Turning the hearts of children from their fathers.

5“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the Lord comes. 6And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”

–Malachi 4:5-6 ESV

Cane Caldo makes the case for bringing the concept of bastard back:

Mothers of bastards are incentivized to make peace with the fathers. Currently, bastard mothers are incentivized to be at war with the father, and to threaten him with no access to his child. She is incentivized to recruit the power of the courts against him because it is her best bet financially; even though it is the worst bet for the bastard’s spiritual, mental, and emotional good. “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

This is the old conservative view, and is contrary to the new conservative view which has great zeal for the new family model based on single mothers collecting child support.  Interestingly, while modern conservatives almost universally love the new destructive family model, some on the left are concerned about the way this new model alienates fathers from their children (emphasis mine):

…child support is generally perceived as a pure good: a benefit to children, families, and society, as well as a moral and legal obligation of absent parents. But for the millions of children whose child support has been assigned to the government,5 the reality of child support is anything but pure or good. Poor mothers are forced to name absent fathers, and then sue them—and sue them again and again. Because the fathers are often also poor, the vast amount of assigned child support goes unpaid and insurmountable arrearages quickly result.6 The fathers who try almost always fail as the automated enforcement mechanisms throttle endlessly: a trucker’s license is suspended, so he cannot work; a laborer’s wages are garnished at sixty-five percent, so he cannot afford to pay his own rent; a father obtains a new job and then loses it after being incarcerated for contempt because of his child support arrearages.7 The relationships between the mothers and fathers, fragile at their beginnings, can be obliterated through the process. The hopes of children to have fathers who are supportive and involved in their lives are often dissolved.8

The quote above is from the paper Child Support Harming Children: Subordinating the Best Interests of Children to the Fiscal Interests of the State, by Daniel L. Hatcher.  Hatcher is arguing against the Republican welfare reform of the 1990s.  This reform all but obliterated the line between welfare and child support and thereby exposed a new class of broken families to the corrosive power of the child support system.

While Hatcher is on the left and would prefer to remove all stigma from single motherhood (just like modern conservatives), he unintentionally makes Cane’s point that the concept of bastard promoted reconciliation and marriage due to the stigma attached to the term.  Hatcher quotes an 1832 decision of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky regarding the bastardy act in Burgen v. Straughan (emphasis mine):

[N]or can we perceive how it can be unlawful or immoral, or inconsistent with the policy of the law, for the mother of a bastard to agree with the father that, if he will co-operate in the maintainance [sic] of their child, she will not proceed under the bastardy act . . . . It should not be deemed injurious to the community or county. It is not the public duty of the mother of an illegitimate child to assert her statutory right. Her voluntary forbearance is no breach of any moral or civil obligation. Her child may become a burthen to her county; but this might happen, and would, perhaps, be more likely to occur, if such contracts as that we are now considering should be declared illegal and void. Many, in her condition, might prefer all the wretchedness of destitution and poverty, to a voluntary promulgation, in a county court, of all the circumstances necessary to coerce contributions under the bastardy act.

Related:

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cane Caldo, Child Support, Illegitimacy, Men's Sphere Lexicon, Traditional Conservatives, Welfare. Bookmark the permalink.

77 Responses to Turning the hearts of children from their fathers.

  1. Dota says:

    The term “child support” itself is a misnomer and shameless one at that. If this were truly about the children, then the money would go to the children’s trust account. Mother’s could be audited and would have to provide proof that the money was actually spent on diapers and pencils and not her Caribbean vacation fund. I’m not arguing for reforming this vile system, it should be done away with entirely – but if these foul leftists were truly concerned about children, then this reform should have done a long time ago. Women naturally can’t be trusted to police their own behavior (bless their amoral solipsistic hearts) and thus this evil endures.

  2. Pingback: Turning the hearts of children from their fathers. | @the_arv

  3. Per Desteen says:

    Notice that in the old way a woman had to think of others rather than just herself in order to come to an optimal outcome in her non-optimal situation resulting from non-optimal decisions.

    Women today do not have to consider anyone else in their decision making. Removal of all negative feedbacks and the subsequent substitution of serotonin-like hits of government largesse make them simple rats in a behavior experiment.

  4. American says:

    The most devastating by-product of the welfare state has been the destruction it’s wrought on family life. Horowitz and Perazzo sum it up like this:

    “As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically… Children in single-parent households are burdened not only with economic, but also profound social and psychological, disadvantages… Just as welfare policies discourage marriage and the formation of stable families, they also discourage the development of a healthy work ethic.”

    “Bastard” (male or female) use to be something that those in our society avoided producing. Today, millions of bastards run wild over the landscape leaving a trail of societal wreckage which gets billed to the rest of us via the government. Drug addiction, criminality/gangs, sexual immorality, and a wide range of other very bad behaviors degrade our society and negatively affect innocent moral people who must live in it.

    The old adage of the best way to get rid of feral stray cats (and their ringworm) is to stop feeding them. The best solution is not to have the problem.

  5. The Question says:

    I’m sympathetic to those who argue that calling an illegitimate child a “bastard” blames the child for the sins of the parent. At the same time, we’ve made it almost a crime to differentiate women who have children out of wedlock and those who do so within marriage.

    This loss of distinction makes it easier for women to rationalize poor decisions, whereas a society that places severe stigma on such children would make it hard for them to argue they didn’t know it would happen. Also, it would make it harder for them to argue that it was a careless mistake. Further, it might encourage pregnant women to marry the father in order to protect their child from that stigma.

    Right now, the only person who has the stigma is the father who has no power over the birth and no right to see the child afterwards. They only have financial obligations decreed by the state.

  6. thedeti says:

    Public policy and law is always an expression of morality.

    At the common law, in marriage, a child’s paternity was conclusively presumed to be of the man the biomom was married to. It was a benefit of marriage – if you’re a married man, the children born to your wife are legally and morally “yours”. They’re the father’s responsibility. And, the law said, since the family and kids are father’s responsibility, father has, and must have, the authority to do what needs done. He is the head of the house. He controls the resources to care for the child. In the unlikely event of a divorce, the father, not the mother, gets the kids, because he’s the one with the authority, responsibility and resources.

    The only way a biodad had any authority over, responsibility for, or rights to, a child was through marriage to the mother. If he didn’t marry the mother, it’s true, he didn’t have to support the child. No one could make him do it. But he had no rights to the child either – couldn’t see the child, visit the child or participate at all in the child’s upbringing, could not even give the child his last name. The decision to adopt out the kid was the mom’s alone. The unmarried biodad had no say in that either.

    And the child had no rights to the father either. The mother had no claim on the father’s money, or his name, or his time, or anything, because there was no marriage and therefore no legal or moral bond. Without marriage, there was a complete legal and moral barrier between biodad and biochild. The basis of this policy was that marriage, and staying married, and marriage being the only proper place for sex, was the foundation of morality and civic policy. It wasn’t money or forcing a biodad to make payments. When you got a girl pregnant, the moral thing to do was marry the mother and give the kid your name. And if the biodad wouldn’t do it, then the responsibility to support the child fell to the biomom, and if not her, then to her father. Ultimately, many times, he was financially responsible for his daughter’s moral failure.

    Public policy changed for a number of reasons, notably the declining role of Christian observance in public and private life, modern conveniences, the sex rev, and the pill. But a big part of it was that there was moral and legal stigma attached to bastardy for the mother and for the child, and it created “hard cases” involving abject poverty, violent abuse, etc.

    The law developed the “tender years” doctrine, which says in a divorce, the young kids go to mom because they’re still breastfeeding. And that evolved into “kids under 7 go to mom” and then “mom is just a better parent than dad is, because she’s nurturing and caring, and dad is all discipline and rules, and nurturing and caring is better for kids, and mom is closer to the kids and provides most of the actual hands on child care, so Mom will get custody of the kids, and Dad will pay child support”.

    It was decided that these folks should not become public burdens, or burdens on churches or charities, because of their moral failings, whether those moral failings were bastardy or divorce. The public taxpayer, and private charities, it was argued, should not have to subsidize the immoral decisions of people who have children out of wedlock or sire children out of wedlock, or who divorce. If father is responsible and controls resources, we must make sure he – or someone – pays,

    That’s where bastardy acts and child support laws came from. And it’s a big reason why we have the laws we have now.

  7. Anon says:

    @The Question
    You, Dalrock, and Cane Caldo are operating under a false dichotomy, from my admittedly undereducated respective at least, so let’s try to break this down:
    I agree that much damage is wrought from not calling out women who beget out of wedlock, but a revived bastard system will do little help and substantially more harm to the children. This is for a simple, fundamental fact, that none of you seem to be considering.
    THE SHAME OF BASTARDY IS ALMOST SOLELY THE CHILD’S TO SUFFER UNDER.
    The mother is not directly targeted by the label, and any formal stigma is subjected to is framed as an accessory to her child’s sin of and, punishment for, daring to be conceived by sinning parents.
    A commentator on Caldo’s blog even pointed out that bastards and their descendants are barred from salvation. Adulterers and fornicators who produce bastards though, those are open to absolution.
    Punishing child for mother’s sin is the pinnacle of White Knight blame-shifting. Anyone who claims to be a red-piller should not need to be explained to why turning offspring into whipping boys for their parents will never work effectively: Women and men who philander could not give less of a damn about how their actions will screw up their possible spawn, piling it on won’t change a thing. Bastardy is just impotent lashing out against the only soft corner of the triangle in this regard.

  8. thedeti says:

    Anon, 1:21 pm:

    THE SHAME OF BASTARDY IS ALMOST SOLELY THE CHILD’S TO SUFFER UNDER.
    The mother is not directly targeted by the label, and any formal stigma is subjected to is framed as an accessory to her child’s sin of and, punishment for, daring to be conceived by sinning parents.

    Caldo’s answer says it all:

    it just is reality that a child born out of wedlock suffers. His situation is not improved by ignoring the grisly truth that our sins can and do affect others in profound ways and with lasting consequences.

    There’s no getting around that. Besides, what’s worse – the shame of bastardy, or the lifetime of failure, academic and job underperformance, sluttery, thuggery, extramarital sex, relationship failures, and history repeating itself that single motherhood/child support morality has caused?

    A commentator on Caldo’s blog even pointed out that bastards and their descendants are barred from salvation. Adulterers and fornicators who produce bastards though, those are open to absolution.

    That commenter was quoting the old testament. Christians live under the New Testament, where salvation is open to all, including bastards and their bioparents.

  9. BillyS says:

    A commentator on Caldo’s blog even pointed out that bastards and their descendants are barred from salvation.

    I would reiterate what Cane said. No one can prove this since it is not found in the Scriptures. It might have been an OT principle for Israel, but even that was overridden in the genealogy of David. We are also not under those rules now as Christians, so any such argument is bunk.

  10. BillyS says:

    I meant what Deti said, referring to Cane.

  11. SirHamster says:

    I’m sympathetic to those who argue that calling an illegitimate child a “bastard” blames the child for the sins of the parent.

    A descriptor is a descriptor. Ceasing to use the label does not stop bastards from being conceived, but conveniently destroys our ability to discuss and address the causes of bastardry.

    It is not blame, it is negative because bastardry is negative, and more often due to seduction than rape.

    A commentator on Caldo’s blog even pointed out that bastards and their descendants are barred from salvation. Adulterers and fornicators who produce bastards though, those are open to absolution.

    False paraphrase. Someone quoted the Bible that bastards are excluded from being in Israel’s assembly for 10 generations. That is not a matter of salvation, but it is systematic shaming and strong incentive for patriarchs to watch their daughters.

  12. earlthomas786 says:

    Some things are shameful. Out of wedlock birth is a shameful thing….marriage and procreation go together.

  13. Gaza says:

    Once again the value of shaming pops up. If shaming the slut is illegal, as it is now, then there is no way to inject shame into the system post-conception.

    Bastard shame was rightfully downstream of slut shame; slut shaming sometimes failed thus bastard shame was necessary.

    The stigma works as long as the value to be upheld is a precedent; it breaks apart if it doesn’t align with the conditions before and after along that timeline. Bastard shaming has no teeth if it is not on the heels of slut shaming.

    We can’t have virtuous promiscuity aka serial monogamy and then suddenly bastard shaming when the sluts pop out the inevitable. Just like we can’t have no-fault divorce and marriage. It’s just moral cover for the actual value, promiscuity.

    In our clown world, bastard kids are chattel in the virtuous and heroic plight of single motherhood. The kids are mere tax mules of big daddy State to exact resources from men.

    The value is in the enslavement of men under the cover of pro-promiscuity (sexual empowerment, reproductive “choice”) for women. We see this same mechanism in how there is no “economic” abortion or other liberation or assignment of male responsibilities vis a vis reproductive rights. Her choice, his wallet.

    Tradition, however, is not abandoned but instead is cherry picked to harvest male obligations that serve to finance and facilitate female promiscuity. The State still uses the premise of male provisioning as justification to enslave him while women become de facto married to the patriarch State in order to get paid.

    Godly marriage between men and women is dead but marriage goes on. There are no bastards when all women are optioned by the big daddy State from the beginning.

    When the progs chiseled sexual “freedom” out of the bonds of marriage in the moral consciousness, the collapse of the rest was set in motion.

    I know many voluntary single moms. There is zero shame, only entitlement and resentment toward those who enjoy the model that actually works. The only problem they see is that they aren’t getting enough stuff and that there is some social fatigue showing up from over selling the single mom victim narrative now that there are so many single moms and fewer sympathetic normies. (Beta thirst and alpha attention sexual currency aside, hence the single moms crowding the tinder/bumble).

    The egg freezing and sperm banking and IVF industry are busily monetizing right thru the ghost of bastard shame just as they are promoting open hypergamy and the alpha fux (top shelf sperm economics) beta bux dream to the post-wall lean-in types.

    The entire system has been de-shamed. EBT cards are just debit cards and there is no such thing as a normal family anymore. She defines it all as she goes. Why not? She gets to cull the definition of life itself from the ether based solely on her desire.

    Deti, nice summary.

  14. Bee says:

    @Anon,

    “A commentator on Caldo’s blog even pointed out that bastards and their descendants are barred from salvation. ”

    I left the Old Testament quote from the Bible at Cane Caldo’s which you are referring to. The quote I left does not have the word, “salvation” in it; that was your interpretation. We live under the New Covenant (New Testament) nowadays. Some things from the Old Covenant are still in force, some are not. It takes wisdom to discern which is which.

    Under the New Covenant, bastards can receive salvation.

    The quote I shared is pertinent today because it shows how seriously God considers the sin of creating a bastard. It also shows that God does not have a problem with bastards being identified as such. There is more to it, but these two points are a good start.

  15. Dalrock says:

    @Bee

    I left the Old Testament quote from the Bible at Cane Caldo’s which you are referring to. The quote I left does not have the word, “salvation” in it; that was your interpretation. We live under the New Covenant (New Testament) nowadays. Some things from the Old Covenant are still in force, some are not. It takes wisdom to discern which is which.

    Under the New Covenant, bastards can receive salvation.

    The quote I shared is pertinent today because it shows how seriously God considers the sin of creating a bastard. It also shows that God does not have a problem with bastards being identified as such. There is more to it, but these two points are a good start.

    Another potentially relevant piece of Scripture that comes to mind is 1 Cor 7:10-14:

    10To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11(but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.

    12To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her. 13If any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever, and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband is made holy because of his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy because of her husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.

    This is talking about a different path to a broken home, but the implication is clearly that marriage is sanctifying for children.

  16. Mycroft Jones says:

    That is untrue. In the Old Testament, bastards were NOT barred from salvation. True, they were barred from inheriting and voting and holding office in the polity of Israel. That is a very different thing from “salvation” though. God’s love and mercy are the same in the Old Testament and the New.

  17. Dalrock says:

    @Anon

    Anyone who claims to be a red-piller should not need to be explained to why turning offspring into whipping boys for their parents will never work effectively: Women and men who philander could not give less of a damn about how their actions will screw up their possible spawn, piling it on won’t change a thing. Bastardy is just impotent lashing out against the only soft corner of the triangle in this regard.

    I share your hesitation in this regard. I’m not sold on the term we should use*, but I think Cane’s fundamental point is valid. The child still suffers the reality whether we name it or not. And the shame was a powerful motivator discouraging single motherhood. Marriage is a huge status marker for women, especially mothers. Right now we just pretend that it isn’t. I wrote about this in more detail here (and in the followup post linked from the bottom): https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/intrasexual-competition-and-the-strong-independent-woman/

    *Illegitimate would be another choice. The Apostle Paul used the term “unclean” in 1 Cor 7 as I referenced in my comment above. All have the same problem in that to the extent that they name the ugly reality of illegitimacy, they shame the innocent along with the guilty.

  18. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Tradcons like to say, “There are no illegitimate children. Only illegitimate parents.”

    Neil Saavedra, of The Jesus Christ Show, likes to say that. I think Dr. Laura used to day that. It’s become a modern talking point among tradcons.

    Tradcons fear being called “anti-women” or “anti-children.” The Left accuses them with, “How can you be for ‘family values’ when you blame innocent children?” Tradcons whither under such accusations. Hence, tradcons instead target “deadbeat dads,” because that’s a socially acceptable way of promoting “conservative family values.”

  19. Cane Caldo says:

    Anyone who claims to be a red-piller should not need to be explained to why turning offspring into whipping boys for their parents will never work effectively: Women and men who philander could not give less of a damn about how their actions will screw up their possible spawn, piling it on won’t change a thing. Bastardy is just impotent lashing out against the only soft corner of the triangle in this regard.

    Bastard is a shaming word because it–bastard–is the communication container for a shameful thing. There’s no way around it. If you pick a different communication container for the meaning “illegitimate child born out of wedlock”, then you have only picked a new shaming word; which would not only be useless and silly, but a pain. Bastards are spawned by the act of whoring. If a man’s mother born him out of wedlock, it’s because she was playing the whore. We play word games at the expense of looking reality in the face.

    OT laws on bastardy don’t end at exclusion from the assembly. Bastards could be legitimized. Bastards could be adopted. Besides: Many people, for different reasons, were excluded from the assembly. I would have been excluded from the assembly because I am a gentile. That would not mean no salvation or grace for me. It would mean that I was not set apart for certain works. It would also mean that I would have been free to do things that others were not.

  20. Wraithburn says:

    It’s just like coloreds, I mean niggers, I mean blacks, I mean People of Color changed, yet stayed entirely the same. Same thing with gays to homosexuals. It doesn’t matter if you call a bastard a bastard or something else, they are running from the thing itself.

    If you change the name, there’s a brief moment in time where people are confused and you can avoid whatever it was you didn’t like about the original label. But once society catches up, have to change the label again.

  21. Wraithburn says:

    Cane Caldo did a better job of detailing my point.

  22. feeriker says:

    All this beating around the bush and nobody asks “What does God demand”

    People know full well what God demands. They just try their hardest to avoid it because it makes them put God and His commandments before themselves, something NOBODY, including most Christians, wants to do.

  23. 9767 says:

    There are some misunderstanding here regarding OT laws on “bastards.” The word “bastard” is not actually an accurate wording. Mere illegitimacy had NO legal debility in the OT law at all. The term Hebrew term is “mamzer.” A mamzer is one born only to a few banned relationships- incest and adultery.

    The OT says:
    A bastard (“mamzer”) shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
    — Deuteronomy 23:2

    This is interpreted as meaning that a mamzer or their descendants forever can never marry an ordinary Jew- only another mamzer, a gentile slave, or a convert to Judaism.

    Mamzers were not considered second class Jews in any other way other than restrictions on their marriages. They were not barred from “salvation.”

    Read here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamzer#Hebrew_Bible_usage

  24. earlthomas786 says:

    The value is in the enslavement of men under the cover of pro-promiscuity (sexual empowerment, reproductive “choice”) for women. We see this same mechanism in how there is no “economic” abortion or other liberation or assignment of male responsibilities vis a vis reproductive rights. Her choice, his wallet.

    Excellent thing to point out…and like lambs to slaughter many men are falling into this trap.

    Women get all the superficial state benefits of promiscuity (STD ridden wombs, bastard children, and a beaten up heart notwithstanding)…and men get all the punishment. Why wouldn’t a pragmatic female think she has all the power?

  25. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    a mamzer or their descendants forever can never marry an ordinary Jew- only another mamzer, a gentile slave, or a convert to Judaism.

    I’d heard that a “convert to Judaism” was equal to someone born to Judaism. Dennis Prager says that once a gentile converts to Judaism, it’s a sin to question his Jewishness or treat him as second class in any way.

    Yet your statement places a “convert to Judaism” on the same plane as a gentile slave or a mamzer.

  26. earlthomas786 says:

    The Left accuses them with, “How can you be for ‘family values’ when you blame innocent children?”

    Yeah nothing like a political group who hasn’t met an abortion they don’t like to accuse their opponent of that.

    Neither side is for family values anyway. They just choose which consequence of female promiscuity they support.

  27. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    TV actress Vanessa Marcil, age 49, just suffered a miscarriage: http://people.com/babies/vanessa-marcil-suffers-miscarriage/

    It’s her 7th miscarriage. It must be hard, trying to have a baby at age 49.

    Marcil is not currently married to anyone.

  28. Anonymous Reader says:

    Marcil is not currently married to anyone.

    Moxie can only carry a woman so far.

  29. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Well, Marcil is twice divorced. And has a son from another man whom she’d never married. And is currently living with yet another man. So she does attract male attention.

  30. SkylerWurden says:

    Anyone who thinks mothers aren’t shamed by calling their kid a ‘bastard’ should try it out sometime. Find a single mother (preferably online so you don’t get stabbed) and call her child a bastard.

    Women know what ‘bastard’ means and it hurts them a lot worse than calling them a slut ever will, even though it means the same thing. Notice that every woman who can call herself a ‘mother’ does call herself a mother. Even women who can’t legitimately call themselves ‘mothers’ will try to find excuses to call themselves mothers: dog-moms, cat-moms, mommy-days with their friends and relatives babies, etc. The power of motherhood as an identity for women is impossible to overstate. Way more than ‘wife’ or even the difference between ‘girl’ and ‘woman’. The only comparable thing among men is, ironically, the title of ‘man’. Calling an adult male a ‘boy’ attacks his very identity as a social creature in the harshest way. Boys belong on their mother’s apron strings, men enter society.

    With female adults, becoming a ‘woman’ is important, but not even close to as important.

    When you call a woman’s child a ‘bastard’ you say someyhing about her; and it ian’t that she is a ‘slut’. It’s that she is a bad mother. Her children (which are now her main identity-markers) are being failed by her. Her children are no longer socially acceptable as identity markers. Society rejects them and thus they give no social value or identity to the woman. Now she has all the cost of being a parent, but none of the semi-mystical power of being ‘mommy’.

    It’s harsh, but if you want to bring a social stigma back to slutty behavior, you don’t call her a slut. That is an internal attack on her sense of shame. It hurts her feelings, but ahe can always just reject it because she doesn’t ‘feel like a slut’. But bastard is an external attack. Her child is factually a bastard. Her feelings are irrelevant, so she can’t reject it because it has to do with the perception of other people. If they call her child a bastard, it is one.

  31. Anon says:

    Here is where the disconnect resides for me, and what almost no one shouting at me even pretends to address:
    The Bastard is not responsible for his mother and father’s indiscretions. Why is he being held culpable?
    And don’t even try to feed me the line about how it “discourages illegitimacy.” Let me be clear; I agree with slut-shaming, but the institute of bastardry as outlined is not a good continuation of that. To define the bastard is to DIVERT shame from the slut onto her victim. You can argue that she suffers in proxy with her bastard, but as I already said (and no one but Dalrock himself was willing to do much as acknowledge) a slut who becomes a mother at best dismisses, at worst hates her lovechildren. She feels no empathy for their plight, and if having them around disadvantaged her she’s liable to throw them out. On top of that, the stigma will follow them no matter what; on paper the status will be erased if the fornicating parents get hitched, but the neighbors will never let them live it down even if they’re “supposed” to, so this if anything pressures philandering dad’s to never attempt to make an honest family.
    “The illegitimate child will suffer whatever they are labeled as.” I agree; what I don’t understand is why on top of their disastrous home-situation, you feel the need to attach to them the label of second-class citizen AND DENY THEM CIVIL RIGHTS.
    How does that mitigate their disadvantages? How does that do anything but mold a child to grow up HATING THE ELDERS THAT DEPRIVED THEM OF THEIR BASIC HUMAN DIGNITY?
    Have any of you ever read King Lear?

  32. Anon says:

    @SkylerWurden
    Well damn, that’s what I get for putting off finishing my in-progress comment to eat dinner.
    Alright, you are getting close to a comprehensible justification for shitting on an innocent child to vicariously insult their r loose mother.
    Now explain to me this; 1) how effective is this in a Peak Femonist culture where most single mothers openly resent the second half of that label, not the first. 2) How do you justify curtailing children’s legal rights and liberties instead of the slut mother’s? Does it hurt the woman’s feelings more that way too?

  33. Eidolon says:

    That’s quite a straw man; where did anyone say they should have restricted rights? The point has been made well; “bastard” isn’t an insult so much as a description. Any other term would take on the same meaning, just like “whore” and “prostitute” and “sex worker” all have pretty much the same connotation.

    Besides, it’s not necessarily a mentally ill person’s fault that they’re mentally ill. Yet the term has a stigma associated with it. How unfair! The reality is that whether it’s their fault or not, in many cases it may be much better that they not vote.

    Similarly with bastards; it isn’t their fault, by definition. But if you look at the stats for them versus legitimate children, they’re much more likely to do everything bad you can think of, and that’s in a society that has very nearly removed the stigma altogether. It’s simply good sense to expect them to be less successful and not as good a choice to lead things, as we indeed see that they consistently have problems. It seems unlikely that reapplying a stigma to bastardy is going to greatly increase the poor life outcomes they already exhibit.

    Of course there are perfectly good bastards, many of which are surely better-behaved than others. But that’s not the way to bet, just as there are surely some people with schizophrenia who manage their lives just fine. Fairness is not a requirement of truth; I’m not sure why anyone would think it was.

  34. SirHamster says:

    Here is where the disconnect resides for me, and what almost no one shouting at me even pretends to address:

    No one is shouting at you. Stop lying.

    The Bastard is not responsible for his mother and father’s indiscretions. Why is he being held culpable?

    Calling a bastard a bastard is not holding him culpable.

    To define the bastard is to DIVERT shame from the slut onto her victim.

    Calling a bastard a bastard is simply naming things. Censoring words does not destroy the meaning behind them.

    You can argue that she suffers in proxy with her bastard, but as I already said (and no one but Dalrock himself was willing to do much as acknowledge) a slut who becomes a mother at best dismisses, at worst hates her lovechildren.

    Women chase status. Bastard children are low status. Your zooming in on the damaged woman who produced a bastard ignores that we live in a society with women and young girls who play by the rules society enforces. They are driven by shame, not guilt.

    On top of that, the stigma will follow them no matter what; on paper the status will be erased if the fornicating parents get hitched, but the neighbors will never let them live it down even if they’re “supposed” to, so this if anything pressures philandering dad’s to never attempt to make an honest family.

    Destroying the word “bastard” won’t affect what the neighbors think or act. But duct-taping their mouths shut so that the single mother never hears the word “bastard” is removing the social shaming that would otherwise make her an example for impressionable young girls chasing status.

    “The illegitimate child will suffer whatever they are labeled as.” I agree; what I don’t understand is why on top of their disastrous home-situation, you feel the need to attach to them the label of second-class citizen AND DENY THEM CIVIL RIGHTS.

    No one is suggesting to make bastards second-class citizens or to deny them civil rights. As Scott Adams would put it, you are hallucinating.

  35. earlthomas786 says:

    The Bastard is not responsible for his mother and father’s indiscretions. Why is he being held culpable?

    The first definition of the term bastard is…’a person born of unmarried parents; an illegitimate child.’ That’s the term.

    Don’t confuse it with the slang definition: ‘a vicious, despicable, or thoroughly disliked person:’ Those bastards could have come from in wedlock births.

    http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bastard

  36. freebird says:

    A commentator on Caldo’s blog even pointed out that bastards and their descendants are barred from salvation. Adulterers and fornicators who produce bastards though, those are open to absolution.

    That commenter was quoting the old testament. Christians live under the New Testament, where salvation is open to all, including bastards and their bioparents.

    This really bothers me because I hear it so often.
    That because Christ paid for our sins we are no longer under the law.

    Christ himself made it clear when he said : I come not to change one jot nor tittle of The law.
    Christ himself made it clear we are still under the mosiac law.
    (If you’re going to believe in something,God’s sakes and literally believe that The Bible is the undisputed Word of God then you damn well better start reading what is you profess to believe in.

    It’s the self serve Personal Jesus:
    10 Commandments? Nope,Old Testament.
    7 deadly sins, Nope OT
    Food laws? Nope OT
    Swearing an oath in court not to False Witness? Nope,Jesus freed us from that.
    Sodomy,homosexual marriage? Nope,Personal Jesus says that’s just fine.

    Justify an evil thing under the sun? Yes My personal Jesus approves.
    Damned Churchians,read the damn Bible.

    2000 yr old Hebrew Desert God BS anyway..
    There’s a new God in Town and he has the biggest guns.
    Almighty .Gov funded by the only G-D of this world- The Almighty Dollah.
    Hypocrites! Blasphemers! (Like that means anything from any “religion”
    Just a convenient cover excuse to do whatever it was you wanted to do anyway,Right?

  37. infowarrior1 says:

    One of the ways that God historically prevented bastardry:
    Exodus 22:16-17
    16″If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. 17″If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.”

  38. freebird says:

    Abe Lincoln was serving his first term in State govt when he came across the story of a widow whose house had burned down.
    She was about to be disposed unless some help came along somehow.
    So Abe wrote and passed a bill for the emergency support of widows,he thought it was good legislation.
    Until he was out on foot walking and talking to his constituents.
    An old farmer told Abe he didn’t like what he had done.
    That it was Not the government’s job to take from one and give to the other,government’s job was to run the basic affairs of State need and THATS ALL.

    Abe saw the wisdom of this and rescinded his legislation and was elected to another term.
    Politicians today do not see themselves as servants of the people,they see themselves as masters.
    Politicians do not see tax money as money the people’s money,they see it as theirs to do with as they see fit,including millions of dollars for furnishings and clothing for themselves.
    Thus one tax becomes stacked upon another until a Standing Military trained Army/Police Force is needed to suppress dissent from being crushed by parasitic burden.

    Welcome to the land of “what” and the home of the “what”
    You people don’t even have a concept of freedom,much less deserve it.

  39. BillyS says:

    Anon,

    How bad off was society as a whole and even those you seek to defend when the term “bastard” was in widespread use? Compare that to how much even those children suffer now.

    Perhaps you should push your concern trolling someplace else.

  40. Bastards in the Old Testament

    Looks like they were limited in some rights. But definitely not banned from salvation.

    “Now Jephthah the Gileadite was a valiant warrior, but he was the son of a harlot. And Gilead was the father of Jephthah. “Gilead’s wife bore him sons; and when his wife’s sons grew up, they drove Jephthah out and said to him, “You shall not have an inheritance in our father’s house …”‭‭ (Judges‬ ‭11:1‬-2a)

    Jephathah mentioned in the New Restamenet as a rightouse man. (Heb. 11)

  41. We may rationalize whatever we want. But the Bible is absolutely clear. Bustards were to be stigmatized as such. Like it or not. And I think there was divine wisdom in it. Just to preserve the society from immorality.

  42. The desire (and much worse – attempts) to be nicer and kinder than God Himself is one of the most significant factors that is destroying the Western (post christian) Civilization.

    “holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power …” (2 Tim‬ ‭3:5a)

  43. ray says:

    Bee — “We live under the New Covenant (New Testament) nowadays. Some things from the Old Covenant are still in force, some are not. It takes wisdom to discern which is which.”

    Yes. I was sorting some of these today also.

    Malachi 4:1 makes plain that the chapter setting is the end times — our times. The OP’s opening verses close the Old Testament. This is not accidental on God’s part. We are responsible for accomplishing this element of the OT covenants, as it is a direct command (and threat) from the Lord: Put the fathers and families back together, or your nation is in the worst kind of trouble. Just what the fallen ones desire.

    Our second general charge — bringing down satan and co. — occurs near the end of the New Testament, as companion and mirror of Malachi 4. Effective weaponry is described in Revelation 12:11, and it takes no less to get the job done.

    As the past few OPs here illustrate, both duties (restoration of fatherhood and grounding of satan) are largely the same, and every victory of the former — however small — is hateful to the enemy.

    Hebrews and Christians are about one or the other of these two tasks, or they are on the sidelines, churchianity and yammering notwithstanding.

  44. freebird says:

    Hebrews 10:26-39 ?26For if we willfully persist in sin after having received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, 27but a fearful prospect of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. 28Anyone who has violated the law of Moses dies without mercy “on the testimony of two or three witnesses.” 29How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by those who have spurned the Son of God, profaned the blood of the covenant by which they were sanctified, and outraged the Spirit of grace? 30For we know the one who said, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge his people.” 31It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

    7For yet”in a very little while,the one who is coming will come and will not delay;38but my righteous one will live by faith.My soul takes no pleasure in anyone who shrinks back.”39But we are not among those who shrink back and so are lost, but among those who have faith and so are saved.

  45. SkylerWurden says:

    @freebird

    That’s the problem with cherry-picking verses. You can get the Bible to say almost anything you want.

    Paul made it clear what was meant by the Law and our place within it and it’s place within us.

  46. Anon says:

    The belligerent Anon above is not me. I am the long-time Anon.

  47. Spike says:

    A good and thought-provoking article, Dalrock.
    I for one am FOR returning Bastardry. IO’ll get to why in a sec.
    I’m in great favor of slut-shaming, as it is apparent that sluttery is destroying children’s lives in more ways than one.
    -Promiscuity outside of marriage is the biggest indicator of promiscuity within marriage.
    -Roughly 1/9 children (11-12%) of children are being raised by non-biological fathers. At best (the man knowing), it is extremely unfair on him. At worst (man not knowing) she is deliberately and persistently lying and that’s evil.
    Since sluttery renders marriages unstable, it is has to be socially shunned and made unacceptable by all means necessary. Ejecting the father produces an apocalypse of social problems for the child, and these should be avoided if we want an efficient society.
    When it comes to bastardry:
    -The child will have to grow up not knowing who the father is. If so, the child could quite possibly end up marrrying a half-sibling with disastrous inbreeding effects.
    -The bastard child grows up with a stack of social, academic and economic problems associated with them. Multiplied by statistical numbers, this becomes disastrous on an economy.
    -The stigma associated with bastardry just may have an effect on women’s sexual choices so as to prevent bastardry.

    Alas, the genie is out of the bottle and it’s doubtful that it will go back in without a drastic re-set. At the minimum, children should be paternity tested at birth. This will prevent in-breeding and cuckoldry, as well as redressing the power imbalance no-fault divorce has brought.

    PS Dalrock: The link to Maury Povich “You are NOT the father!” has brought hours of perverse entertainment. Thanks for that!

  48. freebird says:

    That’s the problem with cherry-picking verses. You can get the Bible to say almost anything you want.

    Talk about cherry picking.
    Personal buffet Jesus lets you rip out the pages you don’t want to hear,including all of the OT.
    Why bother reading The Book at all when you can make up your own churchian religion on feels goods.
    Maybe bring in some gambling tables and hookers,perhaps some hookah’s and a metal band..

  49. Mocheirge says:

    Well, if “bastard” is no good because it shames the child and not the mother, we could use “bastard son of a whore” instead. Or maybe resurrect “whoreson”.

  50. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    SirHamster: No one is suggesting to make bastards second-class citizens or to deny them civil rights.

    Historically, bastards were ineligible to inherit a share in the father’s estate, if the father died intestate. The bastard could inherit through a Will, had the father written one.

    That’s not only Biblical. It was the law in pre-femininst Britain (and I assume in much of the world). Nineteenth century English novels (and modern romance novels set the Regency period) are full of sexy, brooding, wild-tempered Alpha Bastards who can’t inherit from their fathers. Women love ’em.

  51. freebird says:

    Red Letter CHRIST SAYS
    Matthew 5:17-20King James Version (KJV)

    17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
    ———————————————————————————————————————————

    Theologian summary (People smarter then you say)

    The Law of God is the Bible and thus all that is written in the Bible will not be destroyed till the end of time, i.e. at our Lord’s return. This is the premise of this article and that the principles of the Law of the Bible are applicable to ALL humanity, to the Jews and to the Gentiles till the end of time comes.

    —————————————————————————————————————————–
    How much plainer does it get?
    Either accept the truth of the word and act as Christians or
    reject the whole thing entirely and admit you are atheist.

    But no more of this double minded reprobate hypocrisy BS.
    God hates the luke-warm,he spits them from his mouth!
    This is repellent to the thinking mind.

  52. freebird says:

    Red letter CHRIST SAYS
    Revelation 3:16-17.
    How I wish you were one or the other. You say, ‘I am rich; I have grown wealthy and need nothing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind, and naked.
    So then because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.

  53. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Prager U is promoting “gay conservatism”:

    Cuckservatives have been ceding ground on every issue (except for supporting Israel) for the last several decades.

  54. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Young people shocked by old “sexist, racist, and homophobic” James Bond films: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/james-bond-sexist-racist-rapist-11921620

    They also have a problem with 1990s sitcom, Friends.

    But millennials watching the classic 007 films for the first time have branded the spy a sexist and racist.

    Some even go as far as to say the quintessentially English agent is a RAPIST.

    Young people watching the early films starring Sean Connery , Roger Moore and Timothy Dalton are said to be shocked at how racist and sexist the character is.

    It comes as Friends was also slammed as ‘misogynistic and homophobic’ by millennials now all episodes are available on Netflix.

    “It’s crazy to watch Friends on Netflix now and realize how homophobic and misogynistic the show really was,” one gobsmacked viewer wrote.

    Some think jokes at the expense of lesbian couple Carol and Susan are distasteful.

    Connery’s James Bond, who starred in the films between 1962 and 1982, has come in for most criticism from young people who have branded the films “transphobic, homophobic and sexist”.

  55. earlthomas786 says:

    ‘It comes as Friends was also slammed as ‘misogynistic and homophobic’ by millennials now all episodes are available on Netflix. ‘

    LOL…that show was created by a feminist (Marta Kauffman) and a homosexual (David Crane).

  56. King Alfred says:

    In thinking about words used to label an illegitimate child, please compare the use of this descriptor with other descriptors commonly used to indicate that the child is the victim, not the perpetrator, of an offense:
    neglected child
    abused child
    malnourished child
    fatherless child
    illegitimate child
    bastard child
    abandoned child
    In every case, the descriptor is a severe indictment of those who are responsible for the plight of the hapless child, not an insult to the child himself. If understood in the same light as the other descriptors, calling a child illegitimate is really just stating the that father who sired him and the mother who bore him are illegitimate parents, and that the child must now pay for the reckless and selfish behavior of his parents. It is in fact the child who bears the cost of the misdeed and the term “illegitimate child” clearly acknowledges that fact. If correctly understood, the term places the blame squarely on the irresponsible parents, not on the child.

  57. EmpireHasNoClothes says:

    Skyler Wurden and Sir Hamster are right. Due to their solipsism women see their children as an extension of themselves and their status. Calling their pride and joy a bastard takes a sledgehammer to their vanity.

  58. A bastard is a bastard and the social cost of them is extremely high. We’ve clearly got someone in the thread that is one, so you can see the response from being labeled as such. It works.

    I’ve gotten into this discussion, in other places, that the core issue is we stopped killing heretics, for proper reasons. (Obviously, it’s a classic political abuse.) But the reality is that there are non-criminal means by which to do deep, severe and permanent damage to people and communities. Producing a society of bastards is down-stream from burning Witches, but it ain’t that far. About 20 years in the case of the early Soviet Union.

    When there aren’t consequences for evil, it grows & spreads. Then it eats up another topic and twists it. Rinse & Repeat and we’re headed to extremely bloody civil wars across the entirety of the West over the next several decades. The point of tagging a bastard with the title is that it proper names what the child is, what the penalty for their parent’s sin will be and the reality of what the future holds for them. It is a cudgel to tag, with eternal shame, the mother of the child. It worked for centuries in the West to prevent bastards from destroying the place, since having a “single mother” is the biggest social outcomes flag in all of social science.

    One technical point that people are missing, until fairly recently (1962, I believe), a bastard child had no legal claim to their father’s estate. A Man had to “recognize” a child as his, if the child was born out of wedlock. It produced a good number of unhappy marriages, but it produced far better people because the child at least had some basic stability to their life.

  59. SkylerWurden says:

    @freebird

    Yes, the terrible “churchian” teachings of Paul and Christ. How dare we follow his teaching. Much better to follow the exegesis of an admitted non-Christian.

    Mark 2:27
    Romans 8:3

  60. Still confused about this whole dating / mating game men….and I am pushing fifty.

    I went out with my old roommate (decent guy) last night (Friday). We’re both in our late forties now………I am the guy who can’t date a date to save his life; he on the other hand could sneeze in an emergency room ward have five women come over and offer him a tissue, and their phone number.

    We went out for Japanese (teppanyaki style). We had a fun crowd around the flat grill / template. The chef was good and putting on a show for us…….within ten minutes two decent looking women sitting across from us were flirting with him, joking……..he tells me over and over that “women don’t care about looks, they only just want to laugh and have fun, tell them exactly what they want to hear and they will want to get naked with you actually in a very short ammount of time”

    Now…..he’s a okay looking guy. He makes a living off his art degree, one of the few people I have ever met that does make a living off “art” (a muralist, faux finish, graphic designer). So after the meal, and some of the other folks left……the women move over with us, introductions are made….both women shook my hand as if they were picking up a cat turd or something, and they both focused their attention on him. As usual, I had to play the casual and active *listener* in the conversation….not being butthurt, but at the same time not jumping into the conversation or making myself look more like a prize horses’ ass.

    My old roommate orders a round of drinks (tea for me, as I do not drink) and for the women as well….I was ticked at that, he and I are splitting the check…….and I am now paying for drinks for two women who are frankly ignoring me and are behaving a very snotty way to me…..and decent Japanese isn’t cheap (my share of the check was 72.00 not including tip).

    After the cherck is closed, Brian gets both of their numbers…..and while driving back downtown where we both live……..his phone is “dinging” several times……..call it a hunch, but it was probably those women. Brian tries……like a decent guy he is…….says “Dude, Sharon (one of the womens’ names) was checking you out” and I know he was *trying* to make me feel better. I asked him if I was giving an “offputting” vibe. He told me “no” just that I need more “confidence”

    I had a great time…the food was excellent, the service and decor of the place was great. I looked okay. I had fun. It was good to see my old roommie again, and we did talk a lot. We did get along well as roommates. When I do go out with him, this always happens…..I just should expect it by now when it does……

  61. Embracing Reality says:

    From our red pill position in society shaming sluts or their offspring is hopeless. Shame would need to come from those in moral authority first. Moral authority came from the church. That’s all but gone now. That’s where the shame should be directed now by those who still hold Christian morals. Dalrock does an excellent job of that.

    It’s hard to say how may Christian men have red pill knowledge but it’s growing. Those of us who know the truth need to abandon these apostate churches until they start teaching the truth and make it known why we’ve left. I think we’re seeing this more and and the church is noticing men are leaving. Why we’re leaving should be the narrative we try to control with shame directed at our failed religious leaders.

  62. Embracing Reality says:

    @ SeventiesJason,

    Yeah, “a negative vibe” is exactly what I was suspicious of reading your story. I still suspect that’s it. Your friend didn’t pick it up because he wasn’t getting a negative vibe from you but I bet those women were. He was focused on gaming them not you, he only heard what you said. They can’t read your mind, only your body language. These girls were likely sluts. Right? From the start you didn’t think much of them. Right? It was probably all over your face, your eyes especially. This happens subconsciously, naturally. The only way to override this is to fake it. I fake it sometimes, just for sport.

    I’ve dated quite a bit. I’m in a relationship with an attractive woman now that I’m probably going to be walking away from. I have experience with these things but more importantly I study them.

    I was sitting at a bar with a friend who was actually kind of an ugly guy. The female tending bar was moderately attractive and obviously lit. I wasn’t in the mood to converse with her or be friendly. Didn’t think much of her honesty. I noticed though, because I pay attention to these things, she was a little annoyed with my cold attitude towards her. He on the other hand was making friendly conversation but would never have the nerve to ask for a number. He hasn’t dated in many years yet she was responding do his interest. At one point I decided to show some interest in her to see how she would react. She was cold, brief. Punishing me as best she could by taking to him even more! I then displayed a sly smile which seemed to irritate her even more…

    If you want a better response, for whatever reason, fake it. Hold eye contact but look away occasionally, especially when she looks away. Give an expression with a sly half smile. Keep those eyebrows relaxed. Just relax with a negotiable indifference to them. Talk about yourself a little, talk about them a little but it’s mostly body language in the beginning. Ultimately they’re just an amusing waste of time, if you’re amused at that kind of thing.

  63. A negative vibe from me? Hmmmmm…debatable on my end anyway. I was laughing, watching the chef…small talk with him…….some of the other floks, women included….glasses raised……where-do-you-live-what-part-of-town-you-from conversations……other guys….we were laughing about the state of this pathetic city we live in…inisde jokes about this place (ranch dressing comments)

    From the first moment those women saw me it wasn’t seething contempt…no……but they did seem to have a “poker” up their butts about me. I just thought to myself…..”no way. no. I saved hard for this night with my old roomie, it’s Japanese…it’s gonna kick me hard when the check comes…esp at this place…..higher end………no. these two women are not gonna ‘steal my fun’ tonight. I’m here to eat, laugh and just soak it in.”

    It figures my old roomie would decide to play this flirting game with these two though. I was more annoyed that he offered a round of drinks for them later on…..of course each was having a 7.00 glass of wine…….

    Like I said, I had a good time. Chef got an applause. Shook hands with other folks as they closed their checks and left…….heck, even the music in the place was good………..some J-pop, The Beatles, Coldplay, and I had to hold back air guitar when some early “Who” came on. My old roommate and I did talk…catch up….what’s going on with our lives kind of thing……

    Anyway…..your advice is wisely taken my man……and thanks for replying!

  64. Gaza says:

    SeventiesJ,
    I’ve seen this dynamic quite a bit being that I’m of similar age and have a lot of male friends who are in he game in some way or the other.

    In my experience it splits two ways, with the devilish details being a lot of unconscious shit that takes a while to know and then manage on the fly. It is indeed either the subcom you are throwing off, as ER points out, or you are picking up on their insecurity and failing to give their hamsters some validation pellets.

    Gotta keep in mind how anxious the aging western woman really is when confronted with men who really don’t give a shit. Sometimes it’s just a matter of which guy gives them the pellets first. Then it’s a matter of making sure you aren’t letting some male competition issue leak into your ability to offer up your own pellets in quick order.

    I’d say at least half the time when I’m picking up those kind of negative vibes from a woman it ends up being about her own unconscious discomfort with the fact that we are close in age but I’m obviously not post-wall in the ways she is. This insecurity, harsh truth, and resentment on their end can get amped up in those environments that otherwise reinforce the fact that most men in our position don’t need them like they need us.

    I can be pretty aloof so I have to flip my own switch, but when I do those daggers from the women usually turn into IOIs. My problem is that I genuinely don’t care enough and am content to just have my beer and a laugh with my buddy and call it a night. Then again, it’s a juice/squeeze issue.

    So you have to consider, would you even want their numbers or an actual “date” with them? Otherwise it’s juat annoying that they aren’t giving you the pellets you want. We can’t have it both ways either. If you don’t care, you don’t care. But gf you do care, think about what it is that you actually want. The faking it business is fine but we have to consider the point of it; what do you really want out of any interaction?

    So theres a good chance that you put them on their heels a bit for no other reason than their own hamstering and then didn’t validate (tell them what they want to hear as your buddy says) them quickly enough or in terms that they have come to expect.

    The fine tuning is in how you express not giving a shit while also making sure the unconscious body language is congruent with the outward “funloving” attitude.

    Women can be super keen on reading the incongruence. I have a good friend that I grind all the time because he carries a natural scowl. And at times I’ve had my own version where I am basically disgusted at most women from the getgo.

    Hell, when they put their phones on the table or bar top it takes a conscious effort to convert the disgust from taking over my gaze and replacing it with “whatever, were all out here to have fun” or some such.

    I just find the demeanor, behavior, and looks of most women to be unappealing but I’ve got to quell that because it can infect the dynamics such that I miss one of the unicorns. Or even just keeping the door open for some random fun.

  65. On to something there Gaza……no, I had no interest in getting their celli numbers……they both were probably in their early forties…….didn’t look bad…..one was actually pretty cute. Will freely admit this. Maybe I was just thinking or expecting manners on “general principles” by them both. I mean, come on……12 people at a tappenyaki table in an upscale restuarant………..four different groups all dining together. It’s a good way to meet, socialize, enjoy a meal and company. It’s also Fresno, California……..we all survived another week in this crazy place (I love this city but we Fresnans all dog it hard because we can).

    I think part of my problem over the decades has just been “attractive woman? don’t bother. she will already have an ‘amazing boyfrined’ or ‘just doesn’t feel a spark’ or just wants to be friends or will view me as creep for just trying to chat her up kind of thing”

    No, I don’t have a natural scowl, or brooding look……but depending on other factors with the complex creature called “woman” that could be an asset for you as a guy if you have the looks to back it up…..who knows 🙂

  66. Scott says:

    When Mychael and I converted and had to be remarried in the Orthodox church, we were saddened to find that our first three children (born while we were married, but not Orthodox) do not become retroactively legitimized in the eyes of the church by the sacrament. It is an eye opening experience, and it works.

  67. BillyS says:

    The Scriptures say that the children are sanctified by a single believing spouse. The Orthodox position would seem at least a bit at odds with that, though neither of you were “believing” in their eyes prior to that, so perhaps that is the difference.

  68. Embracing Reality says:

    Yeah, there’s definitely a problem with the women there. I’ve never been to Southern California but the reputation of the women there is that they are incredibly snobby, lofty, think the world of themselves. I’m sure it’s a massive fornication and adultery paradise for Alpha bad boys, wealthy men or celebrities. Average guys though get little attention when women are as liberal as they surely are in Fresno.

  69. Peter says:

    I’m afraid 9767 is incorrect.

    Deuteronomy 23:2 says: Mamzer , that is to say, one born of a common woman , shall not enter into the church of our Lord, until the tenth generation.

    NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon: 1. bastard, child of incest, a. bastard, b. mixed population, c. born of a jewish father and a heathen mother, or vice versa. Strong’s Hebrew Lexicon: mamze^r mam-zare’ From an unused root mian. to alienate; a mongrel. Webster’s New World Dictionary: mon grel (mun’grel), adj. of mixed breed, race, origin, or character. See Ephesians 5:5.

    Common woman: whore, prostitute, strumpet.

    So we are dealing not with interfamilial incest only, nor marrying outside the faith, but also racial mixtures, i.e., miscegenation, resulting in mixed breeds. This was a big problem for Israel once they entered the promised land because they did not kill off those God commanded them to kill, but took their women as wives, or simply accepted their fealty in toto.

    Remember God doesn’t like mixtures of anything that He has made, witness His commands on mixing cloths, women wearing men’s clothing, etc.

    Found an article, controversial of course, doing some searches for mamzer: http://fathersmanifesto.net/mamzer.htm

  70. earlthomas786 says:

    All this talk about how bastard makes people recoil in horror reminds me of this Carlin bit about ‘soft language’.

  71. feeriker says:

    I just find the demeanor, behavior, and looks of most women to be unappealing but I’ve got to quell that because it can infect the dynamics such that I miss one of the unicorns. Or even just keeping the door open for some random fun.

    This.

    I’m not in the market anymore, but if I were single again I don’t think I would even bother. There is literally nothing out there these days that justifies making the effort. In fact, shopping in today’s SMP/MMP does nothing more than confirm the wisdom of saving one’s currency for investment in some other more stable and rational market that will provide a genuinely valuable and lasting long-term ROI (imagine having the currency to buy a new Mercedes Benz, but all the market has on offer are used Volkswagens). Sure, there are unicorns out there, but the mathematical odds against finding one are such that pursuing them in the current marketplace is a foolish malinvestment of time and resources and a loser of an opportunity cost.

    no, I had no interest in getting their cell numbers…

    That’s the question that ultimately has to be answered. If you’re in a social situation where you would rather be doing laundry, home repairs, or some other tedious chore than gaming some random post-wall skank, that’s your moral compass alarm telling you that female companionship not only isn’t currently necessary, but would probably cause more problems than it would cure.

  72. earlthomas786 says:

    I just find the demeanor, behavior, and looks of most women to be unappealing

    You and me both.

    I’m lucky enough to have a group of good guy friends around…and I go to the Adoration chapel everyday to pray…I’m finding out those relationships are a lot more fulfilling than the ones with ladies I’ve been in relationships with.

  73. infowarrior1 says:

    ”So we are dealing not with interfamilial incest only, nor marrying outside the faith, but also racial mixtures, i.e., miscegenation, resulting in mixed breeds.”

    I think it only applies in incest and marrying outside the faith. It allows people of other races like the Maobitess Ruth and the Canaanite Rahab who converts to the faith to intermarry with Israelites. They were the female ancestors of Jesus.

    http://www.reformedonline.com/uploads/1/5/0/3/15030584/kinist_heresy.pdf

  74. Micha Elyi says:

    I’m sympathetic to those who argue that calling an illegitimate child a “bastard” blames the child for the sins of the parent. At the same time, we’ve made it almost a crime to differentiate women who have children out of wedlock and those who do so within marriage.
    –The Question 12:26 pm

    Because the matter is about the behavior of the child’s parents, keep the focus on the parents. Speak of the unwed mother (or father). If you must refer to the child born out of wedlock or of a child of divorce, speak of the “child trapped in a broken home”. This labels the home, not the child.

    At the same time, we’ve made it almost a crime to differentiate women who have children out of wedlock and those who do so within marriage.

    Avoid the term ‘single mother’. Those who sought to normalize unwed and divorced motherhood use that term to hide unwed and divorced mothers from criticism behind the skirts of honorable widowed mothers. Do not accept this gambit of the feminists and other homewreckers. Stick to the terms ‘unwed mother’ and ‘divorced mother’. Those terms carry a stigma for good reason. Those who trap children into broken homes deserve a stigma.

    P.S. Consider also speaking against the tax break for perpetrators of broken homes. This is the federal tax filing category called “Unmarried Head of Household”. Your state may also have such a thing. It is a gimmick to normalize what is abnormal, to incorporate into society what should be opposed.

  75. Micha Elyi says:

    The term “child support” itself is a misnomer and shameless one at that. If this were truly about the children, then the money would go to the children’s trust account. (Mothers) could be audited and would have to provide proof that the money was actually spent (for the child’s direct benefit).
    –Dota 11:02 am

    Yes, in all other cases in which a person receives funds for the benefit of someone else that person has a fiduciary responsibility to keep accurate and timely records of how that money was spent. These records can be audited if misappropriation of the funds is suspected.

    This is another example of females being elevated above the laws.

    This gynolatry must end.

  76. Micha Elyi says:

    My personal Jesus approves.
    Damned Churchians,read the damn Bible.
    –Freebird 19:37 pm

    (1) Jesus did not leave us a book, He left us a Church.
    (2) If you have a dispute, take it to the Church.

  77. Pingback: Erasing fathers from Scripture. | 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 )

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.