A lack of empathy.

Jody Allard’s latest piece slamming her teenage sons has rightly gone viral.  Vox Day describes it as a case for paternal custody, and Ed Driscoll at Instapundit darkly joked about naming her mother of the year.

Allard is the most shameless of the shameless, a professional divorcée who plies her trade by repeatedly humiliating her sons in print.  In February of last year Allard wrote in the Washington Post about one of her sons being committed to a psychiatric ward after expressing the desire to kill himself.  Starting with the title, it was all about herI have to learn to care for my suicidal teen with limits but without fear

I am a good enough mother. I know that because my son’s psychiatrist told me so last week, as she explained bell curves and Skinner’s theories, and said that suicidal thoughts are normal. Forty percent of teenagers have them, she said, and it’s only verbalizing these thoughts that pushes my son out of the realm of normal and into the abyss of mental illness.

…I have been searching for what I did wrong since it happened, and I’ve examined my son’s life with a fine-toothed comb, finding a thousand examples of my mistakes. I married the wrong men…

Allard followed up six months later with another humiliating piece, this time accusing her sons of perpetuating rape culture.  My teen boys are blind to rape culture.

My sons are part of the problem.

I’m a survivor of rape and sexual abuse. My sons know this like they know I was once a reporter and I love curries and coffee…

…they aren’t allies in the fight against rape culture because they refuse to acknowledge their own culpability when they call a girl a slut or a whore, laugh at a sexist joke or remain silent when their friends talk about their own questionable sexual behavior.

And in this broken system, anyone who isn’t with us is against us. Particularly, and especially, men. Even my own sons — even yours. It’s not enough to teach our sons about consent; we have to encourage them to have the courage to speak out against rape culture, too.

The deep irony is that she is accusing her sons of lacking empathy, something Allard displays a truly pathological lack of.  What kind of mother would publicly humiliate her suicidal son repeatedly, all under the guise of offering parenting advice?

This brings us to Allard’s latest article about her sons, I’m Done Pretending Men Are Safe (Even My Sons) (emphasis mine):

I wrote an essay in The Washington Post last year, during the height of the Brock Turner case, about my sons and rape culture. I didn’t think it would be controversial when I wrote it; I was sure most parents grappled with raising sons in the midst of rape culture. The struggle I wrote about was universal, I thought, but I was wrong. My essay went semi-viral, and for the first time my sons encountered my words about them on their friends’ phones, their teachers’ computers, and even overheard them discussed by strangers on a crowded metro bus. It was one thing to agree to be written about in relative obscurity, and quite another thing to have my words intrude on their daily lives.

One of my sons was hurt by my words…  He is angry at me now, although he won’t admit that either, and his anger led him to conservative websites and YouTube channels; places where he can surround himself with righteous indignation against feminists, and tell himself it’s ungrateful women like me who are the problem.

This woman is incredible.  She knows what she is doing to him, but she simply won’t stop.  No depth is too low.  More astounding is that her editors haven’t come to their senses and pulled the plug on her.

And as always, it is all about her.  Tossing her sons under the bus yet again is merely a segue into how hard it is for her to date as a single mother:

As a single mother, I sometimes wonder whether the real problem is that my sons have no role models for the type of men I hope they become. But when I look around at the men I know, I’m not sure a male partner would fill that hole. Where are these men who are enlightened but not arrogant? Who are feminists without self-congratulation? If my sons need role models, they may have to become their own.

I joined Bumble recently, after a six-plus year break from dating. I’m not overly interested in dating in the first place, but I’m starved for adult conversation so dating feels like a necessary evil. Bumble, as I explained to my married friends, is like the feminist Tinder. Women have to initiate contact with men, so at least there’s no inbox full of dick picks every day. But, feminist or not, the men are no different from the men anywhere else and I quickly felt deflated. If the feminist men — the men who proudly declare their progressive politics and their fight for quality — aren’t safe, then what man is? No man, I fear.

See Also: Harming your kids for attention and profit.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in "The Writer", Professional Divorcee, Rape Culture, Social Justice Warriors, Solipsism, The Washington Post, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

409 Responses to A lack of empathy.

  1. Pingback: A lack of empathy. | @the_arv

  2. Bart says:

    Messed up beyond comprehension –
    It is like the old drug prevention advertisements.
    “This is your brain on feminism”

  3. Bart says:

    I feel so sorry for these young men. It is difficult enough not having a father. Having an evil, deranged lunatic for a mother is unbearable.

  4. SnapperTrx says:

    1. “I’m a survivor of rape and sexual abuse. My sons know this like they know I was once a reporter and I love curries and coffee…”

    Ah yes, what every young guy wants drilled into his mind as much as possible. And I’m sure it comes up in conversations as easily as how much she loves curry does: “Oh, I LOVE curry, just love it! I’m also a victim of sexual abuse, remember?”

    2. Liberals project like mad. Whatever they accuse you of is what they are literally doing themselves.

    3. This is mental masturbation on the part of these women. They get off on this stuff like its a Hitachi wand. It gives them such a good feeling to know how smart they are, how virtuous they are, how nothing was their fault. Her son will grow up either a broken beta loser when he realizes he’s the only one living in reality and that its too difficult to keep up the fight or he will hate his mother, leave once he can and never talk to her again of his own volition. Its a shame.

  5. American says:

    While it is reprehensible what she’s done and doing to her sons, according to the General Social Survey (a sociological survey used to collect information and keep a historical record of the concerns, experiences, attitudes, and practices of residents of the United States) about twelve percent of extremely liberal females have sex with other women while only about two percent of extremely conservative women have sex with other women.

    Has Jody made the transition from extremely liberal radical feminist to extremely liberal radical feminist lesbian yet?

  6. Jason Rennie says:

    The real tragedy is that she hits on a tiny nugget of truth then completely loses her way.

    Men _aren’t_ safe. Men _are_ dangerous, that is why you need to raise them to be GOOD.

    A “safe” man is a gelding. If she was sane she would want virtuous men. Unfortunately she is a feminist and confuses that with “patriarchy” or some such nonsense.

  7. anonymous_ng says:

    I wonder how often parent alienation is the father talking smack about the mother versus the other way. I’m betting the numbers are horribly skewed with virtually no fathers doing so.

    I know some men who’ve been frivorced. Those that share custody of their kids don’t have to bad mouth the kids’ mother, they just have to let the kids spend some time with their mothers, and let the kids come to their own conclusions.

    Then, the women, when their kids don’t want anything to do with them, will turn around and blame it on the fathers.

    If every relationship you’re in is bad, what’s the common denominator??? Exactly.

  8. okrahead says:

    Duluth model for psychological/emotional abuse: “Putting her down. Making her feel bad about herself… Humiliating her. Making her feel guilty.” Of course, since her children are male this does not apply…
    Emotional child abuse: “Abusers constantly reject, ignore, belittle, dominate, and criticize the victims.1,3 This form of abuse may occur with or without physical abuse, but there is often an overlap.4”
    http://www.preventchildabuse.org/images/docs/emotionalchildabuse.pdf
    What this woman is doing is child abuse, plain and simple; and her publishers are profiting from participating in the abuse of these children by providing her platform and payment.

  9. okrahead says:

    Definition of Child Psychological Abuse
    Psychological abuse of a child is a pattern of intentional verbal or behavioral actions or lack of actions that convey to a child the message that he or she is worthless, flawed, unloved, unwanted, endangered, or only of value to meet someone else’s needs. Withholding emotional support, isolation, or terrorizing a child are forms of psychological abuse. Domestic violence that is witnessed by a child is also considered a form of psychological abuse.
    https://www.healthyplace.com/abuse/child-psychological-abuse/what-is-psychological-abuse-of-a-child/

  10. okrahead says:

    This is why, if you face a divorce, you fight for custody bare knuckles, no holds barred, do whatever you have to. When someone like this comes for your child there are no rules.

  11. anonymous_ng says:

    Rape culture? Apparently, at least according to one study as reported on by Milo Y, women are the more rapey bunch.

    Study in question:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359178916301446?_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_origin=gateway&_docanchor=&md5=b8429449ccfc9c30159a5f9aeaa92ffb&dgcid=raven_sd_via_email

    Abstract:
    This article examines female sexual perpetration in the U.S. To do so, we analyzed data from four large-scale federal agency surveys conducted independently by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2008 through 2013. We found these data to contradict the common belief that female sexual perpetration is rare. We therefore reviewed the broader literature to identify patterns and provide context, including among high-risk populations such as college students and inmates. We recommend that professionals responding to this problem avoid gender stereotypes that downplay the frequency and impact of female sexual perpetration so as to comprehensively address sexual victimization in all forms.

    Milo opining about the study, but I’m not going to pay to read the entire thing.

    https://milo.yiannopoulos.net/2017/07/feminism-is-a-lie/

  12. feeriker says:

    I am a good enough mother. I know that because my son’s psychiatrist told me so last week, as she explained …

    Oh, dear God, the kid has a FEMALE shrink??!! It’s a wonder that he hasn’t killed himself long before now. No doubt his attention-whore mother is hoping that that is what will happen.

    More astounding is that her editors haven’t come to their senses and pulled the plug on her.

    Just remember: if there wasn’t a willing audience for her toxic, misandric tripe, she wouldn’t be published at all. Her editors are publishing her still because there is demand for her output. This shouldn’t surprise anyone who has been paying any attention.

  13. Gunner Q says:

    I was curious about Allard’s husband. Turns out she’s triple-divorced but I came across this article by Suzanne Venker:

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/20/feminist-mother-publicly-shames-her-teenage-boys-with-the-help-of-the-media/

    Venker reaches a good conclusion, quote: “That’s typically how [it] happens: a childhood goes terribly wrong. As adults, these folks find solace in an ideology rooted in victimhood, one that promises to heal the wounds of the past. Rather than deal with problems on their own, they band together with others who’ve been hurt and blame men and marriage for all things evil. Jody Allard is one of these women. Upon having sons, she writes that she “had no idea how to raise a boy into a man who wasn’t an asshole.”

    Allard’s twitter name is sendvodka?

  14. “I joined Bumble recently, after a six-plus year break from dating. I’m not overly interested in dating in the first place, but I’m starved for adult conversation so dating feels like a necessary evil.”

    Funny. When I want adult conversation, I don’t feel the need to fake someone of the opposite gender into buying me dinner.

  15. feministhater says:

    Wow! The greatest part is her son finding conservative websites and become anti-feminist. A little bit further down the road and he’s a budding MGTOW. Good gracious me but feminism is doing great work. Beautiful!

  16. Ironsides says:

    Would artificial wombs really be all that bad?

  17. Emperor Constantine says:

    Fred Reed said women are totalitarian. This one certainly is.

  18. Boxer says:

    In February of last year Allard wrote in the Washington Post about one of her sons being committed to a psychiatric ward after expressing the desire to kill himself.

    Gee, I can’t help but wonder why he’d be contemplating a premature exit, with such a stellar example of skank-ho single-motherhood to come home to, day in and day out. I’m sure all of us fellas envy the loving care this radical feminist bestows upon him daily.

    If he survives to adulthood, my man is either going to become a faggy male feminist, or (my money’s on him becoming) a ruthless member of playa culture, who shouts a sublimated “fuck you, mom!” with every woman he slays.

    Boxer

  19. Boxer says:

    Wow! The greatest part is her son finding conservative websites and become anti-feminist. A little bit further down the road and he’s a budding MGTOW. Good gracious me but feminism is doing great work. Beautiful!

    You fellas who haven’t (yet) been IP banned from twitter, as I have, are encouraged to make contact with our young brother. Something tells me he’s online and waiting for our call.

    I don’t think dalrock blog is inappropriate for a teenage boy. Send him a link, and tell him we are all pulling for him.

    In the mean time, here’s a photo of Jody Allard. (safe space!)

  20. Oscar says:

    Off topic, but always pertinent: Why Men Won’t Marry You

    “What exactly does marriage offer men today? ‘Men know there’s a good chance they’ll lose their friends, their respect, their space, their sex life, their money and — if it all goes wrong — their family’, says Helen Smith, Ph.D., author of ‘Men on Strike’. ‘They don’t want to enter into a legal contract with someone who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over.Men aren’t wimping out by staying unmarried or being commitment phobes. They’re being smart’.

    Perhaps these men know all too well that women initiate the vast majority of divorces — anywhere from 65-90 percent, depending on demographics. And when they do, they take the kids with them and hang hubby out to dry with the help of a court system that’s heavily stacked in their favor.” ~ Suzanne Venker

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/05/01/why-men-wont-marry.html

    The title really should be “Why the Men You Want to Marry Won’t Marry You”, but that’s a small quibble. Articles like this are rare in major publications, but they’re becoming less so. Maybe word is getting out.

  21. Swanny River says:

    Oh that photo! I was thinking she is much more typical of the women I work with, not exceptionally sick at all, but then I saw the photo and feel so sad. Her kids will have a hard time of it. Even in a blue pill church, she would get some silent pushback. I am glad for her sake, that she isn’t openly and verbally mocking Jesus.

  22. Boxer says:

    Dear Swanny:

    Oh that photo!

    What was it that made you fall in love? The skank-ho tatts? The purple hair? The dull-but-cruel look in her eyes?

    Cop to it my brother. You know you’re hot for it!

    Boxer

  23. Swanny River says:

    Whoever upthread made a guess at her going gay made a great guess. That photo shows glitterville is her next stop.

  24. Swanny River says:

    I am a dude and can always find something. Since you dared me Boxer, I looked again and think she does have nice freckles and decent eyes.
    You want to help her sons, put a ring on it and adopt them. It is a truth they would at least be protected.

  25. Yoda says:

    Makes me glad that exiled to Degoba I am

  26. Yoda says:

    Wonder if ever made a sammich she has I do

  27. Lost Patrol says:

    No safe men (nor apparently, boys).

    The problem is that there are too many safe men, millions of them.

    – not threatening danger : harmless
    – unlikely to produce controversy or contradiction
    – not likely to take risks : cautious

    That’s how we fell into this hole.

  28. Yoda says:

    Wonder if the sons read about their Mom in the manosphere they do I do

  29. Oscar says:

    “If the feminist men — the men who proudly declare their progressive politics and their fight for quality — aren’t safe, then what man is? No man, I fear.” ~ Jody Allard

    Surely, Muslim “refugees” are safe, right?

  30. Hawk&Rock says:

    “I am a good enough mother. I know that because my son’s psychiatrist told me so last week…”

    Horrifying. What a truly dreadful human being. Pray for her sons.

  31. Hawk&Rock says:

    She hasn’t dated for six years so that’s at least one redeeming quality.

  32. Pingback: A lack of empathy. | Reaction Times

  33. Yoda says:

    She hasn’t dated for six years so that’s at least one redeeming quality.

    Make a good match for Emperor Palpatine she would

  34. DEN1 says:

    She has not seen anything yet. Just wait ’til her boys go full tilt, red pill on her.

  35. Oscar says:

    DEN1,

    Let’s hope so, because if not, a boy filled with that much rage due to maternal betrayal might turn into a killer.

  36. rocko says:

    I’ve gone out with girls (and yes, I will use the term girls, even for women, the context is quite clear) who have claimed to have been sexually abused when young. Now it is my understanding that there are cases when prepubescent children get sexually abused, they will act in a promiscuous manner because that’s all they know and interpret sex as affection.

    Now, with teenagers and older women is different. This is simply because I think that they are, or should be more aware of what they are doing. But because they are never taught integrity or shame, they will simply claim rape. Anything from making out with a boy underneath the bleachers and supposedly blacking out to seducing married men then making a scene because the man responded to her seduction and attempted to “rape” her. A prime example is Mattress Girl.

    Which leads us to this woman. I will not degrade myself by reading her work. But as soon as she mentioned above about sexual abuse, I have to call bullshit. How convenient. A single mother who most likely rode the cock carousel, partied hard, now tries to clear her name by using a heinous crime like rape as a cover, instead of admitting her wrongs.

  37. RecoveringBeta says:

    1. She’s a blogger, not a jogger.
    2. She’s in no danger of being raped.

  38. honeycomb says:

    I’m not a PUA .. but I fou d this post interesting .. LOOK at the left & right side of her face .. this article seems to offer some idea’s ..

    https://krauserpua.com/2017/07/12/pua-and-serial-killing-1-facial-handedness/

  39. honeycomb says:

    If the feminist above is mom of the year .. this one is gorlfriend of the year ..

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/07/11/pennsylvania-woman-lit-boyfriend-on-fire-used-urine-to-put-out-flames-cops-say.html

    ..
    ..

    Once again reference the above article on serial killers & their facial tells.

  40. Spike says:

    ”As a single mother, I sometimes wonder whether the real problem is that my sons have no role models for the type of men I hope they become…”

    -And, whose fault is that, exactly?

    “..But when I look around at the men I know, I’m not sure a male partner would fill that hole. Where are these men who are enlightened but not arrogant? Who are feminists without self-congratulation? If my sons need role models, they may have to become their own…”

    In other words,
    ”My quest to find Prince Charming / Sir Lancelot / Sensitive New Age Guy is akin to finding the Tooth Fairy, but I’m going to plow on regardless. And my sons will have to be their own adults.

    Anyone doubting that Feminism is famous for making a problem, complaining about the problem, and then insisting that men fix the problem need look no further.

  41. Farm Boy says:

    I’m starved for adult conversation so dating feels like a necessary evil

    She could get adult conversation here at Dalrock’s free of charge

  42. Gary Eden says:

    Its like the social media version of Munchausen by proxy.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Munchausen_syndrome_by_proxy

    93% of such abusers are women. Women are perceived as the nurturing sex yet they are the ones who abuse the most children and who blow up the most marriages.

    What is wrong with women that they’ll so quickly destroy the next generation for a little bit of attention?

  43. Cane Caldo says:

    More astounding is that her editors haven’t come to their senses and pulled the plug on her.

    I also wondered that. I mean: Some mothers can be evil sick fucks. It happens, and their children should be freed from them. But publishing her is the act of a cackling demon.

  44. feeriker says:

    If he survives to adulthood, my man is either going to become a faggy male feminist, or (my money’s on him becoming) a ruthless member of playa culture, who shouts a sublimated “fuck you, mom!” with every woman he slays.

    Oscar beat me to it upthread, but the third option is for him to become the next Ed Gein/Andrei Chikatilo/Ted Bundy.

    In the mean time, here’s a photo of Jody Allard. (safe space!)

    A photo tailor made to confirm stereotypes. Note the grungy dress, poor hygiene, thousand-cock stare, and the … what the HELL is up with that Matryoshka doll tattoo on her upper right arm? Is that supposed to be symbolic of schizophrenia/multiple personality disorder?

    I’m starved for adult conversation so dating feels like a necessary evil

    Cupcake, you don’t have a clue what “adult conversation” is. Adults don’t write, speak of, or fixate on the infantile, destructive BS that is the focus of your train wreck of a life.

  45. He might make 25, but he’ll probably put a bullet through his head before that.

  46. Luke says:

    Vaguely related, re the OP and lack of empathy:

    From https://lewrockwell.com/2017/07/bill-sardi/the-divorce-trap/

    The Divorce Trap
    By Bill Sardi
    July 14, 2017

    “If you are the primary wage earner in the middle of a divorce, you are likely the victim of a hidden trap that you may never become aware of even when the divorce is finally over.

    Having a divorce devour the past 3.5 years of my life and run up hundreds of thousands of dollars of legal bills before it would be finalized in the family court, and having to hire a succession of six different attorneys before I found some sort of legal relief, I learned a few things.

    The hidden “quid pro quo” (something that is given or taken in return for something else) in divorce is that the attorney who represents the party that earns the money in the family will be covertly doing things to transfer funds to the non-income earning party so they can pay their attorney. Essentially, your attorney is working for the other side.

    This hidden agreement in divorce proceedings changes sides depending upon which party an attorney represents. And if a divorce attorney doesn’t play along and gets ten clients in a row who aren’t the primary wage earner, he/she may have no way to get paid other than hoping they can file for a lien on community property, if it exists.

    After interviewing a number of men (who are usually the primary wage earner in divorce), I discovered this tacit agreement between divorce attorneys can result in attorneys agreeing to allow one party to even commit crimes with impunity, such as moving assets in the middle of a divorce, running up credit-card bills, which is forbidden in family court, even committing grand theft, credit card and banking fraud.

    Attorneys may petition the family court for back spousal support even if the wage-earning party doesn’t have the funds and threaten him with contempt of court and a night in jail if the money doesn’t materialize.

    Beware the private judge

    When divorce attorneys suggest a private judge to speed things along, you should suspect the judge is in on this ugly divorce game. As long as he plays along, attorneys keep recommending him to their clients. Be wary of private judges to settle your divorce.

    Forging your signature

    What I learned is that during the writing of stipulations (agreements between parties) or testimony in depositions, both attorneys may collude to alter the record, even forge your signature on these papers, to coerce you to pay up or face legal consequences.

    At some point your anger over this ordeal may get the best of you, but you can’t quite put your finger on why your spouse is winning every claim for money in the courtroom. Some men had to pay spousal support even when their ex-wife was still living at home and fully able to work. It’s no wonder many men have heart attacks in the middle of a divorce.

    A presumption is you are hiding money and if your finances are destroyed to the point of insolvency, the attorneys may now find hidden caches of more money they can lay their hands on.

    One man did as ordered, produced all of his banking, tax and financial records as ordered by the court. His ex-wife refused to do the same. The attorneys on both sides didn’t seem to care. The man couldn’t afford to subpoena the banking records at that time. When the divorce was finalized and he finally did regain solvency and subpoenaed his spouse’s banking records, he found she had applied for over a dozen credit cards and had run them up to their maximum to pay her legal bills. Ironically, the credit standing that qualified her for the cards was her husband’s income.

    Attorneys are going to look the other way as long as both sides are getting paid. This game continues until the wage-earning party is plundered of all of his money and assets. An angry female spouse often wants to strike back at her ex and the attorneys on both sides take advantage and allow it all to happen, to their selfish gain.

    One man filed a complaint with the State Bar over the forging of his signature on stipulations. The accused attorney simply claimed he was an irrational and argumentative client and the State Bar sided dismissed the complaint.

    There is no recourse before the judge. You can’t speak in court and only can respond to questions the attorneys ask you. You can’t speak directly to the judge and complain about the bad and unethical behavior of the attorneys.

    Let the divorce games begin

    Outside-the-court divorce games attorneys play are now a common experience.

    One man who ran out of money at one point during his divorce could not afford legal representation and had to represent himself in court, what is called being in “pro per.” Now the opposing attorney had a clear shot at him and wrote him demeaning letters saying he was a bad father and even more horrible husband, baiting the man to reach a point of anger and to respond inappropriately. There was no way to bring this unethical behavior to the attention of the judge.

    In another case I heard about, while living for a year in the same home during the first year of divorce, a retired-attorney friend of the wife was brought in to live in the home and act as a her divorce director and the man had no legal recourse whatsoever to expel her from the home.

    This retired attorney coached the woman to call the police for contrived reasons, attempted to rile up the man by calling him a liar in front of his child, and instructed his spouse to dress up like she was going out on a date with another man and parade herself leaving the house for dinner every Sunday night just to rile up her husband into a state of jealousy. Friends spotted her and said she was just sitting by herself in a restaurant and informed the man.

    In another instance a request for restraining orders was filed based upon a contrived event where it was claimed a man in divorce physically threatened his spouse and child in a public park. After three hearings, the attorney who filed, abandoned his petition. He didn’t show up for the 2nd hearing because he claimed he had a bad back, nor did he show up for the final hearing because he withdrew the petition by telephone, leaving the defendant husband with $6000 of legal bills to pay.

    It’s just all part of the games being played in divorce. The attorneys are behind it all to keep the billable hours going and Family Court is derelict if not complicit, acting as if it hadn’t ever seen any of these contrived events before.

    Disagreement interpreted as harassment

    In the family court, a male who disagrees with his spouse on any issue is often considered to be harassing his ex. An attorney for a woman can make the claim she is being stalked by her ex and the court may forbid any direct communication, as happened in my case. The attorneys collude to submit a request for orders to the judge that forbids any and all direct communication between parties, even telephone or email. Now to communicate with your ex you must go through attorneys @$500/hour. Under the guise of protecting the female, the self-serving attorneys just cut themselves into your income in a big way.

    What I found out is if the wife succeeds in tricking the husband into reacting so as to even appear to be engaged in domestic abuse (verbal or physical), then the Family Court often issues an immediate restraining order ousting the man from his own home and preventing him from having any visitation rights with his own children. And in Family Court credibility is invariably given to the wife, not the husband.

    At one point in my case I could only see my son for an hour every other week. After many weeks the family court eventually corrected this problem but there were no apologies from the bench or attorneys for depriving a child from seeing his father, nor was any make-up time offered.

    Don’t be in a room alone with your ex

    If you are embroiled in a contentious divorce, you may want to avoid being in a room alone with your ex.

    A local police officer advised I keep my fingernails short as women in divorce are often coached to provoke an argument with their spouse, then run their fingernails down the front of their face and call the police. How does a man defend himself when there is photographic evidence?

    That same police officer advised me to be wary of a female in divorce who suddenly wants to get amorous, dresses in a see-through negligee to entice you, and when you touch her she tears her bedroom clothing, calls the police and alleges attempted rape.

    Advice

    What advice do I have to offer? If you are the primary wage-earning party in divorce: (1) do not accept a private judge; (2) make copies of all documents or stipulations your attorney asks you to sign and do not agree to electronic signatures on any documents; (3) recognize both attorneys have knowledge of all of your funds and assets and may attempt to keep the divorce going until all funds are plundered and depleted; (4) many of the outside-the-court divorce games being played emanate from the attorneys who coach their clients. In one instance, a man found the attorney for his spouse conducted practice hearings where she was supposed to cry at a certain time and gain sympathy of the judge; (5) if in a highly contentious divorce, don’t put yourself in a room alone with an angry ex; (6) be aware, your attorneys will warn you the judge may order this or that. It often isn’t the judge who is issuing orders, it is the attorneys who file a “request for orders.” They then blame what may be an unfair order on the bench when it first emanated from the colluding attorneys.

    You may be eager to tell the court why you filed for divorce (infidelity, stealing family money and shuttling it to their side of the family, etc.). But in no-fault divorce States like California, where I reside, you entered into a very strange contract when you got married. The other party to the contract can withdraw affection, and take the kids and the money, for no reason at all.

    The process of modern divorce is a crime. It is an exercise in wealth transfer. But who will put a stop to it? Divorce today is not fair, but it is legal. Somebody told me in divorce nobody in the courtroom believes anybody is telling the truth, certainly not the attorneys and sometimes not even the judge. Be forewarned.”

  47. Hawk&Rock says:

    “He might make 25, but he’ll probably put a bullet through his head before that.”

    Doubtful. Would bet lots that thanks to mom this kid is terrified of guns and hates them, and wouldn’t have the first idea where to get one, or how to use one.

    I really pray he is able to get away from her.

  48. Mark says:

    You really knocked it out of the park with this post Mister “D”. I feel so sorry for those boys. Cunts like this should not be allowed to breed.She writes for the WP?…..that figures.

    @Boxer

    Thanks for the pic.She is nothing to look at.A blue dye job on the hair and a tattoo? 3 times divorced? What a winner! Good luck on her manhunt.No guy with an ounce of self respect would want to pounce on this.I think her best bet would be becoming a lesbian.

    @FemHater

    Saved this one for you.
    https://patriotmouse.com/2017/07/03/mgtow-decimating-marriage-rates-in-usa-but-europe-worse/

  49. Days of Broken Arrows says:

    If her sons happen to be reading this, I have two words: CHATEAU HEARTISTE.

  50. infowarrior1 says:

    When feminism causes problems the solution is always moar feminism.

  51. infowarrior1 says:

    @spike
    ^Above comment

  52. Höllenhund says:

    I’d say the fundamental question about such cringy clickbait is whether you want such fanatics as this Allard broad to assume their seemingly desired role as the public faces of feminist ideology. Were I genuine feminist, I’d find such antics concerning, because anyone with a brain can see that this counts as bad optics. Feminists have won political and cultural victories in the past by appealing to the sensibilities of average people. Allard, on the other hand, is unlikely to gain the sympathy of run-of-the-will normies. As an anti-feminist though, none of this concerns me. I don’t care if feminists alienate their potential audience and elicit hostility, because I’m not invested in their ideology. As far as I’m concerned, the angrier and louder Allard and her ilk is, because it makes it easier to culturally isolate them. And feminists, as expected, are reluctant to disown people like her, which doesn’t exactly help their cause. This seems to be part of a general trend of leftists radicalizing themselves into a vehemently dogmatist, violent hysteria, which is obviously another great example of political self-sabotage, even though they are blind to it, again, as expected.

  53. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘What was it that made you fall in love? The skank-ho tatts? The purple hair? The dull-but-cruel look in her eyes?’

    Most men don’t know how good they have it today. Women are just overtly advertising their mental illness. It used to take getting to know a woman before you knew she was nuts.

  54. anon says:

    Is this the same person?
    Seven kids, three divorces.
    https://theestablishment.co/my-kids-arent-alright-and-that-s-alright-814be7465313

    Nice.

  55. Novaseeker says:

    Seven kids, three divorces.

    Damned patriarchy, keeping her down!

  56. Roger says:

    For a boy, hell must be something like having a feminist mother. The age-old shame game that women have played on men since time immemorial gets amplified in feminists to a degree of insanity, and feminist mothers have a convenient target in their sons. I feel sorry for the poor guys.

  57. Opus says:

    Picking up on Luke above: I was out last night with my friend – the one who has been served with Divorce Papers – and he told me: that so far as splitting up the matrimonial assets and the provision of alimony was concerned he and his wife would attend before a mediator who would act without bias. I rolled my eyes and explained that the mediator – man or woman – would be against him and in favour of his wife. He then explained that he had acted in the most proper and generous of manner towards his wife (despite her withdrawing pussy a decade ago). Again, I rolled my eyes and explained that that is what every man says and that every woman thinks her husband is the meanest S.O.B. in God’s creation. My friend then explained that in talking to a female colleague she had suggested that he consult a lawyer and that perhaps that was good idea. That I said was what I (a man and former legal divorce practitioner though now very rusty) had told him two months ago. Don’t you think, I suggested, that as your wife has formed a sexual relationship with another man that it might be useful to at least attempt to ascertain his identity. It might, I continued, given the secrecy, be someone you know all too well.

    My friend does nothing. If he continues to bury his head in the sand he will find himself living in the back of a van before the summer is out, the new lover ensconsed in his bed.

  58. patriarchal landmine says:

    usually whenever feminists say “that doesn’t represent feminism” it’s about a trifling affair. when it comes to something like this, the life ruining, civilization destroying stuff, you don’t even hear a peep from them.

    because they know, if they respond to it, they are giving it more attention. every person who keeps quiet about this contributes to the harm it does.

  59. rocko says:

    @anon:
    What did I just read? This woman feels no shame! Even after her daughter got molested by the man she married. I didn’t even bother to read the rest of the article. And they wonder why men won’t “man up” and marry these skanks.

  60. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘My friend does nothing. If he continues to bury his head in the sand he will find himself living in the back of a van before the summer is out, the new lover ensconsed in his bed.’

    There is the very real possibility that he’s living in denial of the situation. I had a friend tell me that his ex was cheating before they divorced and he knew it but lived in denial.

  61. Kentucky Headhunter says:

    Maybe you guys should take it a little easier on her, You’ve gotta remember, she’s been in a permanent vagatative state (PVS) her entire life.

  62. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘For a boy, hell must be something like having a feminist mother.’

    From that other article about her a daughter with a feminist mother is he’ll too. Bottom line your hard core feminists have been trained to hate both men and children.

  63. Pingback: Wife wears what husband wants | Christianity and masculinity

  64. Farm Boy says:

    Bottom line your hard core feminists have been trained to hate both men and children.

    Is this a bug, or a feature?

  65. Opus says:

    There is something else: the children being unhappy because of the Divorce my friend like all Fathers seeks to demonstrate his love for the children by spending large sums of money on them by giving them whatever they now demand. The children then take such largesse for granted; meanwhile the wife who will be complaining about how tight-fisted her husband is, asserts loudly that he must have lots of undisclosed income as he is able to spend multiple $$$$$$$$$$/££££££££ on the children. This will not be lost on the Judge.

  66. hank says:

    She needs to date to have adult conversations? Translation: she has no women friends and men will not pretend to be interested in what she has to say without the prospect of sex.

  67. PokeSalad says:

    Off this topic, but I’ll just leave this here (possibly NSFW, depending on where you are):

    http://nypost.com/2017/07/13/a-christian-womans-secret-life-as-a-dominatrix/

    Not so secret, it seems. But, really, is this woman’s logic any different in substance from most of the hamstering we see?

  68. UK Fred says:

    As I read this post, I thought of “Women’s Infidelity” by Michelle Langley, and in particular the quotation, “It’s impossible…to understand anything about women in this country today, unless you understand that a) they’re angry, and b) their anger is directed at men. Women today aren’t seeking equality. They want retribution—revenge.”.

    Allard seems to be projecting the sins, real and imagined of all males from the beginning of history on to her sons. This is nothing short of psychological child abuse for which she ought to be denied access to those sons. But with the family court system on both sides of the Atlantic, there is not a snowball’s chance in Hell of that happening.

  69. PokeSalad says:

    Makes me glad that exiled to Degoba I am

    I’d rather marry a tauntaun.

  70. Oscar says:

    @ Höllenhund says:
    July 14, 2017 at 5:06 am

    “Were I genuine feminist, I’d find such antics concerning, because anyone with a brain can see that this counts as bad optics. Feminists have won political and cultural victories in the past by appealing to the sensibilities of average people.”

    Yes, but that would require self-awareness. Also, hubris follows success. Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first promote. Fortunately, Nemesis follows hubris.

  71. Yoda says:

    I’d rather marry a tauntaun

    Keep you warm when it is cold they will.

  72. Yoda says:

    I am a good enough mother

    Beg to differ I do.
    Many wise people in agreement I have

  73. PokeSalad says:

    Keep you warm when it is cold they will.

    “And I….thought they smelled bad….on the OUTside…..”

  74. Oscar says:

    @ Farm Boy says:
    July 14, 2017 at 8:48 am

    “‘Bottom line your hard core feminists have been trained to hate both men and children.’

    Is this a bug, or a feature?”

    It’s a feature. Ultimately, feminism stems from hatred of God and His order for the universe, so does homosexuality, transgenderism, etc.

    What is God’s order for a woman? As a general rule (exceptions apply, such as nuns, etc.), God’s order for a woman is that she marry a man, submit to him and give him children, because in so doing they (the husband and wife) present the world with an earthly picture of Christ and the Church (“This is a profound mystery… ” ~ Eph 5:32).

    So, how does a feminist rebel against God? How does she give a middle finger to the ultimate father figure? She hates men (even her own sons) and children, to the point that their highest sacrament is murdering babies in the womb.

  75. UK Fred says:

    @Earlthomas786
    There is a meme with some grain of truth in it doing the rounds which goes, “25% of women have been diagnosed with some sort of mental disorder. This means that 75% of women are running around undiagnosed.”

  76. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I found this PSA. In a toy store, a Cinderella doll rebels against riding in a horse-drawn chariot. Instead, she drives a race car. When a boy wants to buy the toy race car with the Cinderella doll, he is told “they don’t go together.”

    The PSA ends with the words: Playing, just like driving, shouldn’t be a matter of gender.

  77. Swanny River says:

    UK Fred, that’s a good one. I remember in the 70’s that humor was still part of the culture. In the future kids may ask me what it was like before computers and I will say it was a smaller change than society becoming a matriarchy.

  78. Oscar says:

    Off topic, but pertinent:

    “We’ve lost track of Mattress Girl, but the man she accused of rape, Paul Nungesser, just settled with the university for an undisclosed amount.” ~ Twitchy

    http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2017/07/13/columbia-university-settles-with-former-student-accused-of-rape-by-mattress-girl/

  79. Heidi_storage says:

    I don’t know how much bleating you can take, but this woman has written a lot of articles–most about herself and her family. She is messed up.

    https://jodyallard.contently.com

  80. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The PSA also shows toy soldiers enjoying a tea set.

  81. Swanny River says:

    RPL, that is a super example of the noise we live in. Not only is that an evil PSA but we have all just excepted a tremendous increase in PSAs the past 8 years. I hope to never hear the PSA you were exposed to. And the conservative church has no problem with that ad like you do. Ugh.

  82. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The comment section has a link, showing that Mattress Girl is now a “bondage-based performance artist”: https://news.artnet.com/art-world/emma-sulkowicz-ship-is-sinking-976988

  83. Swanny River says:

    Speaking of old culture, I am surprised Sanford and Son isn’t banned due to all the jokes about Aunt Esther. That wasn’t that long ago, and a woman behaving like Allard would have been mostly shunned, or would be in a corner of a philosophy department.

  84. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Sanford and Son had black characters. Blacks get more leeway when it comes to expressions of masculinity. In the 1980s Cosby portrayed a wise father (in the 1950s mold), by which time white sitcoms had buffoonish dads. (Growing Pains later attempted to be a white copy of Cosby.)

    Some white liberals are so desperate to heal black dysfunction, they’ll even lionize black fatherhood, hoping it will rub off on the audience.

  85. jgarveyrose says:

    Boxer,
    “What was it that made you fall in love? ………… The dull-but-cruel look in her eyes?”

    I do believe that’s what is commonly known as, ‘The Thousand Cock Stare’.

  86. Casey says:

    Boxer…….that picture says it all.

    Jody Allard:

    Purple hair……..
    Tattooed………..
    Overweight…….
    Vacant eyes…..

    And men are the ones coming up short in her catalogue of ‘Must Haves’?

    What old-fashioned, gallant, corn-fed, fit, All-American Male wouldn’t want to ‘man-up’ and marry this overlooked pearl? (Oh right, all of them).

    What a train wreck.

    I pity her sons, and certainly she is doing brilliant work to add to the MGTOW movement.

  87. Yoda says:

    Most unappealing her facial expression is

  88. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    that picture says it all.

    Jody Allard:

    Purple hair……..
    Tattooed………..
    Overweight…….
    Vacant eyes…..

    You forgot that she’s missing a hand. One of the articles about her mentions that she was born with only one hand. Not that she can be blamed for a birth defect, but it does lower her desirability. It might also partially explain her rage.

  89. Chris says:

    Ms. Allard is being taken to task on her Facebook page by both men and women, myself included. She needs a serious check-up from the neck up.

  90. Kate says:

    Even if you have the best intentions of using personal examples to help others, there’s still the danger of being exploitative.

  91. Jack Russell (formerly Jack Russell Terrorist) says:

    Anything published in the Washington ComPost or NY Slime is mostly fake anyways. Any wonder why the corporate media is dying off.

  92. Swanny River says:

    Yoda,
    The picture is unappealing to a hermit muppet, sure, but to Real Men who aren’t afraid of smart, attractive, and strong women, it is hot. At least that is what Allard probably believes and is expecting of her sons in order for them to receive her approval.

  93. anon says:

    “Ms. Allard is being taken to task on her Facebook page by both men and women, myself included. She needs a serious check-up from the neck up.”

    I’m sure she’s had many a therapy session. Her articles indicate everyone in the family is in therapy. She’s essentially capitalizing on writing about being a shite parent.
    More irritating than a sea urchin suppository….Why in the hell is anyone paying this person for her writing?!?

  94. Mandy says:

    The state of public discourse is craven, depraved or stupid. For all the talk of supposed religious freedom, there is no public debate about the nature of mankind, the meaning of life or goodness & truth. Forget about discussing God or sin & redemption. They claim not to sin.

    Consider she is well compensated for writing this but our host toils in anonymity. This is truly the worst of all possible cultures. 😦

  95. Abelard Lindsey says:

    Vox Day has precisely the right comeback::

    No doubt she’ll be mystified as to why they hate her and leave her to die alone to be eaten by her cats.

  96. Can anyone imagine a father being given space in the Wash Post to write like this about his daughters?

  97. Mr. Roboto says:

    This woman is pure evil, it is scary how she is pushing her young son to commit suicide in order to play the victim and gain attention. She reminds me the case of Michelle Carter who did the same with her boyfriend just to play the victim and make profit of it.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/31/its-now-or-never-texts-reveal-teens-efforts-to-pressure-boyfriend-into-suicide/?utm_term=.c8a953579c39

  98. Disillusioned says:

    If she was my mother I would probably also contemplate suicide.

  99. Gunner Q says:

    Stanton Brown @ 12:56 pm:
    “Can anyone imagine a father being given space in the Wash Post to write like this about his daughters?”

    These days, I can’t imagine Bill Madden being hired by ESPN to write about sports. What would he know about their target audience of single moms?

    So this is what open rebellion against the Father looks like.

  100. Oscar says:

    @ Mandy says:
    July 14, 2017 at 11:23 am

    “For all the talk of supposed religious freedom, there is no public debate about the nature of mankind, the meaning of life or goodness & truth. Forget about discussing God or sin & redemption. They claim not to sin.”

    That’s false. If you want to see and listen to excellent discussions on just those topics (and many more), check out Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. Here are two samples.

    There are many others, but RZIM has the best that I know of.

  101. Casey says:

    @ Gunner Q

    Yes, agreed………ESPN (and sports channels in general) are acutely stuffing their ranks full of female sportscasters.

    Makes sense……..from a financial standpoint. It’s pretty clear that men in general (and white men in particular) are being excused from the corporate world, and it’s corresponding paycheck.

    If men have less money, then we have less ‘voting power’ for everything from canned soup to television programming.

  102. Yoda says:

    If treated Padawans this way I did,
    heavily criticized I would be.
    Many Anakins result they would

  103. Casey says:

    You will note that in the ‘Doll who chose to Drive’ clip…………that she poo-pood all the vehicles cozying up to her; until the Audi gave her the time of day.

    Funny how art imitates life.

  104. Gunner Q says:

    “Makes sense……..from a financial standpoint.”

    But it DOESN’T make sense. ESPN and friends are going to go bankrupt because they’re quitting the profitable work they’re good at and moving to a hopelessly overcrowded market of handbags and feelings. Women having 75% of society’s disposable income doesn’t justify 100% of the economy pandering to them… and they don’t even have that. It’s all debt, all fiat funny money backed by male labor and achievement. Even as a slacker MGTOW, I have money to spend and nowhere to spend it. I have to go hunting for things to do, hobbies to try out. I stand in the street and wave cash in the air, and salesmen rush past me to sniff vag. It’s like I’m trying to date again.

    These people pretend to be conscienceless mercenaries because the truth is far worse. They hate all males because they first hated the Father. They wouldn’t sell God a single twinkie because the twinkie might make God happy. They certainly won’t let God watch NFL.

  105. jgarveyrose says:

    Lack of empathy……hmmm, that’s a characteristic of a sociopath.

  106. earlthomas786 says:

    Yes the deep core hatred of feminists is God. Indirectly He is the patriarchy they try to smash (He is a Father). It is nothing less than satanic. It is destined to fail unfortunately it’s going to take out a lot of people with it.

  107. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    “If men have less money” then all the poor little government dependents are doomed, because women will still be net users of tax money, not payers (e.g., all the shrieking about “FREE healthcare!”).

    ESPN is owned by Disney. Their accelerating SJW convergence is explained by that alone.

    “Bumble, as I explained to my married friends, is like the feminist Tinder. Women have to initiate contact with men,”

    So a system that relies on the single thing she admits she’s terrible at: picking men. Of course, her admittance of this is only implied, because as redpillgirlnotes’ links show, she refuses to take responsibility for anything that’s ever happened in her life.

  108. Oscar says:

    @ earlthomas786 says:
    July 14, 2017 at 3:56 pm

    “Yes the deep core hatred of feminists is God. Indirectly He is the patriarchy they try to smash (He is a Father).”

    Small quibble, Earl: God is not just A father, He is THE Father. He is the ultimate Father. He is the ultimate patriarch, and therefore the source of patriarchy. Feminists have to get rid of Yahweh, and/or replace Him with a goddess.

  109. Gunner Q says:

    Oleaginous Outrager @ 4:08 pm:
    “ESPN is owned by Disney. Their accelerating SJW convergence is explained by that alone.”

    I didn’t know that. It explains a lot.

    More of a squid than a mouse these days.

  110. earlthomas786 says:

    “Bumble, as I explained to my married friends, is like the feminist Tinder. Women have to initiate contact with men,”

    How rich…they have to initiate contact with people they hate. I bet most of the time men still imitate because that’s what usually happens.

  111. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘ESPN and friends are going to go bankrupt because they’re quitting the profitable work they’re good at and moving to a hopelessly overcrowded market of handbags and feelings.’

    I give ESPN 2 more years before it goes the route like MTV and doesn’t even bother to show sports. It’ll just be women and affirminative action hires dictating the latest degeneracy we need to accept and creating drama that doesn’t exist outside their bubble.

  112. Opus says:

    The problem with Feminists is Male Feminists. Again from last night my friend was doubtfully denying that the number of women going into Engineering at University was close to 10% (and that of course after much push and affirmative action in the last two decades – at which time it was close to 0% from Government). I sent him a chart this evening that I found linked on Google revealing that what I had said was accurate. On an earlier occasion another male of my acquaintance was querying my assertion (and I ought to know) that almost all Divorce Petitions are issued by women. Both their thinkings run the equalist way; that as there are as many men as women that Engineering and Divorce should both be 50/50.

  113. Just Saying says:

    I know that because my son’s psychiatrist told me

    Here’s a clue – if your son has a psychiatrist YOU are a POS mother. Plain and simple… You have f’ed that kid up beyond repair…. Congratulations on being a POS…

  114. Frank K says:

    “I’d rather marry a tauntaun.”

    You mean a Wookiee, Han will even say “I can arrange that.”

  115. Frank K says:

    “I give ESPN 2 more years before it goes the route like MTV and doesn’t even bother to show sports.”

    Will anyone still be watching? Or will the Churchian guys still watch, because it proves they’re “manly”.

  116. tsotha says:

    If the feminist men — the men who proudly declare their progressive politics and their fight for quality — aren’t safe, then what man is?

    Surely she’s not so dense she doesn’t realize that’s all just sort of an empty plumage display? I’m sure there must be the odd true believer, but for the most part “feminist men” are only there because feminist women are easy to get into bed.

  117. Swanny River says:

    We have a proud feminist man at work. Full of twistedeness. He was scrambling to find a female so his coed softball team could play a scheduled game. I saw him in the bathroom, so I took it as an opportunity to tweak and test him. The tweak came by accusing him of being in an oppressive league that restricts ex to body parts, and then the test came when I asked why he doesn’t declare himself trapped in the wrong body to resolve the situation. He snarled with the tightest lips I’ve seen on a man, “it’s not that simple.”
    Yes, I forgot my place as a non-nuanced pig. I should leave the complex topics to bleeding hearts like himself. He is a union steward and has no shame in calling himself a socialist. But he gets plenty of poon- tang as he is talking about a new girlfriend every couple of months. He is a true believer, and dates many proud sassy ferals.

  118. Swanny River says:

    The test was to see if he could laugh at himself or when his cherished compassion was being gently joked about. He unfortunately lived to stereotype and could only show PC condemnation and condescension. He goes to a popular and conservative church. They don’t know it, but his zeal for PC and anti-capitalist beliefs is stronger than their Christian fem- faith in politeness.

  119. Swanny River says:

    Anyhow, Tsotha, his display is not plumage. But his God-given nature keeps popping out and messing his principles up, thus I call him twisted. He is not overcoming the flesh by dying to self, but instead is trying to deny himself and please the flesh.

  120. Swanny River says:

    She is right about feminist men, they aren’t safe, but not for the reasons she gives. But because they have become disconnected from themselves and can’t come under the cleansing power of God’s Word is what makes them unsafe. A feral proud woman and a male feminist indeed make a bad pairing, one is busy stretching their passions and the other is busy binding and twisting theirs.

  121. Yoda says:

    Mentally ill she would be.
    Proud of it she is
    Odd this would be

  122. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I know that because my son’s psychiatrist told me

    Isn’t there a rule against psychiatrists discussing their patients with anyone other than the patient? I thought that even applied to parents?

    In the film Ordinary People,, the psychologist wouldn’t discuss a teenager’s problems even with the father who was paying for the sessions.

  123. Hmm says:

    The whole issue with Allard’s boys may simply be that they are imitating the type of men their mom dates and marries rather than the type of men she teaches them are attractive and “safe”. “What you do speaks louder than what you say.”

  124. anon says:

    “Isn’t there a rule against psychiatrists discussing their patients with anyone other than the patient? I thought that even applied to parents?”

    Her statement in its entirety was “I am a good enough mother. I know because my son’s psychiatrist told me so last week, as she explained bell curves and Skinner’s theories, and said that suicidal thoughts are normal.”
    Going out on a (big) limb and assuming this conversation actually took place in the manner relayed there, the doctor isn’t violating patient confidentiality. However, I can’t imagine a doctor saying, “You are a good enough mother…see these here charts…”
    More likely, the doctor said something more along the lines of “this doesn’t necessarily mean your a bad mother…” and she thought, “Yippee! I’m a good enough mother!”
    I wonder if this shrink reads her articles.

  125. Yoda says:

    I am a good enough mother. I know that because my son’s psychiatrist told me so last week

    Perhaps wrong the shrink is

  126. Otto Lamp says:

    “The whole issue with Allard’s boys may simply be that they are imitating the type of men their mom dates and marries rather than the type of men she teaches them are attractive and “safe”. “What you do speaks louder than what you say.”

    A year in an all male military school would probably solve the boy’s problems.

    Former Texas Senator Phil Gramm credits being shipped off to Georgia Military Academy (as a last resort) with straightening out his life.

    Unfortunately, male military schools have been disappearing the last few decades, because…feminism. The state of Georgia ran the Georgia Military Academy for a 100 years, but buckled under progressive pressure.

  127. I am sure she heaped shame, contempt, and downright anger and passive-aggressive on the father of her sons over the years. No……that would have no impact on them, zero impact….and even more ironic she was the one who decided to have children with this man………..maybe he was a bum, maybe he wasn’t but her faults in this will never be acknowledged.

  128. anon says:

    “and even more ironic she was the one who decided to have children with this man numerous men

    FIFY.

  129. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    “and even more ironic she was the one who decided to have children with … numerous men”

    I find it bizarre that even one man would want physical contact, much less intimate sex, with that. I’d pay good money to avoid having sex with that..

  130. bob k. mando says:

    Narcissists don’t do Personal Responsibility.

    and every deviancy in the Cluster B types has Narcissistic aspects.

  131. Farm Boy says:

    I find it bizarre that even one man would want physical contact, much less intimate sex, with that. I’d pay good money to avoid having sex with that..

    So the purple hair doesn’t do it for you?

  132. feeriker says:

    I find it bizarre that even one man would want physical contact, much less intimate sex, with that. I’d pay good money to avoid having sex with that..

    Allard’s picture just screams “cum dumpster.” That’s probably what those three douchebags saw her as and treated her accordingly. It’s just unfortunate that children (especially male children) resulted.

  133. anon says:

    “Allard’s picture just screams “cum dumpster.”
    Or just dumpster.
    Perhaps a dumpster filled with disposable used tissues.

  134. Mark says:

    @Opus

    “”The problem with Feminists is Male Feminists.””

    Agreed!………look at our PM Justin Trudeau. He is constantly calling himself a feminist?…..WTF? Also,I just read in one of our newspapers today that he is committing $241.5M(taxpayers money) to the Clinton Foundation?…….This unfathomable!…..and it shows what a seriously screwed up individual he is! This is going to be a big issue…..WATCH! I have spoken with some very high powered people today over this…..my father being one of them…..this femtard has got to go! “The Powers That Be” give lots of money away…..not to people like the Clintons….and not “Public Money”…..this is such a disgrace…..words cannot describe my contempt for this PM!!!

  135. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘I find it bizarre that even one man would want physical contact, much less intimate sex, with that. I’d pay good money to avoid having sex with that..’

    Well there’s a segment of the male population who sees that and gets ‘danger, danger’ in their head. And other segment of the male population who sees that and thinks ‘easy, easy’.

  136. American says:

    @anon, July 15, 2017 at 1:44 pm: When such are outside the church, that’s one thing. But what we increasingly find are unrepentant, ignorant, deceived, immoral (and often addicted) females exhibiting such behavior INSIDE the church. As if that’s not tragic enough, it gets worse in that a large number of pastors and Christian assemblies are pimping these females to their single men telling them to “man up” and take on the misbehaving dysfunctional female and her fatherless brood. Then, when the inevitable divorce occurs they demonize the male and re-pimp the female!

  137. DeathWriter says:

    That article is very disturbing.

    It appears it wants her sons to live what another man has done to her which can’t happen.

  138. earlthomas786 says:

    I wouldn’t say she’s a dumpster…I’d use her as a cautionary tale of what happens to a woman who decides to espouse the feminist mindset. This ethos needs to die in a dumpster fire.

  139. W.B.Kotter says:

    “As a single mother, I sometimes wonder whether the real problem is that my sons have no role models for the type of men I hope they become. But when I look around at the men I know, I’m not sure a male partner would fill that hole. Where are these men who are enlightened but not arrogant? Who are feminists without self-congratulation? ”

    Where does she live? I know lots of great role model men like she describes above. But, they are not in the lime light, not active on social media, not blogging, not you-tubing, etc. They are busy in their homes, their jobs, families and communities making a real difference in real time with real people.

    And no matter what, parents absolutely should NOT involve their kids in their online social media lives like this woman has. If her son is depressed/suicidal than pulling him into social media could push him over the edge. Shame on her.

  140. Jack Russell says:

    Mark, I can’t believe what I just read. The Clinton “Foundation”. A slush fund with a few hundred million in it already. Millions were raised for the earthquake in Haiti, yet almost nothing was used for that disaster. A Haitian investigating the foundation was found dead in Florida a few days ago. How come so many die who want to investigate the Clintons? As for Justine, he also gave a few hundred million to be used overseas for women’s “health. ie abortion and contraception. Of course I could go on about some of his cabinet ministers who have ties to the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood organisation.

  141. Jack Russell says:

    Frank K says:
    July 14, 2017 at 6:13 pm
    “I’d rather marry a tauntaun.”

    You mean a Wookiee, Han will even say “I can arrange that.”

    Here is your Wookie fix.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443233/michelle-obama-still-whiny-after-all-these-years

  142. Alessandro Giuliani says:

    Dalrock, idk how to contact you, so I’m here. Can you comment on this article by Denny Burk?

    http://www.dennyburk.com/standing-against-a-destructive-misogyny-threatening-our-children/

  143. MarcusD says:

    Married with no kids still fruitful? (Not infertile)
    https://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=1058423

  144. W.B.Kotter says:

    Regarding this mother and comments at the PJMedia link in response to “go east young man”. “Not so fast. Plenty of good women in USA, but not on the PC bandwagon, etc… look in church first, then in other faith based organizations, etc… or look on website for MLB, etc.” and “He’s right. The mental disease isn’t present among contemporary US churchgoers (and I say this as someone who doesn’t attend church). Don’t let mass media portrayals fool you.” But Dalrock says the rot has infested the churches and other faith based orgs.
    I knew it’d be lame but I went to see The Big Sick last week and the one thing that stood out most to me was how the white American vs the Pakistani American women were portrayed. The Pakistani American women were all highly educated, cultured, well dressed and polite. The main love interest and her mother (both white) were unattractive, androgynously dressed, crude, annoying and obnoxious, but the clear theme from the movie was that they were somehow sexier, funner, cooler and more desirable as life mates than the PA women. I walked out of the theatre wondering, “is this true?”
    This mother, like a lot of adults, forgets what its like to be a fragile, embarrassed kid. As adults and especially as parents we must always put ourselves in our kids’ shoes and think, “I did I feel at that age?”. Back before the internet it was bad enough if our personal business got out to a friend at school, an adult relative, a teacher, even (or most especially) a parent. Now kids today have their personal business (like being depressed and suicidal) put on the internet for the entire world to know about. Imagine the shame and pressure. Really this mother is lacking in empathy, you are right Dalrock. She’s far from the only one.
    There’s an adoption addicted Christian mom (we all know at least one, and we won’t even get into how adoption is tied to illegal child trafficking), who puts her beautiful and confused African kids on youtube. Not to praise or show them off, mind you, but to scold them publicly. She had this one video showing one of the young girls having a difficulty pushing the off/on button on the vacuum cleaner (of course she uses them for free labor). She kept showing this live in action and saying the girl was being “difficult” and “rebellious” and not shutting off the vacuum on purpose. It was clear the girl was just having a normal difficult time shutting it off. Right in front of the kids this “mom” (or fake mom) was talking to her youtube audience about the “challenges” she’s having with her kids. My heart melted for these adorable children taken out of their country of origin and away from people they know like extended family and friends, and being thrust into this very ugly white woman’s crazy world of narcissistic adoption addiction, a common pathology amongst that particular sub-group. Studies show babies and children show affinity for faces that resemble their original caregivers and also for beautiful, symmetrical faces. This fake mom fit neither category. She was complaining to strangers on youtube about the stand-offishness of one of the younger kids (and right in front of the kids), a toddler, and I thought “Lady, that baby is scared of your ugly white face that looks nothing like the faces she was first exposed to at birth, get over yourself!” What on earth are adults doing exposing innocent, confused children to the world wide web of strangers on the internet? I agree with Vox, it is child abuse. Maybe its because these parents did not grow up online themselves so they don’t understand the devastating effect it can have on kids? I don’t blame Russia for banning American adoption of Russian orphans. The American Christian Adoption Industrial Complex is trying to get Trump to change that and he’s having talks with Putin about it, but I hope to God Russia doesn’t cave. You are right Dalrock, there is rot in the American Church and it has ties to global child trafficking. The Clintons got an American Christian Child Trafficker out of a Haitian jail. Google Laura Silsby. Now she’s working for Amber Alert! Yep, a convicted child trafficker working for an agency dedicated (supposedly) to fighting child abduction. A lot of people aren’t aware of the adoption ties to trafficking but slowly its coming out. This isn’t to say all adoptions are shady but its on the increase, not the decrease. I’m extra careful now around my acquaintances who are adopters. If their kids have been trafficked they most likely don’t know it, but there are some who do and turned a blind eye. In a way its a good thing they are giving themselves and their kids internet exposure. Makes them easier to track and report.

  145. W.B.Kotter says:

    Alessandro Giuliani, Denny Burk is right. He’s not the only one that links increased interest in anal sex to pornography, many psychologists, sociologists and medical professionals agree. Its not safe anyway you cut it, but its especially risky for the receiver. Was a time when anal and even oral sex were the purview of gay porn specifically but later oral sex made its way to straight porn. It took longer for anal sex to make the cross over, but even that is now considered straight and “vanilla”. I don’t know what the hell is happening to our culture but its not healthy. And the fact that this porn is being exported around the world and the rest of the world sees this as “American culture” is concerning.

    Again there are serious health risks associated with anal sex, more than with other types of sex, especially for the receiver. Some other countries still look to America as an advanced nation, why are we exporting this?

  146. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I’m guessing that homosexuals, and their allies in the porn industry, are trying to normalize anal sex, so that homosexuality will seem less disgusting (i.e., more “normal”) to straight Americans.

  147. DeNihilist says:

    Mark, re: TruDoh! Seems that maybe it has started –

    http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/2017/07/oh-bloodstained.html

  148. DeNihilist says:

    The Freaking Toronto Star!!!

  149. evilwhitemalempire says:

    American
    “about twelve percent of extremely liberal females have sex with other women while only about two percent of extremely conservative women have sex with other women”
    ——————
    But, of course, you think that means that liberalism turns women gay.
    I reckon that (already) gay women are drawn to liberalism and feminism out of hatred of men.
    And that that hatred is born out of having to compete with men for the attentions of young, attractive, (mostly straight) women.

  150. W.B.Kotter says:

    Red Pill Latecomer, that may have been the case several decades ago, but its way past that now. Go read the horrific link posted by Alessandro. It confirms everything I’ve read about porn and current American sexual culture and teen culture. Some advice, and even medical, sites try to gloss over the negative health outcomes of anal sex regulars while some others are clearer about the risks. Its especially bad for receivers so heterosexual boys/men who are “suggesting” this to their partners, stop. And if your partner suggests it to you, talk her out of it.

    That mattress girl, she says her parents are “stoked” with her abuse art. I have no doubt that either one of them, or maybe both, neglected or abused her as a child. If not them, than a creepy uncle or some local neighborhood perv. There is no way a young woman (and Asian at that) ends up that messed up without some abuse in her past. Go read that art link and the bizarre, PTSD things she says. They say the tortured tortures others but in her case the tortured is torturing herself. Its a classic signs of child abuse. She’s Asian but her name sounds white. Another adoption case perhaps? Hmmmm. I’m sure the truth will come out eventually but mark my word, there is abuse in her past.

  151. Luke says:

    Vaguely related: radical feminists apparently completely seriously advocate not deeming your PETS to have a specific gender: https://medusamagazine.com/dont-gender-your-pets

  152. Novaseeker says:

    Looking around that site, it seems to me that Medusa Magazine looks like a parody. If it isn’t a parody, it’s self-parody at its finest, really.

  153. Novaseeker says:

    I’m guessing that homosexuals, and their allies in the porn industry, are trying to normalize anal sex, so that homosexuality will seem less disgusting (i.e., more “normal”) to straight Americans.

    Already done, especially among the generations who grew up with internet porn (i.e., people 35 and under).

  154. Novaseeker says:

    Dalrock, idk how to contact you, so I’m here. Can you comment on this article by Denny Burk?

    Alessandro —

    Burks is both right and wrong in that article. The “right” part is that porn is destructive — that’s clear enough to anyone who has a Christian understanding of sexual morality. The “wrong” part is that this is resulting in most men using women as sexual playthings and discarding them thereafter — that is not really what the main impact of *porn* is, and it repeats the same tired mistake that minister and minister makes about this issue.

    The guys who are sleeping their way through scores of women are generally not heavy porn users. They’re too busy getting laid in real life — guys who are getting laid in real life from a variety of women are not looking at a lot of porn because their sexual itch is getting scratched in real life, and scratched “well” in the sense that it caters to the polygynous dark side of male sexuality. Burk is right that these guys are behaving immorally, but it doesn’t have much to do with porn directly, and certainly isn’t applicable to most if not all of the men sitting in the pews of his church. To think otherwise is to engage in willful distortion.

    The guys who are heavy porn users are the opposite — they generally are either very unsuccessful with women in real life, or they don’t bother with women in real life much, and have their sexual itch sated with porn. It isn’t as sexually satisfying as being with a real woman, but for a guy who struggles with getting a real woman to pay attention to him (and there are many of these in 2017, and I’d wager it covers most of the young men who bother to show up in Burk’s pews), porn is the easy way out and it takes just enough of the edge off of his sex drive to sate it somewhat, thereby taking away the incentive to actually work on being more attractive to women and pursuing them. This is the primary impact of porn for men who are unmarried and not in relationships with women — it tends to decrease their interest in doing what it takes to pursue women, effectively taking them out of the mating pool. (The impact on married men is different, and I won’t get into that here, because Burk’s column was mostly about young men who are not married).

    He is also careless in throwing around the word “misogyny” and focusing on what the boys are doing. Yes, it is mainstreaming things like anal sex, sex with transgenders, kinky sex practices and so on — he’s right about that. But young girls are watching porn, too, and it has impact on their behaviors as well in terms of their expectations for sex, for how men should be appearing and behaving sexually and the like. It’s not wrong to say that it has had a warping effect on the expectations of boys and young men sexually, but it’s wrong to isolate them and pretend that it also isn’t having similar effects among girls and young women. Here Burk falls into the trap that Dalrock has noted many times on this blog — a Christian minister overlooking what the women are doing and focusing on the sins of the men. The women who are being pumped and dumped by the small percentage of men who are capable of being players are generally speaking not being raped — this is generally consensual sexual activity for which the young women bear their share of moral responsibility and agency. Burk follows the familiar pattern of blaming this behavior entirely on the young men, and overlooking the consensual and voluntary participation of the young women in these acts of debauchery. Again, this is a familiar pattern with Christian pastors, but just because Burk gets some things right about porn in that piece doesn’t mean he should be left off the hook for falling into the same familiar pattern of blaming only men for immoralities that involve women’s moral agency as well.

  155. Swanny River says:

    I’m with Novaseeker on his Burk take. I see that Burk piece similar to CBMW, who fight hard against some cultural sins and gets something’s right.

  156. Höllenhund says:

    But young girls are watching porn, too, and it has impact on their behaviors as well in terms of their expectations for sex, for how men should be appearing and behaving sexually and the like.

    Not to mention that “porn” in this context (i.e. sexually explicit, pornographic videos disseminated online) is only a small subset of the huge amounts of porn that young Western women are consuming. Other subsets include romance novels and other sleazy forms of written emotional pornography marketed to women, especially to older single women, yaoi anime and manga (directed at the same demographic), and movie/film adaptations of said sexually explicit romance novels (FSoG, Twilight etc.).

  157. desiderian says:

    Dal,

    Two healthy baby boys, born this morning. Couldn’t have done it without you. Thanks so much for all you do.

    God bless,

    David Warner

  158. Boxer says:

    Two healthy baby boys, born this morning.

    Congratulations!

  159. infowarrior1 says:

    @desiderian
    Congrats. May God bless you with many more and build up your house to be exceedingly numerous and strong. May your wife be ever more fruitful.

  160. infowarrior1 says:

    @W.B.Kotter
    They think the negatives health impacts can be averted by artificial means. Condoms and lubrication.

  161. Novaseeker says:

    Two healthy baby boys, born this morning. Couldn’t have done it without you. Thanks so much for all you do.

    Congratulations and Many Years!

  162. Dalrock says:

    Congratulations desiderian!

  163. W.B.Kotter says:

    Well one medical site (wish I could remember it) really emphasized the health risks of anal sex and said the reality is these risks are being downplayed in the media and even on other “medical” sites. It said if one is going to engage in anal sex they not only should be using condoms but simultaneously taken pre-emptive oral medications daily for basically the rest of your life, plus vaccines. It made it sound like taking a second job, all just to have some dude’s nasty pee-er stuck up your pooper. Totally not worth it, even if there might be some second g-spot somewhere up there.

    But the vast majority of doctors and “experts” I’ve read discussing this PUA-beloved anal sex (and oral sex and its related oral cancers) totally downplay the risks. There’s an uptick in oral cancer in the UK and they do attribute it to oral sex but refuse to say “stop the oral sex, stop the cancer”. Instead its all about “educating the masses about safe sex practices like condom use”.

    I agree with Burk and find is article 100% correct. Study after study shows that boys/men who watch anal sex porn (and they don’t have to be “heavy porn users” Novaseeker), eventually end up expecting it from someone at some point in their life. One UK study showed that anal sex begins in teens, carries through 20s, and peaks in early 30s and then tapers off. The girls and women mostly report not enjoying it but doing it out of pressure and a desire to please their boyfriends. The boys and men who are sleeping their way through these years with scores of women are expecting anal sex, no doubt about it. Its basically commonplace in western so called “civilization” now so what are you going to tell your kids? To have it? To not have it? To have it within marriage? It has to be addressed, so how are you going to address it?

  164. honeycomb says:

    desiderian on July 16, 2017 at 8:53 am
    Dal,

    Two healthy baby boys, born this morning. Couldn’t have done it without you. Thanks so much for all you do.

    God bless,

    Likewise .. my best to you and yours.

  165. Opus says:

    I have just read the Denny Burk article; I would like to live in his world, a world where women do whatever boys demand of them and without compliant or any sign of discomfort. Sadly, in my world, I have yet to come across the female who would do anything with which she was uncomfortable or fail to make clear her discomfort if one persisted against her wishes; males controlling the behaviour of females is unknown to me. So far as anal sex is concerned (and is it the case that Porn leads the way or merely responds to social norms?) did it not occur to Mr Burk that one reason it might be popular with females is because it acts as a contraceptive and further as it is not vaginal, a female could, provided she was consistent, truthfully claim virginity. When I studied law, only forced penetration of a Vagina with a Penis was Rape and that I think was right for Rape is an offence not against female whim but against female chastity. I recall in an idle moment (somewhere in the walk-in strongroom situated in the basement) picking up a yellowing file to read of His Honour’s disgust, in a Divorce case from 1947, that the husband had forced his wife (so it said) to indulge in Anal sex. I don’t recall that His Honour felt it a matter worth reporting to the Police as a sexual assault and in those days whether the recipient was male or female such behaviour was illegal.

    I cannot think that Erotica (and these days I only care for the softer sort) ever had any effect on my libido or that I confused its consumption with the real thing but then you will aver, that is what any pervert who has obtained Olympic Qualifying Standard therein would say.

    The article in Medus has to be a spoof.

  166. Gunner Q says:

    Burk is a white-knighting moron. Money quote from the linked article: “A generation of young men are destroying themselves by the darkness of pornography, and now they are foisting their desolation on young women who desperately want to be loved by a young man.”

    But really, what else would you expect from this guy:

  167. feministhater says:

    God’s blessings on your and yours today David! Congrats on your two new terrors. Raise those two boys well and may they bring you lots of joy.

  168. Novaseeker says:

    The girls and women mostly report not enjoying it but doing it out of pressure and a desire to please their boyfriends. The boys and men who are sleeping their way through these years with scores of women are expecting anal sex, no doubt about it.

    The point, Kotter, is that most men are not sleeping their way through scores of women, and the ones who are, aren’t the ones in Burk’s church.

    Yes, the men who are capable of sleeping with scores of women have something called “leverage”, because they are desired by many women. They do make sexual demands of women, and the women meet them, precisely because they desire the guys and the guys are in demand and therefore are in a position to make sexual demands that women will comply with. It is still the woman’s choice as to whether to meet the demand — and that choice, conditioned as it is on her desire to be wanted by a man she desperately wants to want her, is a moral choice, and in this case a deeply immoral one. But Burk is silent about that. If women closed their legs (or in this case, their butts) when it comes to guys they are very attracted to, and are competing with other women for, there wouldn’t be anal sex taking place apart from anal rape (which is, of course, a crime). That’s just a legal and social fact, yet you’d never know it from reading Burk (and most other Christian ministers and pastors).

    So by all means rail against the small percentage of high demand boys and men who are demanding and receiving anal sex from girls and young women, but realize as well that most men are not doing this, because they do not have the leverage to demand this, or the sexual access to do so. The much larger group of men should not be blamed for the sins of the small group of in-demand men who have this sexual leverage with women (they can be blamed for other sins related to porn, of course, but not this one), while the women who are spreading their butts in order to please these in-demand men should receive the same degree of moral condemnation as the players who are asking them to do so. That is the point.

  169. W.B.Kotter says:

    Even a broken clock is right twice in a 24 hour cycle, and Burn is right in this article. I’ve no doubt that most of the young women he knows wants to be loved. But women like sex too, and some of them just want sex without the love sometimes too. But all that is not the point of his very correct article, which is backed by study after study wrt anal sex.

    “I have just read the Denny Burk article; I would like to live in his world, a world where women do whatever boys demand of them and without compliant or any sign of discomfort. ”

    First, why would you like to live in a world like that knowing that some “boys” as you call them, are sociopaths who demand horrific things from girls, women, babies, children? And yes, yes, yes, there are female sociopaths too, before you protest.

    “…without compliant or any sign of discomfort” There are signs of discomfort. Read the medical facts about anal sex and the studies regarding this common practice amongst the players, PUAs, daters, haters, beta males, and just about anyone who is sexually active (whether twice a day alpha or twice a year omega) in “western civilization” today. Anal sex starts in their teens, carries through 20s and peaks early to mid 30s. And its being “tried” by the “senior dating” retiree crowd too.

    What other explanation to you have for the widespread popularity of this practice other than porn? I know my own parents never even heard of it.

    Yes congrats to the new dad of twins. God only knows what sex acts will be normalized by the time they reach their teens. Its a shame when parents have to watch porn or read about its trends just to keep up with the sex info our kids have access to and know about months if not years before we do! Frankly I’m overwhelmed and I’m curious what other parents here are telling their kids about it, if anything.

  170. feministhater says:

    I agree with Burk and find is article 100% correct. Study after study shows that boys/men who watch anal sex porn (and they don’t have to be “heavy porn users” Novaseeker), eventually end up expecting it from someone at some point in their life.

    Are you saying that women cannot say ‘no’. That would stop it, you know, if they just said no. Lol.

    From the article.

    A [doctor], let’s call her Sue, said: “I’m afraid things are much worse than people suspect.” In recent years, Sue had treated growing numbers of teenage girls with internal injuries caused by frequent anal sex; not, as Sue found out, because she wanted to, or because she enjoyed it – on the contrary – but because a boy expected her to. “I’ll spare you the gruesome details,” said Sue, “but these girls are very young and slight and their bodies are simply not designed for that.”

    Frequent anal sex….. only because the boy expected her to. Are you daft, man. A boy can expect anything he wants but the girl has to agree to it. Once again the whores are playing damsels in distress. If only they would be proper virgins, they wouldn’t have their anal orifices ripped to shreds by Chads.

  171. feministhater says:

    What other explanation to you have for the widespread popularity of this practice other than porn? I know my own parents never even heard of it.

    The entire degenerate culture. If you’re going to blame the boys, you better blooming well blame the sluts too.

  172. W.B.Kotter says:

    “So far as anal sex is concerned (and is it the case that Porn leads the way or merely responds to social norms?)”

    Porn definitely led the way with this practice.

    “did it not occur to Mr Burk that one reason it might be popular with females is because it acts as a contraceptive and further as it is not vaginal, a female could, provided she was consistent, truthfully claim virginity.”

    Its not “popular” with females. You really need to do more research on this. Study after study shows the same thing. Claiming virginity is not an issue amongst the participants in the western studies.

    “I recall in an idle moment (somewhere in the walk-in strongroom situated in the basement) picking up a yellowing file to read of His Honour’s disgust, in a Divorce case from 1947, that the husband had forced his wife (so it said) to indulge in Anal sex. I don’t recall that His Honour felt it a matter worth reporting to the Police as a sexual assault and in those days whether the recipient was male or female such behaviour was illegal.”

    OK so how much jail time did the husband do for that illegal act? And this is why the other supposed “christian” guys comment about “women being sexually submissive to their husbands” is wrong. there is no place for dom/sub perversion in Christendom

    David you’re going to have a rough time raising two twin boys in this current cultural environment. My heart goes out to you, and them.

  173. DeNihilist says:

    NovaSeeker, Dal, Anyone?

    does any body know of a study on the effects of porn on divorce?

    Just a WAG here, but it occurred to me that as the use of porn has gone up, the rate of divorce has gone down.

    Could it be that the guys who before using porn were acting like puppy dogs and always begging for sex, thus turning the wife right off. Now, as Nova points out above, by their use of porn, they take the edge off the need, and in a weird way, start acting like men and display a more NFG attitude towards the wife.

  174. Swanny River says:

    Kotter,
    It sounds like you are contesting something no one here is disagreeing with, that is, visual lust, porn, has no place, and it leads to greater sins. It sounds like you are saying because Burk has that right, the rest of his article should be agreed with. Novaseeker and Opus said it better than I can, the problem is that he seems blind to female agency and sin. Let’s put it a different way, couldn’t he have written about porn and sodomy and been truthful about the role of women in the consummation of said acts? As sad as it is, the most sensible answer is that he is afraid to do so. He is more afraid of PC backlash than the disagreement he gets from the few of us.

  175. W.B.Kotter says:

    Last comment on this for a while coz I don’t want the webmaster to get annoyed, but feminist hater, yes the girls and women should be saying no. The wives should be saying no to their husbands too and absolutely drawing the line at anal sex, maybe even oral sex, now that we know about oral cancer. Just like the desire for anal sex is not something that would naturally arise in a boy/man without outside exposure to it such as through porn, so to there are outside influences on why girls, women, wives feel the need to cave when being nagged for it. First, girls are very impressionable. Women may be in a relationship with someone they really don’t want to lose, and wives, well, I know one who didn’t cave and her husband cheated on her with a woman who did. There are factors. No boy/man or girl/woman is an isolated rugged independent island all to him/herself . We are all influenced. That’s why porn is so huge and its memes so viral. You’re over estimating the strength of individualism.

    Please don’t tell me anyone here approves on anal sex within marriage?!

  176. feministhater says:

    Were people having anal sex before porn? Why yes they were. That means your point is moot. Calling a sin a sin is one thing, writing an article on how boys are forcing girls to spread due to pornography is quite another and misses the point by a mile. Women engage in many things their bodies cannot handle, it’s called feminism, lay your blame there, it has destroyed everything good between men and women in the last hundred years. Everything else is merely a byproduct.

  177. Swanny River says:

    Kotter, is that an Americanization of Quixote?
    I guess you really do think you need to take the battle to commenters here. I don’t understand why you keep thinking you have to defend women from the men here, but go for it, it will be entertaining.
    Anyhow, not in response to Kotter, but something I realized Burk is doing, that I learned from Dalrock, is that Burk seems to attribute the sin of being a doormat, or servile. They just love and want to please too much.

  178. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘But women like sex too, and some of them just want sex without the love sometimes too. ‘

    Another manifestation of what happens when you try to divorce the marital act from the possibility of procreation. A child doesn’t deserve to be conceived in an environment where the parents don’t love each other…but it happens due to the fact some people just want to satiate their pleasure.

  179. feministhater says:

    OK so how much jail time did the husband do for that illegal act? And this is why the other supposed “christian” guys comment about “women being sexually submissive to their husbands” is wrong. there is no place for dom/sub perversion in Christendom

    The husband should have gotten zero jail time. None, zero, zilch, nada. The courts should keep out of the bedroom. No marital rape, none of that feminist nonsense. A husband and wife should agree to what sexual preferences they prefer upfront before marriage. They should also experiment after their marriage, there is nothing wrong with that. In the end, the sins will be judged by Jesus, not you, not me and not a judge put in place by the state.

    Women are to be sexually submissive to their husbands. They are to submit to their husband in all things. Saying all these things in no way means I support anal sex.

    If they want to play with fire, they will get burned and I care not one iota. Either a virgin or no ring.

  180. Gunner Q says:

    W.B.Kotter @ 12:43 pm:
    “Just like the desire for anal sex is not something that would naturally arise in a boy/man without outside exposure to it such as through porn”

    Seriously? You think teenagers new to their libidos would never think about doing kink if kept away from Big Bad Evil Porn? Well, you better also keep them away from livestock. That’s where farmkids get their notions. Minotaurs!

    “You’re over estimating the strength of individualism.”

    You’re overestimating the chances of Orwellian thought control overcoming teenage hormones. If you don’t give men an alternative then they’re going to use porn. It’s that simple.

    “Please don’t tell me anyone here approves on anal sex within marriage?!”

    Every sex act within marriage is moral. Full stop. Whether you approve of the kinky stuff is irrelevant to the fact that the husband owns his wife’s body, is in charge of the relationship and has the God-given authority to demand sex at will. You are not your brother’s marriage-bed keeper.

  181. W.B.Kotter says:

    Opus, “I have just read the Denny Burk article; I would like to live in his world, a world where women do whatever boys demand of them and without compliant or any sign of discomfort. ”

    You’re part of the problem then.

    “Sadly, in my world, I have yet to come across the female who would do anything with which she was uncomfortable or fail to make clear her discomfort if one persisted against her wishes; ”

    You find really find it sad that women say no? Wow.

    “The husband should have gotten zero jail time. None, zero, zilch, nada. The courts should keep out of the bedroom.”

    Opus was the one who said anal sex, even consensual, was ILLEGAL at that time.

    “No marital rape”

    Read again. Opus said the husband forced is wife to have (then illegal, consensual or not) anal sex.

    “a husband and wife should agree to what sexual preferences they prefer upfront before marriage”

    She did not agree to anal sex, according to Opus.

    “Women are to be sexually submissive to their husbands”

    Not to husbands who want illegal and perverse things, absolutely not.

    “They are to submit to their husband in all things”.

    *All* things includes anal sex, so no.

    “Saying all these things in no way means I support anal sex.”

    Yes it does if you reread Opus’s comment and your response.

  182. Opus says:

    @W.B.Kotter

    I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree. You appear, if I may say so, to have little or no experience of these matters or perhaps I am one of the Alpha dudes that Novaseeker refers to (though I doubt it). At the least my experience is very different from what I take to be your book learning.

  183. Novaseeker says:

    First, girls are very impressionable. Women may be in a relationship with someone they really don’t want to lose,

    Which is their moral choice, and if they choose immorally to give in to a request for sodomy because they will avoid something they desire to avoid, then it is an immoral choice, and should be called out by Burk as equally immoral as the asking for sodomy is.

    This isn’t complicated morally. Complicated in terms of human motives? Sure, but many moral decisions are. It isn’t complicated morally, however.

  184. feministhater says:

    Yes it does if you reread Opus’s comment and your response.

    Opus isn’t Christian. His beliefs do not inform mine. Paul says that women are to submit to their husband in all things. You don’t like that, tough cookie, that’s the way it is in a Christian Biblical marriage.

  185. feministhater says:

    You find really find it sad that women say no? Wow.

    Enough with the shaming. Take that shit elsewhere. These girls are not being forced, they are engaging in anal sex on their own free will. They engage in it frequently per the article. Lol! You just cannot believe that it is these sluts choosing to engage in anal sex. That is your problem, not ours.

  186. W.B.Kotter says:

    “You think teenagers new to their libidos would never think about doing kink if kept away from Big Bad Evil Porn?”

    Generally, yes. There is a normal range of sexual behavior, and that is a pretty broad spectrum as it is, so yes, I do think porn has played a major part in shaping today’s bizarre descent into normalizng anal sex and bdsm. Absolutely. I’ve talked about this with much older Americans as well as people raised in traditional cultures outside of the west and many of them had no idea it even existed. Some didn’t even piece together that its something gay men do, forget about straights.

    “Every sex act within marriage is moral. Full stop.”

    Bull. The words of Satan coming through you. Sodomy is sin. FULL STOP.

    Repent. God knew what he was doing in forbidding it.

  187. feministhater says:

    Yes it does if you reread Opus’s comment and your response.

    And no, it doesn’t. Even including Opus’s argument, I do not believe the court should jail a man for fucking his wife. Christians believe that when married, the man owns the woman’s body and the woman owns the man’s body. Now obviously, you should take good care of what you own if you want it to perform well long into the future.

    Thus I do not believe in marital rape as you cannot rape what is yours. I also don’t believe a wife should be saying ‘no’ to her husband’s sexual advances as she is merely inviting evil into her household, it is the duty of both husband and wife to provide sex to their partners. That has zero bearing on whether I support anal sex or not.

    The liberation of women led to them believing they can control their lives without men. Now they get used, abused and thrown away. It is not Christian men doing this but the whores giving themselves to the men they want the most. It is all their own choices. Nothing men do can change this. You can stop 99% of men engaging in anal sex but the women would simply get it from the other 1%, same with virginity. Women are the gatekeepers of sex.

  188. W.B.Kotter says:

    “Which is their moral choice, and if they choose immorally to give in to a request for sodomy because they will avoid something they desire to avoid, then it is an immoral choice, and should be called out by Burk as equally immoral as the asking for sodomy is.

    This isn’t complicated morally. Complicated in terms of human motives? Sure, but many moral decisions are. It isn’t complicated morally, however.”

    Well I already covered both if you reread by comment. I said yes, the girls, women and wives should absolutely SAY NO AND REFUSE their partners/husbands anal sex. That takes care of the moral aspect. The rest of the bit was about the more complicated nature of human motives, so we are on the same page.

    Opus, you said you wished you lived in a world where women did not say no to things against their will, or even “voice discomfort”. You can’t get out of that one. I don’t care if you are not Christian as FH says you aren’t. Morally and legally that is wrong no matter who you cut it. There is no room for relativism. Maybe the nature of online communication had you quickly type and post something you don’t really believe and you’d like to take your words back or reword it? Or maybe you really do wish there to be a world where every woman does whatever any man demands on the spot. Which choice reflects your true offline character?

  189. W.B.Kotter says:

    If you claim to be a Christian FH, it doesn’t matter what you personally “believe” regarding this topic. God is clear. A wife should refuse a husbands request for anal sex (and possibly oral if that is included under sodomy too, its debated in scholarly circles who know the original Biblical languages), and the husband should also refuse a wife’s request for the same. God forbade sodomy (despite human request for it, perhaps) for good reason. It is unhealthy, leads to sickness and early death. You can’t relativise your way around this.

  190. Novaseeker says:

    Well I already covered both if you reread by comment. I said yes, the girls, women and wives should absolutely SAY NO AND REFUSE their partners/husbands anal sex. That takes care of the moral aspect. The rest of the bit was about the more complicated nature of human motives, so we are on the same page.

    Good.

    Which means, though, that both you and me are not on the same page as Burk, because Burk steadfastly refuses to assign moral responsibility to the women and girls in the equation. That is the typical Christian pastor in North America, and it’s a problem this blog talks about a lot, just so you are aware.

  191. honeycomb says:

    W.B.Kotter .. You’re fighting the wrong group ..

    Take up Ministry & preach it to the wimminz .. since you have already said it’s the woman’s responaibility to say NO .. & since it still goes on .. it must be 100% a wimminz issue .. & since the wimminz ain’t here .. move on .. you’re a dog at the end of his leash on this site .. no danger & all bark.

  192. Anonymous Reader says:

    Clearly neither Denny Burk nor W.B. Kotter have ever heard of the bestselling fiction work 50 Shades of Grey, which was sold in all bookstores. But I bet plenty of churchgoing girls have read their mother’s copy. The plot is well enough known and easy to search up.

    Nor have either of them bothered to go to the nearest chain bookstore in the US and peruse the romance fiction section. For sure neither of them have heard of ebooks, Goodreads or Amazon, and therefore have no idea what is available out there for those young, totally innocent, teenaged girls. Tradcons and their pedestalization / idolization of women, they just can’t get enough of it.

    Burk’s best advice: no smartphones for young people. That won’t keep them away from the porn in Barnes & Noble, but will reduce what they can get to for a time, while parents can work on their interal filters.

  193. feministhater says:

    Kotter, the anal issue is between the married couple and God. You came her claiming that porn, per the article, is to blame for girls having their orifices stretched and hurt. That anal sex was around before to the point that God forbids it, informs us that porn is not the culprit but human degeneracy. Porn is a symptom, not a cause. Your weaseling doesn’t change that. These girls willing engaged in anal sex frequently. The fault lies with them not waiting for marriage to have sex. Whores will be whores and sluts gonna slut.

  194. W.B.Kotter says:

    “Which means, though, that both you and me are not on the same page as Burk, because Burk steadfastly refuses to assign moral responsibility to the women and girls in the equation. That is the typical Christian pastor in North America, and it’s a problem this blog talks about a lot, just so you are aware.”

    I read Burk as coming from a place of deep compassion for boys and girls growing up in today’s porn universe. His words were not chastising or demonizing boys but saying “Parents wake up! This is what your boys are exposed to from early ages. Stop them. Save them.”

    As a parent myself I feel simultaneously angry and deeply sad. And helpless in the face of this huge, overwhelming juggernaut. Even if we move out to the forest and live completely off the grid, once the kids grow up and move away, they will be exposed. Seems there is no way to protect them anymore. Maybe I should just sit down and watch porn with them and talk them through it like, “See this – that’s fake news” “See that, that’s illegal in real life and immoral”. “See that? That’s psychopathic”. “See that? Nobody looks like that naturally”. “See that? That’s fake pedophilia meant to mimic real pedophilia for the millions of pedophiles that watch porn.” “See that? That’s rape fantasy”. (I couldn’t believe rape fantasy was a thing then I googled and saw there’s an entire “rape genre” of porn being downloaded by millions daily!!!). “See that? You can tell those people were trafficked and the adoption industrial complex that many of our Christian comrades are a part of feeds into this” I mean that is what some parents do and recommend – just lay it all out there for them. Really I’m at a loss. What are the parents here doing? Pretending it doesn’t exist or talking openly with their kids?

  195. mrteebs says:

    And I’m sure she makes a point of calling out the license plate frames that say “but, but, but…I’m the PRINCESS!” and belittling whoever is driving those vehicles in front of her sons, all the while utterly tone deaf to the irony.

  196. W.B.Kotter says:

    God was dealing with a tiny population when he forbade anal sex which means an even smaller percentage may have tried it back then. Its mainstream now which is the point of Burk’s article and my posts. ” These girls willing engaged in anal sex frequently. The fault lies with them not waiting for marriage to have sex. ” Being married isn’t stopping people from having anal sex though.

    Boys should not be initiating premarital sex with girls (or vice versa) but anal sex is entirely different topic that can happen after marriage too (and shouldn’t).

    Anyway, we’ve exhausted this topic here. Those who try to justify it, married or not, are wrong, wrong, and wrong. Its Devilspeak and Christians who say its holy if people are married, quite frankly are being used by Satan to spread Hellish, Luciferian, fake doctrine in the Church. No respect from me to them. I rebuke them in the name of the Lord.

  197. feministhater says:

    A wife should refuse a husbands request for anal sex (and possibly oral if that is included under sodomy too, its debated in scholarly circles who know the original Biblical languages), and the husband should also refuse a wife’s request for the same.

    To be decided before marriage. If parties can just say ‘no’ they can do it for all interactions, the marriage would be pointless. You’re so focused on anal sex that you cannot see the word for the trees. Work on the real problems of rebelliousness in women and loss of authority of the husband and most of these issues will tend to sort themselves out.

    It wasn’t just anal sex that led to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. It was the degeneracy of these places that led to their downfall and God’s wrath.

  198. Jim says:

    feministhater, you evil misogynist, woman hating, not-groveling enough sexist pig! Don’t you know that girls are sugar, spice and everything nice? They are sinless and never responsible for their own actions?

    Hey, even God will never judge them in the next life. He’ll give them that wonderful pussy pass these mangina white knights are always so desperate to give women. Oh wait, that’s right. God actually turned Lot’s wife into salt in the blink of an eye for disobeying Him. Well so much for that.

  199. feministhater says:

    Kopper, what people do in their own marriage bed is not your concern. Stop it. They are married, their sins will be judged by Jesus, not you.

  200. feministhater says:

    I know Jim, I just don’t love them enough, moar luuv is needed! Moar money for da single mums! Moar welfare, evil mens and good wimmins, naughty men hurting da goods wimminz with their neaughty peneniss es inda bumzzsss!

  201. Höllenhund says:

    As far as the normalization of anal sex is concerned, online pornography probably plays a secondary role. It’s about simple supply and demand. When sexually desirable men are seen in short supply for whatever reason, single womenl mostly react by out-slutting one another in order to pander to the perceived sexual whims of the top men. It’s obvious self-sabotage, because they’re essentially doing the one thing that erodes their value on the mating market, but they mostly don’t know any better. The mating market has been transforming for decades, whereas the easy availability of pornography is a relatively recent phenomenon.

  202. Gunner Q says:

    W.B.Kotter @ 2:25 pm:
    “You think teenagers new to their libidos would never think about doing kink if kept away from Big Bad Evil Porn?”

    “There is a normal range of sexual behavior, and that is a pretty broad spectrum as it is, so yes, I do think porn has played a major part in shaping today’s bizarre descent into normalizng anal sex and bdsm. Absolutely. I’ve talked about this with much older Americans as well as people raised in traditional cultures outside of the west and many of them had no idea it even existed.”

    You didn’t even answer my question. You scum-sucking Baby Boomers will blame everything and everybody except yourselves for this world’s degeneracy.

    Porn did not poison sex. YOU poisoned sex when you gave male authority to women and demanded men act like their wives. You’re still doing it, here and now, with you sick fetish of policing marriage beds to ensure hubby doesn’t wrong wifey.

    “Every sex act within marriage is moral. Full stop.”
    “Bull.”

    Not bull. 1 Corinthians 7:2-5. Nowhere in Scripture do you find God criticizing intimate conduct between husband & wife so what book have you been reading? I want citations.

    “Sodomy is sin. FULL STOP.”

    Sodomy is homosexuality not a preference for doggy. If you won’t read the Bible then at least read a dictionary.

  203. honeycomb says:

    Hollenhund ..

    (turn your heads if you’re squimish)

    I over-hear a lot of conversations in our break-room. This subject has come up before by Christians & Non-Christians in the group.

    The subject of Anal sex came up one day .. and of the 10 (ish) men present in the diacussion .. it was the Wife or Girlfriend that asked for it .. not the man .. and a few declined.

    Frankly it’s not my place to discuss any of my thoughts on the issue with anyone .. because I am not an evil oppressor of any woman .. lol

    (Jim had the best re’butt’al .. lol)

  204. Swanny River says:

    Hollenhund,
    Of course you make a reasoned point, but can Kotter even hear it? He took a post about Allard, which went off topic to Burk and then got hurt and confused when Burk was slightly criticized. Then, after all his protestation, he retreated to saying that his emotional response to Burk is legit because its mainly about feeling overwhelmed to the perversion today. Kotter, you moved the posts, Burk just didn’t say perversion is bigger than ever, and no one here is arguing about that. So Hollenhund, his response ends up being superficial, though biblical, so he doesn’t seem ready to listen to your fine points. Surprise me Kotter and say you are educated about the false sin of servility from this site and show us that Burk is holding women accountable too.
    People are trying kindly to reach you through reason, so don’t say it’s just about wanting it good for your kids. That is not responding in kind. The misleading message of what Burk didn’t say is the point of contention, as off topic to our host as it is.

  205. honeycomb says:

    Gunner Q .. Kotter is the reason America is in the mess it’s in .. Men like him.

    But, as I said before, he wouldn’t dare take the fight to the real source of his pain (e.g. himself & the Wimminz)

  206. Hmm says:

    At least part of the anal sex juggernaut within the community of Christian young people is because of the emphasis on virginity. A girl who has had only anal intercourse and oral sex is still technically a virgin – or she can flatter herself that she is.

    As for within marriage, why? Why, when vaginal sex is not only licit but encouraged by Scripture, take it to the back door? I just don’t understand. Maybe some Christian supporter of the practice can enlighten(??) me.

  207. Novaseeker says:

    His words were not chastising or demonizing boys but saying “Parents wake up! This is what your boys are exposed to from early ages. Stop them. Save them.”

    The message should also be to girls, and not just to boys. That is the point. Girls are equal moral agents here. Why do you keep sidestepping that. A firm “no” works very well here coming from the girls in question.

    What are the parents here doing? Pretending it doesn’t exist or talking openly with their kids?

    I confronted it openly. I don’t entertain any illusions that he has never seen porn (he is 18 now in any case), but he does understand why it’s a bad idea, from a moral and practical point of view. At this point it’s his decision as to how to proceed but based on monitoring I know he doesn’t view porn often.

    Again, that’s different from Burk, however. I keep coming back to him because he is not an MD and he is talking from a moral point of view, and not addressing the moral culpability of the girls and young women involved. That sets a tone for the readers and parents who read in particular, that it is a boys issue. It isn’t. That is false and misleading and fundamentally self-defeating. Getting girls to not immorally give in to their desire for approval by desirable males (or their fear of losing out to less moral girls) is equally as important as getting boys off porn and away from asking for sodomy. Burk doesn’t go there because either (1) he thinks women are not responsible for their own role in these sins (which is moral heresy) or (2) he is scared to call out women and girls on their moral responsibility for their actions in these situations.

    Why fixate on this? Because you cannot fix the problem by addressing only one sex. As long as girls feel morally empowered to give in to their desire for the approval of desirable males or their desire to outcompete other girls for the attention of such males, this behavior will continue, even if porn use is slight. By ignoring that, Burk and his fellow travelers are simply engaging in entirely ineffective posturing, and posturing which actually enables sin by failing to call out 50% of the participants in the sins in question. It’s shameful and needs to be pointed out.

  208. Höllenhund says:

    I over-hear a lot of conversations in our break-room. This subject has come up before by Christians & Non-Christians in the group.

    The subject of Anal sex came up one day .. and of the 10 (ish) men present in the diacussion .. it was the Wife or Girlfriend that asked for it .. not the man .. and a few declined.

    Yup. That’s to be expected. Women trying to out-slut other women whom they see as sexual rivals. That’s my point. Whenever anal sex happens, it’s probably due to the woman offering it, not due to the man explicitly demanding it. It’s simple dynamics of the sexual market. Women do this sort of stuff, mostly when they see their relationship threatened by other sexually loose women.

  209. W.B.Kotter says:

    “Sodomy is homosexuality not a preference for doggy.”

    Hold on. You think doggy style is anal?!?! That explains a lot. A real lot. Are you over 70, or under 7?

    What married people do in their bedrooms IS my business when I become responsible for their children when their marriages fall apart because one or the other can’t control their desire for having sex with poop. This happened when very close friends to us got divorced because the husband refused to repent and give up his desire for sex with poop. Multiple poops, on multiple occasions, emitted from multiple poop holes. Who took care of the kids while the parents were in counseling, court, etc? You guessed it.

    Someone show me in the Bible where “fecal play” is considered “intimate holy nuptial union”.

    “And he knew her poop intimately and from them 11 sons were born”.

    Anal sex is fecal play. Read the medical sites.

    “and show us that Burk is holding women accountable too.”

    Burk was talking about young confused girls (and boys), not grown women (or men) and that is why he held PARENTS accountable in the article. He called on women/moms to be accountable to protect both their boys and girls from fecal play, assuming that the Christian moms and dads he was writing for were not engaging in sex with poop themselves.

    “As far as the normalization of anal sex is concerned, online pornography probably plays a secondary role. It’s about simple supply and demand. When sexually desirable men are seen in short supply for whatever reason, single womenl mostly react by out-slutting one another in order to pander to the perceived sexual whims of the top men.”

    It plays the major role. Sure women will compete for the men they desire if they have to. I know my Grandma had to win over my Granddad’s heart from an already pre-arranged betrothal, but she didn’t even kiss him in the process, forget about anal. The anal is ENTIRELY a product of porn.

    Let’s leave this topic. All of us here but one are on the same page about anal sex being sodomy and forbidden by God. I’m assuming that at least one other commenter is a parent like I am too who doesn’t want their kids engaging in sex with poop.

  210. Höllenhund says:

    Hollenhund,
    Of course you make a reasoned point, but can Kotter even hear it?

    Probably not. I’m not speaking to him specifically anyway. It seems obvious that he doesn’t even understand the basics of Christian theology. After all, where does the Bible say that women lack moral agency, that women are unable to engage in immoral acts proactively?

  211. feeriker says:

    @desiderian

    Congratulations, brother! May God continue to bless your household!

  212. feeriker says:

    The point, Kotter, is that most men are not sleeping their way through scores of women, and the ones who are, aren’t the ones in Burk’s church.

    Even Burk, moron that he is, knows this full well. It’s just that there’s no other way for for a beta-minus loser like him to convincingly AMOG the men of his congregation otherwise. If playahs didn’t exist, a desperate schlub like Burk would have to invent them. The last thing he and his ilk want to see is a spiritually healthy, stable, functional Christian MMP/SMP. If that ever happened he would have to go get a real job and would thus be hopelessly screwed.

  213. W.B.Kotter says:

    There doesn’t have to be a lot of men sleeping their way through scores of women for anal sex to be expected when your average schlub gets around to finally bedding the 5 in HR after wage-slaving beside her in the office for 2.5 years. Or for that geeky “nice guy” in 5th hour Chemistry to pressure your darling Becky when they finally hang out over pizza and Netflix. The fact is that most boys/men are not killer players and most girls/women are not Belle Knox, but they ARE anal sexing at some point, and more than once.

    What kind of sex do you think these pornified geeks, “nice guys” and chubby straight-A Becky’s are having once they finally mesh after years of watching porn alone?

  214. honeycomb says:

    Kotter .. you’re a troll.

    There’s no other way to explain some so dense as you .. you’re doing on purpose.

    We get it .. you don’t like porn .. check .. you don’t like men .. check .. you don’t think women are responsible for their actions .. check .. any woman that has anal (or oral) sex is an in’no’sent angel who was tricked outside any parents control .. check.

    You have your answer .. go teach the wimminz how it’s all a manz fault .. and their ain’t any here .. so PISS-OFF MATE.

  215. Hose_B says:

    The only sex act forbidden between a husband and wife is sex during her period. I don’t hear anyone saying THAT is any of anyone’s business. Nor do I se a big emphasis on it in church.

    If you have anal sex with your wife, It isn’t a sin. If your wife wants anal play, it’s not a sin either. Your body belongs to your wife and her body belongs to you. Both to enjoy as is enjoyable to you.
    If the husband decides it is a sin because he believes it to be, then fine, but that doesn’t apply to the wives of others.

  216. Boxer says:

    If the husband decides it is a sin because he believes it to be, then fine, but that doesn’t apply to the wives of others.

    I always love these people who show up telling other men what to do with themselves and their families. They’re highly entertaining.

  217. W.B.Kotter says:

    “If the husband decides it is a sin because he believes it to be, then fine, but that doesn’t apply to the wives of others.”

    Moral relativism. GOD decided sodomy was a sin. End of.

  218. feministhater says:

    What kind of sex do you think these pornified geeks, “nice guys” and chubby straight-A Becky’s are having once they finally mesh after years of watching porn alone?

    They probably have just enough sex that she gets the ring she wants, the one child she craves and then no more sex at all after marriage. You’re delusional if you think the nerd is pressuring his career orientated HR manager bitch to perform oral sex on him or ben dover for some anal lovin’.

    Lol!

  219. Boxer says:

    Dear W.B.Kotter:

    Moral relativism. GOD decided sodomy was a sin. End of.

    Look, faggot, we’ve got the idea. You speak for GOD. Problem is, GOD has not revealed any of the nonsense you’re spouting in the text (if he had, you’d have posted references hours ago).

    Your displaced feces fetish and your delusions of grandeur are not the topic of this blog. We have heard your divine revelation, and we’ve rejected it. Let’s move on to bigger and better things.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  220. Swanny River says:

    Kotter,
    Even though you don’t seem to know that you are arguing in bad faith, you haven’t quit yet. Good. I thought you might quit after your rebuke statement.
    It’s not the topic at hand that annoys me, I would be impatient with you on any topic because you haven’t given an honest expression of wanting to learn. For example, your melodramatic and condemning statement about only one other person here saying sodomy is sin. You know why you have to assume? Because you don’t know and haven’t asked. Besides, it’s not the point of disagreement, Burke’s message is. To that, Gunner, please stop distracting Kotter before we get a resolution on the main point. And Kotter, why didn’t you just start by asking a question instead of defending Burk? You could have just asked, “Guys, I am confused why you are criticizing Burk, I think he nailed it.”
    Instead, you tried to reconcile our criticism by saying we aren’t Believers. That is the answer in some cases I suppose, but its also a cop-out for not learning. This is the third time I mention this next point- have you even read Dalrock’s posts about sin of being too submissive and CBMW?
    Similar to being a weightlifting spotter, I am saying to you, “Push!” You can get this.

  221. W.B.Kotter says:

    Swanny, no, I said we all Christians here agree that sodomy is a sin as per Biblical injunctions. Only one other person does not agree with us. Not that its only me and one other person who understands this Biblical law. Anyway, we are all in agreement for the most part. The culture is debauched. None of us really know how to navigate the pornified landscape with our kids. We’re winging it. Burk makes mostly good points, and me be perhaps the only one thinking he makes all good points. So ok we’re all (mostly) agreeing and (partially) agreeing to disagree, and moving on now. I got it.

  222. honeycomb says:

    Boxer .. tisk tisk .. we shouldn’t name call the retard. 😉

    Though he might very well be a “Closet Faggot” .. it has become clear to me .. he’s (aka Kotter) a SHE (i.e. a WOMAN).

  223. ray says:

    Empathy this. ‘Instant God is gonna get you/gonna knock you off your feet/better recognize your brother/is everyone you meet’. Selfies ‘n crowns ‘pedestals, tumbling down. Unstoppable domino effect.

    ‘Selfie attempt sets off domino effect at L.A. gallery and causes $200,000 in damage. The calamitous scene unfolded when an unidentified woman crouched for a selfie in front of a row of crowns displayed individually on pedestals and fell backward, triggering an unstoppable domino effect in a room described by the gallery as “a serene space.”’

    source — http://www.dailycrow.com/daily-updates/

  224. BillyS says:

    Novaseeker,

    porn is the easy way out and it takes just enough of the edge off of his sex drive to sate it somewhat, thereby taking away the incentive to actually work on being more attractive to women and pursuing them.

    That ignores the fact that it is extremely difficult to find a faithful woman to meet those needs. Even buffing up and being incredibly attractive to women is still no guarantee of faithfulness from a woman these days. That also plays a role in “why bother” when it comes to becoming appealing to women. (I am speaking of those who have the morality or even just the desire to not pursue a PUA lifestyle.)

    I have yet to hear any preacher note the women play in porn use in a way that holds women accountable in any way. Even use of porn by husbands is solely laid at the feet of the man and the likely role of the woman being disagreeable, unattractive or worse is not addressed. It is another aspect of blaming men for the whole problem.

  225. Swanny River says:

    Kotter,
    Good, but somewhat frustrating because I see you moving on from it, with conciliation, which is important, but still with little understanding of why there is Burk criticism. If you stay around, you will hopefully understand better why it is important, at least for me, to hold Burk and his fellow leaders, accountable.
    Billy S just made some key points that reinforce why someone could be frustrated at Burk. By getting it wrong, Burk is missing out on an opportunity to demolish the strongholds that feed the debauchery.
    I don’t like going so off-topic like I am about to do, but to clean up the sodomy discussion, I have had two positions, not literally, on it while a Christian. It is not an essential issue so there should be charity. I don’t see it being a topic here, but if it is, then next time, you should present your reasons for your position, instead of just saying, it is so. Of course, if it is a sin, then it can be a sin whether we acknowledge or not as such. But is there no position you hold in error? Shall I say to you something is a sin in your life without first explaining why?

  226. BillyS says:

    What kind of sex do you think these pornified geeks, “nice guys” and chubby straight-A Becky’s are having once they finally mesh after years of watching porn alone?

    Like that happens much. Only when Becky is looking for a beta bux source to divorce for cash and prizes later. You really need to take your head out of your rear.

    Hose_B,

    The only sex act forbidden between a husband and wife is sex during her period. I don’t hear anyone saying THAT is any of anyone’s business. Nor do I se a big emphasis on it in church.

    I agree with you that anal sex is not explicitly forbidden, but what citation do you have for a limit even there? (I would not do either, but that is another issue, not a Biblical requirement.)

    Our idiot Kotter,

    Moral relativism. GOD decided sodomy was a sin. End of.

    Why did the Jerusalem Council not noted it in their prohibited actions if that applied to Gentiles? Tell me where it is explicitly in the NT or shut up about it.

  227. Novaseeker says:

    Like that happens much. Only when Becky is looking for a beta bux source to divorce for cash and prizes later. You really need to take your head out of your rear.

    Correct.

    The most common scenario is this. Becky is really hot for Chad. She gives it up for Chad and in the heat of the moment he asks for anal and she gives it to him, because she is just hot for him and will do anything to please him in the moment, even though she may not relish being penetrated there. Later, eventually Chad moves on to Alice from Becky, and Becky is pissed and tells others she was pressured because she has some incontinence issues due to the times with Chad. This is a cover for the fact that she did whatever Chad asked because she wanted to please Chad because that is what she desired — she desired his approval and she desired to “win” him ahead of other girls. When that fails, the recriminations begin.

    Years later, Becky marries Billy Beta, who has not had anything like the same level of experience with women as Becky has had with men. Billy probably has watched a good deal of porn, unfortunately, in the years before Becky made herself available to him, after she had not given guys like Billy the time of day for years in favor of guys like Chad. Billy may ask Becky for anal sex based on his experience in viewing porn, but he isn’t going to get it from Becky — Becky will come up with umpteen reasons why she won’t do that with Billy, even though she would always do it for a Chad-like guy.

    Burk is talking about the former situation and not the latter one, because the latter one doesn’t involve anal sex. Becky won’t give that to Billy no matter how much he wants it, and even though she gave it to Chad and other guys like Chad before she finally figured out that guys like Chad didn’t want her for more than a release valve. Now, I am not advocating anal sex (I am in the sodomy camp, and no, I don’t want to get into a drawn out biblical argument about it … I find these boring and I follow the teachings of my church, which are very anti-sodomy and that is that), but what I am saying is that the issue that Burk is addressing isn’t husbands demanding and obtaining anal sex from their wives against their wives wishes — that isn’t happening other than in a tiny handful of marriages. What Burk is addressing is Chad and his ilk, and pretending that the every-boy in the pew is Chad, when he is nothing like Chad and has no leverage to demand anal or any other kind of sex from girls or young women. That’s where the rank stupidity of Burk’s article is manifestly apparent.

  228. Kevin says:

    Over the weekend my wife shared with me two or three linked articles from feminists on Facebook. Dalrock was correct – feminism truly is about turning things that should bring normal women joy into misery. Article after article talking about women needing freedom from the drudgery and misery of motherhood. These women are horrible. They have no joy and want misery in everyone else.

  229. Dale says:

    Novaseeker
    >This is the primary impact of porn for men who are unmarried and not in relationships with women — it tends to decrease their interest in doing what it takes to pursue women

    This may be true, but as BillyS noted, some men will look around and determine that there are no acceptable women available to him. Other than in immigrant or foreign churches, I never noticed even one North American women not showing at least one continuing open act of rebellion in “church” service. Deut 22:5, 1 Cor 1:1-16, Titus 2:3-5. Yes, I am sure there are congregations in other denominations that does boast such women; given Scott’s comments I am guessing his Christian Orthodox church would be one.
    If there is no one to pursue, then the “decrease [in] their interest in doing what it takes to pursue women” is irrelevant. Any man should seek to increase in Christ-likeness of course (e.g. 2 Pet 1:5-8 – For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.)

    Of course, you may have a valid point. By saying that men should “[do] what it takes to pursue women,” you may have meant that men should leave Canada and go to another country, if marriage is that important to him. In this case, I would agree.

    GunnerQ said
    >Every sex act within marriage is moral. Full stop. Whether you approve of the kinky stuff is irrelevant to the fact that the husband owns his wife’s body, is in charge of the relationship and has the God-given authority to demand sex at will. You are not your brother’s marriage-bed keeper.

    Thank you. Kotter and those like him are not God, and have no authority to add to God’s word.
    God’s word addresses men with men, women with women, bestiality, adultery, and various related people (e.g. father’s wife, daughter of your father, sister of your current wife, etc.) God apparently felt those were enough.

    No, I am not trying to “justify” any desire for anal sex. The thought is repulsive to me. But that is different than saying it is sinful. I find wine, mushrooms and spinach to be disgusting also, but I have no prohibitions from Scripture for those either.

    @femininstHater said:
    >I do not believe the court should jail a man for fucking his wife. Christians SHOULD believe that when married, the man owns the woman’s body and the woman owns the man’s body.

    fify
    Although perhaps you meant real Christ-followers, rather than Churchians, in which case your statement is largely valid, as is.

    W.B.Kotter said:
    >Opus, you said you wished you lived in a world where women did not say no to things against their will, or even “voice discomfort”

    It was obvious to anyone who is honest and has a reasonable intelligence level that Opus was regretting the lack of submissive women, not the lack of women who allow themselves to be degraded.

    Kotter is either:
    a) stupid — in which case Prov 17:27-28 would provide wisdom
    b) willfully pretending to be stupid, for some agenda. Religious professionals seem to be frequent culprits here. A troll would also be in this category.

    Don’t feed the trolls. Or if you want Scripture for that:
    Prov 23:9: Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words.
    Matt 7:6: Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

  230. feeriker says:

    …what I am saying is that the issue that Burk is addressing isn’t husbands demanding and obtaining anal sex from their wives against their wives wishes — that isn’t happening other than in a tiny handful of marriages. What Burk is addressing is Chad and his ilk, and pretending that the every-boy in the pew is Chad, when he is nothing like Chad and has no leverage to demand anal or any other kind of sex from girls or young women. That’s where the rank stupidity of Burk’s article is manifestly apparent.

    Again, clueless dorks like Burk invent problems out of whole cloth in order to give themselves a platform. If he were forced to focus on teaching actual Scripture and addressing real problems that actual members of his congregation actually faced, no one would give him the time of day. He’d be as irrelevant as a Christmas tree in Mecca and as lost as a blind man in a maze.

  231. BillyS says:

    I would still be married now if my exwife had been even a bit more submissive. The attitude Kotter exhibits is what let her justify leaving. I wonder if those like him (or likely her) really want the blood of the divorces they cause on their own hands.

    Dale,

    I think Scott is Eastern Orthodox, though a Serbian variant, IIRC.

    Novaseeker,

    One doesn’t have to see anal sex as a sin to find it very unprofitable and not a good thing.

    A very limited number of things are explicitly prohibited in the NT and it is not one of them. Though my point is not to argue it, but at least note it can be very unprofitable whether someone takes the “it is sinful” stance or not.

    Though the idiotic argument her is like trying to nail jello to the wall (Kotter). Definitely no welcome back to Kotter….

    Sounds more like an SJW than someone who stands for righteousness.

  232. W.B.Kotter says:

    Again, Burk’s piece was about confused teens. Yes both teen girls and boys need to be held accountable for inappropriate and/or sinful behavior but he was really trying to wake parents up to their responsibilities toward their children and their internet use. His point was boys need to learn not to desire sodomy and girls do to, in addition to not being persuaded by boys/young men to engage in it. I don’t see him letting anyone off the hook here but remember, teens are confused kids who need mega guidance from adults so its ultimately the responsibility of the parents to instill values into their impressionable and horny teens.

    I’m bored clarifying over and over.

    Not entirely buying Nova’s Becky-Chad-Billy “narrative”. I wasn’t born yesterday and I’ve lived a very social life and you just don’t see average to below average Beckies with above average, in demand Chads. Water seeks its own level. Birds of a feather….

    People of the Book can marry each other (and keep their own faiths) so if you can’t find a proper Christian partner, try to meet some nice professional Muslims or believing Jews.

  233. They Call Me Tom says:

    Please delete the prior comment… spotted a couple typos

    It seems to me important to point out that porn is the symptom not the disease. It is the consequence of trying to simultaneously eat your cake (compromising theology for the sake of feminism, encouraging women to postpone marriage and to disregard chastity before marriage) and keep your cake (being strict with men in regards to chastity before marriage when marriage has been postponed in order to embrace female immaturity).
    Want to diminish pornography? Require women to grow up and start families in their twenties. Treat them as harlots in your church if they don’t.
    Want to see more pornography? Tell men to wait for marriage, and tell women to postpone marriage as long as possible, so that men have no wife of their youth to cherish. So that the only youthful women they can cherish are in pornography.
    Burk is either a fool or a fraud. He either can’t get this, or he refuses to.

  234. Boxer says:

    Our brother Kotter is eclectic, I must say…

    Water seeks its own level.

    is a quote by Anton LaVey, in The Satanic Bible

    People of the Book is a phrase from Qur’an, which doesn’t appear in the New Testament. I’ve never heard a Christian use this term.

    Just FYI

    Boxer

  235. honeycomb says:

    Boxer is right ..

    Satan whore’ship’peer Kotter has spoken ..

    People of the Book can marry each other (and keep their own faiths) so if you can’t find a proper Christian partner, try to meet some nice professional <stringMuslims or believing Jews.

  236. honeycomb says:

    One of these days I’m gonna buy a computer & get off this smart phone .. I make a ton of mistakes typing everyday .. my bad folks.

  237. Novaseeker says:

    People of the Book can marry each other (and keep their own faiths)

    Eh, certainly not in the Russian Orthodox Church, of which I am a member. We may not marry unbaptized persons, period, and baptized but non-Orthodox Christians need to agree to abide by the Orthodox faith with respect to the marriage and any children. No worries for me, because my fiancee is Orthodox.

    In any case, however, you continue to sidestep the issue.

    Burk not once calls for correction to the behavior of girls. I don’t care “how you read it” — it simply isn’t there in his text. He singles out the boys, as pastors normally, and quite wrongly, do. He is asleep on the real issue, to be honest.

    And the Becky-Chad-Billy scenario is exceedingly common. It isn’t that average Beckys are “with” (in terms of a LTR/actual BF/engagement) with in-demand Chads, it’s that they compete with other Beckys for his attention, and they deploy sex as a means to secure that attention. This is legion. It happens everywhere, and with women from 15-55 (I am 50 and I see it in women of my own age as well). Chad does not marry them, he doesn’t LTR them, but he does have sex with them — why? Because they are available, they are new and different, and he can, and they do what he asks because they think it gives them a chance at a relationship with him. Happens regularly, all the time in our culture, and then women go online and blame all of other men for what Chad did, instead of blaming herself and similarly situated women for choosing Chad and his ilk again and again and again, or taking any responsibility whatsoever for the situation — as Burk supports in his piece, which places the girls as victims. This is pathetic, false, unhelpful, and furthers the ends of the evil one and sin in the world — it is absolutely pathological coming from a Christian pastor.

  238. honeycomb says:

    Hey Welcome Back Kotter ..

    2 Corinthians 6:14-17
    (KJV)

    14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?

    15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?

    16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.

    17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.

    ..
    ..
    ..

    I called you a Satan Whore’ship’peer for a reason .. you would have a Christian un-equally yoke themselves to non-christians .. which in itself is wrong & due just a correction like I posted above .. BUT .. to be the devil and slide in a nice professional Muslim (*caps noticed*) .. etc is beyond a slip-up .. it was purposeful .. you are worse than a troll.

  239. American says:

    @feministhater July 16, 2017 at 2:29 pm: Regarding 1 Corinthians 7:4, the apostle Paul isn’t saying they are each other’s robots whose bodies are controlled by the other but rather that they are not to defraud each other of the conjugal duty “due” in marriage in context with 1 Corinthians 7:3 (and read Exodus 21:10 in the Septuagint).

    P.S. I apologize if my attempt at dry humor was offensive regarding the General Social Survey finding that twelve percent of extremely liberal women engage in lesbian behavior with other women compared to only two percent of extremely conservative women.

  240. Isa says:

    @Boxer Oddly enough, the people I know who are most enthusiastic about anal are first generation Muslim men. This basically stems from the extremely high price placed on female virginity (and deniability to later partners). It is either anal with “virgins”, or cougering it up with married women in their 30s and 40s. Fun choice no?

  241. Ofelas says:

    Boxer:
    just a side note – always thought “Water seeks its own level” was basically Pascal’s principle explained for dummies..

  242. Opus says:

    Do men ‘ask’ women for anal – or anything else for that matter? I can’t think I ever did, though once I had a friend with considerable benefits who raised the possibility of anal sex. I was not fazed by this – so she produced her strap-on.

    Come to think of it on another occasion another FwB who until that time I had been rejecting largely because I thought she looked like a horse which rejections only seemed to increase her ardour, she post-coitus requested anal-sex (in the more conventional W.B.Kotter sense) which I declined. I was snapping away at the time – I have the photos which do reveal I must admit a very fine body though I avoided taking shots of her visage.

  243. Swanny River says:

    Wow, did Kotter really say it is okay to marry outside the faith?
    Something weird is going on, maybe Kotter is a Muslim, it would explain his poor debating skills., i know there are fine Muslim minds, but those I have met, or listened to just can’t string a complete argument together.
    Kotter says he is clarifying but all he does is repeat himself, so maybe he just doesn’t have a formal education. Anyhow, too strange.

  244. Swanny River says:

    I can see Kotter liking Burk, they both display a denseness that draws them together.

  245. anon says:

    “I wouldn’t say she’s a dumpster…I’d use her as a cautionary tale..”

    Oh, one can learn a great deal from a dumpster.
    Dumpsters, crime scenes, blood splatter patterns, medical waste…

  246. PokeSalad says:

    Though he might very well be a “Closet Faggot” .. it has become clear to me .. he’s (aka Kotter) a SHE (i.e. a WOMAN).

    They can’t help themselves. They try sooooo strenuously to make post after post as a ‘concern troll’ male, but eventually their true nature is revealed, usually when they are asked for references or logic…then the emotionalism seeps through. They can’t keep up the pretense forever.

  247. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    Boxer is right .. Satan whore’ship’peer Kotter has spoken ..

    just a side note – always thought “Water seeks its own level” was basically Pascal’s principle explained for dummies..

    For the record, I’m not implying Kotter worships Satan. Anton LaVey didn’t worship Satan (nor anything else, either). He was an Ayn Rand libertarian who hated hippies in the 1960s, and made a career out of being outrageous. I do find it interesting to see the phrases here, though. LaVey used the “water seeking out its own level” countless times in print, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen that phrase, in the context Kotter used it, anywhere else. e.g.:

    There can be no myth of equality for all – it only translates to mediocrity and supports the weak at the expense of the strong. Water must be allowed to seek its own level without interference from apologists for incompetence. No one should be protected from the effects of his own stupidity.
    LaVey, Anton. The Devil’s Notebook. Port Townsend: Feral House, 1992.

    Oddly enough, the people I know who are most enthusiastic about anal are first generation Muslim men.

    Right. Like the above example, I found the phrase “people of the book” to be entirely out of place, coming from a supposed Christian.

    Muslims use that phrase to denote otherwise decent non-Muslim people who follow some other tradition, and Muslims are allowed to marry such people (the limits are widely variable, but I don’t think any Muslim would marry an atheist). A nearly forgotten Muslim chickie I was seeing romantically, many years ago, would pester me along these lines. “Can’t you at least pretend to be a believing Mormon, just while you’re in my parents’ company?” lol

    Anyway, I assumed that Kotter was a closeted gay man, who was projecting his own horror at his repressed interest, just given his fanatic obsession with feces, the anus, etc. Whether I’m right, or Swanny is, or honeycomb, or anyone else, who knows? He obviously seems widely read, though I suspect he’s not as devoted to Christianity as most of the rest of you guys are (I’m not either, so there’s that.)

    Best,

    Boxer

  248. honeycomb says:

    Boxer ..

    I know what you meant. I (and I alone .. my bad for it looking like I had your bye-in) called him a Satan Whore’ship’peer (because I thought he was infidel). It turns out .. (S)He is such a person. And, thusly a agent of satan (at least to me).

    My bad on dragging you into that little tiff.

  249. Boxer says:

    Dear honeycomb:

    No sweat brother. It’s an interesting conversation.

    Spilling my own dirty laundry, I don’t find anal sex to be very appealing; but, I think there’s a notable difference between what was condemned in the text about Sodom (i.e. men who gang-raped strangers who passed through town) and what a married couple likes to experiment with in the confines of their private relationship. The word “sodomy” has a much different lexical range in pop culture than it appears to have in the biblical narrative, and I would question anyone conflating the two (as, apparently, all of y’all have done).

    Peace,

    Boxer

  250. honeycomb says:

    Boxer .. there is a difference is non-believer’s and Kotter.

    So, to be clear I don’t have problems with non-believer’s. But, when you behave as Kotter has .. you get the escalation above.

  251. RecoveringBeta says:

    This Kotter dude sure seems obsessed with butts…been reading (((Freud)))?

  252. Damn Crackers says:

    Crackers’ Law: All cultural and political progress is designed to result in the normalization of pederasty.

  253. Jack Russell says:

    “Women cannot complain about men anymore until they start getting better taste in them.”
    ― Bill Maher

    One of the few things Bill said that I agree with.

  254. mojohn says:

    Just finished listening to a Rush Limbaugh segment where he took Ms. Allard to task for abusing her sons.

  255. Dalrock says:

    American,

    FYI, I can’t figure out why your comments always go into moderation. I searched through my greylist keywords a second time today to see if your ip or email address are listed in my file (if you were in the blacklist your comments would be automatically binned, not queued for moderation). Neither is listed, and I can’t find shortened versions that might be tripping moderation either.

  256. earlthomas786 says:

    “Women cannot complain about men anymore until they start getting better taste in them.”

    He’s right…I think feminism has warped the majority of women’s brains that many will complain about men regardless of which one they choose.

  257. thedeti says:

    Novaseeker, July 16, 1041 pm

    I have no idea why this RP 101 class has to be explained in Cliffs Notes versions over and over again to folks like Kotter.

    And again, to explain it to Kotter a slightly different way:

    The problem with the Burk piece is similar to the way almost all Christians approach the issue of premarital sex and sexual conduct: It’s always the man’s fault. It’s always the boy’s fault. There is never any consideration given to the fact that girls are having sex, including anal sex, with very attractive men because that is what they want to do.

    This seems really basic, but it seems it has to be repeated for Christians. Girls want to have sex with very attractive men. This notion that women really don’t like sex all that much and don’t want to have sex is just BS. Of COURSE women want to have sex. They very much want sex with attractive men, and will have sex with attractive men. A woman will sexually wear out a man she’s sexually attracted to. Women who are sexually attracted to the men they have sex with have enormously voracious sexual appetites.

    It’s just that they don’t want to have sex with men who aren’t all that attractive. And most men AREN’T all that attractive. They just aren’t. So when a woman is in the presence of a very sexually attractive man, she’ll do just about anything to be with him, including doing things she “would never do” including anal sex. Or oral sex or threesomes or whatever else.

    I don’t think most Christian men know what a woman who is in the throes of deep sexual attraction looks like. I’ve seen it. Not often, but I’ve seen it. And the comparison in sexual behavior between the attracted woman and the “meh” woman or the unattracted woman is like night and day. It’s astonishing how much differently a sexually attracted woman acts vis a vis the VERY SAME woman who’s just not all that attracted. The same woman with Chad acts very very differently sexually from how she acts with Billy Beta.

    These people don’t know what unbridled female lust, unrestrained female sexual attraction, looks like. Well, what it looks like is teen girls having anal sex with very attractive men. What it looks like is women having enormous amounts of sex. It looks like what Burk describes, but he won’t call it out for what it is.

    No one is forcing girls and women to have sex with Chads. No one makes them do it. No one forces them to have anal sex or kink or threesomes or anything else. Women do this of their own free will, knowingly and voluntarily. They do it because they want the sexual experience, because they think they might have a chance at a relationship with Chad, because they want validation or affirmation, because they want bragging rights, because they’re competing with their frenemies, whatever. The point is these women WANT to have that sex, and so they do.

  258. thedeti says:

    And women are fully personally responsible, morally and otherwise, for the choices they make. Women will bear the moral and factual fallout from their sexual choices.

    THe problem Burk and others have is that they just cannot see this, or they do see it and gloss over it. Because it is hard, very very hard, to assign moral culpability to women. Because women inevitably cry “You’re just being mean” “you’re cruel and heartless” “Don’t judge! Judge not lest ye be judged!” “It’s not our fault, we just wanted to be wives and mommies and we just wanted to get married!” Women scream and cry like stuck pigs whenever anyone calls them out on their immoral or stupid or shortsighted conduct. Women take no responsibility for their conduct; and no one else makes them take responsibility.

  259. American says:

    @Dalrock July 17, 2017 at 1:10 pm: I’m honored to be addressed directly by the author of perhaps the most truthful Christian men’s issue forum on the Internet :).

    I also have no idea why my comments all go into a moderation queue. But having you check my comments briefly before approving them does not bother me. To me it’s a free service, a benefit. I acknowledge that you may feel differently as it’s more work for you, however!

    Until it’s somehow figured out, if it ever is, let me simply take this opportunity to thank you for hosting this forum and demonstrating a high degree of integrity with respect to content and moderation. I respect what you’ve accomplished here and appreciate contributing my two cents. At some point in the future, I would like to see a book published incorporating the best of this forum’s thought and discoveries which I can purchase at Barnes and Noble. Peace :).

  260. thedeti says:

    Marcus D:

    “Husband wants divorce – sexless marriage”

    Husband is an alcoholic with some sexual fantasies he wanted to try out. Wife had illness, on hormone suppressants. Also afterthought of “also I was sexually abused as a girl”. She says the thought of sex with husband repulses her.

    Clinical impression: Wife is not sexually attracted to husband. I bet if we put her next to a much more attractive man, her problems would disappear like a fart in the wind and she’d have no problems having sex. I like how the “also I was sexually abused in the past” comes up as an afterthought. “You can’t judge me for refusing sex to my bad boy alcoholic husband!”

    She’s not repulsed because her drunkard husband wants to get a little kinky. The decades-past “sexual abuse” has nothing to do with it. She’s repulsed because she’s just not attracted to him sexually. The alcoholism fattened him up and probably gave him some ED, and turned him into a bit of a couch potato jerk most times.

    It’s because of her lack of sexual attraction, really.

  261. Swanny River says:

    The Deti,
    Since Kotter might be a troll or fake, let me reply in her place, Burk’s lamentations are general enough to hold water, but without stats or clear assertions by Burk, your anecdotal falls short. But that is due to Burk’s presentation and not the accuracy of your example. Kotter said somewhere above that she didn’t buy the Chad and Becky scenario. I buy it, but to what extent does it play out? None of us know, but i agree with the problem being downstream of other factors, which Kotter also disagreed with by the way.

  262. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti, the trad-cons remain deeply mired in their neo-Victorianism. It is part of their religion, which includes female pedestalization or more bluntly “goddess” worship. A worship that is clearly pagan.

    Burk’s one-sided condemnation of some porn is a classic example. Like many, he has a difficutl time accepting the carnal nature of boys and girls, or of men and women. The irony is, if churches would give up their pagan woman-worship and turn to the Song of Solomon (a book of the Bible they claim to read), the young churchgoing men might become more confident, and therefore more attractive to the churchgoing girls, thereby leading to more marriages in the early to mid 20’s and happier marriages all around.

    But tradcons would rather not admit the earthy reality of women. Again, their paganism is more important to them. So more man-bashing it is, because the alternative is unthinkable. They literally cannot think of it.

  263. Anonymous Reader says:

    Swanny River
    I buy it, but to what extent does it play out?

    Does the term “carousel rider” mean anything to you? How about “carousel watcher”?

    With the average age of first marriage for women edging up towards 29, what do you think women are doing for those 10 years of unmarried, yougogrrl, life? Honestly, have you read the older articles here?

  264. thedeti says:

    @ Swanny:

    “Kotter said somewhere above that she didn’t buy the Chad and Becky scenario. I buy it, but to what extent does it play out? None of us know, but i agree with the problem being downstream of other factors, which Kotter also disagreed with by the way.”

    The Becky-Chad-Billy scenario plays out all the time now. Nearly all women are having premarital sex. Who do you think they’re having that premarital sex with? Billy? No, they’re having it with Chad. A string of Chads, usually.

    No, Billy is the guy Becky settles for after she sexes up the Chads, all of whom move on to other women. Billy is the guy who will pay for all the mess she creates. Billy is the guy who will suffer through sexual deprivation because of the issues created by the series of couplings she had with Chads as well as by all of her preexisting issues.

    FWIW I tend to agree that the preexisting issues usually predate and cause, or at least heavily contribute to, her Chaddiction. You know – organic/genetic predispositions to mental illnesses/mental disorders. Daddy issues. PTSD. Family problems leading to personality disorders/ compensatory behaviors. Whatever else. The fact remains though that all of society encourages and cheers on women in having sex with as many good looking sexually attractive men as she can before settling down with a man who will have her.

  265. earl says:

    ‘This seems really basic, but it seems it has to be repeated for Christians. Girls want to have sex with very attractive men.’

    Yeah it’s called lust. Problem is I think most Christians think with good reason this particular sin affects men more because we are more visual. But to dismiss the idea that women are never lustful is naive.

  266. thedeti says:

    My only real disagreement with the Douglas Wilson piece:

    “17.The liberation of women was a false flag operation. The true goal was the liberation of libertine men, and in our day this was a goal that has largely been achieved. These were men who wanted the benefits for themselves that would come from easy divorce, widespread abortion, mainstreamed pornography, and a promiscuous dating culture. The early twentieth century was characterized by the Christian wife. The early twenty-first century is characterized by the tattooed concubine. And these sons of Belial have the chutzpah to call it “progress for women.””

    Well, no. The true goal was liberation of libertine men AND all women. Libertine men have been having sex with women in and out of marriage for all time. The worst that would happen to them is exclusion from “proper” and “polite” society, and perhaps reduced ability to earn a living. But if you’re a libertine man, you don’t care much what society thinks of you, and you earn only what you need to survive.

    The true goal was liberating all women to (1) have sex with whoever they want without judgment or immediate consequence; and (2) be economically “free and independent” so they don’t have to marry or have sex with icky beta men.

  267. feministhater says:

    What?! So Douglas Wilson is now blaming men for the problem of feminism. Haha! More shit. Hey Duggie, men literally told women what would happen, we spelt it out for them so that a child could understand it and …. they still went ahead anyway. No sympathy ya daft bat. Lol!

  268. Hmm says:

    @deti: I think what Wilson is getting at here is that many (non-church) men went along with early feminism because of the possibility of easy sex (after all, birth control advantages the alpha male quite handily). The same is true of the changes to divorce laws: many were supported by upper-class alpha men (and what is a politician, after all?) tired of the cost and trouble of getting their second and subsequent trophy wives.

    That they could couch their lustful advantage in women-centric terms was a bonus – that’s the “false flag” Wilson speaks of.

    Margaret Sanger would have gotten nowhere without male support.

  269. Swanny River says:

    AR, my comment was intended for making a specific point that Deti’s example is not persuasive because Burk’s article never said something like “sodomy has increased by 45% in 5 years.” Therefore, Deti can only argue with how it might occur, which doesn’t prove the role women play.
    I think you are asking me something different, to which I have 2 answers: yes, tons of premarital sex going on between Christians. Two, I hung out with many women who weren’t grabbing for more and are low or no N count women, so my personal experience is slightly different than the 80% national figure. I am for early marriages, especially after suffering through the marketplace grinder through many years myself.

  270. earl says:

    I find it funny that a woman would choose to do the procreative act with a man who is basically a loser (it’s not an alpha, it’s a cad) and think a man with a job and responsibilities is icky…but that’s most likely what’s in her heart. That’s why you have a single mother problem.

  271. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hmm
    @deti: I think what Wilson is getting at here is that many (non-church) men went along with early feminism because of the possibility of easy sex (after all, birth control advantages the alpha male quite handily). The same is true of the changes to divorce laws: many were supported by upper-class alpha men (and what is a politician, after all?) tired of the cost and trouble of getting their second and subsequent trophy wives.

    The 1970’s called, they want their tired trad-con tropes back. Wilson is pig-ignorant of a lot of things, starting with who actually files for divorce 70% of the time in the US, and continuing on to what Hypergamy is. He’s pretty old and may not be up to learning anything anymore. What’s your excuse?

  272. Anonymous Reader says:

    Swanny River
    AR, my comment was intended for making a specific point that Deti’s example is not persuasive because Burk’s article never said something like “sodomy has increased by 45% in 5 years.” Therefore, Deti can only argue with how it might occur, which doesn’t prove the role women play.

    Deti’s example can be seen in the real world. You’re arguing that he should ignore his lying eyes.

    I think you are asking me something different, to which I have 2 answers: yes, tons of premarital sex going on between Christians.

    I don’t know if it is “tons” or not, but it’s certainly happening. To insist that it isn’t, or to insist that it’s all the fault of men (as tradcons generally do) is just false. Or fantasy.

    Two, I hung out with many women who weren’t grabbing for more and are low or no N count women, so my personal experience is slightly different than the 80% national figure.

    How did you know what they were or were not doing? Unless they married before the age of 25 they likely were either not carousel riders, than carousel watchers. “Covert” is a word that has meaning, you know.

    I am for early marriages, especially after suffering through the marketplace grinder through many years myself.

    We agree on that. The standard modern model is just bad. Bad for women, bad for the men they eventually marry, bad for everyone.

  273. earl says:

    ‘Submission is an erotic necessity. The abandonment of this basic marital responsibility is the cause of much unhappiness, and has also been a cause of the resultant pursuit of erotic delusions offered by multiple partners or by various perversions.’

    Interesting thought. Basically when women gave up submission to their husband is when they went promiscuous and men went to porn or sodomy.

  274. Boxer says:

    I find it funny that a woman would choose to do the procreative act with a man who is basically a loser (it’s not an alpha, it’s a cad) and think a man with a job and responsibilities is icky…but that’s most likely what’s in her heart. That’s why you have a single mother problem.

    Most women (who in a more healthy era would be considered damaged, but in our contemporary milieu are the norm) do not want a strong, successful man. Most women want a weak man, who they can control and manipulate.

    This is why you see so many women sneering at good looking men with decent paying jobs, opting instead to go home after last call, to the trailer with Cletus (or to the projects with Tarqueevius), for a chemically enhanced foursome with another couple.

    Boxer

  275. earl says:

    ‘Most women want a weak man, who they can control and manipulate.’

    Well if most women are adamant on not being submissive…that’s the type of man they’ll get. Which is why I often shake my head at the greek lettering system based off how much promiscuous sex a man can get. In the bygone era they are called cads. Cads will attract rebellious women like flies to you know what…and there’s plenty of rebellious women out there.

  276. BillyS says:

    Earl,

    Yeah it’s called lust. Problem is I think most Christians think with good reason this particular sin affects men more because we are more visual. But to dismiss the idea that women are never lustful is naive.

    That assumes lust is primarily a visual issue. That is far from the truth. Hypergamy is a clear sign women face a HUGE lust problem.

  277. earl says:

    ‘That assumes lust is primarily a visual issue. That is far from the truth. Hypergamy is a clear sign women face a HUGE lust problem.’

    ‘For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.’
    -1 John 2:16

    Basically there are three types of lust in the world. I don’t know where the desire to marry up comes in but I would put that more in the lust of the eyes category.

  278. @earl:

    The corrupted parts of Hypergamy would be “pride of life”. The distinct aspects of “Alpha f***s” is “lust of the flesh” and “Beta Bucks” is “lust of the eyes”. It’s a full-scale Triple, but most Women can’t make it under the tag even rounding 2nd.

  279. Hmm says:

    @AR: I know the modern world is different. I’m just trying to say that horny men are one of the reasons we are here now – that’s how feminism got its traction in law and jurisprudence. The whole current feminist crap-fest was enabled by men in the beginning. The vote, birth control, divorce reform – all of them had male support to get their initial traction in our culture.

    But the law of unintended consequences has worked like it always does, and I’m sure the fathers of modern feminism wouldn’t recognize their children or grandchildren. Fortunately for most of them (e.g. Ronald Reagan), the ones who sowed the wind are dead. Unfortunately for us, we are reaping the whirlwind.

    And I’m not projecting the blame for this on any of the modern men who are caught up in it. Just like I played no part in slavery, and accept no blame for it, so I played no part in the accommodation to modern feminism. I assume you didn’t either. But understanding history – and especially where our sex bears some blame – can help keep us from repeating it, or overreacting against it. And yes, overreaction is possible.

  280. earl says:

    The corrupted parts of Hypergamy would be “pride of life”. The distinct aspects of “Alpha f***s” is “lust of the flesh” and “Beta Bucks” is “lust of the eyes”. It’s a full-scale Triple, but most Women can’t make it under the tag even rounding 2nd.’

    I could certainly see that…another word you could use instead of hypergamy is ‘feminism’. Another person’s opinon about ‘pride of life’.

    ‘But perhaps his most evil temptation is the pride of life, the very sin that resulted in Satan’s expulsion from heaven. He desired to be God, not to be a servant of God (Isaiah 14:12-15). The arrogant boasting which constitutes the pride of life motivates the other two lusts as it seeks to elevate itself above all others and fulfill all personal desires. It is the root cause of strife in families, churches, and nations. It exalts the self in direct contradiction to Jesus’ statement that those who would follow Him must take up their cross (an instrument of death) and deny themselves. The pride of life stands in our way if we truly seek to be servants of God. It is the arrogance that separates us from others and limits our effectiveness in the kingdom. The pride of life “comes not from the Father, but from the world.” And, as such, it is passing away with the world, but those who resist and overcome the temptation of the pride of life do the will of God, and “the man who does the will of God lives forever” (1 John 2:17).’

    https://www.gotquestions.org/pride-of-life.html

  281. BillyS says:

    Good thoughts Earl. Though the “lust of the eyes” don’t just mean porn aimed at bodies. I don’t think the fruit in the Garden looked good to Eve, but I don’t think it was sexy.

  282. earl says:

    ‘Though the “lust of the eyes” don’t just mean porn aimed at bodies. I don’t think the fruit in the Garden looked good to Eve, but I don’t think it was sexy.’

    Lust of the eyes from what I understand is desiring to covet. Oftentimes the sins of lust, greed, and pride are tied together.

    ‘The first example of the temptation of the pride of life occurs in the Garden of Eden, where Eve was tempted by the serpent to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Eve perceived that the fruit was “good for food,” “pleasing to the eye,” and “desirable for gaining wisdom” (Genesis 3:6). She coveted the fruit in three ways. First, it was appealing to her appetite. This John refers to as the “lust of the flesh,” the desire for that which satisfies any of the physical needs. The fruit was also pleasing or delightful to the eye, that which we see and desire to own or possess. Here is the “lust of the eyes” John refers to. Finally, Eve somehow perceived that the fruit would make her wise, giving her a wisdom beyond her own. Part of Satan’s lie was that eating the fruit would make her “like God, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). ‘

  283. Jack Russell says:

    Another reason not to get involved with a Canadian woman.
    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-canadas-new-sexual-assault-law-is-a-catastrophic-attack-on-the-rights-of-the-accused/wcm/28260f73-4c37-4245-9750-559fe81e0d42

    Justine Troodough’s govt. Hopefully this idiot does not get re-elected in Canada. Obuma and Hillary helped him behind the scenes get elected and Obuma tried to work against Netanyahu during the Israeli elections. Then the fake media is still pushing Trump and Russia and phony climate change?

    Woman texts Man and says “Come over and have sex with me!” Next day she says it was rape. Now Judge says Man can’t use said text as evidence to the contrary.

  284. Höllenhund says:

    @Jack Russell

    As far as rape legislation is concerned, there are basically two paths any society can take. (1) Female behavior and socializing is controlled and supervised (chaperones etc.); limited alpha male sexual access to loose/clueless/impressionable women; clearly defined laws protecting the innocence of men baselessly accused of rape; no rape shield laws (2) Uncontrolled and unsupervised female behavior (i.e. women going out regularly, on their own, meeting random men, drinking, clubbing, doing drugs, having casual sex etc.); alphas having unlimited sexual access to them; men falsely accused of rape pretty much treated as collateral damage in the culture war against old oppressive norms; a rather loose legal definition of “rape” (basically includes regretted consensual sex); rape shield laws.

    Western societies used to have (1). Now they have (2). Alphas, single men, men without daughters (or female relatives they care about) would understandably prefer a peachy combination of (1) and (2): enforce (1) when it comes to the legal definition of rape and the legal treatment of false rape accusations, enforce (2) when it comes to norms of socializing and female autonomy. That’s never going to happen though, because the majority of the electorate wouldn’t tolerate it. It wouldn’t tolerate it because every society is prone to coddle the female sex as the more valuable reproductive resource, which means indulging their feelings, or at least pretending to do so.

    When it comes to social consequences, the main difference between (1) and (2) is that average single women, especially younger ones, end up having lots of casual sex they later end up regretting in (2). They usually feel “used”, “tricked” etc., becuase they, as the humans with wombs, fundamentally recoil from the idea of “free sex” (i.e. being unpaid jizz buckets). It’s a psychological burden. They expect to be compensated one way or another after having sex. But most of the men they are sexually attracted to aren’t willing to go along with that. As I’ve mentioned, they’d prefer an alpha-friendly combination of (1) and (2). What’d that mean? Lots of young women who feel sexually “wronged”, but also feel completely powerless to have any sort of revenge on the men who “wronged” them, or the male sex in general, which they end up resenting after having lots of “free sex”. (Imagine a world without rape shield laws, where false rape accusations are actually punished, and the legal definition of rape is narrow.) They’d end up being psychological wrecks, possibly suicidal etc. Who wants that? They have wombs after all. We have to coddle them, you know. Therefore society alleviates their fears by making them believe they can legally get back at the men who “wronged” them. That’s why we have shit like this proposed Canadian law.

  285. Höllenhund says:

    With respect to this Burk dude, we can be charitable, I guess. One doesn’t have to be Christian, or even religious at all, to be concerned about the normalization of online porn and anal sex. I’ve read somewhere (can’t be bothered to look it up) that we’ll likely to see the emergence of antibiotic-resistant venereal diseases in the near future. In a sexual marketplace such as the current one, this will mean lots of clueless young women getting infected with untreatable, serious ailments by alpha players.

  286. Opus says:

    I never ventured to the Dominion of Canada – although my Great Uncle (who I knew) briefly emigrated there in Ontario at the beginning of the last century returning in time to join the Army and so catch the Great War – but that does not stop Canadian women from coming here. The only really bad experience I had at the hands of a woman was at the hands of a Canadienne, may she ultimately rot in Hell.

    Canadian men – like commenter Mark, currently my favourite member of the tribe – are always rather wonderful.

  287. Dalrock says:

    Thank you for the kind words American.

  288. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    American sez:

    At some point in the future, I would like to see a book published incorporating the best of this forum’s thought and discoveries which I can purchase at Barnes and Noble.

    I think this would be useful also. Many times, visitors to this site can get lost in the comment section, where we all argue the fine points while ignoring the overall message. A book could remove the noise and provide an accessible introduction to the material. Interested readers could find the blog if they were interested, for the full on “they live shades” experience.

    Some of this blog’s most important work is not content that applies to me. The “how to screen a prospective wife” articles could be compiled into a small, accessible book, with an uncontroversial cover and title. If you priced it around $5., it would be the perfect gift to give to a teenage bro, just entering the dating road war.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  289. Heidi says:

    Yes! Many of the marriage posts could be reworked to fill a book. Just off the top of my head, I can think of material from our host on the following:

    Marriage: 2.0 vs 1.0; migration from the marriage model to the child-support model
    Pushing the age of marrying
    Risks for men marrying
    Factors that make women especially risky
    Dalrock’s vetting questions
    Married man’s game vs. the need to continually pursue one’s wife
    Submission: Biblical vs. in Christian culture
    Denigration of the married man; especially, denigration of the father; especially in Christian circles
    Churchian pedestalization of women, support for frivorces
    Harm done to children by radical reworking of roles

  290. Opus says:

    I have to second Boxer. In this hypothetical book I would much appreciate the essay as to the benefits and status that a woman gains from marriage and also the latest of the essays setting out the current marriage/divorce/remarriage statistics. Men tend to underrate the former and are ignorant of the latter. Other essays with the number 30s and over 55 would be certain to increase sales if only to those who disagree strongly with the propositions.

  291. PokeSalad says:

    to folks like Kotter.

    Hopefully no one will “welcome him back.”

  292. PokeSalad says:

    Most women want a weak man, who they can control and manipulate.’

    …who they then complain about to their girlfriends all the time about how she ‘has to make the decisions all the time’

  293. PokeSalad says:

    Finally, Eve somehow perceived that the fruit would make her wise, giving her a wisdom beyond her own. Part of Satan’s lie was that eating the fruit would make her “like God, knowing good and evil”

    Who was it that said, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac?”

  294. Emperor Constantine says:

    @Boxer said:

    “> I find it funny that a woman would choose to do the procreative act with a man who is basically a > loser (it’s not an alpha, it’s a cad) and think a man with a job and responsibilities is icky…but
    > that’s most likely what’s in her heart. That’s why you have a single mother problem.

    Most women (who in a more healthy era would be considered damaged, but in our contemporary milieu are the norm) do not want a strong, successful man. Most women want a weak man, who they can control and manipulate.

    This is why you see so many women sneering at good looking men with decent paying jobs, opting instead to go home after last call, to the trailer with Cletus (or to the projects with Tarqueevius), for a chemically enhanced foursome with another couple.”

    So @Boxer are you saying that when the cc-riding harlot picks her beta bucks guy, she subconsciously looks for a weak man she can control. Do you think that this is common practice for cc-riding harlots? This insight is incredible if true, really fills in a lot of pieces for me.

  295. honeycomb says:

    Emperor Constantine ..

    I can’t speak for Boxer. His insights are very good.

    As for me this is what I’ve seen in 47 years of observation. (From a gradual to full strength trend in this direction. e.g. below).

    So @Boxer are you saying that when the cc-riding harlot picks her beta bucks guy, she subconsciously looks for a weak man she can control. Do you think that this is common practice for cc-riding harlots? This insight is incredible if true, really fills in a lot of pieces for me.

    Short answer … Yes.

    These CC riders want to be the Alpha and/or CAD themselves. So, when it becomes time to SETTLE Down they pick someone that is available (with the required or prerequisite assets) and willing (to yield to the FI).

    The only difference is they can and normally do take cash and prizes when they become bored or can trade-up.

    But, as Dalrock has pointed out .. age of trade’in-up has its risks .. most of which are hidden to the CC rider.

    Long answer … See Boxer / th Deti / Nova / Rollo / etc for the detailed reasoning.

    Bottom line … Don’t wife-up a CC rider (or CC observer) after XX age (the number depends on to many different variables to make a blanket statement).

  296. Gunner Q says:

    PokeSalad @ 9:37 am:
    “Who was it that said, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac?””

    Henry Kissinger.

  297. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘who they then complain about to their girlfriends all the time about how she ‘has to make the decisions all the time’

    Oh well…they need to learn what it means to accepting consequences to their choices.

  298. Mark says:

    @Opus

    “”The only really bad experience I had at the hands of a woman was at the hands of a Canadienne, may she ultimately rot in Hell.””

    Very believable!……Canadian women are garbage! I also have to admit that I do not like British,Aussie or Kiwi women either.The guys are great…….I have many friends in these countries.The irony is that they do like their countries women either….imagine that?

    “”Canadian men – like commenter Mark, currently my favourite member of the tribe – are always rather wonderful.””……………….L*….**BLUSH**…L*

  299. earl says:

    ‘These CC riders want to be the Alpha and/or CAD themselves. So, when it becomes time to SETTLE Down they pick someone that is available (with the required or prerequisite assets) and willing (to yield to the FI).

    The only difference is they can and normally do take cash and prizes when they become bored or can trade-up.’

    The caveat is they never really settle down and marriage isn’t going to fix it. They just hope their rebellion is held back long enough to convince the guy or they find a guy who will ‘man up’ and ‘put up with her worst’ or whatever other motivational brainwashing they can use…until they get married. There isn’t a man on this planet with enough financial incentives or sexual energy to change her rebellious heart. It’s all about that pride of life she has.

    Really when women decided to give up submission to their husband (as to the Lord) and become feminists…she became rebellious to God and man.

  300. PokeSalad says:

    They just hope their rebellion is held back long enough to convince the guy or they find a guy who will ‘man up’ and ‘put up with her worst’ or whatever other motivational brainwashing they can use…until they get married.

    Then, if he acts uppity in the future, she may likely have the option of getting him down to a cuckservative church where the pastor can beat him down with the “complimentary” Word.

    Boxer (Animal Farm, not our august commentarian) knows that plow ain’t gonna pull itself.

  301. Hmm says:

    John Piper on female leadership:
    http://theaquilareport.com/piper-scale-female-leadership/

    This is intended to be a parody, but is it?

  302. Swanny River says:

    Aquila Report is new to me, thanks. They give Piper and Burke the lefty pushback that allow Piper and Burke to think they are really fighting hard. But I Wes heartened and surprised to read that Piper is pushing back against women in the workforce in authority over men.
    Three of my last four bosses have been women. From that, I think Piper is being too mild. The arbitrary and emotion based decision making of my current boss is not pleasant. She left my church for one that allows more women leadership! That is funny in multiple ways. My church is blue pill servant leadership all the way, but that was not enough for my boss, who is also a control bully.

  303. feeriker says:

    Three of my last four bosses have been women. From that, I think Piper is being too mild

    I’m waiting for some economist who is either red pill or who doesn’t give a damn about PC to prove a statistical connection between women’s increasing leadership presence in the American corporate workplace and the decline in productivity (and thus profitability) of America’s businesses.

  304. Boxer says:

    Dear Chris:

    Refreshing to see so many women calling out this Jezebel

    That was certainly a well-written article, and Ms. Kay raised a number of salient points.

    The author is someone I’ve followed for a while. She may be the real deal, but I’m very wary about these so-called ‘antifeminist’ women who only ever advocate for half-measures.

    The more intelligent feminists are now realizing that their toxic movement has inaugurated lots of painful consequences. These same women only became concerned when those painful consequences started becoming a nuisance to women. I’ve written about this before on my own blog.

    Sincere antifeminist (or post-feminst) women would advocate for full measures. For example: the complete dismantling of the divorce court system, which is the biggest fraud and most dishonest racket ever to have been foisted on a gullible public. A healthy society would reintroduce Soviet or Chinese style laws penalizing irresponsible single mothers with taxes, and/or enforced adoptions by more fitting married relatives. A healthy society would also quit subsidizing abortion clinics with taxpayer money.

    I never see Ms. Kay advocating anything like this. She simply wants men to be given a few extra rations, to get them back with the feminist program.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  305. feeriker says:

    I never see Ms. Kay advocating anything like this. She simply wants men to be given a few extra rations, to get them back with the feminist program.

    I think it’s perfectly safe to say that very nearly ALL western women with any kind of media presence are committed feminists, whether or not they like the label or choose to admit it. The (very) few women who are genuinely anti-feminist and who want to see full measures implemented lack the voice to make that position known.

  306. Hmm says:

    @Boxer & feeriker:

    They also serve who simply and convincingly document the problem. I thought this article by Ms. Kay was both timely and useful:
    http://nationalpost.com/opinion/barbara-kay-why-is-it-that-a-report-on-promoting-gender-equity-in-mental-health-all-but-ignores-the-illnesses-of-men-and-boys/wcm/7f973780-f7bb-42c0-938f-bea49b9d6bde

  307. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘I’m very wary about these so-called ‘antifeminist’ women who only ever advocate for half-measures.’

    I noticed that with pro-life feminists. They are the type of women who understand how important children and motherhood is…but if you converse with them more you find out the underlying man hatred or patriarchy hatred. Still better than your full-fledged feminist….but they still want to hold onto their pride over men.

    To this point…the only women I’ve ever noticed in the west who didn’t harbor hatred towards men were the ones who actually practice their faith (not churchian…the ones who actually read the Word of God for what it is without twisting the words) and worship God.

  308. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘These same women only became concerned when those painful consequences started becoming a nuisance to women.’

    But I imagine they are still unaware what it does to men or still want to keep their pride over men.

  309. Damn Crackers says:

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/19/health/americans-less-sex-kerner/index.html

    Key Quote-

    Compared with earlier generations, women might be viewing sex as less of a duty to their husbands and more of a personal choice. “It makes sense that women in relationships might be losing their sex drive and saying ‘no’ more, as opposed to my mother’s generation that just spread their legs and composed a shopping list in their heads during sex,” she said. “If that’s true, then the decline in frequency is a good thing.”

    It’s like the Sexual Revolution was a failure or something…

  310. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘So it begins. Well done.’

    Agreed…absence of fathers, broken families, and disregarding sexual morals produces much more ‘unsafe men’ and ‘feminists’.

  311. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘It’s like the Sexual Revolution was a failure or something…’

    Quite.

    It’s no secret when the majority of men and women rebelled from keeping sex in marriage it created an environment where most of them have sex outside of it (with multiple partners and the negative consequences from that) and very little in it (with the increase of growing apart and subsequent divorce).

  312. feeriker says:

    Agreed…absence of fathers, broken families, and disregarding sexual morals produces much more ‘unsafe men’ and ‘feminists’.

    Feminists want “unsafe men,” as many of them as can be created. Their ideology cannot justify itself otherwise.

  313. Mark says:

    @Boxer

    “”The author is someone I’ve followed for a while.””

    Just curious. Is this Barb Kay a writer for the National Post?…..or they just printed an article written by her? The reason that I ask is that I read the NP everyday and I am not familiar with her.This “National Daily” was started by Conrad Black to compete with the TO Star(garbage) and the Globe & Mail…..and my personal favourite.

  314. Oscar says:

    @ Boxer says:
    July 19, 2017 at 9:34 am

    “A healthy society would reintroduce Soviet or Chinese style laws penalizing irresponsible single mothers with taxes, and/or enforced adoptions by more fitting married relatives.”

    A healthy society would do that through voluntary ostracism, which is what people used to do.

    “A healthy society would also quit subsidizing abortion clinics with taxpayer money.”

    The Soviets did that, and the Chinese still do. Neither were/are healthy societies.

  315. earl says:

    ‘Feminists want “unsafe men,” as many of them as can be created. Their ideology cannot justify itself otherwise.’

    They really need subservient men more for that…but that still doesn’t mean they aren’t unsafe.

  316. Boxer says:

    Dear Mark:

    Just curious. Is this Barb Kay a writer for the National Post?…..or they just printed an article written by her?

    I’ve seen her work on Rebel Media (Ezra Levant’s alt-right outlet) before. I don’t know that I’ve seen her in National Post before, but she’s not out of place there.

    Best,

    Boxer

  317. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    But I imagine they are still unaware what it does to men or still want to keep their pride over men.

    I think in most cases they realize the extent of the injustice they’ve done. They just don’t care.

    Best,

    Boxer

  318. BillyS says:

    You have it right there. Accomplishing their goals is the must important thing. Running over others is accepted as a necessity, with no remorse on their part.

  319. Swanny River says:

    I read her NP column, and agree with above, she leaves much room for still being a card-carrying fem. She only specifically wanted more emphasis on men’s problem, and not more authority for men or husbands.

  320. Swanny River says:

    I agree with Boxer partly, there is remorse, in fact worrying and thinking about others helps them justify their actions to themselves. “See, I want what is best for Johhny, but since I am worrying I can do what I want, besides, all this thinking of others is so tiring and a burden of being a woman in a patriarchy. “

  321. MarcusD says:

    “Denigration of the married man; especially, denigration of the father; especially in Christian circles”

    I’ve started to notice that a lot more. One interesting manifestation is the argument that any assertive behavior by men is just “male ego” or “fragile male ego.” The (emotional) response to reception of criticism (by men) is exaggerated to ridiculous proportions – any criticism is judged (by the critic) to have a much more extensive set of emotional consequences. It seems that the “female ego” is referred to as “self-esteem.”

  322. Anonymous Reader says:

    Barbara Kay was born in 1943 so she’s older than a Boomer. Perhaps that accounts for some of her perspective.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Barbara_Kay

  323. Swanny River says:

    Marcus D,
    Yep, I think you uncovered one way more the FI is saturating the culture. Building on that, we could say the pejorative nature of a mid-life crisis is similar. It is empowering for a women to buy a sports car, but a middle-aged man is considered desperate or childish if he does so. Likewise, if the same man were to enter the feminine sphere and pick up quilting, it would be considered as a low-T or old man move. Only staying at the grindstone quietly keeps the man from being a target of denigration.

  324. feeriker says:

    Barbara Kay was born in 1943 so she’s older than a Boomer. Perhaps that accounts for some of her perspective.

    Right smack in the middle of the generation of women that came of age as 2WF was making its cultural ascendence. She’s part of the age cohort that’s at the top of the “feminist hags who are replacing the traditional, stereotypical grandmother” generation.

    She might very well be an exception to that rule, but she’s a rarity if she is.

  325. Lost Patrol says:

    @MarcusD

    It’s become so accepted that we self-denigrate. Most of us were brought up in it. It seemed so normal that when we looked around and saw everyone nodding their heads, we figured that’s how things were. I used to do it too but am leaving all that behind thanks in no small part to Dalrock’s work in bringing to light the inherent fallacies in church feminism.

    I challenge the speaker anymore when I hear denigration of married men and/or fathers. I flat out push back, and the commenters here provide me with a lot of the material I use in that effort. Some people avoid me now because I’ve made them uncomfortable, but some men that still have a spark ask me about it.

  326. Lost Patrol says:

    the argument that any assertive behavior by men is just “male ego” or “fragile male ego.”

    but a middle-aged man is considered desperate or childish if he does so.

    Agree and amplify. “Don’t worry about it, it’s just my fragile male ego.” You shouldn’t look at me like that, you’ll damage my fragile male ego.” “It’s just my desperate mid-life crisis, I plan to extend it until death so get used to it.” Etc.

    Each man has to exercise some discretion as to timing and personal circumstances, but variations on the theme can be healthy and amusing.

  327. Luke says:

    Swanny River says:
    July 19, 2017 at 7:53 pm
    ” Only staying at the grindstone quietly keeps the man from being a target of denigration.”

    Disagreeing here. Pretty much only being an alpha cad manages that. (Being a poufter, outright thug, or Muslim works well, too, but I was speaking of productive, noncriminal, sexually-non-F’ed up white men.)

  328. Luke says:

    Damn Crackers says:
    July 19, 2017 at 12:48 pm
    http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/19/health/americans-less-sex-kerner/index.html

    Compared with earlier generations, women might be viewing sex as less of a duty to their husbands and more of a personal choice. “It makes sense that women in relationships might be losing their sex drive and saying ‘no’ more, as opposed to my mother’s generation that just spread their legs and composed a shopping list in their heads during sex,” she said. “If that’s true, then the decline in frequency is a good thing.”

    And, as a further indicator that women as a group don’t “do” logic much, she likely has NO idea whatsoever why the Marriage Strike by men continues to snowball.

  329. W.B.Kotter says:

    God help us. The latest hullabaloo making the internet rounds as of the last 48 hours is TEEN VOGUE’s article about anal sex in its forthcoming August edition. Married people might be having less sex but according to TEEN VOGUE, teens are engaging in anal so the popular magazine took it upon itself to dish out advice to prepare your pre-teens for a glorious future. Apparently even the “safe sex” rule about wearing a condom was an afterthought, added into the article later. What?! This blogger thinks its a BIG PHARMA conspiracy; https://leviquackenboss.wordpress.com/2017/07/12/is-merck-behind-the-teen-anal-sex-article/.

    Follow the links. They are all depressing. Especially the “Sex Before Kissing: How 15-Year-Old Girls Are Dealing With Porn-Addicted Boys” one about 7th grade girls asking if a boy wants to hit them, tie them up and stalk them does it mean he loves them? Australian girls are calling for violent porn to be banned in their country because its negatively influencing their life at school and on the bus to and from. And to think back in the 80s the good people who called for porn (mild stuff compared to today) to be banned were shouted down as anti-American prudes and religious nuts and the porn pushers were celebrated as beacons of liberty and “free speech” . They knew that even if 80s porn was relatively mild, the trajectory this industry would take would be extremely dangerous, and they have been proven right.

    Who cares if some old married geezers aren’t having sex? As parents we should be more worried about what type of sex our 13 year olds might be having.

  330. W.B.Kotter says:

    Hollenhund,”One doesn’t have to be Christian, or even religious at all, to be concerned about the normalization of online porn and anal sex. I’ve read somewhere (can’t be bothered to look it up) that we’ll likely to see the emergence of antibiotic-resistant venereal diseases in the near future. In a sexual marketplace such as the current one, this will mean lots of clueless young women getting infected with untreatable, serious ailments by alpha players.”

    This. Read the link I posted above and follow the links in the article. MERK has bought out antibiotics companies to the tune of 8 billion plus and now has to make good on its investments, to say nothing of its “oral and anal cancer fighting” HPV vaccines.

    About those “clueless young women” you had previously written, “limited alpha male sexual access to loose/clueless/impressionable women”. Why should clueless and impressionable women be used by cads? What wrong have they done? Promiscuous men and women were made for each other but there is no sin in being clueless or impressionable. The clueless and impressionable if anything should be helped and guided so that they don’t get manipulated and used. Besides, in youth everyone is clueless and impressionable, that is why we parents and elders have to help them.

  331. feministhater says:

    About those “clueless young women” you had previously written, “limited alpha male sexual access to loose/clueless/impressionable women”. Why should clueless and impressionable women be used by cads? What wrong have they done? Promiscuous men and women were made for each other but there is no sin in being clueless or impressionable. The clueless and impressionable if anything should be helped and guided so that they don’t get manipulated and used. Besides, in youth everyone is clueless and impressionable, that is why we parents and elders have to help them.

    They, that’s women, fought for and got sexual liberation so they could have free sex with their cads and chads. If you want young women to have protection against these men then you have to limit their access to them. That means restricting women’s freedom.

    It’s not about the ‘why’. You can teach a woman that her virginity is important but others will whisper in her ears and she will lose it during a one night stand and blame others even though she was told in no uncertain terms to keep herself pure. She doesn’t care about her future husband, she only cares about feeling good. Once you understand female nature, you will understand that you have to restrict it in order to control it.

    The only way young women will really start to understand and keep their virginity as if their livelihoods depended upon it, is if their livelihoods really depended upon it. That’s to say that their promiscuous sisters must suffer the consequences of their actions. No marriage, no husband and no welfare. Make them feel the error of their ways and the younger women will value their virginity and won’t lose it.

  332. feministhater says:

    Australian girls are calling for violent porn to be banned in their country because its negatively influencing their life at school and on the bus to and from.

    Banning anything never solves the problem. Tried with drugs and with alcohol, all led to a booming industry in the banned good. Who called for a ban on alcohol by the way? Oh, why yes, it was women…. LOL! I put this under the same banner of women looking to remove the freedoms of men.

    Once again, did no one mention that these girls can say ‘no’ and walk away. It sounds ridiculous when we know the sexual assault laws in Australia are stacked in the girl’s favour. More man bashing.

  333. feministhater says:

    Who cares if some old married geezers aren’t having sex? As parents we should be more worried about what type of sex our 13 year olds might be having.

    Your 13 year old children shouldn’t be having sex no matter the type. You’re so focused on anal sex it has blinded you to all the other problems. Married couples should be having sex, lots of it, for that is the place where God condones it. Large part of the problem is women having so much sex outside of marriage that they will not have it in marriage.

    You haven’t figured it out yet that the consequences are felt by those who engage in the degenerate culture. If you want to save them from those consequences, cancer and sexually transmitted diseases, stop them from having sex until they are married.

  334. feministhater says:

    In a sexual marketplace such as the current one, this will mean lots of clueless young women getting infected with untreatable, serious ailments by alpha players.”

    It’s as if God is giving us a shining warning light on those women who couldn’t remain pure. Thank you Lord!

  335. AnonS says:

    @feministhater

    “Banning anything never solves the problem. Tried with drugs and with alcohol, all led to a booming industry in the banned good.”

    Not what happened in Singapore. Mandatory death penalty seems to have a strong effect in stopping drugs.

  336. squid_hunt says:

    @W.B.Kotter

    “The latest hullabaloo making the internet rounds as of the last 48 hours is TEEN VOGUE’s article about anal sex in its forthcoming August edition.”

    What kind of miserable human being allows their child to read Teen Vogue? How is that parenting? You know why I don’t worry about anal sex? Because my children aren’t reading Teen Vogue. My children don’t have unfettered access tot he internet. My children aren’t hanging around with a bunch of sleezebags that are teaching them all sorts of sexual perversions. That’s what a parent is supposed to do.

    I’m sick and tired of this “Who is John Galt?” attitude in parenting. No one wants to do what is necessary. Do I have to concern myself with all of those poor innocent girls getting corrupted and tricked into butt sex? No. Because they’re not my children. If you don’t raise yours right, don’t come crying to me about how they’re acting. Is it up to the state to make my children act right? No. Is it up to me to make your children act right? Good luck with that one. I don’t accept responsibility for your laziness.

    Our children are living in the world that we (collectively) pushed for them to live in. We send them to public schools that we have allowed to degenerate into disgusting philosophy. They watch the shows that we pipe into our houses and reward with ratings. They listen to the music that we pay for them to download.

    This helpless hand wringing is disgusting. Get over it. I could care less about what sort of sex other people’s children are having. I’m not here to save the world. I have my own family to raise. And I’ll do it with or without the help of society. Because that’s what a father is.

  337. feeriker says:

    And, as a further indicator that women as a group don’t “do” logic much, she likely has NO idea whatsoever why the Marriage Strike by men continues to snowball.

    Proper understanding of the issue requires the ability to connect cause and effect, something we already know that women, in general, are completely incapable of. Of course this idiot is clueless, as are all of her female readers.

  338. feeriker says:

    And guys, why are any of you continuing to give Kotter the time of day? You should have put away the bag of troll fodder after its third post.

  339. feministhater says:

    Not what happened in Singapore. Mandatory death penalty seems to have a strong effect in stopping drugs.

    They do that in most Asian countries. However, then you need to be strict around the board. Freedom? Gone.

  340. Swanny River says:

    Squid Hunt, well said, even though it was partly in response to the concern troll: “What about the kids, what about the kids.”

  341. PokeSalad says:

    Compared with earlier generations, women might be viewing sex as less of a duty to their husbands and more of a personal choice.

    Porn is a “personal choice,” too.

  342. Swanny River says:

    Notice, concern troll takes a clearly written post about a sick, feminist mother harming her innocent kids and turns it into all kids are innocent and engaging in sodomy, so what are caring parents supposed to do focus.

  343. Swanny River says:

    Maybe I underestimated the troll. The plea to change frame is well done, “who cares if an old geezer is getting stoned by his Christian wife when our kids are getting sodomized right now!”

  344. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    You’re so focused on anal sex it has blinded you to all the other problems.

    “Kotter” long ago established himself as a repressed homosexual, displaying one of the typical features of this particular pathology, namely obsessive sexual ideation, focusing on feces, the anus, etc.

    Refusing to work through his fixation, or even so much as to be honest with himself, has made him miserable and unhappy. He comes here to export his own misery to normal, married people, endlessly attempting to guilt them for doing (or even fantasizing about) the stuff he can’t help but feel shame for thinking. It’s all very sad.

    And guys, why are any of you continuing to give Kotter the time of day? You should have put away the bag of troll fodder after its third post.

    I tend to agree with this. There’s nothing we can do for him, at this point. He needs to make an appointment with a qualified psychoanalyst (note that many priests have secular degrees in this area – he could start at the church he claims to belong to).

    Regards,

    Boxer

  345. squid_hunt says:

    @Boxer

    I don’t believe Kotter is a man. I do think she is pushing an angle. That’s why I went after the base assumptions of the argument that “We” must do something about an issue that is easily cured on an individual level if you want to actually fix the problem.

  346. Gunner Q says:

    “Banning anything never solves the problem. Tried with drugs and with alcohol, all led to a booming industry in the banned good.”

    By that logic, we should have legalized murder a long time ago. People only do it because it’s illlegal!

  347. anon says:

    I doubt a woman chose this as an alias:
    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072582/

  348. Opus says:

    @anon

    Is Travolta sitting on Kotter’s knee and if not what is Kotter doing to Travolta with his right hand?

  349. feministhater says:

    Gunner, whether you make murder illegal or not, it still happens. All things are relative. Look at Mexico or Columbia to get a clue. Life is cheap there and murder pays; hence the murder rate is high even though it is illegal. The argument wasn’t that we should legalize everything but that banning itself doesn’t stop something from happening. Especially when that ‘thing’ itself is popular and pays well. Unless the state and everyone is willing to come down hard on perpetrators to the point of death, which is the old school penalty for murder. Banning can often serve to increase the damage rather than limit it. Choose your battles wisely.

  350. Oscar says:

    @ feministhater says:
    July 20, 2017 at 11:21 am

    “All things are relative. Look at Mexico or Columbia to get a clue.”

    First, no, not all things are relative. Some things are absolutes.

    Second, it’s ColOmbia, NOT ColUmbia.

    Third, The murder rate is Colombia is far lower today precisely because the Colombian government – with a lot of help from the US – waged war on the cartels, the FARC and the vigilante groups that allied themselves to the cartels. The murder rate in Mexico is soaring because the Mexican government is in bed with the cartels.

    Some things should be banned they’re so heinous and destructive that fighting them does more good than harm. Murder is an example of one such thing.

    Other things should not be banned because – although potentially harmful – fighting them does more harm than good. Alcohol is a perfect example of that, and most drugs probably fit in that category as well.

  351. squid_hunt says:

    @anon

    You could be right. It’s not really a relevant detail.

  352. Hmm says:

    Satire – or is it?
    “Feminist Dismisses Bible As ‘Godsplaining’”
    http://babylonbee.com/news/feminist-dismisses-bible-godsplaining/

  353. Oscar says:

    Gents,

    You’ll definitely want to read this article by Bruce Bawer.

    “But she wasn’t scared. On the contrary, she was proud of the way in which she’d put these guys in their place, facing them down fearlessly and explaining to them that, small though she was, she could be as tough as they were. She told them that she could fight with them, if they wished, or she could work with them to help them learn Norwegian, which, she assured them, would redound to their own benefit. Usually they backed down and went along.

    To me, this was appalling stuff, and provided further support for my own already firm views on these matters. But, as the woman made clear, she found the whole business charming and exciting. She got a charge out of her contentious engagement with these semi-barbarians. I surmised that the appeal was, at least in part, erotic. Sure enough, it turned out that she has her own place in Turkey – not in Istanbul, mind you, but in largely rural eastern Turkey – and that she has, shall we say, an active social life there.

    She’s not alone. There are many such women in Norway, and, I assume, elsewhere in Europe – women of a certain age, generally widows or divorcees, who once, years ago, went on holiday to some Muslim locale (usually, it would seem, in Turkey), made the acquaintance of a few of the indigenous gentlemen, and ended up purchasing a second home there.”

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/2017/07/20/highlights-from-a-summer-in-eurabia/

    Seems like perfect Vox material.

  354. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kotter
    The latest hullabaloo making the internet rounds as of the last 48 hours is TEEN VOGUE’s article about anal sex in its forthcoming August edition.

    I Told You So. But you ignored me. Now what are you going to do besides wring your hands in a comment box?

  355. Anonymous Reader says:

    Returning to the original topic, Jody Allard’s public toxicity towards her sons is just an extreme version of the attitudes too many boys encounter in the K – 12 school system and university / community college. Women as a group and as individuals have taken the attitude far too often that they can do pretty much anything to men, both as a group and as individual humans, and it’s men’s job to just suck up the pain. Because “I have the vagina so I make the rules”, in short.

    Some have predicted that Virtual Reality porn would take the place of women, for a lot of men.
    There is another alternative that has been developing for the last 15 to 20 years. It’s getting more advanced every year.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/sex-robots-frigid-settings-rape-simulation-men-sexual-assault-a7847296.html

    I wonder if Allard’s sons are already saving up to buy one?

  356. feministhater says:

    Third, The murder rate is Colombia is far lower today precisely because the Colombian government – with a lot of help from the US – waged war on the cartels, the FARC and the vigilante groups that allied themselves to the cartels. The murder rate in Mexico is soaring because the Mexican government is in bed with the cartels.

    All things are absolutely absolute in their relativity to something else.

    Spelling errors aside, the point was exactly that. If they’re going to ban something and make it stick, the force has to be behind it. Are people going to suggest jailing and putting to death of porn users now? Haha! Love to see it! Let’s go to war with basement dwellers everywhere!

    My argument wasn’t to make everything legal, which is what Gunner suggested, it was to point out that ‘banning’ itself has never solved anything. Going to war against drug cartels and spending huge amounts of money and resources to do so is the only way to make it stick long-term. Yet their murder rate is still high because it pays to do so.

    If there’s money to be made and people want something, someone will risk it and it will continue in contravention of the ban. Banning a pleasurable action merely means it goes underground and becomes more profitable.

    So sure, sue me for a bit of word play. ‘Banning’ murder, assault, rape and other similar hardcore crimes might work, if you have the backbone to make it stick and don’t expend all your energies on a losing battle. Which is the other point, choose your battles wisely. Murder rate is a good battle to fight to bring down, banning alcohol, porn, cigars, [name your sin here] is not and is what women come up with rather than providing more wholesome alternatives.

  357. Novaseeker says:

    The fun thing about the Teen Vogue article is the author’s steadfast refusal to use the words “male”, “female”, “man”, or “woman” — opting instead for the clumsy “prostate owners” and “non-prostate owners”.

    Visions of a Christmas Future, gentlemen … or, I should say, fellow prostate owners.

  358. earl says:

    ‘opting instead for the clumsy “prostate owners” and “non-prostate owners”.’

    I’d expect that from degenerates….reducing everyone from their human dignity and gender to nothing more than what organ you possess.

  359. Swanny River says:

    But it’s not my prostate. I was born in the wrong body.

    I am confused, so to be PC and avoid pronouns, we are supposed to use physical identifiers?

    Speaking of confused, Boxer thinks Kotter is a homo and Squid Hunt is saying not a man. Now I am really confused, does “not a man” mean a woman, or are there other options now? Boxer and Squid could both be right and still be talking about the same person.

  360. feministhater says:

    Now I am really confused, does “not a man” mean a woman, or are there other options now?

    You mean,” Does ‘not a prostate owner’ mean a non-prostate owner, or are there other prostate terminologies like ‘prostate lessee’ or ‘non custodial prostate caretaker’ or ‘prostate owner who identifies as a non-prostate owner but is attracted to both prostate owners and non-prostate owners alike’ that might fit the bill a bit more readily.. it gets a bit tricky..

  361. Novaseeker says:

    There are other possibilities like … women with penises and women without penises. It sounds as ridiculous as what Teen Vogue author writes, but is perhaps more obviously so, which is why she probably avoided a formulation similar to that.

  362. Anonymous Reader says:

    The Teen Vogue article is up to date in terms of gender-as-social-construct. So a high school boy who chooses to wear a skirt to school, much to the glee of his liberal teachers, must receive slightly different instruction than the girl who cuts her hair and pretends to be a boy. It’s catering to the newest and best aggrieved minority, the transvestites. Homosexuals are about 2 to 3% of the population but we have bent law and custom to cater to their whims, trannies are an even smaller percentage but anyone who won’t create a third bathroom for them is probably Hitler in disguise.

    PS: It being Teen Vogue, the article is obviously aimed at the younger set, because not all XY gene carriers over 50 have a prostate, due to the cancer that must not be mentioned in October.

  363. @AR:

    1.5% generally speaking. Though it’s about 1% male in most Western populations with Women being around 2%. Though that 2% is a little wonkier if you dig into the stats. (Spinsters became Lesbians, for all intents & purposes.)

    Transvestites are something like ~300k of the total US population or less. Somewhere below .1% more than likely. You’ve literally heard from about 25% of them in the Media. They also commit suicide at something like a 50% rate over their “life”.

  364. Oscar says:

    @ feministhater says:
    July 20, 2017 at 12:56 pm

    “All things are absolutely absolute in their relativity to something else.”

    That’s even less logical than your previous statement. I didn’t think that was possible. Congratulations.

  365. Anonymous Reader says:

    “All things are absolutely absolute in their relativity to something else.”

    There’s a demotivational poster out there just waiting to be created.

  366. earl says:

    –Women should be chaste primarily from prudence. Men should be chaste primarily for the sake of justice.

    ‘Why Premarital Sex Is Wrong’

    http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2017/07/19616/

  367. earl says:

    I like how he uses ‘cad’ and ‘dad’ terms vs. the alpha-beta lingo. It’s basically the same thing though…they seek good genes and provision for their offspring.

    ‘Women, whose wombs are a scarce resource, seek quality. Women are naturally choosy, preferring mates with good genes and abundant resources. They are coy, reluctant to have sex except in the context of a committed relationship. Both strategies address the severe risk of abandonment by men, in whom “dad” instincts to guard and guide their offspring compete with “cad” instincts to score with as many woman as they can. Before mating, women instinctively seek commitment and parental investment from their mates. Women look to the future, focusing on affection and attachment.

    Men’s main worry, if they do settle down to be dads, is to make sure the kids they are raising are really their own. That depends heavily on the sexual history and propensities of their mates. Men focus on physical fidelity and look to the present and the past. In particular, they instinctively prefer to marry virgins. Virginity signals that a woman doesn’t easily yield to seduction, isn’t yet pregnant with another man’s child, and has no sexual loyalties to rival those she will feel towards him. This instinctive male preference for virgins is the basis for the old sexual double standard, which regards a woman—but not a man—as dishonored by fornication.’

  368. Gunner Q says:

    Anonymous Reader @ 12:51 pm:
    “Some have predicted that Virtual Reality porn would take the place of women, for a lot of men.”

    VR porn can’t fix the emotional trauma of being hated and used from an early age. I don’t see either society in general or Allard in particular tightening the screws much further before the stripping begins.

    Global falling birthrates are a feature, not a bug. They protect the children who would have existed from all the Jody Allards who would have raised them. Trying to breed our way out of feminism is like putting out a fire by throwing gasoline on it. Feminists are like homosexuals, they increase in number via recruitment not reproduction.

  369. earl says:

    ‘Feminists are like homosexuals, they increase in number via recruitment not reproduction.’

    Daddies don’t let your daughters grow up to be feminists.

  370. feministhater says:

    That’s even less logical than your previous statement. I didn’t think that was possible. Congratulations.

    Yes I know, it was made tongue-in-cheek.

  371. feministhater says:

    There’s a demotivational poster out there just waiting to be created.

    The world is a demotivational poster, sometimes it’s nice to have a bit of a laugh. Why so serious?

  372. Boxer says:

    Yes I know, it was made tongue-in-cheek.

    I’m pretty sure Oscar isn’t a native anglophone… he may also have Asperger’s.

  373. infowarrior1 says:

    The ass is for shitting not for sex. God did not design the anus for sex. It is a literal petri-dish an incubator of disease the source of most of the problems with homosexual behavior. This goes to show what God’s thoughts on anal is.

    The tearing that results ensures that feces may even end up in the brain.

  374. okrahead says:

    I think I begin to see a natural connection between anal sex and Allard… this thread is actually still right on target.

  375. Boxer says:

    Dear Infowarrior1:

    The ass is for shitting not for sex. God did not design the anus for sex. It is a literal petri-dish an incubator of disease the source of most of the problems with homosexual behavior. This goes to show what God’s thoughts on anal is.

    God has thoughts on such pedantic nonsense as “anal”? Surely you can point me to something in the text to support this. I’ve never read any of the divine monarch’s comments on junk sex (in the digestive tract). In fact, I’m pretty sure he never said anything about it.

    The ass is no dirtier, bacterially speaking, than the mouth. They’re connected, you know? Personally, I consider junk sex in the digestive tract to be far less erotic and enjoyable than traditional sex, because it precludes the possibility of a face-to-face experience. (Even if you do it as foreplay, it’s still pretty gross to kiss someone who just had her tongue on your pisser).

    This is surely the minority opinion here on Dalrock. In fact, many regular commenters on this blog absolutely swear by the superiority of digestive-tract-sex, and we’ve both got a long way to go to convince anyone of our joint aesthetic argument.

    https://www.google.com/#q=%22blow+job%22+site:dalrock.wordpress.com

    Regards,

    Boxer

  376. Lost Patrol says:

    Navy Has First Female Applicants for SEAL Officer, Special Boat Units

    Well it’s about time. I for one will not rest until equal outcomes are guaranteed for all women that want to be men. Why are the NFL, NHL and MLB getting a pass on this? Resist I say, resist these sports-ball leagues that are unfair to women, until half of all teams are comprised of the fairer sex.

    OK, so maybe some offensive line-persons will have to be trannies to get the sizes we need; but not as many as you’d think. Harrumph.

  377. PokeSalad says:

    I am confused, so to be PC and avoid pronouns, we are supposed to use physical identifiers?
    You’d have to ask zir about that.

  378. PokeSalad says:

    They are coy, reluctant to have sex except in the context of a committed relationship

    Was this written in 1955?

  379. Oscar says:

    @ PokeSalad says:
    July 21, 2017 at 8:34 am

    “Was this written in 1955?”

    The definition of “committed relationship” is as fluid as “gender” these days.

  380. squid_hunt says:

    @Gunner Q

    “Global falling birthrates are a feature, not a bug. They protect the children who would have existed from all the Jody Allards who would have raised them.”

    This has been my opinion as well. Every time we get one of these nasty feminists bragging about not having babies, I cheer. Why would I want them to have children? If you can be influenced by that sort of philosophy, you probably shouldn’t be having children. When people ask me why I had eight children, I tell them I’m out-breeding the stupid people.

  381. Pingback: Feminism creates “unsafe men,” then complains about it | Christianity and masculinity

  382. infowarrior1 says:

    @Boxer
    Alright I take back that comment. But it should be a no brainer considering how the body is designed. God designed the body a certain way and messing with the body is bound to lead to problems.

    I mean if sodomites have a problem with this practice which is a big contributing factor of what makes it an abomination? Do you think just because its between a man and a woman its somehow different?

    Natural law goes a certain way. Disobey at your own peril.

    I took science class. And the digestive system which includes the lower part is designed to grow and nurture bacteria it is designed to be a petri dish. You think putting diseases in there will not ensure a fertile environment for its growth?

  383. Boxer says:

    Dear infowarrior1:

    I don’t want you to take back the comment entire. I agree with you. I’m sorta amazed that so many men on Dalrock are so frustrated that their wives don’t want to choke on their cocks daily, or have anal fissures. I think there’s sort of a pop-culture conspiracy to convince people that oral and anal sex is better than the real thing, but it’s probably also got something to do with Marx’s original contention, about shiftless people turning to sexual degeneracy to fill the hole that used to be satiated by productive work.

    I took science class. And the digestive system which includes the lower part is designed to grow and nurture bacteria it is designed to be a petri dish. You think putting diseases in there will not ensure a fertile environment for its growth?

    That part of your argument is simply wrong, and if you heard that the microbiome doesn’t extend to the reproductive organs in science class, then I’d like to know the name of your instructor.

    Note that rejecting one premise in your argument doesn’t entail that it should all be thrown out. I’d like to see more people challenge digestive-tract-sex culture, but we should found our arguments on true premises.

    I like the traditional Catholic view of sex, which is tripartite, and is an extension of their traditional argument against birth control. I imagine some old jesuit would explain that anal sex and oral sex privileges recreation over affection and procreation. In this regard, it doesn’t necessarily need to be “dirty” or “unnatural” – by its nature, digestive-tract-sex is a faulty simulacrum of the real thing.

    Best,

    Boxer

  384. okrahead says:

    Boxer,
    I thought everyone here already knew that da butthext causeth dsoulification and is cuasde itslef by bernankified fiat dollars lolololozz

  385. infowarrior1 says:

    @Boxer
    True. Although I will say this. The microbiome of the reproductive organs are not as conducive to damage or breeding disease than the lower digestive tract when used in a certain manner. I did not in my comment deny microbiome existence outwide of the digestive tract. I took a microbiology course at university that explained how the intestines are designed as the ideal breeding ground conducive to exponential logarithmic growth to foster growth of beneficial bacterial.

    My comment is also due to my past experience with certain commentators that regard such a filthy practice as fine as long as its between and man and a woman in the marriage bed.

  386. W.B.Kotter says:

    30 times more likely to get disease via anal sex than other types of sex.

  387. W.B.Kotter says:

    Robosex or VRsex will not change much. Women have had vibrators for decades and dildos for centuries yet they still seem to want us men. We are social and emotional species. Man does not live by sex alone.

  388. W.B.Kotter says:

    So they’re making “Frigid Farrah” dolls now so sadists can simulate rape? That and rape porn (most searched for genre) is taking rape fantasy too far. Rape fantasists should keep it in their minds only. Better yet, see a therapist. Seems like sociopathy is not rare after all.

  389. @okrahead:

    Well, someone finally said it.

    @infowarrior1:

    At the risk of summoning a few people by causing the “argument that can never end in the manosphere” to be mentioned, the proper advice is “just don’t”. There are a number of these where someone can wrangle scripture for hours and make an argument, but the simple answer is “don’t”. And for all of the very practical reasons.

    Much like shooting yourself in the foot isn’t a Sin, but I’d advise against it in nearly all situations.

    Lastly, isn’t there something about anally raping someone to mark them as your slave in the ancient world? (Part of the “attraction” is the dominance aspect that’s inherent in the activity.)

  390. Höllenhund says:

    > They are coy, reluctant to have sex except in the context of a committed relationship

    Was this written in 1955?

    It has always applied, as long as we’re talking about sex with betas.

  391. Boxer says:

    Dear Infowarrior1:

    My comment is also due to my past experience with certain commentators that regard such a filthy practice as fine as long as its between and man and a woman in the marriage bed.

    Well, I’m sorta on their side in that argument, as you may have gathered. The fact that I personally find something distasteful doesn’t mean that other men need to agree with me, ya know? With that, I’ll thank you for an interesting discussion, and agree to disagree with you.

    For the record, I do think infowarrior1 is generally correct. Anal sex is quite risky, and often leads to physical damage. The risks clearly outweigh the benefits. That’s just common sense.

    Best,

    Boxer

  392. Anonymous Reader says:

    Kotter
    Robosex or VRsex will not change much. Women have had vibrators for decades and dildos for centuries yet they still seem to want us men. We are social and emotional species. Man does not live by sex alone.

    It’s hard to imagine packing so much cluelessness, ignorance and stupidity into one paragraph.
    Congratulations.

    Meta: It is always interesting to see what people will fix their attention on. Here we have an article that clearly demonstrates just how mean modern women can become when their inherent solipsism has no real limits on it – she tears down her own sons in public, for short term anger-fix pleasure, while guaranteeing long term alienation. It highlights many problems with the modern world, beginning with female entitlement and expanding on out to the real role of most men…
    What do some people do? Fix their attention on anal sex.

    It’s like pointing to a house that is on fire, only to have bystanders grab some Windex and start trying to clean smudges off of the windows of the burning building. Amazing.

  393. W.B.Kotter says:

    “Lastly, isn’t there something about anally raping someone to mark them as your slave in the ancient world? ” God I hope not. Never heard that. Which ancient world? There were so many kingdoms with so many customs.

    Anonymous Reader I understand that our society’s devolution into anal sex and the deplorable mindset of women like the one in the OP are interconnected. Or should I say “intersectional”? That’s another article where Pastor Burk nailed the current zeitgeist.

  394. Anon says:

    AR said :

    It’s hard to imagine packing so much cluelessness, ignorance and stupidity into one paragraph.
    Congratulations.

    You beat me to it..

    Note how so many clueless manginas come by and say such a thing, revealing that they assume that a) all women are 9s and 10s, and b) all relationships are very satisfying for men, and c) no mention of the improvements in costs, risks, and time management.

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