Her first time was special.

The author of Cat Person wants the reader to know the main character is a good girl, unlike the sluts who didn’t follow the college boyfriend script. When her hookup partner asks her if she has ever had sex before, she laughs:

Losing her virginity had been a long, drawn-out affair preceded by several months’ worth of intense discussion with her boyfriend of two years, plus a visit to the gynecologist and a horrifically embarrassing but ultimately incredibly meaningful conversation with her mom, who, in the end, had not only reserved her a room at a bed-and-breakfast but, after the event, written her a card. The idea that, instead of that whole involved, emotional process, she might have watched a pretentious Holocaust movie, drunk three beers, and then gone to some random house to lose her virginity to a guy she’d met at a movie theatre was so funny that suddenly she couldn’t stop laughing…

The extra touches are nice, especially the mother booking her a room at a bed-and-breakfast and writing her a card commemorating the moment.

It is interesting to see that this concept is still around this far into hookup culture.  This is fiction, and obviously it doesn’t mean the average woman still follows the ritual.  But the inclusion of the ritual in fiction shows the power of the idea either way.  Absent real, meaningful moral boundaries, women will make up their own.  They have to.  Otherwise they won’t be able to draw the line between good girl and slut.

Edit:  Note that this is a slight deviation from the AF/BB trajectory.  Instead, she first has ceremonial sex with a Beta who completes a ritual to prove that the virginity losing sex is purified with romantic love.  This then frees the woman move on to the AF stage prior to later settling for BB.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cat Person, New Morality, Rationalization Hamster, Romantic Love. Bookmark the permalink.

212 Responses to Her first time was special.

  1. Nick Mgtow says:

    Puke!

  2. Splashman says:

    Women can convince themselves of anything, and do.

    It’s almost like . . . oh, I don’t know — it’s like they’re more easily deceived, or something.

  3. earlthomas786 says:

    Absent real, meaningful moral boundaries, women will make up their own. They have to. Otherwise they won’t be able to draw the line between good girl and slut.

    It’s a real lipstick on a pig case.

    This seems to be also absent women wanting/waiting to get married to consumate. Now it’s some fictional dog and pony show where her mother promotes/celebrates her fornication is considered romantic to these broads.

  4. Caspar Reyes says:

    Absent real, meaningful moral boundaries, women will make up their own.

    Pure gold, and a perfect summary of why women must not be allowed to teach in the assembly.

    I’ve told my daughters that there is only one good sexual choice women can make: no before marriage and yes after. And that’s not something they would ever come up with on their own, especially packing them off to university, as it were to Vegas, with their entire sexual inheritance and the advice of “gamble wisely!”.

    Only the patriarchy would come up with that or enforce it.

  5. Pingback: Her first time was special. | @the_arv

  6. When I entered undergrad in August 1989…..every girl I met, and many I became friends with lost their v-card waaayyyyyy before college started. Usually around 15-16. Every guy I was friends with…..most of them had already lost their v-card around the same age (and of course it was to a perfect ’10’ smoking-hot-girl-who-was-the-envy-of-all-the-guys…….)

    No one was “waiting” back then, and the guys who still held the v-card back then were considered “losers” at 18. Nothing really has changed. A lot more virgin guys walking around than women,

  7. RICanuck says:

    As Aaron Clarey would say, “The father could not be reached for comment”.

  8. Ofelas says:

    Exactly what Nick Mgtow said.

    Some more nuggets from the Newyorker piece:

    “The way he looked at her then was like an exaggerated version of the expression she’d seen on the faces of all the guys she’d been naked with, not that there were that many—six in total, Robert made seven. He looked stunned and stupid with pleasure, like a milk-drunk baby, and she thought that maybe this was what she loved most about sex—a guy revealed like that.”

    “It was a terrible kiss, shockingly bad; Margot had trouble believing that a grown man could possibly be so bad at kissing. It seemed awful, yet somehow it also gave her that tender feeling toward him again, the sense that even though he was older than her, she knew something he didn’t.”

    Later the heroine contemplates how she would relate the horrific sexual experience to some imaginary future boyfriend:
    “then she imagined that somewhere, out there in the universe, there was a boy who would think that this moment was just as awful yet hilarious as she did, and that sometime, far in the future, she would tell the boy this story. She’d say, “And then he said, ‘You make my dick so hard,’ ” and the boy would shriek in agony and grab her leg, saying, “Oh, my God, stop, please, no, I can’t take it anymore,” and the two of them would collapse into each other’s arms and laugh and laugh”

  9. earlthomas786 says:

    The way he looked at her then was like an exaggerated version of the expression she’d seen on the faces of all the guys she’d been naked with, not that there were that many—six in total, Robert made seven.

    BWAHAHAHAHA! Just had to slip that in didn’t she?

  10. Caspar Reyes says:

    And when you leave sex and romance up to them they ruins it.

  11. The Question says:

    As we saw with The Last Jedi and now with this New Yorker peice, the mainstream entertainment is run by Fake Americans pushing foreign, cosmopolitan beliefs and values that are utterly hostile to traditional Americanism.

    What angers me most is not that they do this, but so many idiotic Americans continue to consume it and get bitter when you have the nerve to point it out.

  12. earlthomas786 says:

    Her ‘not that many’ guys she’s been naked with…less than 30% chance of a stable marriage.

  13. Frank K says:

    writing her a card commemorating the moment.

    I guess Hallmark missed the boat on that one. Or did they?

    I recall a news story I read some time ago, about how parents would rent their princess a hotel room for prom, so that she wouldn’t have to do it in the backseat of a car. I recall after reading that, thinking “we’re doomed”.

  14. earlthomas786 says:

    As Aaron Clarey would say, “The father could not be reached for comment”.

    It’s the line that defines most of our generation.

  15. Frank K says:

    “Oh, my God, stop, please, no, I can’t take it anymore,” and the two of them would collapse into each other’s arms and laugh and laugh”

    This reminds me of a conversation at lunch with coworkers. One quote Billy Joel (very approvingly) that he would “rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints.”

    I very calmly responded “No one is laughing in Hell”

  16. earlthomas786 says:

    Later the heroine contemplates how she would relate the horrific sexual experience to some imaginary future boyfriend:

    “then she imagined that somewhere, out there in the universe, there was a boy who would think that this moment was just as awful yet hilarious as she did, and that sometime, far in the future, she would tell the boy this story

    Yeah that’s just what boyfriends want to hear about….your Sex in the City type conversations.

  17. Westray says:

    Sounds like the sexual experience of a woman born into and raised in a culture that has zero respect for men. She has no attraction to him or any kind of libido or needs of her own. Her pleasure only has to do with observing his exaggerated desire and being entertained by it in a superior, sneering way. She has no desire of her own. Her future, idyllic vision of being with a man, STILL only has to do with sneering at the previous man’s sexual ardor which see reads as laughable weakness since she has never had any of those feelings.

    Not too different than the sexual behavior of men from certain other cultures that are currently in the news quite often these days; men who see women as silly, laughable, sexual playthings at best and are just as easily turned on by other males, young boys, cars (yes), or farm animals. The women in their culture have no value at all and their sexuality, while used, is really only sneered at, not revered or appreciated or respected. Not unlike the attitude of women in Western culture who have become as misandric as some other cultures are misogynistic. Divorce court being the Western answer to public stoning.

  18. Westray says:

    No aphrodisiac quite as effective as watching your girl snort-laugh about a past lover who exhibited the comedy gold, ‘milk drunk’ stupidity of being sexually aroused as a healthy male. Remember, you just ‘laughed and laughed’ about him too so now your own erection is the same incredibly funny, party gag, whoopee cushion level of snort-laugh funny that you can both laugh and laugh about again. Don’t get milk drunk, now.

    What a hopeless mess.

    (……Passport, please.)

  19. Calculating Penny’s 31 partners by 30.

    Interesting that this is done in prime time.
    I remember when Dick van Dyke couldn’t sleep in the same bed with his wife in prime time.

  20. Of course the first was Speeeeeecial.

  21. pb says:

    Even the nice guy beta (male feminist?) turns out to be a misogynistic creep who calls her a whore after he is dumped and gets jealous and angry.

  22. cynthia says:

    Notice how if you read the entire story, the female author emasculates the supposedly alpha guy in totality.

    I see this a lot in female written fiction. I don’t know why.

  23. Pingback: Her first time was special. | Reaction Times

  24. I was trying to figure out why I hated this article (the linked NY piece, not the dalrock blog post) so much.

    And I realized: it’s because it’s depressing. Neither character is noble or good. Will anyone, male or female, read it and come away inspired, encouraged?

    From my own blog:

    The situation will be less like a shortage that some men may be anticipating, and more analogous to an economic depression, where no one works because they doubt anyone can afford their products.

    In simpler terms:

    “Why prepare for marriage? Guys will always be available”

    leads to

    “Why prepare for marriage? There are no girls available”

    leads to

    “Why prepare for marriage? There are no guys available.”

  25. Dave says:

    Unless we have a form of rest in society (hopefully along religious lines), the West is now history.

  26. Frank K says:

    Unless we have a form of rest in society (hopefully along religious lines), the West is now history.

    He has shown the strength of his arm,
    he has scattered the proud in their conceit.

    And unless it repents the West is going to get scattered, big time.

  27. feeriker says:

    And unless it repents the West is going to get scattered, big time.

    Scattered it will be. No society ever repents of its own accord.

  28. “not that there were that many—six in total, Robert made seven.”

    By age twenty!

  29. Wow, the main character of that story is dreadful.

  30. Besteger says:

    @Cynthia Our author is looking back at the Alpha she had but could not hold.
    Her options are either introspection or pronouncing that the grapes were sour.
    She merely chose the least painful.

  31. Spike says:

    Aww, how cutesy and romantic.
    She “laughs and laughs” at the guy. Her mom prepares a safe space for her “coming (pun) of age”.

    Apart from the fact that Western women’s, and increasingly all women’s sexual history stories are “schpecial” to them but sound exactly the same to anyone who listens to them (and if you’re an instructor of some sort of sport / involved in academic tutoring, you’ll hear them) makes you wonder how NONE of them can figure out how to leave the cycle we call the carousel.

    And, what is it with mothers? They seem to be obsessed with having vicarious sex through their children. I have friends whose mothers orchestrated their respective losses-of-virginity in their mid-teens. These are both male and female friends.
    I don’t know about anyone here, but when I became a man, I made decisions as a man and that included finding a woman for sex on my own terms.

  32. earl says:

    Notice how if you read the entire story, the female author emasculates the supposedly alpha guy in totality.

    I see this a lot in female written fiction. I don’t know why.

    It’s what sexually promiscuous feminists do. It’s a way to let out their latent hatred for men.

  33. Lovekraft says:

    Someone on imgur put this out which is an in-depth analysis of why a character from a popular sitcom is actually a selfish narcissistic child-in-adult-body (Lily from How I Met Your Mother). Get past the hotness and all is revealed. The comments thread on this converged site is full of ‘I’m not listening, musogineee!’

    https://imgur.com/gallery/HTYQn

  34. earl says:

    Get past the hotness and all is revealed.

    I keep telling that to guys. Just because she’s hot and puts out doesn’t mean she has a good attitude.

    Do we have to wonder where some women get the idea to act like this?

  35. James says:

    Dalrock,

    Here’s an article in the NY Times called “Single, Unemployed and Suddenly Myself,” which is written by a 37-year-old single woman about the topic of job hunting and dating a younger man. It might be a topic for a blog post and discussion:

  36. Just because she’s hot and puts out doesn’t mean she has a good attitude.

    But its a great place to start.

  37. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    This writer, presumably male, celebrates the Star Wars franchise’s more “progressive” turn: https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/the-last-jedi-saving-the-star-wars-we-love/#!

    Some excerpts:

    But Rogue One also went further in its subversive representation of geopolitics. It offered an unambiguous response to the pathetic fanboys associated with 4chan, MRA movements, and the “alt-right,” who responded to the new films’ politics with hashtags like #boycottstarwars and #whitegenocide. Even if its notoriously troubled production resulted in a film that was less sure-footed than its predecessor, it left no doubt about its ideological agenda: released just weeks after the election of Donald Trump, the film drew a clear distinction between the Empire as a gang of fascist white supremacists and the Rebellion’s embattled coalition of oppressed minorities. …

    But the real and lasting masterstroke in Johnson’s truly invigorating film is the way it connects the rejection of the Jedis’ patriarchal tradition to the roles played by women in the narrative. As important as it is to have more diversity in casting Hollywood blockbusters, diversity alone is not enough as long as narratives continue to serve the same old ideological purposes. Even if we might applaud the idea of a gender-swapped Ghostbusters, the results of gender-swapping will remain limited unless the reboot also addresses the original film’s political agenda.

  38. purge187 says:

    A mother encouraging fornication.

    Please let the Rapture happen soon, God.

  39. Gunner Q says:

    @RPL, that’s why the feminists don’t understand what Star Wars, Star Trek, Ghostbusters and other cultural icons are about. They’re too busy asking “how can I converge this to push my agenda?” to think about staying true to the roots.

    Solipsism or cultural locusts?

  40. Frank K says:

    Gentlemen (and lady lurkers),

    A Christmas Blessing from Budapest, Hungary:

  41. I grew up in one of those dying households where my parents had a solid marriage but were ‘culturally christian’, they had values. We would find ourselves as a family a few times a year in church…usually a Methodist one in the small town I grew up in. We didn’t read the Bible. We didn’t tithe. We didn’t really talk much about “faith” or if it was brought up over dinner…..my father was lapsed Catholic (him being Polish). My mother was lapsed COE (preppy Catholic).

    My parents talked about drugs, sex, with me and tried to be “in tune” parents. This was the 1980’s.

    I was raised well, and when I got into drugs….I “knew” it was wrong. I had plenty of education and talk about this growing up in school and at home.

    ……..must have been 1990?? I was home during “winter break” from college in Vermont. Mum was having tea in the TV room. As I was getting ready to go “somewhere” she called me into the TV room. She told me to sit, and take a tea with her (usually this meant I was trouble). I was racking my brain with “what does she know? what did she find out? Did she find the LSD blotter paper??? I knew I should have left that back in my dorm room………”

    She was quiet for a few minutes. She then asked me if I had a special “bird” in college. I almost spit up the tea, “No” I replied (‘I WISH I did’ was what I was thinking, plenty cute ones there). She then told me that she “knew about college students today” (laughing really HARD to myself on that one). She then went on about her being a nurse and seeing STD’s…being a young woman once…..feeling those urges……times are different from 1965…….she then gave me a box of condoms. Pretty awkward situation when your mother is handing your 20-year-old self a box of condoms.

    I said “What am I going to do with these?”
    “Jason, dinae play coy with yer mum. Hurry up, I would want you to be safe likes, and I want you to finish your education before you become a dad.” She said.

    What happened next I really don’t recall. I just remember being totally freaked and a bit knocked by being handed a box of condoms from my mother……surreal. I’m glad I wasn’t high or I might have really done / said something stupid

    As if………sex wasn’t happening, even back then for me. No potential options as I recall either. The drugs though were already a part of my life. I kept my hair cut, my grades up and dressed preppy. They didn’t have a clue……

  42. MarcusD says:

    Moderately high standards…

  43. Opus says:

    @Jason

    I believe it to be an oxymoron to describe your mother as lapsed CofE; It’s simply not possible. Were it possible then most in England would be CofE – even my never-baptised friend writes CofE on government forms and is familiar with the local vicar who is having some success recruiting my friend’s “peaceful” wife to the congregation. What your Mother was lapsed of (if I may be so bold) was British.

  44. Boxer says:

    Hey MarcusD:

    Where did you find this looney? I’m wondering what she looks like. Link? (email it to me if you’d prefer).

    Boxer

  45. earlthomas786 says:

    @Marcus….

    At least she was willing to let the body fat percentage slide. That shows she doesn’t have competely unrealistic standards.

  46. Frank K says:

    Unless that gal looks like a supermodel, I think she’ll be disappointed.

  47. Son of Liberty says:

    @MarcusD

    Seems to eliminate a good chunk of the population. Here’s the alternative for men…

    Women, don’t approach/ask me out unless you meet the following criteria..
    Must be virgin in all 3 orifices.

  48. earlthomas786 says:

    Women, don’t approach/ask me out unless you meet the following criteria..
    Must be virgin in all 3 orifices.

    I’d add:

    Must know how to cook.
    Must be at a healthy weight for your height. Body fat percentage in healthy levels too.
    Must have homemaking skills.
    Wants to be a mother
    Enjoys wearing dresses
    Pleasant attitude 90% of the time

    Even with our ‘unrealistic’ standards…that’s still a much shorter list than what a lot of entitled women come up with.

  49. Son of Liberty says:

    @earlthomas786

    If my first requirement wasn’t enough, that would exponentially and mathematically “eliminate”, using L’Hospital’s rule (for mathematicians) the probabilities of finding anyone.. lol. God help us all.

  50. JDG says:

    MarcusD says:
    December 24, 2017 at 1:08 pm
    Moderately high standards…

    LOL! Thankfully I don’t cook.

  51. earlthomas786 says:

    Unless that gal looks like a supermodel, I think she’ll be disappointed.

    I’d add unless she’s in the top 1% of supermodels.

  52. Son of Liberty says:

    Some “super” models are just laughable though, I’ve seen better high school/college contestants.
    Many of these so called models are chosen by women for magazine, catwalk fashion events, promos…

  53. Height. Well I got THAT. 6’3″ here.
    Income and car. I have a Scooter that I bought for $2,600.00 and put over another $1,500.00 into since 2015. 2016 total after tax….just over 15K. So already disqualified.

  54. stickdude90 says:

    Computer geek here who likes to play video games – looks like I dodged a bullet there.

  55. Gunner Q says:

    *Gunner Q looks down at his polo shirt from Van Heusen. Pimp slap, extra wrist.*

    Her inclusion of aerospace engineering is very odd. Is this from Los Angeles, specifically Burbank where the skunk works used to be?

  56. MarcusD says:

    This image has been circulating on Twitter over the last few days. As far as I am able to find, it originally came from a Tumblr feminist (no username given).

  57. Bee says:

    @purge187,

    “A mother encouraging fornication.”

    Unfortunately, this goes back a long ways. I remember when a reporter asked the wife of then President Gerald Ford if she had a problem with her daughter having sex before marriage. Mrs. Ford, said she did not have a problem with it, “as long as it’s a meaningful relationship.”

  58. Pingback: The “they’re going to do it anyway” argument. | American Dad

  59. Novaseeker says:

    Mrs. Ford, said she did not have a problem with it, “as long as it’s a meaningful relationship.”

    Yep, it’s what Dalrock has said for years — the part of the culture that still cares at all about moral rules around sexual activity essentially determines the moral legitimacy of sex based on the presence or absence of “meaningful feelings” (i.e., romance). The rest of the culture that doesn’t care much about moral rules around sexual activity has no problem with SNLs and so on from a moral perspective, but still tends to apply quasi-moral rules to “relationships” (ie, BFs and GFs who are not married and are sexually active should still restrict themselves and not “cheat”, even though they are fornicating with each other).

    Basically the entire Christian framework was trashed by almost all the culture — including almost all Christians — and replaced with a neo-pagan “romantic feelings” based “morality” around “relationship sex”, coupled with a broad tolerance of “non-relationship sex”, “as long as it isn’t like too often, you know?”.

  60. earl says:

    the part of the culture that still cares at all about moral rules around sexual activity essentially determines the moral legitimacy of sex based on the presence or absence of “meaningful feelings” (i.e., romance).

    That’s even leaked into our legal system.

    Quite often most rape cases aren’t actually rape…but what she felt like after the fornication.

  61. earl says:

    The story often goes she consented…or quasi-consented, or consented under the influence of alcohol or wasn’t enthusiastic at some point, or felt regret afterward…because guess what, that’s what often happens after fornication. Then she thinks it must be rape because she feels these feelings. No, it was a bad decision you shouldn’t have done…but that doesn’t mean the man should go to jail because you thought sex and marriage could be two separate things.

    Actual rape is a much different scenario.

  62. Boxer says:

    Merry Christmas fellas:

    Jason sez:

    Height. Well I got THAT. 6’3″ here.
    Income and car. I have a Scooter that I bought for $2,600.00 and put over another $1,500.00 into since 2015. 2016 total after tax….just over 15K. So already disqualified.

    I’m sure you’re really disappointed about not making the cut. Me too. Such a prize catch of a wimminz.

    My guess is that she’s fat, old, and has two kids, by two different fathers. The only wimminz who make such lists are wimminz who want to “preemptively reject” all the people who laugh at her anyhow.

    Boxer

  63. Ofelas says:

    Earl: “Yeah that’s just what boyfriends want to hear about…”

    Some women, or couples (and hard to say who initiates that kind of talk more often), obviously do it, and hard to say whether they really have no sense of boundaries or intimacy, or are sorta’ dulled, or just brainwashed (eg by likes of Sex and the City, Girls, etc) to think that it is just normal.
    On the other hand it’s good, because this way the women just rub a red flag right in your face so to speak, that you really can’t miss it.

    I don’t know how common it really is though. The authoress of the ‘Cat person’ is mentioning the practice in her short story, but hard to say where exactly this particular practice would really fall in a relation to the Overton window in the broader society now.
    My own experience sample of those cases is quite limited:
    one personal experience, that, to be honest, felt quite like a kick in the balls with steel toe boot,
    and then what two friends, both almost a generation younger than me, with whom I played in a band, shared when the topic came up once, in a way ‘yeah, bitches can be really disgusting’ :
    a girl initiating a talk of ‘comparing notes’ about what how with whom, bringing it up not in something like a f*ckbuddy setting, but in a ‘serious’ relationship: like ‘ever did anal with anybody before? how was it?’ etc ;
    or she tells a boyfriend how she loves being bitten during sex and that it can easily make her orgasm, while for him biting is not a part of his natural sexual expression, so it’s clearly a preference aquired with her past lover(s) ;
    she relates how she gets really sexually wild when drunk (to a boyfriend with whom she haven’t slept yet nor he has ever been around when she got drunk yet) ;
    she’s joking about ‘remains of her virginity’ while talking to a boyfriend who is not the one who took it..

    These examples (paradoxically?) are from the time when I lived in Turkey, so it’s apparently not only euroamerican culture that is affected by the decay and disintegration of values, but even secular or semi-secular (the women in question being nominally muslim) circles in a society that is still overall much more traditional, and actually maybe more blue-pill on a level of individual men. Especially fathers of the girls are often absolutely clueless that their girl would be seeing a boyfriend or serie of boyfriends (and have sex with them), while mothers are usually aware and either naively think there’s no sex involved, or tacitly tolerate it, when it’s a ‘serious boyfriend’.. Fathers get typically involved at the point when the princess decides to marry, and they would tend to grill the poor sap candidate groom, whether he is good enough for their daughter (unbeknownst to the father that her chastity has been already seriously compromised with her previous lovers).

    And the women are often of course harbouring and cherishing fond memories of the first time with the first one (or/and of the time of dating the first one in general, as it usually happens in her formative teen years, when her psyche is very plastic and moldable and impressionable, which, combined with sex, makes his imprint upon her very intense and pretty much permanent, so whoever comes next or would marry her is in a way getting, at least partially, another man’s woman).

    And that ‘college/highschool sweatheart’ narrative, that, as outlined by Dalrock, gives the women the feeling of security of belonging to the good girl camp, can be used to disqualify any objections or criticism of that practice, because she loved him! (until she no longer loved him) and it was a ‘long-term, serious, committed relationship’! (until either one, and more often her, or both, changed their mind, commitment, whatever it is supposed to mean in that context, be damned).
    So you (generic ‘you’) are automatically painted as a bigot and insecure and whatever, if you are for example even concerned about suitability of a woman with this kind of mental wiring for giving her your life-long commitment, or would ask uncomfortable questions like “what exactly do you mean by ‘just didn’t work out’ or ‘somehow stopped understanding each other’?”…

  64. earl says:

    The only wimminz who make such lists are wimminz who want to “preemptively reject” all the people who laugh at her anyhow.

    ‘I’m not an undesirable specimen…it’s all men who are unattractive except for the tall, hawt, rich real men!’

  65. earl says:

    On the other hand it’s good, because this way the women just rub a red flag right in your face so to speak, that you really can’t miss it.

    No doubt…the advantage most aware men have today is that women aren’t discrete at all about their red flags.

  66. imnobody00 says:

    @Novaseeker

    It is the “sexual morality” preferred by women: serial polygamy. Alpha men would prefer simultaneous and serial polygamy. Beta men would prefer monogamy.

    This shows the influence of the Feminine Imperative in our society.

  67. MarcusD says:

    @Novaseeker

    Basically the entire Christian framework was trashed by almost all the culture — including almost all Christians — and replaced with a neo-pagan “romantic feelings” based “morality” around “relationship sex”, coupled with a broad tolerance of “non-relationship sex”, “as long as it isn’t like too often, you know?”.

    It seems that a lot of the actual catechesis, preaching, and materials produced on the topic of sexuality and marriage (and dating, etc), assumes that people are simply going to fornicate. There’s no hope (let alone expectation) expressed except maybe if it’s directed towards young teenagers) that people will abstain until marriage. To a certain extent, one gets the impression that the Church has given up on the idea, and is now just doing damage control (e.g. “So what if people have 20 partners before marriage, as long as they go to confession it’s all good.”). Most Christians take their cues from the wider culture, then try to find a religious “answer” to it (which invariably is something along the lines of “we just have to accept it”). Everything sounds like a total surrender to the wider culture – there’s no impression of “enough is enough”. I’ve said this before, but I really think that a lot of people want the world this way. I’ve met two individuals (Catholics, no less) who actually want people to sin more (particularly sexual sins) in order to “provide opportunities” for others to “practice being more forgiving and tolerant of others.” They say it in such a “nice” way that (for me, at least) it’s easy to miss how absolutely demonic such a view really is. (There’s also a quote from a saint that they use to justify their position (I’ll try to find it).) Overall, I think the standards for (esp. sexual) behavior amongst Christians have moved to meet those of the wider culture, and if Christians aren’t actually encouraging it, they’re standing by excusing it.

  68. MarcusD says:

    @Ofelas

    And the women are often of course harbouring and cherishing fond memories of the first time with the first one (or/and of the time of dating the first one in general, as it usually happens in her formative teen years, when her psyche is very plastic and moldable and impressionable, which, combined with sex, makes his imprint upon her very intense and pretty much permanent, so whoever comes next or would marry her is in a way getting, at least partially, another man’s woman).

    “Age at first sex” is a significant predictor of future marital instability, unhappiness, and dissolution. (If the idea of playing Russian roulette bothers you, imagine playing with half the chambers loaded.)

  69. earlthomas786 says:

    I’ve met two individuals (Catholics, no less) who actually want people to sin more (particularly sexual sins) in order to “provide opportunities” for others to “practice being more forgiving and tolerant of others.”

    Two questions…how much of a Jesuit are they, and are these individuals women or weak men?

  70. MarcusD says:

    @earlthomas786

    Two questions…how much of a Jesuit are they, and are these individuals women or weak men?

    Both are laypersons; one woman and one man. As best as I can tell, both went to Catholic schools (though obviously catechesis is greatly lacking). The woman is older (50s? 60s?) and the man is younger (30s). I would certainly classify the man as weak (honestly, he reminds me of the majority of men who show up on places like Catholic Answers).

  71. purge187 says:

    “Age at first sex” is a significant predictor of future marital instability, unhappiness, and dissolution.”

    Wasn’t there a study some years back that showed that couples who waited were 600% less likely to divorce? God didn’t make rules to curb our inherent stupidity just to be a cosmic wet blanket.

  72. earl says:

    I would certainly classify the man as weak (honestly, he reminds me of the majority of men who show up on places like Catholic Answers).

    That whole ‘sexually sin more so you can be forgiving and tolerant’ sounds like it is straight from the SJW handbook. In fact I think personal rationalization of one’s own sexual immorality and heavy virtue signalling go hand in hand.

  73. True story….

    When I entered college we had the “welcome convocation” (Methodist affiliated college), and dinner for the freshman class.

    There was a smokin’ hot girl. I mean, hot. Not cute. Not pretty. Hot. Her and her boyfriend (a very below average looking dude. way below average) decided to go to the same college. They both were homeschooled. They met in first grade….were friends forever. They became boyfriend and girlfriend during jr high age………….

    The guy had zero personality. Zero social skills. Acne ravaged face. Bad attitude. Dude didn’t know what he had. He didn’t understand his incredible luck.

    That first couple of days, every guy swarmed on her like predatory sharks. Well, the upper classmen arrived that Sunday before classes started on Wednesday morning.

    This smokin hot girl within a week had been poked all ways by and from men between the ages of 20-22 (the soccer team probably got in there first). The “boyfriend” had dropped out within three weeks. She got pregnant by November, and she never came back after that first semester. That story is bantered around by alums to this day who were on campus in the fall of 1989

  74. MarcusD says:

    @purge187

    Wasn’t there a study some years back that showed that couples who waited were 600% less likely to divorce? God didn’t make rules to curb our inherent stupidity just to be a cosmic wet blanket.

    When the wife had N > 1, the increase in probability of divorce was at least 600%. The data are incredibly clear on the consequences, and for a man to not heed them is, frankly, insane in today’s world (e.g. divorce laws, etc).

  75. American says:

    “She does not ponder the path of life; Her ways are unstable, she does not know it… Keep your way far from her and do not go near the door of her house.” Proverbs 5:6,8.

  76. MarcusD says:

    @earl

    That whole ‘sexually sin more so you can be forgiving and tolerant’ sounds like it is straight from the SJW handbook. In fact I think personal rationalization of one’s own sexual immorality and heavy virtue signalling go hand in hand.

    It gets portrayed as a “silver lining” to the consequences of the cultural attitudes and practices regarding sexual behavior. (It’s like killing people in order for the bereavement ministry to have something to do.) I think it’s a natural extension to the (current) male tendency to excuse undesirable female behavior – the male gets to couch their virtue-signalling in religious language in addition to appealing to female self-regard viz. the “true” circumstances of undesirable behavior.

  77. earlthomas786 says:

    The data are incredibly clear on the consequences, and for a man to not heed them is, frankly, insane in today’s world (e.g. divorce laws, etc).

    How many men even know that, though?

    While I’m not a big fan of people doing the maritals outside of marriage…if no-fault wasn’t hanging around all our necks if we got married, perhaps a little bit of forgiveness could be had. But not with no fault around.

    My consperiacy theory is that divorce lawyers and family courts have to be in bed with the big pharma, Planned Parenthood and the education system churning out that sex ed. No fault in the land of promiscous women is a warning to all men on who they choose to marry.

  78. Gunner Q says:

    seventiesjason @ 10:25 am:
    “The “boyfriend” had dropped out within three weeks.”

    The only winner at the end of the story. What he lost would surely have destroyed him.

  79. feeriker says:

    The data are incredibly clear on the consequences, and for a man to not heed them is, frankly, insane in today’s world (e.g. divorce laws, etc).

    American women continue to outdo themselves in proving how they’re not only not even remotely fit for marriage, but are unsuitable for any kind of serious relationship at all. Truly the Edsels of the human female species.

  80. Anon says:

    Wow!

    I just learned that alimony is no longer deductible by the payer in the new tax reform.

    Cuckservatives in the GOPe did ultimately sneak in some form of major misandry. But I would like to know if this originated from Trump or some GOPe cuckservative.

    While this won’t affect lower earners or the top 0.5% much, an upper-middle class divorced man is doomed. If he earns $200K and his alimony is, say, $40K, now instead of writing off 40-50% of that, he can write off zero!

    That is HUGELY bad for alimony-paying men (remember that 96% of alimony is paid by men, and only 4% by women).

    I read that only 600,000 men were using this deduction, though, which seems way too few.

    Wow. Just when I was feeling bad over XMas about deciding to never marry, something comes along to snap me out of my temporary doubts!

  81. MarcusD says:

    @Anon

    Under current law, alimony is deductible to the spouse making payments and is included as income to the recipient.

    In the new bill, however, these payments are no longer deductible for the payor. Nor are the payments included in the recipient’s gross income. Instead, the money used for alimony will be taxed at the payor’s rates.

    This provision is effective for divorce and separation agreements signed after Dec. 31, 2018.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/19/5-deductions-taxpayers-will-miss-the-most-in-the-tax-bill.html

    I don’t see this convincing more men to marry…

  82. Anon says:

    I don’t see this convincing more men to marry…

    From what we have seen, no matter how bad the laws get, there is only a negligible impact on deterring men from the Misandry Contract.

    More likely, we will see an uptick of stories where a lone gunman aged 45-59 with no prior criminal record shoots his ex-wife and her boyfriend, which will used to conduct even more crackdowns on all men, without ever mentioning that alimony is what made him snap.

    Sort of like OJ Simpson.

  83. Boxer says:

    Cuckservatives in the GOPe did ultimately sneak in some form of major misandry. But I would like to know if this originated from Trump or some GOPe cuckservative.

    Look at none other than Ted Cruz as one of the architects of this monstrosity. When people objected to this and other feminist changes, he rebuked them as misogynists, like a typical CONservative republican male feminist.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/12/21/cruzin-for-skanks/

    CONservatives like Cruz (who, I believe, has had multiple affairs with women, as was widely reported in the press over the years) are working hard to steal from all you hard-working married brothers. Millions more of your tax dollars (mine too) is going to single mothers and divorcées. One must wonder when this country is going to get a clue about trash like this.

    Boxer

  84. Anon says:

    OMG, this is a TED talk????

    Almost every ‘sphere cliche imaginable is contained herein. And this talk is almost 4 years ago!

  85. earl says:

    One must wonder when this country is going to get a clue about trash like this.

    Who keeps voting them in?

    Women, socialist and welfare suffrage in a democracy will ultimately lead to this.

  86. Novaseeker says:

    Almost every ‘sphere cliche imaginable is contained herein. And this talk is almost 4 years ago!

    That is truly hilarious in terms of the entitlement and lack of self-awareness. She demands a tall, smart, ambitious man but she brings nothing to the table to deserve that — she doesn’t seem to realize that she’s well below average in physical attractiveness and she’s 31. Oh, and he has to be an SJW, apparently as well, because disagreements with *her* political views are a disqualifier as well. And these women wonder why they are alone. They don’t realize that they are 3s, and deserve a male 3, not a male 5 or 6. The entitlement and lack of realism about their own level of attractiveness is rampant, really.

  87. feeriker says:

    Wow!

    I just learned that alimony is no longer deductible by the payer in the new tax reform.

    Those of us currently divorced and having alimony extracted from us at gunpoint are, fortunately, “grandfathered” for tax purposes in terms of our losses being deductible. It’s any poor bastard who gets slapped with papers after December 31st of this coming year who gets screwed royally (nothing like pitting victims against each other to control the herd, eh?). Worse still, alimony recipients (98 percent women) will get to deduct payments they RECEIVE instead of payments being taxable as they are now. More subsidizing of useless-eater women at the expense of productive men!

    Frankly, I hope and pray that the cuckservative douchebags who signed off on this abomination all get taken to the cleaners by their current wives by 31 December of 2019. Being literally burned alive would also be a nice finishing touch.

    FUCK YOU, GOP Congress!

  88. Hmm says:

    Just got through to the end of the Erica Morin video. It’s a graphic illustration of a post-wall woman who thinks she’s a “great catch”, but shows at every word why she is where she is.

  89. earl says:

    She demands a tall, smart, ambitious man but she brings nothing to the table to deserve that

    Didn’t you hear her…she says she’s smart (with a worthless degree), she likes sports (so), she likes to cook (or eat), she likes sex (divorce and marital risks), she’s amazing (self said).

    For starters calling her future kids ‘spawn’ isn’t a good look for a woman.

    I’m sure things like her attitude and homemaking skills went completely over her head.

  90. earl says:

    I don’t see this convincing more men to marry…

    Between women doing bad behavior and having worse attitudes and the law basically putting all the punishment on men for committing to women doing bad behavior and terrible attitudes…I would also fail to see how this convinces more men to marry.

  91. Lost Patrol says:

    Almost every ‘sphere cliche imaginable is contained herein.

    That video falls into the category of what an old friend calls – unbelievable, but not surprising. Even her voice grates, and makes it hard to get through the whole thing, though I did watch it because I can’t look away from a train wreck any better than most people.

    Her life is complete except for the one missing puzzle piece. Why won’t an acceptable man be that one little jigsaw cutout, fit into the life she has made, and fulfill the last of her personal desires?

    I ended up feeling sorry for her. There has been no one to teach her what men are actually looking for, or that she should care about that angle.

  92. Otto Lamp says:

    @feeriker,

    I just learned that alimony is no longer deductible by the payer in the new tax reform.

    It may seem counterintuitive, but this is actually a pro-marriage/anti-divorce move.

    Making alimony deductible by the payer was encouraging HIGHER alimony payments. When the payer can write it off on their taxes, it effectively becomes a smaller payment amount by the payer, but allows the person receiving the alimony to receive a larger amount.

    This article has a better explination: https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/03/tax-reform-could-shrink-alimony-for-ex-spouses.html .

    The bottom line is this is a pro-marriage move, because it will make monetarily divorce less desirable for the wife (who is receiving the alimony payment), because the payment will likely be lower under the new rules.

    For illustrative purposes: Say the ex-husband is paying $3,000 in monthly alimony and is taxed at 33 percent. In effect, the deduction at tax time reduces each of those payments to $2,000.

    On the receiving end, say the ex-wife is in the 15 percent bracket. The $3,000 she receives is reduced by $450, which goes to taxes, leaving her with $2,550.

    Under the old rules, she pockets $2,550 even though he is only out $2,000 (after taxes).

    Under the new rules, he is out $3,000. Meaning he is more likely to fight tooth and nail to get that alimony payment down closer to $2,000 (the amount he can actually afford to pay after taxes now).

    There’s a reason divorce lawyers opposed this change; it will be bad for business.

  93. Boxer says:

    It may seem counterintuitive, but this is actually a pro-marriage/anti-divorce move.

    Had the Trump administration led a bipartisan effort to dissolve the divorce courts, or to retroactively nullify frivolous divorces that have already happened, that would be a “pro-marriage/anti-divorce move” – this is neither.

    Under the new rules, he is out $3,000. Meaning he is more likely to fight tooth and nail to get that alimony payment down closer to $2,000 (the amount he can actually afford to pay after taxes now).

    There’s a reason divorce lawyers opposed this change; it will be bad for business.

    People who “fight tooth and nail” are not bad for the divorce lawyer business. It means more billable hours and more time in court.

  94. Boxer says:

    OMG, this is a TED talk????

    TED talks take interesting stuff and boil them down to brainless entertainment, but this is something else. It’s a TedX talk. Anybody can get up there and spout gibberish.

  95. Hose_B says:

    @Otto Lamp

    Meaning he is more likely to fight tooth and nail to get that alimony payment down closer to $2,000 (the amount he can actually afford to pay after taxes now).

    There’s a reason divorce lawyers opposed this change; it will be bad for business.

    This is a rediculous posit. As Boxer points out, “fighting tooth and nail” IS WHAT THE SYSTEM WANTS! At least before, the guy makes a calculation, figures out the value and makes a decision. The more she wants, the more tax she pays and the less he does.
    Now she will still fight for more, because it is not only free money, it’s TAXFREE free money.
    In family law, the one who files must demand EVERYTHING in their first filing, not what’s fair or even what they think is fair. Because if they don’t demand it at first, they cannot are it later. So the rule is to come out with a knock out punch, then negotiate backwards. Does this make things easier or less painful, no. But it defines the rules of war. Now the other party have to lawyer up to even have a shot at “fair”. Who wins? Not the wife, not the husband, the lawyers and courts are the only winners. This is just an extension of that.

  96. earl says:

    Who wins? Not the wife, not the husband, the lawyers and courts are the only winners. This is just an extension of that.

    That’s why I’d be hard pressed to ever vote for a politician that was a lawyer.

    This was clearly a win for divorce lawyers everywhere.

  97. Opus says:

    Dr Morin’s talk was very funny but not perhaps in the way she intended. Dr Morin has a Doctorate in American Environmental History and Public Policy and is a teacher at a University where most of the courses which she teaches have in their description the word Gender and the word Women.

    What she needs is a marriage broker but first she should attend a finishing school to acquire some posture and rid herself of the whiny voice, in fact learn the sort of things that certain women were once taught (so as to obtain a husband) before such things were deemed racist or sexist or something.

    Slavery does not have a good press these days but were Dr Morin an item at a slave auction I cannot see that there would be many desirable takers.

  98. Otto Lamp says:

    @Hose_B,

    I understand you think this will screw men (and perhaps you specifically), but in the end the tax change will help men in the long run.

    The tax credit is baked into the alimony calculations now. They will be unbaked in the future. Judges will take into account the fact that the payer does not get to write off the alimony; that there is no government subsidy for alimony.

    The net result will be lower alimony payments across the board, making divorce less attractive to women.

    Anything that makes divorce a less attractive option will be a good thing for society overall.

  99. Otto Lamp says:

    Ted Talk girl Erin A. Moran cut down her list to:

    Taller than her (taller than 5-10): 50% of males
    Smart (assume 120 IQ or greater): 10% of males
    Shares political beliefs (liberal): 40% of males
    Ambitious (has a job making more than 6 figures): 10%

    Even if you assume the high IQ and high income overlap (they don’t totally), only 2% of men meet her criteria.

  100. MarcusD says:

    @Otto Lamp

    Her prospects are even worse, I think. For example, taller men are more likely to marry, and earlier (and are more likely to be conservative). The same is largely true for wealthier men. I went and found the numbers for the US:

    Taller than her (5′ 10″ or taller): 59.4 Percentile
    Smart (120 IQ and higher): 90.9 Percentile
    Shares political beliefs (slightly liberal to extremely liberal): 35.1% of unmarried males
    Ambitious ($100,000 USD or higher): 87.9 Percentile

    The 2% number seems alright, though I would suspect that a man meeting those minimum requirements who was still unmarried at 35 (and didn’t want to be) would be quite rare.

  101. earlthomas786 says:

    Her best bet to get the best man she can get is to ditch the feminism.

  102. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Otto Lamp, the average height for men in the U.S. is 5’9″, so I doubt 50% of men are 5’10” or over.

    Erica Morin’s (not Erin Moran — that’s the Happy Days actress) original Want List is so absurd, it’s hard to believe she was being serious.

    Her intended man must have a boat. Really? On top of everything else, he must bring a boat to the table? I suppose she lives near Texas’s Gulf Coast, so a boat is a “must have” for her happiness.

    Even after she whittled down her list, being Tall was the top item. More important than her political beliefs, or anything else.

    A YouTube commentator replied, “Women want men who are taller than them. Well, men want women who weigh less than them.

    What’s wrong with Morin?

    * Overweight.

    * Whiny voice.

    * SJW feminist politics.

    * Clueless lack of self-awareness.

    * Inflated sense of self-worth and entitlement.

    * Mouthy belligerency bubbling beneath the surface, waiting to explode once she’s legally entrapped a man into marriage.

  103. Novaseeker says:

    The 2% number seems alright, though I would suspect that a man meeting those minimum requirements who was still unmarried at 35 (and didn’t want to be) would be quite rare.

    Yes, and why on earth would they choose her? She’s basically a 3.

  104. David says:

    Novaseeker,

    They don’t realize that they are 3s, and deserve a male 3, not a male 5 or 6. The entitlement and lack of realism about their own level of attractiveness is rampant, really.

    Not just a 5 or 6, but as calculated by Otto and Marcus, such a man is at least an 8 in absolute terms (maybe higher if we take straight percentiles).

    So the 3 wants a man in the top 2%.

    It is sad that her height worked against her.
    It is NOT sad that all her other negatives worked against her (it is a relief, in fact).

    From what we can see, however, she is still unmarried to this day (age 35 now).

  105. earlthomas786 says:

    So the 3 wants a man in the top 2%.

    The whole 80-20 thing again. Even 3’s think they are entitled to that. Might as well bump it to 95-20.

  106. Hmm says:

    My math shows that Otto Lamp’s calculation comes out to 0.2%:
    0.5 x 0.1 x 0.4 x 0.1 = 0.002 = 0.2%

    There may be some interactions (e.g. taller men make more money), but she has pretty much cut herself out of the marketplace just with these four items. Add to that how many of those 0.2% would want her.

  107. It’s amazing to see everyone from Anon, to Earl, to Hmm, miss the point of Mizz Doctor Erica Morin’s talk. Only Opus seems to be on my page, in that he understands the maxim that all wimminz lie, all the time.

    One must thoroughly accept, consume, and and resonate with this simple fact, and only then he can quit assuming that when Mizz Doctor Erica Morin, Ph.D. flaps her gums, she is speaking straightforwardly. The good doctor knows that she’s utterly repellent. She is pre-emptively rejecting men who she knows (and very well, through years of experience) would reject her, in an effort to salvage her ego.

    For years she’s been laughed at by every man she’s had a crush on. Her “list” is her way to lie to herself, to make herself feel better, and to enable her to get along with the very serious business of “history of environmental policy” or whatever nonsense she pretends to do.

    That’s it.

    So now you can all quit taking her seriously, and begin appreciating this nonsense for exactly what it is.

    Boxer

  108. Oscar says:

    @ Anon says:
    December 27, 2017 at 1:19 am

    “OMG, this is a TED talk????”

    Why not? Does anyone take TED talks seriously?

  109. Anon says:

    Why not? Does anyone take TED talks seriously?

    Well, they used to be good until 2012 or so. They at least were on topic (Technology, Entertainment, and Design). Of course, women could not compete on quality alone, so they had to turn TED into a goddess cult just like the NFL, ESPN, etc.

  110. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    I am not so sure. There is distinct pain in her voice, plus she really does believe her PhD in a fluff subject is attractive to men. The delusion is total.

    At any rate, kudos to her for getting a platform ahead of the millions of old maids in the same situation. The same goes for Ms. Griffith for generating a $7M net worth talking about her dating life, which is something millions of women would like to do, but cannot.

    Drain manginas and cuckservatives of money at all times. That is the answer to collapsing the whole edifice.

  111. CSI says:

    The logic that being a tall woman absolutely entitles her to a tall man is ridiculous. Tall men command a market premium. If she can’t afford one (because she’s over 30, overweight and average looking), she has to lower her standards. She’s blowing this all out of proportion. People aren’t going to point and laugh if she’s out in public with a man who’s slightly shorter.

  112. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Anon she really does believe her PhD in a fluff subject is attractive to men.

    No, she believes that her PhD. is threatening to men. At one point she says, “Don’t be threatened by my PhD.”

    So she apparently believes (or at least, claims to believe) that there are all these tall male unicorns out there, who aren’t approaching her solely because they’re threatened by her PhD.

  113. BillyS says:

    The tax law changes directly impact me, though only for a couple of years. Now I am stuck paying the spousal support amount negotiated assuming it would be prior to tax, rather than after tax. My ex-wife will be joyful since she will only have to pay for what she got this year.

    It was a real scam in there, though I favor the deal overall.

  114. earlthomas786 says:

    So now you can all quit taking her seriously, and begin appreciating this nonsense for exactly what it is.

    I take her seriously in that she really does believe she’s entitled to that sort of man, she’s awesome after all (just ask her)…where she’s lying is convincing herself she’s an 8 when she’s really a 3.

  115. Opus says:

    What the silly cow fails to understand is that for any woman and especially for a plain, overweight, pear-shaped bint no longer in her prime like her a PhD is simply lipstick on a pig (and these academic qualifications are now dolled out like confetti at a wedding and especially to those with the favoured genitalia). If men fancied Pigs we would not care what their academic pretentions might be but she is too stupid to understand.

    I have seen it before (close-up): a woman aware that she is no longer in her prime who had never been cute enough or petite enough to attract a top guy and now on the shelf persuading herself that because she would be attracted to a man with obvious intelligence and qualifications that the same would work for her mutatis mutandis. Women like Dr Morin give the impression that for them academic qualifications are akin to a cargo cult.

  116. Elspeth says:

    Child support was never deductible. More men pay that than alimony and unlike ex-wives with full time jobs, children are truly dependents.

    I don’t agree with the change because anyone a person is forced to support should be able to be classified as a dependent. But if you can’t deduct CS it is only logical (fair even) to remove deductions for alimony.

  117. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The logic for deducting alimony, and not child support, is as follows:

    * Alimony represents the wife’s portion of the couple’s community property. Because it’s the wife’s property, not the husband’s (even if it’s temporarily in his hands), the wife should pay taxes on it.

    * By contrast, both parents pay child support out of their own earnings. (In theory, the wife spends some of her own job earnings and/or alimony on the children). Because married couples can’t deduct child support (other than claiming dependency), neither should divorced couples.

    Thus, it made perfect sense for the husband to deduct alimony but not child support.

  118. feeriker says:

    At one point she says, “Don’t be threatened by my PhD.”

    No one is “threatened” by your PhD, bitch. It’s just an annoying distraction that also not only does nothing to bolster any feminine qualities you might have (you have none, so the pooint is irrelevant), but actually detracts from such. Your “PhD” might as well be a horn growing out of your forehead or a five-foot cascade of hair growing out of your nostrils (neither of which would significantly add to the hideousness that is already you).

    Give it up, Erica. Even the Elephant Man would pass if offered you as an option.

  119. Novaseeker says:

    But if you can’t deduct CS it is only logical (fair even) to remove deductions for alimony.

    Not really, no. Alimony is a division of income — it’s like the “ex wife’s share” of your income, so it should be taxed on the wife, since it is her income. It makes sense to have the tax burden be on the income recipient, as this is the entire basis of income tax to begin with. By moving the tax burden to the payor, who doesn’t actually receive the income (other than as a pass through), you’re taxing someone who doesn’t actually get the income — you’re taxing the husband on the wife’s income, which is nonsensical.

    It’s different from CS because CS is viewed as a share of expenses — i.e., one spouse pays CS is cash to the other, while the payee also is using her own resources as CS, pools that together with the cash received from the payor, and both are used to support the kid (in theory at least). So it’s a pooling of resources that is used to cover child expenses — and that’s always going to be after-tax anyway (you pay your living expenses from your after-tax income anyway), so the payor is taxed on his gross income, and CS is like a living expense, and therefore “after tax”. That’s theory. It’s dumb in practice because CS isn’t restricted to use on kids, so it really is a transfer payment to the ex-w that is akin to alimony, but the theory of it is different legally and from the perspective of the tax laws.

    What this reform does is nonsensical. Essentially the ex-wife who receives alimony now has free income, which is nonsensical because this is an income split, not a split of living expenses.

    The reason this was done, by the way, has nothing to do with any of these theories. It was done because men generally earn more money than women (for lots of reasons), and therefore taxing this income to the payor men will net more tax revenues than taxing it to the payee women will (i.e., more income is subject to higher marginal tax rates if you tax it to men than to women). It was a way to pay for slashing the corporate tax rate and other taxes on wealthier people — it’s one of the elements on the “income side” of the reform.

    So there you have it, guys — you’re now the folks who are helping to support the decrease in corporate tax rates. Oh well, we know that decrease in corporate taxes will show up in your paychecks and bonuses, right? Ahahahahahahahaha. So much winning, with Trump, I swear, I can’t stop laughing for all the sheer winning.

  120. earl says:

    It’s the easiest rationalization unattractive women have…men are ‘threatened’ or ‘intimidated’ by X, Y, or Z.

    No men aren’t threatened by that, they are irritated by your personality and entitlement.

  121. this woman still expects a guy who is in the top 10% of looks.

  122. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    And the most common form of that rationalization is Men are threatened by Strong, Independent Women.

  123. Neguy says:

    By the way, here’s another Redeemer dance video someone referenced on twitter:

  124. Boxer says:

    Earl sez:

    I take her seriously in that she really does believe she’s entitled to that sort of man, she’s awesome after all (just ask her)…where she’s lying is convincing herself she’s an 8 when she’s really a 3.

    x>/=8 girls don’t ever make lists. People are so scared to approach them that they are (paradoxically, perhaps) much less entitled than x=5 girls, which is what this bitch was when she was at her hottest/tightest/best.

    Doctor (lol) Moran has never convinced herself of anything. Her sure knowledge of her absolute repulsiveness fuels those dumb jokes (and late-night ice-cream binges). Such women pre-emptively reject to outwardly save face.

    Boxer

  125. Boxer says:

    this woman still expects a guy who is in the top 10% of looks.

    When I was a little kid I thought that, fo’ sho’, I’d be all set up at this point in my life with a flying car, a time-travel machine, and a weekend house on Mars. Of course I won’t settle for anything less than what I deserve…

  126. earl says:

    Doctor (lol) Moran has never convinced herself of anything.

    She was trying to convince the audience she’s everything a man should want. She likes sportsball, she likes sex, she’s tried to cook.

    Her sure knowledge of her absolute repulsiveness fuels those dumb jokes (and late-night ice-cream binges).

    That’s the thing…we can see it clear as day. 95% of the youtube commentators could see it clear as day. Do we really know if she knows it consciously, or actually believes her own delusions and her subconscious utters the truth when put in a pressure situation like public speaking?

  127. Elspeth says:

    Thanks for the clarification on the CS vs. alimony.

  128. Frank K says:

    x>/=8 girls don’t ever make lists. People are so scared to approach them that they are (paradoxically, perhaps) much less entitled than x=5 girls,

    Maybe things have changed since I was young (AKA the stone age), but I seem to remember that hot girls always had guys lining up when I was in college. I have a niece who hit the genetic jackpot. Unlike her plain Jane sister, she has no shortage of suitors; but she could be an outlier.

  129. Boxer says:

    Do we really know if she knows it consciously, or actually believes her own delusions and her subconscious utters the truth when put in a pressure situation like public speaking?

    Seasoned professionals have dedicated their entire careers to this question, and have come up empty.

    http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Who-wants-what-Freud-s-question-What-do-2879767.php

    It’s easier just to take my lesson to heart. Repeat after me: All wimminz lie, all the time

    Boxer

  130. Boxer says:

    Maybe things have changed since I was young (AKA the stone age),

    Things have changed.

    but I seem to remember that hot girls always had guys lining up when I was in college. I have a niece who hit the genetic jackpot. Unlike her plain Jane sister, she has no shortage of suitors; but she could be an outlier.

    Find the hottest chick you know, and offer her 50 bucks to hit up the nearest nightclub/cowboy dance hall/whathaveyou… Enter after she does, and see the dearth of attention paid to the hot chick, as opposed to the easy fatties who are being surrounded by prospective one-night-standers.

    I say bring one you know, because it’s actually getting difficult to find even moderately attractive (6-7 women) in many places, any more. They don’t go out, because men are looking for instant gratification, and that’s easiest and cheapest with the least attractive women.

    Boxer

  131. Yes, and why on earth would they choose her? She’s basically a 3.

    But she “likes sex” so that’s a big plus…..

  132. earl says:

    I remember the answer to that Freud question.

    It’s….more.

  133. earl says:

    Enter after she does, and see the dearth of attention paid to the hot chick, as opposed to the easy fatties who are being surrounded by prospective one-night-standers.

    Dearth of attention or approaches?

    At least from what I’ve seen the genetic lottery winning women will still get male attention…but I’m not sure how many approach them.

  134. No, she believes that her PhD. is threatening to men. At one point she says, “Don’t be threatened by my PhD.”

    What type of moron would be threatened by a degree in vagina worship? Oh, that’s right, the only kind of men SHE would be interested in. That one point alone excludes all possible suitors, per Boxer’s hypothesis.

  135. Frank K says:

    released just weeks after the election of Donald Trump, the film drew a clear distinction between the Empire as a gang of fascist white supremacists and the Rebellion’s embattled coalition of oppressed minorities.

    Only a SJW could like Rogue One. It was so mind numbingly dull and predictable that it induces narcolepsy. After watching it, it dawned on me that I couldn’t remember the names of any of the new characters (because they were so uninteresting), so I made up my own names for them: Resting Bitch Face Girl, Sullen Boyfriend Dude, Blind Kung Fu Guy. Machine Gun Guy, Bad Guy in a White Cape. etc.

    It was a terrible movie. Then again so are The Farce Awakens and The Last Jedi. They make the prequels look good. Never mind the recycled plots, the bad acting, the sloppy editing or the poor storytelling, there is clearly a propaganda agenda: In The Last Jedi, almost every main male character gets his ass kicked by a woman. And Hux is simply awful as a villain. Where are Tarkin or Thrawn when you need them? Snoke was just a poor Palpatine retread.

    So much fail. But Disney is making a ton of money, so don’t expect anything to change, as Disney will continue to roll these flicks off its assembly line, even quicker than it did with its Johnny Depp pirate movies, becoming more and more awful with each new movie. I fully expect Han Solo to be emasculated in his upcoming flick. Word is that its a disaster and that Disney hired Ron Howard to fix it, with plenty of reshoots. Needless to say, I won’t drop $10 to see it, not even if the cinema has those lazy-boy seats in them.

  136. Seasoned professionals have dedicated their entire careers to this question, and have come up empty.

    I used to look at a couple of pathological liars very closely on a regular basis and wonder how they constructed their fantasy world. I started doing this when I was old enough to realize what they were (9 or 10). I spent a lot of time observing and a lot of time sole searching and haven’t figured it out. I couldn’t even tell whether they really believed it or not. My closest guess is that they COULD NOT believe something that was an existential threat to their fragile psychologies. If they weren’t delusional they would have no choice but to die by their own hand.

    In this culture this describes “wimminz”. It certainly describes Mizz Morin.

  137. Otto Lamp says:

    If this is her Linkedin profile (and I think it is, since it shows her at Texas Tech at the time the video was made), the she has lost a lot of weight (or is using a 15 year old picture).

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/erica-morin-53416938

    Maybe the comments from her video sunk in, as whale is the most common word used to describe her.

    Strike that. It is the same picture used on her Texas Tech profile, when we know from the video she was a whale. Must be an old, old picture of her.

  138. Gunner Q says:

    “Boxer, I am not so sure. There is distinct pain in her voice, plus she really does believe her PhD in a fluff subject is attractive to men. The delusion is total.”

    I’m leaning towards Boxer. Got a hunch that if you introduced her to a guy who met her entire list but wasn’t emotionally damaged, she’d add another disqualifier rather than live a no-drama life.

    Got another hunch that her list has gone out the window a few times for bartenders.

  139. earl says:

    So is what you guys are saying her list is a cover for her poor standing, shape and attitude and gives her an out to blame men for the fact she’s still single?

  140. Frank K says:

    They don’t go out, because men are looking for instant gratification, and that’s easiest and cheapest with the least attractive women.

    I think it’s always been that way in the PUA/one night stand scene. I recall being brought along to an office party by my dad (at a bar) when I was a teen and seeing a bunch of guys hitting on a fuggo, so that isn’t new. I was thinking about more “polite” scenarios, say like a church or club event, where guys go looking to meet girlfriends. The hot girls were always popular and the plain Janes were wallflowers.

  141. Gunner Q says:

    Frank K @ 11:18 am:
    “Only a SJW could like Rogue One. It was so mind numbingly dull and predictable that it induces narcolepsy. After watching it, it dawned on me that I couldn’t remember the names of any of the new characters (because they were so uninteresting), so I made up my own names for them: Resting Bitch Face Girl, Sullen Boyfriend Dude, Blind Kung Fu Guy. Machine Gun Guy, Bad Guy in a White Cape. etc.

    “It was a terrible movie. Then again so are The Farce Awakens and The Last Jedi. They make the prequels look good. Never mind the recycled plots, the bad acting, the sloppy editing or the poor storytelling, there is clearly a propaganda agenda: In The Last Jedi, almost every main male character gets his ass kicked by a woman. And Hux is simply awful as a villain. Where are Tarkin or Thrawn when you need them? Snoke was just a poor Palpatine retread.”

    So true, so true! You preach to my heart.

    I haven’t seen the latest yet because my family & friends are waiting to see it in Imax 3D on Saturday. They’re still convinced that Rogue Fun was great, So, why am I going even when I don’t have to buy the ticket? Because they also say Farce Awakens was great but only when asked, and they get these little pained expressions and break eye contact when they do.

    Must. Twist. Red-Pill. Knife.

  142. I’m sitting in Starbucks right now here in the arty part of Fresno…….I’m invisible. Just on the laptop, earbuds in, listening to soul music. paying bills. relaxing. surfing the Internet…….gonna grab a haircut and lunch in an hour or so…..

    Every woman here gives the impression like she’s ten, and has a pouty-smelling-onions look on her face. They give off the ‘tude of, don’t talk to me unless you are super hot (which none of the good looking younger guys are gonna do because she’s below average).

  143. earl says:

    Texas Tech University
    American Environmental History (HIST3327)
    Women in Modern America (HIST3323)
    Roaring Twenties, Depression, and War (HIST4306)
    Gender and Popular Culture (HIST4325)
    Gender and the Environment (HIST4325)
    U.S. History Since 1877 (HIST2301)

    How much debt do you think she accumulated for that ‘education’?

  144. Anon says:

    Boxer,

    I say bring one you know, because it’s actually getting difficult to find even moderately attractive (6-7 women) in many places, any more. They don’t go out, because men are looking for instant gratification, and that’s easiest and cheapest with the least attractive women.

    That is why daytime approaches/daygame, is always king. A man who really wants to get with an 8 or 9 is most likely to manage that through daygame.

    Roosh had a great video of how a man who can do daytime approaches is ‘the 1%’ and deserves the highest respect, since EVERY man wishes he could, but barely 1% can.

  145. Anon says:

    Frank K,

    I was thinking about more “polite” scenarios, say like a church or club event, where guys go looking to meet girlfriends. The hot girls were always popular and the plain Janes were wallflowers.

    Remember that Church is now just a Sunday Morning Nightclub (and a continuation of the Saturday Night Festivities that don’t need to end at sunrise).

    That is why pastorbators and cuckservatives are apopleptic about what better men than them are using the venue for (with the enthusiastic consent of women to the extreme confusion of pig-ignorant cucks).

  146. BillyS says:

    Elspeth,

    But if you can’t deduct CS it is only logical (fair even) to remove deductions for alimony.

    No it is not. Supporting your offspring has some merit. Supporting someone who has decided to abandon the marriage should count toward their income (since that is what it is), not yours.

    Different issue, but too many simplistically believe like you do and thus we have this change to “raise more revenue” for the government.

  147. thedeti says:

    GIL:

    The woman in that article who damaged the private art collection at her date’s home?

    Probation and time served.

    I hope he sues her into bankruptcy for the property damage she caused. I hope he takes a judgment, puts liens on all her property, and garnishes her wages for the rest of her life.

  148. BillyS says:

    Novaseeker,

    I still prefer the tax changes to what we had, even though I face some negative impact for a few years. (I think it applies to 2017 as well, which means my wife just got a big tax cut overall.)

    I definitely prefer it to the alternative. The alternative would be far worse.

  149. @ thedeti,

    She’s probably a 6 and gets the P-pass from what I read between the lines. He’s lucky she didn’t stab him or remove his manhood because a judge would probably decide not to ruin the poor dears “future”.

  150. SkylerWurden says:

    That’s a crappy deal with the alimony thing, but the (probably unintended) consequence of the rising opportunity cost of men marrying bad women in bad marriages is probably a good thing. Depends on whether the long-term benefits outweigh the short term cost.

    As for ‘hot chicks’ getting approached less often than ‘normal chicks’ I think that’s rather overstated. A by-numbers analysis may favor the 4-6, but overall quality still skews heavily in the favor of the 8-10. I have never known a ‘hot chick’ to be single for any extended period of time except by conscious decision and further, their choice of mates almost universally were above-average in at least one notable way: either they had higher incomes than average, were better looking than average, or were more socially powerful (funny, social-butterfly, popular) than average. Also they seemed more able to secure a higher-quality of short term sex partners. The self-selecting nature of courtship means that only those men who feel themselves to be of high worth will even bother approaching the ‘hot chick’ so while she may only have been propositioned by five men in a night where her 4-6 sister is approached by dozens, the overall average still favors the ‘hot chick’.

    Anyway it’s somewhat of a moot point. A ‘hot chick’ can have a different sexual partner every night of her life if she chooses, just like the ‘plain Jane’. Both are only truly limited by their own preferences.

  151. earlthomas786 says:

    That story is an example why you shouldn’t bring a drunk first date to your home. If she’s nuts or a mean drunk, let her be nuts or a mean drunk in a public setting.

  152. feministhater says:

    Dating women has become a wasteful endeavour. Save yourself the hassle and just be glad you get to live your life in peace. And with the #metoo contortions in full swing, it’s beginning to look like 2018 is going to be a slum dunk year from the feminists. To all those men who still think they can find their unicorn…. you’ve been warned countless times, so many times that by now, it’s your own damn fault for getting into the mess in the first place. Stupid idiots will be stupid idiots I guess.

  153. “Daygame” equates to #metoo crash and burn for 99.999% of people trying to pull it off.

  154. SkylerWurden says:

    That story is an example why you shouldn’t bring a drunk first date to your home. If she’s nuts or a mean drunk, let her be nuts or a mean drunk in a public setting.

    It’s hard to feel sorry for the man in this situation. You bring trash into your home and then are surprised when your home gets trashed? Maybe this girl didn’t give any signs of her trashiness before the date, but I find that hard to believe. Most likely the guy ignored the warning signs because he either buys into the ‘don’t judge’ feminist paradigm or because he wanted some cheap pussy.

  155. feministhater says:

    Oh the #metoo moral panic is beautiful. It’s going to bring things to a head, just as they need to be. Women are causing untold damage to the social fabric, never mind the utterly destroyed social contract between men and women they destroyed decades ago…. it’s a cluster fuck of monumental proportions… they’re cackling now and the mask has slipped, the trad thots themselves are becoming more feminist, it’s just so incredibly awe inspiring seeing everything coming together for the final push.

  156. earlthomas786 says:

    I found this article with another list from a woman…this one is almost like reverse shaming. Men were shamed for their masculinity and ambition by women, now they are being shamed for their lack of masculinity and lack of ambition by women.

    ‘Picky, Single Catholic Women’

    https://tradcatfem.com/2017/12/21/picky-single-catholic-women/

    The only props I give her is that she recoginizes that fact that feminism played a part in this.

  157. feministhater says:

    It’s hard to feel sorry for the man in this situation. You bring trash into your home and then are surprised when your home gets trashed? Maybe this girl didn’t give any signs of her trashiness before the date, but I find that hard to believe. Most likely the guy ignored the warning signs because he either buys into the ‘don’t judge’ feminist paradigm or because he wanted some cheap pussy.

    No one feels sorry for him, however, he should still sue the pants off of her, after all, women are just as responsible as men, are they not? And since they are, by law, a drunk man would not get off and neither should she. Hold women to account for their actions.

  158. it’s just so incredibly awe inspiring seeing everything coming together for the final push.

    The final push before the herd is treading air like Wile E. Coyote.

  159. earlthomas786 says:

    You bring trash into your home and then are surprised when your home gets trashed?

    I’ve seen children be more respectable as guests than how that 29 year old acted. I agree with deti…I hope he unleashes the full brunt of the law on her as much as he can.

  160. Anon says:

    I hope he unleashes the full brunt of the law on her as much as he can.

    Meh. She probably has no money that is worth his time (note his wealth level). The bigger punishment would just be to sue her, drain her money AND TIME with the court proceedings and legal fees, so that from age 29, she is then age 32, having missed her window to marry.

    He won’t get anything out of it, but she will lose a lot.

  161. SkylerWurden says:

    Oh I agree that she should be punished, harshly. No question. There was a case a while ago where a woman, wanting to prove her SJW bonafides, moved to the ghetto and advertised that she kept her doors unlocked. She was robbed, raped, and murdered. The thugs who committed the crime should be hanged. However, she also engaged in monumental stupidity by opening herself up to be victimized.

    I found this article with another list from a woman…this one is almost like reverse shaming. Men were shamed for their masculinity and ambition by women, now they are being shamed for their lack of masculinity and lack of ambition by women.

    ‘Picky, Single Catholic Women’

    https://tradcatfem.com/2017/12/21/picky-single-catholic-women/

    The only props I give her is that she recoginizes that fact that feminism played a part in this.

    Hey! Go easy on TCF! I think she’s a little over-dramatic, but it’s not fair to lump her in with feminists and use their arguments against her.

  162. thedeti says:

    FemHater:

    Don’t delude yourself. This isn’t anywhere close to a “final push”. Things are going to get much, much worse. #metoo is only a brick in the wall.

  163. earlthomas786 says:

    I think she’s a little over-dramatic, but it’s not fair to lump her in with feminists and use their arguments against her.

    My argument would be that these type of females need to stop with their own version of ‘man up’. We don’t need women to inform men how weak and emasculated they are…there’s plenty of men and sphere writers who can point that out (such as the one here). Just for once I’d like to see a female type blog focus solely on destroying feminists, feminism, and the women that harbor it. Focus more on how women need to improve their behavior, class, and dignity. Quit trying to find some subtle way to attack men just so you have a little cred with team women.

    Because at the heart of it all feminism is the thing that is ruining both sexes. Men need to red pill men on how they are being emasculated…women need to red pill women on how they are being degraded.

  164. Things are going to get much, much worse. #metoo is only a brick in the wall.

    The question has always been how far does this thing before it snaps? Even a steep economic downturn with no Federal bottom is going to revalue the AF/BB paradigm sharply. We may yet have a correction or two before the true Apocalypse (come soon Lord Jesus).

  165. SkylerWurden says:

    Just for once I’d like to see a female type blog focus solely on destroying feminists, feminism, and the women that harbor it. Focus more on how women need to improve their behavior, class, and dignity. Quit trying to find some subtle way to attack men just so you have a little cred with team women.
    I guess I just don’t see an issue with anyone discussing the truth, even if that truth is being discussed by everyone else. Since I’ve seen this particular blogger call out unfeminine women more than once, I think it’s fine for her to defend the position of women being ‘picky’. As stupid as it is for a man to settle for a ‘former’ slut, it would be equally stupid for a ‘good’ woman to settle for an emasculated loser.

    Plus, she makes feminist Catholics have conniption fits on CAF, so I have a soft spot in my heart for her.

  166. earlthomas786 says:

    Plus, she makes feminist Catholics have conniption fits on CAF, so I have a soft spot in my heart for her.

    She should be making feminist Catholics have a conniption fit…that should be the target audience she is triggering. Red pill them to the max. They’ll either see the light or leave…just like men do when they happen to find this section of the internet.

    And it’s fairly easy to offend Catholic feminists…I remember how I did it. Point out Scripture and how God set up the sex roles.

  167. feministhater says:

    Don’t delude yourself. This isn’t anywhere close to a “final push”. Things are going to get much, much worse. #metoo is only a brick in the wall.

    This ‘brick wall’ started over one hundred years ago. The madness is no longer contained, it is spilling out, the #metoo campaign has the power to absolutely devastate the landscape between the sexes, not only in the bedroom but in every facet of life. It’s a final push in the sense that feminists are now fully doing away with any semblance of ‘justice,’ ‘equality’ or ‘fairness’. They cannot push much more without outing themselves as the lunatics we all know them for. It’s delightful, I want them to continue with moar madness, driving more men to go MGTOW.

    Governments are going to latch onto this and pass more insane laws, leading to an ever expanding problem with unintended consequences that will drive society down quicker than ever. I’ve said this before, there is no solution to this problem, the cancer must devourer the patient. Society must go through this before it can get better. So moar #metoo please ladies. Up the ante, show us what ya got!

  168. earlthomas786 says:

    It always has to get worse before it gets better.

    But eventually even the worst of female feral behavior will kill the host it depends on….which in this case is the state and the white knights/manginas/male feminists.

  169. Frank K says:

    So moar #metoo please ladies. Up the ante, show us what ya got!

    Present day Sweden is a perfect example of where this is all going. From what I have heard, women there are now afraid of going out alone after dark, out of fear of all those refugees they happily welcomed. Yet they refused to accept cause and effect and scream for moar feminism. I expect it will be only a few more years before Sweden is in flames.

    And speaking of Sweden:

    http://nytlive.nytimes.com/womenintheworld/2017/11/27/church-of-sweden-asks-clergy-to-refer-to-god-with-gender-neutral-language/

    Blockquote>n a controversial move, the Church of Sweden has asked its clergy to use gender-neutral language when referring to God — or in other words, to refrain from using masculine-specific terms like “Lord” and “He.”

    I kind of feel sorry for Martin Luther. I wonder what he would have done had he known that his “evangelical” (IIRC, that’s what Lutheran churches are called in Europe) churches would someday have female ministers, perform same sex marriages and now this.

    Archbishop Antje Jackelen, the head of the church (who, incidentally is a woman), maintained in an interview with Sweden’s TT agency that inclusive language does not defy established Christian theology.

    Well, knock me over with a feather.

  170. earlthomas786 says:

    Stuff like this is why there should never be a female clergy member.

    St. Paul didn’t mention that women shouldn’t be teachers or hold authority over men just to hurt their feelings. It’s all about deception.

  171. feministhater says:

    Sweden burning brings no tears of sorrow to my eyes, they richly deserve their destructive, multicult fate for supporting ANC terrorist scum. The world turns, and for the Swedes, it’s ample reward for their meddling in the business of others.

  172. Novaseeker says:

    I found this article with another list from a woman…this one is almost like reverse shaming. Men were shamed for their masculinity and ambition by women, now they are being shamed for their lack of masculinity and lack of ambition by women.

    I would recommend men give women like that one a very wide berth. Someone who sees herself as your civilizer, as spurring you on to a better version of yourself, and so on, is someone who is “topping from below”, as it were. Stay away, it is a passive aggressive mindset fundamentally, with you as the vision of “figureheadship”, if there ever was one — yes, be a man, as she defines it, or else you’re not a man. Eh … stay away, guys.

  173. Boxer says:

    First Earl sez:

    I found this article with another list from a woman…this one is almost like reverse shaming. Men were shamed for their masculinity and ambition by women, now they are being shamed for their lack of masculinity and lack of ambition by women.

    Then Novaseeker sez:

    I would recommend men give women like that one a very wide berth. Someone who sees herself as your civilizer, as spurring you on to a better version of yourself, and so on, is someone who is “topping from below”, as it were. Stay away, it is a passive aggressive mindset fundamentally, with you as the vision of “figureheadship”, if there ever was one — yes, be a man, as she defines it, or else you’re not a man. Eh … stay away, guys.

    Did you gents carefully read the article? I take it that the answer is no, given that the author(ess) didn’t do many of the things you guys are accusing her of doing.

    TL;DR: 90% of her advice is for women, telling them to be more picky, telling them to choose a man for marriage, rather than having anonymous sex in the public toilet of the nightclub, and telling them not to put their kids in daycare. It’s basically verbatim what I’d tell my own sister, if she were single and complaining about “can’t find a man” etc.

    Granted, she does put the nonsense “women civilize men” at the very end. I’m inclined to overlook it. She’s a wimminz. She needs an ego boost, and so do any catladies who stumble into her page. A spoonful of sugar, and all that.

    Now, who’s got the pr0n.jpeg of the topless FEMEN Vatican City Baby Jesus thief? That’s what I’m really looking for, so cough it up.

    Boxer

  174. Novaseeker says:

    Boxer —

    You mean this post: https://tradcatfem.com/2017/12/21/picky-single-catholic-women/ ??

    I didn’t see anything in there about anonymous sex in public toilets. She does talk about daycare a bit at the beginning, but almost all of the article is directed at men, not women — what men need to do to “qualify” themselves for women like her — it’s pretty much all directed at men. Perhaps you were reading another article of hers, I don’t know.

    In any case, my point remains. This type of woman will continue to expect you to qualify yourself according to her own criteria — it’s the opposite of submission. It is a mere show of submission, in a pro forma sense, coupled with endless qualification to ensure that you are worthy of submission. In other words, just like any other woman in the world, secular included, just with “tradcath” lipstick on. My warning stands, for Catholic guys ( not my personal concern, obviously, I have not been Catholic since 2000 ).

  175. MarcusD says:

    @earl

    I found this article with another list from a woman…this one is almost like reverse shaming. Men were shamed for their masculinity and ambition by women, now they are being shamed for their lack of masculinity and lack of ambition by women.

    I went and looked around her site – she comes across as a bit unhinged at times. At least some of her advice is likely undermining her own goals (e.g. she’s promoting heuristics that are likely to generate a lot of false negatives, and thus undermining the mate search, for herself or her readers). For example, she writes that:

    Gift giving from a man to his intended during the courtship phase is an ancient tradition, universally viewed as the man demonstrating to the woman that he is able to do what God originally directed Man to do, from the beginning of time – to provide.

    Refusal on the part of men to do this is apparently the “hallmark of abusive, predatory men” and that (at women): “if he is not buying you gifts or not buying appropriate gifts at certain relationship milestones, NEXT!!” What types of gifts? “The answer, of course, is jewellery!” Going from her (Amazon Affiliate) links, it appears that 14-karat gold is good enough.

  176. CSI says:

    @Novaseeker, etc. this woman is a nut. Lets looks look at one of her articles, “A Stingy Man Will Make a Stingy Husband”.

    Women are more likely to file for divorce than the man. Of course, the man won’t file for divorce. He managed to trap a sex slave, beast of burden and abuse punching bag. It is the woman that very often has to fight to escape the prison.

    In addition, women today have been groomed by men to manage down their expectations on acceptable behaviour, to settle for less and to accept unsuitable relationships and marriages.

    Marriage provides more benefits, financially, socially, mentally, physically to a married man than to the woman. This is why after God made Man, He then made Woman because He knew that Man needs Woman.

    Men have very fragile egos and a huge fear of rejection.
    So when a guy has decided he wants to marry a certain woman, his natural provider instinct will kick in and he would spend lots of money on her,

    A truly feminine, traditional woman knows her value and she won’t settle or even entertain any guy that has the selfish, ungodly and misogynistic mindset that a lot of modern men have.

    Most of this screed is fairly close to radical feminism. She’s careful not to reveal her own marital status, but I get the strong impression she’s unmarried.

  177. MarcusD says:

    @CSI

    Sounds a lot like Catholic Answers, actually. I wonder if she hangs around there much? I do agree with your point though – her writing sounds like a TradCath-RadFem hybrid.

  178. Boxer says:

    Dear Novaseeker:

    It’s interesting how differently we see things. Of course, I like to think of myself as unbiased; and, of course, I’m not. Please see below…

    I didn’t see anything in there about anonymous sex in public toilets.

    While I don’t know the authoress, I assume that her intimate knowledge of these different types of unmarriageable, unmanageable fellows came from somewhere. Don’t you? “The Manchild,” “The Guy with Ridiculous Expectations” etc.

    She does talk about daycare a bit at the beginning, but almost all of the article is directed at men, not women — what men need to do to “qualify” themselves for women like her — it’s pretty much all directed at men. Perhaps you were reading another article of hers, I don’t know.

    No, we’re reading the same one. Your interpretation of her work sounds almost precisely similar to comments I regularly get (and delete) on my blog, written by women, who assume that everything I write is about women, and directed at women. After I delete their inane outrage, they then go to places like this:

    https://twobirdsstone.wordpress.com/2017/11/13/men-using-their-employers-time-for-blog-reading-hard-day-at-the-office/

    to complain about ya boy, offering up various interpretations that, naturally, make it seem like I’m writing directly to them. In reality, my intended audience is young guys, so who cares what the hoez think anyway?

    The audience of the blog we’re reading (and interpreting differently) is younger religious chickies. She wants to keep them from meeting unmanageable, unmarriageable men. She’s giving them a look at the sort of desolation they’ll find if they look in the wrong places, make decisions in haste, or otherwise choose poorly. If you, or Earl, had an argument against this, I assume you’d make it.

    Anyway, good talking to you mate.

    Boxer

  179. James says:

    Boxer wrote:
    The audience of the blog we’re reading (and interpreting differently) is younger religious chickies.

    She wrote the post in question in response to MEN who emailed her and quotes their emails. I haven’t read anything else by this woman and don’t intend to, but the beginning of that post makes it clear that, as Novaseeker said, “almost all of the article is directed at men, not women.”

  180. Boxer says:

    James:

    She wrote the post in question in response to MEN who emailed her and quotes their emails. I haven’t read anything else by this woman and don’t intend to, but the beginning of that post makes it clear that, as Novaseeker said, “almost all of the article is directed at men, not women.”

    She wrote the post in question to women (or WOMEN, if you prefer). She used some betaboy whines she got as illustration.

    I’m inclined to take her side, only because I’ve so often done similar stuff, with identical results, when writing to men.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/07/29/silly-silly-games/

    Naturally, all the comments I got on this article were from wimminz, and they went from moderation straight to the trash, as they weren’t the folks to whom I was writing anyhow. Naturally, they thought they were. Like you’re doing here, they assumed that if some stranger was writing on the internet, it was a personal insult, directed straight at them.

    Boxer

  181. Lost Patrol says:

    The audience of the blog we’re reading (and interpreting differently) is younger religious chickies. She wants to keep them from meeting unmanageable, unmarriageable men.

    I do think you’re all picking up on the same key point. She wants the chickies to meet manageable men. They should be able to find that type at most churches easily. They just don’t find them desirable.

  182. Anon says:

    Frank K,

    Yet they refused to accept cause and effect and scream for moar feminism. I expect it will be only a few more years before Sweden is in flames.

    This is unavoidable. Remember that Sweden got off VERY lightly in WW2 relative to neighboring Norway and Finland (both of which withstood heavy blows), so has had an easy ride for a much longer time. This leads to an extreme complacence.

    That said, divorce and custody in Sweden is far less punitive towards men than in the US (joint custody is assumed, so involuntary, imputed CS is not the norm there).

  183. Novaseeker says:

    Most of this screed is fairly close to radical feminism. She’s careful not to reveal her own marital status, but I get the strong impression she’s unmarried.

    Yes, I would be very surprised if she is actually married — if she were, she’d say so: it’s a badge of honor for trads … even for tradfems like her.

  184. SkylerWurden says:

    I think the disconnect here with the girl’s blog is that she is (charmingly) naive about men and so she thinks the courtship processes of old still apply. While her stuff gets a little nutty sometimes, it’s the right kind of nutty, for me at least.

    I mean, there has to be a way for women to be ‘acceptable’ or else it all just becomes bitterness masquerading as Christian thinking. Maybe this chick takes it too far with her expectations of what constitutes a ‘real man’ but since she also is pretty harsh with what constitutes a ‘real woman’ I think the problem is more about her high expectations than a focus on men.

    I guess the question has to be answered, what is the ‘right’ way for a woman to satisfy the rules that God lays out for wives? Her own answers aren’t perfect, but they are a dann sight better than most of the crap I hear. Including crap I hear from (some) men in these types of communities, which often don’t have an answer beyond: No woman is that way, fuck them all.

  185. CSI says:

    I find little charming about her views. Like radical feminists, she believes women to be vastly morally superior to men. Close to perfect. And she believes marriage hugely benefits men at the expense of women. Unlike radical feminists, she still advocates for marriage. However her standard of what constitutes a marriagable man is absurdly high. And she may advocate for feminine submission within marriage, but I get the impression this is contingent on near perfection from her husband, including being able to support her in a comfortable SAHM lifestyle at all times. Anything which causes her unhappiness may be interpreted as a sign of “abuse” and become grounds for divorce (or annulment).

  186. Gunner Q says:

    feministhater @ 4:46 pm:
    “So moar #metoo please ladies. Up the ante, show us what ya got!”

    They’ve already hit their own in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    https://gunnerq.com/2017/12/26/metoo-hits-the-ninth-circuit-court/

  187. SkylerWurden says:

    she believes women to be vastly morally superior to men. Close to perfect. And she believes marriage hugely benefits men at the expense of women.

    I don’t get the sense that she thinks women are morally superior to men. Anyway, her ‘We are women, here us roar!’ Is all about how gentle, submissive, and meek the ‘good wife’s should be. It’s the same thing as men talking to each other about how badass and powerful and brave they could and should be.

    However her standard of what constitutes a marriagable man is absurdly high. And she may advocate for feminine submission within marriage, but I get the impression this is contingent on near perfection from her husband, including being able to support her in a comfortable SAHM lifestyle at all times. Anything which causes her unhappiness may be interpreted as a sign of “abuse” and become grounds for divorce (or annulment).

    Her standards are high. So the question is whether she is worth that kind of husband or not. She obviously thinks she is, and there is nothing morally wrong with that thought. She might be mistaken, or she might be right. Either way it’s not like God is up there saying: ‘you are evil because you want a man who fits into your idea of a traditional husband.’

    I don’t think I have ever heard her say that a wife needs to be kept in luxury as a SAHM, in fact I think she said women should learn to can food, stretch meals, garden for food, sew clothes, and other tools to help out if money gets tight. So it’s not really a fair criticism on your part. Her standards seem much more morally and spiritually focused than physical. Though she does also seem to want a man who is strong and can protect her, but that is entirely reasonable.

    Also, I don’t think it is fair to assume she is okay with divorce and/or frivolous annulment. When the majority of your criticisms are either assumptions or taking the worst possible interpretation, it’s time to step back for a bit.

    Basically, chick is a little wacky but doesn’t really need to be raked over the coals for being a little wacky.

  188. MarcusD says:

    @CSI

    However her standard of what constitutes a marriagable man is absurdly high. And she may advocate for feminine submission within marriage, but I get the impression this is contingent on near perfection from her husband, including being able to support her in a comfortable SAHM lifestyle at all times.

    The types of men who would be able to provide that have standards, too (as we covered with Erica Morin, PhD), though to my never-ending surprise, those standards tend to be lower. For example, a decent looking 32-year-old doctor marrying an attractive 31-year-old HR person with a well-documented and “colorful” past (e.g. photos on Facebook, etc) – these are massive red flags that any bystander can easily spot (let alone someone intelligent enough to succeed in medicine), and yet he overlooked (or ignored) them. Perhaps in the broader marriage market the situation is unbalanced (i.e. there is a shortage of men that would be traditionally considered marriageable) but in the trad scene, things seem reversed, with even women who would never have traditionally been considered marriageable are in relative oversupply. Even though the SMP is overemphasized, there are of course men who are oriented only towards monogamy. Because of that particular mating strategy, they find themselves largely undistracted (increasing SES all the while) until they decide to marry (which may explain the comparatively higher number of virgin grooms). There is a general disposition of men towards short-term mating strategies, and a general disposition of women towards long-term mating strategies, but this ignores the fact that there are large subsets of each (around 30%) who are oriented towards a mating strategy somewhat atypical for their sex (within-sex variation in mating strategies) – i.e. there are ultra-promiscuous women and ultra-monogamous men. The problems start when (ultra-)promiscuous women marry (ultra-)monogamous men, because monogamous women are too picky (without having grounds for such selectivity) and ultra-promiscuous men generally avoid marriage. (It’s interesting that a man’s attractiveness in the context of short-term mating is equivalent in importance to women as a woman’s attractiveness is to men in the context of long-term mating.) Promiscuity and monogamy don’t exist in isolation – they’re expressions of different approaches to life (e.g. life history strategies). When people that different marry, there is almost always marital instability (and ultimately dissolution).

  189. Opus says:

    What an entitled young madam she sounds – single and likely to remain that way. I noticed in particular, her saying that marriage between two people of different religion causes problems [correct] and that men should lead a marriage [surely] and then adds that her husband would have to be on the same page as her when surely to be consistent she should have said that she would have to be on the same page as her husband.

    She is thus Feminist-light, demanding a masculine man who also does everything she wants. Notice the picture on her site – a man on his knee pleading to a woman. The time of the picture is the early nineteenth century and the style that of the romance novel thus very middle-class or upper middle-class. That tells me all I need to know.

  190. SkylerWurden says:

    I noticed in particular, her saying that marriage between two people of different religion causes problems [correct] and that men should lead a marriage [surely] and then adds that her husband would have to be on the same page as her when surely to be consistent she should have said that she would have to be on the same page as her husband.

    Yes and no. Should she marry a man who is on the same page as her and then submit to him once married? Yes.

    Is she bound to change her religion if her husband suddenly decides that he’s a Muslim now? Absolutely not. In fact, she is bound, on pain of eternal suffering, to remain Christian (and from her perspective, Catholic) no matter what her husband says, does, or wants. At no point in the Bible is a woman commanded to abandon her Christian faith because her husband does. That is a wild misunderstanding of wifely submission. She is perfectly within her rights (could even be construed as having a duty) to hold out for a husband who shares her faith. And once married, her own faith is not subject to her husband’s whims.

    She is thus Feminist-light, demanding a masculine man who also does everything she wants.

    I don’t think she implied that he needs to do everything she wants. And I don’t think she has said she would abandon a husband who fell away from the Catholic faith, though she might say that she would hold out for a man who would not fall away. Which is perfectly acceptable.

    The real problem here is that her attitude is seen as radical, when it is in large part normal, healthy, female desire. Of course women want a masculine husband who had ambition and drive. Of course a Christian woman wants a devout, Christian husband. And of course many women want to be ‘courted’ with gifts and tender, chaste love. That’s the female version of: I want a feminine wife who likes kids, is a virgin, doesn’t swear, scream, or nag, and also takes care of her health. It’s only being ‘picky’ because society is so degenerate that what constitutes the bare minimum acceptability of both sexes is rarer than a free lunch.

  191. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘I don’t get the sense that she thinks women are morally superior to men.’

    It is not just about looking for traditional, feminine Catholic women. You also need to work on yourself……even more so than women, due to feminism and the sexual revolution’s active emasculation of manhood for decades.

    Now is this working on yourself so that you are a better man of God, or a better man for trad women’s demands?

    Women need to work on themselves just as much because of feminism & the sexual revolution. They need to work on it because this culture and society is taking them away from God. Where do they think they get the idea they can just rebel and not submit to their husband if they so feel the need to?

  192. earlthomas786 says:

    The real problem here is that her attitude is seen as radical, when it is in large part normal, healthy, female desire. Of course women want a masculine husband who had ambition and drive. Of course a Christian woman wants a devout, Christian husband. And of course many women want to be ‘courted’ with gifts and tender, chaste love.

    That’s what they say they want…but how often is it what their feels choose?

    I think the basis of why Boxer says ‘wimminz lie’ is because women will say they want one thing and then let their feelings dictate them acting upon another thing. What women need to do is focus more on what God wants out of their lives instead of focusing on their feelings.

    That’s the female version of: I want a feminine wife who likes kids, is a virgin, doesn’t swear, scream, or nag, and also takes care of her health.

    Yes…and when I say I want that in a wife, I mean it. I don’t say that and then date the town bicycle who’s had two abortions, has a drug problem, and is emotionally immature because she produces the exhiliating feelings in me.

  193. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    And of course many women want to be ‘courted’ with gifts and tender, chaste love.

    Really? Women want a tender, chaste man? A gentleman virgin?

    Then why do so many Christian women ignore the “chaste” men in church, and open their legs to Alpha thugs?

  194. earlthomas786 says:

    Then why do so many Christian women ignore the “chaste” men in church, and open their legs to Alpha thugs?

    Well obviously because the chaste/gentlemen/virgin men need to work on not being emasculated anymore. If only they were as ‘manly’ as the Alpha thugs then and only then would women deem them worthy of submission.

    Women however have nothing they need to work on, they are perfect in every way.

  195. Novaseeker says:

    I honestly don’t see a difference between that woman and Wendy Griffith, in terms of attitude. Entitlement, e.g. entitlement to gifts before and during marriage, is a striking similarity, as is the notion that she is the prize and so on. It’s all trad feminism, it’s just that one is in glitzy evangelical garb and the other is in tradcath garb — the underlying substance is very similar, and it is based on entitlement and the rather obvious ( to anyone who is looking ) attitude of superiority to men — neither of which will ever be conducive to being anything but a royal pain, at best, as a wife. Quite the opposite of biblical or traditional (take your pick based on your sect) submission — the attitude isn’t there. There may be a “formal” submission (as I expect would be the case for Wendy as well), but it has no substance because right behind it lurks an ocean of entitlement and superiority.

  196. earlthomas786 says:

    I go back to this statement from Venerable Fulton Sheen:

    ‘To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood. When a man loves a woman, he has to become worthy of her. The higher her virtue, the more noble her character, the more devoted she is to truth, justice, and goodness, the more a man has to aspire to be worthy of her. The history of civilization could actually be written in terms of the level of its women.’

    Note here his version of ‘man up’ starts with the inherit character of the women in the civilization. If they don’t have that…when why would a man need to aspire to be more worthy?

  197. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    This Craigslist ad can’t be real, can it?

    I’m a 48year old white divorced pregnant mOm who hasn’t had sex in a long time. I’m looking and hoping to find a guy here between the ages of 20-65 for a friends with benefits situation. I have a job and my own place. Will trade pic for pic. Hoping to find ..interested…..hit me

    She indicates that she’s “separated.”

    https://losangeles.craigslist.org/sfv/w4m/d/48pregnant-mumy6-month/6441389985.html

  198. Boxer says:

    Dear RPL:

    She indicates that she’s “separated.”

    I’m sure you’d jump at the chance to satisfy this mature goddess; after all, she’s “pregnant” but “hasn’t had sex in a long time” — apparently no one told her how such stuff worked, when she was a child.

    Boxer

  199. Boxer says:

    SkylerWurden:

    I don’t think she implied that he needs to do everything she wants. And I don’t think she has said she would abandon a husband who fell away from the Catholic faith, though she might say that she would hold out for a man who would not fall away. Which is perfectly acceptable.

    The people who are complaining about this woman haven’t read her blog. They’re cherrypicking various snippets and then pretending outrage. This is what feminists do to blogs like Dalrock. I think it’s silly.

    The real problem here is that her attitude is seen as radical, when it is in large part normal, healthy, female desire. Of course women want a masculine husband who had ambition and drive. Of course a Christian woman wants a devout, Christian husband. And of course many women want to be ‘courted’ with gifts and tender, chaste love. That’s the female version of: I want a feminine wife who likes kids, is a virgin, doesn’t swear, scream, or nag, and also takes care of her health. It’s only being ‘picky’ because society is so degenerate that what constitutes the bare minimum acceptability of both sexes is rarer than a free lunch.

    Right. I demand a wife who is a feminine virgin, and who also won’t mind if I quit my job to drink all day with my friends and goof off. She also must be cool with me having flings on the side. How we’re going to pay the mortgage is irrelevant.

    Really, you can have a traditional wife, or you can live a slacker or modern lifestyle. The two seem (at least to me) mutually exclusive lifestyle choices. If you want a trad wife who is a virgin, then you ought to pony up the money to support her. That is the trad lifestyle, is it not? Am I missing something?

    Boxer

  200. buckyinky says:

    Boxer:

    Am I missing something?

    As far as this blogress goes I think you’re missing the important fact that she is directing the post to men, which is why she categorizes it, along with a handful of other posts on her blog, as “For the Guys.”

    I am with Novaseeker in that, if the attitude on display in this post is the attitude she holds IRL, an earnest man would be in particular trouble entering into marriage with her. The attitude betrays a poverty in generosity, humility, and gratitude. It comes too easy for her to identify Other People’s Sins.

    It’s possible that real life for her is much different than the way she portrays herself on her blog, and that she’s not so presumptuously brimming with advice to dole out to a suitor (or her husband?), but then she would have another problem, that of duplicity.

  201. Jack Russell says:

    Don’t be hard on judges and the judicial system. This article proves children are better off with their mother.
    http://myfox8.com/2017/12/28/nc-woman-accused-of-locking-10-year-old-out-in-cold-for-hours-while-she-went-to-christmas-party/

  202. Jack Russell says:

    feministhater said:Governments are going to latch onto this and pass more insane laws, leading to an ever expanding problem with unintended consequences that will drive society down quicker than ever. I’ve said this before, there is no solution to this problem, the cancer must devourer the patient.

    There was a book written in 1934 by J.D. Unwin titled Sex and Culture. (You may be able to find it online at the Guttenberg Project.) Author writes about how societies collapsed when the became feminized. No surprise. He examined primitive and past empires and finds that in every case, the decline starts with the level of regulation of female sexuality and I would assume the men and women who promote this kind of lifestyle we have today.

    http://www.mens-memes.com/2008/02/sex-and-culture-by-jd-unwin.html

  203. BillyS says:

    I’m a 48year old white divorced pregnant mOm who hasn’t had sex in a long time.

    Boxer and RPL, you forget that 1 week is a long time for some people….

  204. earlthomas786 says:

    @Jack Russell

    Interesting that author found that Babylonia had things like no-fault and other family killing programs. Here I though a lot of those came from Lenin in the Soviet Union. There really is nothing new under the sun.

    Also proves the quote I provided above from Fulton Sheen…’To a great extent the level of any civilization is the level of its womanhood.’

  205. CSI says:

    I was unfair calling Paige a “nut”. She seems to be a naive, idealistic young woman with little life experience. I hope she realizes that views like “Marriage provides more benefits, financially, socially, mentally, physically to a married man than to the woman.” are factually incorrect and owe more to feminism than Christian thought.

  206. SkylerWurden says:

    Yes…and when I say I want that in a wife, I mean it. I don’t say that and then date the town bicycle who’s had two abortions, has a drug problem, and is emotionally immature because she produces the exhiliating feelings in me.

    But this is exactly what you are accusing her of doing. The fact is there are a lot of cads out there. There are a lot of bad men out there. There are a lot of effeminate losers out there. She has a tendency to treat all men as if they are all those bad stereotypes, or in immediate danger of falling into one of those bad stereotypes…

    But that’s exactly what you are doing here, to her. Yes, there are a lot of dumb sluts out there.
    There are a lot of ‘Christian’ women who say they want one thing and actually pursue another. But is there any evidence that this particular woman has done those things? It’s not fair to conflate all women into one giant group and then judge an individual woman by the worst habits of the group regardless of whether this individual displays those habits or not.

    Then why do so many Christian women ignore the “chaste” men in church, and open their legs to Alpha thugs?

    The same reason why so many Christian men ignore the plain Jane wallflower and bang the town bicycle after a night of drinking. People are shitty by nature, and society is dying. So the majority are now shitty.

    There is also the sad fact that many of these “chaste” men in church have been emasculated. Now, maybe they just need more tender loving care, or maybe they need to ‘man up’, or maybe they need to be bitter MGTOWs, but whatever they decide to do, if they remain doormats who don’t understand women then they will be passed over. Sad fact of life.

    Really, you can have a traditional wife, or you can live a slacker or modern lifestyle. The two seem (at least to me) mutually exclusive lifestyle choices. If you want a trad wife who is a virgin, then you ought to pony up the money to support her. That is the trad lifestyle, is it not? Am I missing something?

    That’s a good point. Also, it should be noted: no one is perfect. Your chaste trad wife might be high-maintenance. Your low maintenance sex-bomb might be a turbo-slut with a bad attitude. Maybe a guy strikes gold and finds a woman who hits every mark, but unless he hits every mark, he’s just lucky.

  207. earlthomas786 says:

    But is there any evidence that this particular woman has done those things?

    I’d like to see the traits of the boyfriends she’s chosen.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s