Cheapening seduction.

The Angry Therapist wants kids these days to get off his lawn*, and bang hos the right way.  When you bang a ho, treat her like a lady:

When I was in my twenties and had a date, this is what I would do. I would wake up early like it was Christmas and wash my car. Hand wash. None of this driving through a machine bullshit. Then I would hand pick the the songs I wanted to play and load the CDs into my six disc changer in the trunk. Then I would go workout so I felt good about myself. Then I would drive to the movie theater to buy the tickets in advance so we wouldn’t have to wait in line (this was before the internet). And of course, dinner reservations were already made. After getting ready, I would pick her up from her apartment. I would park my car, walk to the door, and knock. I would compliment her appearance and mean it as we walked to my car. I would open the door for her. And if there was a spark and things went well on the date, she’d get flowers or a note or something she can actually hold in the next few days.

This was a magic ritual, that made banging hos moral.  Like all conservatives, The Angry Therapist wants to recapture the better days of our past.

If you’re a male in your twenties, you may read this and think, “Wow, what a loser.” Well, okay. But this process is what made dating fun, exciting, romantic, and fulfilling. It made the date a mini event, something to look forward to. It wasn’t just about the person. It was about the whole date experience.

What we need is for men to treat hos with chivalry:

Plan something. Set an intention. Put your best foot forward. Because they are too and it’s your job to set the tone. You don’t have to hand wash your car or put a playlist together. But Jesus, open a door. Engage. Ask questions. Be interested and interesting. Order dessert together. Pick up the check. Effort. Effort. Effort. Put some into it. You get back what you put in.

The Angry Therapist has misdiagnosed the problem.  He thinks technology has cheapened the process of banging hos.  He doesn’t realize that banging hos should never have been treated like courtship in the first place.  Just like the trunk mounted CD changer, the idea he is trying to recover (chivalrously courting hos) only lasted for a short period because it was never a good idea.  It is this fundamental misunderstanding that made The Angry Therapist so angry to begin with.

*HT Instapundit

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Chivalry, Death of courtship, Denial, Instapundit, Traditional Conservatives, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

252 Responses to Cheapening seduction.

  1. Pingback: Cheapening seduction. | @the_arv

  2. genesisofman says:

    he is advocating for beta game

  3. Boxer says:

    Thanks for posting this. The author is so clueless, he’s unintentionally funny.

    Advice for men: Call your prospective girlfriend/wife/bang and curse at her…

    Okay, let’s start with actually using our phones for what they were invented for. Yes, call them. Stop hiding behind your fucking phone. Quick note. There will be a lot of F-bombs and I mean every single one of them. A fucking real conversation is the first step to get to know someone.

    The writer must date some pretty trashy women, if he’s used to succeeding at this.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  4. squid_hunt says:

    He was right in his assessment: He is a loser. And his method is no less fake than the internet dating. He’s still tricking women into liking him for short term pleasure.

  5. RecoveringBeta says:

    More AMOGing from sackless cucks. I can picture Erick Erickson when I read this.

  6. Boxer says:

    Here’s the rule. If you have been inside someone or someone has been inside you, both of you have a right to ask what’s up. If it was just sex for you, then tell them. If you don’t want to be monogamous, then tell them. Don’t ghost because shit comes around and someone you really like will ghost on you and you will internalize it and wonder why and if you’re defective.

    cringeworthy dot txt

    lololol

  7. Gunner Q says:

    “It wasn’t just about the person. It was about the whole date experience.”

    A very telling phrase. It was about fluffing his ego at least as much as getting action. I can see a guy treating his sexbot the exact same way… a guy with thick-rimmed glasses, premature male baldness, wearing a polka dot bowtie… I just scared myself.

    Can idealistic love get so out of hand that a guy has a sexual reaction to the process of dating, whether or not he actually scores?

  8. Hugh Mann says:

    Whatever happened to treating a ho like a lady and a lady like a ho?

  9. Gunner Q, you just scared me as well. I too, can see this behavior manifest itself.

  10. earl says:

    he is advocating for beta game

    Yes and much like the other side where there is the ‘jerk game’ he has a big ego and thinks his way is the best.

  11. earl says:

    To add to Dalrock’s point:

    Courtship is/was the means of finding a spouse. Dating/hookup is for short term gain/pleasure and puffing up the ego. The two certainly don’t go together.

  12. Novaseeker says:

    Keep in mind that at the end of the post there is a picture of his book — “Finding and Living Your Own Truth”.

    Ah, the sign of the ultimate post-modernist bullshitter right there.

  13. Wood Chipper says:

    “You get back what you put in.”
    Objection! Hos are not exempt from the Labor Theory of Value fallacy.

  14. Mocheirge says:

    One of his pictures shows that he has a “regret nothing” tattoo on his arm. He even had it tattooed upside-down so he could look at it himself.

  15. Hmm says:

    His book “Finding and Living Your Own Truth” = “Just do what I say. Live my truth.

  16. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mr. Angry’s “About” page looks like a weh kool web designer term project. The only question in my mind was “east coast or west coast?” with an outside chance of something like “Boulder, Colorado” or ‘Sedona, Arizona” or maybe “Austin, Texas” but — Santa Monica, eh? Well, there’s lots of other life-coaches to compete with but also a very large supply of clueless in need of life-coaching.

    The funny thing is, all the buzzwords about self actualization and so forth are common in parts of the androsphere. If a man read a few sites starting right here, and ignored some of the various attempts at AMOGing, he could get all that stuff for free. In fact, he’d get more and better advice, including on motorcycles.

  17. Chad says:

    I always enjoy when people who have failed miserably at something without learning anything valuable from the experience then have all the answers about how to succeed at said endeavor.

    His badass version of a “life coach” would be laughable if it didn’t have the potential to damage.

    He’s a modern sailor screaming: “Land the Ho!”

  18. earl says:

    Keep in mind that at the end of the post there is a picture of his book — “Finding and Living Your Own Truth”.

    Male feminist alert!

  19. SnapperTrx says:

    Effort. Effort. Effort. Put some into it. You get back what you put in.

    Well there’s your problem right there…..

  20. Anon says:

    Ah! A new thread.

    I will post this again as that old thread was way past its time.

    It begins…

    Artificial Intelligence is coming to sexist conclusions.

    From the article : “The creators of AI don’t seem to be too concerned about correcting this”.

    AI is going to be a disaster for the FI. AI will never be programmed to comply with the FI, for anyone who follows the FI does not know that it exists (just like an animal is not aware of the air in breathes).

  21. Anonymous Reader says:

    He suggests using the phone, “just call them” to set up dates. Snicker. He’s out of touch. People under 30 hardly ever use voice, they text or use social media, maybe even a chat client. Not voice, not email either. So his plan would lead to talking to voicemail and never getting a reply. Outstanding plan!

  22. Anon says:

    I always enjoy when people who have failed miserably at something without learning anything valuable from the experience then have all the answers about how to succeed at said endeavor.

    And nowhere is this more common than in matters of romance.

    From cuckservatives like Jim Gay-ratty proclaiming himself to be the apex of studliness despite admitting to living under the threatpoint every day, to the ‘Game does not exist’ omegas who admit to not having any alternative solutions.

  23. earl says:

    I suppose the question I have is this…is courtship still a thing?

    Obviously there’s the Tinder route and the dating route which may but probably won’t lead to finding your spouse…does courtship even exist anymore? Does it have to be explicitly stated that what you want to do?

  24. Fred Flange, GBFC (Great Books for Cucks) says:

    Sad part is, his header is basically correct. He should have stopped there.
    Or he could have stopped with this which is mostly right:
    “Today, a date is a coffee or a drink but not dinner because what if they don’t look like their picture. Today, a date is “I’ll meet you there”… Today, a date is a general meeting. Today, a date is not really a date because there’s no such thing anymore.”

    A date’s not a Skype call, BTW, that’s so 2014. No one uses the phone, they text to set a meet-up. Even saying a date is a “general meeting” is generous. And oh yeah Tinder and its like are over, that forum is for the Pareto principled few: whereby the alpha 20% can cherry-pick (!) from the female 80%.

    Because, Dr. Angry, the death of dating is WHAT IS, and your WHAT SHOULD BE dating rant will remain a dirty filthy lie no matter how much you scream and flex and beat me up and take my lunch money for not kowtowing.

    Thanks to helicopter parenting, “yes means yes” and being a boy is toxically masculine and cisheterosexist, anything resembling a date is something done by the few DGAF Alphas who survive and thrive through all ages.

    Your high school and college kids do things in groups now. Including proms. The odd breakoff coupling is a consummation devoutly to be wished, but rarely pursued outright. Boys don’t want to come across as too strident and oppressive. The girls aren’t sex-pozzie enough to take the initiative. So at most the closest thing to “dating” will be meet up for a coffee or a salad date at Beefsteak. Even a goodbye “hug” could be deemed “problematic.”

    Besides more and more men aren’t going to college at all. Those who do are learning the mantra: don’t date on campus if you want to graduate. If I was teaching a freshman orientation, that would be my lesson to them.

  25. squid_hunt says:

    @earl
    is courtship still a thing?

    Atleast in the South, for the independent fundamental Baptist crowd it is. Of course, a lot of it is from the wierdos with their cleaning my shotgun, not good enough for my daughter crowd, but I know some really good, genuine parents that are raising their children to use courtship in the church setting to find a spouse instead of the public meatmarket method.

  26. Dalrock says:

    @Boxer

    Here’s the rule. If you have been inside someone or someone has been inside you, both of you have a right to ask what’s up. If it was just sex for you, then tell them. If you don’t want to be monogamous, then tell them. Don’t ghost because shit comes around and someone you really like will ghost on you and you will internalize it and wonder why and if you’re defective.

    cringeworthy dot txt

    lololol

    Cringeworthy indeed. While the overt point of the post is that other men need to man up, the pleading subtext is to women: “Why are you having sex with taller men loser guys instead of me, a real man. Why do you ghost me after sex?”

  27. American says:

    “He doesn’t realize that banging hos should never have been treated like courtship in the first place.”

    ^ neither men nor women should have viewed courtship like this and that is the bottom line here. Good point.

  28. feministhater says:

    Plan something. Set an intention. Put your best foot forward. Because they are too and it’s your job to set the tone. You don’t have to hand wash your car or put a playlist together. But Jesus, open a door. Engage. Ask questions. Be interested and interesting. Order dessert together. Pick up the check. Effort. Effort. Effort. Put some into it. You get back what you put in.

    I don’t get it? What exactly is he expecting to get back in return for being the man who pays for it all and pretends to be the Gentlemen? Sex? Love? What exactly is it he expects to get from women who are willing to give it to other men who put in no effort?

    If the plan is to sleep with her then why should a man put in any further effort then what is required to get her to drop her panties? Treating whores as if they’re worthy of investment is insane and really bad etiquette.

  29. earl says:

    He also did a list about himself…

    View story at Medium.com

  30. earl says:

    I don’t get it? What exactly is he expecting to get back in return for being the man who pays for it all and pretends to be the Gentlemen? Sex? Love?

    Perhaps he needs to ask himself that question first before demanding other men go about his route in life. Do we know, do we have any indication if he wants a bedroom partner, a girlfriend, or a wife?

  31. feministhater says:

    Tradcons really don’t know what to do in the current dating scene. Loose women acting like men and getting treated like men instills a fear into them like nothing else. They have this innate nature to treat women as the damsels in distress, even when the woman is nothing more than a cheap lay, and when the woman doesn’t just not play along their mothers used to for their fathers but instead laughs at his efforts and has sex with the bad boy whilst he’s not looking, it creates a short circuit in his mind. They cannot believe that women have become like this which leads them to double down and shame other men instead of shaming the women who engage in whoredom so that their tradcon meme stays afloat.

  32. Lost Patrol says:

    “Finding and Living Your Own Truth”.

    “Eat, Pray, Love, Repeat” was already taken.

  33. Novaseeker says:

    While the overt point of the post is that other men need to man up, the pleading subtext is to women: “Why are you having sex with taller men loser guys instead of me, a real man. Why do you ghost me after sex?”

    Heh, yes. Or something like: “I’m So Angry About How It Sucks To Be a short Asian Guy in Los Angeles Who Likes White Women”.

  34. squid_hunt says:

    I don’t get it? What exactly is he expecting to get back in return for being the man who pays for it all and pretends to be the Gentlemen? Sex? Love? What exactly is it he expects to get from women who are willing to give it to other men who put in no effort?

    This is the result of progress. This guy sees his life as an example because that’s how he was raised. He doesn’t understand that he was just a stepping stone on the way to complete, unfettered debauchery as a means to shatter society.

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl, that’s quite a reveal on his part, given what we now know about the effect of posture on mindset. There is a direct nerve line from the body’s core muscle set to the brain; slumping induces a lower mindset, sitting or standing straight induces a more positive mindset. I wonder if Angry is one of those “I F’ing Love Science” types?

    Got to wonder what kind of people are willing to pay him money for his opinion on how to fix their lives.

  36. thedeti says:

    “Cringeworthy indeed. While the overt point of the post is that other men need to man up, the pleading subtext is to women: “Why are you having sex with taller men loser guys instead of me, a real man. Why do you ghost me after sex?””

    Huh. What I got out of this, and the post as a whole, using the Hamsterlator, was:

    “We all know this is the run up to sex. So what you should be doing before you bang her is be really really nice to her. We need to go back to the good old days when we talked on the phone, we asked them to go out with us, we opened car doors, and we paid. THEN after you do all that, you’re cleared for the bang, because you’ve earned it.”

  37. thedeti says:

    “Heh, yes. Or something like: “I’m So Angry About How It Sucks To Be a short Asian Guy in Los Angeles Who Likes White Women”.”

    A scalpel in the hands of a skillful Red Pill surgeon.

  38. Opus says:

    I am a little confused. The Therapist may be a bit clueless but his heart surely is in the right place and why – because I could not see any of this in his post – is it assumed that the female is a ho, which I understand to be American for slut or slag?

  39. feeriker says:

    Courtship is/was the means of finding a spouse. Dating/hookup is for short term gain/pleasure and puffing up the ego. The two certainly don’t go together.

    Sadly, almost no one in the Western World today realizes this. Thus the disaster that has been Marriage 2.0 for the last half/three quarters of a century.

  40. Wood says:

    earl,

    re: courtship

    From my perspective, courtship and dating are still things. But I believe the conceptual separation of the two – or the attempts to cordon off courtship – are misguided. Courtship has an aura these days that is similar to the “Benedict Option” in the world of single male/female relationship. It is misguided because it accepts way too many of the enemy’s terms and then attempts to rearrange the terms into something that looks kinda sorta OK. Courtship is what the good guys do instead of Game pervs but with the same basic problems: attempting to create formal procedures that will “guarantee” all the good results we want. I guess courtship could be ok after people relearn some of the more fundamentals: discernment of vocation, purity/chastity, moral courage, etc. There’s “ho banging” in courtship circles also. Dating (or courtship) is “hard” where I live in the sense that if the goal of dating is chastely to find a woman to be joined with in the indissoluble sacrament of marriage and the concomitant lifetime (and hopefully quite frequent enjoyment : ) of chaste, non-contracepted sex then a girl with nice legs who is up for “all that” is rather hard to find today. But no formal procedures guarantee that more than others, from my perspective, and I think many of the courtship folks misunderstand that.

  41. earl says:

    That list shows me he needs a therapist more than proclaiming he is one.

  42. Anonymous Reader says:

    Basically this man is frustrated because “provider game” from his past doesn’t work now. The social environment has changed, and he’s demanding the world adapt to him. I wonder what the trajectory of his marriage was but only a bit. I don’t wonder enough to dig through his overly HTMLbling website to find out. Because it’s probably not a new story. Sending him a link to The Rational Male’s article on “war brides” might be interesting.

  43. Anonymous Reader says:

    earl
    That list shows me he needs a therapist more than proclaiming he is one.

    Yes. He’s working out his problems in public[1]. But not likely to take advice from other men. So he’s going to be stuck for quite some time. Looks like the anger phase, too.
    It used to be almost an axiom that anyone majoring in Psychology at university was trying to get therapy done on the cheap. Certainly the few that I knew back in school were slow-motion trainwrecks in progress.

    [1] Autocorrect first made this word into “pubic”. Just a coincidence, I’m sure.

  44. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oh, and +1 on what Fred Flange in 3D wrote. From personal observation. Even the AP students in high school are this way.

  45. Pingback: Cheapening seduction. | Reaction Times

  46. Scott says:

    I wonder if he is aware that the manosphere has been tracing the origins of “dating” and its logical trajectory to where it is now for years now. (Including many posts by yours truly).

    Great find.

  47. Damn Crackers says:

    Not to continue from the topic of the last marathon post, but this is more evidence that prostitution is eminently superior and moral compared to this version of the courtship/dating/seduction game of the 21st C.

  48. Scott says:

    Without reading through the comments thus far, here is what he wants:

    He would like to return to the aesthetic of dating (which historically speaking is a mating ritual that really only lasted a couple of decades. I admit, I benefitted from it tremendously and have been quite transparent about that. I was 17 years old in 1988, the zenith of this mating format).

    That aesthetic provided a veneer of respectability and validity to serial monogamy. But at its core, it is having sex with one woman at a time, everybody knows about it, the sex supposedly “means something” and at any moment either party can unilaterally end the relationship for any subjective reason.

    The people around you will say “I guess it just wasn’t meant to be.”

    Then you go through a period (also mostly for show) where you are “getting over it.”

    After a number of weeks/months you re-enter the scene and bag the next one.

    Lather, rinse repeat.

  49. Frank K says:

    Just like the trunk mounted CD changer, the idea he is trying to recover (chivalrously courting hos) only lasted for a short period because it was never a good idea.

    +1 million.

    What The Angry Therapist doesn’t understand is that where we are now, where Chads order up girls on Tinder like they’re ordering a pizza was the inevitable outcome. I would say inevitable end point, but things can still get a lot worse.

  50. Oleaginous Outrager says:

    “wash my car. Hand wash. None of this driving through a machine bullshit.”

    He leads off with this. Clearly a man with some strange predilections and an obsession with unimportant issues, which he also has very strong opinions about.

  51. squid_hunt says:

    Clearly a man with some strange predilections and an obsession with unimportant issues, which he also has very strong opinions about.

    He’s roleplaying from some father figure in his past.

  52. Courtship is nothing more than mastering the forms of “Courtly Love.” Just as swordsmanship is mastering the forms of the sword. The only difference between the 80’s version and the High Middle Ages version is that the woman isn’t married. Generally speaking.

  53. Pingback: Cheapening seduction. | Dalrock - Top

  54. SJB says:

    Anonymous Reader: He’s working out his problems in public.

    I encountered his writing a few years ago while researching the rise of Crossfit popularity. He does seem to have been on the same track for a bit; his writing style is very consistent between then and now.

  55. Jay Karknee says:

    “Pick up the check”. Most men I know have to work from January till May to pay their taxes, and the country is still 20 trillion in debt, thanks to the welfare state women have built, and this clown is still on about the pick up the check thing. Tradcons are simply too funny…

  56. Trad-Cons don’t want the Red Pill, they want a time machine.

  57. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Pick up the check”.

    That right there shows a serious disconnect with the reality of the average 20-something man, and the way social interaction works in the modern world; SMP or MMP, it’s the same.

    Rollo
    Trad-Cons don’t want the Red Pill, they want a time machine.

    More like “fried ice”. Now, who else wants that, wants it fresh and wants it now?

  58. “Finding and Living Your Own Truth” – Elizabeth Gilbert, Eat, Pray, Love

  59. Lost Patrol says:

    @Opus

    assumed that the female is a ho

    I also wondered why the female couldn’t have been “just some chick”, maybe not even promiscuous or gnarly in any way. I figured it was a comic relief post to bring us all back around from our recent highly esoteric theological pursuits. Ho can be a nuanced word in that way, here at least.

    I have seen this old school dating ritual tried out by several young church men on young church women lately. These are high quality individuals that fit the full beta male profile that they were raised in. Damn fine boys every one of them. The girls were not Ho type at all, quite the opposite in fact. Everyone performed their assigned roles as if it were, as Scott says, 1988. They’re all just uncomfortably friends now, and try not to interact much if they can help it.

    If you build them a “good man” (TM) – they will not come. Then a funny thing happened. Some of these girls became engaged, in short order, to unmistakably beta male churchmen of the EXACT type they recently dated to no effect, as far as I can tell. I haven’t figured it out yet.

  60. rugby11 says:

    “Trad-Cons don’t want the Red Pill, they want a time machine.”

  61. Lost Patrol says:

    Trad-Cons don’t want the Red Pill, they want a time machine.

    Still don’t get this, as I would want both. With a time machine and a Red Pill, I could really paint the town.

  62. Basically this man is frustrated because “provider game” from his past doesn’t work now.

    Exactly. His confusion, angst and frustration come from his genuine inability to reconcile his ‘old books’ social contract with the ‘new books’ fempowerment narrative. He’s a prime example of the Beta that’s farmed in most contemporary churches, so his reflexive response isn’t to understand and criticize women (they’re better than men), but to blame men for not being better men. It’s the same ‘women’s horribleness of today is due to men not being ‘Men’ rationale that blames men for other men’s inability to interact with women today according to the ‘new books’ paradigm.

    In other words guys who have consistent troubles with women’s flakiness, vanity, ego-inflation and attracting them to intimacy blame other men (usually above themselves on the dominance hierarchy) for creating their difficulty. If Alpha Chads hadn’t corrupted women they’d all be petite, feminine, chaste and sweet like his church told him women really are.

  63. earlthomas786 says:

    Courtship is what the good guys do instead of Game pervs but with the same basic problems: attempting to create formal procedures that will “guarantee” all the good results we want.

    The best laid plans (no pun intended) of mice and men often go awry.

  64. earlthomas786 says:

    Just the way his writing comes off he is basically admitting how great he is while also simultaneously telling us his life is chaotic. Combine that with putting down men to make himself feel better, and getting mad at past sexual lovers for leaving…he sounds a lot more like a feminist than a tradcon.

    Of course I don’t know when feminism became something that the conservatives now consider traditional but we are 20-40* years past the peak of it.

    *in my opinion

  65. Morgan says:

    The guys getting dates know that putting in effort is a waste of their valuable time. The guys not getting dates are left wondering why the girls don’t appreciate that they time has no value.

  66. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Anonymous Reader: Earl, that’s quite a reveal on his part, given what we now know about the effect of posture on mindset. … slumping induces a lower mindset, sitting or standing straight induces a more positive mindset.

    Maybe, but that’s not how I read his post. My first thought was that he was trying to project a cool, slouching James Dean image.

    In many movies, cool young men slouch. Slouching conveys that they have no respect for authority figures (usually a cop, teacher, or parent). Slouching signals that you “don’t give a damn” what anyone thinks of you. You’re too cool to care. Standing upright is for squares. Boy scouts and good little soldiers.

  67. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    Of course I don’t know when feminism became something that the conservatives now consider traditional but we are 20-40* years past the peak of it.

    Earl, you should know by now from reading Dalrock that “conservatives” are sea-anchors, they do not stop the ship from drifting but just slow it down a bit.

    Conservatives want to conserve the world of their 20’s, so we have men in their 60’s laboring hard to pretend that Mork & Mindy are still somewhere on their cable TV. They also are quite willing to go along with conservative feminism of the 1970’s model, with a bold exception for abortion that enables them to burnish their “antifeminist” credentials. We have men in their 40’s who are always ready to go after those millions of wife-beaters, because VAWA is something from about 23 years go. All the young men learning “yes means yes until it doesn’t” right now are going to be pretty unhappy and obnoxious in 20 years, I predict.

    Future traditional conservatives 15 or so years hence may well be stoutly and conservatively resisting polygamy by upholding the sanctity of both gay and straight marriages of only two people. I’m not joking, I’m extrapolating from past trends to the not very distant future.

    Or…the Gimbutas scenario. I still consider that not very likely, but 3rd stage feminists would go for it, and the 80 / 20 rule that continues to play out across the SMP supports it. Unfortunately.

    We are not yet at peak feminism. It’s delusional to claim feminism peaked 20 years ago in 1997 and downright insane to claim it peaked in 1977.

  68. Anonymous Reader says:

    Anonymous Reader: Earl, that’s quite a reveal on his part, given what we now know about the effect of posture on mindset. … slumping induces a lower mindset, sitting or standing straight induces a more positive mindset.

    Maybe, but that’s not how I read his post. My first thought was that he was trying to project a cool, slouching James Dean image.

    The image in his mind does not contradict the facts of physiology.

    In many movies, cool young men slouch. Slouching conveys that they have no respect for authority figures (usually a cop, teacher, or parent). Slouching signals that you “don’t give a damn” what anyone thinks of you. You’re too cool to care. Standing upright is for squares. Boy scouts and good little soldiers.

    Sure. None of that contradicts the facts of physiology, either. Angry looks to be borderline depressed. Lousy posture contributes to that, in fact there’s a feedback loop of “slouch – get bummed – slouch more – life stinks” that can be observed in people if you know what to look for.

  69. Frank K says:

    If you build them a “good man” (TM) – they will not come. Then a funny thing happened. Some of these girls became engaged, in short order, to unmistakably beta male churchmen of the EXACT type they recently dated to no effect, as far as I can tell. I haven’t figured it out yet.

    It’s easily explained. The virtuous young ladies have had their “fun” and decided it was time to hop off the carousel, snag a nice if boring beta provider and start a family:

  70. cynthia says:

    Trad-Cons don’t want the Red Pill, they want a time machine.

    But only the men. They don’t seem to understand that most women don’t want that. We live in fantasies, not the real world. Sure, there are a lot of women who are into vintage things and the trappings of the old world, usually a cartoonish version of the 1940s or 1890s. But that’s a power fantasy, an interpretation of history that speaks to female demands for independence from a hideous controlling society. Even the woman who fantasize about the past would never embrace the true lifestyle lived during those periods, which was neither as good nor as terrible as they imagine it to be. It’s that typical refusal to live in the real world and face facts.

    I think women are starting to reach a tipping point, though. My generation is paying the price for our mothers’ mid-70s feminist rebellion. I doubt Millennial girls are going to acknowledge the real problems in totality, but I have hope for Gen Z.

    The trick isn’t turning to some false narrative about the past. It’s about creating a new fantasy that works in this place and time.

  71. Frank K says:

    Regarding my comment (with the abstruse goose cartoon), this sort of behavior is now considered
    acceptable for “nice girls” (it’s also OK if they have a few tats as well). A short generation ago it was acceptable for nice girls to sleep with their boyfriends, but now they can slut around and even their “conservative” fathers will shrug and say “It’s a new generation”

  72. DeathWriter says:

    “Chivarly is dead and women killed it”

    — Dave Chapelle

  73. Scott says:

    Future traditional conservatives 15 or so years hence may well be stoutly and conservatively resisting polygamy by upholding the sanctity of both gay and straight marriages of only two people.
    The first person I heard say this out loud was RamZPaul. I thought it sounded ridiculous for a second and then it hit me. This is what “conservatism” is, and has been my whole life.

    I suddenly felt like Charlie Brown having the football yanked out from under me for the millionth time.

  74. Spike says:

    The problem with The Angry Therapist is that he lives by the Old Set of Rules (OSRs). it meant you could do that and in a small percentage of cases, it was reciprocated.Date led to another date, which led to engagement and marriage. You were both in your early twenties.
    What Angry Therapist doesn’t realize is that hos aren’t playing by the OSRs. They know them, alright, but what happens is this:
    They will spontaneously have sex with an exciting bad boy or several, and when a properly civilized good man with a plan, a job, a future, a desire to be married comes along – then suddenly the OSRs kick in and he must be made to wait, chaste and patient because the relationship is ”serious”.

  75. Anonymous Reader says:

    In purely genetic terms, Ghengis Khan was a big winner, supposedly creating 500 children, many of them with women his army delivered to his tent. There’s no way any man could even come close to that sort of genetic influence now. Right?

    Well..
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/24/dutch-sperm-donor-fathered-102-children/

    How did this come to light? Apparently a group of single mothers noticed something and tipped off the Dutch authorities. There’s a whole long rabbit trail down there but I won’t run down it. Not yet anyway.

  76. earlthomas786 says:

    We are not yet at peak feminism. It’s delusional to claim feminism peaked 20 years ago in 1997 and downright insane to claim it peaked in 1977.

    I made that claim because what else can they do or get to make men’s life worse. They already got government subsidies, the courts, education system, media, male spaces, most of the churches, etc.

  77. Embracing Reality says:

    This angry dude is missing out on a huge opportunity. He needs to get himself a trophy wife, clean up his language and start a “non-denominational church” in some storefront strip mall. He could be the next Driscoll, until they catch him doing something illegal.

  78. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    I made that claim because what else can they do or get to make men’s life worse.

    Metastacize “yes means yes until it doesn’t” from the universities into HR’s and the legal system, making false rape accusations more like false DV accusations in terms of “easy to do, with no cost”.
    Shut down all male sports except for football, basketball and track at the high school level, in order to finish off collegiate male sports (except for the ones donors really care about).
    Expand the definition of “common law marriage” to include any form of cohabitiation for more than 6 months, then 3 months, then 30 days.
    Prohibit DNA testing of children to determine paternity without written consent of the mother.
    Allow women to collect child support for the same child from multiple men.
    Extend Title IX to mandate numerical quotas in science and engineering.
    Federal mandate that all board of directors must be at least 50% women.
    Federal mandate that all university faculty must be at least 50% female on a departmental basis.

    Just off the top of my head. Probably more if I thought about it.
    Some of these have already been proposed.

  79. SkylerWurden says:

    This was a magic ritual, that made banging hos moral.

    Money quote right here. Fetishizing the social appearance to the total ignorance of reality.

    White-washed and decorated sepulchres.

  80. SkylerWurden says:

    @frank k

    It’s easily explained. The virtuous young ladies have had their “fun” and decided it was time to hop off the carousel, snag a nice if boring beta provider and start a family:

    Perhaps a little pessimistic. One should not rule out at least some indivuality in the question. An equally simple explanation would be that the girls found a compatible “beta” in other areas; or perhaps realized that they were stuck after a few tries and decided to pull the trigger now instead of waiting.

    this sort of behavior is now considered
    acceptable for “nice girls” (it’s also OK if they have a few tats as well). A short generation ago it was acceptable for nice girls to sleep with their boyfriends, but now they can slut around and even their “conservative” fathers will shrug and say “It’s a new generation”
    That’s just the natural response to a world of egalitarian secularism. “Good boys” have always been treated as such (by society at large), so they are just telling their daughter what they’ve been telling their son all along. Of course men and women are different biologically so the social cost of one is probably higher than the other, but morally they are equal and thus the moral cost of the one (men as sexual libertines) was necessarily going to be the eventual rise of the other (women as far more successful sexual libertines).

    “Good girls” took advantage of the weakness of “good boys” and beat them at their own game. And everyone suffers, including the good girls (no scarequotes) and good boys.

  81. Anon says:

    “Pick up the check. Effort. Effort. Effort. Put some into it. You get back what you put in.”

    Someone this clueless is cringeworthy to read. This is embarrassingly blue pill.

    BUT, he could find happiness dating Ming Na, someone who demands that men pick up the tab, despite calling herself a ‘conservative’.

  82. Anon says:

    We are not yet at peak feminism. It’s delusional to claim feminism peaked 20 years ago in 1997 and downright insane to claim it peaked in 1977.

    Agreed. Anyone who claims this has no clue.

    A famous article written on the first day of 2010 predicted that peak feminism would be in 2020. So far, that prediction seems sound.

    Remember that the FI is distinct from ‘feminism’. The FI is even older than humanity itself. That is why anyone who thinks that all this started in 1858 at Seneca Falls, or because of some 20th century event, or because of a group that is just 2% of the population, has no clue. That is both a US-centric viewpoint, while also ignorant of both historicity and biology.

  83. Anon says:

    *Ying Ma

  84. Anon says:

    Actually, the ‘Angry Therapist’ has so many things wrong in his disastrous screed that it is almost a parody.

    Then I would drive to the movie theater to buy the tickets in advance so we wouldn’t have to wait in line (this was before the internet).

    Movie Date. Fail.

    And of course, dinner reservations were already made.

    Dinner Date? In 2017? Epic fail. She probably had sex with another man less than 24 hours after he paid for dinner.

    I would compliment her appearance

    Fail. A big no-no within any school of Game.

    Pick up the check. Effort. Effort. Effort. Put some into it. You get back what you put in.

    Epic Fail. Good god, what a loser. He has no idea that he is paying for PUAs to have sex for free. Well, it is good that he is doing the grunt work to keep the machinery humming.

  85. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    You bring up a lot of memories with this post Mister “D”. In my early twenties I used to do the same thing as this guy……except I knew I was going to get laid because the women I dated were easy. I always went for the easy ones.The charade of a “date” was to look like a nice guy…..even though my ultimate goal was to get her in bed.Driving a Corvette also helped. Then I hit 30 and discovered that this is WAY WAY too much work for poosey! Then I became more forward and have a “don’t waste my time attitude”…which also worked.It worked because the women I was banging had already been on the carousel for the last 10 to 12 years and figured that this was the way to land me.They were wrong….I was right!
    Now,lets fast forward to today.If a 23 year old guy asked my advice(and lots have) and said that he was going to “date” this girl I would recommend that he does not waste his time and take the easy road to scoring.Give it to her point blank…..”Would you like to get a case of beer and go screw?…..or don’t you like beer?”…If she says “I love beer”…then you are in!!!…If she says “NO”….Then……SW….SW….SW….NEXT!….Which translates…Some will….Some won’t…So what….NEXT!!…….Don’t waste your time.
    My current g/f I actually “dated”….and it took me 6 months to get her in the sheets! That is VERY VERY rare. The longest wait I have ever had…….And I had to fly to West Virginia for the date.But,pertaining to your post…the women that I have met in Toronto are not worthy of a “date”.They are hos and only good for banging.If I have to wait 2 days that is far too long!

  86. SkylerWurden says:

    Then I hit 30

    These are the most depressing words in the English language. Young men who waste their youth pursuing cheap, superficial thrills and instead of growing up when they become old men they double down and throw all dignity out the window. When I was 17-21 I remember seeing the losers who were still at the party when they were pushing 30 and thinking I couldn’t imagine what kind of inner shame that must bring. Now those guys are pushing 40 and still at the party.

    At a certain point it becomes useless to keep blaming the feminists. They gave us the gun, but we pulled the trigger.

  87. Mineter says:

    “Consent is sexy” said one of the comments to Angry Therapist’s article. ROFLMAO. Then again, perhaps an “honest” conversation about “your place or mine?” should help inform you about whether or not to split the upcoming bill.

  88. Anchorman says:

    He has clearly not been dating any 5+ woman younger than 40 in decades.

  89. feministhater says:

    These are the most depressing words in the English language. Young men who waste their youth pursuing cheap, superficial thrills and instead of growing up when they become old men they double down and throw all dignity out the window. When I was 17-21 I remember seeing the losers who were still at the party when they were pushing 30 and thinking I couldn’t imagine what kind of inner shame that must bring. Now those guys are pushing 40 and still at the party.

    At a certain point it becomes useless to keep blaming the feminists. They gave us the gun, but we pulled the trigger.

    Lol, stop shaming. That’s all you have. Any solutions yet or you going to keep on shaming and telling men to ‘man up’ when there is nothing to man up for but a used up whore?

    Who cares about parties? One must just enjoy life as best they can as there is no solution to the problem of feminism and tracons but their own misery. It must be heaped on these two groups in spades.

  90. Opus says:

    How is one supposed to distinguish between a ho – that is to say a slut, a slag, a skank – and a chaster female – a bint, a bird, a babe? This is made all the more difficult, because unlike a motor-vehicle, a woman does not come with a documented, stamped, initialed, log-book recording every oil-change, tyre-replacement or servicing. Worse: women do tend to be somewhat economic with truth so that one cannot rely upon the veracity of their verbal assertions.

    Dates, were, as the Therapist says, fun: asking the girl out, waiting impatiently for the day, putting on ones most trendy clothing, driving to her home, driving to the selected venue and so on. My own advice is that attempting to achieve more than one thing on any one date is one or more things too many. A movie – if you must – dinner, a bar, but not all three or even all two. She, naturally, will be nervous, having dolled herself-up, and demure of mien and keen to ensure that you are the real deal and you will be keen to think the best of her, keen to overlook her humble origins – she is after all for the evening yours – but enough of 1970. As the lyrics of that year’s famous song retell: ‘if her Daddy’s rich take her out for a meal, if her Daddy’s poor just do what you feel’ – but perhaps Mungo Jerry never made it big in America.

    My friend told me last night that his daughter has now decided that her friend with lots of benefits is a rapist (of the Assange type). What do you expect I observed given the awful school he attended somewhat glossing over what I see as massive parental failure. My friend looked up the school on his mobile somewhat shocked as to the accuracy of my assertion. At least back in 1970 a regular boyfriend meant matrimony but now the young rapee is to be cast back onto the carousel (off to college next month); my view of her reduced from that of desirable and virginal to that of used and usable goods.

  91. earlthomas786 says:

    Young men who waste their youth pursuing cheap, superficial thrills and instead of growing up when they become old men they double down and throw all dignity out the window.

    True…but how is any of that going to change if women are not only doing the same thing, but making it as easy as the commenter seems to make it sound. I mean whenever I look at social media a lot of young women are not only pursuing cheap superficial thrills…they are making a picture diary of it for the world to see.

    The title of this post is ‘cheapening seduction’…and while the premise of the post was about provider game now is basically a waste of time, the other part of cheap seduction is how relatively easy it is for a woman to hand out sex to random men (Tinder). If they’ve made it that cheap…some men are going to think the path of superficial thrills is worth staying on rather than maturing. Now I’d advise those men that pursuing a life of hedonism will eventually fill them with emptiness and depression…but it’s their free will choice.

    At a certain point it becomes useless to keep blaming the feminists. They gave us the gun, but we pulled the trigger.

    Now you have to ask yourself who gave the feminists the gun. Who gave Eve the idea to eat the forbidden fruit? That’s who you really need to fight in this battle.

  92. earlthomas786 says:

    My friend told me last night that his daughter has now decided that her friend with lots of benefits is a rapist (of the Assange type).

    Amazing how quickly consent to fornication can suddenly change to rape if she thinks she isn’t getting what she wants out of the exchange.

  93. Novaseeker says:

    When I was 17-21 I remember seeing the losers who were still at the party when they were pushing 30 and thinking I couldn’t imagine what kind of inner shame that must bring. Now those guys are pushing 40 and still at the party.

    The girls are still there, too.

    Heck, by the time you’re in your 50s, what you see is that 60-70% of the women have given up, and the other 30-40% are acting like they are still 25, in terms of dress, behavior, social life. It has to do with the culture in general which, when it becomes centered around sex, will of course also become centered around youth (or pretend youth) for a certain portion of the population.

  94. Lost Patrol says:

    The virtuous young ladies have had their “fun” and decided it was time to hop off the carousel, snag a nice if boring beta provider and start a family:

    I do understand the standard model, but this doesn’t seem to fit. There did not seem to be time for too many trysts with PUA types. The women are age 19-23, and the men they agreed to marry look to me like xerox copies of the men they very recently dated but it went no further. Maybe the second batch of betas did not date them first?

  95. squid_hunt says:

    @Opus

    I mean whenever I look at social media a lot of young women are not only pursuing cheap superficial thrills…they are making a picture diary of it for the world to see.

    I think this may answer your question. One upside to feminism is that women are remarkably bold in their proclamation of their status now. If nothing else, they’re usually carting around a couple kids of dubious origin.

  96. Novaseeker says:

    The first person I heard say this out loud was RamZPaul. I thought it sounded ridiculous for a second and then it hit me. This is what “conservatism” is, and has been my whole life.

    I suddenly felt like Charlie Brown having the football yanked out from under me for the millionth time.

    Scott — Yep. Basically the conservatives are the water carriers for the progressives — they are the spoonful of sugar that helps the progressive medicine go down by slowing down the progressive bus and making the changes easier to swallow. They have no other significant political function. Once you realize that (and many young guys are realizing it), you can understand why the alt-right has been growing. It often stands for vile things (imo), but at least it stands for something other than just slowing down the progressive agenda only to endorse it a few decades later.

    Dinner Date? In 2017? Epic fail. She probably had sex with another man less than 24 hours after he paid for dinner.

    Anon — Yep. Dinner and a Movie is just beta provider schlub signaling in 2017. Heck that was passe in 2005. So cliched and so boring, really. No wonder he’s angry.

  97. Damn Crackers says:

    OT: But, Satanists admit they’re progressive feminists (behind paywall):

    http://www.dailywire.com/news/20102/wapo-editorial-satan-good-christians-are-john-nolte

  98. Opus says:

    @squid hunt

    You have mistaken Earl’s writing for mine – though that sort of mis-attribution always flatter me.

  99. rugby11 says:

    SkylerWurden
    “When I was 17-21 I remember seeing the losers who were still at the party when they were pushing 30 and thinking I couldn’t imagine what kind of inner shame that must bring. Now those guys are pushing 40 and still at the party.

    At a certain point it becomes useless to keep blaming the feminists. They gave us the gun, but we pulled the trigger.”

    Been seening this a good portion of my life.

  100. Gunner Q says:

    Lost Patrol @ 7:53 am:
    “I do understand the standard model, but this doesn’t seem to fit. There did not seem to be time for too many trysts with PUA types. The women are age 19-23, and the men they agreed to marry look to me like xerox copies of the men they very recently dated but it went no further. Maybe the second batch of betas did not date them first?”

    What you’re looking at is that brief moment in history when the women were decently raised and the men went full-retard white knights. It didn’t last for long because women inevitably learned to take advantage of the situation. Today, the white knights know women aren’t like that anymore but have only two possible responses:

    1. Blame themselves for being enablers.

    2. Blame other men for taking advantage of women taking advantage of the white knights.

  101. squid_hunt says:

    @Opus
    No. I just thought his response answered your question.

  102. Opus says:

    @squid hunt

    Oh, I see. Thanks.

  103. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘How is one supposed to distinguish between a ho – that is to say a slut, a slag, a skank – and a chaster female – a bint, a bird, a babe?’

    Yeah I think social media is a very good indicator…along with what you see.

    If she’s posting non stop selfies to get a rise out of thirsty males…thats your slam dunk.

  104. Boxer says:

    Opus sez:

    How is one supposed to distinguish between a ho – that is to say a slut, a slag, a skank – and a chaster female – a bint, a bird, a babe? This is made all the more difficult, because unlike a motor-vehicle, a woman does not come with a documented, stamped, initialed, log-book recording every oil-change, tyre-replacement or servicing. Worse: women do tend to be somewhat economic with truth so that one cannot rely upon the veracity of their verbal assertions.

    Here’s my list:
    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/for-the-single-bros/

    Hope it’s helpful.

    Boxer

  105. Embracing Reality says:

    Sluts or not sluts?

    Sometimes it’s obvious sometimes they’ll even tell you or give a demonstration. I’m dating women mid 30’s and later who want a husband so they generally know better by then. What about the past? Watch carefully for dishonesty in everything they do or say. If she lies about anything you can be sure she’ll lie about her sexual past. I get around to the conversation about her sexual partners soon in the relationship because if it’s unacceptable I need to know before we both get hurt. It’s been a long road of disappointment for me.

  106. anonymous_ng says:

    When I was 17-21 I remember seeing the losers who were still at the party when they were pushing 30 and thinking I couldn’t imagine what kind of inner shame that must bring. Now those guys are pushing 40 and still at the party.

    OR, it’s when the wife of your youth decides that she’s done with you, turns you into the cuck by spreading her whore legs for a bunch of other guys without even the courtesy of waiting until the frivorce is done.

    At that point, you re-engage with the party and bang a bunch of much younger whores.

    P.S. – Later, when you get right with God again, well, then you’re just incel trying to figure out the answer. Ummm, according to a friend. LOL

  107. Lost Patrol says:

    @Gunner Q

    What you’re looking at is that brief moment in history when the women were decently raised and the men went full-retard white knights.

    I’m watching this in real time, 2016-2017, but it does match with comments above about conservatives and what they’re conserving. These girls were raised in fairly religious two parent homes by white knights as you say. The families, which I know but cannot claim to know well, appear to be of the school of compromise-tarianism. They do many good works. The women wield considerable power. I suppose the girls are following the model they’ve grown up with, and expect to be served well by their future servant leaders.

    Maybe they selected from the second batch because they could see by then that’s how things were going to be based on who took them on dates earlier. Their upbringings sheltered them from a lot of temptations, exposed them mostly to mild men, and will provide their new husbands with fresh wives of the kind many young men would seek. Strange. In that respect the men have done well, but in all probability at the expense of being her helpmeet.

    I could be wrong and I hope I am. Maybe young men today know so much more than my crew ever did that they can run their own show as God intended.

  108. earlthomas786 says:

    @Boxer…

    Here’s my list:

    That’s the type of list I’d have in mind when you are trying to determine if said woman is promiscuous or not without outright asking her. I’d also add along with the tats…piercings outside of the earlob (navel, nose, and those ugly ones somewhere on the cheek) and hair color that doesn’t exist in humans. If you ever talk with those women you quickly find out the jaded and tough guy attitude quickly comes out too.

    Also a sneaky one but it’s often verified…they fake bake tan a lot.

  109. BillyS says:

    My current g/f I actually “dated”….and it took me 6 months to get her in the sheets! That is VERY VERY rare. The longest wait I have ever had…….And I had to fly to West Virginia for the date.But,pertaining to your post…the women that I have met in Toronto are not worthy of a “date”.They are hos and only good for banging.If I have to wait 2 days that is far too long!

    If a 23 year old guy asked my advice(and lots have) and said that he was going to “date” this girl I would recommend that he does not waste his time and take the easy road to scoring.

    [Heb 11:24-25 NKJV] 24 By faith Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, 25 choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin,

    Enjoy being a nothing in the grand scheme of things. Moses is the example that could have had all the poon he wanted. He passed it by for the greater purpose.

    This doesn’t mean the Angry Therapist is right, for he really is an idiot as well. But promoting hedonism shows a shallow individual and shows that things are really messed up when such things are said publicly with no shame.

    FH,

    Lol, stop shaming. That’s all you have. Any solutions yet or you going to keep on shaming and telling men to ‘man up’ when there is nothing to man up for but a used up whore?

    I don’t remember if you claimed to follow Christ, but promoting actions like the ones I quoted is not walking that out. Yeah, it is horribly corrupt today, but we should not pursue sin however bad things are.

    It was probably worse in Paul’s time (all things considered), but Paul never wrote to go out and “bang a ho!”

    Get over your anger and find ways to help men out, not put them in bondage to sin. Going for sex all the time will lead to destruction as much as anything else today. The wages of sin is death, plain and simple, no matter how much pleasure is along the way. Banging strange women on a regular basis is not bright for many reasons past the shaming.

    Opus,

    As the lyrics of that year’s famous song retell: ‘if her Daddy’s rich take her out for a meal, if her Daddy’s poor just do what you feel’ – but perhaps Mungo Jerry never made it big in America.

    He was a one-hit wonder. I tend to like the song, but that is most because it was playing when I was growing up. Not the best ethical underpinnings. Quite accurate, unfortunately, especially as that has become a commonplace practice today. Though the meal may no longer be needed today, even for the rich girl.

    Novaseeker,

    (speaking of the alt-right)

    It often stands for vile things (imo)

    .

    I have seen some of that, but not all. I am a bit more tolerant of some things I would have strongly opposed on principle earlier in life, but I see that “movement” as a better way to fight for what is truly right than just yelling “stop” while things plow along.

    anonymous_ng,

    At that point, you re-engage with the party and bang a bunch of much younger whores.

    No thanks. I still value my commitment to God too much, in spite of how much the demise of my long term marriage has hit me.

    I can see why it is tempting, but sin is foolish to boldly follow, however tempting it may be. That is something that is frequently missing in this discussion.

    I know many here have sworn off women completely, and that route may be forced on me, but I refuse to just become a hater, even if the target deserves hate. I would rather be known as a righteousness lover than an evil hater. The former is much more productive. (This is not meant to be an attack on FH, BTW. I am just noting what I attempt to do in my own life.)

  110. BillyS says:

    Bad close tag there. My comments start at “No thanks” near the end.

  111. earlthomas786 says:

    Enjoy being a nothing in the grand scheme of things. Moses is the example that could have had all the poon he wanted. He passed it by for the greater purpose.

    You are going to find two camps of men here…men who understand a God purpose driven life is more important than sex, and men who think sex/thrills/hedonism is more important than a God purpose driven life. Basically it’s either love of God or love of the world.

  112. seventiesjason says:

    The winter also assumes that every guy back in the 1980’s and 1990’s actually had dates. Not mentioning the fact many of us did indeed try.

    Again it is assumed that women are just pure and nice. They love being asked out on a date. They are give people a chance. We know better.

    Even back in the hazy days of the 1st Bush administration the ground was already set. Though it didn’t have a classification yet….the 80 / 20 thing was in full swing. Most of marriages of my circle of friends from my college and grad school days ended up by a mutual friend introducing the future couple. It wasn’t the classic “pursuing” and “effort” and being “nice”

    By the summer of 1994 when I was 24, I got tired of always being to chump to dry the tears, talk all night with, encourage, help and just be the decent guy who was “always there” for the women I did know / try to date (always a polite no) / or build attraction with.

    Even now. I don’t date, ask, be-a-friend or help, or give advice. Nor do I listen when a woman says “why can’t all Christian men be like you”

    I will be formally introduced to a woman for dating. That’s it.

    Before many will tell me I have poor manners, or I’m ugly, or I live in mommy’s basesment, and play video games…….you have no idea on what kind of man I am.

    You can say its a “numbers game”. Well, I am not a number. I am a free man. The woman I would want to be with would not think this way either.

    You could argue very well about internet dating, joining / finding a larger church. My reply is that larger churches have this problem too (no good men in any church….according to the ‘cough’ saintly-daughters-of-the-King and the 80 / 20 thing is exasperated further on internet dating).

    It was a long journey. Lots of tears, anger, and resentment….and even entitlement. As my thirties waned I fortunately and finally understood Christ’s wisdom. Life went on, and women for the most part are not worth the time.

    I’ve never been more busy or active than I am now. If only I had this mindset first at 24 instead of anger, and addiction and stupid posturing get seeded.

    Dating is a racket. This therapist should know better……as for effort….. He can start by fixing his posture and his thesis

  113. Embracing Reality says:

    Seventiesjason,

    We’re the same age you and l and I largely concur with what you wrote regarding the 80’s and the decades that followed. The 80/20 rule may be exaggerated but single churchian girls from the churches I attended were compromising themselves sexually and often with non-believers. Quite a few of these girls were pregnant in or shortly after high school no husband in sight, despite be raised in church. I could rarely date a virgin even when I was dating girls who were 17. The solution offered was grace, grace and more greasy grace. It’s a ridiculous joke at this point to even call most of these organizations “church”. There certainly isn’t any point in attending let alone contributions.

    I’m single, never married, no kids and feeling pretty good about that.

  114. SkylerWurden says:

    @Feministhater

    One must just enjoy life as best they can as there is no solution to the problem of feminism and tracons but their own misery.

    As I’ve said three or four times to you already: you are overstating the case in every way.

    1) There are still some good women put there. They are rare and probably out of our reach, but they exist.
    2) The “misery” of celibacy is not that bad. It doesn’t even rise to the level of missing out on a chance to watch a favorite TV show or play a favorite video-game, much less compare to the real misery of lacking essential goods like food and shelter. It ranks somewhere between “man that sucks” and “meh”.
    3) Marriage and (since we’re being honest here) cheap sex are not so great that missing them qualifies as “misery” unless one decides to be miserable about it.

    Furthermore: Since personal, earthly satisfaction is all you care about, the idea of spiritual, heavenly satisfaction obviously means nothing to you. Of course that is very silly because you’re not even getting the earthly pleasures, so really you are just giving up spiritual happiness for the chance to whine about not getting enough earthly happiness. I could see rejecting spiritual happiness if you were living the high life and had all kinds of earthly distractions, still foolish but at least understandable. But you clearly aren’t, so your bitter rejection of the only happiness and the only solution available is all the more confusing.

    Anyway if you chase after the Chad you’ll always lose. The sluts will never be as hot for you, will never be as hot period, and will always wish they could have something better. All the “sick Game” in the world will still put you below the natural Alpha, and you’ll still be unhappy. Why join a rat-race you can’t possibly win?

  115. SkylerWurden says:

    @earlthomas786

    Oh I understand the reasons why it happens, I’m just saying those reasons are also self-perpetuating. If the response to degeneracy is more degeneracy then one begins to find it hard to sympathize with anyone. Women took advantage of a social situation encouraging loose morals to secure themselves a “better” position. Men respond by doubling down and generate an entire scientific field to create the “better Beta” (Game theory). The strategy is is doomed to failure in the long-run, for largely the same reason it fails for women.

    The Alpha will always be ahead of even the “better Beta” in the cheap sex game because he sees exponentially higher rewards for his efforts. Betas invent Game to compete and the Alpha can learn 10% (just throwing numbers out there) and rocket back ahead of the Better Beta. Just like the hot slut can beat the homely slut, both in terms of securing better “courting” during the sex phase and better prospects during the “marriage” phase. And even though men do enjoy a distinct advantage in time (SMV peaking later and lastong longer) they are still to some degree bound by age. The 40-45 year old “player” is at a distinct disadvantage both in terms of sex and marriage when he is competing against the 30-35 year old version of himself. He has a slightly longer time-frame in which he can deny reality, but the chickens eventually come home to roost and the “good” memories won’t help him anymore than they help the Aging Slut.

    One side or another needs to set aside their pride and be willing to take a leap of faith and double down on God instead. Satan wins as long as men and women are both unwilling to invest in the not-too-distant future of old-age and death. Of course such leaps of faith also demand sacrifice and humility and both are sadly lacking in our society.

  116. Anon says:

    Scott,

    Future traditional conservatives 15 or so years hence may well be stoutly and conservatively resisting polygamy by upholding the sanctity of both gay and straight marriages of only two people.
    The first person I heard say this out loud was RamZPaul. I thought it sounded ridiculous for a second and then it hit me. This is what “conservatism” is, and has been my whole life.

    I lost one of my childhood friends over this.

    I was completely apolitical until 9/11/01, when to me, it became obvious that we should fight back.

    I started reading National Review, which at the time was still pro free markets and small government (both of which are important to me), but I did not realize, as a newcomer to politics, that this was their position only because the Reagan revolution was 20 years before.

    My friend and I agreed on everything. We called and talked about political minutiae often.

    But by 2007 or so, I began to notice this phenomenon, about how they just advocate what the left was advancing 20 years prior. For this reason, my enthusiasm for the GOP waned..

    Ad I became red pilled around 2009 or so, I realized that Republicans are not really against ‘feminism’ at all. They are in fact often the most zealous propagators of it. The 1996 ‘welfare reform’ was anything but. It was a GOP victory only because it moved single mother costs from the taxpayer to the father, with imputation to boot. This was a ‘victory’ to the GOP.

    My friend, on the other hand, was still a ‘the GOP can do no wrong’ doctrinaire. As I introduced red pill ideas to him, he somewhat agree, but still remained ‘purple pill’, and could not accept that the GOP is not really against ‘feminism’. He continued to engage in fights with Democrat family friends over email and in Internet comment sections. He often got into trouble doing this, with some leftists calling his parents to complain. He still donated a lot of money to GOP politicians and pressured me to do the same.

    I kept saying that I felt misandry was the primary thing wrong in America, and supporting phony GOP politicians was not a path to anywhere. He did not agree, and started to shame me for leaving the GOP. I did not realize that until now, our friendship since age 4, was now contingent on me being a card-carrying GOP party-line hack..

    Eventually, he escalated the shaming language until I just cut ties. He just would not allow an option of not spending tons of time fighting for the GOP, donating to the GOP, etc. He could never really understand that the GOP just moves leftward with the Dems, at a 20-year delay effect. No matter how many times one explained. He could not grasp that the GOP position on abortion was not really anti-feminist either, and that neither side was holding the woman accountable on any level.

    Alas, we just could not be friends any more. I have no idea what he thinks now about the ascent of Trump, etc..

  117. Anonymous Reader says:

    Skyler, FeministHater is still stuck in the anger phase of unplugging. In the anger phase a lot of circular thinking leads back to the same place, anger. I like to think that he’ll work his way out of it in a few years. Where that will leave him I’m not sure.

    Nothing personal, but there’s a lot you do not know about women, and you know nothing of the applied psychology called Game. Probably should read more – use the search tool to search this site for a start, read Donal Graham’s site for second – and write less. It’s not good to comment from a position of no-knowledge. However, expecting women to “come to their senses” is part of what got us where we are today, so you might want to reconsider that expectation. It won’t happen any time soon.

    However, I’m heartened to see that you have a kind of light-weight understanding of the different SMV curves. That concept needs much wider exposure.

  118. BillyS says:

    Earl,

    You are going to find two camps of men here…men who understand a God purpose driven life is more important than sex, and men who think sex/thrills/hedonism is more important than a God purpose driven life. Basically it’s either love of God or love of the world.

    I have already seen plenty of it. We all of some agreement, and areas where we disagree. Going after sex as a god does go against both the Scriptures and Dalrock’s personal focus, so it is necessary to regularly remind those who worship sex that our lives are meant for far more than that.

    Skyler,

    You could probably step back a bit and learn why FH thinks the way he does. I don’t agree with it, as I noted before, but my own ex-wife was viewed as a “fine Christian woman” prior to our marriage and would probably be viewed as such by most now. The evil rot is buried much deeper and very few recognize it.

    I do believe some good women are out there, but Solomon was right when he noted it was very hard to find a virtuous woman, even back in his day. It is no better now. Different problems, but same core issue. The tougher challenge is that society actively works to corrupt those women and make them follow their own base desires, as long as they act properly in church. It is just a facade, but few look past it.

    That makes finding that virtuous woman VERY DIFFICULT!

    AR,

    I would agree with your reply. Both FH and Skyler need to see a bit more widely.

  119. Novaseeker says:

    2) The “misery” of celibacy is not that bad. It doesn’t even rise to the level of missing out on a chance to watch a favorite TV show or play a favorite video-game, much less compare to the real misery of lacking essential goods like food and shelter. It ranks somewhere between “man that sucks” and “meh”.

    Really, Skyler? I mean I agree that it is lower than essentials like food and shelter, and I also agree that everyone has to go without of sex for periods in life (married or not) for various reasons, but do you really think that the male sex drive ranks below the desire to watch TV or play video games? For most men?

    I suppose this could be a generational difference, but if that is true for you and the men you know of your age, we have bigger problems than the stuff that is being discussed here.

  120. Embracing Reality says:

    “We have bigger problems than the stuff that is being discussed here”?

    Sex is about power in this corrupt society. Female sexuality is used everywhere to manipulate men. That’s disgusting. The media, advertisers even women themselves use sex to manipulate us, trick us out of not only what we work for but potentially our whole lives. Is it such a leap to imagine how sex itself can start to look like a dirty trick? How it can start to make women look like dirty tricksters? Think about used car sales people, full of trick, lies, scams. Now imagine an attractive young woman in tight close trying to sell you a piece of junk, overpriced used car. I’ve met these women, at the car dealership, at churches. Sexually attractive but disgusting none the less.

    Even if I was a non-believer I would find these women disgusting. l might even be afraid of free sex with them because of std’s. When I think about it at times I’m disillusioned with sex. The high numbers of previous sexual partners that have done everything to these women. The manipulation, dishonesty, selfishness. I’m not even counting the overweight women that are basically invisible to me.

    The things discussed on this site seem a plausible explanation for Men losing interest in sex to me.

  121. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    Rollo Tomassi (Aug. 24, 2017 at 4:05 pm) wrote:

    Trad-Cons don’t want the Red Pill, they want a time machine.

    I have huge respect for “Rollo Tomassi“, in the very simple sense that he has opened my eyes to a lot of the realities of the modern SMP & MMP. But I think he’s wrong here.

    What TrogCons want, is a “Time Machine” that will take them “back” to “the past” in some alternate, fantasy timeline, which is not the same thing.

    (Or, very probably, I am merely repeating Rollo’s point, except rephrased with a different metaphor.)

  122. seventiesjason says:

    The only real advantage of marriage in a Christian sense and tradition is the very hyped “you get to have sex!!!!!!”

    Met plenty of married Christian men my age who never got sex on a regular basis after the 2.5 kids….or its given begrudgingly and only if the “honey do” list is done or if it’s his birthday.

    At one of the men’s “accountability groups” I belong to, the topic of sex came up. I had to play the attentive listener here…….and the frustration from too many married men of little or no sex from their wives…..one man said “I got married to share this, she never wants sex”

    The chump pastor said “sex to women is about her feelings outside the bedroom”

    I was shocked. Even in Christian marriage….a man who is in church. Is striving…..he “still” just isnt deserving or good enough

    This pastor continued with tripe about the wife being a “queen” and men have to “man up” to have sex.

    Nobody told these men this before marriage. No, beforehand so many of these men were told “if you burn of passion that they should get married”

    I was probably beyond hope of marriage by the time I fully committed to Christ. But after being around many married Christians……they really have not sold me on it being a solid deal, a fair shake, an adventure together…..and a lot if work tooo but really worth it.

    I’ve met only tiny group of married Christians that are actually not boring.

    I am really starting to think the reason why so many pastors are talking about sex n marriage souch is the fact that they are not happy and now must inflict this unhappiness on every man that confesses Jesus. Horrible of me I know……but I’ve been more turned off to dating and marriage since becoming a Christian almost ten years ago

  123. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    Scott (Aug. 24, 2017 at 1:49 pm) wrote:

    “[…] I was 17 years old in 1988, the zenith of [the ‘dating’] mating format […]”

    You mean twilight and not zenith, right? Or if you meant zenith (= “peak”, “maximum”, “highest point”), I guess I disagree.

    I’ve been trying for some time to identify a benchmark year for when SMP/MMP could be said definitively to have already gone all to hell — and although there isn’t one single such year, it seems to me that 1990 is a good first approximation. I would argue “dating” was at its “zenith” (its peak) ca. 1965 — to use two rather poorly defined terms, I would further argue that dating-as-courtship gave way to dating-as-hookup gradually, between about 1965 and about 1985. YMMV.

    Maybe the litmus test is that people stopped “dating” around the time they also stopped being able to get a “Marriage 1.0”. Incentives (available objectives) surely must make for a powerful — however unconscious — definer of behaviors. Take away “Marriage 1.0”, whether people in general realize it is gone, and it’s MMP 2.0, not MMP 1.0. No?

  124. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    Anonymous Reader (August 24, 2017 at 6:31 pm) wrote:

    Future traditional conservatives 15 or so years hence may well be stoutly and conservatively resisting polygamy by upholding the sanctity of both gay and straight marriages of only two people. I’m not joking, I’m extrapolating from past trends to the not very distant future.

    AR, here’s someone who heartily agrees with you:

    “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.”

    ― G.K. Chesterton

    (He wrote that ca. 1921, IIRC.)

  125. Embracing Reality says:

    Pastors “inflicting this unhappiness on every man that confesses Jesus”? Likely, yes! A lot of them have wives that could haunt a house, or who run their whole lives just like their mommies did. Actually l’ve noticed a lot of chumps trapped in obviously miserable marriages will give single men the “man up” speech. Or “when are you gonna get married”? Some of these guys are just plain idiots, straight up stupid as a fence post dolts. I knew one married guy who said he thought he had been married 10 times, couldn’t remember for sure. Seriously. He gave me the spiel once and I gave him some red pills, shut him right down. Last I heard he was separated and his soon to be ex wanted half his business. Fence post.

  126. feeriker says:

    My friend told me last night that his daughter has now decided that her friend with lots of benefits is a rapist (of the Assange type).

    Amazing how quickly consent to fornication can suddenly change to rape if she thinks she isn’t getting what she wants out of the exchange.

    The darker side of me has long believed that any woman who takes the concept of rape so lightly as to make a baseless accusation of it against a man deserves to suffer the real thing. Not the 50SOG fantasy version, but the East Prussia April 1945 version that might just kill her.

  127. BillyS says:

    Anyone who thinks sex outside marriage has no risks:

    The wages of sin is still death.

  128. @seventiesjason:

    It’s the structure. Men are cognizant of the power relationship; Women are instinctively attuned to abusing it. That’s the power of being able to call the State and having a husband removed from the home. At some point, everyone just ignores the pins & needles that Men are tiptoeing around.

    It’s the reason massive changes are coming to all of the Churches. It’s been 500 years. Reformation 2.0 is coming and the Fire is going to burn away much of the “church” in the process.

    @feeriker:

    One of the sadder things to learn as an adult is that you can’t beat sense into a fool. It might be cathartic for you, but the fool still doesn’t get it.

  129. BillyS says:

    The “misery” of celibacy is not that bad.

    I missed that. Totally idiotic. Sex is a lot more important than a favorite TV show. Have you been married Skyler?

  130. feministhater says:

    Furthermore: Since personal, earthly satisfaction is all you care about, the idea of spiritual, heavenly satisfaction obviously means nothing to you. Of course that is very silly because you’re not even getting the earthly pleasures, so really you are just giving up spiritual happiness for the chance to whine about not getting enough earthly happiness. I could see rejecting spiritual happiness if you were living the high life and had all kinds of earthly distractions, still foolish but at least understandable. But you clearly aren’t, so your bitter rejection of the only happiness and the only solution available is all the more confusing.

    I never said any of that. Provide the proof.

    I said it is best to get the most you can from life and leave the obviously bad deals alone. I never said one must live a hedonistic lifestyle. Provide the proof where I say that the spiritual or heavenly that comes after this life means nothing at all. Provide the proof.

    I haven’t given up on any of that. In fact that’s what I keep on telling men to do. To put away their sexual desires for an obviously bad deal and learn to live a celibate life.

    Married life is not a solution to the current problem. For most men it will only exacerbate the problem, as has been pointed out to you many times. The majority of men will have miserable marriages where they will have little to no sex and they will still have to live celibate lives.

    There are still some good women put there. They are rare and probably out of our reach, but they exist.

    I agree, there are some good women out there. If you can see that, then you’re obviously aware that most men will not find them or be able to marry them, thus thwarting the rest of your diatribe. If they are rare or out of reach, it’s the same as if they don’t exist at all. Unicorn shit mate. If you find some Unicorn shit, you’ll be the richest man in all the world, it’s still just shit though.

    Anyway if you chase after the Chad you’ll always lose. The sluts will never be as hot for you, will never be as hot period, and will always wish they could have something better. All the “sick Game” in the world will still put you below the natural Alpha, and you’ll still be unhappy. Why join a rat-race you can’t possibly win?

    Lol, wtf. I’m not chasing after Chad…. what the heck do you even mean here? I’m not looking for a slut, I’m not looking to be a natural Alpha, I don’t care for any of this shit. Why did you even bring this up? It’s got nothing to do with anything anyone else has said. I’m not interested in joining that rat-race or the rat-race that you envision, they are both equally shitty deals based on a premise that no longer exists.

    In the end, you provide nothing meaningful but more shaming. I’m not even angry at you anymore. You’re stuck trying to defend the indefensible. It’s not a good position to be in.

  131. feministhater says:

    I don’t remember if you claimed to follow Christ, but promoting actions like the ones I quoted is not walking that out. Yeah, it is horribly corrupt today, but we should not pursue sin however bad things are.

    I don’t know exactly who said this quote, I think it’s Billy but his comment is all mucked up. It’s in response to me so I’ll respond.

    I didn’t promote any of the actions that Mark stated in his comment. I’ve stated my position many times. I simply told Skyler to stop shaming when he has no solutions and only keeps telling men to ‘man up’. It solves nothing in the long-term because the cause is still very much alive.

    Once again, I promote a celibate life without marriage, for marriage is currently a bad deal that solves none of the problems it purports to and leads to a celibate lifestyle anyway. It is best to enjoy the life you are given, not to seek temptation and to try and lead the most sinless life you can. I’m an unsaved Christian as I’ve stated before. Perhaps I haven’t seen the light yet. I don’t know if God even cares about my life issues, only my soul, so if that’s the case, I have to take care of my own issues here on earth whilst trying to protect my soul to the best of my ability.

    Now, if any of you can provide the place or means to have a Biblical Marriage for the average man and not just settle for the modern day marriage sham instead of ums and ahs, I’m all ears. Don’t use shame. Don’t tell a man to ‘man up’, give him true practical advise he can use and where he should spend his time searching. A man only has so much he can give before he becomes disillusioned. Also, if you’re going to go the ‘vetting’ route, rather don’t bother. Vetting helps in some cases but it relies on the idea that women are both truthful and never lie to pull the wool over your eyes. It also relies on the idea that women never change. It minimizes the short-term risk but does very little to minimize the long-term risk associated with divorce.

    It seems one is only allowed to say things in the meekest of terms, else one is angry and unChristian. I don’t speak in platitudes. I speak my mind as I have always done.

  132. feministhater says:

    Skyler, FeministHater is still stuck in the anger phase of unplugging. In the anger phase a lot of circular thinking leads back to the same place, anger. I like to think that he’ll work his way out of it in a few years. Where that will leave him I’m not sure.

    I just speak the way I’ve always done. It’s crude. Anger though is something entirely different. I’m not angry at anyone. I’m, however, loathe to entertain a bad idea that is combined with shaming to force someone into it. Which is how marriage today is pushed on men. Only the blind do not see this. I’m loathe to listen to the constant shaming of an obvious tradcon who has no solutions but to offer more shame and condemnation.

    Unless I speak like you or hold my tongue, I’m angry and haven’t unplugged enough? The whole thread is circular by the way, as was the last one. It’s circular because the logic always goes back to square one. If you have no authority over women, it is impossible to have a Biblical Marriage with them. If you cannot provide a solution to the obviously problem, you will go in circles forever.

  133. SkylerWurden says:

    @novaseeker

    Really, Skyler? I mean I agree that it is lower than essentials like food and shelter, and I also agree that everyone has to go without of sex for periods in life (married or not) for various reasons, but do you really think that the male sex drive ranks below the desire to watch TV or play video games? For most men?

    I wasn’t always a religious man, and even in my late teens and early twenties, with a normal sex-drive (boners for no reason at least a dozen times a day), I still would not have put sex as a higher priority than a good video-game. The proof is in how I spent my time: mostly playing video games, getting stoned, watching movies. I knew rationally that if I wanted pussy (I did) that it was all a matter of time and effort, but I put in very little, and consequently got no pussy. Because as much as I would sometimes pretend to care, it just wasn’t really that important to me.

    It is overrated. Maybe other dudes are just walking hard-ons with even crazier sex drives, but given personal experience I don’t think that’s true. I think the allure of a great thing tricks them into thinking life without it is miserable. It feels awesome… But life without it is still fine.

    @BillyS

    I missed that. Totally idiotic. Sex is a lot more important than a favorite TV show. Have you been married Skyler?

    Sex feels awesome. So what? Feeling awesome does not make a thing important. I get more intellectual pleasure out of a good movie or conversation than I did out of sex. Granted I wasn’t in love with the girls, but none of the sexual libertines are either. So weighing physical pleasure vs intellectual pleasure I will always go with the higher form.

    I assume this might be different if I had a wife who I was in love with and sex now served an intellectual, unitive, and procreative purpose, but then it would not be the sex itself per se, but the marital bond, that drove the appeal. Without said appeal there would no purpose to it other than base, physical release. My animal nature desires that, but I am not a dog to be ruled by my passions. I am a man and my dignity as a rational creature is far more important to me than the satisfaction of any physical urge (excepting the basic essentials and only those because I am weak and cowardly).

    @Anonymous Reader

    However, expecting women to “come to their senses” is part of what got us where we are today, so you might want to reconsider that expectation. It won’t happen any time soon.

    I agree. Men will have to do this. I doubt they will. Which is why I believe a Great Chastisement will occur and most of mankind will be destroyed on a scale unheard of since Babel, or we will enter into the End Times and Christ will fix the problem for us. I only suggest what I see as the only solution avaialable to us. Sadly, I don’t think we (I include myself) have the courage or the humility to do it. I am a pessimist at heart though; which is why I like this blog, because it is good to see older (and therefore almost certainly wiser) men who are not pessimists try to do their little part in helping solve the problem.

    Game theory is fine for hedonists and married men. For the first group it will help them get laid, which is what they want. For the second group, it will help them stay married (supposedly). I suppose it is good for marriage-minded men also for the obvious reasons (eliminating bad women, “seducing” good women, know your enemy, all that jazz) but for me personally it seems like too much work for too little reward. If there truly is no good, pretty, Catholic woman out there for a man who has no “game” then I guess marriage just isn’t in the cards for me. I’ve shed my tears for that already and if I shed a few more before I’m done… what of it? I was never going to be the happy man anyway.

  134. SkylerWurden says:

    @Feministhater

    I never said any of that. Provide the proof.

    I gathered it from this:

    Who cares about parties? One must just enjoy life as best they can

    Which was said in response to me “shaming” a man-slut who wanted to brag about his hedonism. In your reaction to my “slut shaming” you implied an approval of his behavior.

    To put away their sexual desires for an obviously bad deal and learn to live a celibate life.

    Married life is not a solution to the current problem. For most men it will only exacerbate the problem, as has been pointed out to you many times.

    I agree with all this.

    The majority of men will have miserable marriages where they will have little to no sex and they will still have to live celibate lives.

    I disagree with this, but I see what you mean and I agree they will be unhappy. I just happen to think the men are usually at least 30% to blame.

    In the end, you provide nothing meaningful but more shaming. I’m not even angry at you anymore. You’re stuck trying to defend the indefensible. It’s not a good position to be in.

    It seems we are both arguing against caricatures of each other. You aren’t the MGTOW hedonist I took you for and I’m not the “man up and marry her!” Neo-con you take me for. I don’t think most men should marry these days, not unless they have a pretty darn good realization of the shit-storm they’re about to step into. I just also think the hedonist piece of shit who fucks women and helps perpetuate the problem is every bit as bad as the sluts he fucks and probably worse, because everyone already knew that women were irrational stupid creatures who need strong moral social triggers. I’d rather that jackass marry and live a shit-life than fuck everything that moves and damn himself. At least the bad marriage is theoretically moral on his part.

    Ideally, none of them would be marrying and some kind of “hunger strike” scenario would be the catalyst to fix the problem, but you and I both know that isn’t going to happen. Birds like us are rare. Most men would rather either take their chances with a shit marriage or sell their souls for cheap pussy.

    Though I do sometimes still foolishly hold out hope for my unicorn. Guess I’m a jerk too.

    Sorry for strawmanning you.

  135. earlthomas786 says:

    The chump pastor said “sex to women is about her feelings outside the bedroom”

    And that’s the difference between Scripture and your Oprah book of the month pastors…and you’ll never see Scripture in ‘Christian’ dating and marriage advice.

    Scriptures say a wife is to submit to her husband as to the Lord. Churchian pastors/self help gurus tell husbands to submit to her feelings as if they are a lord.

  136. earlthomas786 says:

    And you guys mention ‘the unicorn’…if you really want to know who the ideal woman is, it’s the Virgin Mary. Everything about her is about bringing us to Christ. The closer a woman is like her, the better.

  137. James says:

    Skylerwurden wrote:
    I knew rationally that if I wanted pussy (I did) that it was all a matter of time and effort, but I put in very little, and consequently got no pussy. Because as much as I would sometimes pretend to care, it just wasn’t really that important to me.

    And I’m sure those grapes were sour too…

  138. squid_hunt says:

    …if you really want to know who the ideal woman is, it’s the Virgin Mary.

    I’ll attempt to forego the Catholic bashing, but don’t you guys consider her to be a perpetual virgin who never had children? Wouldn’t that be antithetical to the entire biblical design and purpose of a wife?

  139. earlthomas786 says:

    I’ll attempt to forego the Catholic bashing, but don’t you guys consider her to be a perpetual virgin who never had children?

    No…she has a biological child, Jesus. The perpetual virginity idea is that she didn’t have sexual relations with a man and thus had no other biological children. We certainly know that’s the case in Scripture before she was pregnant with Jesus…afterwards it’s implied. I’ve read before where Scripture said Jesus had ‘brothers and sisters’…but in those times that also meant close relatives like cousins. It doesn’t necessarily mean they were his biological brothers and sisters. Nonetheless my point is….

    Wouldn’t that be antithetical to the entire biblical design and purpose of a wife?

    More of the focus is how she submitted to God…which is the more important purpose of a wife (submit to her husband as to the Lord) if you read what Scripture says a wife is supposed to do.

  140. feministhater says:

    Catholic’s have turned Mary into the spiritual equal of Jesus and, by reason of the Trinity, God, if they are to be believed. She is said to be sinless, not able to commit sin. So.. we have two choices. Either A) God made her sinless and gave her zero free will or B) She is akin to Jesus, who is sinless by choice.

    A makes her nothing more that an automaton and B makes her as worthy as Jesus and thus equal to God.

    I believe Jesus had brothers and sisters who were the daughters and sons of Joseph and Mary. Once again, by believing this, I am a heretic to Catholics.

    More of the focus is how she submitted to God…which is the more important purpose of a wife (submit to her husband as to the Lord) if you read what Scripture says a wife is supposed to do.

    It makes a mockery of marriage to believe that Mary and Joseph never had sex. They couldn’t consummate the marriage as per yours and Zippy’s marriage ideals, nor could they bond as husband and wife in the flesh, thus destroying the ideal of the union.

    I know, I know, incoming wall of texts explaining that Mary and Joseph were entirely different from all other marriages because they were used by God to bring Jesus into the world and that required her to be pure and remain absolutely unblemished by sin throughout her life, even to the point of not having sex with her husband because even though it’s no longer a sin to do so, it would soil her in some fashion.

    However, you can use that reasoning if you like but then you cannot use that reasoning again when saying that Mary is the example to be used by other wives because that can be used as a perfectly valid reason for sexless marriages in your Church.

  141. Boxer says:

    Dear Feminist Hater:

    Thanks for an(other) interesting comment.

    I believe Jesus had brothers and sisters who were the daughters and sons of Joseph and Mary. Once again, by believing this, I am a heretic to Catholics.

    This is not true. I have lived in a very Catholic town for the past few years, and I know tons of cats (and I go to mass myself). There are various interpretations of this.

    One thing that makes me question your contention is John 19:27, where the story reads…
    25: Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.

    26: When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!

    27: Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
    Where were the brothers and sisters of Jesus, and why would they not be responsible for Mary? Only a couple of plausible explanations come to mind.

    1. If the brothers and sisters of Jesus were Joseph’s children, sired through Anna, Bella and Carla, why are these other women not mentioned in the text? Joseph seems to be an important character. His divorcing of Mary and remarriage to the mother(s) of these siblings ought to be noted. As would his catting around with them on the side. Large volumes of the text discuss immorality and divorce. It is reasonable to expect that if the Joseph character did either, he’d be criticized and lampooned for it.

    2. If all the brothers and sisters of Jesus died, how did they die? Why is this not mentioned?

    It is thus at least as plausible to assume that the sibling characters were figurative. The terms were used to denote fellow travelers in a social movement or good friends. I can write “my brother Feminist Hater” and people will intuitively understand that I don’t share parents with you.

    Best,

    Boxer

  142. feministhater says:

    Maybe they were in other towns, maybe some died, maybe some were poor. I don’t know Boxer, however, neither does the Catholic Church. It has assumed as much as I have in its declaration of Mary’s innate inability to sin as I have in my assumption that a married couple, i.e. Mary and Joseph, would have sex and conceive children.

    1. If the brothers and sisters of Jesus were Joseph’s children, sired through Anna, Bella and Carla, why are these other women not mentioned in the text? Joseph seems to be an important character. His divorcing of Mary and remarriage to the mother(s) of these siblings ought to be noted. As would his catting around with them on the side. Large volumes of the text discuss immorality and divorce. It is reasonable to expect that if the Joseph character did either, he’d be criticized and lampooned for it.

    I don’t get this statement. Can you prove they had zero other children and that they had no sexual relations in their whole marriage? It’s a stretch to suggest that because Jesus told his disciples to look after Mary, that Mary and Joseph 1) never had sex, 2) never sired other children and 3) that Joseph would divorce her to go have other children..

    The other problem is that if withholding sex within marriage is a sin, then Mary would be committing sin by not having sex with Joseph; or are we only supposed to believe this holds true only once Paul had stated such or because of some command that God gave them that was never spoken of?

  143. Mountain Man says:

    I’m sure some will interpret this as Catholic-bashing, but it’s not. It’s meant to be Earl-bashing.

    Earl, you quite regularly contribute thoughtful and insightful comments to this blog. Your comment at 7:05 above is a great example of that, and I thank you.

    But you also with GREAT regularity engage in the most foul and rank promotion of Catholic dogma, such as the comment immediately below it at 7:16. It’s tiresome, it’s offensive, and you should stop it. Get some fucking manners!

  144. earlthomas786 says:

    Catholic’s have turned Mary into the spiritual equal of Jesus and, by reason of the Trinity, God, if they are to be believed.

    I have told you once before that is not what we believe.

    http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm

  145. Boxer says:

    Dear Feminist Hater:

    I don’t get this statement. Can you prove they had zero other children and that they had no sexual relations in their whole marriage?

    It’s a story, so all the proof we have is in the text. There is support that Mary and Joseph had zero other children, given that the story is largely centered upon this family, and listing these other siblings (at least briefly) would just be sensible storytelling.

    It’s a stretch to suggest that because Jesus told his disciples to look after Mary, that Mary and Joseph 1) never had sex, 2) never sired other children and 3) that Joseph would divorce her to go have other children..

    In context (with Jesus asking one of his pals to look after his mom, as he was dying) we can assume that either:

    1. Jesus siblings were not the children of Mary, but of Joseph
    2. Jesus siblings were all either dead or disowned
    3. Jesus had no actual siblings, those listed as “brothers” and “sisters” were simply fellow travelers.

    The only one that makes sense to me is 3. John (the guy who took Jesus’ mom in, after he kacked it) isn’t an actual brother of Jesus, but he was one of Jesus’ figurative brothers, who earned the designation because he was his homie, comrade, companion, and “brother” in the movement.

    Of course, that’s just my take. I’ve heard people (including Catholics, who have never been denounced by their church) give me arguments in support of your thesis, and their arguments are meritorious and compelling.

    Best,

    Boxer

  146. earlthomas786 says:

    @ Boxer….

    Thanks for bringing that up. I’ve remember others stating that case where Mary had no other children…otherwise they would be responsible for her.

  147. earlthomas786 says:

    However, you can use that reasoning if you like but then you cannot use that reasoning again when saying that Mary is the example to be used by other wives because that can be used as a perfectly valid reason for sexless marriages in your Church.

    Sigh, it keeps coming back to sex…I said she’s the prime example because of her willingness to submit to God. By that extention she also submitted to Joesph. One of the few things we know about Joesph is that he was a righteous man, isn’t it entirely possible it was also his decision to not do it? The sexless marriages and problems with marriage in regards to women isn’t so much about the lack of sex, it’s the lack of submission to their husbands.

  148. feministhater says:

    After her Son’s Ascension, Mary “aided the beginnings of the Church by her prayers.”506 In her association with the apostles and several women, “we also see Mary by her prayers imploring the gift of the Spirit, who had already overshadowed her in the Annunciation.”507

    . . . also in her Assumption

    966 “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.”508 The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular participation in her Son’s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other Christians:

    In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509

    . . . she is our Mother in the order of grace

    967 By her complete adherence to the Father’s will, to his Son’s redemptive work, and to every prompting of the Holy Spirit, the Virgin Mary is the Church’s model of faith and charity. Thus she is a “preeminent and . . . wholly unique member of the Church”; indeed, she is the “exemplary realization” (typus)510 of the Church.

    968 Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. “In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.”511

    969 “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix

    Uhm, yeah. As I said. It has made her the ‘mother’ of ‘us’ as in God the Father, Jesus the Son and Mary the Mother.

    ‘gifts of eternal salvation’…. I thought Jesus did this with his sacrifice on the cross. Guess I was wrong.

    In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.

    By her prayers, our souls will be delivered from death. So, it’s not through Jesus that we are heard or our souls delivered to God but through Mary. Which is it? Her ‘role’ as mediatrix is the same role of Jesus.

    We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ”

    Come on…

  149. earlthomas786 says:

    But you also with GREAT regularity engage in the most foul and rank promotion of Catholic dogma, such as the comment immediately below it at 7:16. It’s tiresome, it’s offensive, and you should stop it. Get some fucking manners!

    I’m Catholic…that’s where I come from. I can’t help it if it is foul and offensive to you.

  150. feministhater says:

    Sigh, it keeps coming back to sex…I said she’s the prime example because of her willingness to submit to God. By that extention she also submitted to Joesph. One of the few things we know about Joesph is that he was a righteous man, isn’t it entirely possible it was also his decision to not do it? The sexless marriages and problems with marriage in regards to women isn’t so much about the lack of sex, it’s the lack of submission to their husbands.

    It keeps coming back to the point of you using her as what a good Christian woman should seek to emulate. It is your belief and your Church’s belief that Mary was a virgin till her death. It is not mine. I believe she was chosen to birth Jesus but that she was an ordinary human being aside from everything else, including the ability to sin. I believe she had sex with Joseph as was her role as a wife to him. By your own teaching, either Joseph was sinning or Eve was sinning by withholding sex…

    Either way, if Mary is the goal of a Christian wife, then withholding sex from the husband for the entire marriage is valid.

  151. earlthomas786 says:

    Uhm, yeah. As I said. It has made her the ‘mother’ of ‘us’ as in God the Father, Jesus the Son and Mary the Mother.

    Yeah but your confusion is that it somehow makes her equal to God. She’s his mother.

    By her prayers, our souls will be delivered from death. So, it’s not through Jesus that we are heard or our souls delivered to God but through Mary. Which is it? Her ‘role’ as mediatrix is the same role of Jesus.

    She brought Jesus into the world and was the first person to bring Him to others (Elizabeth and John), Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead to save us from sin and death. They had different roles.

    We believe that the Holy Mother of God, the new Eve, Mother of the Church, continues in heaven to exercise her maternal role on behalf of the members of Christ”

    Come on…

    ‘Behold your mother’.

  152. earlthomas786 says:

    I believe she had sex with Joseph as was her role as a wife to him. By your own teaching, either Joseph was sinning or Eve was sinning by withholding sex…

    It’s not a sin if it is mutually agreed upon. What often is the case is that it’s not mutually agreed upon.

  153. feministhater says:

    For a time earl, it’s ‘for a time’ stop cherry picking…

  154. feministhater says:

    We believe that the Holy Mother of God.

    Again, stop pretending.

  155. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    I have told you once before that is not what we believe.

    Immediately after writing this, you posted a link. I followed it. The first thing I saw was:

    Wholly united with her Son . . .

    If something is completely united, then it forms a single “unit” (that’s where the word originates). There’s the implicit reflexivity and transitivity in saying this. If son = father and if mother = son, then mother = father. Thus Mary is God.

    Feminist Hater’s interpretation has merit. You can’t simply dismiss it. I do understand what you’re saying. There’s now a quaternity, instead of a trinity, but the rules still apply… it’s ineffable &c.

    Best,

    Boxer

  156. earlthomas786 says:

    Wholly united with her Son . . .

    If something is completely united, then it forms a single “unit” (that’s where the word originates). There’s the implicit reflexivity and transitivity in saying this. If son = father and if mother = son, then mother = father. Thus Mary is God.

    If you read the title above that was in the context of ‘MARY’S MOTHERHOOD WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH’…it has nothing to do with what you are stating.

  157. earlthomas786 says:

    Again, stop pretending.

    Who’s pretending? We got from Scripture she’s the Mother of Jesus and Jesus is the Son of God…ergo she’s the Mother of God.

    You are the one who thinks she’s equal to God. That’s never been the case in any Catholic dogma.

  158. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ 12:03 pm:
    “It’s a story, so all the proof we have is in the text. There is support that Mary and Joseph had zero other children,”

    Jude is generally regarded as Christ’s half-brother by Joseph. That’s how he got a book in the Bible without being one of the apostles. But there’s no direct Biblical reference confirming that.

  159. Boxer says:

    If you read the title above that was in the context of ‘MARY’S MOTHERHOOD WITH REGARD TO THE CHURCH’…it has nothing to do with what you are stating.

    I disagree, and so does Feminist Hater, and so does Carl Jung. See CW 9I starting at about 190. Also check out:
    https://books.google.com/books?id=Pg9JyrtyF28C&pg=PA80&lpg=PA80&dq=jung+papal+bull+mary&source=bl&ots=SOhIQL8xLB&sig=_BFm1Kof2JDXtzHEZgNxKDc58yg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3oPiyvPXVAhUn64MKHSioBR4Q6AEIPDAH#v=onepage&q=jung%20papal%20bull%20mary&f=false

  160. feministhater says:

    In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.

    joined to the source of life, i.e. Jesus and God.

    Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. “In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.

    She is the mother to us in the order of grace. What order of grace would that be? God the Father, Jesus the Son, The Holy Ghost and Mary the Mother of God.

    Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death.”

    She has been exalted by the Lord as Queen of all things, just as Jesus is King of all things. She is to my more fully ‘conformed’ to her son….

    One of the meanings of ‘conformed’ is probably the most reliable as to the meaning here. That is:

    to make or become similar in character or form.

  161. Jason says:

    Of all the Roman Catholics I know (and have known) I have never witnessed, heard, seen Cathoics “worshiping” Mary. Go into any Protestant mega-church today and you will hear “We worship Jesus here unlike Catholics who worship Mary.”

    I was also raised culturally in the church of england (preppy catholics) and I never heard anything about praying, worshiping or having Mary give / grant forgiveness or Salvation.

    This whole thing is the invention of protestant pastors who cannot tackle hard issues in their own flocks but can cast stones at Catholics because they won’t fight back and it makes the silly pastor look tough

  162. Boxer says:

    Of all the Roman Catholics I know (and have known) I have never witnessed, heard, seen Cathoics “worshiping” Mary. Go into any Protestant mega-church today and you will hear “We worship Jesus here unlike Catholics who worship Mary.”

    I don’t see Catholics (nor anyone else) overtly “worshiping” the Holy Spirit, either…

    Best,

    Boxer

  163. Gunner Q says:

    Jason @ 1:03 pm:
    “Of all the Roman Catholics I know (and have known) I have never witnessed, heard, seen Cathoics “worshiping” Mary. Go into any Protestant mega-church today and you will hear “We worship Jesus here unlike Catholics who worship Mary.”

    I have seen Mary-worship done openly and remember a hard push in the ’90s to convince the Pope to grant Mary the title of Co-Redemptrix (“Co-Redeemer”) which would have formally put Christ’s mother on the same level as Christ himself. Also, it’s infuriating to see all those statues of Mary & baby Jesus. My Lord and Savior depicted as weak, immature and dependent upon a woman for his survival. The devil probably has that image tattooed on his shoulder.

    But of late, I’ve begun wondering if this is more of a Latin/South American flavor of Catholicism than the official dogma. The low-IQ crowd might not understand the difference between Mary veneration and Mary worship as well as an egghead theologian.

  164. Jason says:

    Well…..as a baby, Jesus was dependent for care. He didn’t exit the womb and brandish a sword. In fact both Mary and Joesph did have to care for Him. Joesph took him to Egypt to escape the murderous intent of Herod. We are all dependent on Him. God speaks frequently of his relationship as a Father to us and we are his His children. Christ grew, and did the will of the Father. He also had to be tempted and trained for His mission.

    When I think of Jesus, the first thought of him as a baby does not cross my mind, but it is a fact that He was.

  165. feeriker says:

    Have you been married Skyler?

    Of course he hasn’t. He wouldn’t be spewing the nonsense he’s spewing if he was/had been married. Why you guys continue to dignify it by giving him the time of day truly mystifies me.

  166. earlthomas786 says:

    I don’t see Catholics (nor anyone else) overtly “worshiping” the Holy Spirit, either…

    Best,

    Boxer

    It’s in the Nicene Creed…

    https://www.ccel.org/creeds/nicene.creed.html

  167. earlthomas786 says:

    This whole thing is the invention of protestant pastors who cannot tackle hard issues in their own flocks but can cast stones at Catholics because they won’t fight back and it makes the silly pastor look tough

    The odd part is Luther never held any of those beliefs. He might not have liked what the church was doing but he said things about Mary that many Prots would disagree with.

    https://churchpop.com/2017/03/07/5-surprising-quotes-from-martin-luther-on-the-blessed-virgin-mary/

  168. earlthomas786 says:

    Also, it’s infuriating to see all those statues of Mary & baby Jesus. My Lord and Savior depicted as weak, immature and dependent upon a woman for his survival.

    Yeah, how dare we show that was actually part of His life.

    Is it infuriating to you to see photos of you as an infant dependent upon your mother for your survival?

  169. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    It’s in the Nicene Creed…

    If that’s the case, then Feminist Hater will thank you for conceding that he’s correct.

    http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html

  170. Boxer says:

    Gunner Q:

    I have seen Mary-worship done openly and remember a hard push in the ’90s to convince the Pope to grant Mary the title of Co-Redemptrix (“Co-Redeemer”) which would have formally put Christ’s mother on the same level as Christ himself.

    That was done in 1950.

    Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

    from APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF POPE PIUS XII -MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS- DEFINING THE DOGMA OF THE ASSUMPTION (November 1, 1950) http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html

  171. earlthomas786 says:

    If that’s the case, then Feminist Hater will thank you for conceding that he’s correct.

    His assertion is that Mary = God. What you presented is all the priviledges Mary received from God.

  172. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    His assertion is that Mary = God. What you presented is all the priviledges Mary received from God.

    That document is very clearly written. Mary, like Jesus, and unlike everyone else since creation, has assumed a position in heaven, where she reigns with Christ, God and the Holy Spirit. You claim to accept papal declarations ex cathedra, so I’m unclear as to your problem with this one.

    Earlier you cited a web page that explained Mary was “wholly united” with God, but then you got very defensive when I pointed out the definition of a unit. Apparently “wholly united” doesn’t mean what it means when it’s part of something you disagree with, despite the fact that we should accept the rest of that document at face value, or something…

    Why don’t you spell out your beliefs in detail, since they seem to differ from all the beliefs you cite, and since they clearly diverge from the teachings of both the church and the bible. You go on and on about how wrong the rest of us are, so I’m pretty sure we’d all be interested in what the right way is, according to you.

    Best,

    Boxer

  173. earlthomas786 says:

    Earlier you cited a web page that explained Mary was “wholly united” with God, but then you got very defensive when I pointed out the definition of a unit.

    I pointed out the context of where you got that. It was in regards to the church.

    The wrong part is saying Mary is a deity (equal to God). The church explains who she is and what she is about…she is blessed among women and has certain privileges from God but she is not a deity.

  174. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    I pointed out the context of where you got that. It was in regards to the church.

    The wrong part is saying Mary is a deity (equal to God). The church explains who she is and what she is about…she is blessed among women and has certain privileges from God but she is not a deity.

    That’s not what the papal bull says…

    Hence the revered Mother of God, from all eternity joined in a hidden way with Jesus Christ in one and the same decree of predestination,(47) immaculate in her conception, a most perfect virgin in her divine motherhood, the noble associate of the divine Redeemer who has won a complete triumph over sin and its consequences, finally obtained, as the supreme culmination of her privileges, that she should be preserved free from the corruption of the tomb and that, like her own Son, having overcome death, she might be taken up body and soul to the glory of heaven where, as Queen, she sits in splendor at the right hand of her Son, the immortal King of the Ages.

    I’d encourage you and everyone to read the whole thing. I’d also like to know why you seem so reticent to make these unjustified distinctions.

    I’ve read the New Testament. I see nothing in the text that directly contradicts any of this. If the Catholics want to revere Mary as part of the godhead, they seem justified in doing so. It’s not a huge issue. She was part and parcel of the miracle.

    Best,

    Boxer

  175. earlthomas786 says:

    If the Catholics want to revere Mary as part of the godhead, they seem justified in doing so.

    That is what we do, or the word often used is ‘venerate’…my beef is the misunderstanding that somehow that particular reverence is worship, or that Mary is equal to God or a deity. Veneration and worship are two different words with much different meanings.

  176. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    That is what we do, or the word often used is ‘venerate’…my beef is the misunderstanding that somehow that particular reverence is worship, or that Mary is equal to God or a deity. Veneration and worship are two different words with much different meanings.

    The squabbling that constantly erupts here is reminiscent of the Sunni / Shia bickering over the veneration of imams. One side will accuse the other of being polytheists, and the other side will retort with accusations of rewriting history. From my perspective, everyone seems to be getting very angry over things that aren’t, objectively, all that important.

    The smart folks have variations of names for this. The narcissism of small differences is my favorite. It’s probably just part of human nature.

    Best,

    Boxer

  177. Gunner Q says:

    Jason @ 3:15 pm:
    “When I think of Jesus, the first thought of him as a baby does not cross my mind, but it is a fact that He was.”

    Of course, but why immortalize him that way? I’m not talking about a statue here or a triptych there; this is the most popular Catholic image after Christ on the Cross. This artwork obviously has deep cultural roots.

    Imagine a painter depicting Barak Obama as a child in an Indonesian Islamic school. Nobody would think that an innocent, random depiction of President Obama’s life. Especially when the painting is one in a series of 25,000,000 showing Obama as a non-American Muslim. Why are there so many depictions of Christ as a helpless infant? Why aren’t there as many depictions of Christ as a hardworking carpenter?

    Because pussy on a pedestal.

    Search your feelings. You know it to be true. And yes, we Prots also suffer feminist infection. I’m not playing “gotcha” here. Both of our organizations are rotten. The rot must be acknowledged before it can be removed.

    Boxer @ 4:43 pm:
    “That was done in 1950.”

    I mean Co-Redemptrix of All Humanity. A female substitute for Christ’s salvation, not an “Angels Dancing on Pinheads” issue. Quoted from Infogalactic:

    “In the early 1990s Professor Mark Miravalle of the Franciscan University of Steubenville and author of the book Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate launched a popular petition to urge Pope John Paul II to use Papal infallibility to declare Mary as Co-Redemptrix. More than six million signatures were gathered from 148 countries, including those of Mother Teresa of Calcutta, Cardinal John O’Connor of New York, and other cardinals and bishops.”

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Co-Redemptrix

    To the RCC’s credit, the petition was rejected. To the RCC’s shame, none of the signatories were burned at the stake for demanding an alternative to Christ.

  178. seventiesjason says:

    Just got an email / ad in my inbox about a seminar to be held in Colorado Springs about “christian manhood” and being a “real, mighty man of God”

    Yes, much of what our angry therapist mentioned was there too! Opening doors for women. Effort. Plans. Arrogance…I mean “confidence” in dating. Guarding a woman’s heart…..

    To inspire and turn the tide of this generation of men and win them for Jesus…..and a few days dedicated to overcoming (drum roll) you guessed it! Porn addiction! This addiction has ruined and destroyed men to be ready to be good husbands. A workshop on how to *listen* to your wife or girlfriend in a Godly way.

    Another circle jerk of “manhood” hoisted and thrown on men. Only 1,200.00 not including your travel expenses but becoming a real man of God and saving your marriage is worth it evidently.

    It reminds me of the PUA bootcamps and retreats at a “low cost” of 2,000.00 back in 2000, and 2001 (ues, i am guilty, I went to a David DeAngelo one back then). Gonna fix everything with a few days of workshops, workbooks and self promotion!

    …….since I have zero clue on “real Christian manhood” or being married, or dating, or sex I am just as privee to answer this bc none of these experts are doing any better:

    *real men are working to pay the mortgage, put food on the table, pay the bills, attempting to raise their kids. They don’t need a conference or retreat like this. Real men are busy.

    *real men are already involved in their church, or personal ministry

    *Real men are not bothered or aroused by porn. If they have a problem. They pray, read up on the neuroscience behind it and fix it. Just like a man who quits drugs, drinking, cussing, and cigarettes (Iike I did). A real man doesn’t need enablers around him like a badly run AA or NA meeting

    *Real men don’t need to be thumping their chest saying what a “real man” they are.

    *Real men don’t make their provider status an idol. Jesus was a carpenter. He never once mentioned how much money he made, how his skills were in demand or how amazing and talented he was at his trade

    *Real men have fears, doubts, dreams and hopes. Tons of real men are in His Word who overcame these challenges and just allowed themselves to be used by Him to overcome innumerable challenges for zero personal glory in many cases

    *Real men don’t go where they are not needed. Hello American church of the past forty years or so

    *Real men see a Savior in Christ not because he overturned tables but in a man that could be humble, wise, controlled and strong. Jesus wept.

    *Real men do a good job no matter what it is.

    *Real men vary in personality, style, ideas and intellect but they know that all must submit to the Cross.

  179. earlthomas786 says:

    Another circle jerk of “manhood” hoisted and thrown on men. Only 1,200.00 not including your travel expenses but becoming a real man of God and saving your marriage is worth it evidently.

    It reminds me of the PUA bootcamps and retreats at a “low cost” of 2,000.00 back in 2000, and 2001 (ues, i am guilty, I went to a David DeAngelo one back then). Gonna fix everything with a few days of workshops, workbooks and self promotion!

    That’s a good comparison. Amazing how much it costs to learn how to convince women you are a real man. It can be free by following Jesus.

  180. CSI says:

    “*Real men are not bothered or aroused by porn.”
    Please. “Real man” are going to be aroused by porn no matter how much they know about neurobiology. That’s why, if you think this is a problem, you should refrain from looking at it.

  181. feeriker says:

    Just got an email / ad in my inbox about a seminar to be held in Colorado Springs about “christian manhood” and being a “real, mighty man of God”

    You can safely wager a month’s pay that not a single minute of this will be spent with Bibles open, actually reading what God says about how to be a real man. No doubt, however, that you’ll be inundated with Churchian Oprah Book-of-the-Month Club offers from hucksters masquerading as “pastors” desperate for their next big sales score.

    A very tired, shop-worn con game that still seems to bamboozle the rubes every.single.time.

  182. Boxer says:

    A very tired, shop-worn con game that still seems to bamboozle the rubes every.single.time.

    Young brothers who are looking for a career in ministry should consider taking some of these feminists’ monies. By ripping off these feminized men you are keeping their money away from the hardcore feminists, and you are also helping to demoralize them, and hastening their arrival to our side.

    Likewise, the patriarchal types who get outed by our enemies (a couple of bloggers who occasionally post here have been doxxed recently) should likewise consider pretending to “sell out.” Pretend to have seen the light, and start making money as a feminist speaker. We’ll play along, and denounce you as a traitor, while you stack paper at the expense of our enemies.

    “All warfare is based on deception” -Sun Tzu

  183. Allelluia and Amen. Twice

  184. Embracing Reality says:

    Since the Bible clearly teaches that men (and women) are by our very nature evil I don’t feel the need to qualify myself as a “real” man. I think we’re supposed to be striving be counted worthy in God’s eyes as disciples striving to be obedient. Christ said if we love him we’ll keep his commandments, it’s not easy. We can only make every effort and except God’s grace for our inevitable failures.

    Pornography to me is nothing more than manipulation of anyone who consumes it. Attempts to manipulate me thoroughly piss me off, especially when it’s being done by women. Sure porn is sexual sin, I suppose it can hurt women, children and men but that’s not what offends me most. It’s the whores using their bodies to manipulate me that pisses me off.

  185. Mark says:

    @Earl

    “”I’m Catholic…that’s where I come from. I can’t help it if it is foul and offensive to you.””

    Not offended at all. I would much rather see you as a practicing Catholic than I would as an atheist.At least you are a believer…..and that is what counts!

    @feeriker

    “”He wouldn’t be spewing the nonsense he’s spewing if he was/had been married. Why you guys continue to dignify it by giving him the time of day truly mystifies me.””

    Ditto!

  186. BillyS says:

    FH,

    I don’t remember if you claimed to follow Christ

    You did get the first part of the quote in my reply correct.

    I did unfairly mix you with the other guy posting about his sexual conquests around that same point. I have no problem with anyone pursuing a celibate life, especially if it is to pursue the work of God. I have somewhat of an issue with those who just want to live for themselves, but I would put that fairly low on my list of things to be concerned about.

    The PUA advocates are counter-Scriptural, so my intent is to speak against that. I could dig out more of what I was thinking if it still had merit, but hopefully this frames the context, even if we are in slight disagreement with desirable actions to take. I don’t think we are as far as it seems, though a few key differences certainly remain.

    Sex feels awesome. So what? Feeling awesome does not make a thing important. I get more intellectual pleasure out of a good movie or conversation than I did out of sex.

    Comparing to being a stoner (which reduces the sex drive) and living a married life for almost 3 decades that is ripped from you is comparing completely different things. Good for you if you find celibacy a great thing now. I don’t, even though that is a likely path for my life.

    I like playing computer/video games, probably far too much, and I will tell you that they don’t remove sexual desires for me.

    Earl,

    And you guys mention ‘the unicorn’…if you really want to know who the ideal woman is, it’s the Virgin Mary. Everything about her is about bringing us to Christ. The closer a woman is like her, the better.

    I wouldn’t want to marry your version of her though. I do not buy her perpetual virginity (for reasons we have discussed elsewhere), but she would not be a model wife if that were true since she would be a model of avoiding the prime glue God made to hook husband and wife together.

    afterwards it’s implied

    Not really.

    [Mat 1:24-25 NKJV] 24 Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, 25 and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.

    Note the word “till” there. The “not knowing his wife” (sex) was only until she had Jesus, not forever. Nothing there implies he never did. It would be worded differently if that “not knowing” continued the remainder of His existence.

    His ignoring of his brothers in some other spots indicates He was not younger than them as well, as the RCC must have since the Scriptures clearly say He had brothers.

    Sorry Boxer,

    It is thus at least as plausible to assume that the sibling characters were figurative. The terms were used to denote fellow travelers in a social movement or good friends. I can write “my brother Feminist Hater” and people will intuitively understand that I don’t share parents with you.

    No “figurative” required and it is only forced in by those who want to shove it there. A much simpler explanation is that He trusted John more to care for Mary than His own confused siblings at the time. He was the oldest son and thus had the responsibility to ensure her care. He did so. No “perpetual virginity of Mary” is required.

    I am not sure if I skimmed to fast and missed it, but I had heard it presented that the sibling were ones from a previous marriage Joseph had, not a subsequent one. I recall hearing that when I was still attending the RCC each week, but it has been long enough that I don’t recall the exact context.

    Who’s pretending? We got from Scripture she’s the Mother of Jesus and Jesus is the Son of God…ergo she’s the Mother of God.

    You are the one who thinks she’s equal to God. That’s never been the case in any Catholic dogma.

    You need to learn your RCC a bit better. Many in the RCC do put her equal with Jesus, or even almost superior. (Sound like modern church feminism?) Much of it seems to be just an update for the Tamuz mythology of the past to me, but it is held firmly by many in the RCC.

    They take “Mother of God” to mean more than “the vessel God used to birth Jesus into the world” and instead equate her with deity. Many of those exact past “saints” as well, so it should not be surprising. (I am not talking just saying prayers there way, but almost worshiping them.)

  187. BillyS says:

    Though FH, you should probably tone down your replies complaining about “shaming” when the target has just proclaimed how wonderful his sex/PUA searching days were or are. That is what caused me to reply in the comment you noted. Celibacy is a reasonable response. Going for lots of sex from random women is not, at least not for someone who claims to follow Christ.

  188. SkylerWurden says:

    @James

    And I’m sure those grapes were sour too…

    They were… For a time. As I’ve grown older I have come to realize that it was good for me to have at least not gotten involved with women at that point in my life. I wish I’d spent it doing more valuable things, but that’s okay too. No one is perfect.

    Honestly I think the hostility my pretty innocuous comments have caused is more telling of “sour grapes” on youe part than anything, case in point:

    @feeriker said:

    Of course he hasn’t. He wouldn’t be spewing the nonsense he’s spewing if he was/had been married. Why you guys continue to dignify it by giving him the time of day truly mystifies me.

    Lest anyone get the idea that this guy isn’t just sour, let’s break down a summary of my “nonsense”

    1) Sex is not all-important
    2) Intellectual stimulation is more important than physical stimulation
    3) The conjugal act is very important and highly desirable
    4) God and a return to His teachings are the only solution to the current problems
    5) Men should not get married unless they know what they are getting in to (risks, Game, etc.)
    6) Some men will have to learn to be okay with being celibate
    7) Hedonistic men are just as bad as hedonistic women
    8) Personally, I have tried to get over beating myself up for my faults and just be happy with my life as it is, though sometimes I also fall victim to the “day dreaming of a better life” and sometimes play the pity-party game.

    Now I don’t particularly know why this guy (feeriker) is so sour, it could be he’s one of the punk hedonist, or it could be that he’s a bitter devorcee and subsequent cuck, or it could be that he’s got a great life and he’s just got reading comprehension issues… But I can say that my posts haven’t been all that controversial. In fact, beyond a few insults and some hasty generalizations, I’m still not sure they are even arguable. Something in them obviously put sand in his vagina because people generally don’t whine about stuff unless it bothers them.

    So what’s your ducking problem, bud?

  189. SkylerWurden says:

    @BillyS

    Comparing to being a stoner (which reduces the sex drive) and living a married life for almost 3 decades that is ripped from you is comparing completely different things. Good for you if you find celibacy a great thing now. I don’t, even though that is a likely path for my life.

    I like playing computer/video games, probably far too much, and I will tell you that they don’t remove sexual desires for me.

    Mmm, I suppose it’s possible the weed removed some of the sex drive but definitely not all of it, and I don’t smoke anymore and sex is less important to me now than ever!

    Sucks that you had to deal with some shit. I don’t exactly know if it worse than almost 5 decades without sex at all, which is the barrel I’m staring down (assuming a normal life-span) BUT maybe it is. Anyway I wasn’t trying to enter a “life is so bad for me” contest… Because the starving African boy with a bloated belly always wins that game. Not even fair.

    Video games and movies don’t take away the sex drive, they just take up the time. And they just happen to be how I spent my time rather than having sex. And if I had to choose between giving up those pleasures or giving up cheap sex (I already said married life is great and awesome and so super desirable) than it’s not even a question. Of course my philosophy isn’t to sit around really wishing I could sin but darn, I can’t, I guess I’ll mope about it and be depressed and “miserable”. Neither is it my philosophy to pine for good things I can’t have, like a good marriage.

    I figure it’s better to be happy with what I have and give the suffering up to God. I guess that is “nonsense” though, so maybe I should stop “spewing” it lest some whiner feels like his safe-space has been invaded. C’est la vie.

  190. CSI says:

    “Because the starving African boy with a bloated belly always wins that game. Not even fair.”
    False equivalence.

    I’m unmarried and would have a lower sex drive than you. LIke you, it is hard for me to understand the plight of men with an average or higher sex drive, who desire sex in a marriage but are unable to find a wife, or an in a sexless marriage. Yet from reading personal accounts, I can understand it is a great burden they bear and can sympathize as much as I am able. You though seem to be making little attempt to sympathize and are downplaying their problems.

  191. earlthomas786 says:

    @Skyler…

    I’ve had disagreements when I’ve stated sex isn’t as important when I made the context of being in a relationship with God is more important. That leads to the faulty assumption I hate sex or something. I know I still have a sex drive and in the context of the licit use of it, it is one of the most powerful acts of creation on earth…but it is a matter of finding out what priority you have in life.

    I understand hedonism leads to boredom, emptiness, and woe….because no matter how many thrills or pleasures you pursue it isn’t going to fill the hole in the heart. Like St. Augustine said…“Thou hast made us for thyself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it finds its rest in thee.”

  192. Novaseeker says:

    Reading through his comments, I think the thing about Skyler is that he is the kind of guy that Paul is talking about when he says it is better to remain celibate, because Skyler clearly does *not* burn with passion in the way that Paul means. A guy who can sublimate whatever libido he does have by video games, movies and intellectual conversation, and prefers all of those to sex, is not the kind of guy who burns with passion such that he can justify marrying rather than remaining celibate in the service of God. So Skyler is one of those guys. Most guys, as we can tell from human history, are not, but Skyler is.

    I think there’s a pretty big difference — some would say an almost essential one — between Skyler-type guys, on the one hand, and most of us who do, in fact, burn with passion, therefore justifying marriage rather than remaining celibate.

  193. Scott says:

    At 46 I’m waaaaay past the big testosterone drop. I still can’t relate to life without a voracious almost annoying libido. Without it, I would never get out of bed.

  194. PokeSalad says:

    I figure it’s better to be happy with what I have and give the suffering up to God.

    Seems like this forum is doing the suffering.

  195. BillyS says:

    It gets even easier in the next decade Jeff, but it hasn’t gone away at least a decade later for me and I have heard at least one older preacher talk of the value of sex after any concern for children coming was past.

    Skyler,

    I never said that sex was the be-all end-all. It is still more of a drive for most than video games, although getting release doesn’t require as much time as many/most games.

    You have it easier because you have not been involved with t long enough that it is not as important, but you are not necessarily the norm.

  196. Boxer says:

    Reading through his comments, I think the thing about Skyler is that he is the kind of guy that Paul is talking about when he says it is better to remain celibate, because Skyler clearly does *not* burn with passion in the way that Paul means. A guy who can sublimate whatever libido he does have by video games, movies and intellectual conversation, and prefers all of those to sex, is not the kind of guy who burns with passion such that he can justify marrying rather than remaining celibate in the service of God. So Skyler is one of those guys. Most guys, as we can tell from human history, are not, but Skyler is.

    The real benefit of the church, which secular society has yet to match, is the framework which allowed such people (both men and women) to enhance society through labor and intellectual pursuits, rather than fecundity.

    We need more monasteries. Skyler would be better and happier (and so would the rest of us) if he were pursuing excellence and real-world achievement, rather than high scores on Half-Life 14.

    Best,

    Boxer

  197. Scott says:

    The thing is, I kind of like it though.

    I never liked video games, even as a kid. I also don’t ever use the “basement dwelling video game playing neck beard” pejorative to describe anybody. Just not my style.

    But I use mine to dream and turn those dreams into reality. Everyone I know thinks leaving the prospects of a comfortable federal retirement 5 years prior to securing it, moving to my dream property, changing professions at 48 with 4 kids under 10 is crazy.

    They thought leaving my previous profession and starting a PhD program at 33 was also crazy. They think Ljubomir Farms is crazy.

    But so far all the crazy risks I have taken have worked out to my (and my families) advantage.

    Without the drive I would not have done any of that. If it goes away, just shoot me.

  198. Jason says:

    I get you Scott…….and it seems to be a drive for many men. I won’t and cannot put that down.

    I was never a video-gaming, dungeons and dragons type of teen. I was polite, eager to please, tall for my age….always the tallest guy in school……college too! After I came back from what was then called “West Germany” as an exchange student for the 1986-1987 academic year. I was no longer taking what my parents said as gold, or without question.

    Also the demeanor of being just painfully shy, protective of an old brother with Downs Syndrome- combined with chronic health problems……I did see an ugliness in people and my peers at a very young age. While most guys my age were dating, meeting girls, getting some social skills in this area. I had chores. I had to help care for my brother. I was living in Europe that one year…..and the academic, pretty girls my age in high school only liked a-holes. Also my parents told me I would have “plenty of time for dating and meeting young women in college.”

    I discovered drugs in college (marijuana and mild speed / pep pills / alcohol/ LSD), and yes….I knew better and was raised better……..this slowly compounded into a very dreadful addiction by my early thirties. It cost me a GOOD career. If I had a solid Christian upbringing in mentoring and apologetics perhaps things could have been different. Who knows? I can’t and won’t get stuck on this…..I had a decent upbringing. My parents were married. Not abusive and they did want the best for me. I grew up in a nice home with nice things.

    I did well in college but no dates. No hook-ups. No girlfriends. I was still falling behind here……one could say “drugs” was my problem…..but plenty of “nice” girls were dropping the panties for guys who were doing drugs. I had very good style. I wasn’t ugly……but a veneer underneath, and something….was indeed keeping them away or at the “just friends” level. It’s too long and a waste of time now to rehash, when, or where or how come. All I have is now.

    Getting into grad school, graduating grad school with top honors. Working in a very hip college-aged bar in grad school still could not get me a date. The drug use slowly increased, as well as drinking; and this is when I first started using cocaine. It wasn’t as if I didn’t have interests or social skills. I did. I still do. The slow anger and rage building against the creature called woman, and the feeling that I was somehow being purposely “kept out” of the world of love, dating, endearment, sex and companionship grew. Intensified.

    Everyone told me “college would be different” and “Grad school would be different” and “You’ll meet an awesome girl when you enter the workforce” and from the mid 1990’s til 2001 I kept holding on to this. All my friends got married. Had kids. I still had to be told “its gonna happen for you, and its gonna be great……a REALLY special gal is out there for you”

    The drug use, partying, and trying to fill a void because of the lack of this…which every other guy seemed to getting so easily drove me deeper into anger……shame……resentment and entitlement.
    Still with no results. The bottom fell out after September 11, 2001 and it got really, really bad. It was a nightmare that didn’t end til sometime in early 2005……..

    I’ll spare the fermented kittens. Let’s just say I did make amends. I did get clean and sober. I did accept Jesus Christ. Life did get better since then, and it was a long climb back to the land of the living. I still thank Christ. I am involved. I do some really cool things. Hobbies. I look good and came through the addiction fortunately with most of my brain cells intact.

    The short of the long of it is that sometimes. SOMETIMES a hand is indeed forced upon men concerning sex and women. Some men, no matter “what” they do will always be single. Will never be endeared. Will never father children. Will never have that experience in life. Is it fair? Is it right? Who can answer that, and what of it. I cannot waste any more time over it. I am now 47. It didn’t happen. That is a reality for some men. However, with the grounding in Christ, knowing indeed who you “hath believeth” and obeying Him and understanding ‘what’ you went through……..a man can succeed. Can grow. Can be productive. Can have a life that is worthwhile. Can be a light. Can be interesting. Can learn to heal. Can deal….and can live without sex. I just wantto honor God now for what he did indeed rescue me from. Anything else is secondary.

    Now, I do get upset at our “marriage-mandated-drooling-church-culture” and I do get some righteous anger of the lack of accountability within the Body today. I see false teaching about women, dating, and the whole silly looking “mens ministry” to the rest of the world….but I do know Christ came, Christ will return and Christ loves………..

  199. Embracing Reality says:

    I remember “sour grapes” in my 20’s and came up with my own red-pills as the cure. Like the horrible marriages and horrible wives of so many Christian men around me. Then there were the divorces. Thinking to myself, what am I supposed to be missing out on again? Sexual sin wasn’t much of a temptation because I saw it as an even worse trick, the kind that would lead me to a literal hell instead of a bad marriage, hell on earth.

    My health is normal, my testosterone actually tests unusually high. I have a reasonable sexual drive yet at times sex seems just plain stupid to me. Something a monkey can do. Women (most) are betrayers, even the ‘good ones’ largely take from men, some even destroy men’s lives. How can I not see my own sexual desire, the flesh, as a betrayer as well? Call me cynical but we all know the stats on marriage. The only cure for my present disillusionment with women and sex is a woman who is the exception. Lol, lots of luck…

    I suspect most if not all men can choose to see through their drive, they just don’t. Don’t forget we live in a sexualized culture that has inflicted us with hyper-sexuality our entire lives. You can choose to look away and see through it. As a man thinks, so is he.

  200. Embracing Reality says:

    For whatever it’s worth, to anyone considering the alternatives to gambling on a young marriage, it doesn’t have to be a complete waste staying single. It wasn’t video games, partying or casual sex in my case, it was starting and doing business. My indulgence, which was excessive in retrospect, was a classic car hobby. I’ve owned and restored so many ‘dream cars’ over the years I exhausted my interest in the hobby. Not many married men will ever get to try that and many won’t get to do much else they really wanted. They traded it all for sex, which they also may no longer get, and family which they hopefully enjoy. I never really wanted kids but might have had them anyway if I had married young.

    I’m truly not boasting. My purpose is to point out to any young guys reading that choosing singleness can be awesome! Even having no choice in the matter isn’t so bad. I choose to remain single, In my 40’s I’ve worked hard and smart and accumulated assets. I can retire comfortably any time. Women are now after me partly because of my accomplishments and yet l’ve never been less interested in marriage to the women I’m meeting. There’s tons of opportunities out there besides bothering with women and marriage. Who knows, it’s possible I will marry, unlikely. We should all live for God and some men need to drop the anger and remember living well is the best revenge.

  201. Jason says:

    Interesting ER. A very solid testimony. After I ruined my career at IBM……I decided I didn’t want to ever work an office ever again and be strangled by a tie. I wear one by choice now.

    I live humbly, quietly, and alone now. My hobbies are camping, backpacking and hiking. I like ‘1960’s british culture’ of scooters, fashion and tea. I collect vinyl, restore and use good vintage audio equipment ( a lifelong hobby of mine). I led a very active and large Boy Scout Troop for six years in my city. I like going out dancing to 1960’s early 1970’s soul and Motown music once a month at a small club. Keeps me hip…..and no man white, black, or latin in this city can fly, jump back, footsie, watusi, mash potato harder or better than me 😉 I practice frequently as well!

    I do honestly believe the dancing does help curb the sexual tension I do experience (hey, I am a guy)

    I work a “wage-slave” job for the local Salvation Army here in my city…..but I have zero debt. None. Many folks think I do very well. I am an example of what indeed can be accomplished in modern California with hard work, thrift, saving for what I want, a deep tenacity combined with a Christ centered life………and, I can do this on a wage slave job because of the fact I do not have children. I still get the blues here and there…..done a few “woe is me” days over the years…but better. Much better now.

    I understand the science behind sex. I understand the Christian backing and this “gift” God bestowed upon men and women to share, solidify and bond……..and I can only imagine what the act itself with your wife feels like. It’s probably mindblowing…….probably better than any cocaine I ever had honked up. Probably better than anything. I understand and respect men who do have this in a good marriage. I can’t hate on that.

  202. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    At 46 I’m waaaaay past the big testosterone drop.

    No such thing exists for a normal man. You’re confused or misinformed. Men in their 60’s have conceived children, by definition that requires T.

    Part of the sewer of feminism we swim in is equating men with women in all ways. I’ve had conversations with conservative churchgoing women in which they confidently informed me “male menopause” is just the same as it is for women. Uh, no. Therefore I take the time to correct misinformation.

  203. Embracing Reality says:

    Good on you Jason, sounds like a pretty decent life! I wish I would have learned to dance, the women seem to love a man who can dance as well. The outdoor life is one I loved as a kid and in time I hope to live it again. In a few years I’m going to retire and leave the Midwest where the weather is usually too hot or cold. My plan is to see the country, probably in a motorhome, and figure out where I’m going to grow old. Maybe the Pacific Northwest like Wyoming, maybe the other end, like Maine. Who knows, I may eventually marry but I kind of doubt it. Not worried about it either way.

  204. BillyS says:

    AR,

    It does get easier to control as you get older, even though it is still there.

    (BTW, I meant “Scott” when I said “Jeff” in my last reply.)

  205. Anonymous Reader says:

    BillyS
    It does get easier to control as you get older, even though it is still there.

    That’s not what Scott said, that’s not what female menopause looks like.
    Hormone levels in menopausal women are all over the place for a while, then they drop off a cliff. The only corrective involves bioidentical replacement.

    Hormone levels in men gradually decline over decades and can even be corrected with appropriate levels of proper exercise as well as bioidentical replacement.

    One of these things is not like the other. Conflating them is contradicted by reality. Scott is not in “male menopause” because there is no such thing. All of this is readily available in online sources.
    Why do you want to argue about this?

  206. Scott says:

    I think mostly was I was getting at was, even with the predictable waning of T that occurs after 30, a 99 year old man produces orders of magnitude more of it than the healthiest 19 year old girl. Making “male menopause” as you point out, ridiculous.

  207. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘Men in their 60’s have conceived children, by definition that requires T.’

    It certainly drops over time…but nothing like what happens to a woman when her fertility window shuts. Regular exercise can certainly slow the T decline in men too.

  208. Lost Patrol says:

    72 year old man follows Angry Therapist advice, goes on dates, gets a 27 year old wife!

    https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/25/fashion/weddings/may-december-couple-marc-wallack-cynthia-zhou-.html?referer=https%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FbOlshpFoxZ%3Famp%3D1

    “Their first date, at an Italian restaurant in Greenwich Village, came a week or two later. The conversation flowed, as it had on the phone when Mr. Wallack called to ask her out. Which, to Ms. Zhou, was itself an impressive gesture.”

    (via Instapundit)

  209. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The 72-year-old is a Jewish doctor, wealthy and prestigious. His second wife was a Fox News anchor, so he travels in socially prominent circles. This will be his third wife.

    The 27-year-old woman is Chinese-American, presumably ambitious and well-educated. A cynic might say she was attracted to the old man’s wealth and prestige. That he might not live beyond another decade (give or take) can be seen as a minus or a plus, depending on the woman.

    He’s attracted to her youth and beauty. She’s attracted to his wealth and prestige. Not an uncommon coupling.

  210. seventiesjason says:

    Embracing Reality:

    Lol! Thanks….hey about women who say they love men who know how to dance.

    We’re talking about women here……you and I both know at our age “women” say a lot of things. Many if these things we know are not true. And….your comment assumes all women “know” how to dance. Just about all think they can. Just about every white girl thinks she can keep up with “the sistahs” on a soul and r&b dancefloor (they cant) and most women when dancing today only twerk, grind and mimic sex moves. Most are drunk too. Most of these women are white young or older ‘sex in the city’ types who don’t really stir desire in any type of man. Their personalities are pretty crude and base too (ugly on the inside) but they all think they’re hot

    The women I have danced with don’t know the old school moves and style. I give encouragment to ones who are learning and trying. Most are like dragging a statue around the dancefloor. A lot of black women are fun to dance with and with the old school soul / Motown / r&b its more about technique and grace than image. Most black women I have danced with are good and they are actually having fun with their partner. A hug after the song, a genuine handshake and peck on the cheek. It’s fun.

    I don’t ballroom or swing or jitterbug but I do like watching folks who can do these styles well 🙂

  211. feeriker says:

    Most of these women are white young or older ‘sex in the city’ types who don’t really stir desire in any type of man. Their personalities are pretty crude and base too (ugly on the inside) but they all think they’re hot

    A good blanket description of seventy-five percent of white American women today between the ages of 18 and 70.

  212. Mark says:

    @ER

    “”For whatever it’s worth, to anyone considering the alternatives to gambling on a young marriage, it doesn’t have to be a complete waste staying single. It wasn’t video games, partying or casual sex in my case, it was starting and doing business. My indulgence, which was excessive in retrospect, was a classic car hobby. I’ve owned and restored so many ‘dream cars’ over the years I exhausted my interest in the hobby. Not many married men will ever get to try that and many won’t get to do much else they really wanted. They traded it all for sex, which they also may no longer get, and family which they hopefully enjoy.””

    ^^^^THIS^^^^^……….Great comment! Staying single allows you to do things that you never would have been able to do being married.You sound a lot like myself.Doing business is the “passion” that keeps me going everyday.Even though our Family Office only pays me $1 per year.I work 50 to 80 hours a week and love it! I am also into cars.I like classics but,exotics are my hobby.

    @Red Pill Latecomer

    “”The 72-year-old is a Jewish doctor, wealthy and prestigious.””

    I know a few older Jewish guys like this.Gotta love it!

  213. UK Fred says:

    @Boxer
    @EarlThomas786
    @BillyS

    I was intrigued by the discussion of whether Jesus had half siblings. I know from my reading of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke that there are brothers and sisters accredited HIm, James, Joseph, Simon and Judas being the brothers’ names while the sisters are not named. I had always considered that these were the offspring of Jospeh and Mary, because, I too noted that Joseph “did not know her” until after Jesus was delivered and have taken that to mean that after the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary had a, so far as it could be possible with Jesus in the family, a normal marriage. But I thought to check out the Matthew Henry commentary which states that these were probably Joseph’s children from a previous marriage. Given the number of women who died in childbirth or shortly thereafter until the 20th Century, this is not likely to be unusual. The big gap for me is that it is not mentioned in Scripture.

    As for Roman Catholics worshiping or venerating Mary, I would put it to you that if a congregation sings hymns to Mary then that is worship of Mary. I am aware of this in the roman Catholic church near my childhood home. I can agree with holding her in high regard. Scripture tells us that she did what God required of her. But she is fully human. She died. I believe that she is like all other human beings, an eternal spirit which inhabits, for a time, a physical and temporary body. She is no more to be worshipped or considered a co-redemptrix with Jesus that my own mother. There is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus, the only Son of God. As the old hymn goes, “There was no other good enough to pay the price for sin.
    He, only, could unock the door of Heaven and let us in.”

  214. earlthomas786 says:

    Being single had allowed me to help more in the church and continue to do and learn hobbies that are interesting to me. I’d encourage single men to take St.Paul’s advice…devote it to God and less about yourself and it will be more fulfilling, you won’t be split by having to take care of a family.

  215. squid_hunt says:

    I’ll attempt to forego the Catholic bashing

    Well, that escalated quickly…

    who never had children…

    …with her husband, being the point.

    @Earl
    Her submission to God may have made her a godly woman, but as you describe her life, she would have been nearly useless as a wife for the purposes described for her in scripture. I don’t want my wife thinking Catholic Mary is the gold standard for a wife’s behavior.

  216. earlthomas786 says:

    And this passage from 1Thes 4 is important due to the fact how the Lord punishes those who act upon passionate lust. It shows why PUA hedonist lifestyle isn’t a good idea.

    ‘It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; 4 that each of you should learn to control your own body[a] in a way that is holy and honorable, 5 not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God; 6 and that in this matter no one should wrong or take advantage of a brother or sister.[b] The Lord will punish all those who commit such sins, as we told you and warned you before. 7 For God did not call us to be impure, but to live a holy life. 8 Therefore, anyone who rejects this instruction does not reject a human being but God, the very God who gives you his Holy Spirit.

  217. earlthomas786 says:

    Well only one man could tell us how Mary was as a wife…St. Joseph.

  218. squid_hunt says:

    Nevertheless…

  219. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I don’t want my wife thinking Catholic Mary is the gold standard for a wife’s behavior.

    Mary is the gold standard, properly understood.

    Mary is the gold standard in that she obeyed God’s plan for herself.

    Every woman should obey God’s plan for herself. The trouble is, many woman want to obey God’s plan for Mary.

  220. squid_hunt says:

    The trouble is, many woman want to obey God’s plan for Mary.

    That’s probably a valid point. If that’s what Earl was saying I didn’t get that.

    I also think it’s probably a little too nuanced of a position for the average, modern Christian to practice.

  221. Boxer says:

    Skanky ho’s and feminst priests see Mary as skank-ho single mom, Joseph as cuck.
    Commenters on Dalrock see Mary as frigid wife, Joseph as incel
    Red Pill Latecomer brings the truth:

    Mary is the gold standard in that she obeyed God’s plan for herself. Every woman should obey God’s plan for herself. The trouble is, many woman want to obey God’s plan for Mary.

    This is exactly correct.

    Boxer

  222. Boxer says:

    Dear UK Fred:

    But I thought to check out the Matthew Henry commentary which states that these were probably Joseph’s children from a previous marriage. Given the number of women who died in childbirth or shortly thereafter until the 20th Century, this is not likely to be unusual. The big gap for me is that it is not mentioned in Scripture.

    That’s my issue, also. The family narrative is quite consistent, and the New Testament tends to echo the style of earlier borrowings, with all their “x begat y” genealogical recordings. With this in mind, why aren’t these other children of Joseph, and Joseph’s other wives/girlfriends/fwb’s, recorded therein?

    If Joseph had an honorable wife before Mary, then surely she’s worth mentioning. Likewise, if he banged other women while he was married to God’s mother, surely the Jesus character would have criticized him and made fun of him for it. The silence just doesn’t make sense to me.

    Best,

    Boxer

  223. Embracing Reality says:

    @ Mark,

    Glad you’re enjoying life! Any single man can do well if he purposes to apply himself, they all should. I seem to be the only one who ever quotes this verse but it’s never been more true, 1 Corinthians 7:38

    ” So the man that marries the virgin does well but he who marries her not does even better”

    There you have it. 1 Corinthians 7 is nicely summarized right there. You’ll need the original translations to read it for yourself as feminist translations of the Bible abound. The modern Church hates that verse and I think.

    For some men marriage and family is what they want most in this life. More power to them, God Bless! For some married men, sadly, marriage turned out to be second best or worse. God Bless them too. Some of men like me, we were always suspicious of women and marriage, can’t even find a woman worthy of the gamble. Some men will stay single because they have no other options. Regardless of why a man is single it can be a sweet life, even better than marriage.

    At 47 and quite comfortable I’ve never been more content single. Young guys need to know that it gets better for men, studies show men are happier when they’re older. Not for most women though, God help them. I’ve held these women in their 40’s as tears of despair poured out of them in buckets. Women I’ve dated, so many on anti depressants, panic attacks etc. The woman I’m dating now has a diagnosis of PTSD. The sexual revolution exacts a far greater price on women than men. Too many young, rebellious women don’t figure this out until later when their life is an emotional wreckage. It’s a damn shame.

  224. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘The trouble is, many woman want to obey God’s plan for Mary.’

    What plan is that? The perpetual virginity or the single mother part?

    Many women seem to want to follow the feminist plan. Pursue career/degree, hookups, party, and feels. If she has more of an attitude of Mary by submitting to God’s plan…thats better.

  225. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘The sexual revolution exacts a far greater price on women than men. Too many young, rebellious women don’t figure this out until later when their life is an emotional wreckage. ‘

    And the uncomfortable truth for them is most if not all are not marriage material.

  226. Embracing Reality says:

    “And the uncomfortable truth for them is most if not all are not marriage material”

    Yes, beyond uncomfortable it’s excruciatingly painful for them emotionally. But if they’ll lower their standards these women, if they’re reasonabley attractive, can still find men who will except them. If they submit to such a husband, even though he’s less than the men they’ve already given themselves to, such marriages can function. Most won’t and we’ll just have more wreckage.

  227. Boxer says:

    If they submit to such a husband, even though he’s less than the men they’ve already given themselves to, such marriages can function. Most won’t and we’ll just have more wreckage.

    Many men on Dalrock blog are married to women with pasts. They seem to make it work so far.

    My great fear is that the dose of reality that compelled such women to change, and motivated them to become honorable wives, will be temporary. People often revert to past modes of existence when they get either stressed or comfortable.

    Of course, that doesn’t just apply to reformed playas and hos. There are plenty of Jenny Erickson / Naghmeh Abedini type women, who were virgins and totally chaste at their wedding. Someplace around 35, these women sometimes go completely bonkers (with the total support of pop culture and feminist peers) and blow up their families anyway.

    Boxer

  228. Embracing Reality says:

    My greatest fear… The only single Christian women I will find who are surrendered to God are the ones who put themselves through the carousel and found out the hard way. After a decade or two sexing up bad boys the resulting emotional pain finally drives them to look for the answer. There are some genuinely repentant prodigal daughters in the church if you don’t mind their sordid past. I mind it. Then of course are the unrepentant who have just ran out of opportunities to ride the carousel or want commitment, security, children from a manipulated chump. Either way, hell with that!

  229. BillyS says:

    I am not sure the individual woman would really know which she is ER. That makes the risk a lot higher.

  230. Embracing Reality says:

    “Someplace around 35, these women sometimes go completely bonkers”

    Friend of mine, sincere Christian man recently found out his ‘Christian’ wife was at it again. She’s about 35 and he caught her online trying to meet some dude for sex. Last time she actually met another dude for sex, couple years ago. They have young children so he toughs it out, just puts up with it.

    In the course of all this he talked to a lot of other Christian men, looking for advice. He found out that apparently this is kinda like a thing ‘Christian’ women do now… He met several others who just put up with it like him. Still the others each knew a few more in the same situation. It’s unfreakinbelievable!

  231. feministhater says:

    Friend of mine, sincere Christian man recently found out his ‘Christian’ wife was at it again. She’s about 35 and he caught her online trying to meet some dude for sex. Last time she actually met another dude for sex, couple years ago. They have young children so he toughs it out, just puts up with it.

    In the course of all this he talked to a lot of other Christian men, looking for advice. He found out that apparently this is kinda like a thing ‘Christian’ women do now… He met several others who just put up with it like him. Still the others each knew a few more in the same situation. It’s unfreakinbelievable!

    Yeah, that’s exactly what they have to do. Especially in a Catholic Marriage. I cannot accept that at all. It’s disgusting. Disgraceful and downright evil. I would not put up with it and would not get into any institution that allows it.

  232. Mad_Kalak says:

    I have a question is for zippy and earl. First, I appreciate your pushback about the Mary worship, because as a life long Catholic, I don’t recall a single instance of anything more than veneration. But why the bowing now when reciting the Nicene Creed when we say “incarnate of the Virgin Mary.”

  233. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    As a lapsed and then relapsed Catholic, from a family where my grand-parents on one side were Catholic, and on the other side were Protestant (and so, e.g., aunts of both varieties), I find these Catholic/Protestand bun-fights on Dalrock to be highly amusing.

    I’m pretty sure that most Catholics don’t really understand what Mennonites or Baptists do, and I am dead certain from some of the things written here and elsewhere, that most Prods don’t really have a clear idea in their heads what exactly the Catholic Church “is”.

    Consider Boxer’s anecdote of about a year or so ago now, of him flying into Whoresington, D.C., for whatever reason, and winding up in a Catholic service (as ex-LDS self-described Marxists are known to do, heh), and witnessing some Priest give a homily that was more or less out of the Gospel According To Simone de Beauvoir (or Andrea Dworkin — whatevs), tearing a new hole in anyone with a Y chromosome — contrast that with the practice at the Catholic parish church that I attend, where every Father’s Day sunday, the priest has the fathers in the congregation stand up so they can get a round of applause from the others in attendance (the analogous event happens on Mother’s Day Sunday, too). Given the yuge divergence of basic attitudes and practices from RC parish to RC parish, as illustrated by those two anecdotes, I think it is an open question as to whether The Roman Catholic Church can be said to “exist”, at all.

    Moreover, do you really think that when you get to the Pearly Gates, St. Peter is going to hand you a theology exam? When Christ will sit in judgment of us, however that will work exactly, I’m pretty sure it’s not going to be, “Question #48(b): State the fifteenth Thesis, on the list Martin Luther nailed to that door, and explain whether the reasoning is theologically sound.” It’s gonna be something more along the lines of Jesus asking each of us, “Did you Love me? How can I tell?”

    Parish records as to who the godparents were, and what church attendance was like, are highly unlikely be consulted during this process, I suspect. “Denomination”, as such, won’t matter. Just Jesus asking “Did you Love me? How can I tell?” I pray that I and ya’ll will be able to give a good account. 🙂

    Just to add my 2 Lincoln pennies to all the wanton Mariolatry, and all the outrageous irreverance for the — um, yes my Prod friends — Mother of God, that are on display here. 🙂

    Pax Christi Vobiscum

  234. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘But why the bowing now when reciting the Nicene Creed when we say “incarnate of the Virgin Mary.”

    If I remember correctly it’s honoring Jesus becoming man.

  235. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘My great fear is that the dose of reality that compelled such women to change, and motivated them to become honorable wives, will be temporary. People often revert to past modes of existence when they get either stressed or comfortable.’

    There’s one reason the divorce risk goes way up if she’s not a virgin.

  236. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘They have young children so he toughs it out, just puts up with it.’

    He better hope they’re his. A woman like that hasn’t just solicited two men for sex.

  237. seventiesjason says:

    I could “accept” a truly repentant sister of her past for marriage if I saw the “fruit” from this repentance. She by her actions demonstrates this. Not words. Not what she feels. Not pinning her past sins on “the bad boyfriend” and the shopworn justifications of “even when I rebelled God was using me to teach me lesson”. No. Ten thousand times no! When I hear ” I was wrong. I made bad choicrs. I am ashamed. I repented. I made amends. I am sorry. I am not that girl anymore”

    Then she will at least have my attention. Frankly speaking here, these sisters my age are super rare if not impossible to find. I do acknowledge that they exist and I do know the utter and magnificent transformation Christ will place upon your life if one indeed repents and follows Him.

  238. Mad_Kalak says:

    Earl, was this a recent change, because I don’t remember it before. Or, it is as Yac-Yac says, the parishes where I was I just didn’t do it. I’ve moved a lot as being former military.

  239. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘Earl, was this a recent change, because I don’t remember it before. ‘

    The parishes I’ve been in have done it for several years.

  240. earlthomas786 says:

    “When I hear ” I was wrong. I made bad choicrs. I am ashamed. I repented. I made amends. I am sorry. I am not that girl anymore”

    I’d agree with that and also add that she went to the priest to confess the sin. Holding on to that sin does her and the future spouse no favors.

  241. feeriker says:

    “…I was wrong. I made bad choicrs. I am ashamed. I repented. I made amends. I am sorry. I am not that girl anymore”

    The odds of ever hearing that are slim. The odds of hearing it from a woman who is sincerely proclaiming it from the very depths of her anguished and contrite heart are almost nil.

  242. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    RPL: The trouble is, many woman want to obey God’s plan for Mary.

    earlthomas786: What plan is that? The perpetual virginity or the single mother part?

    The being venerated as the mother of God part

  243. SJB says:

    @Mad_Kalak: the bow is to subordinate oneself to the great mystery of the Incarnation: the Word became Flesh. Without the Word there is no life; without the Word made flesh there is no salvation.

  244. Jason says:

    True Earl……but I am talking about a woman who not only has accepted Jesus Christ, but obeys Him. In a getting-to-know-sense if you will. I need to see this by her actions, her works, her fruit of the spirit. That will come from real Godly sorrow and a repentance of sin. The fruits will show and will be demonstrated. If I am interested in a woman I watch from a far……..

    *how does she treat her fellow brothers and sisters?
    *can she actively defend Jesus Christ?
    *if she has children, how is she raising them?
    *does she study apologetics?
    *does she understand and know the consequences of her sin?
    *is she set-apart?
    *is she striving to the best of her ability to be appealing, attractive without being delusional about the realities of age?
    *does she actually read the Bible and not just quote verses out of context?
    *does she really not want to be the girl she once was?
    *does she really want to be led by a man?
    *does she despise and know abortion is wrong?

    Christian men if they are looking to marry at my age really need to have the armor of God donned and ready. Yes, I do understand these women are VERY rare, but they are out there. I have met one (she’s married). I think her husband is indeed a very lucky man to have found this. These are serious requirements for a woman that “would” be my wife. Are they too picky? No.

    I was “the chief of sinners” for a long time. I was made clean. I was redeemed, and restored. I really am striving to not just “read” and “study” God’s word, but I want to live it and obey it. A woman who has these qualities can and will exemplify a man further and will indeed make her happy.

    I do believe in second chances. I do believe people can really change through Christ.

    Holding on to sin? No. These are consequences of sin. You can be forgiven, but the results of your past actions are there still. A gay man who contracted HIV, who has truly repented of his past and is active, holy, set apart and loves God is forgiven…..but a consequence of past sin is that he still has HIV.
    .
    Our consequences remind us gently at times of what once was; “but now” towards the future we know we have eternity. People (mostly my relatives) are still in awe of my change in life. They still cannot believe it…..but they know and still remember “what I once was” and sometimes the consequences of sin indeed glorify the power of God further in a man’s life.

  245. Minesweeper says:

    @Jason, “You can be forgiven, but the results of your past actions are there still. A gay man who contracted HIV, who has truly repented of his past and is active, holy, set apart and loves God is forgiven…..but a consequence of past sin is that he still has HIV.”

    thats ok, we forgive you, hopefully you can get the best treatment available.

  246. seventiesjason says:

    Minesweeper. You’re a real Prince! You need to take that humor in the road. You’d make a mint 🙂

  247. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    Anonymous Reader (August 27, 2017 at 4:50 pm) replied to Scott, who had said

    “At 46 I’m waaaaay past the big testosterone drop.”

    with:

    No such thing exists for a normal man. You’re confused or misinformed. Men in their 60’s have conceived children, by definition that requires T.

    Part of the sewer of feminism we swim in is equating men with women in all ways. I’ve had conversations with conservative churchgoing women in which they confidently informed me “male menopause” is just the same as it is for women. Uh, no. Therefore I take the time to correct misinformation.

    I’d just like to second AR on this.

    As a younger son of, etc. I can tell you that just two grandfathers ago takes my Y chromosome back before about 1770. Do the math: fertile sons after age 40, or even 50. Every (male) generation, that is. Female reproductive biology has nothing whatsoever to compare with this. (They had these lineal male ancestors of mine with second wives after widowerhood, etc., of course, hence with female ancestors of mine falling well within normal range of ♀ fertile ages.)

    So: what AR said. Very much so.

    Pax Christi Vobiscum

  248. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘The being venerated as the mother of God part’

    Well only Mary can lay claim to that because she is. It is why she is ‘blessed among women’.

  249. BillyS says:

    That doesn’t mean “sinless” it just means “blessed”.

    How could she have been born sinless unless her mother was sinless, if you want to follow that argument back to Eve….

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