Modern Christian teachers of the lesson in The Wedding of Sir Gawain.

In The Wedding of Sir Gawain we learn that what women want is sovereynté (control).  If a husband loves his wife, he will grant her the sovereynté that she covets.  As a result of her loving husband granting her sovereynté, the wife will become extremely beautiful.

This of course isn’t just a moral message from the 15th century.  Modern Christian leaders teach variations on the same theme.  Dr Richard Strauss taught in the early 1970s that wives are “responders”.  If her husband treats her right, she will blossom and become beautiful.  If he doesn’t, she will become (or remain) ugly (emphasis mine):

The woman is a responder. This is the obvious role of someone who depends on another person. Flowers depend on sunshine and rain; when they get it, they respond by blossoming into gorgeous beauty. This is how God made a woman too. She responds to what she receives. If she receives irritability, criticism, disapproval, unkindness, indifference, lack of appreciation, or lack of affection, she will respond with a defense mechanism, such as bitterness, coolness, defiance, or nagging. Some women turn to drinking or submerge themselves in social activities.

But if the woman receives love she will respond with love, and will blossom into the most beautiful creature under God’s heaven.

Pastor Doug Wilson teaches something similar in his book Reforming Marriage.  Wilson opens Chapter 4 with a feminist critique of the pressure women feel to “keep themselves up”:

Love Bestows Loveliness

A common assumption in the world is that women must “keep themselves up” in order to keep a man. In the world of attracting and being attracted, women are taught to view themselves as being primarily responsible for their own attractiveness or loveliness. This viewpoint is inculcated early. Once young girls used to play with baby dolls, seeing themselves in the role of the nurturing mother; now they can be seen playing with Barbie dolls, seeing themselves in the place of the doll. And of course, the doll is both pretty and stacked. The pressure is on and stays on.

The problem, according to Wilson, is the evil patriarchy.  Women should not feel pressure to conform to conventional standards of beauty.  Their fathers and husbands have the obligation to make them beautiful by loving them properly.  Wilson continues (all further emphasis mine):

The perversion in this is not that women desire to be attractive or lovely. The perversion is the modern divorce of a woman’s loveliness from the behavior of her father and husband. There is nothing wrong with wanting a lovely garden; there is a great deal of folly in wanting a lovely garden which will tend and keep itself. The Bible teaches that a Christian husband is responsible for the loveliness of his wife. Before she is married, her father is responsible for that loveliness. When she marries, her husband assumes this responsibility. The husband’s example in this kind of loving is Jesus Christ.

…when a man takes a woman into his home, all who know them should expect to see her flourish and grow in loveliness in the years to come. If their wedding ceremony referred at all to the fifth chapter of Ephesians, was this not what he vowed he would do? As a husband treats his wife in the scriptural fashion, he should expect her to grow increasingly lovely. This is not because the husband has earned it, but rather because through the grace of God, he has been blessed

Note that Pastor Wilson isn’t writing about the kind of internal beauty the Apostle Peter writes about in 1 Pet 3:1-6.  If he were writing about that, he would need to acknowledge that it is the wife herself who is responsible for cultivating this through her submission to her husband.  Wilson devotes several pages to explaining that he is writing about physical beauty, and eventually explains:

This may all seem like a belaboring of the obvious—“everyone knows there are pretty women”—but it is an important point for husbands to understand. When husbands undertake the assigned responsibility of loving their wives in such a way that they grow in loveliness, they need to understand that the results will be visible. This does not mean that, with the right husband, all women could be equally beautiful. Some women have the advantage of a greater natural beauty, and others had exceptional fathers—men who treated their daughters right. But it does mean that a man who marries biblically should expect his wife to be visibly lovelier on their tenth anniversary—and if she is not, he knows that he is the one responsible. But as the one responsible, he has to know where true beauty begins. Every husband should learn how to ask, “What will living with a man like me do to this woman’s appearance?”

Eventually Wilson does get around to to quoting 1 Pet 3:1-6, but he only does this after creating a fictitious biblical requirement for husbands to make their wives physically beautiful.  Wilson explains that 1 Pet 3:1-6 must be read as an injunction to husbands to make their wives physically beautiful by loving her as Christ loves the Church:

Peter urges this internal gentleness upon the wives. But taking the teaching of all of Scripture into account, we can see that a woman concentrates on this under the loving oversight of her husband. As he loves her, she bears fruit. As she bears this fruit, it delights him. In this delight he loves her more, and she bears more fruit. The wife is to cooperate fully, receiving his love, but he is the one responsible to give it.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Attacking headship, Chivalry, Complementarian, Dr. Richard L. Strauss, Pastor Doug Wilson, Reforming Marriage, Romantic Love, Servant Leader, Submission, The Real Feminists, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Wife worship. Bookmark the permalink.

488 Responses to Modern Christian teachers of the lesson in The Wedding of Sir Gawain.

  1. earl says:

    When husbands undertake the assigned responsibility of loving their wives in such a way that they grow in loveliness, they need to understand that the results will be visible.

    Whereas Scripture says a husband does this so the wife grow in holiness. Eph 5:25-27

    Words are important…loveliness can be vague statement, holiness is not.

  2. Pingback: Modern Christian teachers of the lesson in The Wedding of Sir Gawain. | @the_arv

  3. Novaseeker says:

    It’s amazing the nonsense that these guys teach, isn’t it?

    A woman’s physical appearance is a product of (1) her actions and inactions and (2) her genetic inheritance, in that order. There is no magic wand, and it has nothing to do with what the husband is doing other than ways he may influence her actions or inactions. But if Wilson is suggesting that the primary influence on a wife’s appearance is her husband’s actions or inactions, he’s a nutjob, full stop.

    Easiest way to refute this? I’ve had the opportunity to observe a few women through singleness, marriage, then divorce, due to having spent a long time at the same employer. In each of these cases, the woman in question became lovelier in the runup to and in the aftermath of the divorce. Why? The question answers itself, and it had nothing to do with the husband encouraging her through his treatment and actions, and everything to do with her wanting to do what it took to become more attractive (and they all know exactly what that is) simply because she was re-entering the relationship and dating market. In other words, this was completely in *her* control as a result of *her* actions because of what *she* wanted to do, and it was directly in contradiction to her marriage, her husband, or any sense of feeling secure and loved therein.

    As for wives growing lovelier in marriage than they were when they married, which Wilson seems to suggest as a good thing, be careful of this. While it may sound like a great deal, it often leads to problems in the marriage. Another couple of anecdotes on this from couples I have known over the years where this happened. In both cases, the couple were both average attraction — let’s say both 5s, plain and some flaws, overweight and so on. But matched. In each case the wife, after having a kid, one after the first and the other after the second, made a serious effort to lose the pregnancy weight and succeeded so well she decided to keep going. To the point where she indeed became lovelier than when she had met her husband and married him. May sound like a good deal for the husband, right — prettier wife, what’s wrong with that. Well, both cases ended up divorced within 12-18 months of this development. The reason was that the wives in question came to believe that they could do better than their husbands physically (a mistaken belief given that their attractiveness for LTR/marriage takes a big hit with kids in tow) and become unattracted to their husbands physically, while the husbands did nothing to improve their own attractiveness during the same timeframe. So, no, in my experience the wife becoming unilaterally more attractive than she was at the time of marriage, while the husband stays about the same in attractiveness, is often a quite bad thing for the marriage and not a good thing. And, in any case, it is a thing that, again, has to do with the wife’s actions and inactions, which she does for her own reasons (i.e., wanting to be more attractive than she is), rather than reacting to how her husband is acting or treating her … and in many cases may be precisely inverse to how she is being treated or how she is feeling in the marriage, because women tend to focus on their appearance more when they are testing the waters to jump than when they are content in the marriage, in my experience with many couples.

    So, overall, what a bunch of balderdash, not just in theory but in practice. Ugh.

  4. Oscar says:

    “As he loves her, she bears fruit. As she bears this fruit, it delights him. In this delight he loves her more, and she bears more fruit. The wife is to cooperate fully, receiving his love, but he is the one responsible to give it.”

    Taken by itself, that statement is true, but left unsaid is the fact that some wives don’t cooperate, and there’s nothing a husband can do to make her cooperate. Also left unsaid is the fact that many women think that love = “make mama happy”, and that “if mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy”, and that if mama ain’t happy, it’s the husband’s fault.

    I love my kids, but my love for my kids doesn’t always make them happy. Sometimes it doesn’t feel good at all, like when I tell them “no”. Well, guess what? Sometimes love means telling your wife “no”, and she won’t feel good about that. And if she listens to this kind of preaching, then she’ll think…

    “I’m a responder. Therefore, if I feel bad, it’s because my husband doesn’t love me.”

    Good luck bandaging that wound.

  5. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    But if Wilson is suggesting that the primary influence on a wife’s appearance is her husband’s actions or inactions, he’s a nutjob, full stop.

    One thing that strikes me about Wilson is how obvious it is that he saves his nuttiest theology for his books. His blog is bad, but in his blog it is because he is taking great care to not write anything that can be refuted (by writing in circles). It is extremely difficult to refute this kind of nonsense, because whatever you challenge he will claim he didn’t actually mean what he wrote. But in his books he comes out and writes the kookiest things without all of the circletalk.

    The other thing that is noteworthy is that Wilson is extremely popular, and that the people who buy and read his books love the message. In this sense it isn’t really about Wilson, but about the complementarian audience. He knows exactly what they crave, and he delivers in his books. He hints at the same in his blog, but he is much more circumspect when writing for a mixed audience (where he might be challenged for writing nonsense).

  6. Oscar says:

    @ Novaseeker says:
    May 15, 2018 at 10:50 am

    “A woman’s physical appearance is a product of (1) her actions and inactions and (2) her genetic inheritance, in that order.”

    Whether genetic inheritance, or actions/inactions are more important is debatable. But yes, it comes down to those two factors, not the husband.

  7. TJC says:

    ^^^^ This has been my experience also. Two particular cases come to mind. In both cases both were married and/or living with their partners for a long time. Both were overweight, and upon losing weight, and being complemented by other men, blew up their relationships. One is still currently unmarried dating a married man who claims to be divorcing his wife. The other is in a relationship with the original affair partner as far as I know who is much younger with children by him. There are others but these two especially stick out in my mind.

  8. Dalrock says:

    @Oscar

    As he loves her, she bears fruit. As she bears this fruit, it delights him. In this delight he loves her more, and she bears more fruit. The wife is to cooperate fully, receiving his love, but he is the one responsible to give it.”

    Taken by itself, that statement is true, but left unsaid is the fact that some wives don’t cooperate, and there’s nothing a husband can do to make her cooperate.

    It is worse than this. The scripture Wilson is quoting (1 Pet 3:1-6) teaches that it is the woman’s responsibility to submit to her husband, and by doing this she can win her husband over. Wilson turns this upside down, and claims what Peter really meant is that her husband needs to win her over by loving her, so she will submit.

    Also left unsaid is the fact that many women think that love = “make mama happy”, and that “if mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy”, and that if mama ain’t happy, it’s the husband’s fault.

    Right. Wilson knows this, and explains in the introduction to the book that this view isn’t feminist rebellion, but instead is a biblical principle.

  9. feministhater says:

    Are women responsible for anything they do or should be doing? LOL!

    Making more impossible odds for husbands to meet seems to be Wilson’s pastime. The older I get, the more I am fully convinced that marriage should only be entered into by the rich and beautiful. I couldn’t hope to maintain what is expected of me as a man within marriage these days, especially as a Christian husband. I just couldn’t so I simply have to bow out.

  10. opus vitae says:

    There’s a word for something which is only ever acted upon, which alters it’s form and habits based on environmental cues: object. I thought the objectification of women was bad, but I guess the good Pastor Wilson has some deep insight which escapes the gaze of mere men.

    On a more serious note, this is just terrible theology. It’s so bad, I’m inclined to think that very few actually believe it.

  11. squid_hunt says:

    This is how God made a woman too.

    The Bible teaches that a Christian husband is responsible for the loveliness of his wife.

    Facts not in evidence. On both quotes. Does Wilson provide any biblical references for his statement?

    There is nothing wrong with wanting a lovely garden; there is a great deal of folly in wanting a lovely garden which will tend and keep itself.

    The only place I can think of that refers to the woman as a garden is the Song of Solomon. But the onus is on the woman to tend the garden and use it to entice her husband. Can anyone think of anything else?

    This is why the Bible warns us about vain philosophy. You can take any idea you want, pretty it up and make it sound smart and losely tie it to a verse and claim, “Thus sayeth the Lord…”

    The hard part comes when someone asks you where God said that. I want scripture. Otherwise, please quit claiming biblical authority.

  12. earl says:

    I’d want some clarification on what he means by ‘loveliness’.

  13. About the appearance of women, a bit off topic (apologies).

    One of the big yet seldom mentioned changes brought by feminism: liberation of women from “the male gaze.” It’s the exact opposite of what Wilson describes.

    Women used to say they dressed to please themselves, while wearing uncomfortable clothes and work-intensive hair and makeup. Increasing numbers of women, both single and married, now truly do dress to please themselves. Especially the younger ones, easily seen at a US college campus (at least in California). Like unleashed hypergamy, letting women be themselves has had big unexpected effects.

    I doubt that marriage in anything like its current form can survive the latest wave of feminism, and that the results might be large beyond imagining. Details:

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/05/14/the-death-of-marriage/

    It’s an experiment testing leftist theories. With our children as lab rats. Let’s hope this one ends better than the experiments in Russia, China, etc testing communism.

  14. Damn Crackers says:

    Where is Wilson getting this Biblical info, the letters of St. Paul to Marie Claire?

  15. Anonymous Reader says:

    As far as I can tell, Doug Wilson has been living in some kind of a bubble for years. His BA and MA in philosophy are from Univ. of Idaho, in Moscow. His church is in Moscow. His college is in Moscow. His denomination is apparently centered in Moscow, although I should recheck that.

    Wilson’s kooky ideas apparently aren’t challenged very often, if at all. Why should they be, when he and his church and his college are all located in the same bubble in a rather remote location? Given the way some of his fans have commented – long on emotion, short on reason – it certainly looks like his fan base is self-selecting, and prone to defend him so much that he does not have to rationally defend his own arguments, ever. Because he has “people to handle that for him”.

    Perhaps that is why he’s been so flustered on his blog from time to time, he’s not used to dealing with logical counterarguments, especially those from other Bible-quoting men.

    I can understand the popularity of such books. Plenty of blue-pilled, Average Frustrated Chumps are always ready to take on more burden for the l’il woman, because they’ve been raised to regard women as their betters. Women are of course always ready to take on more authority while shedding responsibility, it is in their DNA to do so.

    He’s not unique. As far as I can tell, none of the celebrity pastors have ever really had to respond to a serious, Bible based, well reasoned counter argument. They don’t have to; they’re celebrities.

  16. Novaseeker says:

    I’d want some clarification on what he means by ‘loveliness’.

    I had the same thought at first but when you re-read it, it’s clear he means physical beauty.

  17. Anonymous Reader says:

    Addendum: Dalrock, back two posts ago I was speculating to myself that you would tie Sir Gawain and the Green Knight a particular modern figure, but did not expect to see Wilson as one example. But he and his kooky “Federal FigureHeadship” are an excellent example. Well done.

    Damn Crackers

    Where is Wilson getting this Biblical info, the letters of St. Paul to Marie Claire?

    Pretty sure it’s in one of the Books of Oprah…

  18. Joe says:

    Hmmm… My wife asks me nearly every day if I like what she has on, or if a particular bracelet or scarf looks good. I always give specific answers, and how it makes her look pretty or matches her eyes. None of this vague “whatever you pick is fine” stuff.
    When she went shopping with a friend a couple of weeks ago, she told her friend “I’m buying bright colors. My husband likes colorful clothes”. And she did bring home pretty clothes with bright colors.

  19. Anonymous Reader says:

    I’d want some clarification on what he means by ‘loveliness’.

    Agree with Nova, it’s physical beauty. Which is nuts for a variety of reasons.

  20. BJ says:

    Given the last two posts, there is something that must be clarified here.

    There is simply no doubt that to some degree, a wife is a reflection of her husband. Whatever specifics one may want to land on, once a man and wife unite, their outward appearance and behavior is a refection on the husband’s leadership. Same goes for a military unit, a church, a classroom, or a business. Leadership is responsible for outcome, which of course assumes actual authority to make changes as necessary. But we don’t get to assign a husband authority over the family and then claim he is not responsible for the results. That is a contradiction.

    For example, if a wife dresses like a slut or a slob, and the husband is too henpecked or to lazy to stop it, that is a reflection on his ability to lead. If a wife refuses to care for her children appropriately, it is incumbent on the husband to change that behavior. No doubt she is responsible for the sinful behavior, but is he not responsible to do something about it when she fails or refuses?

    This intersects with the posts about sovereynté. If a husband is to be responsible for his family, he must have the authority (read: sovereynté) to implement his leadership in terms of discipline. That is a given. Likewise, though, if a wife is going to be responsible for her sin, she must have some level of sovereynté (control) to do something about it. We can’t deny her some level of hierarchical autonomy and then hold her responsible.

    The more we remove someone’s control over something, the less they are truly responsible for their actions.

  21. squid_hunt says:

    @Joe

    My husband likes colorful clothes.

    It is remarkable how offensive this sort of statement can be in the right crowd.

  22. Oscar says:

    BJ says:
    May 15, 2018 at 12:08 pm

    “No doubt she is responsible for the sinful behavior, but is he not responsible to do something about it when she fails or refuses?”

    Okay. I’ll bite. The definition of the word “authority” is:

    au·thor·i·ty əˈTHôrədē/Submit noun
    1. the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience.

    How can a husband enforce his wife’s obedience to this orders and decisions?

  23. earl says:

    As a husband treats his wife in the scriptural fashion, he should expect her to grow increasingly lovely.

    Yeah it’s not backed by Scripture…he should expect her to grow increasingly holy.

    Looking better could be a side effect of it…but it’s the icing, not the cake.

  24. earl says:

    It is remarkable how offensive this sort of statement can be in the right crowd.

    My husband likes (x) would offend the greatest of harpies. It’s the two pronged effect of submission and making a man happy.

  25. feministhater says:

    The more we remove someone’s control over something, the less they are truly responsible for their actions.

    If you give someone an order and they disobey and do something else. They are responsible, no matter how much authority over them you had. That is the level of rebellion we are talking about, not the idea that wifey does exactly as hubby commands and hubby’s commands turn out not to work and thus the onus of responsibility lies with him. Men cannot directly control their wives, their wives are always free do do as they will.

    As with any hierarchy where the followers have free will, they have to choose to follow and are usually punished if they choose not to.

    When a wife chooses not to follow her husband and disobeys him, she is responsible for her sins. If she follows her husband and does as he commands, he is responsible. That is how leadership works.

  26. Darwinian Arminian says:

    But it does mean that a man who marries biblically should expect his wife to be visibly lovelier on their tenth anniversary—and if she is not, he knows that he is the one responsible. But as the one responsible, he has to know where true beauty begins. Every husband should learn how to ask, “What will living with a man like me do to this woman’s appearance?”

    The irony here is that if a husband does end up with a beautiful wife ten years after the wedding day Pastor Wilson will also have no problem screaming “YOU DIDN’T BUILD THAT!” at him, the better to keep the church’s men from growing conceited and giving themselves credit that properly belongs to either God or the women themselves (and remember, in the church those last two are often interchangeable).

  27. feministhater says:

    For example, if a wife dresses like a slut or a slob, and the husband is too henpecked or to lazy to stop it, that is a reflection on his ability to lead. If a wife refuses to care for her children appropriately, it is incumbent on the husband to change that behavior. No doubt she is responsible for the sinful behavior, but is he not responsible to do something about it when she fails or refuses?

    This all falls apart when husbands are not allowed by church and state to do anything but beg, turn a blind eye or appease their wives’ rebellious ways. All else is abuse.

    That is the quandary Christian husbands have and is just one of the reasons I find it better to leave well enough alone. I cannot square that circle without including disciplining the rebellious party and since that is ‘abuse,’ I will simply walk away.

  28. Scott says:

    I’ve been spending a lot of money lately on Rodan and Fields and Clinique. And I have to admit I am happy with the results of my investment. Does that count?

  29. Bee says:

    A wife become lovely to her husband when she submits to him and when she serves him.

  30. BJ says:

    @Oscar

    Each situation is different, but husbands have a wide latitude for keeping his family in line. I have to say that it starts with him having his own body and mind disciplined. Poorly disciplined leaders, lead poorly. But…

    He starts with actually trying to inspire her and convince her of the truth of his positions. It is easy to lead a family that is on-board with the mission. Once that falls short, as it inevitably will at times, he would move to the social factors. Who are her friends? Where does she spend her time? What influences does she have in her life? If she is hanging out with slutty divorcees who are filling her head with feminist trash, he should put the squash on that. Yes, a husband can tell his wife who she spends time with (within reason, of course, consider family and whatnot). Once that is corrected, hopefully the good influences will help.

    Beyond that a husband, who should already be in control of the money, can start withholding finances as needed. If he is leading her properly, he will have some level of influence on her purchasing decisions. So, if she is buying slutty clothes, he tosses them and makes her get some decent ones. If she is dressing poorly, he has her get some proper clothing.

    If she is just being lazy and won’t take care of herself, he needs to take the time to make his expectations clear. (Note: his expectations should be both biblical and reasonable from a practical standpoint.) If she refuses to heed those expectations, he might have to take a few days off work to stay home and (figuratively) clean house. Get her up, get the stuff she needs to make herself, the kids, or house where they ought to be and stay there until it is done.

    If she keeps disappearing, he needs to take away access to the vehicles. Same for bank accounts or social media. In short, he starts where she is and begins to make the process happen until he can trust her to do it without him standing over her. He is not allowed to physically assault her, obviously, but it shouldn’t be necessary. If he has picked a decent woman, and he has set the family in a proper social environment, and he spends time daily working to make the family situation better (by playing with the kids, taking care of the car, reading the Bible to the family, etc.), the escalation usually doesn’t happen.

    That is a generic approach and won’t apply to all cases, especially the bad ones. But it is a fairly sound approach.

  31. BJ says:

    @feministhater

    “When a wife chooses not to follow her husband and disobeys him, she is responsible for her sins. If she follows her husband and does as he commands, he is responsible. That is how leadership works.”

    Leadership is much bigger than that. Do you think that if a general in charge of a military unit had some troops refuse to heed his orders and the mission failed, that he would just get off the hook because, “Golly gee whiz they wouldn’t listen”?

    Leadership will always have to deal with rebellion. Good leadership get good results. The truth is the same in the family.

  32. Anonymous Reader says:

    BJ
    There is simply no doubt that to some degree, a wife is a reflection of her husband.

    There is truth in that statement, however it is incomplete.

    Whatever specifics one may want to land on, once a man and wife unite, their outward appearance and behavior is a refection on the husband’s leadership.

    Suppose that he’s been taught not to lead, but to defer to his “better half” in all things?

    But we don’t get to assign a husband authority over the family and then claim he is not responsible for the results. That is a contradiction.

    We do get to assign responsibility to a man for the family while taking any authority away. In fact, that is rather common. Doug Wilson does it regularly, and it is common in the churches. I see it every week in my social circle: churchgoing men who “yesDear”, churchgoing women who backlead.

    Another way to put your first sentence would be this: “women are like water, they assume the shape of the vessel they are poured into”. Where do you suppose I first read that, where is that kind of thinking pretty comon.

  33. feministhater says:

    But we don’t get to assign a husband authority over the family and then claim he is not responsible for the results. That is a contradiction.

    Actually, you can ‘assign’ anything to anyone, it means nothing. If you grant them direct power and authority over someone or something, you would have a point.

    That’s exactly the problem. Wilson and others like him and all to willing to assign husbands authority but aren’t willing to grant those same husbands the power of authority over their wives and families.

    You can tell any man that is responsible for keeping the world afloat, then tie him up in legislative nonsense and deprive him of the tools necessary to do the job, then you can blame him for all that goes wrong, cushy in the knowledge that you’ve done no wrong….. we all see through that bullshit. Nice try, chump. Better luck next time.

  34. Lost Patrol says:

    Peter urges this internal gentleness upon the wives. But taking the teaching of all of Scripture into account, we can see that a woman concentrates on this under the loving oversight of her husband.

    This kind of reasoning appears in many works and writings of the complementarian clergy. It is by now an obvious pattern. The more they claim the unshakeable Biblical underpinnings of their faith, the more they find it necessary to find workarounds to keep all the striving one sided, on men.

    1. Peter provides crystal clear instruction to wives.
    2. But when accounting for all Scripture we find his instructions need to be modified or enhanced in the following way…

    It has been pointed out here before that you are short changing the women with these endless variations on a central theme that basically says – they can’t hack it. Things laid out for them in the Bible are too difficult for them, they can’t deal with it, it all has to be watered down commensurate with their feeble abilities to follow God. The women should actually find all this insulting.

  35. BJ says:

    @feministhater

    “This all falls apart when husbands are not allowed by church and state to do anything but beg, turn a blind eye or appease their wives’ rebellious ways. All else is abuse.”

    This is absolutely true. But when in history has a successful patriarchal society ever just rolled over and gave up in the face of rebellion? The response should not be to take your ball and walk away. It should be to stand up to it. Just do what should be done without permission. Maybe there will be set backs, but quitting and going home to cry is a less than masculine response, in my assessment.

  36. feministhater says:

    Leadership will always have to deal with rebellion. Good leadership get good results. The truth is the same in the family.

    Hmmmmm, I wonder, can you tell us of the actions made available for an army command officer to keep his troops inline should they choose to rebel and disobey orders?

    Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

  37. Anonymous Reader says:

    BJ, do you understand that your approach is a textbook case of “spousal abuse” under Federal definitions?

  38. feministhater says:

    Maybe there will be set backs, but quitting and going home to cry is a less than masculine response, in my assessment.

    Oh no worries, I’m merely waiting for your alphaness to get on it… you guys have the answers, get on it.

  39. BJ says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    I don’t disagree you. My suggestion would simply be to ignore the stupid advise and lead, even without the blessing of the culture. It would be hard, yes, but it still should be done. We are men, after all, no?

  40. BJ says:

    @feministhater

    “You can tell any man that is responsible for keeping the world afloat, then tie him up in legislative nonsense and deprive him of the tools necessary to do the job, then you can blame him for all that goes wrong, cushy in the knowledge that you’ve done no wrong….. we all see through that bullshit. Nice try, chump. Better luck next time.”

    I get the dilemma. I really do. But why respond by throwing up your hands and throwing in the towel?

  41. BJ says:

    @feministhater

    “Hmmmmm, I wonder, can you tell us of the actions made available for an army command officer to keep his troops inline should they choose to rebel and disobey orders?”

    Is this a serious question? He can kick them out of the military, deprive him of money, detain him, arrest him, etc. A military officer has enormous authority to enforce his leadership. It is certainly different for the husband, but I am not arguing he has no authority to enforce.

  42. feministhater says:

    Why? Why…. because I see that the ability to correct this nonsense is way over my head. I do not have the power, physical, mental or otherwise to do jack shit about it. I know that I cannot do the juggling necessary to keep a wife under the current ‘marriage contract’ and would probably go to jail should I do so. I do not like being butt fucked so I choose to forgo the risk.

    I’m also not the most attractive guy, don’t trust women much at all, don’t trust the church much at all either and since no one has my back in any way, shape or form. It’s just a terrible idea for a man such as myself, a truly bad idea. No thanks.

  43. Novaseeker says:

    Leadership will always have to deal with rebellion. Good leadership get good results. The truth is the same in the family.

    And leadership deals with rebellion by having enforcement authority against it — whether in the military, a sports team, or a corporate environment. Not in a family, however, where that enforcement authority is not only lacking, but is illegal. Almost everything you recommend in your post at 12:35 is per se domestic violence under the Duluth standard, which is applied in most courts in the US. So it’s the precise opposite of the situation of a military commander or corporate leader or even a manager or head coach, all of whom have disciplinary authority which is backed up and has teeth. Sure, husbands can LARP as if they have something similar, but in our culture and legal system they do not, and in fact the legal system explicitly forbids that kind of behavior in the context of a marriage.

    That doesn’t mean you have to MGTOW, but it does mean that the approach in marriage needs to be different, and certainly behaviors that express a willingness or desire to exert control over one’s wife financially, visually (throwing out clothes), transportationally (taking away the car) and similar types of things are all per se domestic violence in almost all US states, and are therefore poor recommendations to men.

  44. BJ says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    Hmmm. I am a tad skeptical that it is legally defined as abuse. No doubt, many feminist would claim it to be abuse, but I don’t really care what their opinions of me are.

    Do you have a reference for the legal claim?

  45. Anonymous Reader says:

    BJ
    Leadership is much bigger than that. Do you think that if a general in charge of a military unit had some troops refuse to heed his orders and the mission failed, that he would just get off the hook because, “Golly gee whiz they wouldn’t listen”?

    The Uniform Code of Military Justice is not applicable to a wife.

    Leadership will always have to deal with rebellion. Good leadership get good results. The truth is the same in the family.

    A leader cannot lead people who refuse to follow him, unless he has access to some means of forcing compliance. Military officers have forcing compliance as an option. Husbands and fathers do not, not in the Anglosphere anyway. They can reason, they can wheedle, they can beg, then can grovel, but they can not force compliance.

    But women in the US do have access to a means of forcing their husbands to comply. What is the “Duluth Wheel”, for example? What is the Threatpoint?

  46. feministhater says:

    It is certainly different for the husband, but I am not arguing he has no authority to enforce.

    Oscar asked you to list the ways husbands can discipline rebellious wives, I’ll ask the same question.. Show us dae way..

  47. squid_hunt says:

    @Earl

    Looking better could be a side effect of it…but it’s the icing, not the cake.

    Call me bigoted, but I’ve never known a 70 year old woman to look good. You know what a woman who submits long term looks like? Old. And eventually dead. Ain’t nobody avoiding it, no matter how much you “tend” her.

  48. BJ says:

    @Novaseeker

    “That doesn’t mean you have to MGTOW, but it does mean that the approach in marriage needs to be different”

    This is all I am trying to say. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I simply think walking away from it all is the wrong response. We do have to be strategic, of course, and sometimes a deliberate withdraw to re-establish ourselves is necessary. I just don’t think we are there. I know lots of small communities across the country where men are still leaders and women are still traditional. They are not perfect places, but nowhere is perfect.

  49. earl says:

    It’s why the physical beauty argument falls on its face. Everybody gets old. You can however grow more holy as you get older.

  50. BJ says:

    @feministhater

    “Why? Why…. because I see that the ability to correct this nonsense is way over my head.”

    I don’t have that ability either. None of us does individually. We have to work together and start to influence the culture. Maybe our efforts will be futile in the end. I don’t know. But I just don’t like the idea of watching the Western world burn while I sit by and play the fiddle.

    I suppose I could be wrong.

  51. Scott says:

    Do you have a reference for the legal claim?

    Dalrock, there should be a tab with links for this. The topic has been explored all over the manosphere by lawyers (like Novaseeker) mental health professionals (like me) and is so well documented that it should not require the painstaking effort it would take to recreate this wheel.

    BJ-

    The Duluth model has been codified into law through the system of family law courts as well as law enforcement guidance for making arrests in domestic violence calls across the nation, in every state and every locality. It is considered THE go to authority on what is or is not abuse in cases of family violence. An entire sub-structure of mandated domestic violence batterers intervention psychoeducational groups has been implemented in every state as well as the DOD, and these programs give the counselors direct access to the probation officers in the cases in order to send men to jail for simply looking cross-eye at their wives. I have first hand experience as a cog in that machinery. I have signed the documents that sent men to jail for things that were simply “husband and wife stuff” 50 years ago.

  52. BJ says:

    @Scott

    Thanks for the info. I will read into it. I am still skeptical that telling a wife she can’t hang out with her slutty friends or not giving her unfiltered access to money is a crime. Perhaps I am wrong.

    I know several men who were crushed by the divorce wheel, too. It sucks. It just means we need to be more vigilant about who we marry and how we train our children.

  53. Anonymous Reader says:

    BJ
    I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I simply think walking away from it all is the wrong response.

    Ok. Many churchgoing men disagree with MGTOW [1] if that is what you mean by “walk away”. If you are just rejecting the hard-won experience of men by dismissing them as “walking away”, then you’re being a bit obnoxious. Maybe you could explain your termss a bit more?

    What’s bothering me is your combination of ignorance of the larger situation, and what looks a lot like “Just ManUP! Be yourself! Lead!” verbiage from you. There are multiple men here who did everything they were taught by their church leaders & parents, only to wind up frivorced, and you may not intend to rub salt into their wounds, but that’s what you are doing.

    This site has been around since 2010 and a recurring topic on the site has been the Threatpoint and what men can do to work around it. You’re coming across as a bit arrogant, although I for one do not believe that is your intent.

    [1] Depending on your definition of MGTOW. Huck Finn is one version. Saul / Paul is another version. The screeching InCels are another version. Life-long bachelors are another version. Married men who start running Dread on their wives may be yet another version. It matters what one means by Men Going Their Own Way (MGTOW).

  54. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock:
    Massive italic fail on my part. The first sentence quoting BJ is to be in italics, all the other words are my scribbling, not his.

  55. Anonymous Reader says:

    BJ
    I am still skeptical that telling a wife she can’t hang out with her slutty friends or not giving her unfiltered access to money is a crime. Perhaps I am wrong.

    A friend of mine some years ago attempted some of the actions you suggest. Not all of them, just some. He may have done some other things as well.

    I do not know which one prompted her to call the police, but shortly afterwards he wound up in a 52 week re-education school of the sort Scott used to supervise. At the end of it he was extremely deferential to her.

    She frivorced him a few years later.

    You can start your research here: https://infogalactic.com/info/Duluth_model
    Be aware that “domestic violence” as a topic is a deep rabbit hole.

    BJ
    I know several men who were crushed by the divorce wheel, too. It sucks. It just means we need to be more vigilant about who we marry and how we train our children.

    Vetting a prospective wife matters, but too many men fail to realize that real leadership in a household is a day-to-day, hour-to-hour, minute-to-minute exercise. Just because a woman is pleasant, kind, diligent and follows willingly before marriage does not mean she will be the same a few years later after one or more children. It doesn’t mean she will be the same after working outside the home for money for a few years.

    Yes, I know Real Men Earn All The Money, but that’s not always feasible for many reasons, plus we can expect more households where She earns as much or more than He does, with a lot of implications for who “leads” and who “follows”.

    Thanks for sticking around, BJ, I’m sure many men here wish you well. If you are the same man who either was in seminary or is a pastor, more power to you. The US needs a lot more pastors who don’t cave in to women’s whims.

  56. RedPillNoob says:

    @BJ Although I love the way you think in terms of “just get it down” to get people to conform to what we think might be the solution, our social structure has shifted so far to the Left that I doubt we’ll recover; Unfortunately the law follows the social structure (driven by the generations-long programming of Men who now either hold the reins or have passed them on to women of similar belief). It will take a couple generations of Men to become uninterested and unwilling to participate in Feminine-Primary relationships before things swing back into equilibrium I’m afraid.

    Great discussions, all.

  57. BJ says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    I know there are many men who have been hurt. I am about sympathetic as possible to them. Their situations are bad and their anger is justified. I am not trying to dismiss that.

    But we still have to give these men something to make their lives better. I have been across the room from several men in these situations and none of them are helped by letting them get bitter and stay angry. Even they will attest to that.

    I realize that this is a big conversation with many nuances. My goal is not to be arrogant, but to give men a reason and motivation to lead their families and work to change this toxic culture. I was under the assumption that most men here were doing the same.

    Sincerest apologies for coming off too strong. I will read more and post less. Blessings to all.

  58. BJ says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    “Thanks for sticking around, BJ, I’m sure many men here wish you well. If you are the same man who either was in seminary or is a pastor, more power to you. The US needs a lot more pastors who don’t cave in to women’s whims.”

    Yes, that is me, and yes I will stick around.

    Thanks for the information. I wish these men well, also. I have recommended this site to some, but others in my church are already readers of the manosphere and at least two know about this site. Dalrock’s footprint is bigger than it may seem to some.

  59. Ute1967 says:

    BJ, please familiarize yourself with what you are speaking about. It takes 15 seconds to pull up a image of the Duluth model wheel of power and control. Not letting her hang out with slutty friends is “socially isolating”, and not giving her unfiltered access to money is “economic abuse”. You may not end up in jail for those things, but the way that a court will treat you if you are show, or even accused of patterns of abuse ( with zero evidence) is how the system justifies itself in impoverishing you & destroying your life.

    Your exhortation to be more vigilant in screening who we marry sounds like you are clinging to NAWALT ideas. Women are are fallen, just as are men. A system that incentivizes & rewards the fallen nature of all women is what men are up against. You are now blaming men for the nature of women and the corrupt system used against men and their families.

  60. bruce says:

    What exactly is he talking about? Aging is inevitable. Most women make reasonable efforts to keep themselves groomed, etc. The main thing women do to reduce their beauty is they get fat. This is completely under their control. Don’t overeat. Is he saying if you love her, she won’t get fat?

  61. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    if Wilson is suggesting that the primary influence on a wife’s appearance is her husband’s actions or inactions, he’s a nutjob, full stop.

    Great. Something else women can blame men for — “I’m fat and ugly because of YOU!”

  62. BJ says:

    @Oscar

    “You’re clueless.”

    Lol!

    Very insightful. Thank you. That was helpful.

  63. Oscar says:

    @ BJ

    Did you even bother to read the text in the wheel?

  64. BJ says:

    @Oscar

    Yes, actually I did. It is silly nonsense. But it is not illegal to make your wife “feel bad about herself.” People might call you an abuser, but who cares what they think.

    The only reason I dismissed your post was because you didn’t actually address what I said. So there wasn’t much to respond to.

    Look, clearly I need to read more about this Duluth thing, but I have a pretty good grasp of what is illegal. My good buddy is a lawyer. I’ll ask him about it. But in any case, it won’t stop me from trying to lead my family well, and it won’t stop me from trying to encourage other men to do the same. Maybe that is not what you were trying to suggest, but you didn’t actually suggest anything. Well, except that I was clueless.

  65. feministhater says:

    Yes, actually I did. It is silly nonsense. But it is not illegal to make your wife “feel bad about herself.” People might call you an abuser, but who cares what they think.

    You will care when the bars slam shut and those people who call you an abuser, as an offhand remark, are there as your jury and ready to condemn you. The risk is very real. It’s isn’t ‘silly nonsense,’ those are the words used by feminists all the time in family court. The same courts where your due process is circumvented, being outside the normal legal system, there to shut you down.

    Be aware, BJ, your Christian Headship is abuse according to the modern system.

  66. Pingback: Modern Christian teachers of the lesson in The Wedding of Sir Gawain. | Reaction Times

  67. Oscar says:

    @ BJ says:
    May 15, 2018 at 2:09 pm

    “Yes, actually I did. It is silly nonsense. But it is not illegal to make your wife ‘feel bad about herself’.”

    Wanna bet?

    “People might call you an abuser, but who cares what they think.”

    Police officers care what the DAIP thinks. Judges care what the DAIP thinks. Your pastor likely cares what the DAIP thinks.

    “The only reason I dismissed your post was because you didn’t actually address what I said. So there wasn’t much to respond to.”

    Bullshit. The text in the wheel clearly explains that every suggestion you made is officially abuse. Every single one. So my post addressed every one of your suggestions, but you cluelessly dismissed the information I provided, even though Scott and others informed you about their experience on the enforcement side of it.

    “Look, clearly I need to read more about this Duluth thing… ”

    So, get to it already.

    “… but I have a pretty good grasp of what is illegal.”

    Are you sure about that?

    “Maybe that is not what you were trying to suggest, but you didn’t actually suggest anything. Well, except that I was clueless.”

    I did not suggest that you’re clueless. I stated it unequivocally, and I stand by that statement, especially since you’ve admitted that before today you’d never even heard of the Duluth model.

    You’re clueless. Once you get a clue, then your advice might be worth something. We’ll see.

  68. feministhater says:

    Is this a serious question? He can kick them out of the military, deprive him of money, detain him, arrest him, etc. A military officer has enormous authority to enforce his leadership. It is certainly different for the husband, but I am not arguing he has no authority to enforce.

    Yes. The question was to ascertain whether you would acknowledge the length the military goes to, to keep the hierarchy in effect and working well. To get you to acknowledge that discipline of rebellion requires either force, coercion, deprivation and eventually expulsion.

    All of which are considered abuse.

  69. feministhater says:

    That should read ….’ or eventual expulsion.’

  70. Dan Horton says:

    Yeah, B.J., if you are giving the husbands of your church illegal advice such as withholding funds / telling her who she is allowed to be friends with then you might as well go all the way and give them the means to protect themselves:

    substantial savings in bitcoin so money cannot be frozen and can cross any border easily
    secondary passport to non-extradition country
    always be able to grab a bag and leave everything behind
    never sign any form of marriage license or live as if married in common-law states

    If this is not also part of your counseling then you are shepherding your sheep straight to the slaughter.

  71. BJ says:

    @Oscar

    “You’re clueless. Once you get a clue, then your advice might be worth something. We’ll see.”

    You are welcome to believe what you want about me. That is up to you. But if you really think that saying means word to your wife will get you arrested, you are really misguided. There is no statute against mean words.

    Again, feel free to think what you will, but my goal was not to start a pissing contest on here.

    So, I will bid you adieu.

  72. Dalrock says:

    I have a tag for Duluth, but perhaps the best place to start is: Setting the record straight on Duluth.

    What feminists have done is taught the entire legal apparatus (judges, police, etc) that abuse is about male privilege. They are astoundingly open that their goal is to abolish the Christian concept of headship. They don’t care about “abuse” in a general sense. They have absolutely no interest for example in wives who batter their husbands. But if a husband tells his wife that he is the head of the household, that is abuse, and the husband needs to be punished and forced by the courts to attend a reeducation course.

    Modern Christians have adopted this same philosophy, which is astounding given that the creators are very specific that it is an anti christian philosophy.

  73. Anonymous Reader says:

    BJ
    But when in history has a successful patriarchal society ever just rolled over and gave up in the face of rebellion?

    Two points:
    1. Multiple times. Late Rome is one example that should be of great concern to all.
    2. The US is not a patriarchal society. It has not been for at least 50 years. Likely longer.

    Patriarchy, “rule by fathers”, is now countercultural and therefore frowned upon by all “right thinking people”. Especially in the churches.

    Know yourself, know your enemy, otherwise you will be defeated. I paraphrase a wise man from a long time ago.

  74. Boxer says:

    Dear BJ:

    But if you really think that saying means word to your wife will get you arrested, you are really misguided. There is no statute against mean words.

    You’re an idiot.
    http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=26.50.010

    My guess is that most states have criminalized “the infliction of fear” – which means that all a woman has to say is “I’m scared” to get the bracelets clapped on her husband, and she’s also instantly entitled to welfare and other goodies once she does this, too.

    Mean words can make her afraid, as can rolling one’s eyes, or merely not following her orders. The police are specifically trained to “listen and believe” – not to question or investigate.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  75. Anonymous Reader says:

    BJ
    But if you really think that saying means word to your wife will get you arrested, you are really misguided.

    No man here is claiming that saying mean words to your wife will get you arrested. However several of us have pointed out that a man can be arrested for Domestic Violence solely on the say-so of his wife. The DV guidelines explicitly include “shouting” and “cruelty” on the list of santions: “saying mean words to your wife” falls easily under one or both.

    Again, a friend of mine did some of the things you list, and possibly more, and wound up being arrested. Your handwaving vs. a family trainwreck I personally witnessed, and you ask me to believe you but not my own lying eyes?

    There is no statute against mean words.

    You are wrong. In this comment thread alone both a licensed attorney and a psychologist who worked for a state government have informed you of the facts. Put that pride to one side and learn something about the real world.

  76. BJ says:

    @Dalrock

    Thank you for the links. I will happily read up.

    Just for the record, I wasn’t trying to become a lightning rod. I am not trying to troll or rile anyone up. Apologies.

  77. Dalrock says:

    Two other posts on Duluth: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/07/21/all-roads-lead-to-duluth/
    and
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/12/17/blowing-the-whistle-on-the-domestic-violence-research-paradigm/

    Duluth is so bad that I think most people disregard what the model says because it is so patently absurd. But this is what police, prosecutors, judges, etc are taught across the nation and the western world. Scott has some first hand knowledge of the system, as he has taught the class men are sent to as part of their sentencing.

  78. Gage says:

    “But it does mean that a man who marries biblically should expect his wife to be visibly lovelier on their tenth anniversary—and if she is not, he knows that he is the one responsible. But as the one responsible, he has to know where true beauty begins. Every husband should learn how to ask, “What will living with a man like me do to this woman’s appearance?”

    This is patently ridiculous BS. I married my wife when she was 24, had birthed no kids, and was in the physical prime of her life. Fast forward to this year, when we celebrated our 10th anniversary, and she is nowhere close to looking like she did. Five kids and ten years of aging will do that to a woman. I am still attracted to my wife, but I am also not blind. she looks much better in our first year of marriage than she does now.

    While i proudly admit to responsibility for getting her pregnant with 5 kids, I am not responsible for her not being as small as she could/should be. I cant force her to work out or not eat certain snack foods while I am at work. I can work out and eat healthier and can encourage her to work out and eat better, but at the end of the day, she is a grown woman and will make those choices herself. That is on her, not me.

    The more Dalrock posts Doug Wilson, the more convinced i am that he is a complete idiot, detached from the real world. Sadly though, I know too many guys who would read this crap and would accept it hook, line, and sinker.

  79. Gage says:

    I guess Doug has never heard the adage that men age like wine and women age like milk. The number of women who will look better on their tenth anniversary vs their wedding day is so rare as to be non-existent. The only exception I can think of is a woman who gets married while extremely fat and who loses all the extra weight over the next 10 years. Then it could be possible, but still unlikely.

  80. Oscar says:

    @ BJ says:
    May 15, 2018 at 2:52 pm

    “But if you really think that saying means word to your wife will get you arrested, you are really misguided.”

    What I – and others – are trying to get you to understand is that men HAVE BEEN arrested, dragged into court, and had their lives ruined for nothing more than “mean words”.

    Does that mean that it’ll happen every time? Of course not. But it already HAS happened, so your flippant dismissal of the risk is beyond foolish. Ask Scott about his experience on the enforcement side.

    Your cluelessness hasn’t improved.

  81. Lost Patrol says:

    @BJ

    Just for the record, I wasn’t trying to become a lightning rod. I am not trying to troll or rile anyone up.

    You’re just early days in the education cycle and the veterans are testing your mettle. I’ve been where you are. Men are exposing you to concepts that were up-to-now foreign. The Duluth Model and how it’s used/misused for one, and you’re thinking, what? No way this is legit. Constraining my wife’s activities is abusive? Really?

    And it turns out yeah, really. There’s more. I think it’s great that a man working in ministry is open enough to learn here. Many of them shun these ideas because they are so uncomfortable.

  82. ray says:

    BJ —

    You are so full of it.

    How’s that for directness?

  83. Nathan Bruno says:

    What was it that one of my church elders said the last time I discussed anything of substance in this direction with him?

    Him: Women don’t divorce unless absolutely pushed to it.
    Me: My friend was divorced while he was on duty, and it was because she slept around.
    Him: That might have happened, but I don’t believe you.
    Me: Well, it seemed real when I talked him down from suicide.
    Him: Again, that may be, but I don’t believe that happens.

    Good, Christian man… Some people like their fantasy instead of facing the reality that things have changed… Even Roosh can acknowledge that things have changed but not people who claim to believe in the capital “T” Truth that American society has moved.

    If your behavior reminds people of the husband in Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, unless your wife invokes Shirley Manson’s dictum “bend me, break me, as long as I want you, it’s all right”, you’re going to lose everything.

  84. earl says:

    Him: Again, that may be, but I don’t believe that happens.

    Well that’s just being willfully ignorant. Or so steeped in woman worship he could never believe a pure virtuous woman would ever commit icky adultery.

  85. earl says:

    I guess Doug has never heard the adage that men age like wine and women age like milk.

    Women get all their rewards front loaded…over time a man gets his rewards as he ages. That’s probably why it’s a good idea for a woman to get married young and stick with the guy through life. But I know that isn’t tingles…and apparently those are the most important thing now.

  86. Hmm says:

    Wilson: “The Bible teaches that a Christian husband is responsible for the loveliness of his wife.”

    Seems to go against Proverbs 31 or the story of Abigail, who was lovely despite her husband.

  87. Paul says:

    @Lost Patrol: “This kind of reasoning appears in many works and writings of the complementarian clergy.”

    Wilson’s “Peter urges [..]. But taking the teaching of all of Scripture into account, we can see [..].” is basically stating Scripture is contradicting itself, indeed questioning the inspiredness of scripture. The “we can see” is a trick to insert your own viewpoint and to get the reader to agree with you upfront against an apparently clear teaching of Peter (which cannot be denied by him).

    Such approach to scripture is unfortunately widespread, well beyond complementarian clergy,

  88. Anonymous Reader says:

    Me: My friend was divorced while he was on duty, and it was because she slept around.
    Him: That might have happened, but I don’t believe you.

    People who have never been around the military often don’t understand that Jody is a thing, a real thing. It makes them look pretty ignorant just for a start.

    There was a mil-wife who used to comment over at the late Spearhead under the handle of Hestia. I’m pretty sure she was real, and what unit her husband was in. She was a leader in the on base /on fort wives org and spent a lot of time trying to keep a halfway decent social circle around herself and other mil-wives, both for mutual emotional support while men were deployed and to keep Jody at arms length. I should go trawling Wayback to find some of her comments, she had some insight.

  89. Scott says:

    AR-

    When I was in Afghanistan, Mychael was still working full time as a nurse in one of the clinics on post. One of the deputy commanders of the hospital (0-6), once he found out I was away started coming to the clinic for all manner of minor things, and asking for her specifically. He would take off his ring when he would see her. He made several inappropriate comments when she finally complained and said she would not be in the room with him alone anymore. He was PCSd off cycle, probably because of the incident.

  90. Robert says:

    I have stood up for Doug Wilson several times here at Dalrock because I’ve seen some of the fruit of his ministry. But and it’s a big but, after picking up Reforming Marriage and making it through about half of it before I could take no more I owe Dalrock a huge apology and to seek his forgiveness. Dalrock is right, Wilson has a blind spot the size of the Milky Way.

    Dalrock, my bad. Please forgive me In Christ, Robert

    [D: Welcome Robert. I don’t recall any offense, but either way apology accepted.]

  91. Ute1967 says:

    @BJ

    I’d cut & paste my personal court transcripts of how Duluth plays out, but I’ll just give a quick recap instead:

    Magistrate/Judge: Counsel to Ms. FattyPants, you may call Ms. FattyPants to the witness stand…
    Counsel to FattyPants: thank you your honor…
    Counsel to FattyPants: Ms. FattyPants, do you solemnly swear..blah.blah.blah so help you God?
    Ms. FattyPants: I do.
    Counsel to FattyPants: Were you scared when Mr. BigBadChad talked mean to you and made you cry?
    Ms. FattyPants: Yes
    Counsel to FattyPants: After you told Mr. BigBadChad that you were f**king all the neighbors & your personal trainer, did he use any violence towards you?
    Ms. FattyPants: Yes, he hit a door off it’s hinges
    Counsel to FattyPants: Were you scared?
    Ms. FattyPants: Yes I was scared of him
    Counsel to FattyPants: Can I get you a hankerchief deary?
    Ms. FattyPants: Yes please…
    Counsel to FattyPants: In your sworn statement you are asking that Mr. BigBadChad continue to pay your household expenses in the amount of $XXXXX.00 per month, is that correct?
    Ms. FattyPants: Yes
    Counsel to FattyPants: What else are you asking in your sworn statement?
    Ms. FattyPants: That the court order him to family counseling classes
    Counsel to FattyPants: Anything else dear?
    Ms. FattyPants: That he be jailed
    Counsel to FattyPants: No more questions your honor
    Judge/Magistrate: OK then.

    BJ, you would be incorrect to think this is exageration. Judges may not be thinking of the Duluth wheel of power pictured in an above post, but as Dalrock pointed out, they are trained in this, and the entire operative procedures, mental framing, & family court rules are built to accommodate this hell maze. Could you at least stop blaming men for not screening women better?

  92. Dave says:

    Meanwhile, in another part of town, we got an update……

    STD cases in California have increased by 45 percent compared to five years ago while chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis reach highest numbers since the 1980s….

    More here

    Carry on, gentlemen.

  93. BJ, do you understand what this forum is about? I am not going to attack you, I am just curious.

    Here’s the thing, the men here love women but they hate feminism. Those are two different things. When you are fully able to compartmentalize those things as two different things (instead of seeing them one and the same) you’ll begin to understand why some of the men here seem so fundamentally at odds with some of the comments you’ve made.

    You can champion women (I do it all the time) just be sure to throw feminism under the bus. Milo said it best: feminism = cancer.

  94. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    “Gender blind” casing comes to Shakespeare’s Globe Theater: https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/theatre-dance/features/hamlet-globe-michelle-terry-shakespeare-gender-blind-cross-cast-as-you-like-ensemble-deaf-a8350886.html

    Now anyone one, male or female, can be cast in any Shakespearean role.

    The casting of the plays is gender-blind in a way that’s genuinely thrilling. Not just Terry’s Hamlet – though that prospect is exciting in and of itself – but the way roles have been assigned across the company.

    Shubham Saraf, who plays Ophelia in Hamlet and Oliver in As You Like It, explains that the cross-casting actually reflects a sense that, today, “we’re beyond gender.”

    There are some roles, he acknowledges, where you could argue that gender is more central to the character’s arc. “That’s true of Ophelia,” he says. “But by subverting that, and casting a man, you draw out certain colours in her thread. For me and us as a company, it’s been much more fruitful to look at character on a human level and open up whatever story that creates.”

    He compares this to a glass prism: “when you shine a light through it, people will see different colours in it depending on their experiences. It would be reductive to try and control and manipulate that response.”

    Ah, are they not trying to control and manipulate the audience’s response?

    And I love this lie:

    “It’s been very empowering,” he says. “It can be very difficult to speak up when it comes to creative decision making.” Here, an atmosphere has been created where everyone feels able to speak out.

    Yeah, right. I’ll bet that “everyone feels able to speak out.”

    And yeah, I know that Shakespeare cast men for all roles. But that wasn’t to subvert traditional gender roles in society at large.

  95. Höllenhund says:

    And leadership deals with rebellion by having enforcement authority against it — whether in the military, a sports team, or a corporate environment. Not in a family, however, where that enforcement authority is not only lacking, but is illegal. Almost everything you recommend in your post at 12:35 is per se domestic violence under the Duluth standard, which is applied in most courts in the US. So it’s the precise opposite of the situation of a military commander or corporate leader or even a manager or head coach, all of whom have disciplinary authority which is backed up and has teeth. Sure, husbands can LARP as if they have something similar, but in our culture and legal system they do not, and in fact the legal system explicitly forbids that kind of behavior in the context of a marriage.

    That doesn’t mean you have to MGTOW, but it does mean that the approach in marriage needs to be different, and certainly behaviors that express a willingness or desire to exert control over one’s wife financially, visually (throwing out clothes), transportationally (taking away the car) and similar types of things are all per se domestic violence in almost all US states, and are therefore poor recommendations to men.

    It kind of does, though, practically speaking. When you take the Duluth model, the legal system in general, and the entire social milieu in general into account, the only viable approach for married men is practically the same as the tenets of MGTOW:

    – protect yourself from potential harm by women to the greatest extent possible
    – maximize your personal autonomy as a man; don’t let yourself get tied down in any way
    – make sure you have little or nothing to lose in your interactions with women in general, especially the wife
    – avoid commitments to women and blue-pilled men the greatest extent possible
    – keep your options open
    etc.

  96. Höllenhund says:

    Meanwhile, in another part of town, we got an update……

    STD cases in California have increased by 45 percent compared to five years ago while chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis reach highest numbers since the 1980s….

    More here

    Carry on, gentlemen.

    Hispanic mass immigration is probably the main reason.

  97. Sharkly says:

    Doug Wilson gets this wrong: The woman is a responder. This is the obvious role…
    Novaseeker gets this wright: [Doug Wilson] he’s a nutjob [this is the obvious role…]

    If my wife had been a responder, I wouldn’t be here. I’d still be off hopping down the rabbit trail pooping out little blue pills happily thinking most churchians were going to heaven and their ministers were trying to preach God’s word.
    But God chose to deliver me from that blinded matrix of deception. The world I can now see around me is a valley of darkness and of death, but God is with me, and he leads me in righteous ways for the glory of His name. And I will rise again, though I die, to live with my God forevermore.

    Micah 7:7 Therefore I will look unto the Lord; I will wait for the God of my salvation: my God will hear me. 8 Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord shall be a light unto me. 9 I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned against him, until he plead my cause, and execute judgment for me: he will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold his righteousness.

    Psalm 40:4 4 Blessed is that man that maketh the Lord his trust, and respecteth not the proud, nor such as turn aside to lies.

    Jeremiah 23:1 Woe be unto the pastors that destroy and scatter the sheep of my pasture! saith the Lord. 2 Therefore thus saith the Lord God of Israel against the pastors that feed my people; Ye have scattered my flock, and driven them away, and have not visited them: behold, I will visit upon you the evil of your doings, saith the Lord.

    Jeremiah 9:23 23 Thus says the Lord, “Let not a wise man boast of his wisdom, and let not the mighty man boast of his might, let not a rich man boast of his riches; 24 but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me, that I am the Lord who exercises lovingkindness, justice and righteousness on earth; for I delight in these things,” declares the Lord.

    Sirach 2:1 My son, if you come forward to serve the Lord, prepare yourself for temptation. 2 Set your heart right and be steadfast, and do not be hasty in time of calamity. 3 Cleave to him and do not depart, that you may be honored at the end of your life. 4 Accept whatever is brought upon you, and in changes that humble you be patient. 5 For gold is tested in the fire, and acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation.

  98. info says:

    @Damn Crackers

    ”Where is Wilson getting this Biblical info, the letters of St. Paul to Marie Claire?”

    There are those who reason away the meaning of the text despite its plain meaning. This is an example:
    http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html

    To argue for gender egalitarianism whilst using feminist sources to argue his power.

  99. info says:

    *Argue his point.

  100. info says:

    @Earl
    ”It’s why the physical beauty argument falls on its face. Everybody gets old. You can however grow more holy as you get older.”

    Its a good starting point when the wife is young. And if the wife’s behaviour is holy as she grows older the “wife goggles” remain on. She grows paradoxically more beautiful in her husband’s eyes as she gets more wrinkles each of which she earned being a good wife and mother.

  101. info says:

    @Dave
    ”Meanwhile, in another part of town, we got an update……

    STD cases in California have increased by 45 percent compared to five years ago while chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis reach highest numbers since the 1980s….”

    Well when antibiotics go away and anti-retrovirals disappears like in venezuela. Oops.

    @BJ
    ”Here’s the thing, the men here love women but they hate feminism. Those are two different things. When you are fully able to compartmentalize those things as two different things (instead of seeing them one and the same) you’ll begin to understand why some of the men here seem so fundamentally at odds with some of the comments you’ve made.”

    To add to the comment. We are required by God to recognize and condemn evil. And to celebrate righteousness and innocence.

    We have plenty of examples of righteous women in scripture. But we cannot condone the wicked turn that many of them has gone swallowing lies and hating the truth condemning the innocent to various sufferings.

  102. JustRae says:

    Striking to me how widespread and subtle the Duluth model is. I’m one year away from finishing my RN program. This last semester, we took Psychiatric Nursing, with a section on “family violence”. Included in the handouts was none other than a Duluth wheel. Also included was a teenage version of the Duluth wheel, which oddly enough was much more equal (showing females as well as males being capable of emotional and physical violence). I guess after age 18, men are the only ones capable of violence? Also interesting was the fact that the word Duluth appeared nowhere on it. I only recognized it from checking out links from this site.

  103. earl says:

    ‘STD cases in California have increased by 45 percent compared to five years ago while chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis reach highest numbers since the 1980s….’

    I read some piece that social stigma and racism are the reasons why. Anything bad that ever happens can’t possibly be because of your own decision making but the fact that whites exist and the ‘oppressive’ people pointing out how diseases come from promiscuity.

  104. earl says:

    @info

    Inner beauty in a woman has more lasting value than her outer beauty. But too many women are focused on the wrong thing which has depreciating value over time.

  105. earl says:

    You can champion women (I do it all the time) just be sure to throw feminism under the bus. Milo said it best: feminism = cancer.

    Agreed.

    A feminist and a woman may both be females…but they are certainly different from one another.

  106. feeriker says:

    Be aware, BJ, your Christian Headship is abuse according to the modern system.

    That guys like BJ deny this tells me that they either: 1) have lived all of their lives alone in some place like Antarctica, or, much more likely, 2) they know full well that they’re spewing bullshit and are either in denial or have actively capitulated to the world’s agenda, but still feel the need to rationalize it away.

    That said, I think BJ means well. He just can’t offer any realistic solutions to the problem and thus, like some many otbers out there, just has to clutch at straws.

  107. Dave says:

    There are those who reason away the meaning of the text despite its plain meaning. This is an example:
    http://christianthinktank.com/fem09.html
    To argue for gender egalitarianism whilst using feminist sources to argue his power.

    Over the years, I have come to realize that most of the so-called “Bible helps”, Greek/Hebrew dictionaries, reference Bibles (Dakes, Schofield, etc) add very little to the understanding of the Word. OK, to be a bit more generous, I’d say they may be useful in providing the historical contexts of some passages, etc But I found them to be distracting when they attempt to interpret, or explain the plain teachings of the Bible.

    The Bible is plain enough for anyone of average intelligence to read/hear it, believe it, and obey it, without the need to get the intended meanings of its contents from some third party authors.
    Worse, still, many of today’s preachers are woefully ignorant of the fundamentals of the faith, and are therefore unqualified to teach them.

    One principle of Bible interpretation is to have an open mind, and be willing to discard any belief system that does not conform to the clear teachings of Scripture. Today’s preachers start off with their own worldly ideas, then look for which passages of the Bible to torture and waterboard, until the passages say what they want them to say. Unfortunately, God has promised to give those preachers just what they are looking for, so that they can continue in their blindness and stupidity.

  108. Paul says:

    @info

    I really appreciate the work of Glenn Miller on his Christian Thinktank, but found his work whichyou referred to less than impressing.

  109. Opus says:

    Now that Dr Who is female it is inevitable that all the desirable male roles will be played by women. Operatically speaking this is nothing new but in Opera females portraying adolescent males as well as basses portraying elderly women has been going on for some centuries. Should Othello be played by a sand-black person or may a white actor black-up? My view is that casting parts according to ethnicity does not work. Koanga (set in Florida) has an almost entirely black cast and I have seen it done that way yet it seemed false. Madama Butterfly – (set in Nagasaki) – does not gain authenticity when Cio Cio san herself is played by a Japanese – and I saw Yasuko Hayashi sing it (opposite Carreras) – whilst the female chorus tip-toeing round the set were all native Britons. Strangely the latter does not trip the racial wire yet blacked up Britons for Koanga would do so. Double standards then when it comes to race.

    Theatre is a European phenomena and only works when treated as such and that does not include women cross-dressing as males. As for that piece of Disney-fication The Globe (on London’s south bank) I seem to recall that recently a woman was appointed its artistic director but within a season had so upset everyone that she was sacked. Hamlet of all roles makes no sense if portrayed by a woman, for no woman would undergo the uncertainties that beset the Dane without being able to call on a man to save her. London’s theatres would go dark were it not for American tourists and sadly for the Globe’s Hamlet young American tourists will come rain or moon-shine flock….

  110. Dave says:

    I read some piece that social stigma and racism are the reasons why. Anything bad that ever happens can’t possibly be because of your own decision making but the fact that whites exist and the ‘oppressive’ people pointing out how diseases come from promiscuity.

    Of course. Racism, bigotry, and the failure of the rich to pay their “fair share” are the causes of most social ills in today’s America. The rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. There is more racism now in America today than in the past, mostly due to all the white men and the election of Donald Trump. America is a nation of immigrants, so what if white men toiled to build it, and fought, bled and died to defend it from external aggressors? It doesn’t matter.

  111. Dave says:

    Just to be clear: my response above is sarcasm.

  112. Oscar says:

    @ earl says:
    May 16, 2018 at 7:06 am

    “I read some piece that social stigma and racism are the reasons why.”

    Why are Leftist Californians such rabid racists?

  113. Damn Crackers says:

    “STD cases in California have increased by 45 percent compared to five years ago while chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis reach highest numbers since the 1980s….”

    When you read the entire articles on STD increases, you realize that the majority of new cases come from a few certain “protected” demographics.

  114. Damn Crackers says:

    @Opus – Have you been following the BBC version of Troy? Many of the cast like Achilles and Zeus don’t look like Greeks to me.

  115. Novaseeker says:

    America is a nation of immigrants, so what if white men toiled to build it, and fought, bled and died to defend it from external aggressors? It doesn’t matter.

    The theory is more nuanced than that. It’s still quite wrong, as a theory, but it’s more nuanced.

    The idea is that since white Westerners have dominated the world for centuries, they have created racism (understood as an expression of power by a perceived racial group) by virtue of their dominance — political, cultural, economic, social — of other races. In the US and elsewhere in the West.

    The theory is that this racial dominance is per se unjust, and must be eradicated. The theory goes that the main obstacle to overcoming this unjust white racist dominance is by changing the demographics in the white home countries so that whites are no longer dominant, as well as turning educated whites away from a white identity towards a cosmopolitan, “post-white”, identity, together with encouraging all non-white groups to pursue an aggressive identity politics designed to encourage more whites to abandon white identity while at the same time supporting increased demographic replacement of “recalcitrant” whites (who are seen, per the theory, as per se white supremacists). So the politics is a combination of demographic displacement, cultural displacement, aggressive identity politics for non-whites, and flipping educated whites towards a “post-white” identity. Anyone who disagrees with any of that is per se a white supremacist.

    Remember, white supremacist is defined broadly. Someone who prefers dating and marrying whites is a white supremacist. Someone who doesn’t like the idea of there being fewer white people to date due to people becoming browned over time is a white supremacist. Someone who prefers living among whites is a white supremacist. Someone who takes pride in “the people who built this country” is a white supremacist, because during that time when the country was being built, whites reigned supreme. All of this is seen as unjust and immoral.

    Again, the theory is wrong and easy to attack, but in order to do so we need to understand it clearly.

  116. Swanny River says:

    IBB,
    Great point for BJ, I hope he reads it and he can learn and accept he’s providing unintentional cover for feminists.
    It’s related to chivalry- people in ministry are ignorant about the differences between biblical love and chivalry and as you put it, btw women and feminism.

  117. earl says:

    When you read the entire articles on STD increases, you realize that the majority of new cases come from a few certain “protected” demographics.

    Hence the rationalization it’s social stigma and racism. Not the natural consequence of promiscuity.

  118. earl says:

    Why are Leftist Californians such rabid racists?

    All that white hetero privilege they have.

  119. Swanny River says:

    Novaseeker,
    You just fed an off-topic discussion, but I am going to do the same. I like the points you made bit am cynical about it all because I’ve seen the meager incentives for cultural erasure (white) be far more effective than even a Christian faith. They believe their apologies are biblical and think the blessings of progress can’t be slowed or stopped. It’s cheap coolness.

  120. Scott says:

    All of what Novaseeker wrote above is why the tracon and libertarian appeals to American being a meritocracy based on some abstract principles like “the constitution” and so forth will ultimately fail to produce the desired results.

    When things start getting really bad, it won’t matter how much you talk about freedom and rugged individualism. It won’t save you.

  121. squid_hunt says:

    Why are Leftist Californians such rabid racists?

    That’s only a joke if you’ve never been around educated white progressives. They really are the most racist people I’ve ever met. Way more racist than the average Georgia or Louisiana cracker.

    White progressives like their blacks to know their place: On their plantations (Government housing), out of their neighborhoods, and voting Democrat.

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

    Small quibble with @Novaseeker, to whom I otherwise usually defer. Just being a Caucasoid attracted to other Caucasoids does not make one a white nationalist. I am hinky with individual mating preferences getting lumped in as meta-statements about race or gender or other things. That’s SJW talk. Who one is attracted to (or gets jiggy with) is as personal a decision as whether you prefer your steaks well done or medium, your vegetables sautéed or raw, your car soy electric or four on the floor. If the right to personal integrity means anything, it means the gubmint (or other shaming society) doesn’t tell you who to date, or marry, or socialize with, or why.

    (I am not speaking to cultural/religious/ family protocols: those exist, and many choose to obey, some break away, each person decides).

    So if you’re a brother who likes big butts and you cannot lie, you’re good. If you like slender ballet types with long hair, or well-toned athletic gals, or someone a bit roundish, you’re good. If you only get “the horn” for vanilla, you’re good, if you’re solely a consumer of chocolate news, you’re good. It’s not worth the candle to complain anyway. Assortative mating takes care of itself by and large, to the tune of 90% in most places. Closer to 100% outside of major population hubs.

    Let the old-school Afrikaaners try to sort out who’s a mulatto vs. an octaroon, and who can be seen with whom during the months with an R in them.

    Let the adderall-addled SJWs say stupid stuff like “if you’re cis-het and you won’t date or get busy with a trans man-type creature you’re a homophobic transphobic bigot”. Why would anyone base a key life decision like that on whether some Questioning ding-dong TwitShamer or Big Moron On Campus may or may not approve?

  123. DR Smith says:

    @Dalrock – some for your daily inspirations of depression regarding the modern church. I thanks God everyday I left the organized church environment!

    @Novaseeker (and a few others here) – there is one way to ensure a wife’s or LTR SMV does not exceed yours so she gets the itch to move on – form a relationship with girl 2 to 3 rungs below you, objectively speaking. Note this only works if you are honest with yourself and your own SMV and you also keep yourself in decent shape, but it has worked for me for over 15 years. My wife lost over 100 lbs and looks far better than she did before, but still has a way to catch up with me which would require more surgery…..not impossible but not probable, either, at this point. Also helps to keep negging the wife to make sure her head does not get to big during her “improvements”.

  124. Novaseeker says:

    Just being a Caucasoid attracted to other Caucasoids does not make one a white nationalist.

    Not a white nationalist, no, but a white supremacist. “White supremacy”, as a concept, is different from white nationalism. Someone who thinks whites are better looking than non-whites is a white supremacist, because the essence of white supremacy is thinking whites are superior in some way, and there is no more visceral way than that one. This is why the demographic anti-racists are so goo-goo for ga-ga about the still small number of interracial pairings: it indicates a breakdown of white supremacy, in the minds of whites, when they make dating decisions.

    I’m not telling anyone whom they should date, of course. Just saying that certain dating preferences represent the same kind of attitude as wanting to live around and associate with primarily whites, which people also consider to be “white supremacy”.

    Now I agree that the left doesn’t like to face that contradiction because the one thing that overrides everything else in the current left is the absolutely sacred, untouchable, super-sacrosanct, holy-of-holies, ur-/existential right to get one’s freak on with whomever one damned well chooses, regardless of race, sex, genders (or lack thereof) and so on. But the contradiction remains nonetheless.

    The distinction between that and white nationalism is that white nationalists advocate separatism politically, whereas the idea behind white supremacy is more mild — that is, as long as, for example, white girls are considered in the general society to be prettier (at the top), that is white supremacy, even though most people who think that are not “white nationalists”.

  125. American says:

    Wicked feminism will die. Support the blessed patriarchy.

  126. l jess says:

    I see an invalid assumption – While the article makes it seem like women are like flowers in the power of love, the reality is that most are like Kudzu – taking the sunshine of love and growing over the top of you and smothering you in their quest for dominance.

  127. BJ says:

    @innocentbystanderboston

    “Here’s the thing, the men here love women but they hate feminism. Those are two different things. When you are fully able to compartmentalize those things as two different things (instead of seeing them one and the same) you’ll begin to understand why some of the men here seem so fundamentally at odds with some of the comments you’ve made.”

    I see quite clearly that those two are not the same thing and never once claimed they were. I loathe feminism and everyone in my church knows it.

    I teach men to lead their wives as taught in the Bible and to do so without fear, without fear of judgment from the culture, the church, and though we have to be cautious with the law, to do so biblically even in the face of the law. I know it is hard enough to lead biblically in this world without the attacks from a degraded culture. But we are men and still have to have enough courage to do it in spite of the difficulties.

    I say that not to mean that I am somehow more courageous than anyone here. I don’t know anyone here personally, and I am not some macho tough guy. I am a short chubby redneck white boy from southern Ohio. I say we must be courageous enough to do it in the face of these challenges, because I love women, too. It is best for them, our children, our churches, and the culture at large. Men leading well is a key factor for a healthy society.

    I guess I never expected that that would be controversial here.

  128. @squid_hunt:

    The problem is that the function you’re pointing out renders “racist” as non-existent. They’re actually doing what 98% of the rest of the world does: looks out for their “own” at the cost of everyone else.

    What the White Progressives do, however, is add this amazing layer of smug self-satisfaction to cover over the fact they’re doing the exact opposite of everything they proclaim they believe in. It’s not even that they’re hypocrites that’s so annoying, but that they are happy to be oblivious of their hypocrisy.

    It’s the reason anyone that doesn’t play along really can’t stand them.

    Novaseeker has a good understanding of where the current “theory” rests, though never really try to logically argue against it. It is not now nor has it ever been “logical”. It’s intentionally anti-logic, as it’s there to give a rationalization for either cultural suicide or domination by groups that would never been capable of it. Nor actually are capable of it. The puppetmasters want to take actual control, so they don’t really care the method by which they achieve it.

    This is also why we’re already in Civil War 2.0, and we’ll be seeing internal conflicts across the globe this century. That is the way all of this gets resolved, and a lot of blame goes to a lot of “Christian Leaders” in the last two centuries that couldn’t be bothered to defend the Faith.

  129. BJ says:

    @feeriker

    “That said, I think BJ means well. He just can’t offer any realistic solutions to the problem and thus, like some many otbers out there, just has to clutch at straws.”

    I know for a fact that teaching the biblical model of headship is considered abuse to modern feminists. I would never deny that. I just don’t let them stop me from teaching it or practicing it.

    I also happen to think that the Bible offers practical solutions and I put them into play every day of my life. How many marriages do I have to counsel or help get straight after the feminist influence start to screw it up before my solutions are “realistic”? The most realistic solution to the problem of men turning to feminism and abandoning the teaching of male headship is to not do that. To do it even when it is unpopular. We must be wise as serpents and innocent as doves, but we must do it. We can get into specifics for individual cases, which are all very different.

    But in the big picture, running from headship because the culture doesn’t like it is not the solution.

  130. BJ says:

    @Swanny River

    “Great point for BJ, I hope he reads it and he can learn and accept he’s providing unintentional cover for feminists.”

    How is teaching the biblical model of headship providing cover for feminists? I say practice headship and argue men have actual authority in the home, and somehow I am providing cover for feminists?

    I honestly don’t think I have any fundamental disagreements with most of what Dalrock teaches.

  131. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Novaseeker, I think you’re confusing white supremacy with white superiority.

    White superiority. The belief that whites are better.

    This view can range from genocidal tyranny to self-sacrificial altruism. The latter includes white missionaries and liberals who seek to bring civilization to colored savages. To feed them, teach them, dig their wells, heal their sick, etc, because they can’t do it for themselves. Think of Kipling’s White Man’s Burden.

    This white altruistic liberal would cringe to think of himself as a believer in white superiority, yet he is. He doesn’t expect much from blacks. He exemplifies Bush’s “soft bigotry of low expectations.”

    White supremacy. The belief that whites should rule others.

    White supremacists might believe in white superiority, but that needn’t be so. They might believe it doesn’t matter who’s better. I want my people to conquer, because it’s good for my people.

    White separatism. The belief that whites should have their own spaces, neighborhoods, or nations.

    These people are not supremacists. They might, or might not, believe in white superiority. They merely want what they think is best for their own people, which does include ruling other peoples.

    White nationalists. Can be a supremacist or separatist.

  132. Oscar says:

    @ squid_hunt says:
    May 16, 2018 at 10:00 am

    “White progressives like their blacks to know their place: On their plantations (Government housing), out of their neighborhoods, and voting Democrat.”

    That explains their seething hatred for the ones who don’t.

  133. squid_hunt says:

    @Looking Glass

    Looking out for “your own” is the very definition of racism. You can add whichever connotation suits your personal taste. I don’t lose a lot of sleep at night worrying about sheet wearing, Confederate flag waving bubbas in pick up trucks lynching innocent, friendly black folk. I’ve lived in the south far too long for that.

    However, I do think people should be forced to live by the rules they push on other people and as such, the smugness of our progressive betters could do with a few years of rioting, burning, and general, all-around house cleaning in my humble opinion.

  134. Jeff Strand says:

    @DR Smith: “@Novaseeker (and a few others here) – there is one way to ensure a wife’s or LTR SMV does not exceed yours so she gets the itch to move on – form a relationship with girl 2 to 3 rungs below you, objectively speaking. Note this only works if you are honest with yourself and your own SMV and you also keep yourself in decent shape, but it has worked for me for over 15 years. My wife lost over 100 lbs and looks far better than she did before, but still has a way to catch up with me which would require more surgery…..not impossible but not probable, either, at this point. Also helps to keep negging the wife to make sure her head does not get to big during her “improvements”.”

    This is a joke, right?

  135. squid_hunt says:

    @Oscar

    Try going on national television and calling Trevor Noah an Uncle Tom and good luck to you after that.

  136. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I am surprised by the high levels of anti-white racism in modern culture. When I was in my 20s (in the 1980s), I thought that eventually people would get over race. That after decades of affirmative action (in the media, academia, politics, etc.) blacks, and other coloreds, would lose that chip on their shoulders. Would stop blaming whites for all their ills.

    But today, it seems that many coloreds are more resentful toward whites than in the 1980s.

    Media, academia, and government have done a great job in fanning the flames of anti-white, anti-European, anti-male, anti-Christian hate.

  137. Oscar says:

    @ BJ says:
    May 16, 2018 at 12:38 pm

    “How is teaching the biblical model of headship providing cover for feminists?”

    It isn’t. Flippantly dismissing the risks that a married man incurs thanks to the Duluth Model is.

  138. Opus says:

    @Damn Crackers

    i do not have a television set. On my wireless everyone is the correct shade.

    There is nothing more amusing than demonstrating to those who go out of their way to virtue signal their political correctness that their actions – who they marry, where they live, who they associate with – call the lie to their implied assertions of equality, diversity and fraternity.

  139. Oscar says:

    @ squid_hunt says:
    May 16, 2018 at 12:56 pm

    “Try going on national television and calling Trevor Noah an Uncle Tom and good luck to you after that.”

    First, Uncle Tom was one of the heroes of the story, so Trevor Noah deserves no such honor. Second, he shouldn’t even count! It’s not like any of his ancestors worked a plantation in Georgia, or anywhere else in the States.

  140. BJ says:

    @Oscar

    “Flippantly dismissing the risks that a married man incurs thanks to the Duluth Model is.”

    I am in no way flippant about this topic. This is my life’s work.

    I also would never dismiss it. But would you argue that a man should abandon his role as head of the family and refuse to lead, because moronic ideologue judges believe it? I hope not.

    Yes, we tread carefully and with a clear-eyes view of the threat. This is how a war is fought. But we never reject to do our job as heads of the family to the best of our ability. Certainly we can agree on that, no?

  141. Jeff Strand says:

    It’s not just the Duluth Model (atrocious as that is).

    In a number of states, child support no longer ends at 18 (or the end of high school, whichever comes later). Now, in states like NY and IL you are forced to pay for a big chunk (quite possibly the majority) of your kid’s college tuition and related expenses. Until age 21 in NY, and in the nut-job state of IL, until age 23 AND POSSIBLY EVEN BEYOND THAT TO AGE 25! (if a reason is shown to the judge why college support should be kept going after age 23).

    This is true even though there is, of course, no legal requirement of any kind to financially assist in your kid’s college expenses if you are an intact family. And it remains binding on the father even if the kid disowns him and wants nothing to do with him! (The father also gets no say in what college the kid attends, what they major in, etc….you just have to foot the bill).

    When my divorced buddy (who lives in IL) told me about these laws, and how he was on the hook for this, I didn’t believe him. “They can’t be THAT crazy!”, I thought. Then I Googled this up for myself (which I encourage you to do) and saw the laws for myself.

    How many young men considering marriage are aware of laws like this? Are men in IL aware that their wife can frivorce them, take the kids, commit parental alienation and turn the kids against them, and then still force (under threat of jail time) the poor sap to pay for a big chunk of the kid’s college education UNTIL AGE 23 to AGE 25? Even in the kid refuses to so much as even talk to the father?

    How did lawmakers pass these insane laws? Are they TRYING to completely destroy marriage? I can’t blame any young man who decides to go MGTOW and eschew marriage altogether – as the male, the laws and courts are so stacked against you that’s it become almost comical (if it weren’t so tragic).

  142. Novaseeker says:

    Novaseeker, I think you’re confusing white supremacy with white superiority.

    Yeah I am not saying what I think is true, but what the ambient rising culture thinks is true. Seems to have gone missing on a few of you. I agree it is wrong, but it is the dominant paradigm, which is what matters.

  143. Dalrock says:

    @BJ

    I know for a fact that teaching the biblical model of headship is considered abuse to modern feminists. I would never deny that. I just don’t let them stop me from teaching it or practicing it.

    It isn’t just feminists that see headship as abuse. It is also complementarians (TGC, CBMW, etc). I don’t see anything coming from Pastor Wilson that would make me think he is any different in that regard. He tells husbands it isn’t their business to instruct their wives to submit. When challenged on this, his response was titled “And Now a Brief Word for the Wife Beaters”. He mocks husbands for being weak in order to keep mama happy, but he also tells husbands God commands them to keep mama happy. He claims to support headship, but he goes weak in the knees at the thought of a husband actually telling his wife no.

    On the other hand, he is perfectly comfortable telling husbands that their wife runs the show in the home. Husbands are servant leaders, wives are house despots.

  144. Oscar says:

    @ BJ says:
    May 16, 2018 at 1:04 pm

    “I am in no way flippant about this topic.”

    That’s a lie, because you were (see below).

    “This is my life’s work.”

    Then why didn’t you even know about the Duluth Model, or how it’s already been used against husbands who made their wives feel bad? If this is your life’s work, isn’t it your job to know about the Duluth Model and the threat it poses to husbands?

    “I also would never dismiss it.”

    That’s anohter lie, because you DID dismiss it.

    BJ says:
    May 15, 2018 at 2:09 pm

    “It [the Duluth Model] is silly nonsense. But it is not illegal to make your wife ‘feel bad about herself’ … People might call you an abuser, but who cares what they think.”

    BJ says:
    May 15, 2018 at 2:52 pm

    “But if you really think that saying means word to your wife will get you arrested, you are really misguided.”

    “Yes, we tread carefully and with a clear-eyes view of the threat.”

    How can you claim to be clear-eyed about the threat when you didn’t even know about the Duluth Model before yesterday? How many men have you advised with zero knowledge of that particular threat? How can you teach them to mitigate the threat, if you don’t even know the threat exists?

    “This is how a war is fought.”

    I know how wars are fought, because I’ve actually fought them. One thing I know for sure is that when an ally informs you of the existence of a threat, you don’t dismiss it as “silly nonsense”, or dismiss the ally that informed you as “seriously misguided”. You nut up, shut up, listen and learn. Then you ask questions.

    Have you asked Scott yet about his first-hand experience? No? What’s taking you so long? Isn’t this your life’s work?

  145. Novaseeker says:

    pay for a big chunk of the kid’s college education UNTIL AGE 23 to AGE 25? Even in the kid refuses to so much as even talk to the father?

    Normal in many states — same in mine. Standard is 23. Oh, and it’s payable to mom, not to the kid, even though the kid is 18+.

    Nice that we reduced alimony, isn’t it?

    This is a joke, right?

    It’s a rational strategy, but it only works if the guy is very attractive. A male 9 with a female 6 is stable — even if she improves to a 7 or even an 8 he is still hypergamously attractive. The problem is a male 6 with a female 3 … no go. She is below the “attraction floor” so it doesn’t work. Only works if a woman 3 rungs below is still objectively cute.

  146. squid_hunt says:

    @Oscar

    In modern terms, Uncle Tom is derogatory. It means someone who betrays their race. The point was the left has no problem throwing that term out about black people that get out of line from their narrative, but if you were to use it against their favored black folk, you’d likely have death threats.

  147. BJ says:

    @Oscar

    I really am trying to have a rational conversation, but you are twisting everything I am saying. One example. I called the Duluth model “silly nonsense.” It is, for the record. Saying something mean is not abuse. What I meant, and basic reading comprehension makes this clear, is that I am dismissing the assertion that these constitute abuse. You twist it to mean that I am dismissing the threat against husbands, which I didn’t.

    Please don’t take my ignoring you from now on personally.

  148. BillyS says:

    I am still reading through some of this thread, but BJ, you take the cake (and the utensils). You may be here to learn, but it doesn’t sound like you are learning much.

    I didn’t face jail, but even the better environment in Texas allowed my wife to scam me for spousal support for 3 years and get support from church people because she was fleeing my “abuse”. That involved me being opinionated and strong-willed, while pretty much letting her do as she pleased in most areas. Expecting her to make meals and work on keeping the house up after 5-6 pm was just too much you see. Owning less than a dozen guns (in Texas!) was hoarding them, etc.

    You can tell me all you want that it is just a matter of keeping the right frame, but you are full of it. I married what I thought was a woman who valued God. It turned out that was secondary to herself. Sure, she still goes to church and I am sure many there think she is wonderful, but she couldn’t even be a faithful wife.

    She has definitely not improved her looks after marriage, though she does seem to have gone back to wearing dresses to church based on one picture I saw. (She gave that up for many years with me.) Her face has plumped out though she is likely still thin (genetic), meaning she is probably boozing it up as she did in college.

    What church support did I have? None! And I went to a church where only men were officially allowed to lead. They still didn’t give a hoot and left me hanging out to dry, with the pastor’s wife missing a chance to turn things around when she only focused on staying “safe from me” rather than aborting the divorce.

    This is reality today, not your false view. Realize a little humility and you might have a better focus. Most here do still like women (possibly not FH), but the environment is completely hostile and needs to be acknowledged over and over, since no one else does that.

  149. BillyS says:

    BJ,

    My reasonably devote Christian daughter-in-law thought “mean words” were abusive. Her psychology classes in the past reinforced that, but she still had the mindset. Many in the church do and you need to listen to a few more preachers to see that “mean words” are now considered (effectively) one of the unforgivable sins by many in the church today. It is sad, but that is where we live.

  150. BJ says:

    @Dalrock

    I am confused here. It feels like the direction of this conversation is that since the laws, many in the church, and the culture at large see headship as abuse, we now have some kind of excuse to step out of that role. Is that your position?

    I may not have heard about the Duluth wheel, but rest assured I am very aware of the risks men take in this culture. People are losing their jobs, their reputations are being trashed, and, yes, some are being arrested for stupid things. I am very sympathetic to that challenge.

    But my response is never going to be to say the threat is too big. We have to keep doing the right thing no matter how hard. Am I wrong for thinking that?

  151. BillyS says:

    Squid,

    Death threats and other hostility is OK if you are a favored progressive! Get with the program! /sarc

  152. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Yet another example of the gentler, holier, more Godly, finer sex: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/us-news/mum-admits-stabbing-daughter-11-12547104

    A mum allegedly stabbed her 11-year-old daughter up to 60 times before hitting her over the head with a pickaxe and setting their kitchen on fire.

    Taheerah Ahmad then reportedly went on the run with her other eight-year-old daughter Hafsa and hid out in a car park for 17 hours sparking a major manhunt in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

    The 39-year-old was arrested after locals spotted her car and was seen bizarrely smirking for cameras as she was led away in handcuffs.

    The daughter, who is not being named at this stage, remains unconscious and in a “very” critical condition in hospital. …

    News story makes no mention of the father(s).

  153. BillyS says:

    BJ,

    But my response is never going to be to say the threat is too big. We have to keep doing the right thing no matter how hard. Am I wrong for thinking that?

    What is “the right thing” now? That is the $64,000 question for those of you old enough to remember that.

    I remain a civilizationist, but I don’t know what I would tell a young man facing the issue of whether to marry. I would advise watching for red flags and bailing before marriage quickly if they arise. I believe God put my wife and I together, but I had plenty of red flags in retrospect that doomed things.

  154. Oscar says:

    @ BJ says:
    May 16, 2018 at 1:46 pm

    “I really am trying to have a rational conversation, but you are twisting everything I am saying.”

    More lies. I quoted you exactly.

    “I called the Duluth model ‘silly nonsense’. It is, for the record. Saying something mean is not abuse. What I meant, and basic reading comprehension makes this clear, is that I am dismissing the assertion that these constitute abuse. You twist it to mean that I am dismissing the threat against husbands, which I didn’t.”

    Another lie, as the quote I presented proves. Here it is again.

    BJ says:
    May 15, 2018 at 2:52 pm

    “But if you really think that saying means word to your wife will get you arrested, you are really misguided.”

    On May 15th, 2018 at 2:52 pm, you directly dismissed the threat that the Duluth Model presents husbands. You’re lying, BJ, and your own words prove it.

    So, why haven’t you asked Scott about his first hand experience yet? How can you claim to be clear-eyed about a threat you didn’t even know existed until yesterday, and dismissed when you were informed of it?

  155. BillyS says:

    He may not be aware of what Scott does Oscar.

  156. BJ says:

    @BillyS

    First off, I am very sorry for your situation. It is stories like yours that motivate me to try and change things in the church. Picking up the pieces from tragedies like this what I do most days. You may not believe this, but there still are churches that actually support men in their families. I understand if you are skeptical of that, and we are certainly in the minority, but they do exist.

    Secondly, your daughter-in-law is a classic example of why we need to teach and train our children better. We hand our kids off the secular world and then we baptize their heresies in Christian cover. It really bothers me. Building a community of like-minded families is hard work, but in the end, I think it is worth it.

  157. Jeff Strand says:

    Nova,

    If a man is Alpha, his MMV will be well higher than a woman of the same SMV (basically talking about looks here). So such an Alpha can plan to marry a very pretty, attractive girl indeed…one with a very high SMV. Because even if he is less handsome than she is pretty, his Alpha traits will put them on the same level MMV-wise.

    In my case, I married a very attractive girl indeed, and almost 20 years later (and having a couple kids) she still turns heads and looks great. Not just because she keeps in physically good shape, goes to the salon regularly to keep herself pretty and attractive, etc…but because she is a very feminine woman. Granted, she is a NAWALT. But she will often mention that one of the big reasons she is so still so crazy about me after all these years is because of my Alpha traits (or as she puts it, that I’m “such a caveman”). She finds me physically attractive too, don’t get me wrong (I’m not a bad looking guy). But I really think it’s the Alpha traits that put it over the goal line. And that she sees that I can’t keep my hands off of her, lol.

    Btw, it’s funny the comments about how a wife will start working on herself to look better/sexier when she is thinking of bailing (or at least of testing the waters). My wife has a mindset that a wife should work hard to stay in shape and stay pretty FOR HER HUSABAND. Because her husband DESERVES this. But I guess that’s a minority opinion among wives today. As a quick anecdote, when a friend was getting divorced I saw his wife a year later – now that she was on the dating market she had clearly lost a bunch of weight (which she needed to lose). I mentioned this to my wife, and her response (said in disgust): “But she couldn’t be bothered to do that FOR HER HUSAND?”

    Did I mention I married a NAWALT? 😉

  158. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS says:
    May 16, 2018 at 1:57 pm

    “He may not be aware of what Scott does Oscar.”

    He’s aware because several of us – including Scott – have made him aware. He obviously doesn’t want to know anything that might burst his bubble.

  159. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    And another one: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boy-10-who-died-after-12546670

    A little boy who died after his mum placed him on tracks and he was hit by 99mph train was unlawfully killed, a corner has rule.

    Rubina Khan was seen crouching down to her 10-year-old son Amaar and whispering into his ear before the pair clambered down and lay on the tracks side by side.

    Both were killed instantly seconds later when they were hit by the Bedwyn to London Paddington service, which was travelling at about 99mph, at about 9.45am.

  160. BJ says:

    @BillyS

    “What is “the right thing” now? That is the $64,000 question for those of you old enough to remember that.”

    I do remember the $64,000 question, and I don’t claim to have the magic solution. I think the Bible is the Word of God and the best way to go. The advise I have given to the few young men who have asked me that question (I am less than two years into ministry), looks something like this.

    (1) If his parents are rational and faithful to the Bible, lean on them very hard. If not, without being disrespectful, try not to believe everything they say.

    (2) Study how the prospective girl treats her father and brothers. Is she deferential and respectful? Or argumentative and rebellious?

    (3) Be very specific about their expectations. More often than not, this exploration will reveal the red flags.

    There are more specifics, and there is no perfect solutions, especially in this culture. But if both parents and the church are on board with a Bible-based marriage, I think we really improve our chances for success. Again, I don’t claim to be a guru, but this seems to have had some success so far. Plus, I won’t ever guilt a guy who decides to not marry.

  161. Dalrock says:

    @BJ

    I am confused here. It feels like the direction of this conversation is that since the laws, many in the church, and the culture at large see headship as abuse, we now have some kind of excuse to step out of that role. Is that your position?

    I think if you go back and read your own response to my post, you will be less confused. You started with:

    Given the last two posts, there is something that must be clarified here.

    There is simply no doubt that to some degree, a wife is a reflection of her husband. Whatever specifics one may want to land on, once a man and wife unite, their outward appearance and behavior is a refection on the husband’s leadership. Same goes for a military unit, a church, a classroom, or a business. Leadership is responsible for outcome, which of course assumes actual authority to make changes as necessary. But we don’t get to assign a husband authority over the family and then claim he is not responsible for the results. That is a contradiction.

    I’m not sure where to start, because you neither refute my actual post, nor directly defend the authors I’m refuting. Yet you make vague motions in both directions.

    I’m not saying men don’t have an obligation to try to practice headship despite our entire social, legal, and religious structure being ordered around ensuring that this never happens. I’m saying what Strauss and Wilson wrote (that I quoted in the OP) is nonsense. You seem to have objected to my calling this nonsense, but at the same time don’t want to actually stand up and say it.

    Later in your comment you wrote:

    If a husband is to be responsible for his family, he must have the authority (read: sovereynté) to implement his leadership in terms of discipline.

    I am confused here. It feels like the direction of this conversation is that since the laws, many in the church, and the culture at large see headship as abuse, we now have some kind of excuse to step out of that role. Is that your position?

    Then you closed your comment with a claim that if wives are to submit to their husbands in all things, they aren’t responsible for their own sins:

    Likewise, though, if a wife is going to be responsible for her sin, she must have some level of sovereynté (control) to do something about it. We can’t deny her some level of hierarchical autonomy and then hold her responsible.

    The more we remove someone’s control over something, the less they are truly responsible for their actions.

    You’ve made a hash of the whole discussion, and have done so from sentence one. Is this intentional?

  162. Jeff Strand says:

    Young men have to educated on this stuff and redpilled enough to learn this rule: you either marry a NAWALT, or you do not marry at all. It’s that simple.

    Oh, and those of you with sons: make them learn about BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder) and memorize the symptoms. Teach them that if they ever see these symptoms in a girl they’re dating, they should immediately run for their lives. Because they would indeed be running for their very lives.

  163. Opus says:

    I am sorry that America has got itself into such an intractable mess over Race, not that I am suggesting England is all that much better though it is – British Nationalism rather than White Nationalism – and that is partly because England’s natives are more homogenous and with virtually no arrivals until the last fifty – nay- last twenty years. As a result of Empire we are able look upon most new arrivals (though obviously not Russians or Somalians) in a paternalistic manner and they regard themselves being children of Empire as British much as your forbears in 1776 would have so regarded themselves.

    I had a conversation this afternoon as to the forthcoming nuptials of Prince Harry and his bride. The point made to me was not as to her ethnicity but whether being an AMERICAN Divorcee Harry would fare any better than his Great Great Uncle the last Prince to marry an AMERICAN Divorcee. We of course with real perfidy wish the best to the happy couple.

  164. BillyS says:

    My exwife seemed quite deferential to her father. Her scorn only came out when telling me (years later) that what I said was the same thing her dad said, in a very frustrated tone. She seemed to respect him, but I suspect she really does not, though that is quite challenging to dig out as all she would say would be complementary to him without knowing the exact right areas to probe.

  165. BillyS says:

    BJ,

    I have yet to find a church that really treats men properly, and I have been at and investigated quite a few over the years. They may exist, but very few have good visibility. I also suspect even yours is not as good as you think, especially if you are an example of its thinking. Standing up to women is quite difficult and rarely happens. I have yet to hear any major preacher, and I listen to a range of them, do so, for example.

  166. BillyS says:

    Jeff,

    Finding a NAWALT is much harder than you may think. They can seem NAWALT up front, until they blow things up, possibly many decades later. Nothing can prevent the infiltration of the spirit of the age, unfortunately.

  167. BJ says:

    @Dalrock

    “Is this intentional?”

    Nope, not at all. Honestly.

    I was simply looking to think more about the topic of headship and responsibility, and see what the guys here who have thought about it thought. I wasn’t defending or opposing Wilson or trying to refute your post, just looking at the topic of the post generically. Responsibility and authority go hand in hand. Leadership in the home means we have both to some degree, and facing the cultural pressures we face today is simply part of male headship. I just wanted to tease that out intellectually, not start throwing bombs.

    I don’t think I have been as confusing as you make it seem, and I stand by what I have written. But all of that said, I really apologize for making a hash of the discussion.

  168. Joe says:

    @Jeff Strand says:
    Btw, it’s funny the comments about how a wife will start working on herself to look better/sexier when she is thinking of bailing (or at least of testing the waters). My wife has a mindset that a wife should work hard to stay in shape and stay pretty FOR HER HUSABAND. Because her husband DESERVES this.
    ————————————————————————
    That’s exactly what my wife said before we got married. She said “I’m going to get up every day, shower and put on makup. None of this hanging around in my pajamas all day”.
    And she did. Even if she was up all night with a baby, she still made herself attractive every day. 30 years later, she still does.
    Not only that, she also told me (and followed through on) that she would be the one to get up with babies at night, because I had to get up and go to work and should get my sleep in, and she could nap when the baby napped”.
    When I got home each day, she was busy making dinner for the 3, then a couple of years later, 4 of us.
    And I echo your being fit. There’s no way I’m letting myself get fat and out of shape. I see that happen to others we know. Not me. She deserves better. Weightlifting and a healthy diet is a part of my daily life. You CAN keep pretty ripped into your 80’s. You just have to want to.
    And I still can’t keep my hands off of her. We’ve been empty nesters for a couple of years now with no kids needing any $ support. It’s great.

    Jeff, it’s great to read your post. It’s a breath of fresh air. Sounds like we both married a NAWALT.

  169. Swanny River says:

    Dalrock,
    Mmmm, hash! I haven’t had a good hash in years. What I remember liking though was probably just as greasy and salty as the hashes I reject now.

    Blogs emphasize the intellectual component and not the ability to fight hard, so it could be that BJ’s “do the right thing” and ” the Bible is God’s Word” are more suited and effective for his personal encounters than they are for here, but strictly speaking- hash!

  170. CSI says:

    being an AMERICAN Divorcee Harry would fare any better than his Great Great Uncle the last Prince to marry an AMERICAN Divorcee

    Wallis did stay with Edward until his death. In modern times though women have absorbed the message that no matter the quality of man they manage to catch, they can always do better. Once Meghan has become bored with playing princess, she’s going to start thinking to herself I can do better.

  171. BJ says:

    @BillyS

    When you look for a church that supports men in this area, just listening to sermons is of limited value. That will give you a flavor for what they believe theologically, but pastors have the responsibility to teach about far more than simply headship. They certainly should teach about that, no doubt, but they also have to work through an entire text of Scripture which covers far more ground than that.

    The best question to ask is what grounds they consider to be a justification for divorce. If there are any men in the church who have been in counseling with the pastor, they would also be of immense value.

  172. feeriker says:

    I have yet to find a church that really treats men properly, and I have been at and investigated quite a few over the years. They may exist, but very few have good visibility. I also suspect even yours is not as good as you think, especially if you are an example of its thinking. Standing up to women is quite difficult and rarely happens. I have yet to hear any major preacher, and I listen to a range of them, do so, for example.

    “Visible” churches can afford to be so only by capitulating to the culture, which they did decades ago. We know that women have more economic influence today than men, which is why churches openly pander to them (“megachurches” don’t become the obscenely wealthy non-profit corporations that they are by feeding women bitter medicine, thus depriving the collection plates of their booty). Moreover, masculine leadership in the church holds pastors accountable, takes away the power behind the personality cult, and obliterates the AMOG factor. Can’t have THAT now, can we?

    Bottom line: the only church that might even possibly treat men with the respect Scripture commands is a “home church” consisting mostly or entirely of other men. Needless to say, this is the polar opposite of “visible.” In fact, it would probably face First Century-type persecution if it ever worshiped overtly

  173. feeriker says:

    When you look for a church that supports men in this area, just listening to sermons is of limited value.

    Incorrect. It is of immense value. The delivery of any given sermon will let you know in short order whether or not the pastor has faith in the Scriptures and the God who gave them to us. If he waffles, beats around the bush, and is full of “explanations” for Scriptural text that is clear enough not to need any, then you’re dealing with a churchian jellyfish (and I’m not talking about only sermons having to do with marriage and the sexes, either). Such men will NOT stand up against the herd for what is right and holy. Not EVER.

    Bottom line: 99.999 percent of pastors are terrified of the World and thus supplicate to it.

  174. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    One of the Red Pill truths is that there are no NAWALTs. Thus you cannot marry a NAWALT.

    You can only marry a woman who consciously, on a daily basis, strives to overcome her dark side. And hope that she succeeds for as long as you both shall live.

    Of course, some wives are better at this than others. And some men are more Alpha, and thus their wives can more easily (and more happily) overcome their dark side.

  175. earl says:

    You can only marry a woman who consciously, on a daily basis, strives to overcome her dark side. And hope that she succeeds for as long as you both shall live.

    That’s why finding a woman who follows God’s will (and I mean God’s will…not her will and then calling it God) is as close to a NAWALT you’ll ever find.

  176. Boxer says:

    Once Meghan has become bored with playing princess, she’s going to start thinking to herself I can do better.

    That is exactly right. Case in point: Diana, Harry’s skank-ho mum. Note that Diana was a virginal young cupcake of a princess, exactly the type which the deluded fools on Dalrock will endlessly hold up as “safe” to marry. (Looking at you Earl, but you’re hardly the only one.)

    I hope that Harry has better taste in women than his idiot father, who, after being dumped by Diana, immediately started shacking up with an absolute fug.

    It also bears noting that, unlike a normal man, Harry can afford to send two or three women back to the carousel, making them wildly wealthy in the process. Most men are ruined by regular alimony. Thus the most foolish normal men will see the adulation of Harry by normal wimminz and think that they should emulate him. Such men deserve their consequences, and most of these types will taste the pleasures of the divorce court, sooner rather than later.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  177. earl says:

    . Note that Diana was a virginal young cupcake of a princess, exactly the type which the deluded fools on Dalrock will endlessly hold up as “safe” to marry. (Looking at you Earl, but you’re hardly the only one.)

    I never said they are ‘safe’ to marry. They are preferable and they are the lowest divorce risk…but that doesn’t mean 0 divorce risk.

  178. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ 4:22 pm:
    “Once Meghan has become bored with playing princess, she’s going to start thinking to herself I can do better.”

    “That is exactly right. Case in point: Diana, Harry’s skank-ho mum.”

    And on our side of the pond, Vanessa divorcing Donald Trump, Jr. You go, girl! You can do so much better than the handsome heir to POTUS billionaire Donald Trump that you had five kids with! Especially now that you’re 40!

    http://pagesix.com/2018/04/07/vanessa-trump-filed-for-divorce-after-her-familys-major-windfall/

    Sources close to the Haydon family said that their recent windfall came from stocks and other investments that had matured since Haydon’s death.

    “I can’t speculate as to how much they received, but it was life-changing,” said a source.

    Last fall, Bonnie Haydon, 71, [Vanessa’s mother] bought a sprawling Fifth Avenue penthouse, paying $6.4 million in cash, according to public records. She purchased the lavish apartment from the widow of Fox News chief Roger Ailes.

    With her family’s newfound financial security, an emboldened Vanessa, 40, finally filed for divorce from Trump Jr.

    “There have been numerous affairs,” said the source. “This divorce has been in the works for a long time.”

    The divorce is contested, according to a source close to the family, and lawyers from both sides are currently in negotiations over the custody of the couple’s five young children.

    The Red Pill sucks but it does bring clarity.

  179. Steve says:

    Just received a call at my church from Harlequin offering to give a book as a gift to all the women at my church from their “love inspired” faith based line of romance books. Needless to say I turned them down and then visited their website to see what was up with these books. Given everything I have read on this site, I was still shocked. Check this out.
    https://www.harlequin.com/shop/brand/love-inspired.html
    This “faith based” series is full of baby mama’s and divorce fantasy.

  180. Novaseeker says:

    If a man is Alpha, his MMV will be well higher than a woman of the same SMV (basically talking about looks here).

    Sure, I agree. And the rest of the men should be in a monastery. But which ones?

  181. Jeff Strand says:

    @RPL: “One of the Red Pill truths is that there are no NAWALTs. Thus you cannot marry a NAWALT.”

    Guess I didn’t get the memo…since I found one, and been married to her now for 17 years, lol.

    Btw, here’s a quick tip – ask the girl you’re interested in if she knows that the “Holohoax” is a load of crap. And if she thinks the South should have won The War of Northern Aggression (this applies even if you’re both northerners). If she answers yes to both questions, then you know you’ve got a very redpilled girl on your hands, who might be a good candidate for a NAWALT.

    Of course, it goes without saying she must also be an anti-feminist. Note: just the fact of being a NON-feminist is not good enough – she must be specifically ANTI-feminist.

  182. Jeff Strand says:

    @Joe: “Jeff, it’s great to read your post. It’s a breath of fresh air. Sounds like we both married a NAWALT.”

    Cheers, my friend!

  183. Anonymous Reader says:

    Steve
    Harlequin
    This “faith based” series is full of baby mama’s and divorce fantasy.

    My surprised face is at the cleaners, so I can’t provide it here. Sorry.

  184. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    Yeah I am not saying what I think is true, but what the ambient rising culture thinks is true.

    Always useful for us out here in flyover to get info from the Acela corridor. There’s a word for what you are describing but I don’t care to use it at this time. I could argue that it is close to a certain definition from the United Nations…

    Do any of the people you know who like this ideology show any indication of what the long term consequences could be? I don’t mean SJW’s, they are all emotion and no thought. But there are liberals and leftists who are sort of capable of longer time-horizon thinking. Labeling a substantial plurality of the country “permanent badthinker” is a great way to increase polarization. Is that what they really want?

    To put it another way: “This is how you get More Trump. Do you really want More Trump?”

  185. Lost Patrol says:

    Once Meghan has become bored with playing princess, she’s going to start thinking to herself I can do better.

    That is exactly right. Case in point: Diana, Harry’s skank-ho mum.

    Fergie gets a shout on this one too. Hypergamy is no respecter of castles.

  186. Scott says:

    AR-

    To put it another way: “This is how you get More Trump. Do you really want More Trump?”

    Its a great question. And since social psychology is kind of a pet sub-specialty I think about stuff like that–A LOT.

    And my brilliant observation is this– drum roll please– I’m not sure.

    I held fast to my prediction of a Trump win through the entire election cycle. So did a lot of people who write for websites like Vdare, and so on. But I think those of us who made that prediction got lucky.

    One piece of data I would love to see is what REALLY happened to the market share of influence actually lost by big media. Because one of the central bases for the idea that more and more demonizing of whites–doubling and tripling down on it in fact–had made the mainstream sources irrelevant.

    But everywhere I go, the gym, whatever Drs office I go to, etc. CNN is STILL what is on in waiting rooms. I just can’t get a bead on it. There was supposed to be this big sigh or relief for religious freedom, freedom of ideas, freedom of speech, and so on. But we are all acting like its 2015.

    I just wish it was clear.

  187. Jim says:

    Guess I didn’t get the memo…since I found one, and been married to her now for 17 years, lol.

    As I’ve said to the perennially naive before, it’s possible you’ll eventually get the memo. I know guys who were married for 20, 30, and even 40 years. Then suddenly, out of the blue, their Trojan Horse wives wanted a divorce. Then they take your house, car, 401k, pension, etc. And believe you me, they were in total shock! They swore up and down that it wouldn’t happen, that they’d married a “NAWALT”. Your chances of coming out unscathed are worse than playing Russian Roulette.

    Uh huh. Every guy thinks that until it happens. Hopefully you’ll get lucky. Me? I don’t like to gamble. Especially when she can pull that lever anytime she wants for any reason whatsoever if the humor strikes her. Hell, let’s say she never does? Who wants to sign a contract knowing a cunt has been granted godlike powers to break it and fuck you over if she changes her mind?

  188. earl says:

    If she also thinks jet fuel can’t melt steel beams and the Vietnam war was started under false pretenses…you got yourself wife material right there.

  189. BillyS says:

    Novaseeker,

    You are out in left field on this one. Being a white supremacist means you think whites are better than all others. A mate preference is not saying that. You are attracted to what you are attracted to and that is independent of whether you think any specific race is better.

    Each group should have the right to mate with others they prefer. It doesn’t make them better nor imply anything beyond group attraction. Every other group I have seen has that general preference, why are whites banned with it with such hostile phrasing?

  190. Swanny River says:

    BJ,
    Asking other men about counseling seems useless to me. If someone will give a red pill answer about the counseling then you can just ask them directly about the church. Most men will give superficial blue-pill answers along the lines of “it was really good, helped to trust God more and things are better at home.”
    There, I just saved anyone who would listen to you hours of their time.
    Oscar and Dalrock,
    The way you two corrected BJ and kindly and thoroughly gave him an opportunity to learn was commendable. No snark or attitude, but calm and factual.
    BJ, instead of saying that you think you were clear but am sorry for making hash, I would like you to consider admitting to not writing or thinking clearly and not having conclusions that were logically preceded with valid premises and communicated clearly. Not many can write as well as that hoot that the post above about choosing different types of women did, but you should be able to point out how you mashed things up if you are in actual agreement that you did so.

  191. PokeSalad says:

    Whatever specifics one may want to land on, once a man and wife unite, their outward appearance and behavior is a refection on the husband’s leadership. Same goes for a military unit, a church, a classroom, or a business. Leadership is responsible for outcome, which of course assumes actual authority to make changes as necessary. But we don’t get to assign a husband authority over the family and then claim he is not responsible for the results. That is a contradiction.

    While true in a completely sterile sense, this statement is completely bass-ackwards to the true state of affairs in society today. You, sir, are intellectually blind, which since you are in the ministry, is no real surprise. Your sophistry is not quite Wilson-esque, but of a kind. You two should co-author a book together.

    “Get to assign a husband authority over the family”. LOL. WHO is doing that in 2018? Who? The cucky pastors in your churches? The husbands HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY but not the AUTHORITY. Do you actually KNOW any lay husbands?

    “Closing your eyes……is worse than being blind.” – Johnny Adams

  192. PokeSalad says:

    Sorry, Swanny, my wildly intemperate post rather messed up your attempt at ecumenicalism…..my sincere apologies. Lost my internet temper. I should be better.

    But, then, so should they.

  193. Jeff Strand says:

    Jim: “Who wants to sign a contract knowing a cunt has been granted godlike powers to break it and fuck you over if she changes her mind?”

    We all know how stacked the deck is against you if you’re a man. The question is, what do you do about it? My decision was to marry a NAWALT, and after almost 20 years I can say with hindsight that that was a decision I’m very happy with. (Yes, yes, she could choose to f@ck me over tomorrow…we could be celebrating our 40th anniversary and you’d be saying “but how do you know she won’t change next week?”). Plus, I like that (hopefully) I can look forward to grandchildren in my old age.

    So that’s me. You OTOH clearly don’t view “marry a NAWALT” as a viable strategy. Cool, you do you. But it makes me curious: what is your chosen solution? Celibacy? Go gay? Stick to prostitutes? Or sex dolls? Or just go with porn and your right hand, along with booze, drugs, and video games?

    Which path have you chosen? We’d all like to hear, I’m sure. And I tell you what – if that path has brought you happiness for nearly twenty years, I’ll be sure to point out that starting tomorrow it may make you miserable. Touché.

  194. BillyS says:

    Squid,

    Looking out for “your own” is the very definition of racism.

    So you are racist if you look out for your own family first? BS. Many make this claim, but it is bunk. Human nature is to look out for their own. All black people I have met are racist by this definition, since that is the exact behavior I have seen. It only is applied to white people though, to cowtow them into submission to foolish behavior.

  195. Sharkly says:

    Steve says: Just received a call at my church from Harlequin offering to give a book as a gift to all the women at my church… Needless to say I turned them down

    You did the right thing. They’ve all already got a Bible they should be reading instead, and a husband who needs a helper who is not filling her own head with destructive notions of never ending courtship.

    The way I see it, most men are responders. If their wife is respectful, helpful, faithful, and makes an effort to keep her man’s matrimonial needs met, and keeps herself healthy, men will logically respond by loving and cherishing them as they love themselves. I believe that is why God always tells the wife to submit, before he tells the husband to love her.(the husband responds) There is a divine order to it that the Creator built in, and it works. Some of us go far beyond just responding, and uphold our vows to those who are not faithful to theirs. We remain loyal and principled in the face of contempt and false accusations. My wife is currently tearing down our lives and the children’s. My wife fears intimacy and instinctively returns evil for good. The more loving I behave the more fiendish her betrayals, in order to prevent any intimacy. Like the loving prophet Hosea, my wife responds with the opposite of what should be her response. Job was the most righteous man (per God) and his wife told him; “Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.” Women are certainly not all responders. They are a bit like men, sinful, selfish, self deluded, wanting control, the issue is that although they were made from man, they were made a weaker vessel, so any moral character is more easily broken. Thus our Creator put the man as ruler over the wife. Perhaps because He clearly saw that order as leading to more Righteousness than the other way around. His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. Anyway, switching that order is defying God’s will. Anybody who says otherwise is a false teacher. I’m going with God on this one.

  196. Jeff Strand says:

    @Earl: “If she also thinks jet fuel can’t melt steel beams and the Vietnam war was started under false pretenses…you got yourself wife material right there.”

    LOL! You might be right! It’s always a good sign when chicks are politically incorrect.

    I remember when we were dating and I asked my wife something about the Jews, and she responded “Oh, you mean the Christ killers?” After I snorted my beer through my nose, laughing my ass off, I knew there was something special about this girl!

    Still love everything about her.

  197. 7817 says:

    BJ, I can see where I think you are going with your first comment in this thread, and in a way, it is true that a wife is, or rather can be, a reflection of her husband (provided she is submissive to him).

    However, in this culture, within the church and outside, doing the things necessary to take authority in the home makes you look like a bad person, to virtually everyone in the culture. This is something you did not address in your comment.

    The fact that you left it out either means you haven’t come to grips with it yet (in which case I would suggest you lurk for at least a year and learn as much as you can here and at the rational male), or you do know it and for some reason are obfuscating.

    For my part, I do not trust ANY church anymore on any issue regarding women, not even the church I attend. If it wasn’t for my kids, I probably wouldn’t even go, provided I could find some believers to talk to.

    Every pastor I have listened to, save one, has been converged on this issue.

    The Church Impotent By Leon Podles lays some good groundwork describing the history of this problem.

  198. John James R says:

    Jeff and Joe
    Sitting in a tree
    A-M-O-G-I-N-G

  199. Swanny River says:

    Poke Salad,
    No sweat, but thanks. I could see how calling BJ blind because he is in ministry is intemperate. I’m closer to that then the kindness Oscar and Dalrock gave him. Dalrock hit on the word “hash!” What a great use of it. 4 letters long, accurate, and not condemning. I get frustrated dealing with people in ministry here because we have a biblical command to give them honor, but they all get it wrong, and so consistently, that it’s difficult to throw off the old man, and walk in the new man, when dealing with them.

  200. earl says:

    OT: Male Accuser Finally Turns The Tables Against A Female In Campus Kangaroo Courts

    http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/16/male-accuser-finally-turns-tables-female-campus-kangaroo-courts/

    The money paragraph, which points out something I long suspected…consent isn’t actually about consent, it’s about female consent and holding the power after the event.

    ‘Many attorneys I’ve spoken to who handle these due process lawsuits have pondered the question: If both students were drunk, and both wake up the next morning and race to the Title IX office to accuse the other of sexual assault, and both make it there at the same time, what does the school do?

    The answer, thus far, has appeared to be to favor the female accuser. This was evidenced by Duke University dean Sue Wasiolek, who testified in 2014 that if both students were drunk, “assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”

    So much for that equality all those females are clamouring for.

  201. earl says:

    Besides even if he does gain consent…she could change her mind the minute after the deed is done. What difference does that make with the courts?

    So now women have all the power in marriage and fornication…if they figure out a way to ruin a man’s life because he ignores them all…it’s game over for any options.

  202. BillyS says:

    I was married almost 30 years Jeff, don’t get too cocky.

  203. PokeSalad says:

    My decision was to marry a NAWALT,

    There are not words to convey my contempt for this sort of meaningless blather.

  204. earl says:

    Seems like every 10th threat Joe has to remind us what beta males most guys are compared to him and Jeff has a NAWALT wife.

  205. earl says:

    *thread

  206. 7817 says:

    My marriage was headed for divorce.

    Learned some (somewhat poor) Game, started lifting and learning to ngaf.

    Now my wife often acts like a NAWALT.

    However:
    NAWALT is bullshit. No matter who is saying it. I’ve seen both sides of women, the NAWALT show and the real woman show.

    Women have a sinful nature just like men.

  207. John James R says:

    ——After I snorted my beer through my nose, laughing my ass off, I knew there was something special about this girl!
    Still love everything about her.——

    Tell us more about your better half!

  208. Jim says:

    My decision was to marry a NAWALT,
    There are not words to convey my contempt for this sort of meaningless blather.

    Ikr? It’s just silly. They ALL think they have “NAWALT”.

    My solution? I’ve said it many times. Avoid marriage. It’s not hard and it’s hardly miserable. Playing Russian Roulette is idiotic. Even if guy puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger but all you get is a click, that doesn’t make it the guy any less stupid for playing in the first place.

  209. Sharkly says:

    BJ says: Leadership will always have to deal with rebellion. Good leadership get good results. The truth is the same in the family.

    So, if you get to pick your own twelve students, and after three years of teaching them, one of them sells you out and has you arrested, does that make you a poor leader?

    If you try to explain God’s truth as plainly as you can, and people instead say you have a demon, does that mean you’re a poor leader?

    So if you liberate your whole race from slavery even performing miracles in the process, and then under your command they are so cowardly that they will not fight for a place to live and you wind up stuck wandering the desert with the group for 40 years, does that make you a poor leader?

    If you fear god and flee from evil more that any other man, and you lose all your children, lose all your assets, and get sick and tormented, surely that means you could have been a better leader right?

    If your father makes you a special coat and puts you in charge of keeping an eye on your brothers, and they sell you to human traffickers, surely you wouldn’t make a good leader of a nation, right?

    If you judge things based on “results”, you aren’t, by faith, seeing the unseen things of God.

    Leadership will always have to deal with rebellion. Ecclesiastes 9:18 Wisdom is better than weapons of war: but one sinner destroyeth much good. So Good Christian leadership can’t be judged by earthly outcome. The truth is the same in the family.
    There, I fixed it for you.

  210. feeriker says:

    So now women have all the power in marriage and fornication…if they figure out a way to ruin a man’s life because he ignores them all…it’s game over for any options.

    No, then it’s all-out war, against both women and the few remaining “men” stupid enough to continue to white knight for them.

  211. Boxer says:

    Lots of truth being tossed out in this discussion.

    I was married almost 30 years Jeff, don’t get too cocky.

    That’s right. I’m not wishing you guys ill, but many men in this comment section will tell some pretty compelling stories, about how their precious princess turned on a dime, threw them out of the house, and took them for all their money. It happened with no warning and was totally unexpected. Most of them were guys who sounded a lot like you.

    Ikr? It’s just silly. They ALL think they have “NAWALT”.

    100% of all women I’ve ever known were immoral in every way, beginning with my own mother. If you don’t believe this, then there is something about you which causes some women to put on a show for you. It’s better to face the brutal truth, than to continue to live in ignorance until your sweet NAWALT princess gives you the clue-bat to the side of the head.

  212. John James R says:

    Russian Roulette is about the perfect metaphor too. You either lose or avoid losing, not to be mistaken with winning. There is no winning. That pot-bellied, quads pooling around the knee, ‘better half’ in a bikini at age 42 is the ‘at least I didn’t lose my life’ clicking noise.

  213. Sharkly says:

    Doug Wilson says: The Bible teaches that a Christian husband is responsible for the loveliness of his wife. … When husbands undertake the assigned responsibility of loving their wives in such a way that they grow in loveliness, they need to understand that the results will be visible. … Every husband should learn how to ask, “What will living with a man like me do to this woman’s appearance?”
    https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiJ0ajgmIzbAhUN3GMKHZE3AEIQjRx6BAgBEAU&url=http%3A%2F%2Fseafoodnet.info%2F%3Fk%3DPlodcast%2Bby%2BDouglas%2BWilson%2Band%2BCanon%2BPress%2Bon%2B%2B%2BApple&psig=AOvVaw2q1oTymuqIONX6WqXD2sLG&ust=1526627403079563

    Ooooooh! Better start loving her a lot more Doug! Stop writing all those books and focus on loving her. Better buy her a makeover before God sends you to hell for treating her so bad. My wife looks quite a bit better, and I’m “abusive” Don’t cha know! I can only imagine what you have put that poor woman through.

    Or, you can come off your nutjob theory that loving your wife visibly alters her appearance. The theory would really sell better when presented by the husband of a young knockout.(perhaps you might trade up to a stunning trophy wife to show what a better loving Christian you have become.)

    Proverbs 31:30 Charm is deceptive and beauty fleeting, but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised.

  214. Sharkly says:

    Aww Crap! I messed up the link.

    Dalrock, can you put this picture above if it shows up, and delete this post?

    Otherwise, be it known that Doug Wilson’s wife looks like a typical older lady. Nothing special to look at.

  215. Opus says:

    I was thinking further about Race and what I see as the difference between America and Britain.

    Jason (to take him): his Mother was Welsh and his Father, Polish – both first generation Americans and he clearly identifies and is identified as 100% American. In my thought experiment what would his position have been had his parents instead of setting-up home in New Jersey, relocated near to the Llanberis Pass his father probably working in one of the local slate mines? Jason would be Welsh although his Father being Polish would continue to be seen as such even with British citizenship. The Poles are not popular and not just because they are of the Roman Catholic persuasion; even Russians I would say are less disliked, indeed in a racial beauty contest the Jamaicans and Trinidadians would be seen as preferable to the Poles, yet the Poles unlike those from the Carribean are as with other East Europeans, caucasian, but we don’t want them here. Jason would regard the English as slave-driving colonial masters and the antipathy towards the Taffys is mutual. We barely tolerate the Micks (more Roman Catholics) and look with equal suspicion on the Jocks who hate us. Sometimes when we describe someone as British we use the term as an insult – as if we have placed scare quotes around the word. Australians, Kiwis, Rhodesians, South Africans and New England Americans however are seen as kin and as I indicated we feel paternal affection for those from our former colonies. The term First Generation Briton would be an oxymoron; such a person residing in England would not be English any more than Jason’s Father would be Welsh.

    It is understandable that Americans see Europe as monolithic on the ‘if it is Tuesday this must be Belgium’ approach yet I presume that those living in adjacent or less so American states do not have such suspicions toward each other. Such antipathies were less marked when we were able to make jokes about each other but that is nowadays not permissible as now we imprison people for jokes.

  216. Jeff Strand says:

    @Jim: “My solution? I’ve said it many times. Avoid marriage. It’s not hard and it’s hardly miserable. Playing Russian Roulette is idiotic. Even if guy puts a gun to his head and pulls the trigger but all you get is a click, that doesn’t make it the guy any less stupid for playing in the first place.”

    But you refuse to answer my question. Since you condemn the strategy I chose (of marrying a NAWALT) and in the quote of yours above you rule out marriage in its entirety, WHAT IS YOUR SOLUTION?

    I wouldn’t think your solution is to live with a chick (but just don’t marry her), because that still puts you at risk of false charges of DV, etc. In fact, just being in a romantic relationship at all carries that risk.

    So please enlighten us – what strategy have you chosen? Celibacy? Prostitutes? Sex dolls? Your right hand and porn? What?

    It’s not enough to say “Don’t marry” – that’s a negative command. You have to give the alternative. So let’s hear it.

  217. Jeff Strand says:

    @Boxer: “That’s right. I’m not wishing you guys ill, but many men in this comment section will tell some pretty compelling stories, about how their precious princess turned on a dime, threw them out of the house, and took them for all their money. It happened with no warning and was totally unexpected. Most of them were guys who sounded a lot like you.”

    I don’t know what you expect me to do with this information, at this point. I’m happily married (with kids) almost 2 decades to a girl who emodies every trait that would qualify her as a NAWALT. She’s feminine, submissive to my headship as husband and respects me as the head of the household, teaches our kids that Daddy is the boss, keeps herself fit and attractive, loves cooking for me and taking care of me, gives me sex on demand, she’s redpilled and anti-feminist politically, never questions any decisions I make once I make clear the decision is final (because sometimes I WANT her input before I make the decision final), loves being a housewife and does a good job keeping up the house and kids, and is always telling her girlfriends how lucky she is to me married to me. And thanks me almost every day for working so hard to provide for the family (and she’s now teaching our kids this too).

    Not bragging, those are just the facts. Now, according to you, instead of enjoying my family life I should live in fear she will change on a dime and try to f@ck me over? Even though she’s shown no sign of this in almost twenty years? And if she gives me thirty or even forty years of this kind of service as a wife, I STILL have to live in this fear?

    No thanks. I think I’ll pass on your advice, if you don’t mind. What I’ve been doing so far has been working out great. I’ll just keep it up.

  218. Paul says:

    @Boxer: “100% of all women I’ve ever known were immoral in every way”

    That shouldn’t be a surprise, so are men.

    Rom 3:22b For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.

    What is worrying is that sinful behavior continues without a display of sanctification, or as James put it: such faith is dead.

    James 2:17 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. 18 But someone will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! 20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless?

    24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.

  219. Paul says:

    And to me divorce often classifies as one of the worst displays of unfaithfulness: if you cannot even forgive your own spouse, how do you intend to live life as a disciple of Christ?

  220. Paul says:

    And St.Paul is clear about the importance to care for your household:

    1 Tim 5:3 Honor widows who are truly widows. 4 But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God.[..] 6 but she who is self-indulgent is dead even while she lives. [..] 8 But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

    Worse than an unbeliever.

  221. Hmm says:

    @Sharkly at 9:32 PM – I thought this was the most succinct description of how leadership works in the Scripture – human sin often vitiates our best human efforts. And your bottom line is so true: If you judge things based on “results”, you aren’t, by faith, seeing the unseen things of God.

    You should expand that post into a book: “Leadership Secrets from the Bible”.

  222. earl says:

    100% of all women I’ve ever known were immoral in every way, beginning with my own mother. If you don’t believe this, then there is something about you which causes some women to put on a show for you. It’s better to face the brutal truth, than to continue to live in ignorance until your sweet NAWALT princess gives you the clue-bat to the side of the head.

    To overlook the fact a woman either is immoral or can go immoral is pretty close to woman worship IMO.

    I mentioned earlier upthread what I consider the closest thing to the NAWALT out there.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/05/15/modern-christian-teachers-of-the-lesson-in-the-wedding-of-sir-gawain/#comment-270786

    @Jeff

    ‘I don’t know what you expect me to do with this information, at this point.’

    What do you expect the men who have had their hearts ripped out by their wives who took advantage of what the state gave them to do with the fact your wife is the way she is? It’s like saying, ‘sorry you got divorced/cheated on after 10, 20, 30 years…but my wife is great’. The current environment men are in is that the woman can unleash the power of the state on him at any point and at any time should she wish.

    I’ve never been married…but I’ve seen two of my girlfriends turn on a dime. In that days before they were the ‘NAWALT’ type and then I was blindsided when they dropped the bomb. They can be good actresses, or I was good at deluding myself into thinking things were going good. I’ve seen marriages in my extended family and coworkers stay married for the longest time…but she was just waiting for the right time to drop the ‘d bomb’…turned out she had been storing a lot of resentment but wasn’t going to drop it until things lined up well for her.

    I recognize this is a spiritual war. My solution is a combination of praying for your wife (or future wife), keeping her in the Word, and not letting the enemy get a foothold in there. The serpent never sleeps.

  223. ingracious says:

    First-time poster here, long-time lurker (1-2 years). I generally read every comment on each post here, and have read every single one on this post in preparation for this comment.

    I just thought I’d give some of my thoughts on what’s been discussed here in the comments, particularly what was said by BJ and those who responded to him.

    I’m a 22 y.o. man who would otherwise be interested in marriage, so unlike a few of the fuddy-duddy regulars here (not saying it to insult, just acknowledging the truth) what gets talked about on this blog in both Dalrock’s blog posts and the user comments is actually relevant to my life and may help to influence choices I make in the near future as I head deeper into my twenties and my ability to alter the course of my life diminishes. It’s for that reason I’d like to push the discussion here in a direction that’s more useful.

    With that out of the way:

    There are two things in total that I want to bring up about BJ’s comments:
    The reason most commenters here rightly disagreed with him, and then what I consider an important aspect of his comments that absolutely no one addressed.

    The whole kerfuffle over his knowledge of the Duluth model aside, what I saw as the most revealing comment BJ made was the one on May 16, 2018 at 2:10 pm where he responds to BillyS’s challenge to explain what “the right thing” to do is in the context of marrying in the modern day:

    “The advise I have given to the few young men who have asked me that question (I am less than two years into ministry), looks something like this.
    (1) If his parents are rational and faithful to the Bible, lean on them very hard. If not, without being disrespectful, try not to believe everything they say.
    (2) Study how the prospective girl treats her father and brothers. Is she deferential and respectful? Or argumentative and rebellious?
    (3) Be very specific about their expectations. More often than not, this exploration will reveal the red flags.
    There are more specifics, and there is no perfect solutions, especially in this culture. But if both parents and the church are on board with a Bible-based marriage, I think we really improve our chances for success.”

    Now, on its own this seems like good advice, and it’s mirrored among many other commenters when it comes to the topic of reducing risk when marrying (note: Boxer and Earl’s cute scuffle on May 16, 2018 at 4:22pm – 4:48pm).

    However, what’s something that stands out about this advice? “Wow, this sure seems like advice that could’ve been given to young men 50+ years ago, completely unaltered!”

    When it comes down to it, this is basic advice that you’d give to a young man in a pro-marriage society. Do we live in a pro-marriage society? No! We live in an anti-marriage society which works to make maintaining a healthy, male-lead, non-explodey marriage extremely difficult, which BJ acknowledged in his comments up to this point in the discussion. And yet, his advice – the #1, #2, and #3 pieces of advice, with an effin’ bullet, which he apparently proffers to young men in real life as part of his way to fight the problem as he perceives it – are hum-drum coughdrops.

    To put it simply, as a young man who has read up on this topic, his advice here is COMPLETELY INSUFFICIENT for addressing the problem that men in today’s modern world face when it comes to marriage.

    That would seem to stem from an ignorance of the full extent of the legal threats that men are faced with when it comes to meeting, interacting with, and marrying women which are explored on this blog and which other commenters rightly pointed out to him (Duluth, etc.). If he actually knew the full-scope of the problem, he would give more relevant advice that had a more appropriate dosage size (which would need to be much bigger, much stronger – much faster, much Daft Punk-ter).

    If marriage is a mountain to be climbed, BJ’s advice for men scaling one is the equivalent of strong legs and a tub of trail mix. That was good advice. Now that the mountain is covered in barbed wire and machine gun nests, young men need more than just those two things to reliably make it to the top. They need helmets and body armour to minimise the damage they will receive on the way up, and they need guns, grenades, artillery, and some goddamned air support in order to work to eliminate the obstacles and threats which now stand in their way.

    On that militaristic note, I’d like to bring up my second point:

    There’s one aspect of what BJ was talking about with his initial comments that absolutely no one addressed, nor does anyone seem up to talking about. The unspoken word of the day is: Vigilantism.

    TheFreeDictionary.com defines ‘vigilantism’ as:

    “Taking the law into one’s own hands and attempting to effect justice according to one’s own understanding of right and wrong; action taken by a voluntary association of persons who organize themselves for the purpose of protecting a common interest, such as liberty, property, or personal security; action taken by an individual or group to protest existing law; action taken by an individual or group to enforce a higher law than that enacted by society’s designated lawmaking institutions; private enforcement of legal norms in the absence of an established, reliable, and effective law enforcement body.”

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilantism

    This idea is brought up in many of BJ’s post, but is made clear in BJ’s comment on May 15, 2018 at 12:42 pm:

    “(W)hen in history has a successful patriarchal society ever just rolled over and gave up in the face of rebellion? The response should not be to take your ball and walk away. It should be to stand up to it. Just do what should be done without permission. Maybe there will be set backs, but quitting and going home to cry is a less than masculine response, in my assessment.”

    I agree with this idea. If the law is unjust and harmful, then ultimately the best choice is to seek to implement practices which subvert the law and allow people to prosper in spite of its existence and influence.

    I’m just disappointed that BJ seemed unable to give any practicable, safe and effective courses of action for young men that would justify his bluster on this topic. As mentioned, no one else seems to have taken up the idea of ‘ways in which to go about doing what we all agree is right in spite of what the law says’ and actually discussed it here.

    I bring this up because of a vigilantist idea I’ve had recently that I’d be interested to hear the take of from the commenters here (I’ll call him out – Boxer’s nihilistic opinion would be of most interest):

    Seeing as governments around the world are expanding their arbitrary definitions of “common law marriages” to the point of absurdity and forcing more and more couples to be under the tyrannical umbrella of the state’s marriage laws, it would seem that if a man is to attempt to have a stable, same-residence, male-lead, marriage-like long-term relationship at all in an attempt to improve his society while still remaining under the radar he will soon need to do so within the confines of a legally-defined marriage no matter what.

    Otherwise, his only choice is to give up on the whole idea, ditch his girlfriend and go MGTOW in order not to expose himself to those expanding laws.

    What if, instead of just this cheap ‘find a religious girl’, ‘find a holohoaxy NAWALT like me, Radioactive Man! My wife can suck a golf ball through a garden hose!’ stuff where you’re just meant to roll the dice and hope for the best (or spin the chamber and hope for the best), what if you actually did something that addressed the real problem here?

    It’s unignorable (well, BJ seems able to ignore it, but for most people I’d say it’s unignorable) that the state, its laws, and its enforcers are far too powerful now, and in this day and age an individual man (without the support of an armed and unified vigilante community behind him) cannot outrun the ever-longer long arm of the law if he should ever be accused of violating something like Duluth by his wife. Once she has presented him as prey for the hungry state, he won’t be able to escape from having his life destroyed.

    (This is also why men are often so cowed within relationships and marriages today – they are under real, constant threat! More so the less masculine they are when entering it. One method of self-preservation under such circumstances is to seem like less of a threat by metaphorically castrating themselves, which temporarily placates their wife before ultimately leading to them no longer being attractive in their wife’s eyes, which then likely ends up with them getting divorced and put through the ringer anyway. Schade.)

    Thus, it is the case that any reliable, actionable solution for dealing with the blatant and unignorable risks of marriage would require that a wife be disincentivised from ever using the state in this manner in the first place – a wife must be given a reason not to call the police and say her husband is abusing her when she was in fact the one abusing him in order to have him sent to jail, and a wife must also be given a reason not to divorce her husband whenever she feels like it while falsely claiming abuse, thanks to the state giving her that ability and then rewarding her with cash and prizes whenever she chooses to do so, as many times as she likes, and so on and so on down the line. (That is the state of the modern marriage contract, after all.)

    So…

    What if, when a man enters a committed, marriage-focused relationship, he makes it explicitly clear that if his future wife should ever interface with the state apparatus in an attempt to utilise its powers to threaten, extort, or remove him from his future children, then he will have her killed?

    After all, if a man is to be expected to put his head in a guillotine just in order to get married, then is it not reasonable for him to want to have a gun so that he can shoot her in the moments before the blade falls should she ever pull the lever?

    This could be effected by having a hitman on retainer – an upfront payment and a small yearly fee in order to generate and maintain an omnipresent counter-threatpoint so that a level, honest marriage can be engaged in. It’d probably pay for itself once you factor in the saved costs of divorce, two residences, etc.

    Neither the husband or the wife would have the ability to annihilate the other with impunity, as the wife risks death and the husband risks life-imprisonment for hiring a hitman to kill his wife. Both parties would lose if they attempted to subvert the internal rules of their marriage. This would allow for more reliable dealings, and would prevent the husband from being cowed and made unattractive because he is now no longer the only one threatened.

    Astute readers likely already know which concept I’m dancing around: Mutually Assured Destruction.

    Just add MAD to a marriage, and what do you think would happen? Obviously the blatant immorality and sin of having your wife killed would be an unsurpassable barrier for some (most?) men, but the question is would it be effective?

    It’s well-established in the manosphere that women are by-and-large motivated by incentives and self-interest, so remove the incentives for divorce by making them unattainable in death and thus make it in her self-interest to preserve the marriage and… what would happen?

    Just to be clear, I’m not advocating for this idea to be enacted by anyone, I just think it’s an interesting one to consider in light of a lot of the empty, solutionless talk and posturing that’s occurred in this thread. Have a happy chew, then make sure to use a toothpick.

    TL;DR: What if you introduced MAD into a marriage arrangement upfront by threatening to have your wife killed if she ever abused her state-given powers, so that you could nullify the risks as a man of attempting to enter into a male-lead, “abusive” relationship? Would it help the issue of modern marriage and its surrounding unfair laws?

  224. Swanny River says:

    Jeff and Joe,
    You often come off as a proverbs tone- deaf person who sings to those who mourn.
    Joe, you said in previous threads you do that happy-schtick purposefully because you don’t like the negative stories here and have decided to be a fixer- upper and think your story will make this site more appealing and giving guys hope. Other than Jeff agreeing with you, how is that working out?
    Why do people (Jeff and BJ most recently) retreat to strawmen arguments? It’s like they aren’t getting it. Jeff, no one wants you to live fearfully. That is unbiblical advice that imputes envy to commenters and is uncharitable of you. Try again.

  225. Jim says:

    I’ve never been married…but I’ve seen two of my girlfriends turn on a dime. In that days before they were the ‘NAWALT’ type and then I was blindsided when they dropped the bomb. They can be good actresses, or I was good at deluding myself into thinking things were going good. I’ve seen marriages in my extended family and coworkers stay married for the longest time…but she was just waiting for the right time to drop the ‘d bomb’…turned out she had been storing a lot of resentment but wasn’t going to drop it until things lined up well for her.

    Exactly. They can turn on you in an instant. I’ve seen this in my parents friends and in my own extended family. I’ve never been married either but I certainly have learned from others mistakes.

    A man has to be monumentally stupid or hopelessly naive to get married these days. And it’s not about living in fear you fools it’s about playing the game smart. Or should I say not playing it at all. It’s a rigged game so why play?

  226. Jeff Strand says:

    @Jim: “A man has to be monumentally stupid or hopelessly naive to get married these days.”

    So you said. Multiple times.

    But you keep refusing to answer my question – WHAT HAVE YOU CHOSEN AS THE ALTERNATIVE? Celibacy? Prostitutes? Porn? Sex dolls? What?

    Don’t keep us in suspense, let’s hear it.

  227. Novaseeker says:

    But there are liberals and leftists who are sort of capable of longer time-horizon thinking. Labeling a substantial plurality of the country “permanent badthinker” is a great way to increase polarization. Is that what they really want?

    To put it another way: “This is how you get More Trump. Do you really want More Trump?”

    AR —

    What those types think is that they just need to wait this wave out for another 20-30 years until the demographic switch is done with, and then the kind of whites who support Trump and similar will be demographically irrelevant, and they can rule based on their preferred coalition of educated whites+non-whites+sexualminorities+singlewomen. They see it as a waiting game. No need to compromise or change when you think winning the game in the long run is an inevitability, and that is precisely how they see it — an inevitability.

  228. BillyS says:

    Jeff,

    I don’t know what you expect me to do with this information

    Quit posing and be a bit more humble. You currently seem to have won the lottery, but that can change.

    [1Co 10:12 NKJV] 12 Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall.

    Instead of saying, “look at me, I have done it right!” show humility and admit that much of it is outside your control.

    I would not have married several decades ago had I known this outcome. Pontificating that I just didn’t select the right NAWALT just shows you AMOGing.

  229. Bee says:

    BJ,

    “Secondly, your daughter-in-law is a classic example of why we need to teach and train our children better. We hand our kids off the secular world and then we baptize their heresies in Christian cover. It really bothers me.”

    Wisdom from Dr. Roger Devlin:
    “Women are not born marriageable. They have to be raised in a certain way. They have to be prepared for marriage from an early age.”

  230. 7817 says:

    @Jeff Strand

    “WHAT HAVE YOU CHOSEN AS THE ALTERNATIVE?”

    Not deluding myself. You still believe in NAWALT. There’s no point in discussing alternatives with someone who has deluded himself into believing NAWALT’s exist.

    I’m married, and it’s not bad. But I also recognize reality, thanks to Dalrock and others.

    You should lurk moar, or just come back when your delusions are shattered.

  231. Jeff Strand says:

    @Earl: “The current environment men are in is that the woman can unleash the power of the state on him at any point and at any time should she wish.”

    That’s very true, and it needs to change. And a lot of women are bitches. And many (most?) young ladies today have been ruined by this feminist culture, and are unsuitable as wife material. Men should NOT marry them.

    I agree with all that. But it also remains true that NAWALT’s exist, whether you want to believe it or not. I know firsthand, as I married one. You see, more than one thing can be true.

    It is what it is. Anyway, giving young men the advice “Never marry!” Isn’t going to help them much, as the vast majority are going to marry, period. They will just think you’re a nut and ignore you, as that advice is too extremist. Because as I keep asking Jim, what’s the alternative you’re offering? Porn and your right hand? Prostitutes? A life of loneliness and celibacy? Sex dolls? You see, there’s a reason Jim has refused to answer the question.

    So I think better advice for a young man would be: “Never marry a feminist, a “strong, independent” career type, or any chick with mental problems (especially BPD)”. If we could just get that advice to be taken, think how much progress would be made! And that way, you’re still leaving the door open for the young man to have a wife and family. Because even if he just chooses a “NAWALT-lite”, that still greatly improves his odds, versus marrying your typical feminist-infected broad.

    Then at the same time, we have to work on the political side of the movement – repealing those unjust laws (e.g. The Duluth Model) that put the husband/father at such a disadvantage.

    This path seems to me like a way forward. So while I can appreciate why a man in this cultural/legal climate would refuse marriage (esp a divorced guy who’s already been put through the wringer), I don’t think telling young men to never marry will accomplish very much. I think it’s the wrong approach.

    That’s my two cents. I may be wrong, but I am sincere. If you disagree, I am more than happy to hear your argument, respectfully. Let’s keep it civil and feel free to discuss.

  232. Jeff Strand says:

    BillyS,

    We get it. The woman you married turned out not to be a NAWALT, therefore it is a scientifically proven fact that there are no NAWALT’s, period. (Bonus points to any reader who can name the logical fallacy BillyS is employing here)

    We will just have to disagree, that’s all. Best of luck to you going forward.

  233. BillyS says:

    Jeff,

    You are the one posing “I did it right, look at me.” I am just noting that you can think you did it right and still get whacked. I wish my situation was unique, but it is unfortunately not. I didn’t lose as much as many men, but it really shocked my life.

    A little more standing against unrighteousness on your part and a little less focus on how right you were would be better, though unlikely. Or lurk more as suggested.

  234. Novaseeker says:

    So I think better advice for a young man would be: “Never marry a feminist, a “strong, independent” career type, or any chick with mental problems (especially BPD)”. If we could just get that advice to be taken, think how much progress would be made! And that way, you’re still leaving the door open for the young man to have a wife and family.

    Not nearly enough of them for this to be practical. Almost all women are either feminist (to some degree), or career types. Avoiding mentally ill women is easier, of course. But if you limit yourself to non-feminist, non-career women, you’ve got a tiny pool which may as well not exist as a practical matter for most guys.

    Better advice is how to navigate a marriage to a woman who is somewhat feminist and/or somewhat career. That’s where the good advice is, because that’s what most guys who marry will end up with, and not a NAWALT.

  235. 7817 says:

    @Jeff Strand

    BJ, confused as he is, has better advice and understands this aspect of life better than you.

    You understand nothing. You are here to beat your chest and boast. Your advice is worse than useless.

    You are a natural alpha, and therefore, totally clueless.

  236. John James R says:

    —-and is always telling her girlfriends how lucky she is to me married to me.—

    Not just every so often, but ALWAYS. ALWAYS repeating this to her girlfriends. And the girlfriends don’t get annoyed or give her any blowback either, I bet. How extreme will you go with this larping to make your points?

    —-And thanks me almost every day for working so hard to provide for the family (and she’s now teaching our kids this too).—

    “Almost every day” That sounds like an empty ritual to me if not more of your larping horse%$&#.

  237. 7817 says:

    @ingracious

    That sounds insane.

  238. Joe says:

    Swanny River says:
    May 17, 2018 at 5:26 am
    Jeff and Joe,
    You often come off as a proverbs tone- deaf person who sings to those who mourn. Joe, you said in previous threads you do that happy-schtick purposefully because you don’t like the negative stories here and have decided to be a fixer- upper and think your story will make this site more appealing and giving guys hope. Other than Jeff agreeing with you, how is that working out?
    ————————————————————————————————————————-
    Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is commendable, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
    Philippians 4:8

    Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, so that in due time He may exalt you. Cast all your anxiety on Him, because He cares for you. Be sober-minded and alert. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.…
    1 Peter 5:6-8

  239. Jeff Strand says:

    @Novaseeker: “But if you limit yourself to non-feminist, non-career women, you’ve got a tiny pool which may as well not exist as a practical matter for most guys.”

    Depends on where you’re at. In NYC or Silicon Valley, probably true. Where I live, in the red part of a red state, not very true. So perhaps a marriage-minded young man who lives in a stronghold area of Big Libtard should consider a move?

  240. Swanny River says:

    @ingracious
    Fuddy-duddy has negative connotations and is an insult. If I called you a young dipshit but said it’s a fact, not meant as an insult, how would that sound to you?
    I like brainstorming, so I think the idea of MAD is interesting also, but it’s counterproductive to use your specific example.

  241. feeriker says:

    Ingracious says:

    When it comes down to it, this is basic advice that you’d give to a young man in a pro-marriage society. Do we live in a pro-marriage society? No! We live in an anti-marriage society which works to make maintaining a healthy, male-lead, non-explodey marriage extremely difficult…

    The truly dreadful thing about this for Christians, especially Christian men, is that the “church” today has the same attitude towards marriage as the modern World does. To where does any man turn today for wisdom, guidance, and help in maintaining a marriage in accordance with the Scriptures? Unless he’s fortunate enough to come across a source like Dalrock’s web site, he’s marooned, on his own, abandoned, battling the demons by himself, but for God’s help.

    How very, VERY far we’ve fallen. And Jesus wept.

  242. Jeff Strand says:

    @John James: ““Almost every day” That sounds like an empty ritual to me if not more of your larping horse%$&#.”

    Well, it’s merely a fact so it’s not the latter. As for the former, no…I can’t say that I see it as an “empty ritual” that my wife often (even daily) reminds me that she loves me, that she’s blessed to be married to me, and that she thanks me for working so hard to support the family (and regularly encourages the kids to also thank me). It hasn’t gotten old yet. Go figure.

    If you would have a problem with your wife doing that, perhaps you are the problem? Just saying.

  243. feeriker says:

    You understand nothing. You are here to beat your chest and boast. Your advice is worse than useless.

    God hates pride. On more than one occasion that I’m aware of, He has taken away from prideful men that which was the source of their boasting.

    Jeff had better be careful (but won’t be, because Alpha).

  244. Jeff Strand says:

    @BillyS: “Jeff, You are the one posing “I did it right, look at me.”

    No. What I said was: since I am married to a NAWALT, I know for sure they exist. So marrying one is an option for men to consider. To whit: go find a NAWALT and wife her up.

    To the extent I AM saying “look at me”, it’s the OPPOSITE of bragging. Because the point I’m trying to get across is: “Hey, I’m no better than you guys. And yet I married a NAWALT. So if I did it, then you can do it.”

    I were actually full of myself I’d say: “You guys should forget any attempt to marry a NAWALT. I pulled it off, but only because I’m so Alpha and awesome, unlike you losers. So just forget it, because you sad sacks could never lock down a NAWALT like I did”.

    But no, I’m saying: “If I did it, then you can do it. Don’t give up hope.”

    Get it?

  245. DR Smith says:

    @Dalrock

    Meanwhile, back in parts of Britain, an interesting development has occurred (via Heartsie):
    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/05/16/the-divorce-industrial-complex-responds-to-incentives/

    Seems like this is the template to address many of our concerns….

  246. Jeff Strand says:

    @feeriker: “God hates pride. On more than one occasion that I’m aware of, He has taken away from prideful men that which was the source of their boasting.

    Jeff had better be careful (but won’t be, because Alpha).”

    See my post above, at 9:39. As you read it see if you can follow simple logic, to understand that what I’m saying is the OPPOSITE of “prideful” or “boastful”.

    How is it boasting to tell others “You’re no less than me. If I could do it, then you can do it!”?

    You make no sense.

  247. John James R says:

    Jeff, you’re being disingenuous. You’re here to humblebrag or ‘advicebrag’ if you will. It’s transparent.

  248. Jeff Strand says:

    @John James: “Jeff, you’re being disingenuous. You’re here to humblebrag or ‘advicebrag’ if you will. It’s transparent.”

    Translation: “I’m free to ignore what you ACTUALLY SAY in your posts, and instead impute to you some nefarious intentions that I pull out of thin air and freely apply to you. Even if those nefarious intentions are flatly contradictory to your actual posts”.

    Man, you are a dick. Don’t respond to any more of my posts.

  249. 7817 says:

    @Jeff Strand

    You’re like that strange guy skipping through the hospital singing “I’m healthy! I’m healthy! Be like me be healthy!”

    Look dude, psych ward is that way, exit is the other way, either one you pick is fine. You’re getting in the way of the doctors, nurses, and patients.

  250. Jeff Strand says:

    7817,

    Still waiting for you to answer the question: Since there are no NAWALT’s, and therefore no man should marry, what alternative do you recommend for your average Joe? Celibacy? Prostitutes? Porn and a big bottle of hand lotion? Sex dolls? What?

    C’mon, we’re all ears. It’s easy to say someone else is wrong, but you have to offer your own solution. Let’s hear it.

  251. Jeff Strand says:

    @7817: “You’re like that strange guy skipping through the hospital singing “I’m healthy! I’m healthy! Be like me be healthy!”

    No, it’s more like you’re going to the schools and telling the kids: “Healthy living does not exist! There is no such thing! Why, I know multiple people who ate right and exercised, and they still got cancer! So be sure you never make the mistake of eating right, exercising, avoiding smoking, getting plenty of sleep etc. Because you’re being lied to that healthy living is possible. And BTW, don’t be deceived by someone telling you that they chose healthy living and it’s working out well for them – such a person may SAY they’re trying to encourage you, but really they’re just there to brag about how awesome they are. We know the real truth – any attempt to live a healthy lifestyle is impossible, it’s a fool’s errand, and should therefore NEVER be attempted. So here, have a smoke, a super-sized double quarter-pounder with cheese combo meal, and a whole package of Oreo cookies with Double Stuff. Go to town. And always remember, attaining good health is impossible, so don’t ever try it.”

    So yeah, good luck with that message.

  252. John James R says:

    Maybe prostitutes then. And these prostitutes would blow your wife away. How’s that?

    You remind me of the old tradcons at the golf course all full of talk over their ‘better half’ ‘brides.’ These same guys will nearly pull their cocks out over the 22 year old waitresses, like absolute degenerates. Glowing talk of the NAWALT wife is a tell and a massive overcompensation mechanism.

  253. John James R says:

    Eating right and exercising is a fair game. It’s straight up. Cancer doesn’t get the backing of feminist legislation and government violence. Your metaphor is cute but doesn’t stand up to inspection for even a second.

  254. Gunner Q says:

    Welcome, ingracious!

    About vigilantism, the main thing to remember is that this is a public blog and the Internet never forgets. Advocating lawless solutions would give our enemies plentiful ammunition to attack us (and specifically Dalrock our host) with. This isn’t a forum for discussing *every* possible solution.

    If a man is incapable of treating his wife kindly per Scripture then he’s Biblically ineligible for marriage anyway. That was the point at which I gave up on the idea myself. If I can’t ever trust her, if I need to make constant threats and second-guess her daily behavior and keep a secret passport with money embezzled from myself for an escape to Belize, then getting married even to a unicorn is clearly a bad idea.

    That’s why sex dolls are a thing. $2k and she’ll never betray you. Yes, it’s immoral porn, but porn isn’t 25 years in San Quentin Prison.

    “How is it boasting to tell others “You’re no less than me. If I could do it, then you can do it!”?”

    Because we CAN’T and you don’t care that we can’t. Do remember that half of humanity is on the low side of the Bell Curve, yes?

  255. Swanny River says:

    Jeff,
    Your chest-thumping about absolutes is embarassing to you. It makes you seem like a simplistic moron. If you really think that what is written at Dalrock consists of the absolute”there are no marriable women” then you probably don’t have the ability to engage in the actual discussions. Bombastic “what is the alternative” is a superficial question that advertises its own cluelessness. Do you really think that is an edifying question? I want to ask are you so dumb to think that commenters here, especially Christians, really are only saying, woe, woe, there is no hope? Of course they want to be married you dolt. I can’t say that in confidence to you because I fear you’ll find a counter example and say that I am wrong, “see, not ALL men here want to be married.” Sigh, ok, you are right. I hope Dalrock starts offering you and Joe the main forum here. /s
    I just have a hard time believing you are so clueless, but it is how you are expressing yourself in your writing, mostly, makes it seem to me.

  256. feministhater says:

    Lol! Cheater Jeff is once again on the war path to get others to take the bait. No thanks, Jeff!

  257. 7817 says:

    @Jeff Strand

    I already gave a small part of the plan that helped my situation upthread. It isn’t complete, and wasn’t something I figured out on my own, but rather, I listened to my betters and applied the advice I got here and at the rational male, and from Vox Day, and even some Heartiste.

    And that’s what I would suggest for others too.

    I know that you aren’t competent to teach in this particular situation, because the NAWALT thing was figured out several years ago after lot of discussion, here and other places. If you want to discuss this constructively, you’ve got homework to do.

  258. Damn Crackers says:

    @Jeff – “Celibacy? Prostitutes? Porn and a big bottle of hand lotion? Sex dolls? What?” –

    You forgot one. You can always convert to Salafi Islam. I hear they’re wives are pretty compliant. Also, mutah marriage can only last a few hours or days.

  259. 7817 says:

    I think there is a connection between still believing in the blue pill, or NAWALT, and not understanding just how fallen our world actually is. ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. The only chance any of us have is to hold on Jesus.

    “…real, material, conscious evil, which has absolutely nothing to do with the desire to cause suffering, but rather, the desire to do as one pleases.

    And Jesus Christ is not a myth or a metaphor. He the only way, and the only truth, to systematically combat that very real, material, and conscious evil.” – Vox Day

  260. Jeff Strand says:

    @Damn Crackers: “You forgot one. You can always convert to Salafi Islam. I hear they’re wives are pretty compliant. Also, mutah marriage can only last a few hours or days.”

    Well played, sir. Well played.

  261. Swanny River says:

    Lastly,
    I don’t like these distractions from the original posts, which is why I come here. The distraction I am talking about this time, is Jeff’s proclamation of victimhood over his “bold and brave” question of the alternative to his posts.
    Can we get back to Gawain? There is alot more about that that I am ignorant about and find more fruitful than feeding Joe and Jeff’s self-righteous martyrdom.

  262. Jeff Strand says:

    @Swanny River: “I want to ask are you so dumb to think that commenters here, especially Christians, really are only saying, woe, woe, there is no hope? Of course they want to be married you dolt.”

    Yes, I am “so dumb” to think that. Why? Mainly because they say exactly that, “you dolt”!

    Go read the threads in reply to me. They are saying: “Given that NAWALT’s don’t exist, and given how unfair the divorce and DV laws are, getting married is a sucker’s bet for men. And therefore, NO MAN should marry.”

    Reading comprehension much?

  263. Jeff Strand says:

    @FH: “Lol! Cheater Jeff is once again on the war path to get others to take the bait. No thanks, Jeff!”

    Fear not, FH. I would never try to convince you to find a NAWALT and marry her, so you’re safe. Pretty obvious to me you’re not husband material anyway.

  264. feministhater says:

    Did someone piss in your fruit loops this morning, Jeff?

  265. feministhater says:

    Pretty obvious to me you’re not husband material anyway.

    What?! You mean I’m off the hook? That was a close one!

  266. Jeff Strand says:

    @John James: “Maybe prostitutes then. And these prostitutes would blow your wife away. How’s that?”

    Ok, if that’s your choice, go for it. I really don’t care. But if that’s your solution for the typical young man out there, it’s a total fail.

    First of all, if he’s a Christian then right off the bat he has to reject your advice, as you’re advocating a life of mortal sin. Which merits eternal damnation. OK, so already we’re left with only the unbelievers. How will they fare?

    Well, secondly, you’re advocating a route that may well get them arrested and thereby interfere with their career plans. Not good.

    Thirdly, they are CERTAIN to catch venereal diseases. Even if they use a condim every single time. Because condoms won’t protect them from genital warts, crabs, or herpes. Not to mention the other diseases they may get if they skip the condom here or there. (Is “every single time”, over a period of decades, truly realistic? Will they be sure to use condoms and dental dams or Saran Wrap even for oral sex?). Now, new strains of gonorrhea are untreatable by any known antibiotics – don’t know if you saw that in the news recently.

    Fourthly, they will never know the joy of being the head of a family. Having a loving wife and raising children. Grandchildren in their old age, etc. (which means no one to take care of them in their deteriorating years)

    So look at that list, and compare it to marrying a NAWALT. Further comment is superfluous.

  267. 7817 says:

    What is astounding to me is that these ideas are so old. I don’t remember reading about Sir Gawain’s wedding before, but it’s the same idea that our modern Christian marriage authorities push, of giving sovereignty to the wife.

    It’s fascinating stuff. Very discouraging to have trusted the evangelical culture for so long, but the truth is good to get, even if I got it late.

  268. Jeff Strand says:

    @FH: “Did someone piss in your fruit loops this morning, Jeff?”

    I gues because you took it as a shot that I said you’re not husband material. And I totally see how you could view that as an insult. But that wasn’t my intention. I simply meant what the actual words said; nothing additional was implied.

    In other words, based on your oft-stated diatribes against marriage and (all) women, I don’t think any marriage-minded woman either would or should consider you marriage material. Nor would I recommmed you marry. That’s all.

    Put that way, I’ll bet you even agree with me! (And yes, you’re off the hook. No one here, least of all me, is trying to talk you into wifing some chick up)

  269. Anonymous Reader says:

    What is astounding to me is that these ideas are so old.

    Likewise. As I stated in a previous thread, when Dalrock first started pulling at the threads of the Cult of Courtly Love I really didn’t understand the point. Now it is obvious, much of this nonsense dates to the 14th century or earlier. That’s why it is so deeply embedded into Anglosphere culture, and that’s where foolishness such as Doug Wilson’s text waaaaay up at the top of the OP stems from.

    This cultural stuff is in the water and the air, in a sense, and if we don’t push back against it consciously then we accept it and buy into it unconsciously.

  270. Damn Crackers says:

    “First of all, if he’s a Christian then right off the bat he has to reject your advice, as you’re advocating a life of mortal sin.”

    Is it a mortal sin? Only according to some churches it is. Even so, there are other mortal sins that get forgiven everyday that are worse.

  271. John James R says:

    You’re the one who kept trying to humiliate the guy over his options. You kept coming back to that and it was hostile. Then you backpedal and try to be the good guy. We’re seeing what you’re doing, all along the way.

    And right or wrong, damnation or not, the young escorts in this new world of hypergamy/internet have way more sexual value than your old wife. It’s just something to consider.

  272. 7817 says:

    What does the idea that a wife is a “Responder” have to do with the concept of Agency? Right now, my understanding is that women have less agency than men, though they still have it.

    If I understand the Doug Wilson types right, they want to have it both ways, just like the feminists. They want a women to absolutely have agency when it is advantageous, but they want a woman to have no agency if there is a problem that can be blamed on a man.

  273. Damn Crackers says:

    Apparently prostitution, like masturbation, could be a venial sin:

    The second type of venial sin involves situations in which the matter is serious enough to be gravely immoral, but the offense lacks at least one of the other essential elements required for mortal sin. The Catechism explains that one commits only venial sin “when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter but without full knowledge or without complete consent” (CCC 1862).

    An example of this could be masturbation. The Catechism explains:

    To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility [for masturbation] . . . one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability. (CCC 2352)

    https://www.catholic.com/qa/what-are-some-examples-of-venial-sins

  274. Anonymous Reader says:

    7817
    My marriage was headed for divorce.
    Learned some (somewhat poor) Game, started lifting and learning to ngaf.
    Now my wife often acts like a NAWALT.

    A real success story is always good to read. You were likely alpha enough early in marriage and became betaized over time, but not so deeply that no recovery was possible.
    One of the things about Game that is testable: you don’t have to believe in it for it to work. It’s not some Tony Robbins seminar thing, it’s repeatable psychology. Agree & Amplify, picking a woman up at the right psychological moment and carrying her out of the room, etc. speak to the “firmware” of women, not the rational part.

    PS:
    Your course is likely the exact opposite of what Doug Wilson or any other celebrity preacher would tell you.

  275. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    What those types think is that they just need to wait this wave out for another 20-30 years until the demographic switch is done with, and then the kind of whites who support Trump and similar will be demographically irrelevant, and they can rule based on their preferred coalition of educated whites+non-whites+sexualminorities+singlewomen.

    That’s ironic, not too many years ago saying something like that would get the “racist” label. Now it’s ok within certain confines to say this openly? That is interesting in itself.

    The demographic trend seems to support that view, however there are a number of assumptions hidden away that may or may not remain viable over the next generation. Thanks for the observations.

  276. OKRickety says:

    Jeff Strand said: “Depends on where you’re at. In NYC or Silicon Valley, probably true. Where I live, in the red part of a red state, not very true. So perhaps a marriage-minded young man who lives in a stronghold area of Big Libtard should consider a move?”

    Based on what I see in my red flyover state, I agree with Novaseeker. And, even if the pool is not tiny, the obesity level of the women makes it look that way. 🙂 Also, let’s keep in mind that you found your NAWALT wife over 20 years ago. Feminism has since increased its influence so the pool keeps shrinking.

  277. 7817 says:

    Exactly right anon, for a time I was pretty upset at the Christians I grew up believing.

    It doesn’t do any good to be pointlessly angry though. On the upside, going through this teaches a man a lot about what advice to ignore.

  278. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Damn Crackers

    Not enough pointless contention in the thread, so you have to drag in the whole Roman Catholic vs. Protestant dead horse also, just to beat on it for a while?

  279. feministhater says:

    I gues because you took it as a shot that I said you’re not husband material. And I totally see how you could view that as an insult. But that wasn’t my intention. I simply meant what the actual words said; nothing additional was implied.

    I didn’t take your comment as an insult, in fact I quite agree with it. The above quote from myself why posted before I read your next comment.

  280. feministhater says:

    In other words, Jeff. You’re acting like someone took a piss in your fruit loops. What are you overcompensating for? Didn’t get any good action last weekend?

  281. American says:

    A teacher had sex with a minor student at the public school the teacher taught at and attended student parties where the teacher danced drunkingly around in panties. But because the teacher has female reproductive organs, instead of male reproductive organs, the teacher will won’t have to register as a sex offender and will be permitted to resume teaching.

    If the teacher were a male, of course, prison/sex registry/life-long ban from teaching would be the outcome. But this teacher has female reproductive organs, instead of male reproductive organs, so the rule of law becomes corrupted and not applied fairly.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/female-teacher-who-had-sex-with-a-student-wont-have-to-register-as-a-sex-offender/

  282. Damn Crackers says:

    @Anonymous Reader –

    I’m not Catholic, but I admire them. I was answering a comment that was posted above here.

    Also, are you the moderator here? If so, please list your rules for posting on Dalrock’s site so we commentators know what is acceptable and what is not.

  283. 7817 says:

    “it does mean that a man who marries biblically should expect his wife to be visibly lovelier on their tenth anniversary—and if she is not, he knows that he is the one responsible.”

    These kinds of lies from Wilson are despicable.

  284. jon dough says:

    I would suggest we all wait on further commentary about the existence of the being known as NAWALT until Jeff has passed away, his NAWALT wife has passed away, or he has been frivorced.

    Until then, the “is there or ain’t there a NAWALT for me?” question remains locked in a state of quantum superposition.

  285. Scott says:

    I am becoming a fan of 7817’s approach to all this because it is very reasonable/rational.

    It is consistent with my own story as well. In my first marriage, when things started to look grim, I played (against my natural instincts) the blue pill play book down to every detail my pastors, elders, husbands and their wives in the church around suggested, and still ended up frivorced.

    Still basically like that when I met Mychael, I have, through much trial and error reverted back to much of my former high school jock behaviors within the context of marriage as well as simply reading around here. And I am on much more stable ground in my marriage. I don’t pretend she is NAWALT. Or that either one of us are made up of some material that rest of you losers are. I move forward with knowledge I did not have before and I am basically happy with married life.

  286. Scott says:

    I think this (my comment just above) is why several posters around get so much push back from the walking wounded around here. Its just not humble.

  287. Scott says:

    By the way, for those following along, this is what we were up to last week:

    https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/2018/05/15/another-step-closer/

  288. John James R says:

    “it does mean that a man who marries biblically should expect his wife to be visibly lovelier on their tenth anniversary—and if she is not, he knows that he is the one responsible.”
    These kinds of lies from Wilson are despicable.

    Is this Wilson, Geraghty and the gang finding a way to counterpunch the overwhelming obesity-fail of women?

    Even that is considered the man’s fault. Hilarious . But it reveals that even they are acknowledging how physically unattractive Western women are these days. Just had to find a way to blame men and then the issue can safely come out into the open.

  289. John James R says:

    If only men were more dutiful, devoted, steady and responsible instead of being such devil-may-care, freewheeling, fly-by-night bad boys then the women would have some good men to choose from, giving them some reason to stay trim and pretty. But the lack of good, wholesome, humble, modest men just leaves them with nothing to desire so they get fat.

    So perfectly upside down in every way.

  290. Swanny River says:

    They get fat because of the role of people-pleaser they play in order to appease the patriarchy, or so they say. It’s because they love too much, or as CBMW (?) Would say, it’s because of the sin of servility.

  291. 7817 says:

    Thanks for the kind words Scott, though I can’t take much credit. Everything I’ve done was learned from sources other than myself, here in the manosphere.

    And even with the success I’ve had there’s no guarantee of long term success.

    Nova and Deti have consistently good advice; anybody new here ought to be listening to guys like that.

  292. AnonS says:

    Practical ways to get around bad incentives?

    Put your savings in a Nevada asset trust, wife can’t get in event of divorce.

    Transfer house to LLC that you own with some friends. Can’t lose house.

    Require dowry from wife’s family / her continued payment into a trust setup for the kids. This is her money that she won’t have access to and will instead go to the kids. No safety net if she wants to frivorce.

  293. feministhater says:

    I don’t pretend she is NAWALT. Or that either one of us are made up of some material that rest of you losers are.

    Bait or not?

  294. BJ says:

    @Bee

    Thank you for the quote. Totally agree.

  295. BJ says:

    @ingracious

    Thanks for the interaction, even if you took some pot shots.

    “To put it simply, as a young man who has read up on this topic, his advice here is COMPLETELY INSUFFICIENT for addressing the problem that men in today’s modern world face when it comes to marriage.”

    I would just respond by saying that I did add this: “There are more specifics, and there is no perfect solutions, especially in this culture.” I didn’t have time in a comments post to address everything.

    To your point about vigilantism, I think the best way to deal with increasing pressure from this culture is to build communities around these ideas. I know many here despise the church, I have chosen to go into ministry in order to try and build a community around these ideas. It is not a perfect place and never will be, but if we work together, and work hard, and men are courageous enough to lead, I am convinced it can be done. Perhaps I am naive to point of stupidity. I freely admit that I could be total failure in the end. But as a man, I have to try.

    We can disagree about strategy and even assessment of the situation. But that is the advantage of forums like this. We hear from different voices in the fight. We encourage one another. We help one another. We learn from one another.

    Thanks, again.

  296. Lost Patrol says:

    Bait or not?

    Humor. A vital component in the men’s sphere. Wry, dry, black, whatever you got; except maybe slapstick. Used judiciously of course.

  297. BJ says:

    @Sharkly

    You do understand that much of what you point to as poor “results” are actually God’s ordained prophecies coming to pass, right? The rebellious disciple was actual God getting the results He intended.

    But also, leadership can never be judged by one or two instances. It is over a lifetime or even beyond that we see results. Paul failed many times. So, too, did Peter and John. Yet, here we are 2000 years later and over 2 billion people claim the name of Christ. We can point to their set backs and foibles, and even ridicule the followers of today. But what we can’t rightly do is say they were poor leaders. They got the results they worked for.

  298. feministhater says:

    Humor. A vital component in the men’s sphere. Wry, dry, black, whatever you got; except maybe slapstick. Used judiciously of course.

    Guess so. Difficult to tell sometimes if someone is mocking or merely trying to convey a more subtle point.

  299. BJ says:

    @7817

    Thanks for the thoughts.

    “However, in this culture, within the church and outside, doing the things necessary to take authority in the home makes you look like a bad person, to virtually everyone in the culture. This is something you did not address in your comment.

    The fact that you left it out either means you haven’t come to grips with it yet (in which case I would suggest you lurk for at least a year and learn as much as you can here and at the rational male), or you do know it and for some reason are obfuscating.”

    I didn’t address it in depth, because this is a comments sections, and then I got blasted with Duluth stuff which I promised to read. But I did address it generically. I said we have to not care what our detractors think. Far too many people are so worried about being called sexist or racist or whatever-ist. Just accept that if we follow the Bible’s teaching, particularly about male headship, we will labeled all sorts of horrible things. Getting a thick skin is the starting point. From there, we can talk specifics, particularly the dangers highlighted by many posters here about the legal pressures.

    I am not obfuscating, btw, I’m just not going to write a 12 paragraph post to detail everything about a topic.

  300. feministhater says:

    You do understand that much of what you point to as poor “results” are actually God’s ordained prophecies coming to pass, right? The rebellious disciple was actual God getting the results He intended.

    You’re exactly right! And as such, so are all the actions taken by the men here to protect themselves from a rapid feminist society. All part of God’s divine plan.

  301. Nathan Bruno says:

    BJ
    May 15, 2018 at 12:08 pm
    “Whatever specifics one may want to land on, once a man and wife unite, their outward appearance and behavior is a refection on the husband’s leadership. Same goes for a military unit, a church, a classroom, or a business. Leadership is responsible for outcome, which of course assumes actual authority to make changes as necessary.”

    BJ
    May 15, 2018 at 12:39 pm
    “Leadership is much bigger than that. Do you think that if a general in charge of a military unit had some troops refuse to heed his orders and the mission failed, that he would just get off the hook because, “Golly gee whiz they wouldn’t listen”?”

    “Leadership will always have to deal with rebellion. Good leadership get good results. The truth is the same in the family.”

    BJ
    May 17, 2018 at 3:19 pm
    “But also, leadership can never be judged by one or two instances. It is over a lifetime or even beyond that we see results.”

    “We can point to their set backs and foibles, and even ridicule the followers of today. But what we can’t rightly do is say they were poor leaders. They got the results they worked for.”

  302. Dalrock says:

    @feministhater

    I don’t pretend she is NAWALT. Or that either one of us are made up of some material that rest of you losers are.

    Bait or not?

    I think it was a typo.

  303. Scott says:

    Feminist hater

    The losers comment was me making fun of the onlyreal man in the room argument.

  304. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    AnonS: Put your savings in a Nevada asset trust, wife can’t get in event of divorce.

    Transfer house to LLC that you own with some friends. Can’t lose house.

    Trusts are an imperfect solution. There was a court case in which the man’s parents gave him a house, which he kept in a trust in his name. During the divorce, the judge agreed the house was the man’s. So instead, the judge ordered the man to buy another house, or equivalent value, for the wife.

  305. John James R says:

    I don’t think it was bait. He was trying to say that he’s willing to talk about his successful marriage without having to pass anywhere near the veiled “you guys are losers if you’re not like me” territory. He’s not interested in that terrain and doesn’t think that way. I think that was his point. So he’s in stark contrast to Jeff “Who me? Why, I’m no better than anyone, (while signaling that I’m better than everyone)” Strand.

  306. feministhater says:

    The losers comment was me making fun of the onlyreal man in the room argument.

    Thanks for the clarification.

  307. feministhater says:

    I don’t think it was bait. He was trying to say that he’s willing to talk about his successful marriage without having to pass anywhere near the veiled “you guys are losers if you’re not like me” territory. He’s not interested in that terrain and doesn’t think that way. I think that was his point. So he’s in stark contrast to Jeff “Who me? Why, I’m no better than anyone, (while signaling that I’m better than everyone)” Strand.

    Yeah, I thought it was that but the wording seemed off to me so I asked.

    I do so like the non-non humble brag Jeff maneuver.

  308. John James R says:

    “So instead, the judge ordered the man to buy another house, or equivalent value, for the wife.”

    I’ve heard about that before, maybe from here. A guy lost a beloved house in his first marriage so for his second marriage, he made a Fort Knox-like prenup that guaranteed he would keep his second house in the event of a divorce. The judge sensed the relentlessness of how iron-clad it was and basically responded with; “Okay, okay. Keep the house. I get it. It’s yours…..Sheesh…..But buy her a house of equal value” Hilariously tragic.

  309. Scott says:

    John James- correct. It was a mimic.

  310. Scott says:

    My prayer is for every man who wants a marriage that is friendly, fun, non-contentious, affectionate, God honoring to have one. Finding a wife who at least tries to understand herself and her status as an equally fallen creature with deadly power over men in western marriage like I do. Finding a NAWALT and telling everyone who can’t they are shitty at screening is not a particularly good strategy.

    There are realistic ways to create that environment and conditions, and stupid ones.

  311. Scott says:

    Should read “Finding a wife who at least tries to understand herself and her status as an equally fallen creature with deadly power over men in western marriage like I have is probably the best way to do that

  312. John James R says:

    “Non, non-humble brag”

    Ha ha. In the form of advice/innocent questioning/flattery to boot. You have to give him credit for his complexity. He gets into octuple negatives to throw us off his AMOG trail.

  313. Oscar says:

    BJ says:
    May 17, 2018 at 3:25 pm

    “Far too many people are so worried about being called sexist or racist or whatever-ist. Just accept that if we follow the Bible’s teaching, particularly about male headship, we will labeled all sorts of horrible things. Getting a thick skin is the starting point.”

    There it is again.

    No one here is “worried about being called sexist or racist or whatevier-ist”. We’re all used to it. What those of us who live in reality are worried about is getting dragged into court (civil or criminal), and being LEGALLY sanctioned as an “abuser” for no reason other than exercising Biblical headship. It’s happened to others, and it will happen again.

    “Getting a thick skin” is no defense against legal action.

    And flippantly dismissing that risk not only doesn’t help, it makes matters worse.

  314. Lost Patrol says:

    My prayer is for every man who wants a marriage that is friendly, fun, non-contentious, affectionate, God honoring to have one.

    I personally appreciate the anecdotes of men who are succeeding at some reasonable level with this. I like to know that it is happening somewhere, and that maybe my own younger kinfolk and friends can get in on something like that someday.

    I also know there are men here that have been figuratively shot in the head by the feminist juggernaut, and that aren’t yet in the mood for much in the way of happy tales, or humor, for that matter.

    It’s all in how the story is told, which isn’t always easy using ones and zeros. Some men are much better at it than others, and after awhile we kind of know who they are. I find it astounding how much of my personal brilliance has gone by unremarked, or pointed out as actually bone headed; but I remain grateful there is a place where we can air out things that can barely be spoken of anywhere else.

  315. Jim says:

    No one here is “worried about being called sexist or racist or whatevier-ist”. We’re all used to it. What those of us who live in reality are worried about is getting dragged into court (civil or criminal), and being LEGALLY sanctioned as an “abuser” for no reason other than exercising Biblical headship. It’s happened to others, and it will happen again.

    Yup. Many of these idiots think we’re worried about getting called names online (smfh). I’ve been called every name in the book for all kinds of things I’ve said and not just about this subject. Who gives a shit about that? This isn’t about mean words you idiots, that’s what cunts always bitch about.

    I’ll just echo what you said about the woman having the LEGAL power to annihilate your life for no other reason than she feels like it. It’s amazing that this is such a difficult concept for so many people to grasp. Not only that but how indifferent men can be to losing more and more of their own rights. And yet they continue to defend muh lady at their own expense all because the target of a lot of our criticism has a hole between their legs.

    And yes, a lot of good a “thick skin” is going to do a guy when the police are smashing your door down because the cunt got mad or a judge makes you her slave because vagina.

  316. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: All you sexist pigs need to stop working so much!

    In short, men need to work fewer hours and women need to work more… Women are less likely to negotiate salaries when starting a new job and when in post, so employers could rule out the possibility of negotiation altogether or make sure all employees earn at least as much as any new recruit on the same level. ~ Catherine Colebrook, IPPR’s chief economist and co-author of the report, The State of Pay

  317. John James R says:

    A call for “Thick skin” in a culture that is currently moving very quickly towards legislation that allows a woman to rescind consent AFTER sex, among other extraordinary and illogical power structures either already established or currently in the works. But just alpha up bros! You’ll have that embittered, 58 year old spinster judge just giggling away and making a pool in her panties with your courtroom game. Sure.

    Meanwhile, 90% of men would be mystified about the stuff we talk about here and quickly dismiss it as ‘tin foil hat’ stuff.

    Jim, I always like it when you comment. I’ve seen ‘Manosphere Jim’ comments on various sites. I always chime in when guys suggest that all male kowtowing is due that magical vaj though. I kinda disagree. The females with that degree of “All hail the almighty vaj” vaj are not only the 25 and unders but even a surprisingly small percentage at that. Even a lot of females that age have Haagen-Daz’ed away their golden vaj power. So it’s overrated. The ratio of women over 35 with that kind of “all hail my vaj” vaj is about what? One in 50? The level of sex appeal where her interests are basically taking precedence because the sexual reward makes it that way. It’s so rare outside of teens/college kids. So the power is political, collective voting not in the golden vaj of 210 pound short-haired assholes. A room full of fifty-something feminists isn’t turning men into tits-in-their-eyes zombies at all. Not in the least. NOT EVEN CLOSE. Yet when gender power structures are being discussed, women are often credited with this juggernaut sexuality. It’s really not how it is. There is remarkably little sexual power coming from females as a whole these days. You just notice it when you see it. The 10 (out of 700) sexually potent women I saw while out and about in Seattle the other day are the ones I remember though. So there’s an element of illusion. That 22 year old Eurasian showing off about 5 full inches of cleavage though. “Wow! Women! They’re so incredible!” That’s how male minds work. What about the literally hundreds of fatasses though? It’s a sliver of their population that has sexual clout and it’s the kids for all intents and purposes anyway. I have a joke with a few of my buds when we go about in Seattle. Whenever there is a glimpse of healthy female sexuality, nice tail, some legs or cleavage. I go, “Look. It’s female sexuality!…Aaaand she’s 16” (Laughs). Because usually that is what is happening. It’s almost always the case. Sexuality in females is getting to be a kid’s domain. With a small percentage of careerist crossfit shrikes who actually work out etc. But look around. How many women have sexual power? And of those, how many are not literally still kids? By kids I mean 15-23, just for the record.

  318. John James R says:

    Oscar,

    2018….When you can swap out “Onion” for “Guardian” in your browser without changing one single word in the article and no one would ever notice.

  319. feeriker says:

    Just accept that if we follow the Bible’s teaching, particularly about male headship, we will labeled all sorts of horrible things. Getting a thick skin is the starting point.”

    Hey, Clueless, newsflash for ya:

    No one cares about being “called nasty names” by the WORLD. Every Christian expects that. What we most assuredly DO take issue with is (supposedly) fellow CHRISTIANS doing this, and joining the World in persecuting those who are supposed to be their brothers in Christ (yes, I’m looking at YOU, Doug Wilson, Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, Tim Kellr, Sam(antha) Powell, and hundreds of other churchian femboy sellouts out there) who tale God’s word seriously and live by it, no matter how much it conflicts with society and the culture.

    With “Christians” like those, who needs enemies among thenon-believers?

  320. feeriker says:

    . ~ Catherine Colebrook, IPPR’s chief economist and co-author of the report, The State of Pay

    Evidence concrete of why there are almost no female economists, especially not in any positions of importance. If this one is representative of the lot, may no major, profitablecorporation ever be cursed with one.

  321. John James R says:

    Equal pay shriking won’t ever go away. Not even when women feather-dusting knick knacks in gift shops are paid more than guys throwing chain in North Dakota at twenty below. Once female earnings dwarfs male earnings (coming soon), then the tune will switch immediately to triumphalism/shaming.

  322. BJ,

    (regarding the difference between women and feminism)

    I see quite clearly that those two are not the same thing and never once claimed they were. I loathe feminism and everyone in my church knows it.

    Okay so far so good.

    I teach men to lead their wives as taught in the Bible and to do so without fear, without fear of judgment from the culture, the church, and though we have to be cautious with the law, to do so biblically even in the face of the law. I know it is hard enough to lead biblically in this world without the attacks from a degraded culture. But we are men and still have to have enough courage to do it in spite of the difficulties.

    Nope, not good enough. You just lost me. You know why you lost me? Because you didn’t get into the weeds. You didn’t get into the specifics. I don’t want to hear from you that you teach men to lead their wives and be cautious with the law. The two are in fact, at odds. They are opposites. To say those things is akin to believing that women and feminism are one and same. What you SHOULD be doing (but I know you won’t) is the following:

    Find out which politicians that are AGAINST the Duluth Model, which politicians are AGAINST no-fault-divorce-law, and advise your congregation to vote for them. If the problem regarding headship in marriage is local, stage, and federal secular law, then have the people who listen to you vote for people to change those laws. That is one.

    If there ARE NO politicians that are running for office that are against the Duluth Model, are none that are against no-fault-divorce-law, then you should be doing all that you can to get any unencumbered young people in your congregation to run for office with that kind of platform. Tell them that they will have the full support of your church and you will do all that you can to see that they are elected. That is two,

    Command women in your church to OBEY THEIR HUSBANDS. Tell them point blank, look them in the eye and say to them, he is your master, you are his helpmeet, and you are to OBEY him in ALL THINGS. Do that and watch what happens in your church. Watch it empty and watch your offering plate empty. That is three.

    Encourage the maidens in your congregation (if there are any) to only take a date with one who would make a good mate. That is four.

    And finally, don’t offer any “support” (emotional, financial, spiritual, anything) to any women in your congregation who divorced their husbands. In fact, it might be a good idea to prevent them from entering your church until they have repented for their sin. And when I mean repent I mean, that they beg their ex-husbands to take them back and promise to OBEY THEM in all things. That is five.

    I say that not to mean that I am somehow more courageous than anyone here. I don’t know anyone here personally, and I am not some macho tough guy. I am a short chubby redneck white boy from southern Ohio. I say we must be courageous enough to do it in the face of these challenges, because I love women, too. It is best for them, our children, our churches, and the culture at large. Men leading well is a key factor for a healthy society.

    Well you might be more courageous than most people here if you did the 5 things I listed. If you went out of your way to RISK YOUR CONGREGATION by preaching God’s word (which is basically all I did) and the women in your church told you to go piss up a rope as they walked out the door (taking their tithes with them) then at least you could say you tried to lead. And you were being a good leader even if the results weren’t there. You were being Biblical. Alas, given your last comment…

    I guess I never expected that that would be controversial here.

    What you are saying IS controversial here because what you are saying IS FEMINIST. You can’t lecture men to lead their wives and NOT lecture women to OBEY their husbands in all things. I mean it, ALL THINGS. If you are “afraid” of telling the wives in your church to submit to their husbands, that is because you are feminist and you assume all women (by virtue of them being women) are feminist.

  323. freebird says:

    earl made the comment people can be more holy as they get older
    They can also become more evil,see my mother.

    Jeff asks what is the alternative to marriage and only lists sexual things as possible alternatives.
    Is that what a “good” marriage is, masturbating into your wife’s pussy?”

    to be fair,it’s the left hand and the sex is far better than any woman could provide,without having to listen to her abusive mouth.

    I had thought marriage must be more than winning at the sex game, I guess I’m wrong again,no surprises there.
    But then again,everyone knows married guys only get laid once a month at best.
    A total mangina slave to the bitch mouth everyday of the month.
    Great deal!
    So happy 4 u.

  324. Sharkly says:

    Ingracious,
    Thanks for the great first post, and welcome to the discussion. Your analysis seems like you are wise beyond your years (22). Also you ask very good questions. Thanks again, it was a joy to read.

  325. Paul says:

    @Oscar

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/10/help-men-work-less-to-close-gender-pay-gap-says-thinktank

    Title says it all: men earn more because they work more, hence there is no pay gap. Thank you for confirming that thinktank!

  326. Swanny River says:

    Freebird,
    My wife is worse than your hypothetical, but if you are here, you probably have a desire for a submissive helpmeet. Despite my experience, I think they exist, and as Scott sows, they can also be shaped to be that. If God is calling you to service and not showing you anyone good, then God Bless you, because you’ll do it without a helper, and which only may be due to the great amount of sin we live in. And if you can find someone, may God bless you too, as you’ve had your eyes open to the potential costs of getting a wife and fighting her every day or keeping peace by being humiliated.

  327. Sharkly,

    It was a great first post but I seriously doubt the poster is 22. If he is, he has an outstanding future ahead of him. I expect great things of him. And I don’t say that because I am endorsing the killing of wives who invoke threatpoint. Instead, I say that because Ingracious has appeared to master a serious problem (a problem society largely does not dignify AS a problem) and is looking for logical ways to solve it.

  328. Swanny River says:

    Freebird,
    I say this as a reminder, not a lesson- God is greater than singleness or a good marriage and even a bad marriage ( though I do often pray for my wife to leave or die). Thing is, millions like her still exist, even if we split. The bible says you can’t grind the foolish out of a fool though they are ground in a mortar with a pestle, and also says let an unbeliever depart from a marriage if they choose to, so I think at some point, we can have peace, even though we may currently occupy the corner of a roof, because they’ll either be gamed to goodness, or leave, but I doubt they are changed at all, like I have seen men transformed.

  329. feeriker says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:
    May 17, 2018 at 6:39 pm

    +1000

  330. John James R says:

    The ‘Duluth Model’ is often brought up here and I basically understand its general tenets and certainly get the point when it’s used in context but I’d like to read about it more thoroughly. Does anyone know a book that goes over it? Not just the book written by the originators of it, but a response to it. Or has Dalrock himself explained in detail?

  331. Scott says:

    John James-

    Dalrock has several really in depth posts about it, that are buried pretty deep in the past. I have several thousand clinical contact hours experience in the trenches with its application at the state-mandated level.

    I think AvFM website has a couple of psychologists who write about it tangentially.

    There are several central problems with it as an out dated model for explaining human behavior. of course, in this case family violence.

    The main one is that it uses a deeply feminized-historical-revisionist approach to explaining relationship dynamics that assumes ZERO of the variance can be accounted for by anything other than socialized patriarchal misogyny. No psychopathology. No genetic component. Nothing but men hating and controlling women for centuries in an endless cycle of “power and control” that must be broken by re-educating men about their destructive core beliefs.

    None of its basic hypotheses have ever been tested and replicated on a grand enough scale to draw any serious conclusions from it. It is an entirely theoretical model that oversimplifies all the extremely complex interacting variables that cause people to use violence in their most intimate relationships.

    When I am ready I will be writing a lot more based on my experience shoving this model down the throats of the men who were compelled by the state to listen to me under threat of imprisonment. Maybe a book.

  332. Sharkly says:

    Jeff Strand,
    I think people are not upset by a purported lack of humility, I think it is because of your foolishness that you upset them. Many faithful people here have been through great pain, and continue to be subjected to great torment in accordance with the sovereign will of God. The Bible is full of Godly men who had trying lives. In fact God implies that the greatest usually suffer the most. And you can see this born out throughout history. I would not brag that you have an easy life, and point your accusing finger at those who are more tested by God. You are ignorantly mocking those whom God Himself has smitten.

    Psalm 69:26 For they persecute him whom thou hast smitten; and they talk to the grief of those whom thou hast wounded. 27 Add iniquity unto their iniquity: and let them not come into thy righteousness. 28 Let them be blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the righteous.

    I would take pause before you continue to mock the pain God places on others. This displeases God, and God may visit it upon you. Please repent! For your own sake.
    I once thought just like you! I really did. I swear it.
    You are clearly able to out argue many of the folks here. So what? Did God anoint you to torment your fellow believers?

    I acknowledge in hindsight I made a horrible choice in my wife, but I was able, through constant work, to keep the worst situation going for 16 years, out of duty to God, and due to many great Alpha traits I posses. I also see folks around me who have easy marriages despite their lack of gifts and effort.
    One Preacher told me “Sharkly,(not my real name) women are easy to deal with!” And thanks no doubt to the Godly efforts of his wife, he is, I believe, clueless as to what other men are forced to go through every day.

    Proverbs 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

    As to your question: what alternative do you recommend for your average Joe? Celibacy? Prostitutes? Porn and a big bottle of hand lotion? Sex dolls? What?

    The Bible recommends celibacy for those who can endure it. And devoting oneself to God is nothing for you to mock at. You will not be the honored firstfruit in Heaven that they will be.

    Revelation 14:4 These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were redeemed from among men, being the firstfruits unto God and to the Lamb. 5 And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God.
    Matthew 19:12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it

    I have chosen, due to the sin of my wife, to at this point, be a virtual eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. I have been considered worthy to suffer for the sake of Christ.

  333. The main one is that it uses a deeply feminized-historical-revisionist approach to explaining relationship dynamics that assumes ZERO of the variance can be accounted for by anything other than socialized patriarchal misogyny. No psychopathology. No genetic component. Nothing but men hating and controlling women for centuries in an endless cycle of “power and control” that must be broken by re-educating men about their destructive core beliefs.

    Right there. Right there, that is the central, most important and insightful argument AGAINST government authority following/adapting to the Duluth model that could be made. But to make that argument is a non-starter in our society as the public outcry against any person put in a position of power and authority to make such a truthful claim, runs the risk of losing all their power and authority. Our society is so broken, misled, and wounded, that we (as a people) are simply not sophisticated enough to embrace such red pill truth. Its just too hurtful for far too many people who live in a Constitutional Republic and vote with their emotions, not logic.

  334. Scott says:

    To continue just a bit.

    The Duluth Model was developed in the early 1980s by two social work professors and a group of battered women activists with zero controlled research. It is amazing how well it took off as the end all be all intervention model for domestic violence in light of the lack of academic rigor behind it.

    All of the experts on the model that I have come in contact with were second and third generation disciples, including one professor of social work who was a direct protege.

    Basically, any attempt by alligned fields within the mental health community to use other means of describing the process by which an incident occurs is dismissed as “blaming the victim” or letting the perpetrator out of the hook of accountability for HIS (its always male) behavior.

    If you let any other driver account for any of it, the entire model collapses on itself, exposing its oversimplification. And since they make so much money on selling the materials to state, local, federal agencies and their contractors, they can’t have that.

  335. Oscar says:

    Paul & JJR

    Satire is practically impossible these days. Reality is too absurd.

  336. JRob says:

    @John James R
    Here is a good place to begin, after you read this.

  337. Sharkly says:

    Hmm says: You should expand that post into a book: “Leadership Secrets from the Bible”.

    Thanks! But, since they’re already in the Bible, inspired by God, and inerrant, I don’t see how we would not all be better off just reading the Bible.
    I’ve thought about writing, but for right now, I write here, without much thought, for free.
    Seriously! if people would spend more time studying their Bibles, many of the arguments on here would be quite different. Also I just took the Red Pill recently, and my thinking is changing. If I wait I’ll be wiser. Meanwhile the all wise Creator of the universe has already explained all we need to know in the Bible. He who has an ear to hear, let him hear what God says to us. I come here to fellowship, to learn, to be sharpened, to exhort, rebuke in love, and to share God’s word. This is my church at the moment.

  338. Jeff Strand says:

    @Feeriker: “But then again, everyone knows married guys only get laid once a month, at best.”

    Not this married guy. Ever hear of “the wifely duty”? She should offer herself to her husband whenever he wants her. My wife has a rule she follows: “I never say no to my husband”. But to be fair, I have never refused her either, lol.

  339. Boxer says:

    My wife has a rule she follows: “I never say no to my husband”. But to be fair, I have never refused her either, lol.

    We got it several days ago. You’re better than the rest of these dopey married guys. You also haven’t offered a single bit of worthwhile feedback or advice to them. My question to you is why you would come here, and slum with all these losers? What’s the draw for you in being here?

  340. John James R says:

    Thanks Scott and JRob.

  341. Sharkly says:

    @Jeff Strand
    Like Boxer, I’d like to know why you feel you’re here commenting at this site? In case I’ve misjudged you.

  342. John James R says:

    Strand is larping so hard that he’s concocting a false life to make his way through some difficulties, I think. I’m starting to worry about him.

    Everyone knows that it’s the secure guy who’s doing well with the ladies who is driven to verbalize it all over the place, right? Right? Hmm…

  343. Jeff Strand says:

    Sharkly,

    The problem isn’t with me. I married a NAWALT. So what? The question is why does that fact so enrage some people on here? It’s a simple statement of fact.

    And my reason for commenting was to point out that A) NAWALT’s exist and B) it’s possible to marry one, as I know first hand, since I did. I was thinking that I’m no better than anyome else here, so if I could do it, so could anyone else.

    But apparently I was wrong in my thinking process. All the pushback I got has convinced me that maybe these other posters are correct – you losers on here could never dream of marrying a NAWALT like I did. That’s only for top Alpha’s like me, not for you little Beta boy bitches. So forget about a NAWALT, leave them to us Alpha’s, and you guys just stick to your porn and your prostitutes.

    Thanks for setting me straight.

  344. Sharkly says:

    Jeff Strand Says: The problem isn’t with me. … Thanks for setting me straight.

    You’re welcome.

  345. feministhater says:

    And my reason for commenting was to point out that A) NAWALT’s exist and B) it’s possible to marry one, as I know first hand, since I did. I was thinking that I’m no better than anyome else here, so if I could do it, so could anyone else.

    You haven’t pointed out a damn thing. Saying over and over again that you married a non-existent creature is about as relevant as me saying I’m the King. Most men get married thinking they married this mythical creature and most are proven wrong through divorce and most of the rest are living lives of miserable anguish.

    You’re so upset that no one believes you. You’re so upset that people here point out your obvious cocky attitude. No one cares. Just go away.

  346. Jeff Strand says:

    FH,

    I know I’ll probably regret engaging with you. But here goes.

    You say a NAWALT is a “non-existent creature”. So perhaps it would help if we define terms. You tell me what qualities and characteristics a wife must possess in order to be NAWALT. Then, I can just see if they apply in my case. Simple, right?

    Go ahead.

  347. Swanny River says:

    Jeff is as easy to distract as he is distracting this post watch this: Nazis were evil and bad for families and husbands.

  348. feministhater says:

    I know I’ll probably regret engaging with you. But here goes.

    Then one shouldn’t do it. Rather go and spend your time with your NAWALT wife, instead of posting on a blog or cheating on her with someone else’s wife.

  349. Swanny River says:

    Why does Jeff cause dissension with careless simplistic answers to a Gawain post but then goes into great detail when he talks about his Nazi-love? That’s an odd result.

  350. Paul says:

    Come on, give Jeff a break. We do not need to adhere to the gospel of Red Pill. Although it can teach us valuable lessons, it does have it shortcomings by focusing solely on instinctive behavior. We all know that humans are sinful, but that God has shown as a way to live a holy life past our instincts. Denying that any woman can lead a holy life is blasphemy. And a holy life includes in my humble opinion sex-on-demand and submission. If Jeff has found such a wife, all the best for him, praise God!

  351. Jeff Strand says:

    FH,

    So will you give your definition of a NAWALT, or not? After all, you must have a definition in mind if you have decided the definition is so unrealistic as to be unattainable.

    Let’s hear it. What makes a NAWALT? Because maybe you’re right after all, and I only THINK I married a NAWALT because the definition I’m using is different than yours. It’s possible, right?

  352. feministhater says:

    Denying that any woman can lead a holy life is blasphemy.

    No one even said that and don’t pretend they did. There are no NAWALTS as there are no perfect people.

    This has clearly be discussed beforehand. A NAWALT is the perfect women who isn’t affected by modern feminism, remains loyal through the good and bad times, never nags, never throws tantrums, remained a full virgin before marriage, supports her husband in all things, respects and submits to his authority, hates divorce, refuses to vote against her husband and doesn’t talk down to her husband but speaks highly of him around others.

    You can pretend such a woman exists but I won’t believe you. Feminism creeps in and they fall for it at some point.

    If Jeff simply said he had a good wife, no one would be objecting. He clearly means he found the perfect unicorn.

  353. feministhater says:

    A NAWALT also doesn’t require that her husband run game on her.

  354. Paul says:

    @FH

    The list you mention is by far not the description of a perfect person, and it does not need to be. We all know perfect people do not exist. However, that does not mean there has not been a single woman in the entire history of mankind who:

    – remained loyal through the good and bad times
    – remained full virgin before marriage
    – respects and submits to his authority
    – hates divorce

    The other points are not direct biblical commands, and are therefore not necessary, although it should be regular behavior.

    That list of points is not that large, you cannot prove such a woman does not exist nor never has existed. Furthermore, we do have evidence that such women existed.

  355. Sharkly says:

    Jeff Strand,

    You may be missing some of the nuance that is causing the negative reactions you are getting. While we applaud that you are happy in your marriage, and that your wife is treating you well. And I for one am willing to admit, that if what you say is true, that you’ve cheated on your wife, she knows about it, and you still have a close and wonderful relationship, she is truly different from most other women. However, many divorced folks on here have given their wives much less provocation, and yet gotten very much worse treatment. So those men have seen a side of the nature of women that you are not as familiar with. And they are trying to warn you that it exists within your wife too. She has a sinful nature too, and some day she could decide to do the same evil things to you that their wives have done to them. Be glad that she has not up to this point. But, do not be a fool and take for granted that she is not like other women. She has to fight the culture and her own sinful nature every day to be how you describe her. It is not natural. And any day, she could decide to go along with the culture and selfishly blow your life up for cash and prizes. There is no woman who cannot become a monster. And our culture, courts, and her peers are all encouraging her to become fierce. Just acknowledge all of this, and endeavor to be less dogmatic about your personal ideas unless they are clearly found in the Bible. You acting like you’ve found a perfect woman, is naïve, and not too far off from the churchian goddess worshippers. The Bible says Love believeth all things, but it also says that the wise man doesn’t believe all things. So you should probably try to do both. Believe the best about your wife, but also realize the worst about her nature too, and be wise in that way.
    And you could be somewhat more wise in wording your comments too. Above you said “…respectfully. Let’s keep it civil…” please keep that in mind. When a little push back against your ideas from strangers on the internet reduces you to ranting and name calling, people can’t then take seriously your stories about how Alpha you are. You’re ego has clearly been hurt by their comments, and reduced you to a fit of name calling. If I may be so bold, there are some on here who could teach you a thing or two if you were to listen. And that is by no means because we are better or know more, we just see what you’re not seeing, just as you are trying to explain what you see others aren’t seeing. Also in the book of James it says we are to pray for wisdom. And Job, Psalms, And Proverbs are “wisdom litterateur” you can gain some more by meditating on them and the book of Sirach contains a lot of wisdom also. Like I said above, “I once thought just like you! I really did. I swear it.” But, unfortunately I learned some hard lessons since then, and folks on here are just trying to help you, if you can see it. Now, not everybody has the gift of tact, myself included, so you have to forgive the rudeness, and look for what you can learn. We can sharpen each other in that way. I may not love you like your wife does, but I love you buddy. And even though I may not be on your side on any particular argument, I’m on your side in general, as an internet brother.

  356. feministhater says:

    That list of points is not that large, you cannot prove such a woman does not exist nor never has existed. Furthermore, we do have evidence that such women existed.

    It’s not on me to prove she doesn’t exist or has never existed. One does not prove a negative. However, you are free to prove that there is a large enough amount of said women to make a search for them worthwhile for the average man.

    You stated that it was blasphemy to state that no women could be holy, a point that no one had disagreed with. The clear contention was that there are NAWALT women out there just waiting to be found by Christian men. I don’t believe in NAWALT women, I believe all women are like that and that all are tempted, I didn’t say I don’t believe women cannot be holy or that they always choose to be dishonorable or to misbehave. I didn’t say anything like that. You made a false equivalence.

    All women are tempted by evil, just as all men are. This used to be fine when men didn’t have the risk of the state on top of them should their wives misbehave. That is the key. You can believe as much as you like that there are NAWALT women out there, I don’t care. You cannot read their minds, you cannot control their actions and they are always free to change their minds and destroy you without fear. That is what I care about. All else you and Jeff blabber on about is subjective nonsense.

  357. Paul says:

    @FH : “you are free to prove that there is a large enough amount of said women to make a search for them worthwhile for the average man.”

    We all agree that is impossible too, especially in current Western culture. And it is also true for the average Christian man. It is not without reason that St.Paul wrote:

    1 Co 7:28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this.

  358. Scott says:

    Not to be too remedial here, but really just to sort of think through this–the concept of “AWALT/NAWALT” is a categorical one, right? It revolves around the true, innate nature of a thing which is what makes it a thing different from another thing.

    It requires a pretty sophisticated and well developed perception of what is meant by the word “like.”

    Its actually one of the areas where the “red-pill” of psycho-sexual dynamics of the Rollo Tomassi strain converges with the red-pill of HBD.

    It is my contention that biology–whether we are discussing sexual dimorphism and the hard wired, evolved traits that run through it or genes/heritability as similarly powerful predictors of behavior–provide the raw ingredients for what the person will be “like” once they are a fully formed adult.

    Several of my Christian, red-pill friends simply cannot apply this principle to the genes side of that equation as a matter of faith. But they will fall on their sword over how all women are indeed, “like” that. I wish that divide did not exist because it makes for some pretty contentious and awkward conversations with people who I otherwise think are extremely rational.

    Regardless. Even if we only apply this to male/female differences, it should provide a relatively robust and reliable set of predictors and insights about both groups. (That would mean, neccesarily that all men are “like” something too.)

    The most salient, pithy statement I read about it upthread was from feministhater,

    A NAWALT also doesn’t require that her husband run game on her.

    And lets see if it sticks. I think it does. For those of us with a lifetime of experience in the LTR/serial monogamy game it is pretty much a one to one correlation. Even the most docile, sweet, kind women out there, occasionally need at least some tactic from what is known as “game” in order for them to be content/happy. This one concept could be the subject of pages and pages of exploration on the topic.

    It doesn’t mean they are evil. From my perspective it means that any person, male or female should ask themselves on occasion “am I having the current difficulty because I am a man/woman?” Or put another way “is it being caused, at least in part because of innate traits I got from my sex?”

    The number problem right now is that women are told, that the defacto answer to questions like that are:

    “No”

    or

    “Yes, because women are [too loving/too forgivin/people pleasers/etc]”

    This has driven a colossal amount of low insight into multiple generations of one sex, which many around the manosphere call solipsism. It means that the very worst parts of female nature are being condoned and amplified on a world wide scale while the best of male nature is being crapped on.

  359. Jeff Strand says:

    FH,

    I guess you’re right, my wife is not a true NAWALT. Is there such a thing as “NAWALT lite”?

    Let’s go down the list:

    * Isn’t affected by modern feminism – totally nails this one. She hates feminists and thinks women should defer to their husbands and focus on being housewives and mothers.

    * Remains loyal through good and bad times – totally nails this one too. Never has she not been loyal.

    * Never nags – well it’s tough to say someone “never” nags, but she def passes muster here. She never gives me crap if I announce I’m going out boating with guy friends, or out drinking, or away for a weekend road trip to see a buddy, or whatever. She doesn’t nag me to do things around the house, as she sees that as her job. She basically doesn’t nag me about anything, period.

    * Never throws tantrums – totally nails it. She doesn’t like conflict and is not one to raise her voice to me. Again, it’s tough to say “never”, but I would say we probably average one heated argument (yelling at each other) every three years or so. Meaning, years at a time go by without her ever raising her voice to me. I just don’t see how you can do better than that, this side of Heaven.

    * Remained a full virgin before marriage – fail. She was not a virgin. However, she was pretty sexually inexperienced. I met her right as she was turning 25, and I believe she lost her V card at around age 21…which is pretty darn good for today (or even 20 years ago) when most girls lose it in high school. It’s tough to make it to 25 still a virgin. Also, she never had a serious, long-term boyfriend before me…so it was nice for me not having to deal within the shadow of an ex-bf.

    * Supports her husband in all things – nails this one. If I tell her we need to sell the house and downsize, she doesn’t question it. Ditto when I tell her she’s going to give me children even though her doctors told her it’s too dangerous to go through a pregnancy and it may well kill her, due to a specific condition. Ditto when I told her to cut my in-laws out of our lives for good, because my MIL is a whack job. Ditto when I told her she’d be taking care of my elderly, chair-bound mother (in addition to taking care of our two small kids at the time) – which she did for over two years. Any decision I make is accepted without question if I make clear the decision is final. If my decision isn’t final yet, I’m happy to hear her input (in fact, I often value it)

    * Respects and submits to his authority – 100% nails this one, see the post above. Just would add that she also teaches our kids to respect Dad as the head of the household, and exhibits her behavior as a surrendered wife in front of them, so they can see it…and therefore they will expect that’s how a marriage naturally works when they come time to get married.

    * Hates divorce – she’s a believing Catholic (real Catholic, not talking about the modern joke known as FrancisChurch) as am I, so of course she hates divorce. When we did our pre-marital counseling, one of the test questions was: “If I ever catch my spouse cheating on me, I’m out the door and will file for divorce, True or False”. She selected False, which shocked our counselors, who said that with every other couple they had worked with, everyone always checked True. They were very impressed with her. She explained by saying she would choose to forgive her husband, no question. And put it behind her. And she’s proven that.

    * Refuses to vote against her husband – nails this one. When I tell her an election is coming, she’ll ask “Who are we voting for?”. Of course, I would never dream of filling out her absentee ballot for her, and then just having her sign it, as that is illegal, lol. You figure it out.

    * Doesn’t speak down to her husband but speaks highly about him around others – nails this one. She never talks bad about me to her girlfriends, but on the contrary she tells them how much she loves me and how lucky she is to have me. She has actually told me that she has to restrain herself on this to a certain extent, as “I don’t want to seem to be rubbing it in so-and-so’s face what a great husband and marriage I have”.

    Here’s a few you left off your list, but I think are important:

    * Sex on demand – nails this one. She believes in the “wifely duty” and has a policy of being “always available” for her husband. (Within reason obviously, e.g. serious illness, recoverying from surgery, bad period cramps, etc) Any outfits I want her to wear in the bedroom, any role play I want to explore, you name it, she will never say no to me as her husband. It’s always yes. And she also has a personal policy to always thank me after sex, which she thinks every wife should do.

    * Appreciative of her husband – nails this one. She will text me when I’m on a biz trip just to thank me for working so hard for the family. If she takes our girls to get their nails done at the salon, she will remind them that Daddy made this possible and she’ll tell them to thank me, either via a text or in person later. She’ll surprise me with a card or love note out of the blue, placed where I’ll find it. She makes sure when I get home from a biz trip she has the house clean (last time I was gone for 5 days she organized the whole garage) and my favorite foods and beer are in the fridge. She would never dream of ever asking me to clean the house, wash dishes, or do laundry (though I admit I will sometimes clear the dinner dishes off the table after we eat to help her out, but that’s on my own initiative)

    * Keeps herself fit and attractive for her husband – nails this one. She lost the weight after every pregnancy, she dyes her hair to keep away any grey, she goes to the salon to keep her nails done and her skin nice, etc. Now in her early 40’s, she still turns heads when we go out.

    Ok, that’s quite a list! She nailed every parameter you threw out (plus some I added), with only the single exception that she wasn’t a full virgin when we met. So I guess in your eyes, that makes her trash, overrides the rest of the list (because it’s all or nothing), and I should have never married her…sticking to hookers and jerking off to porn instead?

    But for any REASONABLE person reading this, I think we can agree my wife is a NAWALT. And again, I didn’t go through that whole list to say “Look at me!”. Rather, I want or make this simple point: girls like this exist! They are out there! I found one, wifed her up, and almost 20 years later I have never regretted it. God forbid I had reject her because she wasn’t a full virgin when we met, what would I have found instead? Nothing to equal her, I’m sure.

    Esp the young men need to hear this message not to totally give up on marriage and family life. Just be aware of the dangers and pitfalls you face as a man, kick to the curb the feminists, career bitches, and mentally unstable, and go on a NAWALT hunt. Odds are, you won’t regret it.

    As always, YMMV.

  360. Jeff Strand says:

    @Sharkly: “You’re ego has clearly been hurt by their comments, and reduced you to a fit of name calling”

    I read your whole long post, Sharkly. I think I see what you are trying to convey, there’s some things in there we can agree on.

    RE the part of your post I quoted – it wasn’t my ego, it was giving into a massive amount of frustration. And the frustration came from constantly being told that what I actually say in my posts doesn’t matter, because someone is “reading into it” that I really the exact opposite of what I’m actually saying!

    For example, I ACTUALLY say: “I’m no better then you, and if I can find and marry a NAWALT so can you” and I get told that what I’m REALLY saying is: “Haha! I’m so much better than you losers! You could never score a NAWALT like I did. So I’m here to laugh at you and rub it in your faces! Haha!” And then I get slammed on here as being all “boastful” and “prideful”, as if I had really said the latter.

    When I respond by reminding folks that I actually said the former, I get told that it doesn’t matter because I’m somehow “signaling” the latter, without actually saying it!

    Can you understand how frustrating that would be, listening to such garbage?

  361. Sharkly says:

    As always, YMMV.

    Yeah it did. My wife sounded similar to yours before I married her. Then her Intimacy Anorexia flipped on like a light switch, and she has been returning evil for good ever since. Her condition gradually worsened. She filed for divorce after I finally discovered the issue and wanted her to go get treatment with me. She’d rather keep her behavioral addiction, than her family intact. We’re still in the court system, and I’m finding out how unfair it is to men. Y’all please pray for us and our boys. She now willingly admits she has a diagnosed thought disorder, and two diagnosed emotional disorders, but she is in absolute angry denial about her obvious behavioral addiction. She will not accept that I might not be the source of all the problems in our marriage. Feminism enables her selfish behavioral addiction and the destruction it causes.

  362. Sharkly says:

    @Jeff Strand
    Actually, yes I can understand your frustration. My wife intentionally triggers me with horrible distancing behaviors, and then blames my reaction for the distance between us, and refuses to allow me to ever resolve anything to bring us closer, because she fears close intimacy. Meanwhile she engages in a never ending publicity campaign for herself as the victim and me as the oppressor.

    I often say things perfectly clearly and people believe I mean the exact opposite of what I just said. Sometimes that is projection, or them thinking I lie like they do. Anyhow, the frustration doesn’t help the communication. The more vehemently I insist I meant what I said, the more convinced they become I am being deceptive. You just have to accept that you will not always be understood or thought well of by any particular person. You have influence, but not control. You just have to harness your inner Alpha and realize you don’t need their approval. Also realize you are living in a world of wounded people, and they are often going to be quite excessively defensive.

    I hope it helps to know others share your frustration.

  363. feeriker says:

    Jeff Strand says:
    May 17, 2018 at 11:10 pm

    @Feeriker: “But then again, everyone knows married guys only get laid once a month, at best.”

    Jeff, that wasn’t me who said that. Please be more attentive in your reading and attributions.

  364. feeriker says:

    Scott says:

    From my perspective it means that any person, male or female should ask themselves on occasion “am I having the current difficulty because I am a man/woman?” Or put another way “is it being caused, at least in part because of innate traits I got from my sex?”

    The number problem right now is that women are told, that the defacto answer to questions like that are:

    “No”

    or

    “Yes, because women are [too loving/too forgivin/people pleasers/etc]”

    This has driven a colossal amount of low insight into multiple generations of one sex, which many around the manosphere call solipsism. It means that the very worst parts of female nature are being condoned and amplified on a world wide scale while the best of male nature is being crapped on.

    THIS, to the 1000th power.

  365. Jeff Strand says:

    @Feeriker: “Jeff, that wasn’t me who said that. Please be more attentive in your reading and attributions.”

    Sure, Dad. Will do.

  366. Jeff Strand says:

    Sharkly,

    I feel your pain, as I was engaged to a girl once who suffers from BPD (undiagnosed), and it was hell. Had I gone ahead and married her, she’d have destroyed me…as she does anyone who gets close to her.

    That’s why I said several times in this thread that we would be making HUGE progress if we could just go as far as convincing young men not to marry any girl who is A) a feminist, B) a “strong, independent” career girl, and C) suffering from a mental illness (esp BPD). Marrying a chick in one of those three categories is a prescription for disaster.

    In your case, I’m not sure from your post if you knew she was mentally ill before marriage and decided to risk it, or if she was somehow able to hide it from you (which is VERY difficult for a chick to pull off). Either way, all the best and I hope things improve for you!

  367. Novaseeker says:

    Just be aware of the dangers and pitfalls you face as a man, kick to the curb the feminists, career bitches, and mentally unstable, and go on a NAWALT hunt. Odds are, you won’t regret it.

    Well, except that you would have to admit that the number of women who fit that category, in any context (even far away from the evil coastal metros) is very, very small to say the least. And smaller than it was 20 years ago when you met your wife.

    It’s great that you found your wife, I don’t think anyone here begrudges you that. But your wife, at least as you describe her, is an extreme outlier. There is literally a tiny number of such women available in the United States, anywhere, not just in the middle and far away from any metropolis. Sending any significant number of men in search of them is really not the best use of their time, because frankly even if they were all to find where such women are, they would vastly outnumber them anyway, such that most of the men would leave empty-handed, because such women are such outliers. In reality, these women are such outliers that finding even one of them would be a massive challenge for almost any man.

    Again, as I said above, that doesn’t mean every guy has to go MGTOW or hookers or what have you. But it means that instead of searching for (and almost certainly not finding) a woman like your wife, a man should equip himself properly to survive and thrive in a marriage to a woman who is the best they can find but not a complete outlier like your wife. Dalrock’s vetting scheme is more reasonable because while it is strict more women pass it than the kind of test that would have to be applied to find a woman life your wife. But the key is what is done inside the marriage to that highly qualified yet not extreme outlier woman — this is a more realistic approach than sending lots of young men in search of a tiny number of extreme outlier women.

    ——

    I’ve seen ‘Manosphere Jim’ comments on various sites. I always chime in when guys suggest that all male kowtowing is due that magical vaj though. I kinda disagree. The females with that degree of “All hail the almighty vaj” vaj are not only the 25 and unders but even a surprisingly small percentage at that. Even a lot of females that age have Haagen-Daz’ed away their golden vaj power. So it’s overrated. The ratio of women over 35 with that kind of “all hail my vaj” vaj is about what? One in 50? The level of sex appeal where her interests are basically taking precedence because the sexual reward makes it that way. It’s so rare outside of teens/college kids.

    John — What people mean when they say that isn’t that all women are hot, it’s that men are more easily manipulated by their desire, because men’s desire is stronger (testosterone generally leads to higher libido, and on average male libido is higher than female libido). Because of this imbalance of desire (men desire women and sex more than vice versa), women can, and do, manipulate men through this sexual desire. That is why they have “sexual power” over men as a class. Does this mean warpig Haagen-Dazs does? No. Not all women share in this power equally — not even close. But an attractive woman has enormous sexual power over men as a class due to the imbalance of desire.

    —–

    I think it does. For those of us with a lifetime of experience in the LTR/serial monogamy game it is pretty much a one to one correlation. Even the most docile, sweet, kind women out there, occasionally need at least some tactic from what is known as “game” in order for them to be content/happy. This one concept could be the subject of pages and pages of exploration on the topic.

    Scott — I agree with this. It’s really just a part of intersexual dynamics. Women who are more in control of themselves will need less than those who are less in control of themselves, but even relatively in control women are still women.

  368. AnonS says:

    Trusts are an imperfect solution. There was a court case in which the man’s parents gave him a house, which he kept in a trust in his name. During the divorce, the judge agreed the house was the man’s. So instead, the judge ordered the man to buy another house, or equivalent value, for the wife.

    It depends on the type of trust and what state you are in, and it wasn’t a Nevada trust.

    Need court case reference. All I’ve found is Pfannenstiehl v. Pfannenstiehl in 2015 which was overtuned.

    “In 2015, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that a portion of a trust created by the parents of Curt Pfannenstiehl for his benefit and that of his siblings would be considered as a marital asset in his divorce from Diane Pfannenstiehl. Diane argued that the trust was a “support” trust and not a traditional spendthrift “discretionary” trust, and that she was entitled to one-half of Curt’s share of the trust.

    This carefully watched divorce case focused on the issue of trusts assets as marital property in divorce proceedings. The August 4, 2016 Supreme Judicial Court decision overturned the 2015 Appeals Court decision where the trial judge required Curt Pfannenstiehl to pay his ex-wife approximately $1.4 million that was attributed to 60% of his interest in a discretionary spendthrift trust established by his father. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the trust was not a marital asset, and therefore not subject to equitable division.”

    Meanwhile the Nevada asset protection trust has already had district court orders struck down.

    http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/divorce/a-legal-guide-domestic-asset-protection-trusts-divorce

    Klabacka v Nelson

    “The legislative history of SSSTs [self-settled spendthrift trusts] in Nevada supports this conclusion…When crafting the language to allow SSSTs, the Legislature contemplated a statutory framework that protected trust assets from unknown, future creditors, as opposed to debts known to the settlor at the time the trust was created. See id. The legislative history explicitly mentions child support as an example of a debt that would not be free from attachment if known at the time the trust was created. Id. However, the trust assets would be protected from attachment as to debts unknown at the time the trust was created—presumably, this protection extended to child- and spousal support obligations unknown at the time the trust was created.”

    “Additionally, in 2013, the Legislature proposed changes to NRS Chapter 166 that would have allowed a spouse or child to collect spousal support or child support from otherwise-protected spendthrift trust assets. See Hearing on A.B. 378 Before the Senate Judiciary Comm., 77th Leg. (Nev., May 8, 2013) statement of Assemblywoman Marilyn Dondero Loop). However, the proposed changes to NRS Chapter 166 did not pass, and, as a result, the Nevada spendthrift trust statutes were not amended to allow for an exception for child- and spousal-support orders of a beneficiary to be enforced against a spendthrift trust.”

    And you can setup one while married but before having divorced filed against you.

    There is also the backup plan of:

    1. Buy Gold through private party
    2. Bury Gold
    3. Memorize/encode GPS location

  369. Jeff Strand says:

    @Nova: “Again, as I said above, that doesn’t mean every guy has to go MGTOW or hookers or what have you. But it means that instead of searching for (and almost certainly not finding) a woman like your wife, a man should equip himself properly to survive and thrive in a marriage to a woman who is the best they can find but not a complete outlier like your wife.”

    That is fairly reasonable. I guess I was hearing too much of FH and his fan club, going on about how the message to young men should be: “Never marry under any circumstances, and make do with hookers.”

    You and I are already parking our cars in the same garage on this. That’s why I said earlier, the message to young men should be to search out and marry a NAWALT like I did, but FAILING THAT, we’d still be doing a tremendous amount of good just to be convincing such young men to rule out feminists, “strong and independent” type career bitches, and those suffering from any mental disorders or instability. That alone would be such a huge step forward!

    And while you may think finding a NAWALT is unrealistic (but possible?), hopefully you will agree that applying those three disqualifiers is both prudent and very doable.

    Cheers!

  370. BillyS says:

    Jeff,

    I thought mine was a NAWALT too. She said many of the right words, was active in church, etc. She verbally despised feminists, yet years later she followed the same path.

    You over simplify it at best and still stand claiming you are doing it right.

    Reading comprehension much?

    Says the man throwing rocks in a glass house….

  371. Gunner Q says:

    John James R @ May 17, 2018 at 8:22 pm:
    “The ‘Duluth Model’ is often brought up here and I basically understand its general tenets and certainly get the point when it’s used in context but I’d like to read about it more thoroughly. Does anyone know a book that goes over it? Not just the book written by the originators of it, but a response to it. Or has Dalrock himself explained in detail?”

    You might read “The Feminist Lie” by Bob Lewis. It discusses Duluth along with other roots & harms of feminism.

  372. 7817 says:

    @Scott

    “The most salient, pithy statement I read about it upthread was from feministhater,

    A NAWALT also doesn’t require that her husband run game on her.

    And lets see if it sticks. I think it does. For those of us with a lifetime of experience in the LTR/serial monogamy game it is pretty much a one to one correlation. Even the most docile, sweet, kind women out there, occasionally need at least some tactic from what is known as “game” in order for them to be content/happy.”

    Exactly right.

    The problem with believing in the NAWALT concept is that it leads to thinking if you pick the right girl, you don’t have to concern yourself with making yourself the best you can be.

    It also deludes you into thinking she won’t be tempted by high value men; that there is no risk of her straying, and normal precautions are unnecessary.

    It also provides either an excuse for a man who is having trouble in his marriage: “well i must have just picked wrong, better try again”, or, “I picked wrong, now there will never be any hope.”

    My personal belief is that there are indeed women that are less inclined to follow their hypergamous impulses (there are also women who are extremely good at hiding them), but that the reason that ultimately all women have the same essence is that they all share the same sinful nature, just as all men do.

    This is also why the false teaching from men like Doug Wilson is so harmful. They are in essence denying the sinful nature of women, or at least some women.

    One of the things most helpful things to learn from the manosphere is that the sinful nature manifests itself DIFFERENTLY in men than it does women, because contra feminist teaching, men and women are different, but both with the sinful nature revealing itself in different ways.

  373. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    AnonS: It depends on the type of trust and what state you are in, and it wasn’t a Nevada trust.

    You miss the point. The trust was upheld. The marital house remained the sole property of the husband, safely locked away in his trust.

    The judge simply ordered the husband to buy his ex-wife another house.

    How’s a Nevada trust gonna protect against that?

  374. Oscar says:

    Right On Cue: “Reuben Foster’s ex: ‘Lied a lot’ about domestic violence incident”

    http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/23532216

    Elissa Ennis, the former girlfriend of San Francisco 49ers linebacker Reuben Foster, testified Thursday in a preliminary hearing that Foster never put his hands on her and that she “lied a lot” to authorities about an alleged domestic violence incident.
    Ennis, who testified against the advice of her attorney Stephanie Rickard, said she made up the story because she wanted to ruin Foster’s career and sue him for money after he broke up with her on the morning of Feb. 11. She also admitted to falsely accusing a former boyfriend of domestic violence in Louisiana in 2011 after he attempted to break up with her.
    Ennis said she felt she needed to tell the truth because she “had to do the right thing,” even if it meant admitting to previous lies to the police and to stealing money and two Rolex watches from Foster in the days after their breakup.

    What would’ve happened to Reuben Foster if the lovely Ms. Ennis hadn’t suddenly grown a conscience?

  375. Hmm says:

    Wonder what caused her bout of conscience?

  376. ingracious says:

    I feel very bad in posting this comment.

    This is not my blog, and yet my comments will appear like mini-blog posts from some madman among a sea of actual reasonably-sized, on-topic comments. As I said in my original comment, I regularly read every new blog post and every user comment on Dalrock – I greatly appreciate the discussions that are raised between all of the users here, and the back-and-forths that have occurred on this post in particular (there must be an awfully large number of comments now). I do not want to detract or distract from any discussions that are on-going, but I feel it would be a waste not to post what I’ve gradually written out over the course of today, even if it is miles upon miles behind in terms of its relevancy to the thread.

    I do not write as much as I do as a diversionary tactic or in order to bore people to death in order to claim I’ve won the argument, I just enjoy clarity and precision when it comes to conceptualising ideas. Some of what I write out is actually only for my own benefit in having thought it first to be able to write it, although I do take an interest in how what I write is reacted to.

    It should be clear that I have a style and an intent with my writings: If you enjoyed the last helping, then here’s another. If you found my last comment to be a dull spiral into monotony with an even-still disappointing climax, then the exit is a page down.

    I mean no disrespect in the general manner with which I have gone about posting here.

    @BJ (May 17, 2018 at 3:12 pm)

    I did take pot shots at you, and in light of your highly respectful response in spite of that I must say that I apologise for them. I meant no personal offense, but was merely… writing with flair. I think that’d be about the most insufferable way to phrase that, yep.

    I get the impression that there is ground for much deeper discussion between us, but based on what a couple other commenters pointed out I will refrain from pursuing that here.

    Thank you for your comment.

    @Swanny River (May 17, 2018 at 9:27 am)

    When I used the expression ‘fuddy-duddy’, the image I had in mind was one of a standard, respectable old man, perhaps one dressed in plaid, one you might see buying a morning newspaper at a corner store. Someone who has lived their life, fought their battles, and is now relaxing into the final peaceable years they have left on this planet. They are not someone for whom discussions about the gender wars or any such topics were ever relevant or something they’re particularly inclined to spend their time deeply contemplating in order to find solutions. The time for that has passed. You cannot convince them of anything they don’t already believe, and they have no ideas relevant to the circumstances of the modern day to provide to you.

    They are someone who’d post on a blog like Dalrock’s in order to commiserate about “That darn fallen state of the world today, am I right, guys? I remember in my day fellas used to open doors and gals used to wear skirts! Whatever did happen to all that? It’s such a shame. Hey, why is chivalry dead? Guess I’ll never be able to understand it. Oh well, I’m happily married and retired, y’know, so I guess I can’t complain.”

    I have not regularly read this blog and its users’ comments because I find it fun. I have not done so because it makes me feel happy about the world and its future and my place in it. I have lurked here because it helps to make me more aware of the state of the world as it affects me, the legal threats that exist for me as a man, the pitfalls – both social and legal – that are present today when it comes to any future relationship I may or may not enter into with a modern woman, and the ways in which a man can still act in a principled manner in spite of all this crap (that one’s very important for me – my idea notwithstanding, which is just an intellectual device).

    I do not begrudge the few commenters on this blog (and I was not referring to all of its commenters – “…so unlike a few of the fuddy-duddy regulars here…” #NotAllSwannyRivers) who I consider as being fuddy-duddies, I simply wanted to emphasise in a cheeky, offhand manner that from my place in the world what gets discussed here is – by comparison – quite serious in its relevance to my own life and how I will choose to live it.

    Stopping at the first paragraph of my post to make such an ironic fuss over something as petty as my use of ‘fuddy-duddy’ (a silly-sounding word defined as: “An old-fashioned, fussy person” – oh, the insult!) is just bizarre to me. Unlike your example of the word ‘dipshit’, which directly asserts that a person is incredibly stupid (a universally negative trait), ‘fuddy-duddy’ primarily asserts that the views which someone holds are rigidly old-fashioned – they’re outdated or, more relevantly phrased: Not in touch with the times.

    I can think that someone’s views are righteous, reasonable and were perfectly relevant to their lived experience in the olden days while still thinking that those views are now out of touch with the modern world and nearly impossibly difficult to apply today (I’d love if BJ’s 3 points were still all it took for a good marriage, we all would). That does not necessitate disrespect for the person, whereas calling someone ‘dipshit’ does.

    Is it not the case that the majority of mainstream conversatives’ blue-pilled, outdated, close-minded views on important topics are a major talking point of this blog? Isn’t that what this very blog post was about? They’re all a bunch of fuddy-duddies too, they’re just must more dispicable ones due to their unearned and unjust influence on young men’s lives – as well as the fact that many of their views are so heretically-based, rather than traditionally-based.

    I had in mind to be much more insulting in response to you here, but I will be charitable in assuming that your hostility was simply a factor of misguided prejudice about who you’d think would normally be using such an expression as ‘fuddy-duddy’.
    (Hint: I’m not the kind of person who thinks that hearing ‘conservative’ in a word’s definition is a bad thing.)

    I do take on board what you said about my example being counter-productive. It is, 100%, which I only recognise now, but I just want to try and spark some productive debate about ‘how to practically go about safely and earnestly pursuing marriage whilst acknowledging MGTOWs are right about the unbelievable threat the law poses’ – everyone’s so close to talking about it, but just not quite there, so something as to-the-point as my post was what I decided to write. Any MAD-solution which does not involve threats of murder would be infinitely preferable in anyone’s eyes, but which would actually match it in effectiveness? That’s the question, the answer of which might be world-changing.

    @Gunner Q (May 17, 2018 at 10:47 am)

    Thank you for the solitary welcome, Gunner Q!

    I appreciate your sincere response, and I take on board what you’ve said entirely, meaning I will not make any further mention of the unsavoury idea I brought up beyond this response to you out of respect for Dalrock, his blog, and this blog’s users:

    To start with I hope it’s clear that I wasn’t trying to use ‘vigilantism’ to conjure any images of armed militias taking over a local area and enacting legal punishments of their own on others, I was simply trying to evoke a sense of someone doing that which is right in spite of any laws that say otherwise. Acknowledging that a given law exists, but not living your life with respect to what it says. This is what BJ was trying to talk about, and it’s what I am talking about. Perhaps the word ‘vigilantism’ is tainted in this respect, so I’d be open to a substitute.

    The two most relevant lines from the definition of ‘vigilantism’ that I quoted are: “action taken by an individual or group to protest existing law; action taken by an individual or group to enforce a higher law than that enacted by society’s designated lawmaking institutions;”

    The difference between my idea and what you describe, where a man must keep a stash of off-shore money and a secret passport in order to allow him to flee the country should his wife ever decide to use power of the state to destroy him, is that such a course of action is defensive in nature. Under it, a man is still always at the mercy of his wife and the state no matter what, he just has an escape route ready for when he seemingly inevitably gets his life flipped. I can see the same constant paranoia and ultimate futility that it would lead to that you do, which is why my idea was offensive in nature:

    Do not accept living in constant fear of the state, instead neutralise your wife’s ability to use the state by applying an equal amount of fear to her as she does through the state to you.

    The modern state is basically a woman’s personal loan shark which can be commanded at will to break your knees, steal your money and children, and kidnap and falsely imprison you if you resist. The idea is simply to match that threat.

    Hence the idea in my comment: If we get married, it’s for life. Any attempt by the woman to subvert that by utilising the mechanisms of the state will end up with a hitman knocking at her door. That’s the deal. Take it or leave it.

    As I wrote in my original comment, this is simply a ‘counter-threatpoint’. It is a single immoral, evil act which need not necessarily come to anything in order to give a marriage the peace and freedom necessary to allow you to act in a moral and righteous way in all other arenas. You do not actually want to destroy your wife, you just don’t want her to destroy you and the family. Therefore: MAD, the hoped-for outcome of which is in fact that you will both be able to have a happy, loving, mutually-beneficial marriage for the rest of your lives.

    Both of you stand to lose from blowing up the marriage, so you both have as much of a reason to care about keeping the marriage happy, healthy and cordial as each other – because otherwise, the only other choice is an unhappy marriage. You both no longer have the option of ‘just leaving’, even if the laws say you do.

    Do you want a happy marriage or an unhappy marriage? Pick one.

    That used to be the binary choice for married couples by default, but it isn’t anymore. I can be no clearer that I acknowledge that it’s a horrendous thing that the threat of death would even be conceivably necessary to restore any sense of equitability to the modern marriage contract in the west, but that’s just how it is as far as I can see it. That’s how extreme a direction you would need to go. It’s not how anyone wants it to be, but this is about dealing with the world as it exists.

    To bring back the analogy I used: Modern marriage and its surrounding laws are a guillotine which a man puts his head in when he gets married within the purview of the law. Women are given hold of the lever that controls when the guillotine falls. I can see only two actionable ways of dealing with this as a man:

    1: Destroy the guillotine – Make it so that men are no longer at the complete mercy of the state’s laws and women’s selfish and fleeting whims. Reform the laws, remove yourself from their influence, etc.
    2: Give women a damn good reason never to pull the lever – Make it so that women no longer have anything to gain from divorce-rape and other abuses of the state’s laws, and they’re only rewarded if they don’t engage in these practices.

    I do suppose if you’re an ignorant fool like Jeff Strand, then there’s always option 3 in this scenario.

    3: Look for a woman who’s squeamish about pulling the lever – Try and find a NAWALT who isn’t temperamentally inclined to want to screw you over with the police, courts and divorce laws. She still totally has the ability to, there’s nothing stopping her from doing so, and modern society will seek to give her every reason, opportunity and incentive to move her mind towards doing so as well, but that’s nothing her promise not to won’t fix. After all, if she says she couldn’t imagine divorcing you now, that’ll probably remain true for the rest of your life, right?

    Because really, fellas: Your life, your future children, and all of your worldly possessions are really quite small things to want to bet on the integrity of a woman, aren’t they? C’mon, man up!

    But anyway, option #1 seems increasingly impossible, and option #2 seems like it can only lead to immorality/criminality due to the size of the state and the innumerable undermining rewards and temptations which the culture offers simultaneously which would need to be forcefully overcome. Unless an actionable solution can found, the only moral advice that can be given to a young man with regards to marriage is simple: The only winning move is not to play.

    I think marriage is good, as does everyone else on this blog. But it’s not a matter of whether marriage is good and worth defending, it’s whether marriage is practicable: Can a young man, today, feasibly enter into a marriage that will not reliably fail given the present circumstances? If he can, what actions can or must he take in order to create a marriage for himself that will not reliably fail?

    Flee the country? Join the Amish? What?

    People who are ignorant of the circumstances that young men operate in today like BJ or Jeff Strand will give advice that – like I pointed out – is no different from anything that would’ve been given 50+ years ago. Find a sweet, religious girl who isn’t a complete bitch, respect your own parents, eat well and exercise, get a stable job, and so on.

    These are insufficient. They’re not wrong, they’re just not enough anymore. They’ll get you into a marriage, but they won’t keep you in one.

    Regardless of any such outside factors as the decreasing ability for young men to find NAWALTs (if they exist), the decreasing ability of men to acquire high-paying jobs to attract such women in the first place, and what have you – even if a man succeeded in these areas it would be insufficient.

    Today, only so many things can help to prop up a building that is seemingly built to fall.

    As a side note in response to Gunner Q: I really, truly do not understand the appeal of sex dolls nor why they’re becoming such a ubiquitous concept. They seem like they’re just masturbation devices, but then why would you waste your money on all of the parts that aren’t orifices? People seem to treat them like genuine replacements for women that a man can delude himself into thinking are almost real, but somehow I get the impression that cutting a mouth hole in Wilson would not have done much for Tom Hanks’ loneliness in Castaway either.

  377. Novaseeker says:

    The judge simply ordered the husband to buy his ex-wife another house.

    How’s a Nevada trust gonna protect against that?

    RPL — Exactly. The reason, again, is that the family courts are courts of equity. So their goal is to reach a result that they believe is just and equitable. While the house may be legally protected and therefore not subject to being distributed by the court, this doesn’t mean that the court can’t order the distribution of other assets, including future income, in order to balance out the fact that the house itself can’t be distributed in order to reach a result that is just and equitable in the eyes of the court (which will almost never see a house being exempted from distribution as being an equitable result). Basically courts of equity have broad latitude here to issue orders they see as needed to ensure what they consider to be a just and equitable result.

    Wonder what caused her bout of conscience?

    I think there was video evidence of the injuries she suffered occurring as the result of a fight she had with another woman during a road rage incident in SF and someone was taking a video of it on a cell phone. Another case of realizing that you are likely being surveiled at all times, if you are doing anything in public that another person may be interested in recording.

  378. Oscar says:

    “I think there was video evidence of the injuries she suffered occurring as the result of a fight she had with another woman during a road rage incident in SF… ” ~ Novaseeker

    She’s a real peach.

  379. AnonS says:

    Red Pill Latecomer says:

    You miss the point. The trust was upheld. The marital house remained the sole property of the husband, safely locked away in his trust.

    The judge simply ordered the husband to buy his ex-wife another house.

    How’s a Nevada trust gonna protect against that?
    —–

    And without a case reference this could be an urban legend. Lawyers that are in the business follow these cases very closely and recommend a Nevada asset trust because it has been upheld in divorces to successfully protect assets (aka not ordered to pay anyways).

    Also, stay a renter.

  380. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: “STEM prof offers to boost female students’ grades”

    https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10918

    Professor Liping Liu described the grade inflation policy as part of a “national movement to encourage female students to go to information sciences,” asserting that his female students might not pass without the boost.

    Is Prof Liu a white knight, or a black knight?

  381. Jeff Strand says:

    Here’s another intersting point. NAWLATs like my wife, although they do exist, are certainly in the minority. I won’t argue that. I’ve even had people call me and my wife “extremists”, not only due to the dynamics of our marriage itself, but how we raise our children (we made a deliberate decision to raise our daughters with a much greater emphasis on instilling qualities and skills that will make them good wives/mothers, with education/career coming in a distant second. The hope is that they will become NAWALTs themselves one day. And my wife is more hardcore on this than I am – she’d prefer our daughters get married right out of high school, and not go to college since doing so will “ruin” them. I, OTOH, think it’s fine for them to go to vocational school and learn to be a dental hygienist, or physical therapist, or X-ray tech, or legal secretary, etc. And that might be a good way for them to meet a husband)

    So here’s the funny part. The wife and I are supposed to be “extremists” who are “living in a bubble”. Yet when my wife talks to her girlfriends who are more bluepill or feminist-infected, and listens to them going on about their lives, she comes back and tells me, “But they’re so unhappy!” These women think my wife is too traditional, too submissive to her husband, but yet my wife is the one who’s happy…while they are always bitching about their lives, their husbands, their kids, their finances, their jobs (if they work), etc. Amazing!

    So this just goes to show you how strong the brainwashing is. My wife will tell me, regarding her girlfriends, “Why doesn’t so-and-so just submit and surrender to her husband? She’d be so much happier!” She can’t understand why they would choose to be miserable and put conflict in their marriage. But the answer, of course, is that they are infected with the kind of feminist brainwashing that makes them think that submitting to their husband is degrading.

    Or they will tell her, “It’s fine for you to surrender and submit to your husband – you know he’s got you taken care of in every way. But my second-choice of a husband? If I surrendered to him, I’m sure it would be only a matter of time until happened! I can’t rely on him like you can rely on your husband.” Yes, she really has been told stuff like this from other women! They are so blind.

    P.S. One hilarious result is that my wife likes to “stir the pot” a bit with these type of women, usually by emphasizing her role as a traditional wife, lol. She’ll tell people that her personal motto is “Husband knows best”. If asked, “You don’t work outside the home? What do you do all day?”, she’ll say something like “I spend my time making sure my husband is fully taken care of and satisfied.” If asked about our personal finances and investments she’ll say something like, “I don’t know about that kind of stuff, that’s my husband who handles that kind of thing.” (which is true). I have to admit, I love it. It makes me laugh. So I got into the act a bit now as well – when someone asks if my wife works, I respond with “Oh, I don’t let her out of the kitchen.” LOL

    Crazy world.

  382. Something to ponder: do those who support Duluth, whether implicitly or explicitly, have enough money to keep everyone who doesn’t imprisoned indefinitely? Do they have an infinite supply of resources from which to draw from to manifest their will?

    In college, I had a professor who graded on a curve, and quite literally advertised every exam that if everyone simply turned their tests in with only their name, then everyone would pass. As of my graduation, no class had ever accomplished that.

    Differing strategies exist, and based on how people are equipped (personality, skills, experience, etc.) and the circumstances one currently finds themselves in, different strategies are going to be “better or worse” for them, but since no two people have the same exact life, no one strategy is going to be universally “better or worse”, even in the same lifetime.

    Folks like BJ get flak because he hasn’t apparently come to the “right” conclusions, and the implicit belief is that the reason why is a lack of understanding, yet that’s not really reflected in how people treat their response. If he doesn’t understand the lingo, the history, the explanations for the dynamics, you don’t jump to the conclusions in a direct manner as if they can all be understood without the “journey” that everyone else has already undertaken to come to those conclusions. When he suggests something that looks like it is part of a strategy that was abandoned or excised in pursuit of optimization, the reaction is instinctual, not rational, even if the literal words being expressed are inherently logical.

    This is because having experience doesn’t automatically make you a good teacher. Lot of folks are a lot smarter than me, but they cannot effectively participate in the teaching process, because they cannot get outside their own head. They treat everyone as if everyone else should understand everything they do, and also come to the same conclusions they do given the same conditions, perceived or real.

    You can be right and still be doing a terrible job educating others on how and why to improve their own strategies. It’s easy to parrot conclusions and neglect the process of walking folks through all the prerequisite steps to support those conclusions. Nobody has all the time in the world to train everyone, so it’s just simpler to put out the “right answer”, get the high-five from everybody else who already agrees, and then turn and mock the “newbie” who is not quite sure exactly what just happened.

    Doesn’t make the conclusions wrong either, just that sharing them without all the other context it does nothing to help anyone else. The mimic and the intellectually lazy often look similar. Those who don’t know and those who can’t communicate well often look similar.

    BJ, know that the folks here are often talking about “optimization”, and are not often pursuing ideals per-se, beyond bringing them up to highlight a disparity between what we’ve been told and what reality is. As such, the recommendations will often not be idyllic or the most logical in the objective moral sense, yet within the framework of adaptation they can be considered subjectively acceptable paths for some to walk.

    There’s a lot of homework to do on topics like this, so if you haven’t done it, folks will presume that the conclusions you have reached are largely due to ignorance, not because you’ve possibly accounted for those data points and still reached a different conclusion based on your own contextual modifiers.

    When all that gets exchanged is the final conclusions, it’s hard to see the math behind them, and that’s from either perspective.

    They’re really trying to help you, just perhaps not in the most efficient and effective manner possible. 🙂

  383. Jim says:

    I thought mine was a NAWALT too. She said many of the right words, was active in church, etc. She verbally despised feminists, yet years later she followed the same path.

    Do you know how many guys have told me this? But denial is more fun to most guys. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  384. Oscar says:

    Submitted for the group’s consideration.

  385. Swanny River says:

    Jeff,
    Foolish wives tear their own houses down, so I am torn whether they are actually unhappy. I think they get a great enjoyment of their discontentment and would (and will) rather stand in Hell than kneel in Heaven, or more specifically, rather put the world on their shoulders instead of being vulnerable, helpful, and trusting God for their lack.
    Ingracious,
    Humor failure on my part. I thought it was a funny comparison between dipstick and f-d. I didn’t take offense because I didn’t know if you had me in mind. But I do, and did, not like the formulation of, ” it’s not an insult, it’s a fact.” That sounds the same as a fake apology, “I’m sorry but I didn’t do anything wrong.”

  386. Gunner Q says:

    ingracious @ 9:11 am:
    “Do not accept living in constant fear of the state, instead neutralise your wife’s ability to use the state by applying an equal amount of fear to her as she does through the state to you..”

    That’s called Dread Game. It is an option, albeit a difficult one for Christians because she won’t fear losing you after you make a public, lifetime commitment to her.

    “Unless an actionable solution can found, the only moral advice that can be given to a young man with regards to marriage is simple: The only winning move is not to play.”

    Welcome to MGTOW. First beer’s on us.

    “As a side note in response to Gunner Q: I really, truly do not understand the appeal of sex dolls nor why they’re becoming such a ubiquitous concept”

    I don’t, either, but this one guy I follow–Turd Flinging Monkey on youTube–says he’s become genuinely affectionate towards his doll. If it works then it works.

    Mircovich @ 10:00 am:
    “Folks like BJ get flak because he hasn’t apparently come to the “right” conclusions”

    BJ hasn’t come to ANY conclusions yet. Nobody wants a fence-sitter.

  387. Jim says:

    “Unless an actionable solution can found, the only moral advice that can be given to a young man with regards to marriage is simple: The only winning move is not to play.”

    Welcome to MGTOW. First beer’s on us.

    *Raises glass*. Never play a rigged game. Odds are you will lose. Especially when men with guns and a government with limitless resources has the power to enforce it.

    I don’t, either, but this one guy I follow–Turd Flinging Monkey on youTube–says he’s become genuinely affectionate towards his doll. If it works then it works.

    It says far more about the quality of women these days than it does TFM.

  388. Gunner Q says:

    “It says far more about the quality of women these days than it does TFM.”

    TFM said so himself. “You women can’t compete against a DOLL! It’s like me going to a job interview and there’s a mannequin in the corner and the boss says I sound like a good candidate but not as good as Manny!” Words to that effect.

  389. Oscar says:

    @ Mircovich @ 10:00 am:

    “Folks like BJ get flak because he hasn’t apparently come to the ‘right’ conclusions”

    False. BJ gets flack because, when presented with factual information that contradicts his preconceived assumptions, he flippantly dismissed the factual information. He didn’t even bother to ask for information from the men on this blog with first hand experience with the subject.

    That is contemptible.

  390. feeriker says:

    BJ gets flack because, when presented with factual information that contradicts his preconceived assumptions, he flippantly dismissed the factual information. He didn’t even bother to ask for information from the men on this blog with first hand experience with the subject.

    He’ll fit right in with the rest of today’s pastorbators.

  391. BillyS says:

    Maybe Jeff Strand is just AToad with a different set of claims….

  392. feministhater says:

    “Never marry under any circumstances, and make do with hookers.”

    Never said anything by hookers at all. Please revise or you are indeed a liar.

  393. Jeff Strand says:

    FH: “Never said anything by hookers at all. Please revise or you are indeed a liar.”

    But you were “signaling” it. It’s “so obvious”.

    Sauce for the goose and all…

  394. Sharkly says:

    Ingracious says: I generally read every comment on each post here, … I regularly read every new blog post and every user comment on Dalrock … Thank you for the solitary welcome, Gunner Q!
    Apparently you missed my Secondary welcome.
    Sharkly says:
    May 17, 2018 at 6:59 pm

    Anyway, welcome again, and thanks for your second post. I try to read most everything posted also. Lest I miss some tidbit of knowledge or wisdom or wit. A wise person can learn something from anyone, even the fools can show you things you’d never discover for yourself. They are walking talking object lessons, as we all are. Your MAD idea is logical, but I believe Dalrock’s site rules forbid espousing violence, and in general such discussions could come back to haunt you later in our PC infested world.
    For example I’ve been 5 months with only brief supervised visits with my sons due to a single sarcastic joke in an e-mail to my wife, and false accusations based on said joke. I still have not even had an opportunity to address the situation in any legal sense, and probably won’t for another month, and it appears that the fix is already in, against me, and my sons. The goalposts have already been moved, and even though I can prove that there is no danger to the children, now they claim that my oldest is uncomfortable around me without supervision, which is new, and entirely false. He and his brother are anxiously expecting to finally get to spend lots of time with me when their school gets out this Friday, and nobody has yet told them that is not going to be allowed. They’re being robbed of a father based on a lawyer’s twisted characterization of my sarcasm. They didn’t even quote me, they just described an element of my sarcastic joke in their filing as being my stated intention. No doubt I’m headed to the re-education camp, before I’ll ever spend any length of time with my children again.
    Learn from me!

  395. Scott says:

    I quit football right before my senior year in high school. I wanted to make money working nights and weekends and with two a days plus Saturday films. I wanted to hang out and party with my girlfriend and my friends. I just didn’t think I could do it all. I remember the conversation I had with my coach about it.

    After I explained my rationale to him, he said “well, Scott. You do what you gotta do, and we will be here doing what we gotta do.”

    And with that, I scratched my head and walked away. For years I thought he was putting a giant guilt trip on me for quitting.

    Some time later, I ran into him and it was like we were long lost buddies. He seemed genuinely proud of my having joined the army, and some of the other life decisions I had made.

    It was at that moment that I realized he was never guilt tripping me. He was expressing a literal truth. You have decided based on your goals and the information you have to do X. No hard feelings, good luck. He was trying to explain to me that the choices I make will be mine, and mine alone. It was a lesson in accountability.

    Rollo does the same thing with regard to marrying/not marrying/going MGTOW/whatever. You know the rules. You know the risks. Make your decision and get on with it.

    I think the “I married a NAWALT” presentation is a passive aggressive AMOG play. But that’s just me. I also think if one chooses to believe in a delusion like that, they are making the choice with all the information they need and the motivation for pretending otherwise is complex, internal to the person making it, and irrelevant to the rest of us.

  396. John James R says:

    Thanks Gunner (Feminist Lie). On my amazon wish list.

  397. BJ gets flack because, when presented with factual information that contradicts his preconceived assumptions, he flippantly dismissed the factual information. He didn’t even bother to ask for information from the men on this blog with first hand experience with the subject.

    He CAN’T dignify the fact. He can’t. To dignify the facts is to admit that he is WRONG in his thinking. That is a non-starter. He has had way too many blue pills and he’s probably too old to go back and admit he was so completely WRONG about every bit of his understanding of Christ and how men and women should interact with one another. So of course he is not going to every ask anyone here with first hand experience. For the blue pill man, ignorance is truly bliss.

  398. feeriker says:

    He CAN’T dignify the fact. He can’t. To dignify the facts is to admit that he is WRONG in his thinking. That is a non-starter. He has had way too many blue pills and he’s probably too old to go back and admit he was so completely WRONG about every bit of his understanding of Christ and how men and women should interact with one another. So of course he is not going to every ask anyone here with first hand experience. For the blue pill man, ignorance is truly bliss.

    For someone in BJ’s position to admit that he’s wrong and acknowledge the facts he has been avoiding means:

    1. humbling himself before those he has misled.

    2. asking forgiveness from those he has misled.

    3. enduring the consequences of his past errors, including the possible loss of trust from those he has misled (a direct result of which might be losing most or all of his congregation as a pastor).

    4. most important, trusting FULLY in God to lead him forward now that he knows the real truth.

    There is a greater chance of a cow laying eggs than of anyone in BJ’s position doing any of these four things (especially numbers 3 or 4).

  399. feministhater says:

    But you were “signaling” it. It’s “so obvious”.

    Sauce for the goose and all…

    No I wasn’t. Put up or shut up, Jeff.

  400. feministhater says:

    And yes Jeff. I realise what you’re trying to do, however, trying to equate your circumstance of being a humble brag with me endorsing prostitutes when I’ve made zero mention of such is a step too far.

    I agree with all that. But it also remains true that NAWALT’s exist, whether you want to believe it or not. I know firsthand, as I married one. You see, more than one thing can be true.

    How do you know? Can you read her mind? It’s boastful because you cannot possibly know and to say you do means you think you have something that other men can’t have. Once again, most men who marry don’t go into marriage thinking they are marrying a woman who will divorce and ruin them, most think they are marrying a NAWALT. What makes you different?

    How did lawmakers pass these insane laws? Are they TRYING to completely destroy marriage? I can’t blame any young man who decides to go MGTOW and eschew marriage altogether – as the male, the laws and courts are so stacked against you that’s it become almost comical (if it weren’t so tragic).

    Cause, I have the pleasure of introducing you to Effect…

    And so…. you still going to miffed when I advise men not to get married? You clearly understand the risks, you simply don’t understand that you have been lucky in your marriage and that other men will not be so and since they can understand that, choose to stay away from marriage.

    I’ll have more quotes later, got stuff to do this morning.

  401. Swanny River says:

    Sharkly,
    I didn’t know you had supervised visits. That is a violation of everything decent and a violence against you. And my church NEVER mentions such actions, which is routinely happening. Too afraid of sounding like they are giving cover to men, since it is appropriate in a few cases to have supervised visits. Such cowardice is not being discreet, like they 5hink of themselves, but is saltless and darkened.

  402. Sharkly says:

    Thanks Swanny River.

    I’ve never ever done an illegal drug, I don’t drink, smoke or dip. I’ve never punched a person in anger. speeding tickets are the worst offense I’ve ever committed. My job is a trusted position of expertise and responsibility, where I’m relied upon to keep large numbers of people safely alive based upon my good judgement and ethical execution of my work. But suddenly I get served papers at work stating that I’m a danger to my own sons. And over 5 months later I have still not been given an opportunity to respond. Meanwhile after I have gotten a full psychological evaluation done stating that I have no disorders, and am not likely to pose any danger to my children, they are throwing up hurdle after hurdle for me while nobody even cares that my wife has at least 3 diagnosed disorders, and has not been evaluated for more, nor have any of my concerns been addressed. I will likely have to pay to go to therapy for the porn/sex addiction I have been falsely accused of having, in an attempt to get the supervision requirement eventually lifted. Meanwhile so much of my pay is taken I can’t afford to pay somebody to supervise my time with my kids, so I have to beg a few friends my wife approves of to give up part of their weekend with their family to come over to my house and supervise me. Saturday is my sons 10th birthday party, and I’m, of course, not allowed to be there. I’m still trying to beg somebody to get back to me about volunteering to supervise me with my children for a few hours Sunday afternoon. I would have never believed this sort of thing could happen to a decent man here in America, if I wasn’t in the middle of it. over the last 6 years so many things have happened to me that nobody would believe. The truth of what has happened to me sounds like lies, because it is so unbelievable. If I were to make up lies, they would be far more believable than what truly has happened. I usually don’t even bother to try to tell much of it, because I know I wouldn’t believe it myself, if somebody else told me the same story. I kind of feel like Job. I went from riches to rags, married with children, to divorced and bereft, Honored to vainly begging for help, and like Job everybody wants to blame me, and try to coerce me into accepting blame, when my integrity is all I have left.

    I didn’t just find the Red Pill one day and impulsively pop it in my mouth. Providence came and jabbed a hypodermic with a double dose of Red Medicine directly into my behind.

  403. Novaseeker says:

    Sharkly —

    Sorry you are in that situation. It is indeed a terrible vortex, and it always plays against the man. Unfortunately anything you do that they can find which is either in any way critical of your wife or involves something like porn use will be thrown with full force at you to your huge disadvantage. When I was going through my own divorce, my lawyer very early on in the process said that now is the time to behave like a choirboy in your personal life (you never know who is looking or tracking, and likely someone is), to not have any ex parte communication with your stbx that does not involve scheduling, logistics and nothing else, and to not do things like seek out other women or watch porn, both of which can be tracked. Of course none of that applies to the wife, but that’s how it is — it’s a terrible, one-sided system. I’m sorry you’re going through it. Just try to hang on and get through the worst parts of it now, that’s pretty much all you can do — a lot is not in your control. Hopefully you have an excellent lawyer — I did and it made a big difference for me in that things could have gone much worse if I did not.

    People blame you because that is the general meme about divorce in our culture: divorce happens because the man fucks up badly, and she dumps the asshole rightly. Almost all men who have not been through it themselves, and all women (other than a few mothers who have seen the system work against their sons and block their own access to grandchildren), view divorce this way, and will view you this way. It doesn’t end — it’s the cultural meme, and it’s a strong one. You just have to accept it and eventually, when you are out of the terrible red zone you are in now, get past it.

  404. Jeff Strand says:

    FH,

    Regarding your most recent post. I just find it amusing how you seem to have this fixation or obsession with me. As I keep reminding you, I am IN NO WAY encouraging you to marry anyone. On the contrary, I told you in a previous post that you don’t seem to me like the kind of guy who should consider marriage at all!

    And I don’t care if you advise men not to marry under any circumstance. That advice will have some effect on divorced guys who have been put through the wringer (just read Sharkley’s posts) and hung out to dry, certainly. And I don’t have a problem with that – a good friend of mine is divorced and playing the field. He swears he’ll never marry again. And I totally get where’s coming from. I have no prob with it.

    I’m more concerned with the advice we give young men who are just starting out. Your “Never marry!” mantra will fall on deaf ears here. They want a wife and a family, it’s hard-wired into them. They will just write you off as a kook and a bitter loser who can’t get laid. And like I pointed out earlier, even if they were to consider your advice and eschew marriage, what’s the alternative for them? Be celibate and join a monestary? Porn and their right hand? Prostitutes? Sex dolls? (like YouTube’s Turd Flinging Monkey has chosen; he goes on in his vids about how affectionate he’s becoming towards his doll) Or spend a ton of effort trying to learn enough Game to become a PUA, and go through their life seeing how much Pump and Dump they can pull off?

    No matter how bad the divorce laws and courts are stacked against men, you can’t blame young men for looking at that list of alternatives to marriage and saying “No thanks, I’ll pass. I still think I’ll roll the dice on marriage.” And if they do a bit of research, they’ll learn that the odds aren’t as bad as you make it out to be. For example, it’s often said that “half of all marriages fail”. Which is true. But the key word in that phrase is “all”. That stat of a fifty percent divorce rate is taking into account every marriage.

    But what if we choose some parameters to narrow things down a bit? Let’s assume the following: A) Both of the spouses are white, B) Both have at least a four year degreee, C) The bride is at least 25 years old at the time of the wedding, D) Their first child is conceived within wedlock. If you meet those four requirements, statistics show a divorce rate of only 10%. That means that fully 90% of those marriages last, and are lifetime marriages. Pretty good odds! (Of course, you can argue about how happy the people in all those marriages are. We’re not mind readers, so we don’t know. But they’re at least not so miserable that they’re filing for divorce – even though you and some other posters here give the impression that women file for divorce if the wind blows!)

    So since young men will marry anyway, the best advice to them is to choose their mate carefully. My advice is that they marry a NAWALT, as I did. But for those who’ve objected that NAWALT’s are too rare to make my advice practical, I’ve met them halfway by agreeing to compromise in this way: Then at least burn into into the brains of young men to NEVER marry any girl who A) Is a feminist, B) Is a “strong, independent” career woman, or C) Has mental problems. (And a fourth requirement – that she not be a slut – speaks for itself). If young men do no more then just follow this VERY BASIC advice, then we’re making good progress! We will have spared a lot of men a lot of agony.

    And with this advice, there’s an actual chance of getting young men to take said advice! You’re still leaving them the possibility of marriage and family, which they want. So this is what we should focus on. Just imagine all the feminists, career bitches, and mentally unstable broads unable to lock down a husband! How perfect is that!

    So what’s wrong with that? (Caveat: At the same time, we continue our efforts to raise awareness about the draconian and blatantly unfair laws against husband and fathers, such as the ones screwing over Sharkley at present)

  405. Jeff Strand says:

    FH (or anyone else), if you will kindly review my post of 5:58 am on May 18.

    In that post I describe my wife (very truthfully and accurately, btw). So my question to you is: Regardless of whether you use the actual word NAWALT or not, do you consider a woman like my other half to be wife material? Is that the kind of woman a young man should choose for marriage? Or even in this case, should a man choose porn, prostitutes, and “pump and dump” over marriage to such a woman? Do you think I’d be better off had I stayed single and tried to just play the field, pumping and dumping broads for decade after decade?

    Just curious.

  406. BJ says:

    I realize many on here don’t like me or what I have said. Honestly, I don’t care. You ain’t the first, and you won’t be the last. I wasn’t looking for a fight, I was just looking to talk about men being men. I am very motivated about this topic, because I have seen too men broken by the culture we live in, and we have to fight back. For those who have given me a fair shake, I ‘preciate it.

    I don’t know if links are allowed, but here is one some of you should read:

    http://www.returnofkings.com/128264/men-need-to-take-back-the-reins

  407. BJ,

    I realize many on here don’t like me or what I have said. Honestly, I don’t care. You ain’t the first, and you won’t be the last. I wasn’t looking for a fight, I was just looking to talk about men being men. I am very motivated about this topic, because I have seen too men broken by the culture we live in, and we have to fight back. For those who have given me a fair shake, I ‘preciate it.

    I like you fine. I don’t mind chatting with you one bit. It is just that I don’t think you are truly capable of learning. Many men here have shared their personal stories of how the Duluth model and the family courts brought them through a meat grinder (and they continue to do so.) You either fob them off OR you refuse to even dignify what they have to say, matters. That is the blue pill in you.

    I don’t think you can help it. It doesn’t mean we don’t like you. It just means we understand you.

  408. 7817 says:

    @BJ

    “BJ on May 19, 2018 at 10:05 am
    I realize many on here don’t like me or what I have said. Honestly, I don’t care. You ain’t the first, and you won’t be the last. I wasn’t looking for a fight, I was just looking to talk about men being men.”

    I don’t dislike you, but I recognize from what you are saying that you have some gaps in your understanding, the same way we all do, especially when we first start looking into this.

    My suggestion is for right now to not speak with authority on these issues. I’m not suggesting for you to never speak with authority, but first to take some time and marinate in the information, get as much understanding of this as you can, and allow it to change your thought process. Even just something like observing where the men you know fit into Vox Days socio-sexual hierarchy is a good exercise to help develop your thinking.

  409. Swanny River says:

    IBB,
    I agree, he doesn’t realize that his realization is wrong and that he sets up his own hurdles to learning with such false realizations. I am just guessing though.
    He is in ministry and he is getting feedback because people care about a ministry to men succeeding.

  410. feministhater says:

    Regarding your most recent post. I just find it amusing how you seem to have this fixation or obsession with me. As I keep reminding you, I am IN NO WAY encouraging you to marry anyone. On the contrary, I told you in a previous post that you don’t seem to me like the kind of guy who should consider marriage at all!

    Okay, so you’re a liar then. The only reason I responded to your latest diatribe was because you made on obvious lie about me and I’ll allowed you the opportunity to revise it and correct yourself.

    Now I’ll just tell you to take a hike.

  411. seventiesjason says:

    The crux of all these comments is that the folks who indeed married a NAWALT honestly believe that every man can find and marry one.

    There simply are not enough. Here or abroad.

    Even if a man works out, loves God and serves man……has an okay job………..the NAWALT is going to have many numerous choices and suitors. He is more than likely NOT going to be one of her choices….esp if he is working class.

    The delusion men who do have solid, good marriges today a la 1950’s in appearance forget that the working class is pretty much gone. It has been repleced with the “welfare class” or “working poor”

    A big difference from the “working class”

    Men who actually laid pipe, worked in a steel mill, or in a coal mine could actually get married at one time. They could own a house. They may get some vacation, even had some health assurances, and a pension supplemented by Social Security. They would be able to buy a new car once a decade or so. Not so today……and been sinking fast since the mid 1970’s.

    This HUGE swath of men have been reduced to the welfare class, or if not….they are not “marriage material” because they cannot provide a “good living for a wife and children”

    It doesn’t matter if they love God, serve Christ. They are not some amazing provider…….in our christian church culture the attitude from the men who DID find and marry a NAWALT is:

    Just take a few college classes. put your nose to the grindstone and you will be an investment banker in a few years

    The nation doesn’t need 12 million commercial airline pilots. Not every man can be a chemical engineer, or a doctor or a even a manager.

    Floors need to be mopped. Garbage hauled away. Roads need to be plowed in winter………..

    Marriage is now an upper class thing, and the men who actually DO want to be married are frozen out and give a “pat on the back” like a “good dog” by the ones who are married to NAWALTS telling us again we “just are not looking and trying hard enough”

  412. BJ says:

    @innocentbystanderboston

    ” It is just that I don’t think you are truly capable of learning.”

    That is pretty presumptuous, but even so, I specifically said I would go read up on Duluth. That is all a normal person is able to do. Read and listen.

    ” You either fob them off OR you refuse to even dignify what they have to say, matters.”

    I have done no such thing. I have never said anyone was lying or making stuff up. All I have ever said is that we have to keep working to push back against this. Telling a wounded solider that he can’t quit is not insensitive, particularly when I work everyday to help men who have been broken (among others, not just men, of course) to get back on their feet and work hard to get their lives back in order. I never said it was the wounded soldiers fault or that he is too blame. I said we need to keep fighting and teach others how to avoid getting wounded.

    I am not some kind of know-it-all guru, and never claimed to be. I just want to explore how men can support one another in this cultural war.

  413. Jeff Strand says:

    FH: “Now I’ll just tell you to take a hike.”

    Of course, as expected. Anything to keep from answering the question I posed to you:

    Regardless of whether you use the actual word NAWALT or not, do you consider a woman like my other half to be wife material? Is that the kind of woman a young man should choose for marriage?

  414. Boxer says:

    Dear Jason, et. al.:

    The crux of all these comments is that the folks who indeed married a NAWALT honestly believe that every man can find and marry one.

    They don’t believe that. They know it’s untrue, even better than you. This becomes clear when you read the trolling at face value. e.g.:

    Jeff Strand Kookfarts:

    Btw, here’s a quick tip – ask the girl you’re interested in if she knows that the “Holohoax” is a load of crap. And if she thinks the South should have won The War of Northern Aggression (this applies even if you’re both northerners). If she answers yes to both questions, then you know you’ve got a very redpilled girl on your hands, who might be a good candidate for a NAWALT.

    This guy is motivated to come here, and rub your faces in this nonsense, due to deep emotional insecurity. I believe that Mrs. Strand had already been run through by tons of niggaz and also lots of Jooz, who threw her into the trash when they were done with her. When she was hitting the wall, Jeff picked up negro garbage and married it. This clearly troubles him deeply. Rather than moving on with his life and making the most of the present, he vents his angst toward all the other men who had first crack at his wife.

    Thus, Jeffy’s boasting is a form of cuckold pr0n, and nothing more. He wants to humiliate you guys because he is humiliated, but it never seems to permanently relieve his own self-hatred, and thus he returns, and returns, and returns, day after day, getting a sick sexual thrill out of pretending to have the perfect marriage, and lording it over normal men like you guys.

    In the end, you can’t reason with damaged characters like this, and nothing you can say or do to him will be worse than his own, self-created, hell on earth, so it’s best to just forget about this type of weirdo.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  415. seventiesjason says:

    Jeff I don’t think anyone here is denying that your wife has the qualities that a man should want or look for in a wife. The problem is that most men….WON’T get that today (and for awhile now).

  416. BJ says:

    @7817

    “I don’t dislike you, but I recognize from what you are saying that you have some gaps in your understanding, the same way we all do, especially when we first start looking into this.”

    Okay, I fully acknowledge that all of us have gaps and when I was confronted with something I didn’t know about (Duluth), I said I would read up. I can do nothing more. I suppose I could just walk away and quit talking about it, but no, I won’t. It is too important.

    It is also important not to get into an echo chamber. Not everyone’s experience is the same, and many folk are doing well in leading their families. Perfect, no, but still fairing well. We have to listen to others who may not see exactly the same way and reason together. That is all I am trying to do.

    “My suggestion is for right now to not speak with authority on these issues.”

    I don’t speak with authority, expect where I know I am right. The Bible is the authority and it commands men to lead their families with conviction. There is no “except where the culture or law doesn’t agree” clause. I am happy to keep reading, but this is a topic I know I fairly well from first hand experience and study. Yes, I can learn more and will keep learning, obviously. But I ask the same question I asked before, how many marriages or relationships should I be a far of helping and correcting before I have anything of value to say?

  417. BJ says:

    Apologies for typos…

  418. earl says:

    earl made the comment people can be more holy as they get older
    They can also become more evil,see my mother.

    I agree…the longer you stay on one road the more you stay on that road.

  419. earl says:

    Eating right and exercising is a fair game. It’s straight up. Cancer doesn’t get the backing of feminist legislation and government violence.

    Bingo.

    Every woman in this nation has the backing of this…one false move and she can unleash it. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but when she thinks the timing is right and she’s ready to unleash her resentment…she can get rewarded for it.

  420. earl says:

    Because as I keep asking Jim, what’s the alternative you’re offering? Porn and your right hand? Prostitutes? A life of loneliness and celibacy? Sex dolls? You see, there’s a reason Jim has refused to answer the question.

    Did you overlook mine…pray for her to follow God’s will before you get married. Even when she’s not in the picture yet. I understand how people might scoff at that, but to recognize the overall feminist culture has to be coming from a spiritual (demonic) realm as well was clear to me after I read up on it. God can overcome anything…even the bleak state we are in.

    Does that mean God will bring you the NAWALT of your dreams…not necessarily, but at least I’m trying. And in the long run deeping a relationship with my Lord is much more rewarding.

    So I think better advice for a young man would be: “Never marry a feminist, a “strong, independent” career type, or any chick with mental problems (especially BPD)”. If we could just get that advice to be taken, think how much progress would be made! And that way, you’re still leaving the door open for the young man to have a wife and family. Because even if he just chooses a “NAWALT-lite”, that still greatly improves his odds, versus marrying your typical feminist-infected broad.

    Yeah well I’ve dated Catholic girls who you would think wouldn’t be feminist…they don’t say they are out loud but they say things like they want control or to do things on their own. Outside of keeping your daughters shackled in the basement they are going to get exposed to it at some point from their friends or even close relatives.

  421. earl says:

    And I’ll mention it again…reading Psalms is better than any anti-depressant out there. Everything we are looking for when it comes to commitment and love is demonstrated from the Lord.

  422. earl says:

    It sounds like you are trying to raise your daugthers the right way…do they also pray the Rosary, involved with the church, read Scripture, wear a Scapular or miraclous medal? The devil is real and is out there and is having a field day with women that they need all the divine help they can get.

  423. seventiesjason says:

    God has nothing to do with bringing you or giving you a wife. Abraham went BACK to his home land to BRING his son a wife. He didn’t say “Son, our God is big enough to get us off a desert island, so let’s just sit and wait here til He deems you worthy of one, and brings one”

    The Words tells us he who “finds” a wife is a “good thing”

    Nowhere are you “promised” one.

    Plenty of people have been before God, exchanged vows, got married and claimed that “god” brought them together……but when divorce happens……did God suddenly lie?????????????

    No. God had nothing to do with them getting married. This view takes all responsibility off people and places it soley and only upon God…………feeble and selfish creations that we are will use ANY excuse to blame our failures (real or imigined) upon God, the neighbors, the pastor, the people in Washington DC………………..instead of squarely where they belong, on ourselves and the situations we get ourselves into. Good or bad.

    We have trends and thoughts in the culture that can help or hinder us……..but still this horrid “myth” that God alone brings you a spouse is really some snake oil the devil himself has sold to many in faith today………and I’m still shocked how it’s expounded as truth

  424. Bee says:

    Sharkly,

    Sorry for the awful things our horrible family law system is putting you through.

    I have been praying for you and your wife and will continue to pray for you. Praying also for Paul and Jason, and a few others.

  425. thedeti says:

    @ingracious:

    What if you introduced MAD into a marriage arrangement upfront by threatening to have your wife killed if she ever abused her state-given powers, so that you could nullify the risks as a man of attempting to enter into a male-lead, “abusive” relationship? Would it help the issue of modern marriage and its surrounding unfair laws?

    Threatening to have someone else killed is a felony in most states. It’s generally a bad life strategy and bad sexual strategy to commit felonies. It’s kind of hard to live and have sex from a jail cell. Unless of course you’re Jeremy Meeks (google him, “hot felon”.).

    I would say that what you’re talking about here is extreme Dread, but I’d replace “threaten to kill” with “find her pressure points, and apply pressure there.” Every woman has pressure points, weak spots. Find them, and use them.

    For some, it’s public shame. For others, it’s material goods. For still others, it’s lifestyle. For mine it was shame. I essentially did the following:

    “if things do not change right now, we’re done. I’ll do whatever I have to do to protect myself. And if our marriage fails, we’re going to tell the kids why – because of your behavior. And I’ll have a sitdown with your mother and father, and explain to them exactly what you did and said to me to torpedo this marriage. I will spread it all of record in the divorce proceedings. I will tell your friends. I will tell our pastor. And I will send them copies of the court papers. I will tell everyone I know exactly what has happened to cause this divorce.

    “And we will have the nastiest, most costly, most protracted divorce our county has ever seen. There will be no agreements. We’re all going to the poorhouse, because the litigation will consume all our assets. I will fight you on everything – property division, future asset acquisition, your future inheritance, child custody, everything. I want full custody of our minor son, and if I can swing it, YOU will be paying ME child support. When you inherit from your parents, I want my share of it and we will be back in court litigating over it. EVERY time there is a change in position we will be back in court.

    “You need to fix this, right now. Certain things you have done in the past, you ever do them again, all bets are off, and you will be setting into motion a process that will not stop and will not be reversed. I will shame you every day of this process, and will tell everyone we know what is happening, why it is happening, and what you did and said to cause it.

    “Your choice, babe. What’s it gonna be? Peace, or war?”

    And then you have to resolve to walk that out, and if she says “war”, then you’re going to war.

  426. Bee says:

    BJ,

    I like you. I have spent some time in Southern Ohio myself. So has Empath.

    I hope you keep commenting and reading here.

  427. thedeti says:

    7817:

    Thanks. I don’t think I’ve given “good” advice. Just advice that worked for me. I had to set down hard boundaries.

    “You will not say X to me again. You say it again, we are done.”

    “You will not do Y to me again. You do Y to me again, we are done.”

    “We will do A and B and C. We will not do D or E anymore, ever. You don’t like this, there’s the door. Use it, and don’t come back.”

    “There are certain things I wish to do/have, and I am going to do/have them. You don’t like this, there’s the door. Use it, and don’t come back.”

    “There are certain things I need from you, and I expect you to provide them. You have failed in the past to provide these things. That failure is no longer acceptable. You don’t like this or don’t want to provide these things I need, then we’re done, and I will find someone else who can/wants to provide them.”

    And you can’t just say these things. You have to mean them 100%, and be fully ready to implement them 100%. That might cost you. A lot. I am fully prepared to bear those costs, because they are well worth my self respect and the respect of my children.

  428. Jeff Strand says:

    FH: “It sounds like you are trying to raise your daugthers the right way…do they also pray the Rosary, involved with the church, read Scripture, wear a Scapular or miraclous medal? The devil is real and is out there and is having a field day with women that they need all the divine help they can get.”

    Agree completely. And yes, we do all of that. My older daughter just finished reading a book I had her read about St. Catherine Laboure and the Miraculous Medal. Before that was a biography of St. Rose of Lima, and next will be St. Hyacinth. My younger just finished memorizing the Hail Mary in Latin. They go to parochial school. We attend the traditional Latin Mass and they go to Comfession regularly.

    Also, they know to pray every day, and I taught them that the number one intention they should pray for – even more than for good health, or blessings on their family – is that they never lose the faith.

    Cheers!

  429. Jeff Strand says:

    Boxer: “This guy is motivated to come here, and rub your faces in this nonsense, due to deep emotional insecurity. I believe that Mrs. Strand had already been run through by tons of niggaz and also lots of Jooz, who threw her into the trash when they were done with her. When she was hitting the wall, Jeff picked up negro garbage and married it. This clearly troubles him deeply. Rather than moving on with his life and making the most of the present, he vents his angst toward all the other men who had first crack at his wife.”

    So my wife is a whore, who has trains run on her by “niggaz” and “Jooz”? And then they threw her in the trash, where I found her?

    Got it. Seems like an entirely thoughtful and appropriate post. Thank you, you’re obviously a very good, decent person and a good Christian.

    God Bless you and your family.

  430. Jeff Strand says:

    @thedeti: “And then you have to resolve to walk that out, and if she says “war”, then you’re going to war.”

    You’ve got balls, my man. Got to give you that.

  431. thedeti says:

    Jeff:

    The point is setting down boundaries. The point is being willing to defend those boundaries to the death of your marriage.

    It’s largely my fault for letting it get to that point. When I did that, I had just been put in a position of having nothing left to lose.

  432. Jeff Strand says:

    @earl: “Yeah well I’ve dated Catholic girls who you would think wouldn’t be feminist…they don’t say they are out loud but they say things like they want control or to do things on their own”

    I’ve been out of the dating market for awhile. Can you expand on this?

  433. thedeti says:

    Jeff:

    I’m not Earl. But he is 100% correct about all this. Almost no women say they are feminists. Especially not women who attend church regularly or even who are devout believers. But they are all somewhat feminist.

    It always comes out in talking about their life plans. It’s in the “life script”. It also comes out when women talk about what their picture of a marriage and family is. Men and women, husbands and wives are “equal”. A marriage is a “partnership”. There’s no “submission”, that bit in Eph. 5 about submission was for a difference place, time and context. They are both going to work, and her career is just as important as his career. They aren’t going to change their lives just because they’re marrying. She’s not a “wife”, she’s his “partner in life and in love”. There are certain things she’s going to “control” and “be in charge of”.

  434. Jim says:

    Because as I keep asking Jim, what’s the alternative you’re offering? Porn and your right hand? Prostitutes? A life of loneliness and celibacy? Sex dolls? You see, there’s a reason Jim has refused to answer the question.

    I did answer the question, you just don’t like the answer.

  435. Jeff Strand says:

    Jim:

    Perhaps I missed it then. Give me the date and exact time of your post where you answered the question, and I’ll check it out.

  436. Jim says:

    I’m not Earl. But he is 100% correct about all this. Almost no women say they are feminists. Especially not women who attend church regularly or even who are devout believers. But they are all somewhat feminist.

    Of course not. Women are pathological lairs (I’ll add Leftist soy boys into this since they are mostly women with a dick anyway). Even a few women have admitted as much to me. Women will say whatever they think will get them what they want. If that means they have to lie (and they constantly do) then that’s exactly what they’ll do. It’s the reason they fit so well in with the Left.

    Many women claimed to have dropped feminism but they’ve really only dropped the label.

  437. 7817 says:

    @BJ

    “There is no “except where the culture or law doesn’t agree” clause.”

    Right, but that automatically makes us outlaws. Are we ready for that?

    “I am happy to keep reading, but this is a topic I know I fairly well from first hand experience and study.”

    You’ve got my spidey sense alerted with some of this stuff. I used to go to a church where the preacher used lingo to allow himself to be a blank slate, everyone thinking they were hearing what they wanted. Deja vu.

    “Yes, I can learn more and will keep learning, obviously. But I ask the same question I asked before, how many marriages or relationships should I be a far of helping and correcting before I have anything of value to say?”

    Here’s what you (possibly) don’t get. In our culture, when you say “help marriage and relationships,” that means you assisted the Feminine Imperative. You didn’t say “Men.” That’s a red flag.

    And this is a good point to test your understanding. Do you know what it Rollo means when he says that the Feminine Imperative has replaced the Holy Spirit in the modern church?

    Do you understand Vox Day’s socio-sexual hierarchy, and the different challenges that men in those different positions will have when it comes to dealing with women? (Even for those who think it is BS, its a good exercise to develop understanding).

    Do you understand AF/BB?

    Do you know what part of a woman to engage with when she is arguing and triggered, and what part not to engage? And why?

  438. Jim says:

    Jim:

    Perhaps I missed it then. Give me the date and exact time of your post where you answered the question, and I’ll check it out.

    Here you go:
    May 17, 2018 at 7:45 am

    To elaborate on that post (since I’ve noticed a number of people over the years many people either don’t get what I’m saying or just don’t like it. Although when you think about it it’s implied in most of the posts I’ve made in this thread) I’m saying that yes, you need to live alone for now. Honestly I have no problem with it. If a guy is too weak to live alone then he can roll the dice and live with a guillotine just over his neck the rest of his life, waiting for it to fall, if that’s what they want to do. Hell, I can’t stop them from likely self-destruction.

    Why post about this subject at all then if all I’m doing is not playing the rigged game? For a couple of reasons:

    1. Warning other men of what awaits them.
    2. All this empowerment of bitches is feminizing everything and destroying the fabric of the West. When it’s finished this will effect me and millions of others in many terrible ways. Yes this has already been happening but it’s going to get much worse.

    I’m not telling you or anyone else to divorce if they’re already married. This message is for those already divorced and thinking about remarrying or bachelors like me. It’s also for those encouraging others to marry.

    In my view it’s all about risk assessment. Is the juice worth the squeeze? I say not in the least. Having access to a wet hole isn’t worth willingly putting my livelihood and even my life on the line. That’s just stupid (with extremely rare exceptions). A cunts has way too much power in the West these days and she is just too undisciplined and impulsive to be wielding it.

  439. Jeff Strand says:

    Thedeti,

    Re your comment how most girls, even “Church girls”, are infected with feminism today.

    I totally believe it. This entire culture marinates them in it. Starting as little girls. Look at the hit movie Frozen – there’s no way they could allow the princes to find a good, strong, masculine, loving husband. The masculine one was unmasked as the villain, while the weak, soyboy Beta Orbiter was played up as her more appropriate match. But even that could still be viewed as her “needing a man” (albeit a pathetic betaboy), so they ended up by keeping her single and making her sister be her “true love” who delivered “true love’s first kiss” to her! Disgusting! I have a sister, does this mean she’s supposed to be my “true love?” Sick.

    The whole thing is just gross and non-sense. But that’s the lengths they’re going to now. Call it Extreme Feminism. So yes, if you’re trying to find a traditional girl (or raise one), you’re going against the tide.

    My wife and I make a deliberate effort to keep our girls feminine as they grow up, because we are aware that this whole society – including many churches – will do all it can to masculinize them (even as they feminize the boys!) It’s a constant struggle. Of course, it starts at home…where they see their mom embracing the role of traditional wife (and my wife is very feminine, i.e. a “girly girl”, to start with). Our girls take sewing and cooking classes. For sports and exercise, they take tennis lessons. Their mom takes them to the salon regularly to get their nails done, and get facials and other beauty treatments (doing this since they were little girls).

    Healthy eating and staying in shape are emphasized. And this Spring they have been taking formal etiquette classes, aimed at teaching them how to behave like proper young ladies. And as I stated earlier, when we discuss their futures we focus on the family aspect – that they will be good, devoted wives and mothers – and don’t emphasize career and education. We also focus on their religious education, as I covered in my reply to Earl a couple posts ago.

    For my wife and me, it’s our fondest wish that both our girls will turn out to be NAWALT’s. That they will be happily married and will bless us with many grandchildren one day. Of course, nothing in this life is guaranteed. But we are doing all that we can do. Beyond that, it’s out of our hands.

  440. Jeff Strand says:

    @Jim: “Although when you think about it it’s implied in most of the posts I’ve made in this thread) I’m saying that yes, you need to live alone for now.”

    That’s your advice to young men? That they choose to make themselves lonely eunuchs? I can’t even say monks, because while monks are celibate they at least have the consolation offered by the brotherhood of their fellow monks in the abbey, the satisfaction they can take in their sacred vows, and their rich spiritual life. You aren’t even offering young men that – just a life of loneliness and depression.

    So let’s understand this. A young man should live alone (or with roommates, I suppose), while he watches his buddies pair off with girlfriends? So he’s the perpetual “third wheel” that everybody pities? He’s supposed to come without a date on his arm to his buddy’s weddings, watch them marry and move on with their lives, have the joy of babies and children, etc. While he remains alone. All so that, one day, if one of his buddies suffers a bad divorce, he can point at him and say “Whew, glad I ain’t that guy!”

    Lol, sure, feel free to give out that advice. I’m sure it will catch on fast!

    P.S. And let’s not kid ourselves, unless these young men choose to castrate themselves, they’re gonna need a sexual outlet. What do you advise? Porn and the reliable old right hand? Call up an escort? Buy a sex doll? What? Give us an answer.

  441. 7817 says:

    @Jeff Strand

    NAWALT believers, read this:

    https://therationalmale.com/2013/03/19/quality-women/

  442. earl says:

    ‘I’ve been out of the dating market for awhile. Can you expand on this?’

    That was word for word what two women who I previously dated stated they wanted their life to be. And this was also after I found out they told friends I knew they liked it I went up and directly asked them out and had a plan. So which do they want…a man or their feminist fairy tale? Most women choose the fairy tale and expect that as reality.

  443. Boxer says:

    Faggot Strand:

    What? Give us an answer.

    Why should he? You still haven’t answered my question, from two days ago, namely:

    My question to you is why you would come here, and slum with all these losers?

    Of course, I know the answer, and you know I know it. Your kooky NAWALT fairy-tale has already unraveled. You married a skank-ho’ slut, and you don’t dare confront her. This causes some dreadful psychic conflicts between your ears. The only outlet for your angst is to show up here, and attempt to humiliate better men, who are currently going through rough times.

    Anyone who wants more info about Strand can read Anna Freud’s work on ego defense. He’s a textbook example. Laughable and pathetic.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  444. BillyS says:

    Sure, Dad. Will do.

    Jeff misattributes something and then gets snarky when confronted. Shows his intent and the reason he is getting no sympathy here.

    What value does all that boasting have anyway? What is Jeff trying to accomplish other than posing?

  445. earl says:

    Look Jeff…if your wife is truly what you say she is…thank your lucky stars she hasn’t ripped the rose colored glasses off your eyes and smashed them. But most of the guys here in one way or another have had them ripped off and their stories are as probably as true as what you are saying. I’ve read quite a few commenters stories and even some who have blogs and listened to coworkers and family members situations when their wife decided to go on the d route…there’s even a guy I get into numerous arguements with over the Catholic faith who I’m not a particular fan of, but I get he’s been through the ringer in this arena too.

    Those two women I last dated had all the things I thought were wife material…devout Catholic women (one even was in the convent, went to adortation, knew her faith well, etc.) and from my experiences with them they were kind & feminine and not the typical crazy lesbian feminist skank-ho you’d run into on the street. But they said those things showing that perhaps even by osmosis some of that feminist garbage had got in there. That was the last of my rose colored glasses being smashed…AWALT (at least in this country). Other than a handful of women who are my friends wives and my own mother…there are very few who have shown me they completely reject feminism and follow the Lord and their husband.

    What do you want me to do…be more alpha and somehow that’ll fix it? I can’t marry the unwilling and I can’t make a women submit if she chooses to want to be in control or wants to be independant.

  446. Jeff Strand says:

    Boxer,

    Reading your post, you seem like a very happy, content, well-adjusted person. Especially since it was you who chose to respond to me, not the other way around.

    Thanks for all your kindness and advice. I’m sure Dalrock also very much appreciates you posting language like that on his blog. You are indeed a class act.

    All the best to you and God bless.

  447. Jeff Strand says:

    @BillyS: “What value does all that boasting have anyway? What is Jeff trying to accomplish other than posing?”

    Lol, are you really that insecure? I join a discussion by saying “I recommend young men find a NAWALT and marry her, which is what I did. Discuss.” and you start crying “Wahhh! You’re boasting!”

    Dude, how miserable are you in your life? Must be pretty damn bad, lol

  448. Jeff Strand says:

    @earl: “What do you want me to do…be more alpha and somehow that’ll fix it? I can’t marry the unwilling and I can’t make a women submit if she chooses to want to be in control or wants to be independant.”

    I’m not telling you to do anything. The question I find interesting is, what advice do we give young men, who are just starting out? You have said your advice to them is they should pray for their future wives. And that’s great. But what should they ACTUALLY DO? Should they avoid marriage and women at all costs and live alone, as Jim and FH advise? Or if they should marry, but only very selectively, what kind of girl should they marry?

    I get that you might respond with, “I don’t have the answers.” But that doesn’t work for these young men – they have to live their lives, they can’t just put themselves in suspended animation and wait until you (or anyone else in the ‘sphere) has advice to give them. So what should they ACTUALLY DO now, given Current Year.

    My answer is that, in spite of the stacked deck, marriage is still worth it if you marry a NAWALT. After hearing objections that NAWALT’s are too rare for my advice to be practical for enough young men to really matter, I adjusted my advice to say that marriage and family formation is still worth the risk, even if men just eliminate the following kinds of girls: the feminists, the career bitchs, and the mentally unstable. (Of course, it goes without saying that sluts must be eliminated too)

    You can disagree with me, that’s cool. That’s called a discussion. But I have to hold your feet to the fire on this point: you have to provide an alternative. Then we can compare. Jim gave his alternative – men should stay alone. Never have a loving relationship with a woman, never have children etc. I, of course, think that’s a very poor alternative that will have rather limited appeal (putting it mildly). But at least he put forth his alternative of what young men today SHOULD DO.

    I guess my advice is similar to, “You don’t have to run faster than the bear, you just have to run faster than the other camper.” Or like grading on the curve. Because here’s the thing – we view “NAWALT-ness” as an objective standard; a woman must meet a whole laundry list of requirements to qualify. And people complain there are so few women who meet that standard. But what if, you just focus on the top 10% of women? (Top 10% in terms of CLOSEST to being a NAWALT, compared to their fellow women, regardless of how far they fall from the NAWALT standard, objectively speaking). Grading on the curve, so to speak.

    The downside is, you probably don’t get an objective 100% NAWALT. The upside is, you always have a pool of 10% of the total female population to choose your mate from. And since you’ve eliminated the riskiest 90%, you’ve done all you can to improve your odds.

    Your take?

  449. BillyS says:

    Jeff,

    Lol, are you really that insecure? I join a discussion by saying “I recommend young men find a NAWALT and marry her, which is what I did. Discuss.” and you start crying “Wahhh! You’re boasting!”

    Yep, posing it is. “Do it like me and you will do well. No clear testable advice on how to do it, just the command to do it. Posing.

    Dude, how miserable are you in your life? Must be pretty damn bad, lol

    I am pretty miserable now. I still have to deal with my NAWALT wife of almost 30 years walking out on me and using the state to enforce it and get ongoing benefits from me merely because she is female and has almost no skills.

    And then idiots like you just pose around being more alpha than everyone else.

    You sound like Artisenal Toad with his 3 kick-ass wives. Making stories up and posing sounds good, but doesn’t help anyone.

    You have no useful advice, just posing. Telling someone to “do better” or better yet, “have done better in the past” must feel great in your mom’s basement.

  450. BillyS says:

    What bear was I supposed to have outrun with someone else? God picked my NAWALT wife and she still went bad. Welcome to modern life. You should focus some of your posing and butthurt to those passing and reinforcing the systems AWALT women exploit today.

  451. 7817 says:

    Dalrock, I apologize for feeding the troll upthread. Didn’t realize it was a troll till now.

  452. earl says:

    But I have to hold your feet to the fire on this point: you have to provide an alternative.

    The priesthood, consecrated single, missionary work…

    Shoot read what St. Paul had to say

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+7+%3A17-40&version=NIV

  453. earl says:

    “You don’t have to run faster than the bear, you just have to run faster than the other camper.”

    My advice would be…you don’t have to get screwed over and lose everything by the state, you just have to avoid the group they target with incentives to divorce you.

  454. Jeff Strand says:

    Earl,

    That’s not exactly advice for the great mass of young men. As you certainly realize.

    So basically you have no advice. (other than for the less than 1% who will choose the religious life.) Fine, no law says you have to have advice to give. But maybe pause to consider, when you criticize or badmouthing the advice I have for the young men, that you have no alternative advice to give them.

  455. earl says:

    Well no advice you agree with. I don’t think you get how stubborn and hard headed you are around these parts.

    But hey if you can figure out a way to bring a large number of young men great NAWALT women in this country who haven’t ingested the feminist ethos for marriage and large families and these women will never use the power of the state to divorce these gentlemen for cash and prizes…more power to you. We will certainly eat crow if you accomplish that.

  456. Jeff Strand says:

    @earl: “My advice would be…you don’t have to get screwed over and lose everything by the state, you just have to avoid the group they target with incentives to divorce you.”

    That sounds great and all. But what does it mean to a young man today IN PRACTICE? You’re basically saying never marry. But what then?

    The religious life? OK, great. But what about the other 99%? Live in sin? But not only is that immoral, but it still puts the man at risk of a false DV accusation. Live alone? Do you really consider that practical advice? No loving relationship ever, no children ever, etc…but he watches his friends achieve those life milestones, while he waits and waits for one of his buddies to get screwed in a divorce, so he can point at him and say “thank God I’m not that guy”?

    And what of sexual outlets? Porn and jerking off (for a lifetime)? Sex dolls? Hookers?

    I’m not trying to bust your balls. I’m just pushing you to think it through. When you say “Don’t marry”, what does that lead to? And what are the alternatives?

  457. Boxer says:

    Dear Faggot Strand:

    I’m sure Dalrock also very much appreciates you posting language like that on his blog. You are indeed a class act.

    Keep crying, bee-yatch. You still haven’t answered my question. Why are you here, posting day and night, to these brothers you hold in such contempt?

    That’s not exactly advice for the great mass of young men. As you certainly realize… So basically you have no advice. (other than for the less than 1% who will choose the religious life.)

    It’s very good advice, and every bit as valid as telling the young brothers to game sluts. Far more than 1% of the participants here are observant Protestants, mind you. Way to go, insulting most of your audience.

    Fine, no law says you have to have advice to give. But maybe pause to consider, when you criticize or badmouthing the advice I have for the young men, that you have no alternative advice to give them.

    What advice have you given to the brothers here? Near as I can tell, your best attempt is: “Marry a skank-ho, pretend she’s a NAWALT, and spend hours per day on Dalrock blog, pretending superiority…”

    Someone here has an adjustment problem, to be sure.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  458. earl says:

    But what does it mean to a young man today IN PRACTICE? You’re basically saying never marry. But what then?

    No it says what marriage is about now in this country. I’d rather a young man know all about what is in marriage good and bad and he can make a reasonable choice whether to go through with it or not. If you noticed I never said anything about not getting married…you just keep pushing this ‘what are the alternative?’ question…so I answered. You didn’t like it because St. Paul did actually have an alternative.

    Heck I know all this about the current state of marriage and would still want to get married. And yet you seem to gloss over the fact that a lot of the problem is what is going on with women.

  459. earl says:

    My advice…if I had any kind of Godly authority with women…I’d tell them to seek either the religious life or marriage and a family. Submit to God in the convent or submit to God and your husband. Not this single, indepedent, career focused, man hating, you go grrrl lifestyle.

    But as it stands…I have no wife or daughters so the best I can do is present this option to women and hope it stirs something in there.

  460. earl says:

    What advice have you given to the brothers here? Near as I can tell, your best attempt is: “Marry a skank-ho, pretend she’s a NAWALT, and spend hours per day on Dalrock blog, pretending superiority…”

    I’m not even trying to get advice out of him…I’m trying to tell him what the current legal climate is for marriage today and what the current thinking of most women in the dating pool.

    Besides if I won the lottery, I’d make a point to not tell other men…just pick the right 5 numbers and you’ll be as successful and rich as me. Sometimes you got a lucky break and you found a good hearted woman. Be thankful…don’t puff your chest out about it.

  461. BillyS says:

    You have no good advice either Jeff.

  462. Swanny River says:

    Deti,
    I am in the same spot now that you were in. I’ve told her she’s free to leave, but I haven’t done the useful follow up of what she needs to do if she is going to stay. I guess I already have my answer though when I think about it, she refuses to stay home to mother so there is no point in me telling her I want her priority to be my helper and for now that means no career. I remember having a conversation about 4 years ago about it with an elder and his wife, and they blasted me for not being more supportive of her career.
    My son is 5, and I believe he has no choice but to lose respect for me if I don’t go to war.
    Guys here are into game, and I agree it must work, but I really just want to tell her, she is not helping or adding any value and that her role as ahelper 8s being neglected.
    This may even shock this crowd, who uses game- I rather just tell her that if I want her opinion I will ask for it. Hoo boy, my conservative church brothers would definitely consider me sinning for thinking that way and abusive if I ever spoke that way. Ex, she gives more honor and respect to her/my sons piano teacher than me by scheduling those effing lessons on Saturday. I’m rambling I know. I’m afraid I won’t take the steps Deti did and I know there is no other route.

  463. Oscar says:

    @ BJ says:
    May 19, 2018 at 10:05 am

    “I am very motivated about this topic, because I have seen too men broken by the culture we live in, and we have to fight back.”

    Oh, really? Is that why you flippantly dismissed a massive risk to those same men? Is it wise to “fight back” while ignoring a risk that could land a man in prison, or bankruptcy, or both? Or, would it be wiser to acknowledge the risk, and figure out a way to mitigate it?

    “For those who have given me a fair shake, I ‘preciate it.”

    How about giving “a fair shake” to the men who gave you factual information about a major risk facing the men you claim to help? How about asking for corroborating information from the men with first hand experience? Or do you prefer to remain ignorant?

  464. Jeff Strand says:

    @earl: “Besides if I won the lottery, I’d make a point to not tell other men…just pick the right 5 numbers and you’ll be as successful and rich as me. Sometimes you got a lucky break and you found a good hearted woman. Be thankful…don’t puff your chest out about it.”

    First of all, regarding chest puffing, I haven’t done that. Just said that since I myself married a NAWALT, I know for a fact that they exist. And so it’s not an unreasonable idea for a young man to make marriage to a NAWALT his goal. Besides, while you can consider I’m “lucky” to have found my wife, I also consider that she is, if anything, even luckier to have found me! (And she’d be the first to agree with that)

    Also, your lottery analogy is a bit off because winning the lottery is entirely blind luck. Marrying a NAWALT isn’t. True, there’s an element of luck in meeting one. But discerning her, wooing her, building a life with her and supporting a family…these things are not luck at all.

    For example, yes it’s luck that I met my wife. But I did a lot of dating in my 20’s, and had at least 4 serious girlfriends who would have married me (one of whom I was actually engaged to for a time). One of those girlfriends even offered to buy a house for us if I would marry her (I passed, as I’m not for sale). Yet, I didn’t marry any of them. I married Mrs. Strand. There’s a reason I made that decision, and luck had little to do with it. Discernment was key.

    Btw, I also just went on lots of dates with different girls, in between girlfriends. Often in these cases, we wouldn’t click and so things didn’t get beyond a first or second date. This was frustrating and annoying. But that’s how it goes, and that’s also part of the advice I’d give a young man. That this is something of a numbers game, you have to kiss a lot of frogs, etc. Don’t settle, and be willing to move on. Don’t fixate. Have an attitude of abundance. All these factors come into play.

    What was the biggest favor in telling me it “was right” with Mrs. Strand, when we were dating? It was that it didn’t feel like work – we just naturally clicked, with no effort. We just loved being together. And we had immediate passion and chemistry, that’s very important too (though I don’t believe it has to always be immediate, but it does have to come)

  465. earl says:

    The biggest factor is that she was willing to marry you and you did it and have stayed married. All that other stuff about naturally clicking and loving to be together and passion and chemistry…I’ve gone through that before too and it means nothing if she suddenly changes her mind.

    Besides you talk about discernment…I’m giving you real life experience here from my discernment.

  466. Sharkly says:

    Thanks Novaseeker, Bee, and others,

    earl says: reading Psalms is better than any anti-depressant out there.
    Amen!

    7817 says: Do you know what part of a woman to engage with when she is arguing and triggered, and what part not to engage? And why?
    No, and my woman is always arguing, so I’d love it if you could tell me.

    7817 says: Dalrock, I apologize for feeding the troll upthread.
    Yeah, word to all; “Don’t feed the trolls!”
    Proverbs 15:1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
    although not answering a troll is often a good policy, sometimes the “troll” is just a wounded and tormented soul in need of some understanding, consolation, and love. Their trolling is actually a way of reaching out for love, however misguided and insane their method of seeking it with others may be. They deserve your Christian pity, not because they’ve earned it, but because they need it most. calling out and railing against them feeds their mental victim status, while compassion temporarily disarms it.

    While pointing out that the person is trolling, because they are an insecure, troubled, pretending, weirdo, or conflicted and attempting to humiliate others in ego defense, may be cathartic for you. It only feeds whatever caused them their desire to solicit your discomfort in the first place.

    That being said; I hope those of you who have been called trolls will stay with us, and realize that I happen to love you guys. Like all of us we can benefit from your ideas, and you could benefit from ours. Do try harder to see the love, and ignore the personal attacks. As you know nobody benefits from name calling, even if it feels good to your fingers as you type those attacks, please resist. Also work on stating things in a less dogmatic and inflammatory way. People won’t rail against true humility, once they see it is genuine. We all trigger some folks some times, but do your absolute best, not to. We need all the folks we can get learning and sharing Red Pill truth. And in order for society to learn to treat men with respect, we first need to learn how ourselves, and to model that behavior for the rest of society.

    Romans 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.
    C’mon brothers, sing it with me “Cumbya my Lord”. Sorry if the above sounds sappy, but they will know we are Christians by our love. You gotta love the Lord, and Love your neighbor as you love yourself, if you want to be righteous. You even are told to love your enemies and to pray for those who despitefully use you. In short, we all need to strive to be the bigger man through humility, not through declaring we’re the bigger better more Alpha dude. By being able to show others respect and honor we demonstrate that we’re not needy, but overflowing with abundance of grace.

  467. Jeff Strand says:

    @earl: “The biggest factor is that she was willing to marry you and you did it and have stayed married”

    It’s only to be expected that we stayed married. Recall that statistically, if a marriage meets these four factors (which ours does): 1) Both are white, 2) Both have at least a 4 year degree, 3) The woman is at least 25 at the time of the wedding, and 4) Their first child is conceived in wedlock…then those marriages have a 90% success rate.

    So it is completely UNsurprising that we’ve stayed married, as only 10% of marriages like ours end in divorce. Pretty good odds.

  468. BillyS says:

    More posing.

  469. BillyS says:

    I missed the college educated part, but hit the others (though we never had a child, so that may or may not hit the others). Yet you have no humility to admit that you are blessed, not just incredibly smart.

  470. 7817 says:

    @Sharkly
    “No, and my woman is always arguing, so I’d love it if you could tell me.”

    Short answer, when she’s arguing, all you can do is interact with her emotions in some way. Trying to rationally engage her brain won’t work, but will make the situation worse as she will then think what she’s complaining about is actually serious, because you are taking her serious.

    My woman used to argue all the time. Now I either ignore her, poke her or tease her some way; at all costs don’t take her seriously. Do this long enough and you’ll realize that women pretending to be mature is a facade. There’s a little girl in there that wants to be teased.

    Today the situation forced me to be more serious, with predictably bad results, but this is uncommon. Just have to pick up and keep going like nothing happened.

  471. Boxer says:

    It’s only to be expected that we stayed married. Recall that statistically, if a marriage meets these four factors (which ours does): 1) Both are white, 2) Both have at least a 4 year degree, 3) The woman is at least 25 at the time of the wedding, and 4) Their first child is conceived in wedlock…then those marriages have a 90% success rate.

    keep preening!

  472. Marquess Dell'arte says:

    Just received a call at my church from Harlequin offering to give a book as a gift to all the women at my church from their “love inspired” faith based line of romance books.

    At first glance, this is some seriously cynical, depraved shit.

    So far beyond the pale, that it wouldn’t have even made the grade as a believable prank call as recently as ten years ago.

    “Hello, Judeochristian! I’m calling on behalf of Infanticide Intentional with a special offer for you, and for the holy godwarrior-princess-flowers of your special congregation. Yes. that’s right, today, and today only, the Eye-Eye mobile degestational unit will be in your town offering our free (yes, free!) introductory Sprog Sashimi Spirit-cooking encounter at [click] … Hello. Hello?”

    Then I remember the prime commandment of churchanity, “If mama ain’t happy, nobody’s happy,” and I reflect on how this real-world campaign is probably wildly successful, and then I get a somewhat painful tingling sensation in my arm and start to see spots and what was I writing about again?

    Clownworld.

    Honk honk!

    From Harlequin’s “Love Inspired” collection, a few synopses:

    And Cowboy Makes Three (alpha trucks…)
    She fled their wedding years ago. Now she’s back…with a baby!

    Coming home with a baby and no wedding ring was just what everyone in Cowboy Country expected from bad girl Angelica Carmichael. But she’ll brave their scorn to fulfill Granny Frances’s dying wishes, even if it means ranching with Rowdy Masterson…her jilted ex-groom. Rowdy’s still bitter but this new, softer Angelica—paired with a precious baby—might be too loveable to resist!

    His Surprise Son (surprise!!! lol!)
    Mayor with a past. Faced with her son’s father!

    Mayor Jean Matrim’s plan to turn Matrimony Valley into a wedding destination is going swimmingly for the town—and disastrously for Jean. Their first bride’s stepbrother is Jean’s ex-fiancé…and the father of her son. Hiding Jonah’s existence from Josh Tyler wasn’t something Jean chose lightly. More stands between them now than ever before. Will the little boy be enough to bring them together at last?

    An Unexpected Family (…beta cucks)
    Finding redemption in Maple Springs

    After her failed marriage, Rose Dean refuses to rely on any man. But when Cam Zelinsky steps in and helps save her diner, Rose starts taking a second glance. Cam could use a little redemption after some bad choices tarnished his reputation, but he never imagined having a family. Now Rose and her son are making him see that maybe he’s been chasing the wrong dream.

  473. Lovekraft says:

    wow, 476 comments as of this writing. Could write a book on this subject, obviously.

    Anyways, here’s a quote from an article at “A Voice for Men” that links modern western feminism with deep chivalry/damselizing:

    “To be specific, white western feminists have their cultural roots in the European practices of damseling, chivalry and courtly love…”

    https://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/women-of-color-feminists-are-bringing-white-woman-feminists-to-their-knees/

  474. earl says:

    Recall that statistically, if a marriage meets these four factors (which ours does): 1) Both are white, 2) Both have at least a 4 year degree, 3) The woman is at least 25 at the time of the wedding, and 4) Their first child is conceived in wedlock…then those marriages have a 90% success rate.

    Since I seem to be flying over Jeff’s head I’ll address the group….

    A lot of what goes into a successful or failure of a marriage is what is in the woman’s heart. If she has the mindset she will submit to God and her husband and sees being a wife and mother as her #1 goal…chances are it’ll be a success. Especially when she finds the man she wants to do it with. If she has the mindset she is empowered you go grrl feminist who doesn’t submit to no man and he must submit to her control which is probably her career goals…might as well get a divorce lawyer ready right after the honeymoon is over no matter how alpha you are.

  475. earl says:

    Age, race, education are all just superficial aspects that don’t get to what’s on the inside.

    I also notice nothing in the stats ‘having the same faith and being devout’ in there. The Bible even warns to not yoke yourself with an unbeliever.

  476. thedeti says:

    Swanny:

    feel free to message me at detination42 * at * gmail dot com.

    It’s very hard to consider advice when all I have is what you write here. The best I can do is tell you:

    –a large part of this is on you for whatever reason – you married a woman you’re not compatible with. You married a woman who isn’t sexually attracted to you and never was. You married a fundamentally damaged woman. You’ve gone superbeta/omega.

    You can fix the superbeta/omega part, if that’s what has happened. Take a good, long, hard, honest, unflinching look at what has happened, regardless of how you feel about it. Kill your ego, and where you have fucked up, take responsibility for it.

    –DO NOT take responsibility for her fuckups. You set her fuckups at her feet, where they belong. She will either pick them up and deal with them, or leave them there. No matter what she does, DO NOT pick them up.

    –Set down hard boundaries and defend them to the death. Call her out EVERY time she crosses them and impose consequences for crossing them.

    –Get in shape.

    –Stop caring about her feelings. Her feelings are going to get hurt , because you did or said something, or even because of something else that has nothing to do with you. OK. Fine. Let her feel whatever she feels. A big part of why we get into these situations is that women use their feelings and conduct and passive-aggressiveness to manipulate everyone around them, including their husbands and their children. don’t let her do this. If she needs something, she needs to grow the F up and use her words and ask for it. If she doesn’t like something, she needs to grow the F up and say so and stop acting like a bitch about it.

    –Stop GAF about everything and everyone else, and start GAF about you and what you want, need, hope and desire.

    All of these things are essentially boundaries.

    –“I am not going to take responsibility for your crap or feelings.”

    –“I am not going to take responsibility for your tasks and jobs.”

    –“I need and want things too, and I expect you to help me get them/accomplish them. If you will not do that, then I want to be with someone who will help me get them/accomplish them.”

    –“Your feelings are not the truth and they are not going to run our lives or dictate how we do things/respond to things. Or, at least, YOUR feelings are not going to run MY life or dictate how I do things/respond to things. You want to live in your feelings, fine; you’ll be living there alone, without me.”

    –“you are not going to vomit your negative feelings all over me. You need to feel those negative feelings, fine; but you are not going to drag me into your cesspit. If you need help with your negative feelings, see a therapist.”

    –“Do not drop passive-aggressive crap on me. If you need something, use your words. If you want something, use your words.”

    –“I have things to do and I am going to go do them. You have things to do and I expect you to get them done.”

  477. Pingback: NAWALT and Other Scams – v5k2c2.com

  478. Paul says:

    @Bee: “I have been praying for you and your wife and will continue to pray for you. Praying also for Paul and Jason, and a few others.”

    That’s much appreciated!

  479. Barnie says:

    BJ was trying to walk Wilson’s silly bailey statements back to a defensible motte. He shouldn’t have bothered.
    There are ways to go into a marriage while stacking the odds more in your favor but you’d better be reading Roissy or Rollo on that subject, not Doug Wilson.
    There is no presumption of innocence or standard of evidence in domestic abuse cases.

  480. Barnie says:

    BJ, in Wilson’s comments you said that people here were using “inside baseball” lingo to show their membership in some club. It’s actually the sort of specific vocabulary (and fundamental knowledge base) that any field of inquiry requires if you are going to have an intelligent discussion. You have been directed to sources to figure it all out in an afternoon and you’ll find that it clarifies rather than obscuring the points being made. In addition to the references others have suggested, I would recommend https://bloodyshovel.wordpress.com/2017/11/14/biological-leninism/
    Feminism may be recognized as an earlier wave of biological Leninism and any woman a potential turncoat against the family in favor of that system.

  481. BJ says:

    @Barnie

    Thanks for the link.

  482. Strefanasha says:

    Doug Wilson’s piece is typical gynocentric idolatry. It is also utterly sexist and puts woman on a pedestal, denying her own agency personal accountability. So if a woman does a Lorena Bobbitt it is the man’s fault? Well, Wilson puts the source of evil OUTSIDE the woman, namely evil patriarchy. This is more of the same copout. Surely no christian would dare propose such nonsense. Besides If woman is only a responder to men to what sense is christ the SOLE mediator between all humans – men and women alike – and God? NO man has the rignt to usurp mediatorship beween his wife and God. That is Christ’s role. She is to get her character from the Godhead herself just as we men are; and this of course by ongoing repentance of sin led by the grace of the Holy Spirit. That is to say she is supposed to love as Christ loves her not because of her husband. If she seeks from her husband what he cannot give then the marriage is doomed. Both partners are to seek from christ alone the love they need, for in truth they wil find it nowhere else in this evil world, and certainly not in themselves. Then in the sharing of it it will grow. If I ever marry she wil be my wife, not my eldest daughter, for she is an adult not a child; and Wilson infantilizes women as feminism has done for years

  483. Micha Elyi says:

    STD infection rates are highest outside of California.

    Meanwhile, in another part of town, we got an update……

    STD cases in California have increased by 45 percent compared to five years ago while chlamydia, gonorrhea, and syphilis reach highest numbers since the 1980s….

    Carry on, gentlemen.

    Gee, Dave, did you swallow the disinformation just as your MSM masters expected you would? I see that others here did. Hint: ‘if A is X then not-A is not-X’ is a commonly committed logical fallacy. I strongly recommend the little book How to Lie with Statistics. This classic will teach one to recognize when one is being bamboozled, either on purpose by pros or accidentally by idiot reporters (such as the writer of the Microsoft MSN click-bait that Dave quoted).

    Let’s look at a more complete picture:

    The data out of California are consistent with the most recent nationwide numbers available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which logged more sexually transmitted diseases than ever in 2016. More than two million cases of chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis were diagnosed in the United States that year and early reports indicate 2017 may be another record setting year.

    Alaska, Louisiana and Mississippi had the most chlamydia cases per capita, while Mississippi, Louisiana, and Georgia ranked highest for gonorrhea. The District of Columbia, Louisiana and New York scored ignominious recognition for cases of syphilis.
    (emphasis added)

    Even more complete information here.

    Heads up, gentlemen. Don’t be rubes.

    The observant will note that California is not on the list of states with the most cases per capita. Texans should note with alarm that its neighbor Louisiana is singled out as one of the worst states.

    If only California had a wall to keep out the disease-ridden losers from the 49 lesser states.

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