C.S. Lewis on the erotic necessity of submission.

In response to my last post reader Gaius Marcius was kind enough to point out the C.S. Lewis quote on erotic necessity:

Lewis’s phrase ‘erotic necessity’ is not from That Hideous Strength, but from his Spectator article ‘Equality’ in 1943, which is also included in the essay collection Present Concerns. That Hideous Strength is a dramatic presentation of themes Lewis explored in dozens of essays. In this case the point Lewis makes is that inequality is inevitable, necessary, and erotic. If Wilson couldn’t remember the citation for the actual phrase he quotes, a simple Google search would point him in the right direction.

I found an archive of the essay at the Spectator (emphasis mine):

This last point needs a little plain speaking. Men have so horribly abused their power over women in the past that to wives, of all people, equality is in danger of appearing as an ideal. But Mrs. Naomi Mitchison has laid her finger on the real point. Have as much equality as’ you please—the more the better—in our marriage laws: but at some level consent to inequality, nay, delight in inequality, is an erotic necessity. Mrs. Mitchison speaks of women so fostered on a defiant idea of equality that the mere sensation of the male embrace rouses an undercurrent of resentment. Marriages are thus shipwrecked. This is the tragi-comedy of the modern woman; taught by Freud to consider the act of love the most important thing in life, and then inhibited by feminism from that internal surrender which alone can make it a complete emotional success. Merely for the sake of her own erotic pleasure, to go no further, some degree of obedience and humility seems to be (normally) necessary on the woman’s part.

Lewis erred when he assumed that feminist resentment stems from a history of terrible mistreatment by men.  If Genesis isn’t enough to prove that no mistreatment is required for the condition to occur, the 70+ years of feminism since Lewis wrote the essay should win over any remaining doubters.  The more we have radically reordered our society to appease feminist demands, the greater the clamor of feminist resentment has become.

But Lewis’ observation that women are sexually attracted to men they submit to is extraordinary.  He understood in the 1940s what pickup artists rediscovered fairly recently.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in C.S. Lewis, Game, Pastor Doug Wilson, Submission, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to C.S. Lewis on the erotic necessity of submission.

  1. Pingback: C.S. Lewis on the erotic necessity of submission. | @the_arv

  2. okrahead says:

    This is also why the women of Western Europe are so busy importing military age young men from Islamic nations…. These men demand female submission, by force if necessary, and European women, just as women everywhere, find that alluring. They apparently are not getting that at home as a direct result of feminism’s affect on Western Europe. Hence not only is mistreatment by men not necessary for feminism to arise, feminists are now actively importing and welcoming the men who will mistreat them to the greatest degree.

  3. okrahead says:

    It is an old saw in the sphere that you watch what women do rather than listen to what they say. The women of Western Europe say that they want equality and freedom from submission…. But when their own men give it to them they discard those men in favor of a barbarian horde that makes Sweden (or is it Switzerland?) the rape capital of the world. And then they LITERALLY beg for more to be brought in to their nation.

  4. okrahead says:

    I have actually read Lewis’ space trilogy. Wilson’s usage of the scene where Merlin kneels before Ransom to put forward his (Wilson’s) theory about erotic submission is hilarious. If I were a Freudian I would have not doubts whatsoever about Wilson’s true sexuality at this point… especially when I add that to his stated desire to flog other men and his white knighting for a wayward wife by calling her husband an “impotent castrato.” This guy has some very interesting fixations going on.

  5. okrahead says:

    While we’re dealing with Lewis’ Space Trilogy…. Ransom, the key figure throughout and the main protagonist of the first two books, is a male perpetual virgin. He serves as a Christ figure of sorts, then as the Fisher King in the third book. He is also the “Logres”, or rightful heir of King Arthur by direct descent. Merlin, returning to modern England to help defeat the hideous forces of NICE, kneels to him in recognizance that he is the rightful heir of the king he once served. He thus recognized proper authority… something a feminist can never do. I am not sure at all how Wilson got an erotic buzz from this scene. It’s just too weird (Wilson, not Lewis’ writing).

  6. Gunner Q says:

    okrahead @ 6:54 pm:
    “This is also why the women of Western Europe are so busy importing military age young men from Islamic nations…. These men demand female submission, by force if necessary, and European women, just as women everywhere, find that alluring.”

    I have trouble accepting this. Muzzies don’t exactly game the local sluts–they observably prefer gang-rapes with sticks–let alone give the Angela Merkels some swarthy action in bed. And why bring in so many? Ten women will happily share one Alpha. Surely there’s enough native Germans in the local prisons to service the ferals. If it was just about noble savages then the Saudis would rotate their sons through on college visas. Fun for every sinner and the locals won’t get Hitler-was-right angry over it.

    There’s no rush of white girls for Latinos in California yet the floodgates have been opened to them as well. The common denominator is exterminating the West, not sexy sex.

  7. okrahead says:

    Dear Gunner Q,
    I absolutely love that you brought Frau Merkel into this… I could refute what you said, but a picture is worth a thousand words… https://www.vox.com/2015/9/10/9307995/angela-merkel-refugees-selfies
    I win.

  8. infowarrior1 says:

    Oh that was the quote I was responding to. I apologize for wrongfully assuming that a fellow commentator made that claim.

  9. earlthomas786 says:

    But Lewis’ observation that women are sexually attracted to men they submit to is extraordinary.

    Sure…but just having submission only in the bedroom still doesn’t solve the widespread female rebellion outside of it. This is more of a spiritual battle.

  10. Gary Eden says:

    “Men have so horribly abused their power over women in the past that to wives, of all people, equality is in danger of appearing as an ideal.”

    This idea of the past abuse of power by men is feminist propaganda, or maybe wishful thinking given the stats on rape fantastics. Actually, I bet its mostly projection.

    We have seen the outcomes of equality in child abuse rates, divorce rates, fertility rates and measures of women’s happiness; it is worse by every measure. Equality is an impossibility; of the two sexes women seem to be greater abusers of power than men. The stats on male vs. female perpetrators in relationships are rather devastating for this feminist narrative.

  11. Dale says:

    Okrahead used the unfortunate phrase “[Ransom] is a male perpetual virgin”.

    I should not insult Okrahead, for I have made the same error in the past, but it is nonsensical to speak of a “male virgin”. At least if we use the meaning of the word, as it is used in the Bible. A virgin is a woman who has not had sex, and there will be visible evidence to that effect, as noted in Deut 22.
    It is true that a man may never have had sex, but he will never have virginity.

    Men and women are not the same, we do not have the same commands or responsibilities from God (although many do overlap), and we do not have the same authority.

  12. Pingback: C.S. Lewis on the erotic necessity of submission. | Reaction Times

  13. okrahead says:

    Dear Dale,
    Revelation 14:4 KJV ” These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb.”
    Lewis intends Ransom to be among this group.

  14. Dalrock says:

    @Earl

    Sure…but just having submission only in the bedroom still doesn’t solve the widespread female rebellion outside of it. This is more of a spiritual battle.

    I don’t think he is talking about submission in the bedroom. I think he is talking about a woman’s frame of mind, and how that influences her attraction. Think of the cliche of the secretary falling in love with her boss. Submission that starts outside the bedroom leads to desire in the bedroom.

  15. Dale says:

    @okrahead re Revelation 14:4

    a) DAMN!
    b) Thanks for the reference and correction.

  16. Ilíon says:

    But Lewis’ observation that women are sexually attracted to men they submit to is extraordinary. He understood in the 1940s what pickup artists rediscovered fairly recently.

    This wasn’t exactly a novel discovery even then. Consider, as just one example, ‘The Taming of the Shrew

  17. Pingback: Not all women are like that. – Adam Piggott

  18. earlthomas786 says:

    It is true that a man may never have had sex, but he will never have virginity.

    I’ve read this same account before from Fulton Sheen. He says Scripture calls it ‘knowledge’ and so a woman is a virgin and a man who hasn’t lacks that ‘knowledge’.

    Also when it comes to descriptors of Catholic saints….you’ll see virgin for the women, but you never see it for the men.

  19. earlthomas786 says:

    I think he is talking about a woman’s frame of mind, and how that influences her attraction.

    Fair enough. After all women do have free will to submit and to rebel…that’s probably a bigger indicator how a relationship will go than most things we think of.

  20. Robin Munn says:

    okrahead –

    You mentioned That Hideous Strength, but you forgot to include the most relevant quote. Here, Jane, one of the two protagonists (the other is her husband Mark) is talking to the protagonist of the previous two books (who here is called the Director):

    Jane said, “I always thought it was in their souls that people were equal.”
    “You were mistaken,” he said gravely. “That is the last place where they are equal. Equality before the law, equality of incomes – that is very well. Equality guards life; it doesn’t make it. It is medicine, not food. You might as well try warming yourself with a blue-book.”
    “But surely in marriage . . . ?”
    “Worse and worse,” said the Director. “Courtship knows nothing of it; nor does fruition. What has free companionship to do with that? Those who are enjoying something, or suffering something together, are companions. Those who enjoy or suffer one another, are not. Do you not know how bashful friendship is? Friends – comrades – do not look at each other. Friendship would be ashamed…”
    “I thought,” said Jane and stopped.
    “I see,” said the Director. “It is not your fault. They never warned you. No one has ever told you that obedience – humility – is an erotic necessity. You are putting equality just where it ought not to be.”

    No comment necessary.

  21. okrahead says:

    Dear Earl,
    ” According to Jerome (Contra Jovin. i) the error of Jovinian consisted in holding virginity not to be preferable to marriage. This error is refuted above all by the example of Christ Who both chose a virgin for His mother, and remained Himself a virgin, and by the teaching of the Apostle who (1 Corinthians 7) counsels virginity as the greater good.” http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3152.htm Lewis uses Ransom the Director as a saint figure in That Hideous Strength. He has already been perfected through suffering in the first two books, literally wrestled with and overcome Satan in the second, and in so doing received a wound that leaves him at least partially crippled. He is at peace with all lawful creation, even the mice most regard as vermin, and is in contact with powers beyond this world who are opposed to Satan. Lewis indicates, but does not directly state, that Ransom’s virginity is part and parcel of this purity.

  22. earlthomas786 says:

    Lewis indicates, but does not directly state, that Ransom’s virginity is part and parcel of this purity.

    I believe that is the case when it comes to men. However for women it is directly stated. Mary’s virginity is often addressed as a part when it comes to her submission to God. Jesus’s is indirectly the case.

    However we must remember virginity in and of itself isn’t the main reason…purity of heart is how we see God.

  23. okrahead says:

    Dear Robin,
    I am familiar with the quote. I am not contending that there should be this equality between husband and wife… just the opposite in fact. I remain, however, perplexed as to how Doug Wilson could make the application of equality having an erotic function when using the example of the interplay between Merlin and The Director (Ransom), who are both men. I do not know if he misread the text, simply plucked it at random… or surely, oh surely not…. found the image erotic.

  24. While feminist resentment doesn’t stem from abuse their political cover certainly did and does. In the distant pre-history of the redpill I would not fault Lewis for conflating the two. The concept of watching what they do and not what they say was a mere glimmer on their horizon I’m sure.

  25. okrahead says:

    Dear Laughing,
    Why do you say “abuse” gives political cover to feminist resentment? Historically this is counter-factual. I give as exhibit A the suffragettes.
    The suffragettes did not make an appeal based on the modern false cliche of the abusive husband. They argued that it was the natural course of progress for women to vote, that it was only fair that women who paid taxes should vote, that educated women should have a say at least equal to that of uneducated men, and even that women were allegedly morally superior to men in many ways; yet never do I find in the writing or propaganda of the suffragettes an appeal to end “domestic violence” or anything of the kind.
    It’s difficult to imagine any more prominent feminist achievement than women’s suffrage…. yet allegations of wife beating had nothing to do with its passage.
    Additionally, the abusive husband trope is largely a myth. DOJ statistics speak of “intimate partner violence” in which lawfully married women are lumped together with sluts and lesbians, and lawfully married men are lumped together with pimps and drug dealers. If a woman goes home with a biker from the local dive and spends a week with him, and then he slaps her around and she calls the police, that offense goes into the big lump of statistics and is used to shame the faithful husband who provides for and protects his family. Even lesbian violence is included, and lesbians have the HIGHEST incidence of domestic violence of any group.

  26. earlthomas786 says:

    If a woman goes home with a biker from the local dive and spends a week with him, and then he slaps her around and she calls the police, that offense goes into the big lump of statistics and is used to shame the faithful husband who provides for and protects his family. Even lesbian violence is included, and lesbians have the HIGHEST incidence of domestic violence of any group.

    I’d be more apt to think the root of most domestic abuse cases the woman was in rebellion somehow and the man/partner just got fed up with it and snapped. If a husband is beating a truly submissive wife then he is a monster…but I highly doubt there are many if any cases like that.

    The abusive husband as a reason to usurp his authority is a strawman argument when a person has no other discourse to use.

  27. okrahead says:

    Earl,
    The root of all domestic violence is rebellion against God. Women are statistically LEAST likely to experience domestic violence when they are either a) living at home with their parents or b) living monogamously with a lawful husband. The further they get from this model the more likely they are to experience domestic violence. Hence living with a boyfriend is more dangerous than living with a husband, shacking up with a string of bad boys is more dangerous than living with a steady boyfriend, and living with a lesbian lover is most dangerous of all.

  28. earlthomas786 says:

    @okra…

    Yup that’s true. Starting off with rebellion against God as the root of any sinful trouble such as domestic violence and going from there should be the focus often.

    Which is why people like Wilson are doing women no favors by overlooking what they are doing and just focusing on the husband’s sinful behavior.

  29. Jim says:

    Men have so horribly abused their power over women in the past that to wives, of all people, equality is in danger of appearing as an ideal.

    Yeah right. If anything we weren’t strict enough.

  30. @okrahead, you can’t get into a five minute dialog with a feminist without them throwing “abuse” into the mix. It’s almost the entirety of their every re-frame effort these days. Like calling white men “racist”. I’m not saying that I buy it I’m just saying that they sell it. What the suffragettes argued has little bearing on what the enemy really had in store. I think we’ve established that enough to have worn down a path the width and density of an 8 lane highway.

  31. earl says:

    It’s almost the entirety of their every re-frame effort these days.

    Like say when a pastor is critiqued on misinterpreting Scripture. Rather than be humbled by it…he goes with the wife beater route.

  32. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    Like say when a pastor is critiqued on misinterpreting Scripture. Rather than be humbled by it…he goes with the wife beater route.

    By doing so, Pastor Wilson immediately confirmed Dalrock’s suspicion that he was a radical feminist. I suppose we should thank him.

    The only people who poison the well this quickly and completely, when challenged, are radical feminists. They rely on these false accusations (violent wife beater / hateful misogynist / etc.) because feminism is intellectually vacuous, and none of their looney arguments are otherwise able to be supported.

    Boxer

  33. Why do you say “abuse” gives political cover to feminist resentment?

    You’ve exchanged the wrong words in your reconstruction of my statement. Abuse is not the basis of feminist resentment it is the canard that they use for feminist political cover, while the resentment is the not so carefully hidden motive. That Lewis confused them is understandable as he wrote this article in 1947. The man was still prescient.

  34. earl says:

    They rely on these false accusations (violent wife beater / hateful misogynist / etc.) because feminism is intellectually vacuous, and none of their looney arguments are otherwise able to be supported.

    “Have you stopped beating your wife?”…or any form of that usually means you have the upper hand in the discussion. They have to resort to stoking the flames of feelz to divert from the truth at hand.

  35. They have to resort to stoking the flames of feelz to divert from the truth at hand.

    Yeah, I did my time at “Christian” Forum’s Marriage Boards……..

  36. Tomasz G. says:

    I’m happy we got back to C.S. Lewis at last.

    I had a time of fascination with “Jack” in my twenties, and read not only Narnia and the Space Trilogy, but also much of his essayist work. Not knowing the difference between Catholicism and “the church of nice” (post Vatican II), I was very open to feel good success stories about “converts” (with implied “to Catholicism”).

    Little did I know, how much bullshit this kind of stories like to include. There’s this motive of “a great sinner and enemy of God/Faith/Church” etc., who – miraculously – has a “Damascus moment” and then converts, and becomes a great believer, oftentimes a saint.

    BTW, there is more to the Paul story. And saints – I mean pre-John-Paul-the-second-saint-factory saints. So – now there’s talk about canonizing Szeptycki – a Ukrainian bishop, who blessed UPA troops headed for genocide of the Polish minority in Wolyn. Generally, he was a nationalist first, and bishop remote second. Just like Bergolio is a globalist puppet first, and pope second, if not in name only. But whatever – so the “congregation for matters of saints” in Vatican thinks – he’s popular in his country, let’s make him a saint! We’ll score some brownie points for that there.
    (BTW2: the corrupt Church elites are even less representative of what Catholicism is about than the “Deep State” is of what America is about)

    But Lewis – well – sometimes, like when a Narnia movie comes out, he’s sold to the Catholic youth (and genpop) as this great convert etc. Marrying a (((divorcee))) (“on the deathbed”) is rarely mentioned. Just as is not being a Catholic, but a High Church Anglican (but we’re all about ecumenism now, right? sure.).

    I however, as a C.S. Lewis monomaniac, have dug a bit deeper and read his bio. The bio was not written from my point of view, but it somewhat opened my eyes. It was titled “The Inklings”, after a literary club, which C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien among others founded.

    This book is neither Christian nor red pill – it talks 40% about “Jack”, 10% about Tolkien, and the rest (~50%) is about Charles (Someshit) – I don’t remember his name, nor ever want to.

    So, Tolkien was “difficult” and “had conflicts” in his marriage, blah blah blah – and Davidman “helped” their marriage by talking to Tolkien’s wife, whom she met in hospital. Red pill translation required?

    Listen guys – Tolkien was the real deal – he was married to a shrew, but handled her perfectly. He had four kids, which didn’t make him a kitchen bitch, but despite that he was able to continue to be a brilliant writer (and not submit to “the needs of the family” – you know “Courageous”-style).

    Should I mention, he was against the reforms of Vatican II, and kept responding in Latin, when the Mass went vernacular? But this is off topic, I don’t want to advertise pre-Vatican Catholicism here, because I even don’t practice it myself. I’m a “troubled Catholic” as some less gynocentric members of CAF designate themselves.

    Now back to Lewis, but still in the light of his relationship with Tolkien. Well – they actually split up! He turned his back on the friend who brought him to Christ! And it was over (((Joy))). Even after she was dead, C.S. Lewis declined an invitation to Tolkien’s 70th birthday.

    It’s a good thing that the older JRR still outlived him.

    Lewis had not only an angel whispering to his right ear (Tolkien), but also a devil whispering to his left (Charles Someshit). I think this may be the influence, which brought him down. What do I know about Someshit from “Inklings”? Well, he was a graphomaniac, a great “scholar” of the “feminine mystique” – some crazy cuck of the “Good Men Project” kind. He lectured women in evening classes with his falsetto voice, and generally preferred female company. He wrote some poems or other shit, which was based on ARTHURIAN LEGENDS, where – simplifying matters – pussy is the Holy Grail, and the whole universe of these stories is a symbol of the female body. Must have been a brilliant guy, dontcha think? “Because you know, men can never understand womyn. And male writers are just pathetic, when they write about the female inner life – which is just a microcosm in itself. Men don’t have any spiritual life, at least in comparison…”.

    Lewis lived together with an old woman, when he was young. It was a mother of his friend, who fell in WW1. She gave him a ton of shit, probably was very difficult and maybe abusive. He just let it happen. Probably no sex was involved, but submitting to a bad woman anyway.

    Lewis was a genius. But he’s not your “eternal batchelor”. Not a MGHOW. He went his way for some time, was prone to the human default setting of gynocentrism, and finally fell for some divorced pussy.

  37. Just Saying says:

    women are sexually attracted to men they submit to
    Over the summer months we play weddings – mostly because our entire purpose of having a band is to gain access to women, and weddings are ideal. As a result we tend to have access to women that tend to be upset with boyfriends, or disappointed, or otherwise on the emotionally needy scale and will do things outside of their comfort zone. As a result they are easy pickings for the most part. Anyway – you get to hear every excuse as to why women are in your bed, rather than in bed with their bf’s or hubby’s.
    One of the most common themes is that women will do things with a guy they never plan on seeing again, they never would with a bf or hubby, for a simple reason – it’s not establishing a precedent. So you can treat her like shit, and that fine as it turns her on and gets her off harder – which is why they cheat. The “safe” bf or hubby can’t compare to the guy that just wanted to f**k her because she turned him on. And she will do things with him she would never do with a guy that she will see repeatedly. And she has an excuse – she was just overwhelmed…
    This is why as I’ve gotten older I’ve learned to pull out all of the stops when it comes to one-night-stands. More than once we have had women on our breaks while their hubby or bf’s are in the reception just a few floors away. Sure it has to be fast, which is one of the turn-ons for her, and the fact that when back at the reception she can wear her face of propriety again. But they will sometimes try to hook up again later. So I would say that women submit to guys they find sexually attractive, when they will never see him again – and that turns them on the most.
    Not a foundation for a relationship, but ideal for the man that just wants to have fun. I think women would be a LOT happier if they learned to submit to their partner. Most of the women in my core group are very submissive and very happy to be that way. But one thing I’ve learned in life is that women will always screw up their lives. No matter what they have, they will always want what they don’t – just the nature of the creature. So enjoy – you’re not going to change the beast…

  38. earl says:

    So I would say that women submit to guys they find sexually attractive, when they will never see him again – and that turns them on the most.

    I would say she’s probably more turned on due to her own rebellion in that situation than submitting to that particular man. Which is why she doesn’t really want a relationship either.

    I think women would be a LOT happier if they learned to submit to their partner.

    Yup. If you want to know why women’s happiness has been going downhill for however many years….it’s because they refuse to do this.

  39. Neguy says:

    Dalrock, have you seen this Mercedes-Benz short film “Grow Up. Start a Family.”

    If so, I was wondering what you thought of it.

  40. Anon says:

    Field Report :

    A woman that I fucked a couple of times, a couple of years ago, moved to another city and stayed in touch over the phone once every few months for polite conversation. She said that she didn’t want to continue any ‘romantic’ relationship, but often seemed to waver. At any rate, she moved, so while I took her phonecalls, she was out of my life in any meaningful way.

    She is the youngest of 10 siblings, her parents having come from Afghanistan. But she was Americanized in every way, and looked like a generic Italian/Greek girl. She is single and 32.

    Yesterday, she called me. She chatted for a while, and then asked if she could borrow money. I only ever met her in her life three times (albeit there was sex), and she wants to borrow money. I pointed out that she has 9 siblings all older than her – can none of them front her? She didn’t have a good answer to that; something like “I can’t..”. I politely told her I would not lend her money, as any man not a ultra-blue cuckservative would know better (this is literally ‘Dealing with Women 101’ if there ever was a lesson #1 of the red pill). We didn’t get to mentioning any amount. She was still polite after that, but I doubt she will call again, and I don’t want her to.

    Sheesh, the entitlement. The only positive is that her request was very polite. But still…. wanting to borrow money from a man, when you have 9 other siblings and say you can’t borrow from them? I literally know nothing about her beyond what I posted here, and what is on her LinkedIn profile..

    Plus, so much for the most traditional, patriarchal cultures.

  41. Boxer says:

    Dear Anon:

    Plus, so much for the most traditional, patriarchal cultures.

    Right. In the town I used to live in (west coast) I dated several Muslim girls. These were girls who had strong father figures they grew up with, in intact homes. There was no racial or ethnic similarity (I dated the daughter of African immigrants, right before I dated her friend at the Islamic Center, a blonde Albanian chick).

    Few of these girls were chaste. Mostl will fuck you just as eagerly as any two-bit American ho’.

    In the beginning, I assumed I’d find at least one devout Muslim girl who loved God and wanted to be a good wife and mother. WRONG! Muslim girls (like all other girls) use religion as a facet of their identity, to show the world how “special” they are. “I’m a Muslim” was no more significant, to any of these girls, as “I carry a Coach purse.”

    Not only were the women I met not superior to secular chicks but, religious Muslim girls learn to lie and deceive their parents much more effectively than the run-of-the-mill skank, making them much more dangerous to marry. Moreover, Muslim girls are taught from birth that they need not work. I knew Muslim dudes from that time in my life who worked all day, then went to their second job as pizza delivery drivers and cabbies, while princess sat around at home, complaining about the lack of spending cash. It was really shocking.

    tl;dr I suppose. Just seconding the observation of the true state of supposedly “religious” girls.

    Boxer

  42. feeriker says:

    I pointed out that she has 9 siblings all older than her – can none of them front her? She didn’t have a good answer to that; something like “I can’t..”

    Could be that her family has disowned her for being a promiscuous slut. If so, she’s lucky that’s all they’ve done; she could have been the victim of an honor killing.

  43. earl says:

    Sheesh, the entitlement.

    It’s another nasty side effect of fornication. They’ll try and get the benefits of marriage (like your provision) by using sex without actually getting married to you.

  44. Lewis lived together with an old woman, when he was young. It was a mother of his friend, who fell in WW1. She gave him a ton of shit, probably was very difficult and maybe abusive. He just let it happen. Probably no sex was involved, but submitting to a bad woman anyway.

    Sounds exactly like the basis for “The Screwtape Letters”.

  45. Anon says:

    feeriker,

    Could be that her family has disowned her for being a promiscuous slut. If so, she’s lucky that’s all they’ve done; she could have been the victim of an honor killing.

    I doubt it. Remember that they left Afghanistan before it turned radical – it was a much more Westernized place until the 70s. Plus, she said that her sisters were all modern, etc. She also visits her family often (she said).

  46. feministhater says:

    There was that article awhile back, I think it was from Tunisia, where women were angry about the requirement for women to be virgins on their wedding night, with many saying they were having sex as much as they like when young and then, right before marriage, getting corrective, vaginal surgery to fool their eventual husbands. So much for respect, love and submission. Lol!

    There is no going back to how it was, not until the collapse and I think most don’t realise how long this state of affairs can go on for. The decline could take a hundred years or more. Most women are now whores, the rest have notch counts of one or two. The virgins are few and far between and you could spend your entire life trying to find them and come up empty handed with nothing to show for it. Don’t waste your life, it’s finite and better spent elsewhere.

    Feminism destroyed the feminine women and crippled the masculine man. Be grateful for the time you have and don’t spend it trying to find something that doesn’t exist.

  47. JohnK says:

    I take this slightly O.T. opportunity (but we are talking about eros and British writers, are we not?) to introduce the reader to one of the wokest writers ever, P.G. Wodehouse. Many is the tale in which he introduces a fine young lad who is smitten with a young lady, which young lady, however, (at first) rejects him with the frankest and most unapologetic hypergamy:
    ==
    “Mr. Banks,” she said, “I will speak frankly.”
    “Charge right ahead,” assented Cuthbert.
    “Deeply sensible as I am of—”
    “I know. Of the honor and the compliment and all that. But, passing lightly over all that guff, what seems to be the trouble? I love you to distraction—”
    “Love is not everything.”
    “You’re wrong,” said Cuthbert earnestly. “You’re right off it. Love—” And he was about to dilate on the theme when she interrupted him.
    “I am a girl of ambition.”
    “And very nice, too,” said Cuthbert.
    “I am a girl of ambition,” repeated Adeline, “and I realize that the fulfillment of my ambitions must come through my husband. I am very ordinary myself—”
    “What!” cried Cuthbert. “You ordinary? Why, you are a pearl among women, the queen of your sex. You can’t have been looking in a glass lately. You stand alone. Simply alone. You make the rest look like battered repaints.”
    “Well,” said Adeline, softening a trifle, “I believe I am fairly good-looking.”
    “Anybody who was content to call you fairly good-looking would describe the Taj Mahal as a pretty nifty tomb.”
    “But that is not the point. What I mean is, if I marry a nonentity I shall be a nonentity myself for ever. And I would sooner die than be a nonentity.”

    -P.G. Wodehouse, “The Clicking of Cuthbert”

  48. earlthomas786 says:

    which young lady, however, (at first) rejects him with the frankest and most unapologetic hypergamy:

    Does it ever describe how he wins the young lady over? From that exchange it certainly wasn’t by complimenting her and puffing up her ego.

  49. JohnK says:

    >Does it ever describe how he wins the young lady over?
    earlthomas786: Dear old bean, of course ‘it’ does! There are rules to Wodehousian comedy, you see: the young man MUST display higher value to Get The Girl. That is an absolute. And if he does, he becomes her heaven and earth, which she blushingly acknowledges. And if he doesn’t — he becomes Bertie Wooster. And this energizes the entire plot of this type of Wodehouse story. But HOW the young man solves the mystery and displays his value — is sheer comedy.
    My friend, if you should ever read Wodehouse, you are in for a delightful surprise.

  50. Heidi_storage says:

    Magnificent story, by a magnificent writer.

  51. earlthomas786 says:

    There are rules to Wodehousian comedy, you see: the young man MUST display higher value to Get The Girl. That is an absolute. And if he does, he becomes her heaven and earth, which she blushingly acknowledges.

    Well without reading…Im going to take a stab and say he realizes the error of his ways is woman worship and either goes to God or starts doing his own thing. And even if that isn’t the case, that is the big error of a lot of men today.

  52. JohnK says:

    Speaking of Bertie Wooster, it is worth noting how imperious and domineering is virtually every single adult female in Bertie’s (high) social circle.
    His BFF Bingo Little eventually does marry rather happily, to an American, if I recall, and apparently spends the rest of his life trying (comically successfully) to maintain the pretense — pardon me, ‘pretence’ — to her that he really is All That.
    But though we are perhaps asked to take for granted, without it being actually stated, that Bertie’s frequently-mentioned carousing does include female companionship, no female in Bertie’s actual social circle ever seems like she could ever be Fun To Be With, in any way. When these females are not actively scorning Bertie, they seem always to be on missions to Improve him, or to make him Rise to Their Standards.
    So that part of the Bertie and Jeeves milieu is profoundly depressing. If it weren’t for Wodehouse’s other stories featuring females and males of lower classes, one might easily conclude that the only thing for it is to fear and despise all women, however pretty they are, and even despair of the chances for the human race.

  53. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Just heard a radio commercial in which a woman was saying, “When I thought I needed new windows, I got worried. I’m a single mom. I can’t afford new windows. But then I texted American Vision Windows … blah, blah, blah.

    It’s interesting how being a “single mom” has become so normal. So commonplace. No longer a reason for suspicion or shame, but a target demographic for marketers. A character type who’s always portrayed as being smart, spunky, resourceful, and financially savvy.

    This “single mom” sees the need for new windows, but she’s no pushover. She does her research. You can’t fool her into buying unnecessary or over-priced windows. Singles moms are experts on budgeting, financial management, and home repairs.

  54. earlthomas786 says:

    This “single mom” sees the need for new windows, but she’s no pushover. She does her research. You can’t fool her into buying unnecessary or over-priced windows. Singles moms are experts on budgeting, financial management, and home repairs.

    At least they don’t hide that single motherhood is a one way ticket to poverty or welfare. How’s that for empowerment?

  55. Kaminsky says:

    “A character type who’s always portrayed as being smart, spunky, resourceful, and financially savvy.”

    Don’t forget tough, heroic, martyred, gritty in the face of betrayal, unflappable in the face of abandonment, full of untapped potential that would have flourished if it weren’t for the absentee father, of higher morals than you (somehow), all-knowing, having an inner core of blamelessness that will last longer than a twinky, an endearing taker of beatings, of keen, uncanny instinct and simply better in every way than people whose lives worked properly thanks to their accountability.

    I’m SO SICK of single mom worship USA.

    The narrative is always that the bad boy father absconded in the dead of night on his Harley with a handle of Jack, leaving the family in tears. For every one reckless, heartbreaking bad boy story there are about 50 stories of boring betas getting kicked out and ATM’d, and another 50 stories of there never having been a recognizable father anyway.

  56. feministhater says:

    This “single mom” sees the need for new windows, but she’s no pushover. She does her research. You can’t fool her into buying unnecessary or over-priced windows. Singles moms are experts on budgeting, financial management, and home repairs.

    And this is why it works so well as a marketing gimmick. It works because the reality is the opposite of what the advert portrays. Single mothers are not expects at any of the qualities given, thus they are ripe for the picking for anyone who has more knowledge than them. A single mother can’t budget, she always needs more money from daddy government or baby daddy, hence she is sold on loans, credit and many other debts that she can’t repay. She cannot do home repairs, so she is sold a line of goods from builders, plumbers, electricians and so on. The idea is to puff out their chests whilst removing the money from their wallet and congratulating them whilst you do it.

    You know who would stop the pilfering though? A husband, the man of the house. Which is why all adverts start from the premise of stupid dad, clever mom. It’s all marketing in the end.

  57. feministhater says:

    The amount of money one can save by just being a half way decent handyman is quite something. You don’t have to be a qualified electrician, plumber or carpenter to be able to do repairs around the house. This saves you on call out fees, labour, 25% extra charges on the cost of parts… and then you only need the call out when it is of the absolute necessity.

    Gather a bit of knowledge, then apply it every time before you make that call. If you do make a call out, watch and learn. The next time the same thing happens, you have more knowledge and are better prepared and won’t need to make the call for help for the same problem again. It also requires you get a bit dirty, sweaty and make use of your muscles. Great for men, not so much for women.

  58. Anon says:

    The amount of money one can save by just being a half way decent handyman is quite something.

    Of course. With YouTube, this is even easier.

    It was hard to do certain auto maintenence from the text manual alone. But with a YouTube video, it is so much easier that it is not even funny.

    My rear bumper cover acquired a large crack. The body shop said $900. I went to YouTube and saw how easy it was to change it. A new one from Amazon cost $220. So $900 vs. $220 plus not having to worry about to and from from the bodyshop.

    Handymen who still charge make money off of single women who are not pretty enough to appropriate a beta male’s labor for free.

  59. Anon says:

    This “single mom” sees the need for new windows, but she’s no pushover. She does her research. You can’t fool her into buying unnecessary or over-priced windows. Singles moms are experts on budgeting, financial management, and home repairs.

    As we know here, nothing could be further from the truth. State-subsidized single motherhood in the West is the greatest resource misallocation of all time.

    This also colors other assumptions. For example, whenever a cuckservative talks about the Middle East in a manner that presumes that we HAVE to be there and correct their cultures (i.e. whiteknight for Muslim women who don’t want to be whiteknighted for), I am nauseated. The USA is a culture of single motherhood, gays, transgenders, etc. Just about anything that fights against nature, the US is willing to fund.

    The typical cuckservative is so certain that the US is a much more noble society than China. The USA is a democracy (according to him). China, being a non-democracy, will never waste any money on stupid, expensive abominations like single motherhood. The cuckservative who says China is bad because it is ‘Communist’ is a laughably stupid fool. China is not where a large percentage of men see their children taken from them, and are pushed into financial ruin, and even more men otherwise live under threatpoint.

  60. earl says:

    China is not where a large percentage of men see their children taken from them, and are pushed into financial ruin, and even more men otherwise live under threatpoint.

    Granted you are corrected about the US being a mamacracy…but don’t be so delusional to think the majority of men have it better in a communist state. It’s just the few men that are leaders who have it good while everyone else lives in the state sanctioned hell.

    And I’ve met Chinese men and women before…their women can be just as demanding, abrasive and promiscuous as any American girl and the men can be just as week and worshiping. With the sex selective abortions there’s a lot more men than women there.

  61. Anon says:

    The idea is to puff out their chests whilst removing the money from their wallet and congratulating them whilst you do it.

    You know who would stop the pilfering though? A husband, the man of the house. Which is why all adverts start from the premise of stupid dad, clever mom. It’s all marketing in the end.

    Oh, some vendor selling a legitimate product or service is nothing. The endgame comes much later : the Nigerian Romance Scam.

    When a woman over 55 declares that she is ‘done with men’ and extracts her cash and prizes, those monies quickly part from the fool’s fingers when an ‘alpha’ on a dating site appears to express interest in her. Nigerian Romance scammers have extracted 6 and 7-digit sums from gullible divorced women. A married couple could simply never be scammed this way.

  62. feeriker says:

    This “single mom” sees the need for new windows, but she’s no pushover. She does her research. You can’t fool her into buying unnecessary or over-priced windows. Singles moms are experts on budgeting, financial management, and home repairs.

    Single moms wear their “victim” status on their sleeves in hopes that some thirsty beta schlub business owner will pity them (or hope that he’ll “have a chance with her,” which rarely ever happens) and give them a steep discount that no sane businessman would dream of giving anyone else if he wanted to make a profit and stay in business. Sadly, far too many otherwise savvy businessmen do indeed lose all of their business sense when it comes to babymomma parasites, for God only knows what reasons.

  63. earl says:

    Sadly, far too many otherwise savvy businessmen do indeed lose all of their business sense when it comes to babymomma parasites, for God only knows what reasons.

    I’m also amazed they can lure guys into marrying them too. They can be quite the skilled manipulators.

  64. BillyS says:

    Kaminsky,

    The narrative is always that the bad boy father absconded in the dead of night on his Harley with a handle of Jack, leaving the family in tears. For every one reckless, heartbreaking bad boy story there are about 50 stories of boring betas getting kicked out and ATM’d, and another 50 stories of there never having been a recognizable father anyway.

    And the woman knew ahead of time he would be that type of father when it is true. Few women are really surprised with what they get, however much they claim otherwise.

  65. earl says:

    Few women are really surprised with what they get, however much they claim otherwise.

    Yeah…there’s not really a thing called masculine mystique.

  66. feeriker says:

    For every one reckless, heartbreaking bad boy story there are about 50 stories of boring betas getting kicked out and ATM’d, and another 50 stories of there never having been a recognizable father anyway.

    You’re being too generous. The ratio is really closer to 500 or even 1,000 to one. And of that lonely one woman who gets dumped by Harley McBadboy and left to raise his offspring on her own, she KNEW what she was getting and KNEW, whether she admitted it to herself or not, that Harley was a rolling stone who was very likely to dump her stupid ass when he tired of her and smelled fresher pussy up for conquest.

    Wilson and Ilk (Chandriscollson?) know this. The guys he’s really trying to shame are guys who are so rare as to be statistically non-existent*: boring betabux schlubs who dump their loyal wives and abandon their families for younger, hotter pussy – NONE of whom attend his church or ever will. But they’re soft, “safe” targets. Still, even Chandriscollson is smart enough to know that he’ll come across as an utter moron if he picks on this specific demographic subset of the male population directly, so he lumps them in with the badboys.

    (* On the other hand, women will not at all infrequently dump their boring beta husbsnds for the hawt alpha badboy. That Chandriscollson projects this onto men –in particular, the least likely subset of men to do or benefit from this– is very revealing of his mental frame. IOW he thinks just like a woman.)

  67. honordads says:

    @Dalrock, I know you get so many of these, but this is making its way around: http://rachelshubin.com/2017/07/30/love-submission/

    Totally misses the point: If you love God, you’ll submit. If wives love their husbands, they’d honor that relationship too. Keep up the good work.

  68. Spike says:

    And yet, while Lewis had insights on the nature of women and their lust for equality decades ahead of what we now know to be self-evident, he still buckled when it came to the personal.
    Was he aware that an old woman was beating up on him for resources? That a divorcee was marrying him just for his status as a British citizen?
    Christian apologist, yes. But ensconced in the cult of chivalry like a true Englishman.

  69. Honordads, my sister just shared that on facebook saying it was “so, so good”. That’s what passes for mainstream spiritual teaching.

  70. comreich says:

    I expect this to get spammed at Rachel’s site. To whit:
    “So, basically, you read the Ephesians 5:22-24 passage, rejected the notion of headship of the husband to the wife, and then ignored the clear meaning in the following phrase — that Christ is the head of the church (i.e., the church is in submission to Christ, the meaning of headship). That, my dear, is clearly eisegesis — and badly done at that — rather than exegesis.”

  71. Lost Patrol says:

    Not all women are like that.

    https://pushingrubberdownhill.com/2017/07/29/not-all-women-are-like-that/

    Adam Piggott references Dalrock referencing C.S. Lewis.

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