting. This can happen for the BPD as well as the bi-polar-1 when they are in their depression stage (Kurt Cobain.)

    The main difference is that a bi-polar is far less likely to kill themselves if they think they would be hurting other people if they did so. A suicidal BPD doesn’t care one bit who is harmed by harming themselves. That is why they need to be institutionalized.

    Such people really aren’t the object of my scorn. I feel sorry for them. That’s about it.

    You should feel sorry for them.

    I wasn’t joking about the rewrite, by the way. I’d buy your book.

    I’m sure you would.

  155. B0xer, you might like this.

    http://www.rtor.org/2015/07/28/bipolar-disorder-vs-borderline-personality-disorder-knowing-the-difference/?gclid=CNTiqaLG6NICFUhWDQodSusKuA

    They could both be suicidal. Both could be cutters. But the BPDs are far more focused on how others perceive them. A bi-polar is going to have a much more fundamental sense of self-worth.

  156. infowarrior1 says:

    @Boxer
    ”That’s pretty interesting. Studies suggest that non-monogamy seems to reduce sexual dimorphism. Males become weaker and punier, and females become masculinized, probably to protect the young and fight off unwanted suitors.”

    Strange since other polygynous organisms especially of the higher order variety like Lions and Gorillas have much higher sexual dimorphism in comparison with monogamous organisms. What makes humans the exception?

  157. Ofelas says:

    @innocentbystanderboston
    Just a side note that what you describe in the daughter example can be something else too, including prodromal period of schizophrenia simplex, or even the borderline.
    What symptoms and symptoms’ clusters exactly do you link to the manio-depressive diagnosis in the behavior you describe in your example please?

  158. Ofelas says:

    Just to add: what you are drawing some medical conclusions from are outer/societal/interpersonal consequences of some inner dynamics and processes, that you don’t mention or try to picture, and there can be very different processes prompting the same outer behaviors. We don’t know whether she was leaving the jobs because ‘the people were spying at her’, or she had an insane argument with everyone once every second day, or she was stealing office stationary, we don’t know whether she was leaving the husbands because they were sucking energy from her during night or plotting against her with aliens, or what.., we don’t know how she sleeps, if she has the morning pessima, is she anxious, does she get panic attacks, does she have uncontrollable spasms of aggression, does she employ some magic thinking like (absurd example, can’t think of better at the moment, so just to illustrate) ‘if I keep it one relationship per half a year for next five years, that will cause eternal world peace’ etc. Some clearer hint from your example would be the potato mash at night = impulsivity, disregard to others, selfcentredness, (that could suggest eg (apart from other possibilities) the borderline, that you dismiss), but again: the idea could have been ‘put in her head somehow’ and she simply had to act on it, otherwise something horrible would happen, but she couldn’t tell you that of course, to not scare you, so she played it as a party time.. We know none of that to be able to assess what’s really wrong there.

  159. Novaseeker says:

    But I believe that acting like a homosexual, or telling yourself that homosexuality is fine, or dressing like a girl can cause those impairments which we can physically measure.

    Yes, something like that. It’s basically that the behavior begins to imprint mentally, which the results in mental changes that serve to reinforce the behavior. A fair number of gay guys had “imprinting experiences” when they were younger (say early to middle teen years) with older boys or men, and those experiences then created mental wiring which reinforced the experiences and imprinted on them. Take that guy when he’s 21 and he probably has a solid identity as gay and would say he was born that way, but in his case it’s more likely that during a formative period for him sexually in those early teen years he had homosexual experiences which imprinted, and did make changes mentally, such that he now experiences himself as “just being that way” … when he likely wasn’t before those imprinting experiences. Of course, I’d think that some gay guys really are born that way (maybe hormonal exposure in utero or something), but many who are active homosexuals were not in any meaningful sense pre-determined to be gay.

    The same holds true for trans. There are some trans who seem to identify with the opposite sex very early on, like 4-5 years of age, and it is decidedly not psycho-sexual. I think there’s some evidence from what I have read that if even these kids are not indulged and are encouraged to reconcile themselves to their biological sex, they do eventually fit back in, without further invasive and life-altering procedures. There is a larger group, however, who only starts to experience trans feelings when puberty comes along, and it is psycho-sexual in nature — meaning that there are imprinting experiences which are taking place, and these do make mental changes that can be hard to uproot, especially when they are tied to something as mentally powerful as sexuality and sexual feelings and activity. In particular, many of the trans who experience their attraction to being trans only beginning during the onset of puberty strongly connect their desire to be a member of the opposite sex with a desire to play the sexual role of the opposite sex, which raises the same issue of sexual imprinting I mention above.

  160. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    IBB sez:

    I don’t need some damn rent-seeking credential to be able to properly diagnose these text book mental health problems the same way I don’t need to be an auto mechanic to know if my car threw a rod.

    That’s odd, since yesterday saw you awarding a fake M.D. to Paul Elam in order to make his lunatic ranting more acceptable. Does an M.D. count or doesn’t it, or does it only count when an M.D. appears to be on your side in the argument? As with Cane Caldo’s desperate redefinitions, your reversals are comedic, and becoming hard to track without a score card.

    Infowarrior1 sez:

    Strange since other polygynous organisms especially of the higher order variety like Lions and Gorillas have much higher sexual dimorphism in comparison with monogamous organisms. What makes humans the exception?

    Do you have a source that suggests humans are an exception? The paper I posted didn’t make that claim.

    Anyway, as I said, I have never studied biology and anthropology, and don’t pretend to understand any of this stuff. I am, however, one of those fools who generally weights the credence of peer review higher than blogs on the internet. That gets one in trouble in the Dalrock comment section, but in other ways it serves me well.

    Happy Wednesday, ladies!

    Boxer

  161. Boxer says:

    Dear Ofelas:

    Just a side note that what you describe in the daughter example can be something else too, including prodromal period of schizophrenia simplex, or even the borderline.

    Right. Such things can also be caused by brain tumors, or forms of epilepsy, or they might be one part of a complex of different factors, constellated in the brain. That’s why those of us boring conventional types refer our unhinged friends to qualified professionals, rather than attempting a self-diagnosis or getting advice from anonymous poseurs on the internet, but I digress…

    Boxer

  162. infowarrior1 says:

    @Boxer
    ”Do you have a source that suggests humans are an exception? The paper I posted didn’t make that claim. ”

    Yes you made that claim earlier. This is a direct quote from your earlier comment above:

    ”That’s pretty interesting. Studies suggest that non-monogamy seems to reduce sexual dimorphism. Males become weaker and punier, and females become masculinized, probably to protect the young and fight off unwanted suitors. ”

    You probably made a mistake but you did claim that in your comment.

  163. BillyS says:

    Up Next:

    How many angels can dance on the head of a pin….

  164. Boxer says:

    Dear Billy:

    How many angels can dance on the head of a pin….

    It’s sorta fun though, right? Props to IBB for successfully trolling me yesterday with some truly funny stuff. He oughta go “full TOG” more often.

    Boxer

  165. Boxer says:

    Dear Infowarrior:

    Yes you made that claim earlier. This is a direct quote from your earlier comment above:

    ”That’s pretty interesting. Studies suggest that non-monogamy seems to reduce sexual dimorphism. Males become weaker and punier, and females become masculinized, probably to protect the young and fight off unwanted suitors. ”

    Wrong. I suppose I would have made that claim, had I agreed with you that “evoandproud dot blogspot dot com” was an authoritative or reputable source. I never did that. I said it was interesting.

    This gets back to the general theme in these comments. What do we take as a reliable source for empirical information? Personally, I go with peer review. One can’t be an expert in everything, or even in most things. Thankfully, there are communities of experts to filter out the natural whims and biases of individuals.

    Best,

    Boxer

  166. Gunner Q says:

    “Up next… How many angels can dance on the head of a pin….”

    “It’s sorta fun though, right?”

    More fun than the polygamy rehash on the other thread.

    “What do we take as a reliable source for empirical information? Personally, I go with peer review.”

    Gawd, no. If I listened to professional experts then I’d be a feminized cuck right now. Let’s do things the Protestant way: each side makes his arguments and I decide with the sense God gave me who to believe.

    Here, that sense tells me that if a BPD/NPD can fake being normal, even briefly, then he isn’t insane because he understands what “normal” is, even if he personally is not a fan of the concept. Also, I believe infowarrior that polygamous African societies are more masculine than monogamous because nothing says masculinity like thuggish warlords forcing their enslaved “weak men” into pointless bush wars to kill and die while he breeds a replacement superior race like a white nationalist. Maybe Dark Triad shouldn’t be our gold standard of masculinity.

  167. B0xer,

    It’s sorta fun though, right? Props to IBB for successfully trolling me yesterday with some truly funny stuff. He oughta go “full TOG” more often.

    I am still patiently waiting to see how you are going to incorporate my Toastmasters speech into your blog.

  168. Boxer says:

    Dear IBB:

    I am still patiently waiting to see how you are going to incorporate my Toastmasters speech into your blog.

    I pulled it for no other reason than an increasing unease about your lack of anonymity. By our standards it was reasonable and not too controversial. Current events are trending toward guys like you getting fired, for even the most minor and milquetoast dissent against the status quo.

    Just FYI: You’re always welcome to email me privately about such stuff, or leave a comment over at Chez Boxer.

    Y’r Pal

  169. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    As with Cane Caldo’s desperate redefinitions

    Lame. Prove that the word insane has only a legal definition, and it does not have a definition of “mental derangement”.

    This gets back to the general theme in these comments. What do we take as a reliable source for empirical information? Personally, I go with peer review. One can’t be an expert in everything, or even in most things. Thankfully, there are communities of experts to filter out the natural whims and biases of individuals.

    It is true one can’t be an expert on everything, but a collection of whims and biases does not eliminate whims and biases. It can only inform one of the whims and biases of the reviewing peers. The real issue is: Do I believe those peers? In the case of the authors of the DSM, I have to say I do not believe them. They refuse to recognize even the obvious truth that homosexuality is a perversion and a preference for it is a derangement.

  170. I pulled it for no other reason than an increasing unease about your lack of anonymity. By our standards it was reasonable and not too controversial. Current events are trending toward guys like you getting fired

    I did that speech at my place of employment. But thank you for your concern.

  171. Boxer says:

    I did that speech at my place of employment. But thank you for your concern.

    Well, my anonymous internet blog is a place of anonymity, and I post what I want and pull what I want after I post it, based upon whatever I think works best for me.

    You’ve got your own blog, I know. Why not write some shit on there? Last I checked (not too long ago) it was dusty. If you have the time to redpill your co-workers, you have no excuse but to occasionally show love to a wider audience.

    The more individual voices, shouting in unison, the better.

    Boxer

  172. I mean seriously B0xer, what is HR feminist-secretary-girl going to do, fire me for quoting frightening statistics? I could sue her for more money than I will ever earn for the rest of my life and I have a case, an actual recording that I could show in court where her position would be indefensible. Is my boss going to fire me for making a poster with graphs on it? No, that will not happen. Any “offense” anyone takes from my remarks would be their own insecurities about marriage as I never mentioned even one personal thing.

  173. Boxer says:

    IBB:

    I didn’t know we could get less relevant to Dalrock’s original post, but you continue to impress me with your trolling skills. Let’s recap…

    1. You posted a link to a youtube video you did.
    2. I asked you for permission to spread the youtube video around, because I was (and still am) impressed. You granted.
    3. I posted the youtube video for about a week on my blog.
    4. I deleted the blog post (not the youtube video, which seems to be still up).
    5. You’re here criticizing me weeks later, for running my blog, in the comments section of Dalrock’s blog.

    Again, all this is confirmed. What’s the issue?

    PS.: I don’t care what you’re comfortable with. I post stuff on my blog and delete stuff on my blog based upon my own standards. Post it on your own blog, and I’ll link to it. Author an anonymous article and send it to me. If it doesn’t suck, I’ll post it on my blog with “IBB” in the byline. I don’t like identifiable stuff on my blog. That’s my hangup, and you have to live with it.

    Boxer

  174. Oh, I didn’t even know you put it up there, and then took it down. I have no issue. Its all good.

  175. SirHamster says:

    Again, you’re dishonestly redefining the word ‘insane’ and then pretending that it helps your argument. That word has a specific meaning.

    I don’t disagree with the general Aristotelian praxis of socialization. He was a big fan of practice until good behavior becomes second nature. That’s a different issue, though. You used the word ‘insane’ to describe someone making conscious choices. That’s akin to bringing up unmarried bachelors and black sunshine.

    You’re dishonestly attacking a strawman.

    Cane Caldo said:
    “My belief is that an accumulation of immoral choices can make one legitimately insane.”

    He used the word insane to describe the end result of someone making conscious choices.

  176. Boxer says:

    Dear SirHamster:

    You’re dishonestly attacking a strawman.

    You actually just created a strawman, on the fly. Illustration:

    Cane Caldo said:
    “My belief is that an accumulation of immoral choices can make one legitimately insane.”

    He used the word insane to describe the end result of someone making conscious choices.

    And you selectively quoted me to suggest that was my only point.

    Note the causal chain: insane is a legal term, which entails a diagnosis made by a medical professional. What he (and you, I suppose) are asserting is that one can consciously choose to become physically ill. That’s not really possible without some mediator, and in the case of psychiatric illness, it’d have to be a pretty profound one (like some sort of self-induced lobotomy).

    As you surely already know, Mr. Caldo not only attempted to redefine “insane” to some weaker meaning, but he also continues to insist that only he knows the definition of various mental illnesses. The people who wrote the books on them being mere pretenders. lol

    Feel free to try again. I’m sure you will, but don’t expect me to devote any time to your future attempts.

    Boxer

  177. SirHamster says:

    And you selectively quoted me to suggest that was my only point.

    I quoted the point I disagreed with. Just as you quote parts of my posts and sometimes skip over direct questions.

    Note the causal chain: insane is a legal term, which entails a diagnosis made by a medical professional. What he (and you, I suppose) are asserting is that one can consciously choose to become physically ill. That’s not really possible without some mediator, and in the case of psychiatric illness, it’d have to be a pretty profound one (like some sort of self-induced lobotomy).

    Insane is an English word that exists outside the courtroom and academia.

    You’ve heard of this class of chemicals called “drugs”, Boxer? If a man chooses to drink poison, do you think he might become physically ill? Does he need a mediator to drink poison and make himself ill?

    You’ve heard of alcohol, I presume. Is a drunk man of sound mind, able to enter contractual obligations? How much sound action comes of men and women getting “wasted”?

    The existence of psychotropic drugs that can help mentally disordered people function also imply the existence of drugs that increase mental disorder. There might even be a drug that would lead a man to chew another’s face off. Would that be the act of a sound or unsound mind?

    As you surely already know, Mr. Caldo not only attempted to redefine “insane” to some weaker meaning, but he also continues to insist that only he knows the definition of various mental illnesses. The people who wrote the books on them being mere pretenders. lol

    No, he did not. That is your attempt to reframe events to paint others worse and set yourself up as a credible authority.

    But your reframes are dishonest, and you undermine your credibility every time you play this game. When called out, you double down.

    Without commitment to the truth, intelligence cannot be trusted.

  178. Original Laura says:

    @Novaseeker:

    A few months ago, a young English actor was quoted in the Telegraph or Guardian as saying something to the effect that children should not be given hormones or surgery to help them transition to the opposite sex, as he himself had desperately wanted to be a girl his entire childhood up until the age of fifteen, when the desire to be of the opposite sex completely and permanently disappeared. (He is now gay.) His point of view was that lasting changes should not be made to a child — let them grow up and decide for themselves what they want to do when they reach adulthood. He was very thankful that he had been left intact.

    I’m astonished that doctors are willing to do sex changes on children. I think that many of these kids are being influenced by the parents’ sick need for attention. (“My little kid wants to transition to the opposite sex, and I’m fine with that, because I’m so open-minded and unprejudiced.”) How many of these transitioned kids are going to end up suing the pants off the doctor who transitioned them when they grow up and change their minds, and this sick fad fades away?

    If it was wrong to sterilize handicapped children in the 1950s, surely it is wrong to sterilize children with gender dysphoria today. Milo Yiannopoulos argues that people with gender dysphoria are mentally ill and should be treated, not operated upon, as they have high suicide rates post surgery and the surgery leaves them sterile and usually non-orgasmic.

  179. infowarrior1 says:

    @Boxer
    ”Wrong. I suppose I would have made that claim, had I agreed with you that “evoandproud dot blogspot dot com” was an authoritative or reputable source. I never did that. I said it was interesting.”

    Actually you are wrong. I utilized Ctrl+F to find that exact wording in your previous comment at:
    ”Boxer
    March 21, 2017 at 10:06 am”

    Find this exact comment using this feature and see for yourself your earlier comment. You think I made this up?

    I believe you have may have made a mistake with that particular claim but you did claim to have studies proving the reduction of sexual dimorphism because of polygyny.

  180. Tim J Penner says:

    Great post. What if we are missing the most important part? Intead of: (17 There was no sparkle in Leah’s eyes,[a] but Rachel had a beautiful figure and a lovely face.) Reverse this.

    17 Rachel had a beautiful figure and a lovely face, but Leah…eyes…pain…much pain.

    Leah was by far the better person inside. God blessed her with children out of compassion and respect for her inner qualities, but (17 …Rachel had a beautiful figure and a lovely face).

  181. Boxer says:

    Dear InfoWarrior1:

    Jesus Christ, you’re a sperg. Please see below…

    Actually you are wrong. I utilized Ctrl+F to find that exact wording in your previous comment at:
    ”Boxer
    March 21, 2017 at 10:06 am”

    What you caught me saying about your source was that it was “pretty interesting.”

    FYI: When I use those words, that’s what they mean. The fact that I found something interesting doesn’t imply I have a position on it.

    For the dozenth time, I’ll again repeat that I’m not a biologist, anthropologist, etc. I’m not really qualified to take a position on any of this stuff, which is why I haven’t argued one.

    Given your credence in anonymous blogspot articles as sources, it’s safe to assume you’re not qualified to have a position, either. So, there we are.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  182. Boxer says:

    Dear SirHamster:

    Please see below…

    But your reframes are dishonest, and you undermine your credibility every time you play this game. When called out, you double down.

    Oh LOLOLOL!

    The fake christian who made up a fake history, and tried to convince people I was a flaming homosexual, is now calling me “dishonest”.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/02/25/black-propaganda-and-feminism/

    I’ve rarely met anyone quite as looney as you. You rival Rob Fedders and Manboobz for your ability to amuse and entertain.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  183. SirHamster says:

    Boxer says:

    Oh LOLOLOL!

    The fake christian who made up a fake history, and tried to convince people I was a flaming homosexual, is now calling me “dishonest”.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/02/25/black-propaganda-and-feminism/

    I’ve rarely met anyone quite as looney as you. You rival Rob Fedders and Manboobz for your ability to amuse and entertain.

    Note how Boxer ignores the direct questions in my post, after complaining that I had “selectively quoted [Boxer] to suggest that was [Boxer’s] only point.” I have treated him no worse than he has treated me.

    He changes the topic from the definition of insanity and the ability of past choices to affect a man’s sanity to personal attacks on me, conceding all my points. He throws out a false accusation of my being a fake Christian when he himself is not a Christian and has no ability to judge such. He then invents a false history of my trying to convince others that he is a homosexual. All under the false pretense that he is Laughing Out Loud Out Loud Out Loud. But he isn’t fooling any of us.

    Boxer is an intellectual fraud and has little to teach us directly on the subject of masculinity because he has no love of Truth. Still, his Gamma antics can teach by being an example of what not to do, and how faithless intelligence is foolish and ultimately insane.

    Considering Boxer’s behavior and knowing that Gammas project, his last accusation that I have looney behavior takes on new significance. Boxer’s irrational resistance to Cane’s observation is odd in of itself – but if he is looney and knows it, then his resistance is a rejection of his own responsibility in developing an unsound mind.

    Boxer, repent and turn to Jesus for salvation. God saves. Faith in Christ grounds the unstable mind and heals the spiritual wounds. Be healed.

  184. SirHamster says:

    That last point is from experience. I had a college friend who hated God and was neurotic, sometimes making outlandish accusations of me. I never understood at the time what that was about, but I still loved him as a friend.

    He has since become a Christian, and the change in his mind and behavior is undeniable. Man needs God like women need a man. Faith in Christ grounds us and unleashes us from the chains of insanity and the dark internal hurts.

  185. Boxer says:

    Dear SirHamster:

    Boxer, repent and turn to Jesus for salvation. God saves. Faith in Christ grounds the unstable mind and heals the spiritual wounds. Be healed.

    Given that whenever you lose an argument, you kook out and make up funny lies about whoever one-ups you, I tend to doubt you know anything about Jesus or any of his teachings. Furthermore, the bad example you continue to set serves to suggest that Christians are filthy-minded scumbags.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/02/25/black-propaganda-and-feminism/

    Why on earth would any normal person want to have anything to do with whatever you pretend association with? I certainly wouldn’t.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  186. SirHamster says:

    Given that whenever you lose an argument, you kook out and make up funny lies about whoever one-ups you, I tend to doubt you know anything about Jesus or any of his teachings. Furthermore, the bad example you continue to set serves to suggest that Christians are filthy-minded scumbags.

    Can’t lose to an argument you didn’t make. Quit lying, Boxer. Everyone can see what just happened.

    I asked you several direct questions related to a point you made. You ignored the questions to attack me personally under the pretense of LOLOLOLOL. You conceded the argument and lost.

    Everything you just accused me of is a projection of what you do. When Boxer loses the argument, he kooks out and makes up unfunny lies about whoever one ups him. Boxer doesn’t know anything about Jesus or his teachings. His bad example continues to show others how not to be a Man.

    Just one post ago, you were pretending to be “amused and entertained”. Note here how Boxer has dropped the LOLOLOLs and self-proclaimed amusement. Are you not still entertained?

    One day, Boxer, you’ll get tired of lying to yourself and everyone. When you hit that point, remember that Jesus saves.

  187. Boxer says:

    Dear SirHamster:

    Can’t lose to an argument you didn’t make. Quit lying, Boxer. Everyone can see what just happened.

    Who is “everyone” exactly? Voices in your head?

    I hate to break this to you, but I don’t think too many people care about your kook-rants, pages and pages long.

    Just one post ago, you were pretending to be “amused and entertained”. Note here how Boxer has dropped the LOLOLOLs and self-proclaimed amusement. Are you not still entertained?

    Of course I am, silly. I’ve been laughing at you since you claimed, with no evidence, that I was a homosexual pedophile, after losing your last argument.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/02/25/black-propaganda-and-feminism/

    Now write me another 1000 word screed. Keep pretending that Jesus is cool with all the shit you do. That helps.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  188. SirHamster says:

    I hate to break this to you, but I don’t think too many people care about your kook-rants, pages and pages long.

    Why do you think I care about how many people care about what I write? But you care, which is why you use the Gamma tactics you do.

    Of course I am, silly. I’ve been laughing at you since you claimed, with no evidence, that I was a homosexual pedophile, after losing your last argument.

    Never claimed you were a homosexual pedophile, liar. Like AT, you have developed a need to describe yourself as the Winnar! of arguments.

    The label is not the reality. Only an insane mind would think that.

  189. Boxer says:

    Dear SirHamster:

    Never claimed you were a homosexual pedophile, liar.

    I suppose someone else snuck into your low rent hellhole, logged on to your computer with your credentials and posted this:

    https://v5k2c2.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/screen-shot-2017-02-24-at-06-51-05.png?w=998&h=544

    Like AT, you have developed a need to describe yourself as the Winnar! of arguments.

    I don’t know who AT is, but assume he’s someone else you obsessively dance for. Pure ressentiment! I love it!

    Regards,

    Boxer

  190. Cane Caldo says:

    @SirHamster

    Never claimed you were a homosexual pedophile, liar.

    That is correct: Boxer is lying. I remember that exchange. Your comments were about Jack Donovan, who is gay, and the implication you made was that because Donovan is a homosexual he might present less than good insight…or intentions for that matter.

    And he also lied to say I redefined insane.

    you have developed a need to describe yourself as the Winnar! of arguments.

    Boxer, when cornered, tends to give up all pretense of argument and just go full-on troll. He doesn’t have to “win”. He just doesn’t like the evidence so he tries to burn the whole thing down.

  191. SirHamster says:

    I suppose someone else snuck into your low rent hellhole, logged on to your computer with your credentials and posted this:

    https://v5k2c2.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/screen-shot-2017-02-24-at-06-51-05.png?w=998&h=544

    1. That comment was in regards to an author named Jack Donovan, and not a Dalrock blog-poster named Boxer. Narcissistic much?

    2. Those are questions, not claims. Whether or not he or you are homosexual pedophiles, honest answers to those questions would reflect the truth.

    Quit kooking, Boxer.

    @ Cane Caldo

    Boxer, when cornered, tends to give up all pretense of argument and just go full-on troll. He doesn’t have to “win”. He just doesn’t like the evidence so he tries to burn the whole thing down.

    So I’ve noticed. It closely matches the Gamma male profile developed by Vox Day.

  192. Boxer says:

    SirHamster:

    1. That comment was in regards to an author named Jack Donovan, and not a Dalrock blog-poster named Boxer.

    Odd, you were quoting me, and addressed it to me. Later on in the very same thread you reiterated your claim that I was a homosexual and a pedophile, several times.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/jim-geraghty-on-the-beauty-of-the-threatpoint/#comment-228692

    Boxer, when cornered, tends to give up all pretense of argument and just go full-on troll. He doesn’t have to “win”. He just doesn’t like the evidence so he tries to burn the whole thing down.

    Cane Caldo:

    What part of the new testament allows for this shit behavior your sister indulges in?

    In any event, it’s just more of the same, and another demonstration of the fact that you indulge in projection. The minute you two girls didn’t get any further attention out of me, you started with the insults and lies. Very “christian” of you. LOL!

    Regards,

    Boxer

  193. Luke says:

    Hamster, that post is clearly about Donovan, who is an admitted queer. That sad group of defective people are much more likely than normals to have been molested when young, to in turn commit molestation/rape of same-sex youths later on, etc.

  194. Pingback: Boxer & His Stable of Kooks – v5k2c2

  195. pavetack says:

    Interesting counter take from Rick Stump, who believes Courtly Love was the Romance Novel of it’s day: http://www.castaliahouse.com/guest-post-chivalry-versus-courtly-love-by-rick-stump/.

  196. Pingback: A Course In Relationships | The Sound and The Fury

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