Incentives matter.

From the Daily Mail:  ‘Child support is 18 years of easy money’: Women reveal the REAL reasons why they’ve lied about being on the Pill – and many DON’T regret what they’ve done

  • Anonymous women confessed why they had lied about using birth control
  • A large number of women revealed they had hoped to secretly try for a baby
  • Others wanted to lock men into paying 18 years worth of child support to them

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Child Support, Daily Mail, Turning a blind eye. Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to Incentives matter.

  1. Pingback: Incentives matter. | @the_arv

  2. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hah! Just wait until George Gilder sees this, he’ll set those women straight about what really motivates them.

  3. Damn Crackers says:

    Bring back the orphanages and nunneries!

  4. MNL says:

    Not surprisingly, the words “rape”, “assault”, or “metoo” are nowhere to be found in the article.

  5. Embracing Reality says:

    I’ve been convinced for years that one of the primary reasons so many men are still marrying, even in the new millennium, is accidentally pregnancy. It may account for half the married guys I know my age and under. In most of those cases the female was not having an accident, only her boyfriend was. This gets admitted several years after the fact. If she wants sex, there’ll be sex. If she wants a baby, there’ll be one. If she wants marriage she’ll have it. Divorce? You bet! Child support? Of course! What’s it going to take for men to stop letting themselves be manipulated in this society? The end I expect.

  6. BillyS says:

    We need to change the idea of “deadbeat dads” as well. And return to realize that sex outside marriage is not good, but that will take a serious mental shift. Things like this are likely to help destroy the foundation however.

    Funny to read about “safe sex” in the comments to the linked article. As if birth control never breaks down….

  7. feministhater says:

    When you have sex outside of marriage you create ‘deadbeat’ dads as there is little to no reason to commit to a whore. Once again, only virtuous virgins deserve marriage. Most women simply do not deserve the right to be called wives or mothers.

    Women’s collective sexual liberation created the very problem of non-committed fathers they bemoan. Shut your legs, you stupid and vapid whores.

  8. feeriker says:

    Alternate title for this post: “Why MGTOW Will Prevail”

  9. rocko says:

    Even assuming casual sex is as bad for men as it is for women, the best advice I can give is,
    if you young men are still insisting on having casual sex or any type of sexual relationship ,
    ALWAYS carry condoms. And use them, I don’t give a damn if she insists you don’t, or if she claims she’s on the pill. And after you’re done, check for damage. And make sure YOU get rid of it yourself. Trust me, I’ve always used condoms and yet I’ve had two pregnancy scares and one where apparently she was pregnant and she miscarried. I was devastated at the time at losing our baby and ended up depressed. Now that we broke off the engagement I’m convinced that she was lying and she wasn’t pregnant. And I did use protection and took precautions. So fellas, I can’t emphasize this enough.

  10. rocko says:

    And as an addendum, if she looks too young, then she probably is, so make sure she’s of legal age. And I am mentioning this because there are stories out there of teen girls lying to get pregnant, and I would not be surprised if they inflated their age so they can snag an older man. Because I’m too lazy, just Google it. You’ll be shocked at how many stories are out there.

    So not only are you going to have to pay child support, but depending on jurisdiction and law, you might be convicted of statutory rape, sexual abuse of a minor/child, among other things. And you will definitely have to register as a sex offender. You’ve been warned.

  11. Jed Mask says:

    Okay, time to “preach” a little:

    “Anonymous women confessed why they had lied about using birth control.
    A large number of women revealed they had hoped to secretly try for a baby.
    Others wanted to lock men into paying 18 years worth of child support to them.”

    Truth is, this should be painstakingly obvious to most men reading this:

    Women are the only the human sex capable of human reproduction; it’s their biological instinct to “reproduce” and make babies with the highest quality man they can mate with; despite women’s personal objections to the matter.

    … Therefore, it always comes down to “don’t take to heart every word women say, but rather to the *ACTIONS* women do” when “reading between the lines of women’s secret motivations, agendas and schemes” hidden from each other and from men as a whole.

    Just reading those few statements I already knew the deal this was the case even when I was in my youthful teenaged “blue pill” days.

    If you are an attractive man to a woman, she wants to mate with you somehow to create high quality offspring: simple biology. Period!

    ALL alpha males *GET THIS*; this is no “hidden secret”, duh…

    This is all classic Rollo. Mr. Tomassi covers this head-to-toe lol.

    And if ANYTHING it’s usually always MEN who have the *UPPERHAND* on the reproduction agenda of women.

    Don’t want a woman to “trick you” in have kids lol?: *DON’T HAVE ANY SEX WHATSOVER!* There! Done! lol

    But yeah, that’s too hard a “hurdle” for most men to handle I suppose; but you can’t really blame ( and I don’t) the women for trying to manipulate the situation of a man’s “no-strings- sex opportunity” with a woman *WHO IS THE GIVER OF SEX TO BEGIN WITH*!

    Since the, get this *PURPOSE* of “sex” is purely *REPRODUCTION* it serves to say anytime a man is going for a “sexual relation” with a woman he ought to be responsible enough to *ASSUME* a pregnancy may result from the act: it’s simply logic, really.

    ‘Course we men sometimes think too much with our “little heads” and not the “big head” when making our unwise decisions.

    Even so, it’s not really “bad” *AT ALL* for a woman to assume financial aid for the provision and security of her bastard offspring if the no-good, dead-beat father doesn’t want to at least “man-up” and at least “take care of *HIS RESPONSIBILITY*” of “providing and guiding” his flesh and blood into adulthood.

    So I really don’t put *NO BLAME* on women for expecting child support to the deadbeat men who shirk their responsibilities as *FATHERS* of their *OWN FLESH ‘N BLOOD*.

    In fact women are *OWNED* financial support from the father or “fathers” of their children just for the sake of the welfare and development of their children; together or not. Whether the single mom women in check or selfishly “leeching” on the rightful financial support of the father(s) of her children is selfishly using the money for her own selfish purposes does NOT at all ever excuse the living *FATHER* of the children to not keep supporting the mother or “mothers” of his kids financial support: the “absenteeism” of fathers is the real issue causing these problems.

    Women left to their own devices can only do so much to rear up children in a *FATHERLESS HOUSEHOLD*: don’t blame them, *BLAME THE MEN WHO HAD CHOICE TO DECIDE NOT TO SLEEP AROUND OR NOT TO MAKE THESE BABIES*!

    Women have the “gift to grant sex” to a man, but it’s only the *MAN* who decides to make the *DECISION* to lay down and have sex with the woman which the purpose of sex results in *PROCREATION* of children!

    Sex is *NOT* for some “recreational activity” for men to just have with women: it’s *PURELY ONLY FOR REPRODUCTION*; the “pleasure” is merely the “byproduct”!

    Men love the “pleasure” of sex only and *NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SEX*!

    That’s why I don’t take any “players”, pua, gamers any other lame, “irresponsible men-boys” who just want to “screw” around but don’t take “manhood” seriously: they’re pure jokes in the face of the true sacred Christian Faith that’s been overshadowed by the filth of this sinful world.

    It’s truly *NOT WOMEN AT FAULT* here at all: it’s *MEN* here! It’s *MEN* who just want to screw women to *SELFISHLY* pleasure their penises and *NOT TAKE OF THE “REAL MAN STUFF”* of being *HUSBAND*, *FATHER* and *HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD*.

    The *MAN* can chose *NOT TO HAVE SEX* with a woman to not have kids to begin with.

    It starts with *HIM*, “not here”

    There’s a *REASON* God always refers to *FATHERLESS* children in the Bible and *NOT MOTHERLESS* children, huh? Yeah…

    Even if it ain’t out of love, a man should have *PRIDE* in taking care of “his own” in the form of his bloodline: least that’s how I see it.

    You don’t see Matt Damon procreate children with women he don’t attend to have with kids with.

    I don’t see men like Leonardo DiCaprio have kids with women he not *INTENT* on reproducing with.

    That ought to tell all men something about the top 20%/80% rule: top tier men *RESTRAIN* themselves from mating with women they are not intent on procreating with; whether these men commit to the women who are to be the mothers of their children or not. These top quality men have “options” of high quality women to *SELECTIVELY* mate with: they mate with the women of their choosing to spread their seed *IF* they spread their seed at all. That’s it. Amen.

    ~ Bro. Jed

  12. Anonymous Reader says:

    In the previous century it was pretty common in some places for high school girls to get themselves pregnant during the spring of the Senior year in order to lock down the young man they desired, but to still look non-pregnant in the white dress during the June wedding. “Shotgun marriage” was just a fact of life for some subcultures. It was the way girls got themselves married, back decades ago. No doubt some of those marriages broke up not too many years later; “Wed in haste, repent at leisure” is an old saying from centuries ago.

    This article just reinforces Dalrock’s assertion: the child support model is the de facto family structure. The girls in question are harvesting sperm from unwitting donors in order to obtain cash for years. More astute readers might note that in the US there is a narrow window of time for a man who has been named “father” to contest that via DNA testing. That option isn’t even legal in France without the woman’s consent. No idea what the law in the UK is, perhaps Opus could inform?

    I believe it was Napoleon who declared via his law code that any married man is assumed to be the father of all children his wife bears – prior to that some law codes were different. Perhaps he was just formally legalizing AF-BB?

  13. Pingback: Incentive V. Motive Force | Donal Graeme

  14. earlthomas786 says:

    How’s that artifical birth control working out for us?

    At least back in the ‘bad old days’ of shotgun weddings…you had some idea having sex with a woman might mean pregnancy. Now you don’t really know if she’s says she’s on the pill or somehow ‘forgot’ to take it.

    This is why I don’t engage in casual sex and outright reject women if I know they are on the pill. They have too much state supported power in this dynamic.

  15. earlthomas786 says:

    Don’t want a woman to “trick you” in have kids lol?: *DON’T HAVE ANY SEX WHATSOVER!* There! Done! lol

    I mean we are supposed to be the more logical/rational sex and we somehow still haven’t figured this out.

  16. rocko says:

    Also, I want to call attention to the article headline: Child Support is 18 Years of Easy Money.

    Easy money for easy women. Because of the PC culture, we are not supposed to refer to these women as “sluts”, but that’s what they are in the end. At least prostitutes are honest about what they do and they may even demand men use protection.

  17. Ras al Ghul says:

    “Don’t want a woman to “trick you” in have kids lol?: *DON’T HAVE ANY SEX WHATSOVER!* There! Done! lol

    I mean we are supposed to be the more logical/rational sex and we somehow still haven’t figured this out.”

    We are not the most rational, nor are we the most pragmatic, especially where sex is concerned.

    Sex may not be as important as air, food, or water. But it is a drive that exists, even when food or water is scarse. It continues whether you have shelter or not.

    If you have the basics covered, it is the single biggest driver of human behavior bar none.

    If it was not such a strong drive, then the burdens of marriage (even back in the headship days) would have been rejected by most men. If it wasn’t such a strong drive, there would be no white knights, or male feminists playing “sneaky effer” to get laid.

    Do you think most men got married because they wanted children? No.

    They did it because they “loved” the woman and wanted to get laid. All that responsibility for that little carrot.

    If it was not such a strong drive in men, that could be sublinated and channeled into marriage, civilization would never have risen beyond grass huts.

    Most men, like Easu selling his birthright for a bowl of stew, will trade their future in exchange for the possiblity of sex.

    Most men think they are different than other men, better, and that “it won’t happen to me”

  18. Kevin says:

    Isn’t that 25-40 yrs in Europe? Just keeps getting better and better!!

  19. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    At least back in the ‘bad old days’ of shotgun weddings…you had some idea having sex with a woman might mean pregnancy.

    Mabye 50 years ago. The shotgun weddings I know of took place in the 70’s and 80’s. How many of those girls do you think told their intended “It’s ok, I’m on the Pill” ?

    Now you don’t really know if she’s says she’s on the pill or somehow ‘forgot’ to take it.

    Same as it ever was.
    What does “hidden estrus” mean to you?

  20. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘What does “hidden estrus” mean to you?’

    Same thing it always means…anytime you have sex with a woman, she could get pregnant. You aren’t going to have many tells whether she’s in the ovulation phase or not.

    At least with the NFP system things like charting basal body temperature and how sticky the mucus is…tries to take a little bit out of the hidden part because that’s pretty much the only external signs you’ll get.

  21. Pingback: Incentives matter. | Reaction Times

  22. casparreyes says:

    Hmm, I thought being a single mom was the hardest job in the world.

  23. Son of Liberty says:

    @Jed Mask
    No disagreement there, but WHEN a Man has their life together, finances straightened, and fully aligned with Godly and Biblical principles and catches a near perfect and Godly woman to commence a family, and a few years down the road she flips the switch, screws him over and then who’s fault is it now? The man for “**BLAME THE MEN WHO HAD CHOICE TO DECIDE NOT TO SLEEP AROUND OR NOT TO MAKE THESE BABIES*!” ? Is it still his fault now for “*NOT BEING MAN ENOUGH*” ?

  24. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    At least with the NFP system…

    Non sequitur. Has nothing to do with the OP. The point has whooshed over your head yet again.

    Pretty ironic to see Bro Jed in the role of White Knight, I must say. “Man UP and marry those sluts!” has passed it’s stale date, though.

  25. earlthomas786 says:

    Non sequitur. Has nothing to do with the OP. The point has whooshed over your head yet again.

    Well enlighten me what your point was, haus. I was pointing out a scenerio where some of the hidden is taken out.

  26. earlthomas786 says:

    Do you think most men got married because they wanted children? No.

    They did it because they “loved” the woman and wanted to get laid. All that responsibility for that little carrot.

    I get that. But are men still that clueless to realize that sex can lead to creating children? They’ve gone together since the beginning.

  27. okrahead says:

    If you are dead set against children, and do not have the will to refrain from sex, I suppose you could get a vasectomy. These wanton women wanting to reproduce will never know if you don’t tell them. I can’t wait to see someone write the article on “vasectomy game.”

  28. feministhater says:

    Okay, time to “preach” a little:

    Yeah, go take that shit somewhere else. Women choose who they are mating with, they have responsibilities as well. Choose badly and there are consequences.

    Women can either choose to wait for sex and wait for a responsible man or choose not to and get preggers by a loser. Their choice, their responsibility. Women fucking around with douchebags and then complaining is the height of irresponsibility. 99% of men can be good and responsible, having no sex and being good, little boys but if you let the women off the hook, like you tradcon POS do, they will go for the 1% of bad boys and mate with them. Hold women to account or watch your society burn.

    This whole idea about removing the responsibility from women to men is tradcon bullshit. Women have 100% reproductive rights but men are simply told to either keep it in their pants or ‘man up’.

    I did the former and so I get to tell you and society to go take a big, steamy, smelly shit.

  29. okrahead says:

    And, should you change your mind (repent?) vasectomies are reversible.

  30. feministhater says:

    In fact women are *OWNED* financial support from the father or “fathers” of their children just for the sake of the welfare and development of their children; together or not. Whether the single mom women in check or selfishly “leeching” on the rightful financial support of the father(s) of her children is selfishly using the money for her own selfish purposes does NOT at all ever excuse the living *FATHER* of the children to not keep supporting the mother or “mothers” of his kids financial support: the “absenteeism” of fathers is the real issue causing these problems.

    I take it you agree with the current ‘child support’ model then?

    Do you read Dalrock’s blog at all?

  31. feministhater says:

    That’s why I don’t take any “players”, pua, gamers any other lame, “irresponsible men-boys” who just want to “screw” around but don’t take “manhood” seriously: they’re pure jokes in the face of the true sacred Christian Faith that’s been overshadowed by the filth of this sinful world.

    More shaming. Typical Churchian cuck. What has been done to the state of the family? Does ‘no fault’ divorce mean anything to you? Biased divorced courts? The destruction of the man’s authority over his own family, in his own home? Does any of this even register to you? Manhood is a joke, fuckwit. Society turned it into one but yet, you still want men to be the responsible ones, with little to no incentive to do so. The Christian Church buckled so easily to the modern whims of the women you refuse to hold to account for their sins.

  32. okrahead says:

    Poor old dead head Jed suffers from the misapprehension that men can avoid suffering the consequences of society’s decline and fall if we refrain from participating in the sins around us. Dead head Jed just doesn’t realize that the tax man is going to come for his money for fatherless children even if Jed never so much as kisses a girl. Sad dead head Jed has never found out that even if a man is completely faithful to his marriage vows, subsequently finds out that his wife is an adulteress, and her children are not his, he must still take full financial and legal responsibility for the fruit of her adultery or face prison and more. Celibate dead head Jed doesn’t even understand that Paul made the provision for marriage because not all were gifted to live as he did. Naive old dead head Jed just believes whatever SHE said.

  33. feministhater says:

    It’s truly *NOT WOMEN AT FAULT* here at all: it’s *MEN* here! It’s *MEN* who just want to screw women to *SELFISHLY* pleasure their penises and *NOT TAKE OF THE “REAL MAN STUFF”* of being *HUSBAND*, *FATHER* and *HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD*.

    It is their fault, they choose who they sleep with. Plenty of responsible men are turned to lifeless corpses in the shadow of the modern day divorce corp courts. Done so by these women. You want to give them a pass, how nice of you.

    There is no ‘head of household’ anymore, that is removed from the man as soon as he gets married. Game, set and match.

    Your ability to allow women a free ride where the man ‘owes’ them financial support because she decides that she wants a baby and tricks him into it, just shows me whose side you are on. The system around us is created by your type. Who refuse to hold women to account, who allow women to sleep around and then blame men, you cannot see the wood for the trees. You would jail men for being unable to afford the child support you think the women deserve, even those women who spend it on themselves.

    You are the exact type of tradcon that is talked about constantly on this blog. You don’t respect men who get married, you simply see them as walking utilities and think they deserve to be treated like dogs when they’re divorced.

  34. earlthomas786 says:

    Dead head Jed just doesn’t realize that the tax man is going to come for his money for fatherless children even if Jed never so much as kisses a girl.

    I can understand why it is easier for good men to blame cads for a society knee deep in debauchery…we are often the initators in a lot of things.

    However there is just too much evidence…either in past history or in the present age that when female sexuality is unregulated either by lack of morality or lack of effective boundaries and their gates are wide open for business…marriage, the family and civilization collapses. This is the scenerio that creates more cads than dads. The good guys often get the brunt of it in some way…like a bachelor tax, no-fault, or getting cucked. If I’d take a guess, we’re past the point of no return with civilization collapse unless there’s some Divine intervention. However I’m going to call it like I see it for the reason it’s collapsed…unregulated female sexuality.

  35. feministhater says:

    However there is just too much evidence…either in past history or in the present age that when female sexuality is unregulated either by lack of morality or lack of effective boundaries and their gates are wide open for business…marriage, the family and civilization collapses. This is the scenerio that creates more cads than dads. The good guys often get the brunt of it in some way…like a bachelor tax, no-fault, or getting cucked. If I’d take a guess, we’re past the point of no return with civilization collapse unless there’s some Divine intervention. However I’m going to call it like I see it for the reason it’s collapsed…unregulated female sexuality.

    Regulate women’s sexuality and you regulate men. Simple as that. Thinking that telling men to keep it in their pants is going to solve this problem is naive tradcon bullshit. It has not worked and never will. Those women will simply drop their panties for the first attractive man who comes along and is not regulated thus thwarting ALL the effort you put into regulating men. You can regulate most men and not solve this problem but if you regulate women, those women you regulate will each find a husband and become a family. The women who are not regulated will just become whores. Same as it always has been.

  36. David says:

    Jed’s cartoonish schtick does not fool anyone. He is just a woman-worshipping beta male who is too cowardly to hold woman accountable, and too cowardly to follow the actual Bible.

  37. Embracing Reality says:

    You can blame men too but women are still the ones that get that check. Don’t forget that government check either. We’re all paying her for that one. Who’s getting paid for this foolishness?

    Follow the money…

  38. Spike says:

    The main theme running through all of those women’s sentences on the article: The man involved is the last to be considered.
    It is said that ”men treat women as sex objects” ad nauseum. Here, women have treated men as sex and money objects and entrapped them under the worst possible circumstances.
    As a young man I toured outback Australia and worked on farms. I met a number of men on piece rates – paid by the hour on short term contracts. They all thought it great that I was going to University, as it had prestige back then. On a Friday night I would talk to them over drinks. Their stories were very familiar to those of us on the Manosphere:
    ”I was going to go to university. Then my girlfriend got pregnant….”
    “I was doing well at athletics – 100m / 200m sprint. Then my girlfriend got pregnant…”
    ”I was doing really well at cricket. Then my girlfriend got pregnant…”
    Their lives were then reduced to farm laborer, builder’s laborer, house-painting or other labor due to circumstances entirely not their own.
    Multiply these anecdotes by statistical numbers:
    -One child in 6 in the world was either not planned or an ”accident” where ”The Pill didn’t work”
    -One child in 11 (9%) of children are being raised, either knowingly or unknowingly (a deliberate evil) by men who are not the biological father.
    -One million children are aborted in the Western World. As the percentage of Europeans – the economic drivers, inventors and technologists of the world – has declined from 25% of the world’s population in 1960 to 11% now, this is a serious problem. It is exacerbated by governments resorting to immigration to fill up the labor shortfall to keep economies propped up.

    Whenever I say to women that men should have the pill, they all idiotically tell me, ”I don’t trust him. He’ll forget to take it…”, I tell them the above statistics. I now have an article I can send them.
    I have also donated to the Parsemus Foundation to get Vasalgel off and running.

    Bring on the male Pill.

  39. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘Bring on the male Pill.’

    From what I read…their was a male Pill being developed…but when men took it they didn’t like how it affected their moods and there was a claim it shrunk their testicles.

    We can’t seperate sex from procreation without consequences in some way.

    ”I was going to go to university. Then my girlfriend got pregnant….”
    “I was doing well at athletics – 100m / 200m sprint. Then my girlfriend got pregnant…”
    ”I was doing really well at cricket. Then my girlfriend got pregnant…”

    The fruits of unregulated female sexuality…and men keep falling for it.

  40. Jed Mask says:

    … Smh… Hehehe… Oooowweee… Sure looks like the “nest” has been “shaken up here”, huh?

    I stand by *EVERYTHING* I said. Shoutouts to all my fellow brothers in Christ who side with “truth” over “what massages the ego”. Amen.

    Now I can “name names” here should I go that route; but I’ll cut to the chase. I can be here “forever” debating but it needs to stick.

    Starting with you Mr. Ras al Ghul…

    “Do you think most men got married because they wanted children? No.
    They did it because they “loved” the woman and wanted to get laid. All that responsibility for that little carrot.”

    Nah, they just wanted to get laid at first. I’ve been there of course. It’s a “maturity thing”, really. At first all young men just wanna get laid and have sex. I’m a young man myself so I concur. Thing is that last “sentiment” of your reeks of “beta”: “all that responsibility for that little carrot”.

    So what you’re really saying is you don’t think the woman is worth “all that responsibility” of a man being a husband and a (potential) father to their (potential) offspring?

    Mr. Ras a woman is no “little carrot” if all you value in her is the pleasure of getting your penis in her vagina instead of acknowleding and *RESPECTING* her wholly as a human-being created in the Image of God and not just your self-serving personal “sex object” on tap.

    Remember that “sexual intercourse” is an *EXCLUSIVE*, private, personal gift from a woman towards a man she desires to mate with. It’s something very personal a “trusted human-being” in her eyes is getting the *PRIVILEGE* of “sharing pleasure” with the woman’s own personal body…

    You wouldn’t just like some random “person” to use you as an “object of pleasure” like that Mr. Ras? I know I wouldn’t. When I was younger in my teens I didn’t see the personal reality of that circumstance; but now as I’m a bit older I do now: sex is such “personal closeness” with someone the woman trusts to be “exposed” and “naked” with participating in a “shared intimate physical activity” where two human-beings are *CLOSE AND EXPOSED* to each other physically, emotionally, mentally and even spiritually (physical part being the most obvious; but not really the most important because everything else about being “naked” personally-speaking is you get to see into another person’s character, personality and “spirit” more than you would as a regular “friendship relationship”.

    If women are giving men the sex men want; women are no “little carrots” not worth sacrificing for since men place such a huge value on vagina in the first place anyways. Women don’t “owe” men sex just merely for existing lol. Just like you don’t expect to be a “voluntary servant” to women you don’t have any kind of reference point of a relationship to be it family, friends or romantic.

    A man, who desires “sex”, *EARNS* sex with a woman by gaining her trust and respect for her to “expose yourself” naked before you personally for this sacred act of “deep intimacy with another human-being” on a level far deeper to knowing another person: a woman is putting herself in a situation to be “vulnerable” and “exposed” close to a stranger she doesn’t really know and you’re seeing the perspective only as a “man” and not the “woman’s shoes” as well here…

    How would you like for someone you don’t know or trust to see you “naked” not just physically, but personally vulnerable, open and exposed for someone who may be “stronger” than you who can dominate and intimidate and criticize and manipulate you without being strong enough on your own to “defend your ego” or sense of self? You wouldn’t. I wouldn’t.

    We all like to “defend ourselves” from random people in life we’ve never met and don’t know on a personal level. That’s just human nature.

    So yeah, if all a man wants with women is her “vagina” he needs to *EARN* that valuable prize of her personal body taking up “responsibility” for the prize: that’s literally seeing woman as *OBJECT* something I take from for my own personal gain is the real translation instead of seeing the “full person” of a woman as human-being, a *PERSON*! (and not a “sex object vagina” with a “body attached”) with a unique creation, characteristics, life experiences, dreams, goals, personality, etc…

    It’s the male equivalent of how society sees men as purely “work objects” or we say “tools” to be used by society’s functioning yet not respected and can be sacrified and replaced at will: this is how your “fellow men” can see you, huh?

    Why just impose men’s selfish desires on “women’s private bodies” just because women are the “gatekeepers” of the sexual intercourse act? Men are no better in this regard to then “put down” women who will “vice versa” use men as “work tools, atms and sperm donors” in life if men will only “use women as sex objects”? Sounds like woeful “equality” in my book.

    If a guy just wants to use a woman for sex without giving her any “compensation” to earn that intimate prize; no men should feel “self-righteous” when women in return “use men” as “work slaves, atms and sperm donors” because it’s an “equal exchange”: you get what you pay. You reap what you sow. You sow respect and trust, you get sex. You sow manipulation and self-serving lust, you get it right back at you.

    At least when a man does the right thing by a woman and she screws him over regardless, she knows deep down she messed with a good man and she suffers the consequences if she can’t reconcile with him. Our “sins” always find us out in the end

    Too many guys want all the “milk” for “little work” and don’t want the cow that gives that milk. You can’t have it both ways gents.

    The real men “put in all the hard work” and reap righteous victory and glory.

    Life’s not always “easy” but that never “excuses” us as men to “wallow” in continual self-pity ’til we die and wasted our lives feeling sorry for ourselves when we can get “better off” little-by-little.

    The “others” put in “little” and “expect the whole world” in return; like a delusional homeless man thinking he deserves a supermodel for a wife when he can’t even take care of himself? Lol. Haha. Get real. Time to accept the reality. Amen.

    ~ Bro. Jed

  41. CSI says:

    “More astute readers might note that in the US there is a narrow window of time for a man who has been named “father” to contest that via DNA testing. ”

    In many states they send you a letter, and you have one month to contest it I think. There are many reasons why you might miss this window of opportunity, and after that it becomes very difficult to get off the hook. Have some women attempted to abuse this by naming platonic friends, coworkers or even strangers and hoping the letter gets lost in the mail or discarded as junk mail? I wouldn’t be surprised.

  42. earlthomas786 says:

    If a guy just wants to use a woman for sex without giving her any “compensation” to earn that intimate prize; no men should feel “self-righteous” when women in return “use men” as “work slaves, atms and sperm donors” because it’s an “equal exchange”: you get what you pay. You reap what you sow. You sow respect and trust, you get sex. You sow manipulation and self-serving lust, you get it right back at you.

    The problem with your reap-sow theory is in our present situation things like welfare…my tax dollars are paying for women I never had sex with to raise children I didn’t create and I have to be the one to clean up another man’s mess. The incentives women get for being single mothers is too much.

  43. sg says:

    ‘Teen pregnancy’ was a big deal when I was in secondary school, late 80s. I suspect there were few ‘accidents’ even then. Grrrl power was around, but few girls I knew hardly seemed to honestly enjoy the prospect of going to college. If college was pushed on them, especially by parents, a baby would be a good excuse for them to get out of it…while getting what they really desired anyway.

  44. Jed Mask says:

    … I got more to speak. Smh… at all these truly *LAME* defeatist, *PROJECTING* insults being spewed out my way:

    That’s perfectly well with me: I understand you self-pitying “defeatists”.

    By no means am I a blue-pilled “beta Churchian” as some of y’all want to “project” onto me lol. Yeah… y’all expose yourselves so easy… Just so easy.

    Time to *FACE UP*!

    Alright “Feminist Hater” you seem to be one of my biggest “critics”. Here goes:

    “I take it you agree with the current ‘child support’ model then?
    Do you read Dalrock’s blog at all?”

    I support biological *FATHERS* of known biological children “stepping up” to their best of their ability to financially provide for their own seed. it’s not society’s responsibility to take care of a living man’s children “bastard” or not if he’s alive and able to take care of *HIS OWN KIDS*! Can’t give the single moms all the flack when they’re a bunch of sorry, low-down men out there who “just wanna have fun” and not grow a pair and be a *MAN*! A woman may be the “receptacle” but only the man is the “sower” of the seed: get real!

    Men need to take care of their own flesh and blood children and not expect society to “raise them up” as “good citizens”: it won’t happen. Just do your part.

    In fact it’s because of the SELFISHNESS of dead-beat dads that *OTHER MEN IN THE FIRST PLACE* have to de-facto “take care of other men’s bastard spawn” through taxes and “society” because *MEN UPHOLD SOCIETY*! Stop “deflecting” responsibility!

    No man who’s not the living “biological father” of a woman’s children should have to be “affected” in society through having to pay taxes and perform services for the welfare of a woman’s children who is not his wife and mother of his seed.

    Child support is truly a necessity in this hellhole wicked society because too many men are “irresponsible bastards” who don’t take care of their families! Child support rightly singles out these men *BY FORCE* to do their duties as fathers that they are supposed to do!

    “Child support” wouldn’t be such a big “problem” for men if men just took care of their “responsibilities” i.e. “their children” in the first place.

    It’s really correct punishment for “dead-beats” because the phrase “child support” should remind them “SUPPORT YOUR CHILDREN AND BE IN THEIR LIVES”.

    It’s just criminal to make kids and then expect just one parent who didn’t make the kids by themselves to take all the responsibility of raising the kids by themselves. The kids suffer for no wrong-doing of their own.

    “Regulate women’s sexuality and you regulate men. Simple as that. Thinking that telling men to keep it in their pants is going to solve this problem is naive tradcon bullshit. It has not worked and never will.”

    No, never thought that. Men “keeping it in their pants” is only *ONE DYNAMIC* tactic *PART* of the solution. The dynamic is men “control” the reproduction phase of women by not deciding in time when to procreate children he can afford to take care of.

    And do remember the “ones” who regulate women’s sexuality are *MEN* therefore it will be the top *MEN* or “tribal heads” of society regulating the women’s sexuality that in return regulates the overall male population’s sexual agency.

    This is what how the patriarchy of Ancient Israel operated which is even best defined by God’s Word in the Law of Moses.

    Feminist Hater, women are not supposed to “regulate” their sexuality own their own; men are *FIRST* to regulate the women and in turn “guide and shepherd” the women into self-regulating themselves by God’s Word by the instruction and *GUIDANCE* of the men.

  45. Spike says:

    earlthomas786 says:
    January 17, 2018 at 4:53 pm
    ‘Bring on the male Pill.’
    From what I read…their was a male Pill being developed…but when men took it they didn’t like how it affected their moods and there was a claim it shrunk their testicles.
    Hi Earl. You’re quite right. there was a male Pill tried in the early 90’s (from memory). It worked a little like Depo-Provera works – a 3-monthly injection. It consisted of a high dose of a steroid, which does shrink your testicles and cause dark and violent episodes (”roid rage”) in extreme cases. A lot of men didn’t like it, so it wasn’t persisted with.
    I am a fan of Vasalgel. Trials so far (in animals, not humans) have shown it to be safe, reversible, cheap and 100% reliable. Since it works by a reversible polymer blocking the vas deferens, there are no hormones so no side effects.
    Two things: Yes, as a Christian I’m for regulated sex within marriage.I also believe in that it’s is a husband’s choice as to how many children he wants, and I think its’ biblical (John 1: 13).
    I don’t however, think the majority of people will accept my, and your, biblical views on sex, as much as I consider it necessary to persuade them otherwise. So it is fair for men to be protected, if they choose, by their own form of contraception.

  46. feministhater says:

    Jeff. Enough. The entire system is set up your way. It gives and gets men shit. Try incentives instead of punishments. Until then, take a hike.

    We tried your bullshit way. It doesn’t work. Your policy doesn’t work unless men have authority, men have none, ergo, you’re full of shit. Go away with your shaming attempts.

  47. feministhater says:

    Remember that “sexual intercourse” is an *EXCLUSIVE*, private, personal gift from a woman towards a man she desires to mate with. It’s something very personal a “trusted human-being” in her eyes is getting the *PRIVILEGE* of “sharing pleasure” with the woman’s own personal body…

    You really are some blue pill, woman worshiping, tradcon. Disregard all further communications with me. Fuck off.

  48. Jed Mask says:

    “The problem with your reap-sow theory is in our present situation things like welfare…my tax dollars are paying for women I never had sex with to raise children I didn’t create and I have to be the one to clean up another man’s mess. The incentives women get for being single mothers is too much.”

    Brother Earl that’s where the Lord says “there are some things out of our human control even though we’re doing the best we can to do the right thing”.

    It’s called “suffering gracefully through the affliction of oppression” we live in this Western society just as the Jews in the days of Rome’s Empire had to live under the oppression of the Jews and pay unfair taxis to the unjust government they were subject to. It’s like that today for us. Just “modern twist”.

    We don’t see Jesus “making a fuss” complaining about paying taxes, right? Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars. Render to God the things that are God’s; that’s what He said: don’t worry or complain if you’re being “cheated” by those in power for they will have to answer God in the end of their sins against the people.

    We’re supposed to “turn the other cheek” in meekness, not weakness.

    If you’re a godly man in Christ you’re blessed and have the personal character of heart where you don’t even care how much money you make in life because you’re just humble and *THANKFUL* to know how blessed and fortunate you are to live in a country of many freedoms unimaginable in places around the globe. You’re just happy you’re a decent man able to work and provide for himself, his family and others. I don’t even care about how much money is taken out of my paychecks for taxes when I’m working because it doesn’t even matter.

    I’m frugal already and can live on little nothing. Don’t desire material possessions just for the sake of desiring them, but only desire to make a living to support, self, family, friends, the Church, and anyone in life I can help.

    And what “money” I make I don’t spend frivolously put manage it well, pay tithes in the local church and *GOD IS THE ONE IN MY LIFE WHO SUPERNATURALLY TAKES CARE OF ALL MY FINANCIAL NEEDS* as He Knows I need taken care of.

    A Christian is not supposed to “worry about earthly money” as mammon: we *WORK* and *EARN AN HONEST LIVING*, pay our tithes *TO GOD* and *GOD DOES THE REST*. Christians make money to take care of *RESPONSIBILITIES*; not “luxuries”. No true “Christian” will buy a new house or car before “helping their brother in need” or really not spend any money on “toys”.

    Brother Earl, you’re speaking like that man in the Bible who tried to get Jesus to “divide his father’s inheritance” from his brother. You know the Scripture.

    Jesus wants us to “look at the big picture” and “not sweat the small stuff” that is not our “authority” to meddle with.

    Whether its “fair” or not Lord Jesus expects us to pay all our taxes; to do right by the “good magistrate” and the “corrupt magistrate”:

    FOCUS ON JESUS’ EXPECTATIONS; not the “world’s perspective” brother.

    *GOD* will bless and reward your faithfulness as a good man and citizen in a wicked nation in the end; so your focus on “the single mothers benefiting” on your tax money (that everyone’s paying as well anyways is truly an insignificant, pointless complaint in the grand scheme of things). It doesn’t really mean anything to you; everyone’s subject to the laws. *FOCUS ON GOD*!

    We’re here on “borrowed time” brother: we’re playing an altogether “different Game” from the unsaved heathen folk playing by the “wicked rules of the world”.

    ~ Bro. Jed

  49. okrahead says:

    Poor ignorant dead head Ted, he never learned about the birds and the bees. Frail little dead head Ted, he doesn’t know how many men it takes to get two women pregnant. He doesn’t know how many men it takes to get twenty women pregnant. He doesn’t know how many men it takes to get a hundred or a thousand women pregnant. How many men, dead head Ted? Can you count how many men? Here’s a hint…. Use your fingers and you’ll have nine left over. Call back when you’ve figured out the answer and why it matters.

  50. earlthomas786 says:

    Brother Earl that’s where the Lord says “there are some things out of our human control even though we’re doing the best we can to do the right thing”.

    I’m pointing out to you that women have monetary incentives to be single mothers. Quit placing all this blame on deadbeat dads.

    Are you ever going to start pointing out the woman’s sin in all this? Seeing men as a utility is just as bad as a men seeing women as a utlity.

  51. Jed Mask says:

    @okrahead

    Shut up “okrahead” and get some fresh air and listen to some wisdom and common sense for once.

    That way, people can actually take you seriously, friend. 🙂

    “Sad dead head Jed has never found out that even if a man is completely faithful to his marriage vows, subsequently finds out that his wife is an adulteress, and her children are not his, he must still take full financial and legal responsibility for the fruit of her adultery or face prison and more.”

    Yep, yep, yep. You’re right. This is a hard truth and very bitter pill to swallow but this stance will depend on whether you are a Christian man or a “unsaved” worldly man without Christ. A lot of men don’t want to hear it but it’s the truth if faced with this unfortunate situation:

    A man in the scenario you’ve laid before me is faithful to his wife in their marriage and his wife goes on to commit adultery and conceived children by whoredoms…

    Because the man is still her husband and going strictly by God’s Standards the man must remain married to his wife with the kids she’s conceived in adultery, unfortunately… It’s God’s Will for the man to remain remained to his wife even though she cheated on him and had kids by another man.

    Have you read the Book of Hosea? Although, the prophet Hosea was *DIVINELY CALLED* by God to marry a harlot in God’s Will as a “living message” to show the people how God won’t leave His Church just because His Bride may run away and “play the whore” with other false gods; God never “leaves nor forsakes us” demonstrating His *UNCONDITIONAL LOVE* for the Church including universally in His Unconditional Love for all people. That’s the “deeper spiritual meaning” behind *MARRIAGE COVENANT* in the Eyes of God beside the physical aspect of *PROCREATION* of building a new family in the marriage.

    The man in this unfortunate situation is still supposed to honour his marriage covenant *TO GOD* with his wife if said man is a Christian who believes in God, that is. If he’s just an “unbeliever” he doesn’t have to “play by God’s Rules” and can divorce or leave his wife and bastard kids by another man and get him a new wife if he so chooses. It doesn’t matter if he chooses to stay or leave his wife because she screwed him up because he’s not playing by God’s Rules in the first place; that’s the world’s standards.

    I’m talking about the *CHRISTIAN MAN* in this scenario though.

    The Christian man must forgive his wife’s indiscretions even as he may “punish her accordingly” to her infidelities; but must eventually move on from that down the road.

    And yes, the Christian man must take care of his wife’s children by another man because he’s still *MARRIED TO HER*! It’s unfortunate, but the real truth of the matter. God’s Law was always meant to be in place to prevent this kind of thing; but because people “sin” and “go outside of God’s Commandments” to sin and do things like fornicate and commit adultery people who aren’t even responsible suffer for the sins of other selfish human-beings. It’s life in this fallen world.

    That said, the “adulterer man” who fathered children with a married woman (if “justice” was being properly administered in society by the government) would be chief to pay “child support” for the biologically children he’s spawned in adultery with a man’s wife. The husband in the marriage need not be “required” to financial provide to children not his own, but if the adulterer father of the children dies the man must then take in the responsibility of taking care of his wife’s children by adultery given the woman is still his wife and the children are his wife’s children even though he’s not the natural biological father… Sucks, but that’s the case here…

    If “Christian-like law” was in effect based off of Scripture to *ENFORCE* rightful punishment on perpetrators adultery would be like a “capital crime” and the adulterer would either do serious jail or prison time along with paying child support for this biological children or even face the possibility of death for his crime along with the married man’s adulteress wife being “punished by the state” on the authority of her husband should he decide to punish her or not or she could be resigned to death for her adultery which worked under the Law of Moses in the Old Testament featured in Ancient Israel:

    KJV Deuteronomy 22:22-29,

    22 ¶ If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.
    23 ¶ If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
    24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.
    25 ¶ But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die:
    26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:
    27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.
    28 ¶ If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
    29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.
    ________________

    But in today’s in New Testament’s “Age of Grace” we’re living in, the Christian man *KNOWING THE LOVE OF CHRIST* is not permitted to resign his wife to death or divorce by cause of adultery just as the woman caught in the act of adultery was not condemned to stoning when in the Presence of Lord Jesus Christ.

    This is how an adulterous wife is shown the Love of Christ in the forgiveness and reconciliation to her husband for her sinful misdeeds. Amen.

    ~ Bro. Jed

  52. ACThinker says:

    @okrahead

    I’ve read that male vacationers in Martha’s Vineyard who earn 7 figures in NYC are starting to get vasectomies to solve things just as you suggest

  53. okrahead says:

    Poor dead head Jed, now he tells us his cuckold fantasy. Dead head Jed imagines being husband to Gomer as a good thing. We’ve certainly never heard a churchian cuck go there before. Dead head Jed imagines how glorious it will be to see other men do for his wife what he cannot. Poor dead head Jed imagines his loving cuckold admire his shining white armor as he unconditionally loves her while she is pleasured be Harley McRockdrummer. Poor dead head Jed can’t face his own anger at his wife for cuckolding him, so he projects it on all other men instead while he still proclaims his true love for her and waits for her to get tired of the bad boys and appreciate him for the white knight he truly is. Poor Jed; to buy that fantasy you really do need a very dead head.

  54. Trust says:

    One of my best friends had an infertile girlfriend, or so he thought. Once pregnant, she let him in on the plan: it wasn’t her, it was HER HUSBAND who was infertile and they wanted a baby. So, rather than go to a clinic AND PAY to get a donor, they duped someone into fathering the child and THEY GET PAID monthly.

    My friend has been told if he kept it in his pants HE wouldn’t have that problem. And that is true at the micro level. He behaved foolishly, and could have prevented this from happening TO HIM. However, at SOCIETAL LEVEL, if he would have kept it in his pants, some guy somewhere would have fathered the child, probably someone less responsible than him. So telling men to keep it in their pants does not make one bit of difference, other than shrinking the pool to contain increasingly irresponsible men.

    The only thing that would have prevented this would be to remove the incentives. No child support, legal paternal surrender, etc. No matter what consequences you throw at men, it only takes one irresponsible man to father countless children. I wish it weren’t so, but that is the biological and mathematical reality.

    It’s worth noting I have two daughters and no sons. I wish it wasn’t this way, and I it isn’t to let men off the hook. But the uncomfortable truth is that if a woman wants to cash out the daddy dollars, they will always be able to. We’ll never be able to create an environment where they can’t find a willing man, only where they have trouble finding a willing responsible man.

    Women must bear the consequences. And if they want a father’s help, they would then have to include him in the decision to have a child. Telling women to be more lady-like doesn’t sound as brave or noble as telling men to man up…. but anything else will simply never work.

  55. earlthomas786 says:

    The only thing that would have prevented this would be to remove the incentives. No child support, legal paternal surrender, etc. No matter what consequences you throw at men, it only takes one irresponsible man to father countless children. I wish it weren’t so, but that is the biological and mathematical reality.

    Bingo…that’s what I’ve been trying to get into Jed’s head.

  56. Paul says:

    If women are setting the trap, then these men are the stupid fools to fall for it.

    Everybody knows that children are the future of society, and they need stable families to grow up. For the sake of future society, society itself should start protecting marriages again and supporting men and women to have stable monogamous relationships.

    Alternative: don’t have sex and stay single

  57. okrahead says:

    Earl,
    Jed has a cuckold fantasy. The whole Hosea/Gomer relationship as a model for marriage has been put forward before by the pro-divorce churchians, and they actually glory in Gomer’s adultery. Jed is just another white knight tipping his fedora to m’lady while she rides the bad boy carousel, convinced that so long as he keeps giving her his unconditional love she’ll eventually come around and appreciate him. In the meantime he demonstrates his amog prowess by condemning all other men for the sins of a few and excusing women altogether. He’s a living, breathing blue pill cliche.

  58. Paul says:

    Oh, and by the way, if you’re not an RC, and are willing to wait, the instant vasectomy will offer the possibility to control your fertility by the flip of a switch

    https://www.bimek.com/

    (they’re still looking for investors, so you could help to realize this)

  59. JohnK says:

    Incentives matter, yes. Yet commenters on this site could have every wrong we conceive of righted, and it would not be nearly enough.

    We have barely any idea how good we had it, or how good we still sort of have it, compared to a lot of other times and places. For patriarchy is no guarantor of good things for beta males, nor of good things for families as we know them. Throughout the world, patriarchy does work fine for alphas.

    Nor is patriarchy necessarily any guarantor at all of civilization, or of general male striving, or of not living in a s***hole, or even of what we would call common human decency. Even with patriarchy, merely a different concept of “family” can crush even the thought of civilization.

    One giant reason is that “patriarchal societies” almost always produces clans, not nuclear families. As the late sociologist James Q. Wilson used to observe, in all the world, only in 11th-13th century Catholic England did the power of clan begin to be broken, and a common man begin to choose a wife for himself, and she him. Huge difference:

    “[In Senegal] Take something as basic as family. Family was a few hundred people, extending out to second and third cousins. … The Ten Commandments were not disobeyed – they were unknown. The value system was the exact opposite. You were supposed to steal everything you can to give to your own relatives. … We hear a lot about the kleptocratic elites of Africa. The kleptocracy extends through the whole society. My town had a medical clinic donated by international agencies. The medicine was stolen by the medical workers and sold to the local store. If you were sick and didn’t have money, drop dead. That was normal. … All the little stores in Senegal were owned by Mauritanians. If a Senegalese wanted to run a little store, he’d go to another country. The reason? Your friends and relatives would ask you for stuff for free, and you would have to say yes. End of your business. You are not allowed to be a selfish individual and say no to relatives. The result: Everyone has nothing.”

    Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/01/what_i_learned_in_peace_corps_in_africa_trump_is_right.html

  60. “only in 11th-13th century Catholic England did the power of clan begin to be broken, and a common man begin to choose a wife for himself, and she him. ”

    I don’t think anyone is advocating a return to 11th century -13th century England (assuming most here are Americans).

    We’ve got several choices: the 1950s, the Old South, etc, most of which be better than what we have now.

  61. freebird says:

    It’s easy to see “Jed is female simply by the one sentence that drips with resentment that
    “Men have sex for the pleasure of the penis.”
    Like that’s a bad thing,only a woman would say that.
    Jed/Jessica is trolling a hard,really a good amount of effort in the mockery of scripture.
    Which is why the churches aren’t working anynmore.
    They turned it into the anti-church designed to control and regulate men to women’s hypergamous benefit,when it’s design origin is to control and regulate women’s hypergamy so a family and civilization might be formed.
    Thus we can honestly say this sort of “preaching” is satanic,satan knows the scripture better than most,even mocking Christ with it.
    ————————————————————————————————-
    Personally I’ve come to love having sex with my hand.
    1.Hand doesn’t bitch and make endless demands.
    2.Hand doesn’t blackmail for sex.
    3.Hand doesn’t call porcs and make false DV charges.
    4.Hand doesn’t call pigs and make rape charges.
    5.Hand doesn’t betray family,God and Nation.
    6.Hand doesn’t mind if I have sex with the other hand.
    7.Hand doesn’t cheat with Chad,the tennis instructor,her workout instructor,the yoga teacher,her boss, Tyrone,LaVonne,and Harley McBadboy bring home various STD’s.

    Since Jed/Jessica loves mocking scripture,here’s some from me;
    “Jesus died on the cross so all men could have broadband porn for free.”

    I do hope this troll is done insulting the intelligence of the faithful readers there-of.

  62. JED IS A FEMALE?

    I got the exact same impression almost immediately! I can’t prove his troll is female but it sure smells like it.

    I can easily prove ‘Jed’ is biblically wrong. Jed’s “wisdom” is complete garbage:

    “But in today’s in New Testament’s “Age of Grace” we’re living in, the Christian man *KNOWING THE LOVE OF CHRIST* is not permitted to resign his wife to death or divorce by cause of adultery…”

    Pure Garbage!

    Here’s what Jesus Christ actually said in Matthew 19:9, you filthy liar:

    King James Bible
    “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, *except it be for fornication*, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

    Aramaic Bible in Plain English
    “But I say to you, “Whoever divorces his wife *apart from adultery* and will take another, commits adultery, and whoever will take her who is divorced commits adultery.”

    Adultery is an instant out, according to Christ, in the New Testament. This is old news.Your greasy grace is a lie. Case closed.

  63. BillyS says:

    I’ve read that male vacationers in Martha’s Vineyard who earn 7 figures in NYC are starting to get vasectomies to solve things just as you suggest

    That still won’t prevent the other risks of sex outside marriage with a clean wife. Everyone will still reap what they sow. A lifetime of a venereal disease for some pleasure? Sure, sign up for that. /sarc

    It doesn’t always happen, but the risk is high, especially for a woman who would be available for that. Dip it in the communal pot and see what you come back with.

  64. @ JohnK (is that you ‘Jed’?)

    What is your point about patriarchy? Its not perfect?

    Western society has developed into the modern, civilized industrial society it is because of men. Patriarchy has nearly always been the way of men and human progress for better or worse. Matriarchy is now destroying the society that patriarchal men built. What do you think happens to women when the thin veneer of civilization collapses? If you’re lucky you’ll be property of a clan…

  65. Anon says:

    JED IS A FEMALE?

    I got the exact same impression almost immediately! I can’t prove his troll is female but it sure smells like it.

    No. Jed is a cuckservative blueball.

    A woman would not have written in discrete sentences with space in between. Women tend to write in page-length paragraphs. Plus, a woman would make it all about her.

    Jed is a cuckservative loser male.

  66. freebird says:

    Troll claims the sole purpose of sex is reproduction not pleasure.
    Ignores why women take the Pill and have abortions.

    Troll claims men must “earn” the precious “gift” of the vag and talks badly about the evil penis.
    Well it is true whores must be paid.

    Troll refers to “real men”
    Nuff said,dead shaming language,wut?

    Troll claims men regulate women’s sexuality.
    Derp,nope,not even one second. #metoo

    “It’s God’s Will for the man to remain remained to his wife even though she cheated on him and had kids by another man.”
    GTFO rabid feminist family killer apologist cuckhold promoter,miscengenist.

    “Women don’t “owe” men sex just merely for existing lol.”
    Yes that is really funny.Woman pretending to be male.Penis envy much?
    Whoring much?

    “can’t really blame ( and I don’t) the women for trying to manipulate the situation of a man’s “no-strings- sex opportunity” with a woman *WHO IS THE GIVER OF SEX TO BEGIN WITH*!”
    Yes I can blame whores for oopsing 18 yrs of gun point extortion money.
    BTW my penis is the giver of sex,not women.
    If deceit and theft by gunpoint is a “gift” keep your gift,my hand feels better than your loose stinkhole anyway.

    “‘Course we men sometimes think too much with our “little heads” and not the “big head”
    You mean you just hate men that aren’t sleeping with you,wassamatta,fugly?
    You can take your bigot shit talk and Fo, just FO man-hater.

    ” don’t blame them,(women) *BLAME THE MEN”
    Right,you are here to rebuild the mound of lies that this article takes down.
    BTW you FAIL.

    “It’s truly *NOT WOMEN AT FAULT* here at all: it’s *MEN* here! It’s *MEN* who just want to screw women to *SELFISHLY* pleasure their penises”
    Right because a man is just and penis and that’s all he is.It’s peni BTW.Learn English.
    Have some hater_aid,hater.

    “Remember that “sexual intercourse” is an *EXCLUSIVE*, private, personal gift from a woman towards a man she desires to mate with”
    Yes and a hundred of his best mates,for sure she’s not ‘an object of pleasure.” ROFL
    Also note the value of sex given only to the sacred vag holder,no value on the man’s sex.
    Typical of an ensconced would-be gyno-master.

    “sacred act ”
    Yes the millions of girls on my porn sites perform this “sacred act” for my viewing pleasure at no cost,that’s how much it’s worth. ZERO

    ” SELFISHNESS of dead-beat dads ”
    Yawn.standard uniformed/misleading shaming language,So pre-2000.Needs updates.

    “men are “irresponsible bastards” who don’t take care of their families!”
    yawn.FO,just FO now okayy,hmm.

    What happened there fugly Jessica, Tyrone knock you up and leave with the bag of crack?

  67. CSI says:

    talks badly about the evil penis

    The gun is good, the penis is evil

    (had to slip that reference in there)

  68. Marquess of Crackberry says:

    Thank you for sharing your insight on THE PENIS IS EVIL, Bro. Zardoz.

    Mercifully, this is not an image board.

    Amen.

    ~Bro. Crackberry

  69. Ofelas says:

    @Jed Mask:

    “…sexual intercourse” is an *EXCLUSIVE*, private, etc… ”

    What exactly do you mean by ‘exclusive’ here?

  70. Marquess of Crackberry says:

    Beaten to the punch.

    Oh well. In for a shilling, in for a pound.

    Crappy 1970’s speculative science fiction: https://youtu.be/eCsT_ocYDZ0
    Crappy 2010’s reality: https://youtu.be/W9aZ_z6Vae8

  71. Oprah, Ellen, one or the other displays of feminist depravity posed the question about whether it was ok to trick your reluctant boyfriend and the answer was a resounding “Yes!” for the couple of hundred sweethearts in the studio. Well, it’s the woman’s job to breed. It’s the man’s job to fertilize. The birth control? HIS problem. All this is, is primitive biology.

  72. Paul says:

    @Embracing Reality : “Adultery is an instant out, according to Christ, in the New Testament.”

    I strongly disagree, so did the early church until ~1500. You might compare Mt 19:9 with Mt 5:32

    “but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

    I interpret this as:

    1. anyone who divorces his wife is not guilty of MAKING his wife commit adultery IF she already was unchaste.
    2. anyone who divorces a chaste wife, makes her commit adultery.

    And don’t forget 1 Co 7

    10 To the married I give this command (not I, *but the Lord*): A wife must *not separate* from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must *not divorce* his wife.

  73. RedPillPaul says:

    @Paul

    And a husband must *not divorce* his wife…..except for the reason of unchastity

    Both said by The Lord

  74. Lost Patrol says:

    A White Knight’s Tale

    This Marine tried to stop misogyny in the military. Now he’ll take on the Pentagon from outside.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2018/01/08/this-marine-tried-to-stop-misogyny-in-the-military-now-hell-take-on-the-pentagon-from-outside/?

  75. RedPillPaul says:

    Rather, I think it is more accurate to say that God does not like divorce, even if there was unfaithfulness. He desires reconciliation but if there was unfaithfulness, God will let you out.

    Or another way to say it. Divorce is not allowed in any circumstances, unless there was adultery. Adultery is unfaithfulness of the woman.

    I get the sense in reading the Bible that God idealy wants one man and woman pairing but he makes allowances for one man and many women, as long as the man is doing his marital duty, which is to provide food, shelter, and clothing……as in that is the least he has to do. As in if the man is doing alteast that much, God wont hold it against him.

    When Nathan came to David to confront him about Bathsheba, God told David,

    “I gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your arms […] And if this were too little, I would add to you as much more”
    Why have you despised the word of the Lord, to do what is evil in his sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword and have taken his wife to be your wife and have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites 2 Samuel 12:8-9

    God said that if you wanted more women, i would have given you more. Why did you take a women that didnt belong to you? As in, if David took another wife, God was not going to hold it against him, in fact, he was willing to give David more.

    A side note here….I think God had this attitude toward David because he credits David as a man after his own heart. As in, God knew that he could give David anything he wanted because David had God as priority 1 or is greatest desire, the one that was on the pedestal in Davids life was God. Solomon asked for wisdom, David would have asked to know him more, to spend days in his court. To touch him, see his face.

  76. AnonS says:

    What do they say about the simplest solution?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Fist_Campaign

    In China, April 2010, a task force of approximately 600 local officials targeted 9,559 women who had violated the country’s one-child policy. The women were required to report to government clinics to undergo sterilization. Family members of those women who had refused sterilization were detained indefinitely until the women complied with the procedure. In some cases, the women themselves were detained. Over the course of the 20-day campaign, 1,377 people were detained. From April to June, over 9,000 women were reported to have been sterilized as a result of the campaign.

  77. Otto says:

    There will always be women who lie about birth control, because of all the reasons given in the article.

    The real lesson of the story: always assume that the woman is NOT on birth control and act accordingly–ALWAYS.

    No matter what she says, act as if she is not on birth control.

  78. DR Smith says:

    I dodged this bullet once; caught my then girlfriend, before we were even officially engaged, trying to initiate sex when she was not on the pill. I can’t recall how I knew, except that she was brazen in my face about it. I promptly told her that was never happening, and told her to leave…needless to say, we broke up shortly after that “accident”. Guess getting an STD from her 2 months earlier (I was not seeing anyone else other than her at the time – in retrospect I should have been) should have been the first clue.

    I credit my being able to cut loose from that situation in that I was older (29 at the time) and knew what I wanted – a whorish slut was not one of the things I wanted.

  79. earlthomas786 says:

    The real lesson of the story: always assume that the woman is NOT on birth control and act accordingly–ALWAYS.

    No matter what she says, act as if she is not on birth control.

    Considering how it often tampers their libido…I would be cautious if she suddenly is really horny. Could be she’s experiencing what ovulation is actually like for the first time in a while.

  80. Pingback: The gospel of child support. | Dalrock

  81. BillyS says:

    A side note here….I think God had this attitude toward David because he credits David as a man after his own heart. As in, God knew that he could give David anything he wanted because David had God as priority 1 or is greatest desire, the one that was on the pedestal in Davids life was God. Solomon asked for wisdom, David would have asked to know him more, to spend days in his court. To touch him, see his face.

    David was after God’s heart because he repented when confronted for serious sin, unlike Saul. Solomon’s problem wasn’t that he sought wisdom, it is that he went after the ways of the world after he got that wisdom. God commended him for seeking wisdom after all. It was marrying many foreign wives that was his problem, illustrating the firm follow of thinking that adding just one more is going to solve the problems!

    Adultery is an instant out, according to Christ, in the New Testament.

    That is not the spirit of what Jesus said. He allowed for it in that case, but nowhere did He indicate it was required or to be celebrated.

  82. Russell says:

    Men, take over responsibility for birth control and never leave that task up to the woman. Doesn’t matter what she says about being on the pill. Condoms, vasectomy and hopefully coming soon, vasalgel but never leave it up to the woman. Problem solved.

  83. Embracing Reality says:

    In Matthew 19:9 Jesus makes it clear that divorce is allowed for a man in the case of adultery! Did you read it? Read the whole chapter! It’s very clear that Jesus is talking about marriage and divorce in general, for all men. Not a specific case. Old Testament law already demanded that adulterers were to be put to death, everyone knew that.

    Now though, suddenly, God wants men to put up with adulterous wives because “love” and “grace” and such?

    I know church dudes who think this way because they’re wives and mothers of their children are adulterers. They have my sympathy but it doesn’t change my reading comprehension. I’ve read my entire Bible, Old Testament and New, every page. God still demand accountability. The whole purpose of accountability and consequences is that it’s what keeps humanity on the right path. The abuse of grace and permissiveness of the apostate church is exactly why they’ve become no better in behavior than the secular world.

  84. Scotty says:

    If one agrees with the premise that parents are responsible for their children financially, then that premise is and shall ever be UNIVERSAL. Therefore, there is zero reason for a woman who has 1, 2 or even 3 kids, who are in public schools all day–to not be working to support her own children, regardless of whether or not she receives child support.

    Thousands of women across the US (maybe millions?) do not honor their children BY WORKING TO SUPPORT THEM, like mothers do in “intact” families…what makes single mothers so special? And by the way, if the poverty line is X in any given state or locale, how could one NOT conclude that mothers are simply living off their own children’s child support to support themselves, if they are not even working to support themselves, alone (as they would be if they were just a single person)?

    Child support, despite what women and cucks go around preaching, has become a defacto form of welfare–regardless of where women fall on the spectrum (some working a LITTLE, some some, some none).

    The day I will care about single moms is the day the state establishes an OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT AND EMPLOYMENT ACCOUNTABILITY, and viciously enforces, TO THE PENNY, financial support and accountability for their own salary (let along Child Support they receive on so-called “behalf” of their children) to the degree they have against men for decades. Including arrests for voluntary underemployment, or failing to properly account for every penny received in Child Support. If you were an executive or officer of a company and you absconded with your fiduciary responsibilities as thousands of women do every year, you’d be charged, convicted and thrown in prison.

    IF CHILDREN ARE DUE FINANCIAL SUPPORT AS A LAW/RULE…THEN THAT LAW MUST BE UNIVERSALLY TRUE OF BOTH THE FATHER AND THE MOTHER.

  85. RedPillPaul says:

    @BillyS

    I am not putting forward the idea that divorce should be celebrated, if that is what you think my point was. Divorce is allowed when there is adultery .

    Your post seems to be addressing mine but i think you have a slight misunderstanding about David. He was not a man after God’s heart (just) because he repented. God credited him as a man after his own heart before David was anointed with oil from Samuel. David was a man after Gods heart first, hence the reason why he chose him over Saul
    “The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be prince[b] over his people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.” 1 Samuel 13:14b

    Solomon asks for wisdom because he loved and revered his father David. How do we know this? Proverbs talks about when Solomon recollects his youth and his father telling him to pursue wisdom and insight at all cost (proverbs 4). Actions speak louder than words, and what does Solomon do? Asks for wisdom. Why? His dad told him to pursue it at all cost. Now why would Solomon listen to his father and hold on to his words so that he asks for wisdom from God? Probably because he loved/honored/revered/valued his father.

    Another issue is that you brought up is the foreign wives. Before the law, there was no restrictions on who to marry. Abraham, Jacob, Judah, all had more than one wife. Saul had more than one JEWISH wife.I think today, God still makes allowances for more than one wife but there are strict circumstances. I would say a muslim man with multiple wives who somehow converts to Christianity would be one of those things. That being said, he will never be a deacon or leader of the church because there are prerequisites for that such as being the husband of one wife.

  86. Daniel says:

    Conservative: If you get a girl pregnant, you have to marry her.

    Bible: If you take a woman’s virginity, you have to marry her. You don’t get to walk away just because she didn’t conceive. If you fall into temptation and lie with a harlot (unmarried, non-virgin) you are under no obligation to marry her. Repent of your fornication and stay away from her.

    Conservative: If you get a girl pregnant, you are responsible for that child.

    Bible: If you are married, the children you produce with your wife belong to you. Your wife may leave you, but the children remain yours and stay under your roof. You provide for those living under your roof and you will not provide for those who don’t. When a harlot has a child, it is hers alone. Her lover neither claims it, nor is responsible for it.

    Conservative: If your wife commits adultery, forgive her – there are no sanctions. The extreme of this: even if you are literally cuckolded, forgive her and accept that child as your own.

    Bible: In Israel the adulteress and her lover were to be put to death. Today we do not enjoy the benefits of that civil law. But the adulteress is defiled, and you must divorce her. To take her back is an abomination in the sight of God.

  87. Paul says:

    @RedPillPaul

    “And a husband must *not divorce* his wife…..except for the reason of unchastity”

    There is no such verse in the bible.

    There are verses were ‘divorce’ and ‘unchastity’ are mentioned near to each other. And some interpret that to mean you are allowed to divorce in case of unchastity. As I said, I strongly disagree with that interpretation.

  88. Paul says:

    @Embracing Reality

    “In Matthew 19:9 Jesus makes it clear that divorce is allowed for a man in the case of adultery!”

    No, it does not! There are different interpretations to that verse. There might even be a textual issue here since Erasmus, where a marginal note seems to have become a major reading. The late Dr. Leslie McFall researched this (see Part 1 of the document):
    https://lmf12.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/divorce_aug_2014.pdf

    You might not agree with Dr. McFall, but he does have a well-thought out position where he concludes that divorce is not allowed. Hence, to state “it is clear” is a gross simplification.

  89. Paul says:

    Regarding divorce; it was at least the shared position of a majority of the Church until the mid 1900’s that no-fault divorce was biblically not allowed. And it is the no-fault divorce by women that has caused the steep rise in the number of divorces. Men are first hurt by their divorcing wives, then by the state going after their money and their children, and subsequently by their churches which agree to these no-fault divorces.

  90. earlthomas786 says:

    Regarding divorce; it was at least the shared position of a majority of the Church until the mid 1900’s that no-fault divorce was biblically not allowed. And it is the no-fault divorce by women that has caused the steep rise in the number of divorces.

    It’s too bad the Church has backed down from this position. It’s supposed to be the one place that upholds the dignity of marriage.

  91. BillyS says:

    RedPillPaul,

    Someone above said that Solomon was worse than David because David sought God and Solomon sought wisdom. Yet that is not what was written. God commended Solomon for seeking wisdom. Solomon just didn’t follow it.

    David is a man after God’s own heart because he would repent when he sinned. He was not perfect, just like every other man. God also sees the future at the same time as the current and the past, so artificially segregating it as you do it not correct.

    The contrast with Saul’s response with his sin on not carrying out God’s explicit commands is entirely appropriate and accurate. Making it something ethereal or simply because David sang songs when out with the sheep is not getting the right message. Read a bit more about what is said in the entire shift from Saul to David. Lots more to learn there as well.

    As to Solomon’s foreign wives: Read I Kings 11:4. His foreign wives turned his heart. That is directly laid on them being foreign (to Israel) at the time. Saul’s wives are not mentioned in the context of Saul’s sin at all, so they are not relevant to this discussion.

    Solomon failed to follow the wisdom he received. It is like many who succeed because of a God-given gift, yet use that for their own ways rather than God’s ways. The end is disappointment, even for Solomon.

  92. RedPillPaul says:

    No Billy, david was not a man after Gods heart because he ONLY repented. You assert that he was credited that because he repented. God acknowledged David before he was king. He repented after being a king. It sounds like a small detail but it has greater unsight if you acknowledge that God acknowledged david before his repentance. Saul repented too….or asked for forgiveness 1 sam 15:24-25

    Foreign wives not jewish wives. Devil in the details. He still would have been allowed to marry as many jewish wives as he wanted, given he provides their keep. I aware that the bible states that his foreign wives lead his heart away from God.

    Another food for thought for you about Solomon. Have you ever wondered why Solomon was so nihilistic in Ecclesiastes? Its because he didnt follow in Davids steps. God gave him everything he asked and didnt ask for without a condition. Wisdom, riches, honor. He was the wisest man to ever live by Gods own words, he had legendary wealth and honor. Even Non christians today still revere him.
    God promised him long life too bit that was with a catch.
    So Solomon in his wisdom knew that long life that rivaled his wisdom was possible….which would be a very long life…like 100+,200+ 500+ years was probable not possible (given that the scale for wisdom is that noone would be wiser than him, no one would live as long as him was a probability and Methuselah almost lived to 1000) if he would have walked in his fathers ways. Solomon was bitter about death and he had all the wisom to tormemt him in the fact that he could live much much longer. The very thing that was a blessing is what causes you to compleatly know and understand how much he screwed it up because he knew he wouldn’t kive long according to Gods promise.

    @Paul
    You are correct, it is unfaithfulness/adultery. I was quoting above thread

  93. RedPillPaul says:

    @paul

    I corrrct myself. You are wrong. I was quoting you.
    Divorce is allowed for sexual immortality, which would be adultery or unfaithfulness or unchastity. Not to say that God wants you to divorce but under thoses circumstances, it is allowed

  94. SkylerWurden says:

    Even the Catholic Church allows a man to separate from his wife permanently if she commits adultery. They encourage saving the marriage, but allow for separation.

    An understanding of first-century Jewish marriage law and the actual debate between the two main sides would be helpful to most Protestants.

  95. RedPillPaul says:

    I think part of the problem is that people think that adulterer and divorcee are the same thing, and its easy to confuse the two since one would think an adulterer would become a divorcee but they are different.

    Jesus was addressing divorce. What is sexual immortality? Church answer is “sex outside of marriage” and sexual immortality is grouds for divorce per Jesus words. People forget that at that time, adultery was punishable by death.

    Its safe to say that most divorce, the kind that Jesus was adressing, was divorcing a woman not because of sexual immortality/sleeping with other men but for any reason the man can make up such as “she doesn’t make me happy/she too old/she smells funny/any reason even trivial ones[Matt 19:3 is it lawful to divorce for any cause? Asked by Pharisees]. These reasons are not grounds for divorce in Gods eyes.

    Look at the context to who and what Jesus was addressing . He is asked “then why did Moses command a certificate of divorce and send her away?

    So what can we glean from what is there? Jesus is addressing that divorce is only permitted in sexual immortality. It is safe to assume that the people at the time were not divorcing for this reason and infer that most of the divorcees were not because adultery and keep in mind adulterers were stoned (john 8, he who is without sin throw the first stone at the woman caught in adultery).

    So from here, we can establish that Jesus reference to divorcees are women who become that way not though sexual immortality.

    Jesus says about divorce in Matthew 5:32 “but I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immortality,MAKES HER COMMIT ADULTERY, and whoever MARRIES A DIVORCED WOMAN COMMITS ADULTERY.

    How does a man divorcing his wife MAKE HER commit adultery? In Gods eyes, she is still married to the husband. She didnt commit sexual immortality but in that society at the time with patriarchy, a woman with out a man is a destitute woman. A man is VITAL to her survival so she ends up getting remarried (sleep with her “new” husband) when she is not separate/divorced in Gods eyes. That is how a husband MAKE her commit adultery.

    As for the man marrying a divorced woman (and we have now established divorcees are not ones who committed sexual immortality) is marrying a woman that belongs to another man even though she no longer lives with him. That woman is not divorced in Gods eyes. The man that marries that woman basically sleeps with another mans wife hence HE is now guilty of commiting adultery while the woman in this scenario is MADE to commit adultery though her original husband action of divorcing her.

  96. BillyS says:

    RedPillPaul,

    No Billy, david was not a man after Gods heart because he ONLY repented. You assert that he was credited that because he repented. God acknowledged David before he was king. He repented after being a king. It sounds like a small detail but it has greater unsight if you acknowledge that God acknowledged david before his repentance. Saul repented too….or asked for forgiveness 1 sam 15:24-25

    Saul’s first reaction when confronted was to blame others and lie. David’s was to repent. That is the core difference. If you are ignorant enough to not realize a lot of what David was credited for was in contrast to Saul then you can go ahead and believe whatever you want. I choose to follow what is Written instead, including the context.

    Yes, David laid the groundwork prior to being king, but it was illustrated in his response to being caught in outright sin. The immediate reaction and actions taken differed. Saul wanted to maintain the veneer, David just wanted to make it right.

    Killing someone because you had sex with their wife is a pretty bad thing after all.

  97. Pingback: Won’t someone think of the children who want to become single mothers? | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s