Hysteria.

Lori Alexander set the Christian Feminists clucking with her recent post Men Prefer Debt-Free Virgins Without Tattoos.  The furious response was entirely predictable precisely because what Lori wrote is true.  Feminists can’t stand the idea of giving young women good advice on how to compete for the best husbands, as this puts the feminist dream of having it all in jeopardy.

Sheila Gregoire was as mad as a wet hen when she read Lori’s post and responded with a post of her own:

is it a good idea to wait until you’re married to have sex? Yes, it is. It’s certainly what God wants, but I believe He wants that for our good, not because He’s just making a rule.

That being said, virginity is not the be all and end all.And, in fact, ultimately virginity means nothing. It’s just a pile of horse manure.

I’ve answered the question on the blog before about “is it wrong to want to marry a virgin?”, and I think if I were to answer that today I’d be even more adamant.

Sheila also objected to Lori warning young Christian women of the dangers of the secular university:

Yesterday my daughter Rebecca and my son-in-law Connor celebrated their third anniversary. Here they are at Rebecca’s university graduation (Lori Alexander says women shouldn’t go to secular universities, either. Whoops. Guess Rebecca messed up there, too!)

Yet Sheila knows all too well that what Lori is warning is true.  As she explained back in 2011, her feminist education wreaked havoc on her marriage:

…I’ve done a Masters in Sociology with an emphasis on Women’s Studies, too. I’ve read all that feminist literature that calls all sex rape, and while it totally messed up my sex life in the early part of my marriage, I’ve thankfully been able to leave it behind and realize how great sex in marriage is.

Sheila went into more detail on this in one of her books:

Whenever Keith wanted to make love, I felt rejected, because he wanted something that made me miserable. My frustration finally grew to the point where I wondered, Why can’t he just love me for me and not for what I can do for him? I accused him of selfishness. Of not loving me. Of being a Neanderthal who couldn’t control his passions. The more we fought over sex, the more certain I became that he didn’t value me…

…how was I supposed to enjoy something so gross and uncomfortable?

…the only solution I could see was to make Keith want sex less. I threw my energy into that dead-end goal: I bought a wardrobe of long flannel nightgowns; I complained constantly about headaches; and I stopped kissing in all its forms.

Sheila says she did this for two years before she started working on her own mindset.  A few more years later and she tells us that everything was fine.  However, we know from her blog that it still wasn’t fine.

Sheila closes her post with:

Neither of my girls followed Lori’s advice. But they did follow mine. And they’re all doing great.

To emphasis how sensible and well adjusted her daughters are, Sheila included a youtube video of her daughter Katie having a full fledged meltdown:

H/T OKRickety

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Finding a Spouse, Lori Alexander, Rebuilding the mound, Sheila Gregoire, Slut, Ugly Feminists, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

437 Responses to Hysteria.

  1. OKRickety says:

    “To emphasis how sensible and well adjusted her daughters are, Sheila included a youtube video of her daughter Katie having a full fledged meltdown”

    ROTFL!

  2. feministhater says:

    They should just name their posts: God wants you to be a virgin and that’s exactly why you shouldn’t be one.

    Notice that it is ‘prefer’ men prefer, not that men will only accept such.. but still, just that men prefer something to something else sets them ablaze. Men are not allowed to have a preference at all apparently.

  3. feministhater says:

    Sure feel for her future husband. Whacko.

  4. feeriker says:

    Sheila Gregoire eructates: “Lori Alexander says women shouldn’t go to secular universities, either. Whoops. Guess Rebecca messed up there, too!)”

    Yes, Sheila, your little darling Rebecca almost assuredly did mess up.

    – Did she major in something that will lead to economic productivity? Or did she follow in her mommy’s footsteps and earn her a toilet paper certificate in Women’s “Studies”?

    – Given that, from what little public exposure Sheila’s daughter’s have had, they appear to be carbon copies of their mother, it is a given that all they’ve gained from four-plus years in a public university is more secular spiritual DNA, and thus more contempt for the Christian lifestyle. In other words, a chocolate bar immersed in sewage is no longer a chocolate bar, but sewage.

    – Assuming that Rebecca Gregoire followed her mother’s path to a worthless degree, how much debt has she accumulated from doing this, and how much extra burden is that placing on her husband and her marriage?

    Sheila would of course blow a gasket at anyone who would dare ever raise such questions.

  5. Pingback: Hysteria. | @the_arv

  6. feministhater says:

    Don’t worry Feeriker, her husband isn’t Jesus and thus isn’t worth waiting for. I hope all the men listened to her clearly. You’re not worth it to her. You’re just a stepping stone for her. Get used to it. Glad these whores are finally being honest.

  7. feministhater says:

    Oh and college taught her to cook apparently… and that those four years of getting run through was worth it, that piece of paper is going to have her going places!

  8. feministhater says:

    This is why I walked away. Stating what I as a man prefer in a woman gets them triggered and puts me in range of snowflakes having meltdowns and deciding to try and crucify me for holding a preference for a virgin who saved herself for marriage, didn’t go on a college spending binge and didn’t cover herself in tattoos. Now, of course, all the girls are going to get tatted up, sleep around and take out loads of debt just to show those boys how independent they are.

    How dare we hold such antiquated ideals.

  9. Gage says:

    You can set a clock on the predictability of these people and their hysterical responses to cold hard truth. Of course men find women more desirable if they look feminine (no tattoos), act feminine (not a crazed man hating feminist) and havent had countless men stick their penis in them (virgin). In any other period of time, when sanity ruled, people would have read this and rolled their eyes that something this obvious even needed to be said.

    These contemptible, screeching harpies always fall back to the old tried and true line that God is a God of grace and he forgives you regardless of your past blah blah blah. Yes, he is a forgiving God and full of grace, but He still lays out His preferred (i.e. the optimal) way of doing things. He clearly says to not engage in premarital sex and speaks against tattoos(Lev 19:28) and lots of piercings while encouraging modesty (1 Tim 2:9). In light of these few examples, its difficult to argue Lori is wrong with the stance she takes in her article.

    Its no sin to marry a college educated, non-virgin tattooed woman, but anytime you deviate from the God-prescribed way of doing things, you are just asking for serious problems.

  10. feeriker says:

    Whenever Keith wanted to make love, I felt rejected, because he wanted something that made me miserable. My frustration finally grew to the point where I wondered, Why can’t he just love me for me and not for what I can do for him? I accused him of selfishness. Of not loving me. Of being a Neanderthal who couldn’t control his passions. The more we fought over sex, the more certain I became that he didn’t value me…

    …how was I supposed to enjoy something so gross and uncomfortable?

    …the only solution I could see was to make Keith want sex less. I threw my energy into that dead-end goal: I bought a wardrobe of long flannel nightgowns; I complained constantly about headaches; and I stopped kissing in all its forms.

    So Sheila admits that she’s bat-shit crazy. Gosh, who’d’a ever thunk? /sarc

    Now what does the quoted extract above say about the women who continue to hang on her every word? (That’s a rhetorical question; no need to answer.)

  11. Henri says:

    Lori is an attention whore who hits her husband. She tells women to not draw attention to themselves meanwhile she runs her posts over and and over again until she gets the attention she craves.
    See link image for Lori’s quote saying she hit Ken.

  12. Nathan Bruno says:

    Since God has forgiven her promiscuity, you need to shut up about how it’s going to burn when you pee, you legalistic Pharisee. Shut up and wife her up!

  13. Gregory says:

    You need to read Rachel Held Evans. She shows what a true Christian is. It isn’t conservative misogynistic, and white centric.

    The kind of Christianity you are propounding is heretical

    As a man, I’ve grown to realize that no one is perfect. Its not that we shouldn’t strive for perfection, its just that we will inevitably mess up. And we should certainly forgive those who are truly repentant. Looks like Lori Anderson is a nutjob and nobody likes her!

    Side note — if a woman remains sexually, physically, and financially pure in order to “get” a man, I gotta wonder what exactly she is worshipping.

  14. feeriker says:

    Yes, he is a forgiving God and full of grace, but He still lays out His preferred (i.e. the optimal) way of doing things. He clearly says to not engage in premarital sex and speaks against tattoos(Lev 19:28) and lots of piercings while encouraging modesty (1 Tim 2:9).

    People (of both sexes) like to delude themselves into believing that because God forgives them of their sins (if they REPENT – another inconvenient requirement churchians want to flush down the memory hole) that this also automatically removes temporal consequences that arise from their sins. Nope.

    God’s forgiveness simply means that His grace has redeemed your soul. That has nothing to do with earthly consequences of sin. A prostitute who contracts AIDS in the “line of duty” might be redeemed after accepting Christ as her savior, but that doesn’t automatically mean that she’s cured of her disease or that she magically becomes marriage material so that some Christian man should wife her up.

  15. Opus says:

    I too was shocked today when I found on Youtube {sob, gulp] (though for the life of me I cannot now seem to locate the offending video) that women prefer debt free men who are not on the sex-offenders register, Just because I am homeless and poor and probably alcoholic and made some mistakes a little while ago is that any reason for women to reject me. I know lots of God-fearing men (sob gulp] in exactly my situation who deserve nothing less than a super-model (someone like Melania Trump) and I am sure that God has just such a plan for myself and those men. I will now go and tell my Mother all about this misandrist sexism passing as Christianity [sob, sob – is my copious make-up still alright].

  16. A says:

    She is easy. Possibly had an abortion? She is as guilty as hell about it.

    Stay away, boys.

  17. Jason says:

    The daughter is completely neurotic.

  18. Anon says:

    What is funny is that in most of the rest of the world (outside of the West), not only is this centuries-old norm understood, but people would be surprised that anyone thinks otherwise.

  19. Anon says:

    I repeat that in the other 85% of the world’s population outside of the Anglosphere and a couple other Western countries, this ‘Debt-free, no tattoos, and virginity’ outcome is assumed to be normal, and people would be surprised that anyone thinks otherwise.

  20. anonymous_ng says:

    @Anon, but . . . woke!!!

  21. earl says:

    That being said, virginity is not the be all and end all.And, in fact, ultimately virginity means nothing. It’s just a pile of horse manure.

    It is to men…hence that was the directive of the statement. Shelia outside of her marriage isn’t the man.

    Neither of my girls followed Lori’s advice. But they did follow mine. And they’re all doing great.

    I’m sure they’ll marry the simps of their dreams.

  22. SirHamster says:

    That being said, virginity is not the be all and end all.And, in fact, ultimately virginity means nothing. It’s just a pile of horse manure.

    Reminds me of a video shown to a youth group – “Don’t make virginity an idol.”

    Axes, fire, required.

  23. Anon says:

    Sheila’s daughter is a trainwreck. She conflates ‘not having debt and not being a virgin’ with ‘not having a brain’. See from 3:50 if you want.

    What is funny is that she has just obliterated her marriage prospects to any man with options.

  24. SnapperTrx says:

    Considering that in ancient biblical times a woman who was not a virgin was considered married (unless her husband was dead), virginity meant quite a lot more than a pile of horse manure as sleeping with another mans wife was a death sentence. Or letting a man find out on your wedding night that you weren’t a virgin meant being stoned to death on your fathers doorstep.

    But hey, God didn’t really intend for virginity to mean anything so long as Shelia and company can feel good about their number of times they’ve been nailed by other guys.

  25. earl says:

    Besides all the blowback that’s occuring…that’s how ingrained things like fornication with many men (but no sex for your husband), grabbing attention by marking up your body, and short term thrills is the religion of most western Women.

  26. earl says:

    What is funny is that she has just obliterated her marriage prospects to any man with options.

    She’ll have to marry a man like her dad…a simp.

  27. My female cousin in the UK a few years back told me at my mothers funeral back in 2008…….”You’re single because you won’t give any woman a chance. You are demanding perfection of a very imperfect world, and women can smell that on you. We girls just want to have fun….and a serious bloke is just that. No fun.”

    Then again we’re talking about a grown woman who at that time was only a year younger than me who watched “Eastenders” like it was her religion and every guy got a turn up in North Wales….

    I’ve only met one woman in my Christian walk of over a decade who said “Yeah, I was a bad girl. I made bad choices. I am thankful I got some sanity back, and I am not, have been and will never be that foolish girl ever, ever again.”

  28. SnapperTrx says:

    Side note – if a Christian makes it a point to get to a church BUILDING every Wednesday and Sunday, I gotta wonder exactly what they are worshiping.

    Side note – if a Christian makes it a point to completely lose themselves in worship music played by a WORSHIP TEAM, I gotta wonder exactly what they are worshiping.

    Side note – if a man makes it a point to show up to HIS JOB every day in order to provide for his family like the bible says, I gotta wonder exactly he is worshiping.

    Side note – if a husband and wife are working hard to try and get pregnant and have a BABY, I gotta wonder exactly what they are worshiping.

    Change a few words around and the statements stupidity becomes much more apparent. Someone should point this out. I don’t have, nor do I want, a twitter account, so it won’t be me.

  29. Anon says:

    I see later that she had already married, but points out that her husband had tattoos, debt, and was not a virgin at marriage.

    Classic female solipism. What are huge negatives for women are often plusses in the eyes of women if men have them (tattoos and non-virginity at least. Debt is not a plus unless he defaults on it and gives the lender the finger, because that now becomes anti-civilization behavior that women get gina tingles from).

  30. mike says:

    Too bad she had to encourage her daughter to do the whole youtube publicity advice-giving- train. Now moms fucked the whole family.

    The only reason sheila’s debt didn’t matter is because she conned a nice man/doctor into carrying the load all while publicly humiliating him for her own perverted sense of fame.

  31. DrTorch says:

    Lori Alexander says women shouldn’t go to secular universities, either.

    I’ve been hearing this for men and women since I was in college. Previously, the logic had always been unfounded, so my instinct is to be skeptical.

    I imagine there are some right reasons for a woman not to go to secular university, but it would apply to Christian colleges as well. Maybe a 2 year Bible college…

  32. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Hysteria” is exactly the word. The word used is “prefer”. Not “require” or “demand”, but prefer – and the reaction is hugely overblown. This much of a reaction to a simple “men prefer” article demonstrates how it has touched a nerve or two.

    By the way, Katie’s clearly ridden a carousel pony or two. It is obvious.

  33. Anon says:

    Plus (if the aforementioned examples of solipism and self-absorption were not enough), nowhere does Katie Emerson actually dispute that this is what men want. She just says that it is ‘wrong to judge women’. What men want does not even occur to her, which is why she doesn’t dispute it.

  34. colojohn says:

    @Anonymous Reader:

    “By the way, Katie’s clearly ridden a carousel pony or two. It is obvious.”

    But, but, but she SAYS she was a virgin until marriage. Why don’t you believe her???

  35. dpmonahan says:

    Would these ladies be freaked out by an article titled “Women dig financially independent guys who stay fit and don’t watch porn?”

  36. RichardP says:

    @Sheila said: My frustration finally grew to the point where I wondered, Why can’t he just love me for me and not for what I can do for him?

    Sounds like she was never taught the reason why God made Eve for Adam. Sounds like she thinks that Adam was made for Eve.

  37. Anon says:

    I notice that Lori Alexander didn’t include the all-important adjective of ‘slender’ in her description. That is quite a notable omission. Is Lori fat?

  38. Anon says:

    dpmonahan,

    Would these ladies be freaked out by an article titled “Women dig financially independent guys who stay fit and don’t watch porn?”

    Dude, you are a novice if you have to ask a question like that, with an expectation that women every self-correct in the interest of fairness.

    You are not yet red pill.

  39. Bible Colleges are far from places of “holiness” today

  40. Anonymous Reader says:

    colojohn
    But, but, but she SAYS she was a virgin until marriage. Why don’t you believe her???

    Well…
    Watch the vid starting at about 9:45 through 10.25.
    Pay attention to her body language, especially her eyes as she talks first about one topic, then about the second. Also listen to the stress in her voice.

    “The lady doth protest too much, methinks”.

  41. OKRickety says:

    Sheila Wray’s post is actually titled I Didn’t Really Care if My Sons-in-Law Were Debt-Free, Tattoo-Free Virgins. She trots them out as examples of the kind of man every Christian woman would be proud to marry. (Which was kind of a rehash of her Fathers Day post where the two of them and her husband were touted as ideals.) I’m not sure how the one son-in-law is even relevant – there are no visible tats and no explanation.

  42. colojohn says:

    AR, I suspect you are correct and that Katie is trying to shore up her “Christian” bona fides by claiming to be a virgin on her wedding night.

  43. Isn’t Alexander also the woman who advocated not expecting your husband to do chores? That makes the second time she’s provoked a strong and bitter reaction. Unlike parents touting their boys prancing about in full makeup, or women describing their abortion, I would call her post courageous. Funny old world, when depravity is normal and virtue shocking.

  44. feministhater says:

    AR, I suspect you are correct and that Katie is trying to shore up her “Christian” bona fides by claiming to be a virgin on her wedding night.

    It’s funny that right after stating that virginity doesn’t matter, they always go on to state that they are not like that…

    They obviously see the need to differentiate themselves from those ‘other’ girls but don’t want to break ranks with the sisterhood.

  45. Anon says:

    I’ll say something good about Katie now.

    At least she was lucky in genetic terms. She managed to avoid inheriting THIS :

  46. Anonymous Reader says:

    OKRickety
    Sheila Wray’s post is actually titled I Didn’t Really Care if My Sons-in-Law Were Debt-Free, Tattoo-Free Virgins.

    Exactly what one should expect from a 2nd stage equalitarian equalist feminist. Much of the rage from conservative feminists is over the idea that women and men are actually different all the way down to the genes expressed, because if that is true then they cannot ever really be One Of The Guys.

    Also, at some level women understand all about keys and locks…

  47. Hazelshade says:

    Sheila Gregoire wrote: “I’ve answered the question on the blog before about ‘is it wrong to want to marry a virgin?’, and I think if I were to answer that today I’d be even more adamant.”

    Did Sheila really answer that question the first time? I scanned the blog post and I could find a lot of “what ifs”, but no direct answers. She seems to mostly imply that the answer is “yes”, but one can’t be sure. A more adamantine answer today would indeed be helpful…

  48. OKRickety says:

    Anon,

    “I notice that Lori Alexander didn’t include the all-important adjective of ‘slender’ in her description. That is quite a notable omission. Is Lori fat?”

    That would certainly have been one more hot button if she had thrown that into the mix. It appears Lori is not fat. She is in the middle in this photo. They have four grown children, so I suppose they and their spouses are the others in the photo.

  49. OKRickety says:

    Will this show the photo?

  50. Opus says:

    She rather makes Dalrock’s oft repeated point that women do care and greatly about marriage (hence the meltdown) and their chances thereof. I have to confess that I gave up after two minutes unable to stand any more of the caterwauling. That any man might find any woman less than a fit candidate for wedlock drives their hamsters into a fury (cue Hamster video).

    No woman ever improved her chances of matrimony by acquiring even the smallest of Tats (which is spelt E-A-S-Y) and the same can be said for having the least amount of debt. Some women are to make it worse terrible spend-thrifts – I know one who acts as if Imelda Marcos’ shoe allowance was abstemious. Such women must be avoided.

  51. feeriker says:

    I notice that Lori Alexander didn’t include the all-important adjective of ‘slender’ in her description. That is quite a notable omission. Is Lori fat?

    She probably just figured that the attributes that she already listed also implied slender (i.e., the woman with enough self-discipline to keep herself tat-free, debt-free, and pure is also self-controlled enough not to allow herself to become a gluttonous landwhale).

  52. toocrazy2yoo says:

    Psychotic. The face of modern feminism. She doesn’t want to be accountable to the scripture. It’s ok. Her type is my bread and butter for over 25 years since my divorce. I’ll hump a woman like this, but I’d never marry one. They expect men to marry them with these notions. She’s going to get away with all this nuttery because she’s ok looking. But bet a billion she’ll do a not-haaaaapy divorce for cash and valuable prizes the instant she isn’t getting what SHE wants. She’ll be whipping her husband with threat points from the first week.

  53. Kevin says:

    This is shooting fish in a barrel from a spiritual stand point but also just common sense.

    Most these responses are upset that someone said a truth they don’t like. Few are disputing that men really do prefer debt free virgins for marriage. They are railing at reality. They are arguing for men to change their mind, but most accept this is what men want for a spouse. For Christian men its not even close.

    Of course we live in a fallen world and some will make mistakes. But the ideal should be very clear for men and women and we should all celebrate those who are chaste and work to restore that as the norm.

    I think so many have sinned so much that as a society we try and minimize sin instead of accept our dependence on Christ. “Oh, fornicating before marriage is no big deal. Everyone does it. They were in love.” Even Christians are numb to the damnation that awaits us for our sins and so we talk too easily about grace without experiencing the profound realization of our sinful state. If you truly experienced the realization of your sins and Christ’s grace you would do everything in your world to convince men and women to avoid these serious sins. You would never make excuses. You would beg and plead that young women went to marriage virgins. But we just blithely smear grace over everything we do and forget the price paid.

    And of course their is a clear element here of intra-gender fighting. The Christian women who didn’t mess up cause the proud strong women who did to feel shame at their failure.

  54. earl says:

    ‘ What are huge negatives for women are often plusses in the eyes of women if men have them (tattoos and non-virginity at least.)’

    That’s why the egalitarians protest. They think men and women should be the same rather than acknowledging biological differences.

    Or the wimminz could demand men be virgins without tattoos but they wont because they dont want men to pursue virtue and make them look bad.

  55. Nick Mgtow says:

    I wonder why she has so much her panties in a bunch about what men prefer. I went to comment on her video, of course. Couldn’t resist!

  56. earl says:

    No woman ever improved her chances of matrimony by acquiring even the smallest of Tats (which is spelt E-A-S-Y)

    A blog in wordpress happened to pop up in my feed where the young lady was trying to decide between getting a tat or not when older. I posted it’s not a good idea and said was that decent men see tattoos as red flags. (so far she didn’t respond)

    Now it is still her decision…but if women cared more about what men liked and what they committ to rather than their feelings…then she’ll have more value in the market.

  57. earl says:

    Most these responses are upset that someone said a truth they don’t like. Few are disputing that men really do prefer debt free virgins for marriage. They are railing at reality. They are arguing for men to change their mind, but most accept this is what men want for a spouse. For Christian men its not even close.

    Yup the problem is that what men prefer and what these women feel are polar opposites. So she either decides to go with her feelings or what men like.

    Put it this way…I could make a similiar ridiculous video crying about that women should prefer lazy, limp men with no money. But it would just be pointless feelings over logical reality.

  58. Darwinian Arminian says:

    Sheila Wray’s marital ministry has long been a gaping cesspool of treachery, but I really have to tip my hat to Dalrock for placing these two passages she wrote side by side in the same post; It only highlights how vile her “advice” truly is. On the one hand she wants to scold men for expecting their future wives to abstain from sex before marriage, and on the other she gleefully recounts how she spent years treating her own husband with disgust when he wanted sex from her after he’d put a ring on it.

    Is there even any reason for Christian men to practice chastity anymore? Because if Sheila’s writing is any indication, the sex isn’t just better when it happens outside of wedlock, it may even be more pleasing to God (at least for the women doing it).

  59. Anonymous Reader says:

    Nick MGTOW
    I wonder why she has so much her panties in a bunch about what men prefer. I went to comment on her video, of course. Couldn’t resist!

    Did your comment actually show up?

  60. SnapperTrx says:

    My advice is: Want a tattoo? Wait until you get married and find out if your husband wants you to have a tattoo. At least by then you aren’t killing your chances of getting married or making yourself unattractive to potential husbands.

  61. Anonymous Reader says:

    colojohn
    AR, I suspect you are correct and that Katie is trying to shore up her “Christian” bona fides by claiming to be a virgin on her wedding night.

    Maybe. More likely it is just her rationalization hamster running.

  62. Anonymous Reader says:

    Gregory
    As a man,

    Color me skeptical.

  63. earl says:

    Screenshot…I don’t think it’s a deletable question, but you never know.

  64. earl says:

    Is there even any reason for Christian men to practice chastity anymore? Because if Sheila’s writing is any indication, the sex isn’t just better when it happens outside of wedlock, it may even be more pleasing to God (at least for the women doing it).

    There are plenty of reasons for a Christian man to practice chastity. Mainly it helps your relationship with God and doesn’t put you in as much of a fog with women that you can see their flaws a lot better. If anything I can say it does make you more aware.

    Put it this way…if a woman damages herself quite a bit with fornication before marriage (because it does…having sex with a man does a lot to her emotionally especially if they break up)…she’ll be damaged in marriage which often comes out as her rebelling from her husband by using sex. I HIGHLY doubt Shelia was chaste before marriage.

    Virginity isn’t completely foolproof for marriage…but the chances are higher she’ll be more bonded to her husband and more likely she’ll want to have sex with her husband.

  65. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl, thanks. Now I do not have to go look at her blog and wade through comments.

    Next up: does Nick MGTOW’s comment stay or vanish? Prior experience with girl bloggers in my head…

  66. thedeti says:

    Sheila really lost her composure, didn’t she?

    The new tack Christian feminists take is that virginity isn’t important. Following God’s rules isn’t important. If you point out someone isn’t a virgin (more likely that they were promiscuous at one or more points in their lives), you’re “attacking” them and focusing on “all the wrong things”.

    Her argument is based on Paul’s letter in which he says all the things that make him “righteous” when he was a Pharisee are counted all as dross; but what has justified him is relationship with Christ.

    That’s all very well and good. But we have to also remember that our pasts matter. What we do – and have done – matters. We bear the scars of our pasts in our bodies, hearts, and minds. Can God remove them? Yes. Does He always? No. Sometimes He makes us live with them. Sometimes He makes us walk out the consequences of our past poor decisions.

    We bear the scars of our sexual pasts. Repeated heartache and pain of breakup and loss. Trust issues. Inability or unwillingness to bond. Inability/unwillingness to trust one of the opposite sex. Incurable STDs, especially herpes, HPV, and a host of others. Sexual “hangups” or reservations caused by bad experiences in the past. Rape. Unwanted pregnancy. Abortion. Never learning healthy relationships with the opposite sex.

    As long as we’re talking about Paul, let’s remember his description of the “thorn in his flesh”. He begged God to remove that thorn. God said “No, My grace is sufficient for you”. The idea being that Paul had the thorn. God made him walk with it and live with it. Probably the rest of his life. We don’t know what that thorn was. It’s possible it could have been a relic of his past.

    Yes, Grace is sufficient. But God’s prohibition on extramarital sex is there for a reason. The prime reason being: If you don’t have extramarital sex, you probably won’t ever have to deal with all those bad things up there. You can be “naked and not ashamed” with your spouse. At least you didn’t run the risk of developing or incurring that bad stuff like STDs or hangups or a nagging sense of doing something you shouldn’t be doing.

    And if you don’t have extramarital sex, you won’t have to do all these things to overcome, get around, or deal with the “bad stuff”. You won’t have to carry that thorn.

    It’s not so much God saying “you had extramarital sex, therefore you now have to live with all these negative consequences”. It’s God saying “I love you. Don’t have extramarital sex. If you follow this rule, you will not have to live with negative consequences.”

    Can nonvirgins marry? Sure. Can promiscuous women marry? yes. They do all the time. But the research is in, and the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. Promiscuous women are unhappy in their marriages, and promiscuity is correlated with greatly increased risk of divorce. Promiscuity doesn’t mean better sex, or improved sexual skill. There is a vast wasteland of mangled bodies, hearts, spirits and marriages, caused in large part by premarital sex and promiscuity. It creates false and distorted views of sex, male-female relationships, and long term relationships. It transmits diseases. It raises and dashes hopes and expectations. It wastes time and effort. It breaks hearts and stains spirits.

    Can all that be overcome? Sure. Do most overcome it? No. It can be overcome only through great pain, enormous effort, lengthy time commitments, and high emotional investment and cost. God cleanses the spirit; but makes us walk out the temporal consequences outlined up there.

  67. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl, consider this sentence for some future meme use:

    It’s OK To Be Chaste

  68. OKRickety says:

    Hazelshade,

    ‘Sheila Gregoire wrote: “I’ve answered the question on the blog before about ‘is it wrong to want to marry a virgin?’, and I think if I were to answer that today I’d be even more adamant.”

    Did Sheila really answer that question the first time? I scanned the blog post and I could find a lot of “what ifs”, but no direct answers. She seems to mostly imply that the answer is “yes”, but one can’t be sure. A more adamantine answer today would indeed be helpful…’

    Although she never clearly states “It is wrong to want to marry a virgin”, the following does show that her answer is “It’s not important!”:

    Sheila wrote: “We’re looking at the wrong thing. We’re focusing on past actions, rather than the present condition of someone’s heart. Ultimately what makes someone a good marriage partner is not what they’ve done in the past, but who is controlling their life now.”

    In other words, we should decide who to marry by ignoring their past actions, presuming we know the “present condition of someone’s heart” is godly, and believe that their future behavior will necessarily continue to follow the “present condition”. That seems like a dangerous path to take, and is not a risk I would recommend (and I have a frivorce from a non-virgin at marriage to support me).

  69. 7817 says:

    OT: Doug Wils comes out openly in favor of a wife leaving her husband, even if he is not physically abusive. https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/on-a-wife-deciding-to-leave-her-husband.html

  70. thedeti says:

    And it’s not so much people saying “if you’re not a virgin you’re forever corrupt and impure and dirty”. It’s people saying “the Biblical rule is “no sex outside marriage”, and you broke that rule, and there are consequences to breaking that rule”.

    All one has to do to find the consequences of it are to go to your local family court and watch the endless parade of fractured hearts, souls and families. Go to your local church and listen to a newly minted reformed slut Christian woman spout Christianese. Check out Planned Parenthood. Check out a local clinic. Twenty five percent of American women are under the care of a mental health professional and/or are on antidepressant meds.

    Women have more personal liberty and freedom now than at any other time in human history, and yet they’re miserable. They get unhappier by the year. They can have sex with literally anyone they want, anytime they want, anywhere they want. And it still isn’t enough to make them happy.

  71. Anonymous Reader says:

    OKRickety
    Although she never clearly states “It is wrong to want to marry a virgin”, the following does show that her answer is “It’s not important!”:

    She’s really saying “It shouldn’t matter to you men! It shouldn’t matter!”. It’s the 2nd stage feminist way of saying “Just man up and marry a slut!”. I’m certain she would deny that way of reading her words, even as she would insist in the next breath that plenty of tatted-up slutty girls are wonderful, wonderful people in need of a Good Man.

    This should not be any surprise, given the known in-group, “tribal” way that women are combined with their superstitious nature. After all, a girl cannot have her cake and eat it, too, if stinky boyz keep trying to enforce outdated rules.

    I don’t want to spark yet another endless theology argument, but I’m betting that the “legalism” bemoaned about in this vid isn’t at all like the “legalism” of 100 years ago.

  72. Pingback: Hysteria. | Reaction Times

  73. SirHamster says:

    Is there even any reason for Christian men to practice chastity anymore? Because if Sheila’s writing is any indication, the sex isn’t just better when it happens outside of wedlock, it may even be more pleasing to God (at least for the women doing it).

    Because men ought to please God, and Sheila’s nonsense does not change what pleases God.

  74. thedeti says:

    7817

    I wonder how Doug Wilson would respond to a man living with a wife suffering from borderline personality disorder or bipolar disorder. Those women show much the same symptoms the man shows in Wilson’s post there. Fits of uncontrollable anger. Outbursts of wrath. Gaslighting. Emotional manipulation and verbal abuse. Total control of the physical and financial aspects of the relationship. She’s never hit him, but the way she acts makes him think she’s a danger to him, herself or their kids. Sexual degradation/depravity (or sexual deprivation, more often).

    Would Wilson allow a husband to leave? Engage in the scriptural gyrations and gymnastics Wilson uses to give this wife something, anything, to hang her hat on so she can leave without fear of condemnation or rebuke? So she can be freed up to remarry? Would Wilson be so accommodating to a husband living under similar circumstances?

  75. Paul says:

    According to God’s Word having sex creates a one-flesh bond, which is unbreakable until death.
    Look at all the OT laws on adultery, fornication, rape etc. By having the death penalty on many cases where a one-flesh bond was formed outside the boundaries of marriage, the one-flesh bond was thereby effectively erased, leaving the other partner free to start ONE one-flesh bond again.
    Count in the many texts that put special importance on virginity (e.g. the Leviticus texts on requirements for the wife of the high priest), plus the symbolism of virginity and the one-flesh bond between Christ and the Church, as well the repeated warnings to Christians against sexual immorality (“will not inherit the kingdom of God”), I think people are taking sexual ethics not as serious as they should. In my opinion this also holds for divorce and remarriage; it is not without reasons that marrying a divorced woman is seen as adultery and that people are instructed not to divorce, and if it has happened, to reconcile. And it is not without reason Jesus tells “and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.” I think that is talking about men living celibate because they would be sinning if they engaged in a new one-flesh relationship.

  76. Pingback: Missing The Point Deliberately | Spawny's Space

  77. Gary Eden says:

    Under the Old Testament (from God) a woman found not to be a virgin at marriage was to be stoned on her father’s doorstep.

    It would seem God highly highly cares that a woman is a virgin at marriage.

    These women are just slut apologists calling good evil and evil good.

  78. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    thedeti: If you point out someone isn’t a virgin (more likely that they were promiscuous at one or more points in their lives), you’re “attacking” them and focusing on “all the wrong things”.

    The magic word is “judging.” You’re judging them. And Jesus said not to judge. So it’s unGodly to judge a woman for … any reason at all, really.

  79. Lexet Blog says:

    I believe she did marry. Poor fellow

  80. Lexet Blog says:

    95% blame their choices on men.

  81. earl says:

    Promiscuous women are unhappy in their marriages, and promiscuity is correlated with greatly increased risk of divorce.

    Granted every woman even virgins have the ability to rebel against their husband in marriage…but from what I’ve seen with their attitudes the unrepentant promiscous women flat out go into the marriage with this mindset.

  82. Lexet Blog says:

    Doug Wilson is a false teacher and a cult leader.

  83. Lexet Blog says:

    That’s presuming that half of what she says is true. I’ve heard dozens of women complain about their man’s antics. None of it was true and they just wanted attention

  84. Lexet Blog says:

    If people read the word of god and realized the consequences of female rebellion, they would understand why America is what it is

  85. earl says:

    ‘It’s OK To Be Chaste’

    Well Darwinian did mention something I probably need to research more into myself. I do know some benefits of chastity but this question intrigues me…

    Is there even any reason for Christian men to practice chastity anymore?

    Men need incentives/reasons for anything…so what benefits do men get by being chaste versus what benefits/drawbacks do men get by fornicating with unchaste women or marrying unchaste women.

  86. freebird says:

    It’s been in my mind since the start of the Sheila series,and now it’s matured enough to be posted.
    Sheila hates HATES the idea of sex with her husband because all her lust goes to Jamaal and Tyrone.
    I bet she’s aborted a black baby,
    Cuck husband says; “wut?”

  87. Luke says:

    Any one that takes the position that virginity is unimportant in woman when assessed as potential wives (marriage only being worth considering in the West now for men who are seeking children borne for them by that woman) is ignorant or evil. Every longtime poster here is of course aware of how the sexual psychology of women (far, far more than men) is akin to glue on tape, where each time it’s pulled off an attachment, the strength of its attachment is considerably reduced, such that only a few times and it has little or no strength at all.

    That’s possibly not even the worst of it. Telegony, the mechanism that describes how females inevitably pick up DNA from previous partners, makes a mockery IMO of the “forsaking all others” part of a newlywed wife’s marriage vows. She will always carry part of other men in her, from her body to her brain. Some research (science is still in the early stages of understanding this) appears to indicated that this affects her brain chemistry, while some even leads to the conclusion that her previous male sex partners’ DNA will end up in her later husband’s children’s DNA. This would mean that ANY man who marries and has children with a woman who’s not sexually untouched is technically a cuckold, and always would be made that by that woman.

    Our ancestors who lived in a time that societal cohesion and demographics were healthy and not catastrophic as ours now are, understood this. Any Westerner or Christian (but in large measure I repeat myself) with the slightest understanding of our current world and history knows that those who came before us were in many, many aspects wiser in the ways of Mankind than we are. I concur.

  88. 7817 says:

    @thedeti

    Doug Wilson’s regular admonition to men is that they are the ones responsible, so I can’t imagine Doug counseling a husband to leave if the roles were reversed.

    The beautiful part about it is Doug revealing himself even on his blog now, not just in his books. Looks to me like he is en route to the same destination as his gospel coalition friends, but is just a few years behind them.

  89. Luke says:

    Apt comic strip: http://redpanels.com/237/

    BTW, how does one post images on Dalrock’s site? I’d have posted that strip if I knew how.

    This one is also as apt as it is venerable:

    http://cdn-webimages.wimages.net/0514db13cd70f41775242a832ef861def157f8-wm.jpg?v=3

  90. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Men’s preferences are equal to leagalism or so says the hamster in the video. Newsflash – men do not equal God, preferences do not equal law. Using a hyper-gospel to be an obnoxious slut is an abomination.

    Has this hamster ever studied what God says about promiscuous women? I think one should search in their concordance under the terms “harlot” and “whore”. But here is a hint.

    “But if the thing is true, that evidence of virginity was not found in the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father’s house. So you shall purge the evil from your midst.”
    ‭‭Deuteronomy‬ ‭22:20-21‬ ‭

    She wants her independence, again what does God say?

    “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman;”
    ‭‭1 Corinthians‬ ‭11:11‬ ‭

    I hope she enjoys her cats.

  91. 7817 says:

    Lori Alexander told the truth. Gotta give her credit for going against the flow of feminism.

  92. Anonymous Reader says:

    A casual search turned up this:

    https://www.theknot.com/us/katie-gregoire-and-david-emmerson-feb-2018-613f9b50-2baa-4b20-93f6-e68ccbb734ba

    Read with The Glasses on:

    Over the next two years we would hang out and talk after church whenever we could, and when I had my heart broken when I was almost 18, David was there to hug me and be there for me during a very hard time

    He was her Beta Orbiter when her Alpha pony would not be corralled.

    Over time we became best friends, calling on the phone regularly while he was in different places of the country completing his military training and getting to know each other super well without any expectation of anything more than platonic friends.

    She relegated him to Let’s Just Be Friends status, but he persisted. This is the sort of story that keeps men Beta-orbiting for years, hoping it will work for them. By the way, the timeline is a bit fuzzy. That could be just ditziness on her part, or it could be a bit of deliberate obfuscation.

    In the summer of 2015, David came home for a visit and while hanging out he told me that he had feelings for me, and even though he knew I didn’t return them, he was willing to wait for me.

    And wait he did! It took many months of frustration and heartbreak for him to finally wear me down, and almost a whole two years later I finally said YES on February 25, 2017 to being his girlfriend. It was without doubt the best decision I had ever made up to that point.

    Needs no analysis. There is a video at the bottom of this page. It’s worth viewing. He has pretty good presence. If he can keep from being betaized by her, this could work. I frankly wish them both well.

    People over 40, and especially those over 50 should view this, just to see what 20-something relationships look like.

    BUT: Re-view the tantrum / meltdown video above, paying attention to 9:45 – 10: 25. Watch her eyes when she talks about virginity vs. “if you made a mistake…”.

    Again, I wish them both well, but she should have thought a lot more before melting down in her tantrum on YouTube over what churchgoing men prefer.

  93. Devon35 says:

    There will always be plenty of desperate men to marry carousel riders with debt and tattoos. Most Christian men are like Sheila’s husband. Spineless and lacking any self-respect. Ultimately the only person you can control and save is yourself.

  94. Anonymous Reader says:

    Well, blockquote fail. In my comment above, this would be correct:

    Over time we became best friends, calling on the phone regularly while he was in different places of the country completing his military training and getting to know each other super well without any expectation of anything more than platonic friends.

  95. earl says:

    Newsflash – men do not equal God, preferences do not equal law. Using a hyper-gospel to be an obnoxious slut is an abomination.

    If you notice she goes out of context with the article with her arguement.

    Sleeping with chads, having debt, having tattoos = God doesn’t love you or will forgive you if you repent of the things in your past.

    Which wasn’t the point of the article or meme…it’s what men prefer for marriage. I didn’t see anything where she actually tackled or refuted this. She was emoting (because I think she knows it’s true) and arguing something totally off topic.

  96. Meh.
    I agree with the previous sentiment.
    There is absolutely and positively no shortage of credulous, sex-starved idiots willing to “man up” and marry these tatted, post-carousel cowgirls and try to persuade them (not make them) into mothers and loyal wives.
    Most of these sexless dolts will fail in spectacular fashion and then spend a number of years attending Men’s Group Ministry listening to other mean cope with the urge to sin (masterbate) and in other ways wonder just WTF happened.

    So Sheila, you and your semen-crusted dismounts have nothing to worry about.

  97. Spike says:

    Women, many of them Christian, perversely re-live their youth vicariously throug their children’s lives.
    Is there any other explanation for their obsession about NOT obeying scripture, and orchestrating their children’s sex lives?
    Statistics tell against Sheila. I don’t know where the study is – I think it was on Paul Elam’s Website, where in between elections, Pew, Zogby and Morgan conducted polls on marriage.
    They found that women felt they could “relax”about sex once they had married and were “content”.
    Married men, however were not. A good 20-25% of all marriages surveyed were completely platonic, with no sex at all. A further 40% consisted of unhappy,
    undersexed husbands reliant in various degrees on the sex industry, maintaining marriages because they don’t want to ruin their lives or the lives of their children through divorce. At the far end of the spectrum, there was a minority of “fundamentalists” , “abusive husbands” or “extremists” who were happy with their marriages.
    The take home message: Women were coming into marriage with more partners and “experience” than ever before, but were not having sex with their husbands. Presumably, their husbands are supposed to metaphysically “love them unconditionally “. Thus, women are responsible for the sex industry, responsible for the divorce rate, are lazy, and have brazenly behaved like prostitutes.
    Are all those women still doing just fine, Sheila?
    *I will hunt down the link and post it (can’t atm due to work) it is a very good study.

  98. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    If you notice she goes out of context with the article with her arguement.

    Sleeping with chads, having debt, having tattoos = God doesn’t love you or will forgive you if you repent of the things in your past.

    She’s not very good at that “cause and effect” concept. Most women aren’t, and IMO that is why they tend to be superstitious.

  99. earl says:

    I will soon create my own blog post with this as the picture grabber. I doubt many women will try to refute it.

  100. Farm Boy says:

    Neither of my girls followed Lori’s advice. But they did follow mine. And they’re all doing great.

    To be honest, with the way that the one daughter acted in the video, one would think that divorce will happen soon enough.

  101. Mandy says:

    The part driving them crazy is the virginity. Tattoos çan be removed,debts repaid but there is no unringing that other bell. She could have left it at “men prefer virgins” and this same insanity would ensue.

  102. Darwinian Arminian says:

    @earl
    There are plenty of reasons for a Christian man to practice chastity. Mainly it helps your relationship with God and doesn’t put you in as much of a fog with women that you can see their flaws a lot better. If anything I can say it does make you more aware.

    I wouldn’t disagree with you on any of these points. But I would counter that it doesn’t come without its costs, either — particularly if only one side is going to be held to the rule. Different societies throughout the ages haven’t been blind to this; It’s why men have traditionally had to jump through a series of hoops if they wanted access to regular sex, and it’s also why there have also been restrictions placed on women’s sexual behavior, with stigmas for those who failed to meet the standards. And we’re now at the point where both the modern culture and the modern church seem to be pretty clear that they like having the former, but regard the latter as “legalism” that we never needed in the first place.

    There may be rewards from God to men for practicing chastity. But from the modern culture and the modern church? Not so much. That might not be a problem if they didn’t still want to sound the “man up” chorus and insist that men should practice it as an entry ticket for marriage — but they do. So if the church and the culture have both gutted out the institution to the point where it offers men nothing they can’t have outside of it (and possibly better as well), then what benefit is there for men in playing along with their charade?

    The current situation for the church’s rules of the sexual marketplace are comparable to a man who puts in a hard day’s work and goes to be paid, only to have the employer tell him: “I’m not going to give you anything. But don’t get angry, because after all, virtue is its own reward.”

    They’d damn well better hope that it is, because they certainly aren’t offering anything worth sticking around for.

  103. Hmm says:

    In brief defense of Doug Wilson’s latest post:
    – It is a case where the man is making life miserable for his wife, but flies under the radar in public. Consider him a man with BPD. In my 30+ years as a church elder, I have seen a couple of such cases. In his larger church, with its more patriarchal culture, there may be a higher incidence.
    – It is her word against her husband’s. This is clearly a case where the evidence of two or three witnesses is not present for the church to judge in favor of one side or the other. So no charges can be sustained, and no Biblical grounds exist for divorce.
    – Wilson allows her to separate from him (and provides oblique Scriptural support for it). He does not instruct her to divorce him unilaterally (without the church’s permission). He does not encourage her to tell her story to the police and get the government involved. Children are out of the house.

    On the other hand:
    – He does encourage her to tell the story to her family, with whom she takes “refuge”. This will tend to bias them against him – although they may also know her well enough to have a reasonable understanding of her situation (they would know if she was the one with BPD).
    – He instructs her to lay the case out to the church elders, knowing that they cannot bring charges. This cannot help but influence their opinion of him – and he specifically indicates that this is OK. When does information from only one witness slop over into gossip?
    – Most importantly to me, there’s no defense for him against it being not real abuse, but just her feelz. And there’s every temptation for an abusive wife to use this as an excuse. In fact, Wilson admits this, but says that “it is always to be preferred to allow a guilty person to go free, a guilty person to ‘get away with it,’ than to ever penalize an innocent person.” Unless, apparently, the innocent person is the husband.

  104. RobJ says:

    “It’s certainly what God wants, but I believe…”

    Feminist Christianity in a nutshell right there.

  105. Swanny River says:

    Farm Boy,
    I’m doubtful that she will change her tune if her daughter ever divorces. Christians who justify lifestyles by providing examples of positive outcomes are usually pretty hardened.

  106. mgtowhorseman says:

    At one point she mockingly says

    “Well if you messed up no one is going to want you now!”

    Ding! Ding! Ding!

    Winner!

    That is exactly the point!!!!

    The days of women choosing are long over! That is what they cannot face.
    “I will decide which offer I will accept!!! Its my choice!!!”

    Except no men are offering. No men. None. Nada.
    No one want YOU!
    Ever again. Ever!

  107. mgtowhorseman says:

    I don’t care if Christ, Budda, Lao Tzu forgive you!

    I (me, the guy, the one with the offers) don’t WANT you
    Forgiven or not.

  108. Splashman says:

    @thedeti,

    Would Wilson be so accommodating to a husband living under similar circumstances?

    Haven’t you learned anything? Yeeesh. One more time for all you non-spiritual morons:

    Rule 1: If the husband misbehaves, it’s his fault.

    Rule 2: If the wife appears to misbehave, it’s not actually misbehavior, but a perfectly natural and God-ordained response to her husband’s misbehavior. Ergo, it’s his fault.

  109. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Female military pilots meet for a panel discussion: http://smdp.com/intergenerational-discussion-by-female-military-pilots-lands-at-the-museum-of-flying/163244

    This weekend organizers of an event at the Santa Monica Museum of Flying are offering locals rare a chance to hear from a diverse group of female military pilots as The Greatest Generation Meets The Next Generation.

    The panel discussion will include five Women Air Force Service Pilots (WASP) who were part of the 1,000 strong contingent that flew all kinds of planes during WWII (Beverly Beesemyer, Edna Davis, Shirley Kruse, Alyce Rohrer, and Millie Young).

    Those veterans will interact with a retired Navy helicopter pilot (Lori Dolan), an active duty fighter/bomber pilot with the USAF (Tammy Barlette), a USAF reserve instructor pilot (Maura George) and an active duty Marine helicopter pilot (Jacquelyne Nichols).

    Karen Fine Brash, the first female pilot in her combat deployable carrier squadron, will moderate the panel.

    According to event organizers, this event is part of a cross-country effort by The Red Door Films and FlyGirls the series, to shed light on an important chapter of U.S. History. …

  110. earl says:

    The current situation for the church’s rules of the sexual marketplace are comparable to a man who puts in a hard day’s work and goes to be paid, only to have the employer tell him: “I’m not going to give you anything. But don’t get angry, because after all, virtue is its own reward.”

    They’d damn well better hope that it is, because they certainly aren’t offering anything worth sticking around for.

    For starters…the church doesn’t hold much to convincing women why they should be chaste. That would be a big start. Chaste women I think most men would agree are much more valuable in the marriage market than the unchaste ones.

  111. Dota says:

    What Lori said is considered common sense in Asia and the Middle East. What startles me about people like Sheila and her daughter is just how unrepentant they are. These women aren’t saying “we’ve made mistakes, but we’d like a second chance.” They are saying “How dare you criticize us!”
    There is a term for this in Hindi/Urdu which is besharam (बेशर्म / بے شرم) The English word ‘shameless’ doesn’t do it must justice, but that is roughly what it translates to. In Asia and the middle east, women like her would be social shunned.

  112. seventiesjason says:

    RPL…does it ever end? I’m going to a conference for commercial property management in September for two nights in San Francisco……and the mandatory workshop before dinner the first night is “Women In Commercial Property Management, Breaking The Glass Ceiling”

    It’s going to have a panel of “women who dared” in this indusrty back in the 1960’s / 1970’s and a “frank” talk about the rampant sexism that still is in this area property of management……….

    Topics will include a lactation room for career moms who need privacy at work (what about closing the door to your office and saying “I’m busy! Do not disturb!) maternity leave, and a “child friendly” environment for working moms in this industry, also strictly guidelines for harassment in this management field (Hi…….since you asked me out, and I don’t have the tingles hard for you, I am going to get you fired!) and finally “mentoring” women into this “male dominated” industry and how California can provide tax incentives for your company if you are mentoring and actively promoting women

  113. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Dota

    Careful with your generalizations. Women in the West as a rule don’t pay for cosmetic procedures such as “hymen restoration”, yet there are plastic surgeons who do them regularly…

    Commenter Lyn87 spent some time in the Gulf states and noted that flirtation in the shopping mall is possible even when the woman is veiled. He himself remained faithful to his Stateside wife, but he knew of US expats who had private visitors to their quarters. Women have a dual mating strategy at the very basic level.

    Women are women. The Kardashians are but one case in point.

  114. Wayne says:

    “…if a woman remains sexually, physically, and financially pure in order to “get” a man, I gotta wonder what exactly she is worshipping.”

    Obedience to God is a manifestation of worshipping God. Getting a good man is one fruit of that obedience.
    Besides, these days, a virgin is just about as rare than a Proverbs 31 woman. I am sure there is a correlation to this.

  115. JDG says:

    “Christian feminist” is an oxymoron.

  116. 7817 says:

    @Hmm

    “Oblique Scriptural support” for a wife leaving her husband:

    “You shall not give up to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you” (Deut. 23:15, ESV)

    No, that is not even “oblique” support for the wife leaving. All that that verse even obliquely supports is the brother in allowing him to take her in, but a male member of the family taking in a female relation who is no longer married is pretty standard Old Testament practice, if i understand correctly.

    The use of this verse is a persuasion tactic, to equate the un-abused wife with a slave and generate sympathy for her, and on the basis of that sympathy, convince the reader that she is right to leave.

    Wouldn’t have been able to see through this stuff prior
    to finding Dalrock, so thanks again to him.

  117. Lexet Blog says:

    What’s your blog address

  118. earl says:

    Don’t have one…it was more to show what the opposite side would look like.

  119. earl says:

    Side note — if a woman remains sexually, physically, and financially pure in order to “get” a man, I gotta wonder what exactly she is worshipping.

    Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God. Matthew 5:8

  120. illuvitus says:

    Here’s a good example of the rationalization going on in response to that article.

    These people are incapable of distinguishing marriage advice from a Gospel presentation, and think an article written to help women prepare for marriage is somehow a form of legalism.

    I have never seen such a concerted attack on Christian sexual ethics as I have in response to this article. It’s never been more obvious to me just how far gone the Western church is.

    https://phyliciamasonheimer.com/debt-free-virgin-without-tattoos/

  121. feeriker says:

    seventiesjason says:
    July 23, 2018 at 9:14 pm

    DAMN, brother … ! Is there ANY way you can avoid going to that conference? It sounds like 48 hours of pure Hell! You might want to consider developing an emergency case of appendicitis at the last minute before it starts …

  122. Anonymous Reader says:

    Here’s a good example of the rationalization going on in response to that article.

    Reading comprehension isn’t popular any more, apparently; this is the third woman to read “men prefer” and somehow transmute that into something like “God loves only…”. There are a lot of women who reallly want to tell men what they should prefer…or else!

    From the comments I see that pedestalizer / misandrist Sam Powell likes it. No surprise there.

  123. feeriker says:

    I have never seen such a concerted attack on Christian sexual ethics as I have in response to this article. It’s never been more obvious to me just how far gone the Western church is.

    It really is long past time that the churchiofeminists just flat-out aposticized and got it over with. They need to just raise both middle fingers heavenward and tell God, in the most overtly vile and blasphemous language possible for human tongues to utter, exactly what they think of His laws, commandments, and prescriptions for sex, sex roles, and marriage. After all, their hearts, souls, minds, and attitudes ARE ALREADY OBVIOUSLY DOING EXACTLY THIS; THEY ARE NOT FOOLING GOD IN THE SLIGHTEST (heck, they’re not even fooling us).

    If we here can see through their nonsense and are fed up/ upset with it, imagine how God Himself feels.

  124. feeriker says:

    Aaargh! Quote tag fail on that last paragraph!

  125. Pingback: Double Standards | Illuvitus

  126. illuvitus says:

    “Reading comprehension isn’t popular any more, apparently; this is the third woman to read “men prefer” and somehow transmute that into something like “God loves only…”. There are a lot of women who reallly want to tell men what they should prefer…or else!”

    I’ve spent the last few hours telling an army of women essentially this exactly. It never seems to click with them. They can’t seem to keep marriage advice separate from the Gospel. Or, maybe even more likely, they hate the advice and they think the holiest sounding way to shut it down is by saying “you grieve God!”

  127. Anon says:

    Reading comprehension isn’t popular any more, apparently; this is the third woman to read “men prefer” and somehow transmute that into something like “God loves only…”.
    he mandatory workshop before dinner the first night is “Women In Commercial Property Management, Breaking The Glass Ceiling”

    This ties to what I have often said about how men, despite how horny some men may be, can always put it aside when sexual thoughts are not appropriate for a certain venue or task.

    With women, by contrast, thoughts about their gender and SMV comprise the entirety of their psychology. There really is nothing they can’t turn into some form of female-centric attention-seeking/responsibility avoidance. I am waiting for entire bogus fields of study to be created around ‘women’s perspectives on Geology’ or ‘a feminist theory on Astronomy’ once there is a chance to extort dollars from such an idea.

  128. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Anon: I am waiting for entire bogus fields of study to be created around ‘women’s perspectives on Geology’ or ‘a feminist theory on Astronomy’

    Well, there is a field of study called Feminist Geography: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_geography

    The article is mostly indecipherable gobbledygook:

    There are two scales that socialist feminist geographers first worked primarily. First, at the urban scale, Anglo-American feminist geographers focused on the social and spatial separation of suburban homes from paid employment; this was seen as vital to the day-to-day and generational reproduction of workers and the development and maintenance of traditional gender relations in capitalist societies.

    Socialist feminist geographers widely attending to the ways that gender relations differ from place to place not only reflect, but also partly determine local economic changes. Judith Butler’s idea of citationality expands on the concept of the lack of agency to facilitate the presence of women within the discipline of geography. In such, we come to the awareness that whenever performative measures are taken to diminish women’s rights in geographical space, the conventions around it adapt around this context to make it seem as the norm. …

    I also found an article on Feminist Astronomy: https://brokenwallsandnarratives.wordpress.com/2016/11/13/feminist-astronomy/comment-page-1/

    Each month, the Twin Ports Women’s Rights Coalition hosts a “Feminist Frolic.” A Feminist Frolic is an outdoor adventure combined with an educational presentation. This month’s presentation was on feminist stargazing, which was held at Wisconsin Point. The goal of the presentation is to enjoy the outdoors and become familiar with the celestial bodies in the night sky, while connecting science and mythology to a feminist perspective.

  129. What a delight this woman is. 2 years of trying to train her masochist of a husband that she wasn’t worth his attention. Repentance would be to submit to him unconditionally and never bring the subject up again except to say how sadly mistaken she was and that she was and is a completely depraved sinner. Gregoire looks completely trapped. She missed her calling as a Shaker elder.

  130. Sharkly says:

    Crazy whores!

  131. Opus says:

    The absurdities of female victimhood/aggrandisement make for hours of amusement. Recently on a part of their website the BBC have had an article entitled ‘Five Women composers erased from musical history’ as if unnamed men had sent them to a musical concentration camp never again to be heard of. I did not check but I am prepared to bet that these five females are upper middle-class English women. One might thus imagine that no male composers has ever suffered a loss of reputation but I could easily fill andfoff the top of my head a large paragraph of male composers of whom you have never heard. No one cares for their musical fate.

    So let me give one example which is really pretty shocking given the composers popularity especially in America. I refer to Arthur Sullivan and his popular operettas such as The Mikado – and yet his 1998 piece the Shrek-like The Beauty Stone had not until a year or two ago been performed anywhere since its 1902 revival and has still not had a stage performance since its 1902 outing. No one cares about this as Arthur Sullivan was surprisingly a man.

  132. earl says:

    Or, maybe even more likely, they hate the advice and they think the holiest sounding way to shut it down is by saying “you grieve God!”

    It’s because they think they are a god.

  133. info says:

    @Anon
    ”What is funny is that in most of the rest of the world (outside of the West), not only is this centuries-old norm understood, but people would be surprised that anyone thinks otherwise.”

    Until feminism through the education system and NGOs change their cultures to be like ours in this regard.

  134. Magneto2975 says:

    That video is truly awesome. Proof that an educated feminist – a modern woman – is incapable of understanding and following the simplest of scripture. They have been educated into idiocy.

  135. Damn Crackers says:

    “Newsflash – men do not equal God, preferences do not equal law. Using a hyper-gospel to be an obnoxious slut is an abomination.”

    Also, men do not equal women. Virginity is a meaningless term when it comes to men. Jesus talked about eunuchs, not virgins.

  136. thedeti says:

    @ AnonReader:

    Reading comprehension isn’t popular any more, apparently; this is the third woman to read “men prefer” and somehow transmute that into something like “God loves only…”. There are a lot of women who reallly want to tell men what they should prefer…or else!

    You said it better than i could.

    Neither Lori nor Dalrock nor Lori’s defenders once said that women who have had premarital sex, or women with debt, or women with tattoos, are impure, irredeemable, irretrievably corrupt, worthless, cannot marry, or should not marry. Hell, no one says these women are unattractive.

    All that was asserted is that Christian men PREFER tattoo free, debt free virgins FOR MARRIAGE.

    And that has been distorted and bastardized into “nonvirgin women with tattoos and debt are worthless, corrupt, impure, ugly, awful and terrible”. No one anywhere said that, or anything even close to that.

    What’s happened is that Sheila Gregoire et al know it’s true that men do in fact prefer virgins sans tats and debt. And they hate this. Because even if they don’t have tats or debt, the vast vast majority of them aren’t virgins. and they feel judged.

    Men have every right to judge women on any criteria they see fit, including body art, financial obligations, and past sexual history. Men just have preferences that run a certain way. And to women, men should not be allowed to have preferences or express what those preferences are. And expressing those preferences to women is “judgment” and “rejection” – two things women simply cannot countenance, even from men they will never meet, marry, or have sex with.

    For Christians, salvation cleanses and redeems the spirit. But the body and psyche continue to carry the effects of past decisions, good and bad. Sheila and company resent having to walk out those consequences and believe women should be relieved of said consequences.

    Don’t worry, Sheila, i.e. the Christian Susan Walsh. Christian girls with some decisions (er. “mistakes”) under their belts will still find men to wife them up. It just won’t be the men they want, most of the time. Just like your daughter found her low beta whom she can control and manipulate. Her husband should know that when it all comes crashing down and when life forcibly offers him a red pill suppository, we’ll be here to walk him through it.

  137. Damn Crackers says:

    Also, no Church actually gives two sh*ts about the problem of fornication. If they did, they would try to marry up the children of parishioners ASAP as soon as they were ready, maybe with matchmaking, arranged marriages, etc. Fornication becomes inevitable in post-puberty without marriage at an age older than some age like 21. Think about how early marriages were when St. Paul was preaching.

    And, I don’t know what to do about this problem. Many here would just demand celibacy, but even St. Paul knew that wasn’t for the majority of Christians.

  138. BillyS says:

    Deti,

    Paul’s thorn was exactly what he said, a messenger of satan – a demon. It is amazing so many can’t take what is written and have to invent some weird eye problem or other thing instead of just believing. Read about a bit before and you will see all the damage that demon raised to his flesh: shipwrecks, beatings, stonings, etc.

  139. earl says:

    ‘Also, men do not equal women. Virginity is a meaningless term when it comes to men. Jesus talked about eunuchs, not virgins.’

    Yup the egalitarians want everything the same but biologically we’re not.

  140. craig says:

    “Side note — if a woman remains sexually, physically, and financially pure in order to “get” a man, I gotta wonder what exactly she is worshipping.”

    This comment is a perfect example of Screwtape’s admonition to concentrate on persuading the subject to ignore that Christian doctrine is true and instead view it as useful for some other end. Because the clear theme of all these women’s posts is that remaining pure for marriage is servile thus abhorrent, and the corollary to that is that remaining pure for God’s sake is superfluous. Their “gospel” is antinomian through and through.

  141. Spacetraveller says:

    Dota is right.
    In the middle East and Asia this Katie would be laughed out of town. I have many friends from these parts of the world. They have a completely different view of life from us.

    I would be thoroughly ashamed of Katie if she were my little sister or daughter. I wouldn’t be able to show my face in public were she to be associated with me…

    As many have pointed out, she is ‘outing’ herself as poor marriage material. What a shame…

    I was not debt-free when I married. My husband joked that he would inherit my mortgage if he married me. I guess he didn’t mind, because he was smiling as he ‘complained’ that we women were trouble and debt as far as he was concerned. 🙂 He paid off my mortgage within a few months of marrying me without me asking him to. He said it was an ‘investment’ in me (yes he was a Swiss banker – lol in cockney rhyme, this actually represents an insult – a very rude one. I suppose only Opus knows what I am referring to – but I digress)…

    I think he is happy I had the other 2 things Lori mentions though.
    Even though (and please don’t take this the wrong way if you are a young lady wishing to remain virginal until marriage!) – I… erm… think it was not very nice for him in our early days, weeks. Not to get too graphic but… erm he had to be very patient. Credit to him, I am of course much more easy-going than before, and I think I am correct in surmising that he prefers things now than then, if we are talking pure ‘mechanics’.
    But I think the early times were very much worth it.

    I would very much recommend to a young woman to have faith and wait for the ring. Not only is it what God instructs us women (and men too, of course! but I can only speak for women) it is also rewarding in of itself too.
    I do have some sympathy for the reaction this article of Lori’s has caused. I would feel incredibly guilty too if I had deviated from what I know to be right. It is natural to feel guilty when you know you have done something wrong. I guess we have all experienced this in one way or another.

    In this sense, I do feel sorry for Katie and her ilk.
    But, the lack of introspection is atoundingly shocking, I must say. And this lessens my sympathy for Katie somewhat.

  142. thedeti says:

    Sheila et al are conflating

    –saved, “born again”, good Christian woman, woman living in repentance

    with

    –attractive, sexually attractive, good marriage prospect, suited and suitable for marriage, prepared for marriage, possesses the skills needed for marriage

  143. BillyS says:

    Earl,

    You should also add that sexual interaction outside marriage is almost guaranteed to bring the “gifts that keep on giving” (STDs). That is another good reason to follow God’s ways.

    Darwinian,

    Things that can’t continue, won’t. The problem is that the mess will likely take more trouble to clean up the longer it persists and the worse it gets. Though we should realize this is really only a small part of human history, a bit over 100 years. The seeds have been around a while, but society worked through many bad things in the past. The cost was great, but they didn’t last.

  144. earl says:

    HPV alone is more than enough reason…no contraceptive stops that and the vaccine can kill or paralyze you.

    And there’s the increase chance of breast cancer because of the pill.

  145. Mr. Generic says:

    @illuvitus

    “I’ve spent the last few hours telling an army of women essentially this exactly. It never seems to click with them. They can’t seem to keep marriage advice separate from the Gospel. Or, maybe even more likely, they hate the advice and they think the holiest sounding way to shut it down is by saying ‘you grieve God!”

    Gee! It’s almost like women (on average) are less capable than men when it comes to explaining the Gospel and should be prohibited from teaching it. I wonder what scripture says about this…

  146. Bastiat's Ghost says:

    Can we start condemning cannibalism to see if we can get them to start BBQing each other?

  147. OKRickety says:

    Spacetraveller said: “…, I do feel sorry for Katie and her ilk. But, the lack of introspection is astoundingly shocking, I must say. And this lessens my sympathy for Katie somewhat.”

    The lack of introspection, the lack of reasoning, the lack of critical thinking, the inability to read with comprehension, all of these suggest to me that the college “education” held so dear did not increase their ability in these important areas. One might even wonder if it actually decreased as a result.

    When one finds a woman who is outside this mold, it is so surprising that you wonder if they really are a woman. Any idea how a few manage to be exceptions to the rule?

  148. Paul says:

    “I do have some sympathy for the reaction this article of Lori’s has caused. I would feel incredibly guilty too if I had deviated from what I know to be right. It is natural to feel guilty when you know you have done something wrong. I guess we have all experienced this in one way or another.”

    I don’t feel any sympathy, but exactly the opposite, because exactly the WRONG reaction is triggered. When you FEEL guilty, maybe it is because you ARE guilty of sinning. In such cases there’s only ONE thing to do: repent and ask God for forgiveness! NOT trying to argue it away or accuse people on heaping shame on sinners for calling out the sin.The latter is the WORST you can do, and the LEAST we should expect from Christians. I cannot believe such basics of faith are not comprehended.

  149. Anon says:

    Until feminism through the education system and NGOs change their cultures to be like ours in this regard.

    False. It is extremely expensive to create a society where half of the children don’t grow up with their biological fathers, and single motherhood is normalized. Very few countries can afford it (that too only temporarily).

  150. earl says:

    They can’t seem to keep marriage advice separate from the Gospel.

    Or they can’t seem to keep marriage advice seperate from how God operates when it comes to His love and His mercy.

    They might even be surprised how a man can forgive things in her past if she shows some remorse and repentence for it. It’s a better shot than trying to rationalize it into something virtuous.

  151. Oscar says:

    …if a woman remains sexually, physically, and financially pure in order to “get” a man, I gotta wonder what exactly she is worshipping.

    If a man avoids gluttony, sloth, drunkenness, and debt in order to “get” a woman, I gotta wonder what exactly he is worshiping.

    Right?

  152. Morgan says:

    I think God has become just another man with expectations that feminists want to rebel against.

  153. Gunner Q says:

    info @ July 24, 2018 at 8:01 am:
    @Anon
    ”What is funny is that in most of the rest of the world (outside of the West), not only is this centuries-old norm understood, but people would be surprised that anyone thinks otherwise.”

    “Until feminism through the education system and NGOs change their cultures to be like ours in this regard.”

    It happened three years ago.

    https://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-female-soccer-team-accused-of-manning-up/

    “Iranian soccer fans were left reeling earlier this week after eight members of the women’s national team were found to be men, the Al-Arabiya website reported on Monday.

    Mojtabi Sharifi, described as an official connected to the Iranian soccer league, said that the footballers “have been playing with Iran’s female team without completing sex change operations.””

    Straight outta Oakland.

  154. Opus says:

    @Spacetraveller

    I know what you are saying.

  155. Frank K says:

    False. It is extremely expensive to create a society where half of the children don’t grow up with their biological fathers, and single motherhood is normalized. Very few countries can afford it (that too only temporarily).

    FWIW, single motherhood is growing quickly in Mexico, and without a generous welfare state. That said, I’ll bet AMLO (Mexico’s new socialist president elect) will do everything he can to make it even more common.

  156. BillyS says:

    Mexico gets a significant amount of money from the US (via their nationals working here and sending money home), so that is a form of welfare right there.

  157. Frank K says:

    They need to just raise both middle fingers heavenward and tell God, in the most overtly vile and blasphemous language possible for human tongues to utter, exactly what they think of His laws, commandments, and prescriptions for sex, sex roles, and marriage.

    While they might not literally giving the Lord the bird with their middle fingers, they certainly are with every action they do. I read somewhere (maybe it was here) about Episcopalian “priestesses” blessing an abortion clinic. Small wonder most Episcopalian parishes are bereft of members.

  158. Cloudbuster says:

    @Henri says:
    July 23, 2018 at 2:17 pm
    Lori is an attention whore who hits her husband.

    Pretty egregious mischaracterization. What’s your point, Henri? Was she wrong in what she said about what men prefer or are you just trying to distract via character assassination?

  159. Rpro says:

    But we’re women we’re sinless! How dare this article say that we have sinned! What a joke. This is why i won’t follow women into battle, why i permit a woman not to instruct, why they’re fun to look at but not to take advice from. Wiggling like a worm when the spirit of correction falls on her. And when justification falls flat against her sexual instincts, goes full hysterical then crops that part out. Classic.

  160. BillyS says:

    Sorry for all these OT links, but they are worth noting: https://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/5-ugly-truths-about-women-that-young-men-need-to-recognize/

    [D: Great find.]

  161. Just because I’ve heard this before, but no virginity is not a meaningless term when it comes to men. I recall, and I may be wrong, that male virgins are mentioned in the Book of Revelation.

    Additionally, chastity is a virtue for everyone. Being sloppy about male chastity eventually becomes being sloppy about female chastity. In the meantime, even if you avoid the giant bombs of STDs and illegitimate children, there can be serious emotional, legal, and psychological consequences.

    Also, it’s something of a myth that no one has ever cared about male chastity. In the middle ages an intemperate male was often considered something of a weakling, and Eugenio Corti talks about the importance of male chastity in the rural Italy of his youth (going against stereotypes pretty hard here).

  162. RichardP says:

    @BillyS said: Paul’s thorn was exactly what he said, a messenger of satan – a demon. It is amazing so many can’t take what is written and have to invent some weird eye problem or other thing instead of just believing.

    Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Paul’s “messenger of satan” was a demon.

    At this page search on “2 Corinthians” to locate the following comment: Hence, ἄγγελος Σατᾶν is tropically used in 2 Corinthians 12:7 to denote a grievous bodily malady sent by Satan.

    When anyone “takes what is written”, it is best to have some understanding what the experts think the words in their original language actually meant. BillyS, I’m not saying that you can’t be correct in your interpretation. I am saying that understanding a translated language is often more complicated than it might first appear to be. If meaning were simple to determine, we wouldn’t have so many different religions, and denominations within each religion.

  163. thedeti says:

    Billy:

    Wow. John Hawkins is coming around. He was such a blue pilled simp for so long. I’ll bet he’s been through a divorce or a bad breakup, or a crisis in his marriage/relationship.

  164. BillyS says:

    RichardP,

    I would have to investigate that, but I see nowhere else that a “messenger” is not a human or angel, thus a being. Reading 1/2 chapter before puts the context and shows the troubles Paul faced. Those are very physical, painful and would be quite nice to have.

    Though also note that God never said “you must keep it,” but rather that He would not remove it and it was up to Paul to use the tools God had given him. Reading a sickness into that requires quite a bit of twisting, though it fits with modern thought of saying “it’s not my fault” rather than taking ownership.

    Blaming God is much easier that using your own faith to stand. Though that is another topic. Please show me several other verses that clearly show a disease is a messenger. Also discuss why we do not see one example of that in Jesus’ life. He said He did the will of the Father completely, so we should see it happening there if it was a part of how God worked.

  165. BillyS says:

    Deti,

    I haven’t paid attention to him in the past, but that is fairly strong for PJM, so it will be interesting to see what happens in the future.

  166. Damn Crackers says:

    @greenmantlehoys – Probably bad translation, but Παρθένος, what you read as translated as “virgin”, was sometimes used as a masculine noun to denote a young, unmarried man in later Greek.

    No one is denying chastity. Also, most commentators have understood this passage from Revelations as intended in a spiritual sense. In the Old Testament, the employment of the figure of adultery and fornication to denote spiritual unfaithfulness is common.

  167. Lackofa says:

    Sheila’s contempt for her husband didn’t end after those early years. It continues apace to this day.

  168. Robert What? says:

    I’m am older guy so I don’t have my finger on the pulse, so to speak, but are there actually any debt free virgins still out there? I thought they went extinct.

  169. RichardP says:

    @BillyS – I’m not debating the Bible. I’m debating the meaning of the Greek words that Paul used – that have been translated into English. The page I linked you to shows what Greek word Paul used and what the commonly-accepted meaning of that word is.

    This speaks to a larger point that is often ignored in spiritual discussions: before we can debate the meaning found in the Bible (regardless of version), we need to have an understanding of the meaning contained in the original words that our Bibles have been translated from. The average joe has not typically had access to material that would teach him that meaning of the original words. Which is one of the reasons that the RC Church and some others have felt that it is not a good idea to give the Bible to folks without access to such adequate resources. Wild debates over non-existant meanings can and have occurred. I’m pretty confident that is not the process Jesus had in mind when he said to make disciples of all nations.

  170. DC, I believe that matchmaking should be viewed as a work of mercy. I introduced one of my friends to his wife. And I know two older ladies who have made several matches. It’s all about growing your network and stating your intentions straightforwardly. If someone responds with disgust to the idea of matchmaking, that’s your cue to next her.

  171. Random Angeleno says:

    @Robert, they probably are extinct for all intents and purposes. If they went to college, they likely have at least some debt. If they went away to college instead of living at home, they mostly likely aren’t virgins anymore. If they went to college and are debt free and still virgins, they are likely to be upper class and being matched up with similar upper class men. Making them not accessible to the rest of us. If they went to high school only and are still virgins, probably only going to find those in the rural areas and/or home schooled.

    Remarkably enough however, there are still a fair number of young women in urban areas without visible tattoos though that says nothing about the areas covered by their clothing. I can at least speak to this part as I go out dancing on a fairly frequent basis and I dance with women of all ages.

    Strong language for PJM. Comments are surprisingly sympathetic overall.

  172. RichardP says:

    BillyS – if you are not familiar with this page, it is how I got to the page I gave the link to above.

    http://biblehub.com/text/2_corinthians/12-7.htm

  173. ray says:

    “Chastity is Power” — that’s one the girls might accept and internalize. Considering that ’empowerment’ is the pinnacle of ‘virtues’ for the modern female. The phrase happens to be true, as well.

    These polluted scags like Sheila Gregoire are ubiquitous in the West. They have voluntarily disempowered and dirtied themselves, and so now — in typical rage and resentment — they’re trying their mightiest to convince girls and chaste (= valuable) women that they should be rebellious sluts too. Only by that method can Team Fem ‘stick it to the man’. Whilst trying to convince those same men that polluted females are not only acceptable . . . but ever so much better. No, wait, make that holy!

  174. BillyS says:

    RichardP,

    That looks to go against Strongs. I am not sure this link will work, but the Greek word for messenger is just what I claim.

    https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G32&t=KJV

    Believe what you want though. I will go with what is stated and consistent with more than a single other verse.

  175. feeriker says:

    They might even be surprised how a man can forgive things in her past if she shows some remorse and repentence for it. It’s a better shot than trying to rationalize it into something virtuous.

    The problem is that most women –including self-described “Christian” women– are NOT really repentent/regretful of their slutty pasts at all. In fact, they rather enjoy arrogantly and cruelly rubbing their men’s noses in it.

    I think God has become just another man with expectations that feminists want to rebel against.

    Obviously. If they really loved or FEARED God –heck, if they actually even BELIEVED in Him– we would be seeing and hearing almost none of the current feminonsense.

  176. BillyS says:

    Feeriker,

    They aren’t remorseful over their present actions, including frivorce, why should they care about the past?

  177. feeriker says:

    Also, no Church actually gives two sh*ts about the problem of fornication. If they did, they would try to marry up the children of parishioners ASAP as soon as they were ready, maybe with matchmaking, arranged marriages, etc. Fornication becomes inevitable in post-puberty without marriage at an age older than some age like 21. Think about how early marriages were when St. Paul was preaching.

    Gosh, it’s almost as if God created puberty to occur at the ages that it does for a reason. I wonder what the typical modern churchian would say in response to that theory…

  178. YoreyC says:

    Interesting, BillyS. I always thought it was some sort of sickness as well. But it was never treated as dogma.

  179. Sharkly says:

    earl says: They might even be surprised how a man can forgive things in her past if she shows some remorse and repentence for it.

    Yes, I did exactly that. She cried and told me while we were dating how sorry she was and that she wished she had saved all the fucking and sucking for me, and that she had since gotten saved and changed her ways. Well, I did the right thing and forgave her. But I also was a stupid fucking idiot and continued to see her, and thunk with my dick, and married her. Don’t do it! I found out on my honeymoon, I had been conned. Later she changed her narrative and claimed she was actually a Christian while whoring, and she had not been “saved” after that, but claimed that those were the actions of a her saved self, while “a little backslidden”. Anyhow, I am currently going through a nasty divorce complete with horrendous false accusations causing me to be bereft of my children, and the victim of her constant slander. She did not respect her future husband enough to save herself for him, and that lack of respect never changed. And it didn’t mean shit to her that I had respected her in that way. She just feigned respect and repentance, to get my Godly seed.
    Do not marry a whore!

  180. earl says:

    Do not marry a whore!

    Yeah there’s a big difference between forgiveness and making a commitment to marriage.

    I personally would forgive…but that would probably be a deal breaker from her being in the marriage sweepstakes.

    And if Shelia or one of her daughters wants to cry about my standards and claim what a terrible Christian I am…go right ahead.

  181. Luke says:

    Here’s one way of boiling it all down. God said for women to say “No” to men to whom they were not married, and “Yes” to the man to whom they WERE married. When not controlled by society, women much prefer to do things the other way around.

    A heck of a conversation nuclear weapon: when a man is asked why he never married/absolutely intends to avoid remarriage if previously frivorced, imagine if he responded “Because I want to have sex”.

  182. Christopher Nystrom says:

    Matthew 5:32: “…and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” If men would just follow the words of Jesus and not marry divorced women it would end female hypergamy.

  183. Johann says:

    First thing I noticed in Mrs. Gregoire’s article was its anti-nomianism and conflation of justification and sanctification. One can actually hold that our righteousness is filthy rags when it comes to our salvation, but also that the Bible calls us over and over again to live holy lives (e.g. “If you love me, keep my commandments”, “such were some of you,” etc). While Mrs. Gregoire recognizes this in the comments, she then says that the problem is that Alexander never said one needs a relationship with Jesus. Well, if one is a believer why does this need to be stated in every meme and article?

    No, the real problem is that Alexander puts her thumb squarely on a sore spot for soft complementarians and Christian feminists: resentment of the judgment of men.

    Sleeping around, debt, and tattoos indicate a lack of self-control and wisdom. They’re undesirable. If a man is willing to overlook red flags, then fine, but just like with any other vocation it takes two to tango, and it’s not wrong to reject a former slut for marriage any more than it is for a company to reject hiring a former thief as its accountant. Sometimes you do stupid stuff and it comes back to bite you, even if you’re forgiven by Christ. That’s life as an adult, ladies.

  184. ray says:

    What’s the topic again? o yeah hysteria.

    Remember the other week I was talking about having fun here, eating popcorn while satan gets kicked and wedgied? Didn’t take God long here you go

    http://time.com/5342196/obama-on-men-south-africa/

    How sweet it is! Thanks, Papa.

  185. Luke says:

    Christopher, you’re forgetting something fundamental about marriage in the West now. We live in a time in which marriage as our forefathers understood it (e.g., actual marriage) is pretty much only available for women. Worse, many of those women unwittingly or quite purposefully live so they lose that option as well, only figuring that out when they’re not just post-Wall, but totally age-barren with ashes-in-mouth level of dissatisfaction with their being careerist-focused, as opposed to marriage and family focused. That said, it is somewhat freeing, though not what even the bravest, red-pill man would have chosen, had he his druthers. When marriage is a lottery win at best chance, and there’s no sin in being one of the 999,999,999 who didn’t pick the winning ticket, that narrows down their choices. Few men are granted the gift of lifelong celibacy, and with marriage not available for them, that seriously focuses things. Telling an American man to go marry before he has sex? Why not tell him he needs to go live on Mars while you’re at it? So, the shame (and to large measure, the sin) IMO of amarital sex drops off, IMO. It’s not ideal, but it is how it is.

  186. Samantha Wynter says:

    The church is fully steeped in feminism. I wouldn’t be able to tell her and a secular feminist apart if they were in the same room. I went onto her YouTube page and found a video about purity. She’s basically complaining about how pastors and parents expect their daughters to remain pure, and that if they don’t then they’re damaged (muh feelings). Duh, you’re a Christian. This is what you’re supposed to do. But back to the original point, women continually expect Prince Charming but heaven forbid a man has some preferences. Perhaps it’s better that most men don’t marry, if all he has to look forward is some tattoo ridden slut up to her eye balls in debt. Shelia 2.0

  187. Jeff Strand says:

    Tried watching the video at the end of the article. Listening to that screeching harpy was excruciating. I lasted four mins, and had to turn it off. Can you imagine being married to that? You got to be kidding me! Did some sucker really wife her up? Lol, blue pill chump.

  188. BillyS says:

    Luke,

    Violating God’s commands comes at a much higher price than those of us who are dedicated to him are willing to pay. Plus you get STDs with the package in most cases, especially if you do more and more of that. Not a good bargain, even if celibacy is not either.

    I would live with aiming at the latter over sticking it in the available women.

  189. 7817 says:

    That video… recommended if you want to watch a snowflake melting.

  190. Luke says:

    BillyS, you didn’t understand my post. Telling a man in the U.S. now he must marry is logically similar to castigating a man who lived in 200 B.C. for not having specifically accepted Jesus as his savior. Without a time machine, how TF would he have done that? Re the lifelong celibate ideal, even the most hardcore fundamentalists understand that that is unachievable, for most people. Why are you struggling with this?

    Oh, and re STDs; take out the blacks, men who have sex with men, and people who have sex with either of those two groups, and you’ve gotten rid of over 80% of STDs in this country.

  191. feeriker says:

    Duh, you’re a Christian. This is what you’re supposed to do.

    No, she’s a churchian fraud. If she were a real Christian walking the walk and striving to please God, she would not only not be whining about being shamed for having spread her legs on a tingly whim for random Chads, but would be actively evangelizing her peers not to even think about doing it either. In other words, every true Christian woman would be pretty much echoing Lori Alexander rather Sheila Gregoire.

  192. RichardP says:

    @BillyS said: That looks to go against Strongs..

    Strongs was at the top of the page I gave you the link to. That information there is the same as it is in the link you just gave. In my original response to you above, my point was not that you were wrong and someone else was right (or the reverse). My point was that, even among folks who are experts in the original language, consensus is sometimes difficult to come by (without going into why that is). Which is why we have many different religions, and multitudes of denominations within religions. You were getting on someone’s case for ignoring the plain meaning of what was written. My point was simply that even experts are sometimes not certain of what the plain meaning of the original language is. That truth calls for a certain humbleness when we encounter others with a viewpoint different from our own – particularly when that viewpoint is not made up by the person but is put forth by experts.

    That was my original point. I was not commenting on what I thought Paul’s thorn in the flesh was.

  193. BillyS says:

    Then I am not sure of your point RichardP, but that is enough for this thread most likely.

    Luke,

    God’s commands are His commands whatever the society. I think I will follow His plan over that of any man.

  194. RichardP says:

    @BillyS – in reviewing your link, something jumped out at me. I thought my point was obvious when I said “search this page on 2 Corinthians” – but it seems to have been not obvious. Of all of the instances of “messenger” at the link you gave to me, not one is discussing the Greek word that Paul used in 2 Corinthians 12:7. In the page I linked to, I directed your attention to the translation / meaning given to the Greek word that Paul used in 2 Corinthians 12:7. That Greek word was apparently different enough from all of the instances of “messenger” in your link to me that it warrented a slightly different meaning / interpretation. Compare all of the verses in the link you gave to me versus that page I gave you a link to and see if this is not the case. The form of the word that Paul used in 2 Corinthians 12:7 is apparently not an exact match to what was used in the verses referenced in the link you gave me.

    Again, I’m not arguing for a particular definition of Paul’s thorn in the flesh. I’m arguing for careful scholarship. Words matter. And where words differ, even slightly, meaning differs. That is what I am trying to suss out with you in this discussion.

  195. RichardP says:

    @BillyS said: Then I am not sure of your point RichardP …

    I told you what my point was. You were getting on someone’s case for ignoring the plain meaning of the word – and they in fact were using a meaning that some experts ascribe to the Greek word that Paul used in 2 Corinthians 12:7. That word is slightly different, hence the meaning can be different, than other Greek words that are also translated as “messenger”. You seemed to not know this, and so your protesting made you look uninformed. We should be more humble than arrogant when we encounter others with a viewpoint different from our own – particularly when that viewpoint is not made up by the person but is put forth by experts.

    That was my point. I’m repeating myself from what I wrote above. Annndddd … you either get it or not. And I agree that we should put this discussion to bed. I don’t care what you think Paul’s thorn in the flesh was. I care that you know that some experts think the Greek word “messenger” that Paul used in 2 Corinthians 12:7 is different enough from other Greek spellings for “messenger” that it warrants a different interpretation. Folks who know this might be inclined to use this different interpretation. Criticizing someone for doing this makes you look uninformed.

    And this entire point is true of all kinds of “meanings” that people hold fast to based on their pet interpretation of the meaning of a Hebrew or Greek word in the Bible. When you run into others who interpret things differently than you, you might be a little slower to criticize.

  196. Sharkly says:

    Well, if they’re having a meltdown at tolovehonorandvacuum over the fact that men don’t prefer Destitute, Defiled & Defaced drama-queens, I’ll have to send them an invite to my blog grand opening, when I get around to starting it. Unlike Dalrock, I’m not happily married, and I really struggle to even coexist in a tormented and insane relationship. Feminist heresy vexes my soul every day, and my kids suffer and are being damaged because of it.
    If Lori Alexander’s “Transformed Wife” site can even send Sheila Cucking Gregoire and her bleachier screechier daughter into hyperventilating hysterics…mark my words!
    Those poor pussy power preaching, prick pockets are going to cum their britches when I’m slinging scriptures and schlonging bitches!
    Ecclesiastes 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

  197. Sharkly says:

    Those poor pussy-power preaching prick pockets are going to cum their britches when I’m slinging scriptures and schlonging bitches!
    That’d almost make a nice jingle if it wasn’t such a tongue-twister.

  198. Luke says:

    So, since BillyS is almost certainly not any more called to lifelong celibacy than I am (e.g, not), since marriage here and now (the God-commanded solution for nonoutlier people) isn’t available, I guess he’s fervently working on a time machine (or at least thinks I should). How much physics background does that take? I’m going to guess it’s the equivalent of several doctorates.

  199. earl says:

    She’s basically complaining about how pastors and parents expect their daughters to remain pure, and that if they don’t then they’re damaged (muh feelings). Duh, you’re a Christian.

    How many women think their feelings are god versus following what God actually said?

    Hint…it’s the difference between Eve and Mary.

  200. earl says:

    Oh, and re STDs; take out the blacks, men who have sex with men, and people who have sex with either of those two groups, and you’ve gotten rid of over 80% of STDs in this country.

    Yeah if you are talking about teh AIDS or the most vile of diseases.

    That still doesn’t take into account HPV. Pretty much if a person is sexually active…they have it.

    https://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdfact-hpv.htm

  201. elovesc38 says:

    Shelia is a PitA who doesn’t know scripture and gives out poor/bad advice. I see she’s raising a perfect nitwit feminist daughter. May God help the poor fool who marries her.

  202. earl says:

    Re the lifelong celibate ideal, even the most hardcore fundamentalists understand that that is unachievable, for most people. Why are you struggling with this?

    Yeah however that’s why St. Paul said why people should get married rather than burn because outside of doing it for the kingdom of Heaven which takes God’s grace or something makes you infertile like a eunich…it is hard to achieve.

    Trying to justify or rationalize having sex outside of marriage because celibacy is hard…is just promoting more sin and the consequences of that. Sexual liberation turned this into a rock or hard place scenerio.

  203. Pingback: Lori Alexander is right: serious Christian men prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos | WINTERY KNIGHT

  204. Damn Crackers says:

    @Earl – “Trying to justify or rationalize having sex outside of marriage because celibacy is hard…is just promoting more sin and the consequences of that. Sexual liberation turned this into a rock or hard place scenerio.”

    Fair point. But, what are the churches (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, whatever) doing to marry up their parishioners/laity at an early age to avoid fornication? The answer is nothing. Like I said, modern Christianity doesn’t give two sh*ts about fornication. Christians are trying to square the circle about this problem in the modern world. St. Paul knew only a few people could be celibate in the long haul; that’s why he advocated marriage as ok. In Corinthians, he was responding to the proto-Gnostics who claimed that marriage was bad and all was possible by being a Christian, such as banging Temple prostitutes, your father’s mistress/sex slave, and going to pagan feasts.

    If you ask me, Christian marriage today isn’t even the same marriage as in the NT; it’s akin to fornication the way it’s practiced.

  205. 9767 says:

    These “Christian” women raging against expecting sexual chastity in women is horrific.
    There is a extremely good reason for men to strongly prefer virgins for marriage. Women who are virgins at marriage have an extremely low divorce rate.
    Having even one sex partner outside of marriage creates a huge increase in the divorce rate:

    https://ifstudies.org/blog/counterintuitive-trends-in-the-link-between-premarital-sex-and-marital-stability

  206. Jeff Strand says:

    @Damn Crackers: “the proto-Gnostics who claimed that marriage was bad and all was possible by being a Christian, such as banging Temple prostitutes, your father’s mistress/sex slave, and going to pagan feasts.”

    Sounds like Martin “we are saved by faith alone” Luther:

    “Sin, and sin boldly, but believe more boldly still.”

    “As long as we have faith, sin will not separate us from Him. Not even if I commit adultery…nay, murder….a thousand times a day.”

    “It is not within the power of man to resist temptation to sin, especially sins of the flesh.’ (try that one out on your wife!)

    As I’ve said before, when you read what Luther actually taught, it’s not just that he was clearly a heretic. More than that, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that he was downright insane.

    Long back through history, I’ve often thought how amazing it is that of all the many, many heresies over the last two millennia, Protestantism is the one that “stuck”. Because it is one of the most ridiculous, objectionable, and laughable of them all. But “stick” it did, and that, combined with the catastrophe of the infiltration of the True Church at Vatican II and resulting apostasy, has resulted in the dire situation we find ourselves in today. Without supernatural intervention, the situation is not salvageable.

    No wonder Our Lord said in the Gospels, “Think ye, when the Son of Man returns, He will find faith on Earth?”

    Come Lord Jesus!

    Come, triumph of the Immaculate Heart!

    Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us!

    Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us!

  207. info says:

    @Damn Crackers
    ”St. Paul knew only a few people could be celibate in the long haul; that’s why he advocated marriage as ok. ”

    Indeed celibacy is only good for those with low or non-existent libidos. Better to focus on the kingdom of God for those people made that way.

  208. JRob says:

    After reading everything in this post and discussing it with some friends, we wound up at the feminist/SJW fire bombing of the SBC and the firing of Paige Patterson. This point was made: Gregoire, her “male” enablers, and their ilk were aided and abetted by evangelical church leadership. The FI takeover and empty joke the EC is today rode the coattails of “conservatives.” This is well known and presented here and is taken as a given. A couple disagreed with this point.

    To prove the point, one of the men pointed the group to an Adrian Rogers sermon from 1989, “The Problem of Throwaway Marriages. ” Thirty minutes in, Rogers says, “I would say as a general rule if the home is wrong it’s because the husband is wrong. The problem is not primarily with rebellious wives, the problem is primarily with quitter slacker husbands. Husbands who fail to be the men if God they ought to be, and to love their wives as Christ loves the church.” Adrian served three terms as SBC president.
    Libido Dominandi
    Thus we have Sheila. She was groomed and given as a gift to us. A Trojan horse.

  209. Damn Crackers says:

    @Jeff Strand – Well, I certainly don’t want to turn this into a Catholic vs. Protestant debate. But yes, Luther did say some wacky things. He also had some very good points. Let’s face it, Christianity and Christians always had to do a delicate balancing act between antinomianism and pharisaicalness.

    The problem is thinking you’re on the level of God/Jesus. It’s an old Gnostic thesis, but it’s not unique to them. Goes back to Joachim de Fiore from the Middle Ages. They advocated a millennial age heralded in by a few knowledgeable (Gnostic?) elite, such as Order of the Just, Frankists, Lenin’s Vanguard, psychoanalysts, etc. Whether Jewish or Christian, the pride of knowledge really leads to the first and only heresy

  210. earl says:

    ‘Indeed celibacy is only good for those with low or non-existent libidos.’

    It’s the choice to sacrifice for something greater. It’s not about low libido.

  211. Bruce says:

    @9767 – fascinating graph and article.

    What jumped out at me immediately about that graph is the high rate at “2 partners” vs more than 2 (even 10+ in some cases). My immediate, misogynist pop-psychology reaction was “she only has one other guy to compare the husband to. The comparison is particuarly intense and/or intimate.”
    Professor Wolfinger seemed to have similar thoughts – he must be a manosphere womanhater”:

    “Ultimately we’re left to speculate about why having exactly two partners produces some of the highest divorce rates.
    My best guess rests on the notion of over-emphasized comparisons. In most cases, a woman’s two premarital sex partners include her future husband and one other man. That second sex partner is first-hand proof of a sexual alternative to one’s husband. These sexual experiences convince women that sex outside of wedlock is indeed a possibility. The man involved was likely to have become a partner in the course of a serious relationship—women inclined to hook up will have had more than two premarital partners—thereby emphasizing the seriousness of the alternative. Of course, women learn about the viability of nonmarital sex if they have multiple premarital partners, but with multiple partners, each one represents a smaller part of a woman’s sexual and romantic biography. Having two partners may lead to uncertainty, but having a few more apparently leads to greater clarity about the right man to marry.”

    So if you’re going to wife-up an ex-harlot, your best bet is to pick one who did it with lots of guys – just not too many – data doesn’t differentiate after 10.
    This is how twisted we are as a society – a man is incentivized to go after a woman that’s pretty slutty – just not extremely slutty.

  212. Saw a report in California that now 35% of all teens (14-19) in California have some sort of strain of HPV now. Even with that vaccine…….

    Don’t worry rest of America, it will be hitting your local school and teen population soon enough! But you know…..the left will tell us, and planned parenthood, and moms, and pastors “we just don’t have enough education out there”

  213. Gunner Q says:

    Damn Crackers @ 9:01 am:
    @Earl – “Trying to justify or rationalize having sex outside of marriage because celibacy is hard…is just promoting more sin and the consequences of that. Sexual liberation turned this into a rock or hard place scenerio.”

    “Fair point. But, what are the churches (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, whatever) doing to marry up their parishioners/laity at an early age to avoid fornication?”

    Exactly. The Churchian message is “wait for marriage” to boys and “don’t get married” to girls. They hate on porn and sex toys while doing everything possible to ensure their daughters don’t marry until retirement from the workforce. What’s a guy supposed to do?

    Yes, all extramarital sex is bad. No, a guy’s hormones aren’t going to stop just because marriage is insanely risky. It’s a living hell.

  214. earl says:

    But, what are the churches (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, whatever) doing to marry up their parishioners/laity at an early age to avoid fornication?

    In my experience I’ve had priests in homilies preach the value and grace of the sacrament of Matrimony and why it is a good vocation to choose…none of them ever mentioned avoiding fornication as a reason. Often I think they want to highlight the reasons why it is good versus promoting it to avoid evil…however St. Paul did that so I wouldn’t be opposed if a priest included avoiding fornication as another reason on top of the rest.

    I don’t know what more the church can do other than beat over the head in the daughters why they should get married young…but that’s not really the church’s biggest responsbility nor are they in the business of forcing people into what God wills for them in their life. Their families I think would have more of an influence…do they get a good example from their parents for marriage, do they willingly choose to avoid marriage (to hook up with chads, career, travel, don’t want to submit to a husband, whatever reasons), does the father & mother encourage young marriage for their sons-daughters.

    Do daughters get good advice from their parents why they shouldn’t be giving sex to men they aren’t married to (the biggest reason is that their chances of getting a decent guy to marry them plummets), do they get that being a wife/mother is a much more rewarding experience for a woman than being the best paper pusher?

    If you can find me a young God fearing woman who willingly wants to get married, send her my way and I’ll discern it. I’ve found plenty of them both not God fearing and God fearing who through their actions display they don’t want to get married.

  215. earl says:

    The Churchian message is “wait for marriage” to boys and “don’t get married” to girls.

    I agree with that.

  216. @seventiesjason
    That is just astounding.

    And it usually doesn’t register with people what HPV means further down the line –
    it just happens to cause almost 100% of all cervical cancers (essentially 99% of all cases),
    95% of anal cancers,
    50% of all penile cancers,
    50% of vulvar/vaginal cancers and
    about 60% of oropharyngeal (mouth/throat) cancers.

    It’s pretty much the outcome one would expect if our sex organs and related orifices would unilaterally and enthusiastically take up smoking Lucky Strike cigarettes.

    Never ever deck her with an unwrapped pecker!

  217. BillyS says:

    Earl,

    Trying to justify or rationalize having sex outside of marriage because celibacy is hard…is just promoting more sin and the consequences of that. Sexual liberation turned this into a rock or hard place scenerio.

    Good point! Luke is basically saying, “it is hard to not sin,” so he then gives up. Yeah right.

    I agree about the STDs. I don’t know the rate for other STDs either. It is not “safe” even with so-called “safe sex”! This also ignores the emotional bonding even men have in such relationships.

    DC,

    Fair point. But, what are the churches (Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, whatever) doing to marry up their parishioners/laity at an early age to avoid fornication?

    And more and more of us need to speak up on the issue. Standing for God’s ways, in word and deed, is the way God has given us to oppose unrighteousness. Being flippant about his requirement is not just or wise.

    As to Luther, he was a work in progress. Don’t worry about getting Jeff to understand. He has his soapboxes and listens very little. He is probably not aware that the RCC killed more Christians than all the Roman Persecutions combined. That would go against his narrative.

    JRob,

    I don’t know that I have heard Adrian Rogers preach that lately, but I have heard many preachers say similar things today. It is horridly wrong and quite evil. Their eyes are blind. They don’t want correction though and persist in their idiocy.

    ====

    I don’t like today’s situation in the marriage market and it is quite tough to stay holy, but anyone who thinks that this is in any way comparable to things like the Roman persecutions needs to think a bit more.

  218. anon says:

    Wonder how many clicks folks have blandished to “Katie” for this “emotion-laden” video?
    She didn’t get a single click from me.

  219. earl says:

    Never ever deck her with an unwrapped pecker!

    Condoms won’t protect you completely from it. Then only way to protect yourself is to have sex the way God intended…only with your spouse in marriage, and that goes for both men and women.

    https://www.cdc.gov/condomeffectiveness/latex.html

    ‘Genital ulcer diseases and HPV infections can occur in both male and female genital areas that are covered or protected by a latex condom, as well as in areas that are not covered. Consistent and correct use of latex condoms reduces the risk of genital herpes, syphilis, and chancroid only when the infected area or site of potential exposure is protected.

    Condom use may reduce the risk for HPV infection and HPV-associated diseases (e.g., genital warts and cervical cancer).

    Perhaps if you want to go this far, you’d be fine.

    There’s a reason why I’ve seen many a study say ‘if you are sexually active, you likely have HPV’.

  220. earl says:

    I know why both men who claim celibacy is hard because of muh sex drive and women who cry crocodile tears because they can’t have their chads and marry Eddie too…is because they focus too much on what the flesh says rather than what the Spirit requires.

    Nobody gets away from the consequences you choose…flesh or Spirit.

  221. funny….even secular sociologists have come to the conclusion that marriage grew and developed in just about every culture because STD’s were so rampant. It was discovered monogamy “worked”

  222. earl says:

    I mean taking out things spiritually or emotionally if my reasons for wanting a virgin bride for marriage are because I don’t want to get divorced and a family ripped apart and I don’t want penial warts…those are very GOOD reasons. And crocodile tears don’t stop HPV or the greatly increased divorce risk even 1 non marital partner a woman has.

  223. Damn Crackers says:

    Well, plain ‘ol fornication may be the least of a Christians problems. What about the promotion of pederasty in modern media?

    https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/4-year-old-nigerian-girl-beautiful-girl-world-214253179.html

  224. earl says:

    All the sexual sins are a problem. The modern laxity of sexual morals from the sexual revolution led to the things we are slip sliding down.

    I think pederasty is the latest thing they are trying to normalized…last year it was trans…in the previous years it was the homos. Next year it could be with animals, dead people, or some other gross perversion.

  225. Anonymous Reader says:

    @9767

    Wolfinger has done some interesting analysis, along the lines of Slumlord’s graph a few years back. The two got slightly different results, but Slumlord used the GISS while Wolfinger is working with the NSFG. Different data sets can produce similar but different results.

    This is very on topic in this thread, because both GISS and NSFG clearly show the risk of divorce in a 5-year period are lowest when the woman has zero to one sexual partner prior to marriage.

    In other words, a woman who is a virgin when she marries is less likely to divorce, and therefore for multiple reasons a virgin woman is preferable for marriage.

    Zowie. Who could have ever seen that coming? If Gregoire et al really cared as much about stable marriage as they say they do, there wouldn’t have been all this yowling and screeching over a simple thing such as “Men prefer to marry virgins”.

    What’s their real agenda? The Female Imperative, that’s what.

  226. earl says:

    Also let’s be real…if a woman has a tattoo, any tattoo…what odds would you put her as a virgin?

  227. earl says:

    *any unmarried woman…I should say

  228. Bruce says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    “and therefore for multiple reasons a virgin woman is preferable for marriage.”

    Yes and according to his data a woman who has had sex with one other man is the least preferable. His data seems to indicate that if you’re going to marry a slut, you should marry a fairly slutty one.

    BTW, I have no guilt using “slut.” If they object to the idea that men PREFER virgins then they probably did not repent of their harlotry. People who repent are ashamed of sin.

  229. Bruce says:

    “Also let’s be real…if a woman has a tattoo, any tattoo…what odds would you put her as a virgin?”

    0%

  230. Opus says:

    @Earl

    I was excommunicated as a heretic from my Bank for complaining about their prozelytising and frankly rather amateurish display in favour of Homosexuality where to reach the teller one had to run the gauntlet of many rainbow-coloured things to be met by a rainbow-coloured teller. The teller who was very young and female must have been indoctrinated as to this evil at school as she thought Pride was wonderful. The letter sacking me informed me that they take Homosexuality very seriously and that I am a very naughty boy. I suspect they are for all practical purposes being blackmailed by Stonewall – on the ‘nice bank you have there; shame if anything happened to it’ – basis.

    A bank has only three functions: the taking in of money; its safe keeping; its lawful paying out: everything else is merely fountains and flagpoles.

  231. earl says:

    @Opus

    I could even forsee certain churches going that far if you disagree with the fact you think pride-homosexuality is a sin.

    Of course if that was ever the case in my situation…they wouldn’t need to excommunicate me…I’d be gone. I’ll flee to the church that still tells it like it is when it comes to pride and homosexuality.

  232. Opus:

    June 5th thru 22nd 2019 I will be in the UK. June 5th til the morning of the 10th. London, W Hotel.
    10-16th, Manchester at a very nice B&B (shopping for vinyl, hopefully will find a nor-soul all nighter) 16th-19th. Bewtys A Coed….North Wales.

    Return to London on the 21st. Stay one night at the Sheraton at Heathrow, fly back to California on the morning of the 22nd.

    Opus. I will be busy in London and at least one night while there I will be going to some sort of higher end nightclub just to say “I did that”

  233. Spacetraveller says:

    OKRickety

    “When one finds a woman who is outside this mold, it is so surprising that you wonder if they really are a woman. Any idea how a few manage to be exceptions to the rule?”

    I sadly don’t know the true answer to your question. But I shall have a crack at it…
    Whenever I come across lovely examples of ladyhood (and I do, surprisingly often!) I invariably notice that they

    1. Are as bonkers religious as they come! (I can identify with this – the ‘mea culpa’ thing typically associated with the Catholic faith is pretty strong with yours truly, for example). 🙂
    In my case I also do feel guilt very easily, and because it is not pleasant, I try to avoid it (the unpleasant feeling). Which means, don’t do the bad thing that causes the unpleasant feeling. And I have a real fear of hell…This helps me personally in my decision-making.
    I often poke fun at my own exaggerated almost comical adherence to Catholicism, but I think it works to keep me and my friends in line. Whatever keeps us honest and upstanding, we’ll take it!

    2. Invariably, they come from another culture. I am ashamed to say, more and more of my friends and confidantes are non-White, because I share their values more and more. I have been rejecting the western culture for years. It can be isolating, but I don’t care anymore.

    3. Linked to the culture argument is the ‘incentives’ argument. When all else fails, remove the temptation to be ABLE to divorce/be promiscuous/be unladylike, etc..
    I chuckled when I read this article from the Daily Mail this very day! It’s almost like I was handed a possible answer to your question with this gem:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5990015/Unhappily-married-woman-loses-Supreme-Court-fight-divorce.html

    My immediate and somewhat ungenerous thought was: serves you right, b****h. After 40 years of marriage? And it was *you* that cheated on him!
    And he is a millionaire…so imagine how she could really cash in with a divorce…

    As a human race we don’t seem to get wiser as we age, do we? So ‘dis-incentives’ like what this Judge handed out to her is the only way, for this 68 year old to behave herself…

    In 5 years chances are this silly woman will NOT go through with the divorce. Because she will have had 5 whole years to think things through and change her mind. Assuming her (frankly amazing) husband still wants her.

    If you and I encounter her in 5 years where she is still ‘trapped’ in her marriage (really, some people don’t know they’re born – there are millions of women who wouldn’t mind being ‘trapped’ in a marriage to a millionaire – ok it’s not all about money, but surely there are worse things in life, no? Besides, she must have chosen him once. Hardly a ‘trap’)…we will conclude that she is ‘an exception to the rule’ – because she would have been married for 45 years to the same man – and yet, we would be unaware that the only reason she is still married to her husband is the intervention of this Judge…
    This forced intervention by this judge has likely saved this marriage. Good Judge!

    I am reminded of this song by the Pussycat dolls:

    Don’t you wish your family court Judge was freak like me? Dontcha… 🙂

    Erm… is this video appropriate for a Christian mens blog?
    Erm, perhaps I answer my own question, if I have to ask at all…
    Accept my million mea culpas 🙂
    (But, but, but, I don’t think these women are debt-ridden, and I can’t see any tattoos, so we’re more than halfway there….no?)
    🙂
    Please excuse my idea of ‘light relief’…

  234. virginia says:

    @9867

    Fascinating table from the study comparing divorce rates after five years based on the number of men the female participants had premarital sex with. In perusing the study, the (eventual) husband is counted in the number given. So zero = women who were virgins on their wedding nights, 1 = women who had sex with one man before their wedding nights, and so on. I focused on the yellow curve, which is the most recent cohort of women (those who married in the 2000s) included in that particular table.

    Unsurprisingly, women who are virgins on their wedding night have far and away the lowest odds of divorcing (approximately 6%). Just as unsurprisingly, the genuine carousel riders (10+ partners) have the highest odds of divorcing (approximately 33%). Still not particularly surprising, the second lowest risk of divorce is women who have had premarital sex with only one man. While their odds of divorce are lower than women who have multiple premarital partners, they are still about three and one-half times higher (approximately 21%) than the odds of women who waited until marriage.

    Most of the one-partner-before-marriage women are likely those who were virgins when they met their husbands, but who gave it up before their wedding nights. Some number, probably a tiny minority, are women who lost their virginity to their “first true love” but then made Mr. Betabux put a ring on it to earn his quarterly starfish sex. This is a conjecture, based in part on the remainder of the data.

    After the genuine carousel riders with double-digit partner counts, the second highest divorce rate (approximately 30%) is not among those with a partner count in the high single digits, but those with a partner count of exactly two. Many if not most of these women probably got pumped and dumped by their first true love before settling for Mr. Betabux as a consolation prize (and letting him sample the goods before buying). I would not be surprised to see that if one broke down the data on the one-partner-before-marriage women, those who lost their virginity to their eventual husbands had a divorce rate of approximately 20%, while those who lost their virginity to someone else but made hubby wait for it had a divorce rate of more like 30%.

    Interestingly, among the women who had more than one partner before marriage, the least likely to divorce were those who had 4-5 partners (i.e., 3-4 before their eventual husband). These women appear to have about a 24% divorce rate, somewhat higher than the one-partner-before-marriage women (and much higher than the wedding-night virgins) but definitely lower than the two-partners-before-marriage women.

    The clear morals of the story:

    – Court and marry a virgin if you can

    – If you are courting a virgin, don’t sleep with her before you marry her

    – If you can’t find a virgin, don’t agonize over precisely how many men she had before you. Stay away from the genuine carousel riders, but prefer a woman who can count her number of partners on her fingers (preferably the fingers of one hand, preferably without using her thumb) to a woman who “just made one mistake” in getting pumped and dumped by her first true love before she settled for you.

  235. Bruce says:

    Gotta love it – marry virgin but you can’t. So marry slutty enough but not too slutty. Slut level optimization. We’ve really f-d up our society.

  236. SirHamster says:

    > I personally would forgive…but that would probably be a deal breaker from her being in the marriage sweepstakes.

    Here’s something I’ve been wondering about. What am I supposed to be forgiving her for?

    Not my wife. Her sleeping around is not an offense against me.

    At best, I can forgive her in the name of Jesus so that she is forgiven of her sin. But that has nothing to do with whether she qualifies as wife material.

  237. BillyS says:

    Only looking 5 years out is not enough. The problem is that the basis keeps shifting, so more years is hard to track. I suspect things are much worse at 10, 20 and 30 years.

  238. earl says:

    Gotta love it – marry virgin but you can’t. So marry slutty enough but not too slutty. Slut level optimization. We’ve really f-d up our society.

    The sexual revolution really messed things up on a grand scale. We should come to find that it’s something a lot of women only a few men want or prefer given the results.

    For a lot of men:

    You are either forced celibate because you don’t want to fornicate but most women you meet don’t want to marry.
    Hold out on the rarity you do find the virgin who wants to marry.
    Or wife up a slut, single mother, etc…whose only incentive for marriage is basically trying to find any guy to pay off all her previous unrepentant mistakes. And then keep your fingers crossed she doesn’t pull the divorce risk she currently has with her N.

  239. Opus says:

    @Jason

    Noted

    @Earl

    I was taught at school that sexual intercourse was to be reserved for marriage; thus there was no need to rail against Homosexuality. I naturally sought as much wiggle-room as I could but on balance I think St Paul is right. In some ways we live in the absolutely worst of times.

  240. earl says:

    St. Paul is right…it’s not like the fact you know fornication is wrong magically makes your sex drive go away. I would think if I had a willing wife at the very least I wouldn’t be so easily tempted into sexual sins.

  241. Gunner Q says:

    “As a human race we don’t seem to get wiser as we age, do we?”

    We do. Most revolutions are youth movements. The Feminist Revolution was a youth movement, too, but Barbie’s parents were somehow convinced female liberation was a good idea. Along with every single moral authority in the entire West simultaneously.

    Today’s generationally stupid old farts is anomalous, not typical.

  242. OKRickety says:

    Opus,

    Spacetraveller provided this: Unfaithful wife, 68, who wants to divorce her millionaire husband of 40 years is forced to STAY ‘unhappily’ married to him after losing Supreme Court fight.

    I’m astonished at this, primarily because I assumed every “Western” country had no-fault divorce in place. From the article I would suppose it will exist soon in the UK, but how do you think this has been avoided thus far?

    Note: Even though the divorce has been avoided so far, it appears that it will happen in 2020, barring a change of mind, because it seems that five years of separation is considered to establish that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.

  243. ray says:

    RPL —

    “Karen Fine Brash, the first female pilot in her combat deployable carrier squadron, will moderate the panel.”

    Now THAT’S a name a modern Christian (i.e., feminist) would love! Not to paint things with #MeToo fine a brash.

    Movie-material! Claire Danes [whoever she is] will play the plucky, gorgeous Fine Brash. ‘Enraged at her dismissal by patriarchal pilots, Fine Brash turned unstoppable, as she manned the cockpit to destroy enemy positions while the men . . .’ Etc. aaaaaaannnd . . . Etc.

    Christianity is d-e-d in the United Sisterhood. All that ‘pastor’ bullshit means nada to me, except as a focus of wrath. Still alive in Poland, Hungary, and the Eastern nations under violent oppression by the serpent. God bless and reward the loyal.

    The Church already is underground, has been for years, and will go a lot deeper before this is finished.

  244. Opus says:

    @OKRickety

    I don my wig and gown:

    England does not have no fault divorce. To end ones marriages one has to satisfy the Court that the the marriage has irretrievably broken down and this can be done in one of five ways and (I haven’t read the article) the fifth ground /e. is proved by showing that the spouses have lived apart for a period of five years. One of the reasons the law is as it is is because Britain being a theocracy and Anglican Bishops sitting in our second chamber (the equivalent of your Senate) they greatly influenced the drafting of the 1973 Act which set all this out.

    The Law is nevertheless and always was a complete mess and most of the time a coach and six horses is driven through the intentions of its divine proponents. Being unhappy is not however a ground for Divorce. Our Divorce rate is no less than yours.

    Pay my Brief fee in Dollars to Jason who is my American representative.

  245. feeriker says:

    At best, I can forgive her in the name of Jesus so that she is forgiven of her sin. But that has nothing to do with whether she qualifies as wife material.

    Her past sexual sins are yours to forgive only if you’ve entered a committed (i.e., on course for marriage) relationship with her, or if, Gid forbid, you’ve already put a ring on her finger. Of course in the latter case the question would be one of whether you could forgive her for being deliberately dishonest with you about her sexual past.

    It would probably drive the typical churchian woman to the edge of suicide if you were to tell her:

    “You might have already begged God’s forgiveness for your slutty past, and if so, you certainly don’t need my forgiveness. However, I see no evidence in your behavior and attitude to suggest that you’ve done any such thing, so I have to conclude that you don’t feel that you have anything to ask forgiveness for. This has to mean that your past doesn’t bother you at all. For me, that spells D-A-N-G-E-R-O-U-S and U-N-M-A-R-R-I-A-G-A-B-L-E, meaning that you’re an unacceptable risk for marriage, forgiven by God for your slutty past or not. Color me “out of your life.”

  246. feeriker says:

    “The true Church already is underground, has been for years, and will go a lot deeper before this is finished.”

    Fixed, to include this very important qualifying adjective.

  247. Boxer says:

    Feeriker: This is exactly what all men need to start doing.

  248. Jeff Strand says:

    @BillyS: “the RCC killed more Christians than all the Roman Persecutions combined”

    Source, please.

    Or, as they would say on Wikipedia, “citation needed.”

  249. virginia says:

    @ BillyS

    “Only looking 5 years out is not enough. The problem is that the basis keeps shifting, so more years is hard to track. I suspect things are much worse at 10, 20 and 30 years.”

    True, and I would love to see the data further out. If I had to take a guess – and this is purely a guess – I would think that the final divorce rate (which could only definitively be measured at the time the first-deceased spouse dies) is probably about twice the five-year rate. If that were evenly true across all categories, that would give a final range from about 12% for wedding-night virgins up to 66% for carousel riders. But it would be interesting to see if different groups tended to divorce at different times in their marriage.

    The problem with all data of this sort is that by the time you can really measure it accurately, it’s of historical value only. I can say with absolute certainty that none of my grandparents (born in the 1910s, and married in the early 1940s) divorced, because they are all dead. But technically I can’t even say that my parents (born in the late 1940s, and married in 1970) have avoided divorce, much less that my wife and I (born in the late 1970s, married in 2000) have. I think we’re doing pretty well, but so did lots of others before me.

  250. Jeff Strand says:

    @Earl: “It (celibacy) is the choice to sacrifice for something greater. It’s not about low libido.”

    Brings to mind this quote. It’s from St, Philip Neri:

    “Without devotion to the Blessed Virgin and to the Holy Eucharist, chastity is not possible.”

  251. earl says:

    “You might have already begged God’s forgiveness for your slutty past, and if so, you certainly don’t need my forgiveness. However, I see no evidence in your behavior and attitude to suggest that you’ve done any such thing, so I have to conclude that you don’t feel that you have anything to ask forgiveness for. This has to mean that your past doesn’t bother you at all. For me, that spells D-A-N-G-E-R-O-U-S and U-N-M-A-R-R-I-A-G-A-B-L-E, meaning that you’re an unacceptable risk for marriage, forgiven by God for your slutty past or not. Color me “out of your life.”

    That’s a good way to explain it.

    I suppose I could clarify more with my previous forgiveness statement.

    A man can forgive a woman’s past…that still doesn’t mean reconciliation or a marriage has to happen. In fact a big part of the reconciliation process on her part would be showing something of true remorse through her actions. For example a drug addict who isn’t proud of their past and does everything they can to never go back into that life again. He should be discerning enough to see whether she has shown some proof she is marriageable material…and that would include virgins in the mix too.

  252. Jeff Strand says:

    @Earl: “I would think if I had a willing wife at the very least I wouldn’t be so easily tempted into sexual sins.”

    It’s not as easy as you think. There’s still a lot of sexual sins to resist the temptation to, even with a willing wife. As a Catholic yourself, I’m sure you’re aware that virtually the only sexual act allowed between husband and wife is vaginal intercourse, resulting in completion inside the wife, with no artificial birth control involved. All other sexual acts, such as oral sex, mutual masturbation, anal intercourse, the use of artificial birth control, IVF, etc…that are pretty commonplace nowadays…are mortal sins, even though committed by a married couple. Meaning, they destroy sanctifying grace in the soul and merit eternal damnation.

    So don’t kid yourself, there’s still a lot of chastity and self-discipline involved, even when married to a very sexually available wife. If one would reach the heavenly kingdom, that is.

    That’s another reason one should wish to live to a ripe old age, long last the age where you still have sexual desires. You can make a good Confession of all your past (unforgiven) sexual sins, obtain a plenary indulgence for the associated temporal consequences, and then you’re set…since you no longer even have the temptations to wrestle with. And if you’re really lucky, you will receive the Last Rites as well. And then…an eternity of bliss, as you look God in the face, and contemplate your Creator, Savior, and Sanctifier forever and ever. So may it be!

  253. Where oh where in the Bible are the words: plenary indulgence for the associated temporal consequences

    When oh when did Jesus speak these words and say: thou cannot enter the Kingdom or have last rites unless you get a obtain a plenary indulgence for the associated temporal consequences

    Citation required

  254. earl says:

    I’m sure you’re aware that virtually the only sexual act allowed between husband and wife is vaginal intercourse, resulting in completion inside the wife, with no artificial birth control involved.

    Yeah, which is a pretty good deal. I don’t get why the perverted stuff somehow makes that act any more thrilling…and at the expense of your soul.

    I really don’t get involving the digestive system with that act. It’s meant for food.

  255. Opus says:

    @Jeff Strand

    I have no idea how many people were killed in support of their religion by the Roman Catholics and even if I did comparison with the Roman Empire might be pointless however if my memory serves me right in Chapter XVIII Of Gibbons Decline and Fall he carefully goes through all the sources and the number of murdered Christians is not that many – really. I realise of course that Christians like to see their forebears the copious victim of Nazi-like Romans but that does not appear to have been the case. Romans had no problems with religions different from theirs; what they objected to was not bowing the knee to Rome.

  256. BillyS says:

    Jeff,

    Sorry, it was in 1 day:

    http://www.khouse.org/articles/1995/79/

    I will guess you will not believe it though.

  257. earl says:

    ‘It should be borne in mind that one Pope (Innocent III), in just one day, murdered more Christians than all the Roman Caesars put together.’

    Christians or heretics?

    https://www.britannica.com/biography/Innocent-III-pope

  258. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    Christians or heretics?

    Are you asserting that Eastern Orthodox Christians are heretics?

  259. virginia says:

    @Bruce

    “Gotta love it – marry virgin but you can’t. So marry slutty enough but not too slutty. Slut level optimization. We’ve really f-d up our society.”

    Yeah, that is kind of depressing. If you click through 9767’s table above to the IFS site from which it came, you see another table (“Table 1”) that lists only 5% of women married in the 2010s as being virgins on their wedding night. As recently as the 1990s and 2000s the number was in the 12-14% range. Makes me sad for my kids, and other people’s kids . . .

  260. Coloradomtnman says:

    @Jeff Strand

    Bead Worshippers seem nice when you first meet them and then you start hearing their twisted and degenerate theology and you realize what happened to the West.

  261. BillyS says:

    Opus,

    The Roman persecutions got intense, but were generally for a “limited” time. I think 10 years was the max, but I may not be accurate on that.

    Earl,

    It depends on whether I am a heretic. (I was raise in the RCC after all as well.) The RCC didn’t like to competition.

  262. earl says:

    Are you asserting that Eastern Orthodox Christians are heretics?

    I didn’t see where Innocent killed Eastern Orthodox.

  263. earl says:

    It depends on whether I am a heretic.

    Well do you subscribe to the Albigensian heresy? That seemed to be the heresy talked about during Innocent III time.

  264. Luke says:

    The best graph of which I am aware displaying massively heightened odds of women choosing divorce ranked by their # of sexual partners is still the Teachman bar graph:

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TJDSr8V_ShI/AAAAAAAAAOg/VmMGTymAVcI/s400/teachman

    Would someone either post this, or tell me how the heck to post images on Dalrock’s site?!?

    Re forgiving a woman for her previous partners, that’s only an issue if you marry her. Then, if she had had any previous sex partners outside of marriage, that traditionally would make you a cuckold. (Only in recent times did it require her producing children by another man while married to you to qualify.)

  265. stickdude90 says:

    On the subject of heretics, here’s an oldie but goodie…

    Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”

    He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”

    He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”

    Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

  266. Anchorman says:

    I’ll summarize the video:

    Man up and marry that slut.

    Same tune, female lead singer.

  267. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    I didn’t see where Innocent killed Eastern Orthodox.

    Not with his own hands, to be sure. Plausible deniability and all that. If you had read the Britannica link that you cited, you would not write such an ignorant thing. Rather than ask you to look at all those words I will simplify by providing this link:

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Fourth_Crusade

    The Fourth Crusade (1202–1204) was a Latin Christian armed expedition called by Pope Innocent III. The stated intent of the expedition was to recapture the Muslim-controlled city of Jerusalem,

    It resulted in this huge victory for “Christendom”:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Constantinople_(1204)

    But no attempt to even advance towards Jerusalem. Too busy looting Constantinople and carrying stuff back to Roman Catholic churches such as St. Marks in Venice, just to pick an example.

    Now I ask you again, Earl: are you asserting that Eastern Orthodox Christians are heretics?
    A simple “yes” or “no” will be a better start than another cheap evasion. I expect better from you.

  268. earl says:

    No they aren’t heretics.

    Not with his own hands, to be sure. Plausible deniability and all that.

    Even the wiki article you presented stated they were ‘mutinous armies’. They rebelled against what the pope stated intentions. That’s on them not following orders, not the pope giving the orders.

    ‘Mutinous Crusader armies captured, looted, and destroyed parts of Constantinople, the capital of the Byzantine Empire.’

  269. Jeff Strand says:

    The Sack of Constantinople was condemned by the reigning pope, who was shocked and sickened by the news when he heard it. He even threatened the Crusaders with excommunication (he ended up not carrying it out, because the sack of the city was already a fait accompli). And anyway, the motive of the crusaders in sacking Constantinople was basically monetary in nature, and had nothing to do with religion.

    But it must be admitted that, unlike the Quakers for example, the RCC has never adopted the doctrine of pacifism. Rather, the theology of “just war” was elucidated in detail by St Augustine way back in antiquity (although the requirements for a just war are so strict, almost no modern wars meet the criteria).

    So it was no contradiction of the Gospel message of Our Lord when the Church orgainzied the crusades against the Muslim infidels who had captured Spain and the Holy Land. I got no problem with that, in fact I think it’s something to be proud of!

    Deus vult!

  270. Jeff Strand says:

    @Coloradomtnman: “Bead Worshippers seem nice when you first meet them and then you start hearing their twisted and degenerate theology and you realize what happened to the West.”

    I’ve never met any bead worshippers, nor even heard of any, so I’m afraid I can’t comment.

  271. Anonymous Reader says:

    earl
    No they aren’t heretics.

    Thank you.

  272. Anonymous Reader says:

    earl
    Even the wiki article you presented stated they were ‘mutinous armies’.

    Pope Innocent III had zero problem with accepting the loot they brought back from Constantinople.
    That’s like claiming to be opposed to a bank robbery but taking a cut of the stolen money anyway.

    Now, why did I have to bring this to your attention, don’t you know the history of your own church?

  273. earl says:

    ‘Now, why did I have to bring this to your attention, don’t you know the history of your own church?’

    Well there is 2,000 years of it and you are talking about something that happened about roughly 800 years before I was born. And the heretical point I was talking about was the Albigensians.

    Besides they accepted John Paul II’s apology…which was also included in the article.

  274. Jeff Strand says:

    @Anonymous Reader: “Now, why did I have to bring this to your attention? Don’t you know the history of your own Church?”

    Oh, we know the history A.R. You can stop with your ludicrous lies and your slandering of His Holiness Pope Innocent III anytime, no one is buying it. We know you are full of it. Does telling these lies make you feel better about yourself? Pathetic.

    Here’s the ACTUAL TRUTH of the matter, from a Ph.D. in history;

    https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Pope-justify-the-Fourth-Crusade-when-they-attacked-Constantinople

  275. info says:

    @earl
    True. Its a far better choice for people like that though.

    As for the 4th crusade debacle. Its a shame that it happened. Probably played a role in ensuing that Catholics didn’t help defend Constantinople against the Turkish siege in 1453.

  276. ErisGuy says:

    there is good reason to ask if you are actually a Christian child who needs to grow in grace and truth

    I am not a child who needs to grow in grace and truth; having grown to adulthood in grace and truth, I can recognize and reject evil when I see it.

  277. Damn Crackers says:

    @Earl – Are there any Albigensians in existence anymore?

  278. tkatchev says:

    Are there any Albigensians in existence anymore?

    Yes. Modern liberals are the direct descendants. A variant of the Albigensian heresy is now the official state religion in every Western country.

  279. OKRickety says:

    Jeff Strand said: “Here’s the ACTUAL TRUTH of the matter, from a Ph.D. in history;”

    It’s my perception that, for any given historical event, the number of versions of the “ACTUAL TRUTH” is equal to the number of historians involved. In other words, they all think they know the truth. By the way, that is much the same as the claims that every Protestant has their own unique understanding of Scripture.

    TL;DR The fact that one historian says such and such is the truth does not make it the “ACTUAL TRUTH”.

  280. Anonymous Reader says:

    Earl
    Well there is 2,000 years of it and you are talking about something that happened about roughly 800 years before I was born.

    Funny stuff! Maybe next time you cite an article you should actually read it first?

    And the heretical point I was talking about was the Albigensians.

    You did not make that clear at all. Difficult to keep all the “Godly” mass murders in the 12th and 13th centuries separate?

    Besides they accepted John Paul II’s apology…which was also included in the article.

    Yes, I read the article before I posted the link. Pope Innocent III’s crusade resulted in a huge split between East and West that lasted 800 years, seems to me that might be something you would have been taught if nothing else for the “this was a bad idea” aspect. But humans do not like to admit error, human institutions exist primarily to continue to exist, and so most religious leaders don’t much care for talking about bad things that their religions have done. Rationalization is a lot easier than facing facts as a general rule.

  281. Opus says:

    I have just learned that the term genocide is a neologism: I will not in future use it other than in scare quotes as its invention has an ulterior purpose. In this respect I suspect that the ‘genocide’ of the Cathars is highly exaggerated and is being used to attack Western civilisation albeit in this instance the target is the RCC. I have a little history book where the Cathars get a few chapters – poor peace-loving Cathars; evil Inquisition. yeah right. Grain of salt for that.

  282. Damn Crackers says:

    @Tchatkev “Yes. Modern liberals are the direct descendants. A variant of the Albigensian heresy is now the official state religion in every Western country.”

    True. But, did Pope JP II apologize to modern liberals? I meant is an actual Albigensian Church still in existence.

  283. Anonymous Reader says:

    tkatchev says:
    Yes. Modern liberals are the direct descendants. A variant of the Albigensian heresy is now the official state religion in every Western country.

    Ridiculous. Read something and learn.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Catharism

  284. earl says:

    Funny stuff! Maybe next time you cite an article you should actually read it first?

    You’re the one who brought Eastern Orthodox into the conversation, that wasn’t my talking point. Do I need to repeat I was talking about Albigensian as the hersey?

    What were you trying to prove…that I though EO were heretics? I’ll repeat that Pope Innocent didn’t order his soldiers to sack Constantinople…that’s why they were called ‘mutinous’. The ire is with their rebellion.

    http://www.historynet.com/fourth-crusade-conquest-of-constantinople.htm

    Within months Pope Innocent III, the man who had first called for the Crusade, bitterly lamented the spilling of ‘blood on Christian swords that should have been used on pagans’ and described the expedition as ‘an example of affliction and the works of Hell.’

  285. earl says:

    In fact I’d probably call their rebellion the main reason why that Crusade failed. That’s why it’s important to be obedient to your lawful leaders.

  286. Boxer says:

    OK Rickety rants:

    It’s my perception that, for any given historical event, the number of versions of the “ACTUAL TRUTH” is equal to the number of historians involved. In other words, they all think they know the truth. By the way, that is much the same as the claims that every Protestant has their own unique understanding of Scripture.

    TL;DR The fact that one historian says such and such is the truth does not make it the “ACTUAL TRUTH”.

    Sez the guy who cited “The Ensign” as a historical source. Fuck’n lol.

    Then tkatchev sez:

    Yes. Modern liberals are the direct descendants. A variant of the Albigensian heresy is now the official state religion in every Western country.

    No. Modern liberals are the direct ideological descendants of classical liberals, like Locke and Adam Smith.

    Hope this helps,

    Boxer

  287. Boxer says:

    Dear Earl:

    You’re the one who brought Eastern Orthodox into the conversation, that wasn’t my talking point. Do I need to repeat I was talking about Albigensian as the hersey?

    I assume you mean heresy. Anyway, the Cathars are an interesting bunch. I didn’t know enough about them.

    https://www.thoughtco.com/cathars-and-albigenses-249504

    It almost seems like a neo-Mithraism, or maybe a Christian flavored Zooastrianism.

    Boxer

  288. earl says:

    @Boxer…

    From what I can tell many heresies seem to get their roots from some flavor of Gnosticism.

    Cathar theology was essentially Gnostic in nature. They believed that there were two “gods”—one malevolent and one good. The former was in charge of all visible and material things and was held responsible for all the atrocities in the Old Testament. The benevolent god, on the other hand, was the one the Cathars worshipped and was responsible for the message of Jesus. Accordingly, they made every effort to follow the teachings of Jesus as closely as possible.

    Nope…God created our physical world and called it good before we decided to listen to the serpent.

    And I think whatever modern heresy we are in the midst of (perhaps the heresy is called Modernism) has some roots in Gnosticism too.

  289. OKRickety says:

    Boxer,

    “Sez the guy who cited “The Ensign” as a historical source. Fuck’n lol.”

    No, I didn’t cite “The Ensign” as a “historical source”. I cited What changes have been made in the name of the Church? from The Ensign (yes, the “official religious organ of the LDS church”) as a page that provided the opinion of Richard Lloyd Anderson, professor of religion and history, Brigham Young University.

    In it, Professor Anderson provides his answer based on these historical sources:
    – “the first three printings of the revelations:” Book of Commandments, 1833; Doctrine and Covenants, 1835; Doctrine and Covenants, 1844
    – “early minute books” (no specifics given)
    – The Evening and the Morning Star, May 1834, 2:160
    – “priesthood minutes” (Messenger and Advocate, Feb. 1836, 2:266)
    – “first high council minutes” (see headnote, D&C 5, 1835 edition)
    – “a letter from John Smith, the Prophet’s uncle, to his son Elias before the latter was converted. Writing 19 Oct. 1834” (Archives, University of Utah)

    Since you obviously did not read the page, but instead dismissed it out of hand as demonstrating my ignorance, you should just STFU!

  290. ray says:

    Jeff Strand — “Our Lady of Good Success, pray for us!”

    The WHAT?

    Blasphemy AND indulgences, all in one purty package.

    You’d get more results asking the neighbor’s dog to pray for you, whilst he’s visiting your lawn.

  291. Jeff Strand says:

    @OKRickety: “It’s my perception that, for any given historical event, the number of versions of the “ACTUAL TRUTH” is equal to the number of historians involved”

    What you say is true to some extent, esp when it involves war….as “the winners write the history books”. Confederate General Patrick Cleburne (he did not survive the war) realized this while the War of Nothern Aggression was still in progress. Here’s a great quote from him:

    “I am with the South in life or death, in victory or defeat. Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.”

    Bingo! Rarely has a person spoken so presciently. Btw, it’s little known today that while the RCC was officially neutral during the conflict (as they would be during both World Wars), Pope Pius IX made no great secret of his personal sympathies for the South. In fact, after the war, when Confederate President Jefferson Davis was jailed and awaiting trial for treason against the Union, the pontiff personally sent to him an encouraging letter (even though Davis was, of course, not a Catholic) and…wait for it…a crown of thorns! Wow, now there’s some symbolism! So cool. So you see, the real (pre Vatican II) RCC had balls, and wasn’t fully cucked like today’s FrancisChurch is.

    Of course, none of the above changes the FACT that Pope Innocent III was shocked and disgusted when he heard the news that the crusaders had sacked Constantinople. He was madder than a wet hen, and threatened to excommunicate the lot of them. That is well-established historical fact, and cannot be denied…no matter how much the RCC-hating Eastern Orthodox of today may want to pretend otherwise.

  292. BillyS says:

    Earl,

    That sounds like Gnosticism. If so, I am not that kind of heretic. I don’t accept a lot of RCC doctrine anymore though, so I am sure I have plenty of other heretical thoughts form the viewpoint of someone like Jeff Strand.

  293. ray says:

    JRob at 9:29 —

    The background you provide is v helpful as adjunct to the OP series here charting the ‘conservative treachery’ of modern pseudo-Christianity. Even in the Eighties, fake Christian ‘pastors’ already were busy busy busy at The Beatdown, whilst propping up the cultural-feminism that already ruled over secular America. As I commented elsewhere, Christianity is a dead man stumbling in America. A zombie. Almost everything/everyone authentic is underground now. Been thataway for two decades.

    BTW a real zombie (apart from voudoun) is simply a person lacking the presence of the LORD in their beings/spirits. Already there are tens-of-millions of such, in the United Sisterhood alone. This also will be the character of persons relegated to hell. They continue to exist at an elemental level, utilizing solely autonomic impetus, that sorta pushes them along in a minimal-survival haze. Aside from that, they are helpless and hopeless, because God has removed Himself totally from them. As demanded. Repeatedly.

  294. Boxer says:

    OK Rickety whines:

    No, I didn’t cite “The Ensign” as a “historical source”. I cited What changes have been made in the name of the Church? from The Ensign.

    So, you didn’t cite “The Ensign” as a historical source, you instead cited an article in “The Ensign” as a historical source.

    That’s what I said. Nice strawman, though.

    Since you obviously did not read the page, but instead dismissed it out of hand as demonstrating my ignorance, you should just STFU!

    I don’t think I will. You often preen here while revealing just how little you understand, about the topics you pretend to lecture on. I’ll keep pointing it out, simply because it amuses me..

    Regards,

    Boxer

  295. Pingback: Well played. | Dalrock

  296. Boxer says:

    Jeff Strand and OK Rickety kookfart:

    “I am with the South in life or death, in victory or defeat. Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War; will be impressed by all the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.”

    Bingo! Rarely has a person spoken so presciently.

    It’s always hilarious to see kooky white nationalists salute the confederacy. Your ideal society would have genocided the white working class, and subsequently packed North America full of African slaves. Had the South won the war, The U.S.A. would look like Haiti today.

    As an aside, the confederacy was also full of those Jews you spend so much time hating on. Some of the most senior people in that movement were Jewish. You’re either not literate enough to notice such stuff, or you think we’re all as stupid as you are. Either way, you’ve got more contradictions than salient points.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judah_P._Benjamin

    Regards,

    Boxer

  297. ray says:

    feeriker — “The true Church already is underground, has been for years, and will go a lot deeper before this is finished.”

    “Fixed, to include this very important qualifying adjective.”

    Yup. Thanks.

  298. earl says:

    It’s always hilarious to see kooky white nationalists salute the confederacy.

    They seem to be the types that love to rebel against any authority as much as any feminist.

    But hey…if the South won the war then they could of wrote history any way they wanted to.

  299. Opus says:

    @Boxer

    You just made that up.

  300. Anonymous Reader says:

    earl

    Funny stuff! Maybe next time you cite an article you should actually read it first?

    You’re the one who brought Eastern Orthodox into the conversation, that wasn’t my talking point.

    For the second time, your talking point was not clear. The context was “large numbers of people killed by the Roman Catholic church under Pope Innocent III” whom you called heretics. Well, if you’d read all of the Britannica article you would have seen that “large numbers of people killed by Roman Catholic force under Pope Innocent III” was not limited to the Languedoc, but also included Constantinople, and maybe you might have been more specific.

    You should read a reference before citing it. This is pretty basic. You should be more specific in throwing the label “heretic” around? Might be a good idea.

    Do I need to repeat I was talking about Albigensian as the hersey?

    Not now. Perhaps if you’d made that clear at the outset it would have been helpful.

    What were you trying to prove…that I though EO were heretics?

    I was demonstrating that your text wasn’t clear, and you didn’t read the Britannica article you cited. You keep helping me by further proving me correct. You’ve also shown your ignorance of your own church history, which is nothing to be proud of, Earl.

    I’ll repeat that Pope Innocent didn’t order his soldiers to sack Constantinople…that’s why they were called ‘mutinous’. The ire is with their rebellion.

    It is true that Innocent III did not order the Crusaders to sack Constantinople. Doesn’t change the fact that Christian group R murdered a lot of Christian group O, does it? Does the lack of Papal approval somehow make the rape of nuns acceptable?

    http://www.historynet.com/fourth-crusade-conquest-of-constantinople.htm

    Within months Pope Innocent III, the man who had first called for the Crusade, bitterly lamented the spilling of ‘blood on Christian swords that should have been used on pagans’ and described the expedition as ‘an example of affliction and the works of Hell.’

    But he still had zero problem with accepting a share of the loot. Like a man who denounces a bank robbery but is willing to stuff a share of the cash in his own pocket. Innocent III was quite happy to profit from the looting, his actions show that.

    That Pope was a hypocrite who knowingly received stolen property. There’s still gold stuff up on & in St. Marks in Venice that’s been there for 800+ years, looted from Constantinople. I have seen it with my own eyes.

    Earl, read your cite next time and write more carefully.

  301. Jeff Strand says:

    A.R.

    You’re just pissed off that your pussified Greek forebears, even with their massively walled city, were no match for the western crusaders. Nor, a couple centuries later, were they any match for the Seljuk Turks…who stamped out the Byzantines for good, and took your beloved Hagia Sophia and tuned it into a mosque. Permanently.

    The Muslim leaders had also promised to “water their horses on the altar of St. Peter’s” in Rome. Guess what? Never happened. We Latins were made of sterner stuff than your decadent, faggoty, effeminate Greeks.

    The truth hurts, I know.

  302. earl says:

    It is true that Innocent III did not order the Crusaders to sack Constantinople. Doesn’t change the fact that Christian group R murdered a lot of Christian group O, does it?

    It proves the Christian soldiers R were rebellious to the orders of the Pope. If they followed the original orders none of this would have happened.

    Heck thanks for pointing out my ignorance on this particular event in history…it proves once again rebellion isn’t good for anybody when it comes to important tasks.

  303. Jeff Strand says:

    @Boxer: “It’s always hilarious to see kooky white nationalists salute the confederacy.”

    You’re an idiot. The South wasn’t fighting for “white nationalism” or slavery. The brave soldiers in the Confederate armies were often just boys, and they fought bravely and honorably against overwhelming odds – matched against the full might of the United States gov’t.

    They fought for their families, their land and property, their way of life, their honor, and their independence. They fought to evict a foreign invader. And they gave everything they had to this scared cause. For you to sit here in judgment of them is beyond laughable.

    They had just as much cause as the men who fought the Revolution against King George (who were also branded traitors for their actions). But the southern heroes fought even harder, and suffered even more, than the soldiers of the Revolution did (and that’s saying something!)

    Btw, before the age of PC, it was widely acknowledged (both north and south) that Robert E. Lee was the man of the greatest honor, integrity, and sense of duty that this nation ever produced. He was GREATER than George Washington.

  304. Boxer says:

    Jeff Strand rants:

    You’re an idiot.

    I have exactly the same authority to speak/write on 19th c. am history, that Helena Schrader has, to write on the Cathars. What makes me an idiot, and she a reliable source? After all, you write…

    Here’s the ACTUAL TRUTH of the matter, from a Ph.D. in history;

    Not that I expect you to be consistent. You hate the Jews, while worshipping the Jewish god, with a bible written by a Rabbi, where Jews are the central characters. You claim to hate Pope Francis, while calling yourself a Catholic. You claim to be a “natural alpha,” while writing long, involved kook rants about homosexual sodomy (with quite a few too many details to suggest you’re not, ahem, “intimately familiar” with the mechanics therein… gross!)

    You really just don’t have any consistency at all. You’re playing the fool, 24h per day. I hope you keep it up.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  305. Oscar says:

    @ Jeff Strand

    The South wasn’t fighting for “white nationalism” or slavery.

    Alexander H. Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, disagrees with you.

    http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

    The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

    Who do you suppose had a better grasp of what the South was fighting for; you, or Alexander Stephens?

  306. Luke says:

    So, Oscar, I take it you also think that women have, and constantly express, full and honest expression of all their motivations? Stephens was a politician/, just as much as was Lincoln, and had to tailor both his words and actions to his constituency. Whatever he understood (and he was an intelligent, educated man) about the economic and political clouds over the prospects of continuing Negro chattel slavery, he had to address what the common man thought, desired, and feared.
    High on that list of fears was what could plausibly happen in the event of Negro equality or domination; the Haiti slave revolt, where essentially all whites of every morality were genocidally murdered, was barely a half century before, and not far from Confederate territory. The modern examples of Haiti, Somalia, Rwanda, the Congo, Zimbabwe — and Detroit, Michigan all bear out the logic behind those fears.

  307. the civil war was a tragedy, lots of life lost. war of aggression by the north? I don’t buy that, nor do I buy the ‘states rights’ defense by the apologetic South.

    there were a bunch of folks on both sides itching for a fight…..politicians in state houses north and south of that mason-dixson line much more than in the senate or halls of congress. banking interests. a new industrial might emerging in the ‘great northeast’ in particular. secured trade of king cotton’ by the South to feed the hungry looms in the UK and France……

    John Jay said of slavery at the founding days during the 1780’s that this issue would “break” the union in the end. how right he was.

  308. Luke says:

    Fact check for Jason here.

    From

    http://civilwardailygazette.com/davis-all-we-ask-is-to-be-let-alone-maryland-in-but-not-of-the-union/

    From CSA President Jefferson Davis’ April 29, 1861 address to the Confederate Congress:

    “We feel that our cause is just and holy; we protest solemnly in the face of mankind that we desire peace at any sacrifice save that of honor and independence; we seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind from the States with which we were lately confederated; all we ask is to be let alone; that those who never held power over us shall not now attempt our subjugation by arms. This we will, this we must, resist to the direst extremity. The moment that this pretension is abandoned the sword will drop from our grasp, and we shall be ready to enter into treaties of amity and commerce that cannot but be mutually beneficial. So long as this pretension is maintained, with a firm reliance on that Divine Power which covers with its protection the just cause, we will continue to struggle for our inherent right to freedom, independence, and self-government.”

  309. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Jeff Strand”
    You’re just pissed off that your pussified Greek forebears, even with their massively walled city, were no match for the western crusaders. Nor, a couple centuries later, were they any match for the Seljuk Turks…who stamped out the Byzantines for good, and took your beloved Hagia Sophia and tuned it into a mosque. Permanently.

    Now, that could well be some high quality trolling, that could.
    Then again it could be authentic Jack-Chick quality, Internet frontier gibberish.

    “Jeff Strand”, trolling for flames or remarkably ignorant and downright stupid? It’s an open question.

    The Muslim leaders had also promised to “water their horses on the altar of St. Peter’s” in Rome. Guess what? Never happened. We Latins were made of sterner stuff than your decadent, faggoty, effeminate Greeks.

    Well…
    http://www.eutimes.net/2018/07/italian-bishop-i-would-turn-all-churches-into-mosques-to-save-migrants/

  310. Yeah….after succession. What led up to it happened for awhile. Read the papers from the 1850’s. 1857 was the year there was probably no “going back” it was going to happen sooner than later…..

    Davis should have been hung in 1865.

  311. Oscar says:

    @ Luke

    “Stephens was a politician”

    Which means he was really good at telling his audience what they wanted to hear.

  312. earl says:

    Without viewing what he looks like or how he talks….I give that Italian bishop an 80% chance he’s a homo.

  313. Luke says:

    seventiesjason says:
    July 26, 2018 at 5:59 pm
    Yeah….after succession.

    Actually, that’s secession, by the way. New word (and concept) for you?

    What led up to it happened for awhile. Read the papers from the 1850’s. 1857 was the year there was probably no “going back” it was going to happen sooner than later…..

    1) Southerners wanted their freedom from being tariff milch cows for the North, and to head off having roughly thirteen TRILLION dollars worth of their property* stolen without compensation (as eventually was done), and to avoid having their families end up in cookpots and on spits over fires as did the white women and children in Haiti in the revolt there.

    “Davis should have been hung in 1865.”

    No, he should have been grooming his successor, (6-year term limit for Presidents in the CSA Constitution, FYI.)

    We’d all be freer, had the South won its independence. (The Marxists currently in power in Illinois, California, Massachusetts, New York, etc., have their hands somewhat tied in part due to the option productive citizens have to migrate to freer, more American states such as Texas. Competition is good for making governments shape up, too.

    *https://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php

  314. Boxer says:

    Luke babbles:

    High on that list of fears was what could plausibly happen in the event of Negro equality or domination; the Haiti slave revolt, where essentially all whites of every morality were genocidally murdered, was barely a half century before, and not far from Confederate territory.

    The Haiti slave revolt was the result of:
    1. Importing as many African slaves as possible, until they’re a demographic supermajority.
    2. Treating the slaves as miserably as possible.

    The Confederacy followed this same model. The real, ultimate goal of the confederacy was the genocide of the founding stock of America, and the exploitation of the slaves for as long as possible. Once the slave revolution popped off, they would have beat their cowardly asses back to France and Spain and England, taking their money with them.

    We’d all be freer, had the South won its independence.

    Had the South won that war, North America would be an extension of West Africa today. Same as Haiti.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  315. MKT says:

    “2. Treating the slaves as miserably as possible.

    The Confederacy followed this same model”

    Awww, the history “scholar” has never read the WPA slave narratives. You can go back to your self-proclaimed job of “peer reviewing articles.” The Gender Studies department needs you!

  316. Luke says:

    Sigh. More of people knowing only a little history before posting.

    Look, Negro chattel slavery was economically already on the way out at the time of the War of Northern Aggression, with the technological labor-saving advances already underway. How many blacks do you see picking cotton or hoeing weeds on large farms do you see today? Exactly.
    (With their ~17 point lower IQs, and poorer behavior ill-acceptable in modern societies, the characterization of most blacks as “obsolete farm equipment” seems increasingly apt.) The various movements to repatriate blacks back to their home continent were getting stronger, including President Lincoln as one of many prominent supporters. Throw in that well over 3/4s of white Southerners did not own a single slave, and arguably had neither means nor intention of fleeing the land of their birth, and your expectation that they would just “take the money and run” becomes ludicrous.

  317. Boxer says:

    Dear Luke:

    Look, Negro chattel slavery was economically already on the way out at the time of the War of Northern Aggression, with the technological labor-saving advances already underway. How many blacks do you see picking cotton or hoeing weeds on large farms do you see today? Exactly.

    That’s not really relevant. The men you lionize created an underclass that has consistently destabilized North America. You should be grateful they were defeated when they were, because something like the Ferguson Riots would have popped off, likely in about 1920, otherwise. These would have been nationwide, and probably unstoppable.

    Throw in that well over 3/4s of white Southerners did not own a single slave, and arguably had neither means nor intention of fleeing the land of their birth, and your expectation that they would just “take the money and run” becomes ludicrous.

    The Confederate elitists considered those white small-farmers unprofitable and disposable. Their goal was to genocide them, liquidate their properties, and replace them with the plantation system. They would have strip mined the economy for a few generations, and taken the money with them when the unrest started.

    Best,

    Boxer

  318. Luke says:

    Strip-mining the Southern economy? The way the North already was strip-mining the South?
    Only a fool would trade continuing a current evil for possibly avoiding a conceivable, arguably improbable future evil of similar type.

  319. MKT says:

    “The Confederate elitists considered those white small-farmers unprofitable and disposable. Their goal was to genocide them, liquidate their properties, and replace them with the plantation system. They would have strip mined the economy for a few generations, and taken the money with them when the unrest started.”

    That’s what happens when you get your history from HuffPo, DailyBeast and Slate articles…along with a few Oliver Stone and Michael Moore movies while smoking way too much weed.

  320. Boxer says:

    Dear Luke:

    Strip-mining the Southern economy? The way the North already was strip-mining the South?

    The North didn’t keep those Southern white folks poor. That was their own Southern sheriffs and mayors and legislators. Check out these photos:

    https://www.google.com/search?q=southern+poverty+tennessee+valley&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP4PTcgb7cAhVFM6wKHQnoAG0Q_AUIDCgD&biw=1192&bih=817

    That’s absolutely pathetic, and it’s the legacy of the confederacy.

    That infamous old Northern socialist, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, finally intervened to give these toothless Southern white people electricity and doctors. Had it not been for him, the South would still be a third world shithole today.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  321. seventiesjason says:

    Most of “New Deal” monies were spent in the south

  322. Luke says:

    Jason:

    Year the Confederacy lost its defensive war against Northern military aggression:
    1865

    Year the “New Deal” was (unConstitutionally, in the view of the US Supreme Court, prior to being threatened by the socialist FDR) started, according to Liberalpedia:
    1933.

    So, did you have a relevant point?

  323. seventiesjason says:

    Who watches Oliver Stone movies? He’s an artist, not a historian. That “Doors” movie was an hour an half too long btw……

    A lot of northern blood had been spilled as well. A lot. Huge debts and war bonds were incurred. Towns in my area of New York were decimated and abandoned. All the men killed in the war. Vermont lost per person the most of any state. The nation had a full on blood letting. There was a lot of hatred, anger and resentment that had been building for awhile……..no one looks at the “Kansas Territory” where a precursor to the civil war happened in the 1850’s.

    “war of aggression against the South”

    Your uncle it was. It was a war to preserve the Union, and sadly a lot of people died.

  324. Boxer says:

    Your uncle it was. It was a war to preserve the Union, and sadly a lot of people died.

    It never ceases to amuse and amaze how illiterate Americans are, about their own history.

  325. Luke says:

    Jason, all the North had to do was not attack the South, and there would have been no war.

    “Bleeding Kansas”? By Liberalpedia, under 200 (probably under 80) people died on all sides during the whole thing, fewer than were killed during the four days of rioting against the draft in July 1863 in Yankee paradise New York City.

  326. Boxer says:

    Jason, all the North had to do was not attack the South, and there would have been no war.

    Yeah, Jason. All the North had to do was to allow the genocide of all the white Americans living in Southern territory. Civilized nations allow their own peoples to be starved to death in engineered famines all the time, ya know. (Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Confederate States of America – all great places).

  327. earl says:

    Jason, all the North had to do was not attack the South, and there would have been no war.

    And I could just as easily say that all South Carolina and its cohorts had to do was to not secede from the Union there would have been no war too.

  328. Luke says:

    Starvation in the South in the 1860s occurred primarily due to the war the North started.

    From https://www.nps.gov/cebe/learn/historyculture/the-burning.htm, on what the North did just to the people living in the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia:

    “Grant advised Chief-of-Staff Henry Halleck to see to it that Early was pursued by “veterans, militia men, menon horseback, and everything that can be got to follow,” with specific instructions to “eat out Virginia clean and clear as far as they go, so that crows flying over it for the balance of the season will have to carry their own provender with them.” When Maj. Gen.Philip H. Sheridan took command of the Army of the Shenandoah on August 6,Grant’s orders were to, “Give the enemy no rest.… Do all the damage to railroads and crops you can. Carry off stock of all descriptions, and negroes, so as to prevent further planting. If the war is to last another year, we want the Shenandoah Valley to remain a barren waste.”

    “On August 17 Sheridan reported, “I haveburned all wheat and hay, and brought off all stock, sheep, cattle, horses, &c, south of Winchester.”

    “Colonel James H. Kidd of Custer’s (Yankee army) Brigade described the scenes as they set fireto a mill in Port Republic, “What I saw there is burned into my memory. The anguish pictured in their faces would have melted any heart not seared by the horrors and ‘necessities’ of war. It was too much for me and at the first moment that duty would permit I hurried from the scene.”

    “One Southern soldier later recalled:

    We had an elevated position and could see theYankees out in the valley driving off the horses, cattle, sheep and killing the hogs and burning all the barns and shocks of corn and wheat in the fields and destroying everything that could feed or shelter man or beast….

    On October 7, Sheridan reported to Grant, “I have destroyed over 2,000 barns filled with wheat, hay and farming implements; over 70 mills, filled with flour and wheat; have driven in front of the army over 4,000 head of stock, and have killed and issued to the troops not less than 3,000 sheep.” While the agricultural devastation was important, Sheridan also assessed the psychological impact on the residents,”The people here are getting sick of war.” Sheridan had successfully made the Valley “untenable for a Rebel Army.” As destructive as “The Burning” was, little did the rest of the Southern populace realize it was only a prelude of the North’s new “Total War” policy. Gen. Sherman would prove that throughout the upcoming winter and following spring in Atlanta, central Georgia and South Carolina.”

  329. seventiesjason says:

    If he had not the war would have dragged on further…exactly what the South wanted. Hoping the Yankees would get sick of it and just “go home” and “let the south live in peace with chatterel slavery” which their constitution allowed, despite you saying it was “on the way out”

    Totally wrong about Kansas as well.

  330. Boxer says:

    Starvation in the South in the 1860s occurred primarily due to the war the North started.

    Absolutely wrong. It was deliberately engineered and had existed for generations. Here’s a very accessible article that explains it.

    https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/167224

    Importing millions of black slaves artificially depressed wages, and allowed big plantation owners to starve small farmers into bankruptcy. Those small farms had been progressively swallowed up by the predators for about 50 years, before the war popped off.

    This is not some hidden, occult knowledge, by the way. What’s your excuse for not knowing your own history? Why is it that a freakin’ Canadian needs to tell you these simple facts, about your own country, on the internet?

    Boxer

  331. BillyS says:

    The North had no Constitutional right to force anyone to stay. The North itself had been speaking of succession several years before.

    It was a power play favoring merchant interests in the North. It also helped build the strong central government we have now that forces all kinds of crud down our throats. The starvation in the South was due to the war, not the CSA, unlike the other examples noted above.

    Many people also claim it was about slavery, which was the farthest thing from the truth. The Emancipation Proclamation covered the territories in rebellion, not the ones that stayed loyal. Thus it wasn’t aimed at freeing all slaves, even though that is what happened.

  332. BillyS says:

    And Northern businesses sought to starve out their competitors as well. That is far different from the Soviet Union and other places Boxer. Come on….

  333. earl says:

    Then in that case the South could have won by just letting the North secede.

    Isn’t it funny how often the rebellious party is the one that often loses in the end.

  334. seventiesjason says:

    slavery was a tinder issue, a wedge issue. there were other matters at stake as well. though……if it wasn’t an issue why did the confereate constiution say that “slaves were property” and guaranteed that?

  335. seventiesjason says:

    Even Frederick Douglas pleaded stopping immigration to the USA fearing a permanent balck underclass

  336. Luke says:

    Here’s who’s wrong on Kansas:

    From Liberalpedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleeding_Kansas

    Free State settlers, Jayhawkers Pro-slavery settlers, Border Ruffians
    Casualties and losses
    unknown, 100 or fewer (30–40 killed) unknown, 80 or fewer (20–30 killed)

    —————————————————————————————————-

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

    Death(s) 119–120[1][2]
    Injuries 2,000

    ============================================================

    https://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

    Casualties in the Civil War

    At least 618,000 Americans died in the Civil War, and some experts say the toll reached 700,000. The number that is most often quoted is 620,000. At any rate, these casualties exceed the nation’s loss in all its other wars, from the Revolution through Vietnam.
    The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:

    Battle deaths: 110,070
    Disease, etc.: 250,152
    Total 360,222
    The Confederate strength, known less accurately because of missing records, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:

    Battle deaths: 94,000
    Disease, etc.: 164,000
    Total 258,000
    The leading authority on casualties of the war, Thomas L. Livermore, admitting the handicap of poor records in some cases, studied 48 of the war’s battles and concluded:
    Of every 1,000 Federals in battle, 112 were wounded.
    Of every 1,000 Confederates, 150 were hit.
    Mortality was greater among Confederate wounded, because of inferior medical service.

    =============================================================

    For 110 years, the numbers stood as gospel: 618,222 men died in the Civil War, 360,222 from the North and 258,000 from the South — by far the greatest toll of any war in American history.

    But new research shows that the numbers were far too low.

    By combing through newly digitized census data from the 19th century, J. David Hacker, a demographic historian from Binghamton University in New York, has recalculated the death toll and increased it by more than 20 percent — to 750,000.

    The new figure is already winning acceptance from scholars. Civil War History, the journal that published Dr. Hacker’s paper, called it “among the most consequential pieces ever to appear” in its pages. And a pre-eminent authority on the era, Eric Foner, a historian at Columbia University, said:

    “It even further elevates the significance of the Civil War and makes a dramatic statement about how the war is a central moment in American history. It helps you understand, particularly in the South with a much smaller population, what a devastating experience this was.”

    ===========================================================
    http://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m22.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2005-Color-of-Crime-Report.pdf (from FBI statistics):

    Crime rates

    There are dramatic race differences in crime rates. Asians have the lowest rates, followed by whites, and then Hispanics. Blacks have notably high crime rates. This pattern holds true for virtually all crime categories and for virtually all age groups.
    In 2013, a black was six times more likely than a non­black to commit murder, and 12 times more likely to murder someone of another race than to be murdered by someone of another race.

    Interracial crime

    In 2013, of the approximately 660,000 crimes of interracial violence that involved blacks and whites, blacks were the perpetrators 85 percent of the time. This meant a black person was 27 times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa. A Hispanic was eight times more likely to attack a white person than vice versa.

    Urban centers

    In 2014 in New York City, a black was 31 times more likely than a white to be arrested for murder, and a Hispanic was 12.4 times more likely. For the crime of “shooting”—defined as firing a bullet that hits someone—a black was 98.4 times more likely than a white to be arrested, and a Hispanic was 23.6 times more likely.
    If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent.
    In an all­-white Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent.

    ===========================================================

    http://2kpcwh2r7phz1nq4jj237m22.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2005-Color-of-Crime-Report.pdf

    Crime Rates
    • Blacks are seven times more likely than people of other races to commit murder,
    and eight times more likely to commit robbery.
    • When blacks commit crimes of violence, they are nearly three times more likely
    than non-blacks to use a gun, and more than twice as likely to use a knife.
    • Hispanics commit violent crimes at roughly three times the white rate, and
    Asians commit violent crimes at about one quarter the white rate.
    • The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of
    the population that is black and Hispanic.
    Interracial Crime
    • Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving
    blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.
    • Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Fortyfive
    percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are
    Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are
    black.
    • Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against
    a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

  337. Luke says:

    To be consistent, anyone who takes the position that the U.S. South had no moral right to secede, would also have to publicly agree that a long-battered (pounded into the hospital on multiple occasions) wife would have no right to even refuse sex with or move out away from her husband, let alone divorce him.

  338. Jeff Strand says:

    @Earl: “And I could just as easily say that all South Carolina and its cohorts had to do was to not secede from the Union there would have been no war too.”

    Secession was allowed under the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. There’s an Amendment in there that says any powers not prohibited to the Several States, nor designated to the Federal gov’t, are reserved to the States or to the people, respectively.

    Now since the Constitution was silent on secession, it certainly did not prohibit it to the states. Nor was secession designated to the Federal govt (which of course, it couldn’t be in any case – whom would the Federal govt secede from?) SO THIS MEANS THAT THE STATES HAD THE EXPLICIT RIGHT UNDER THE CONSTITUTION TO SECEDE.

    South Caroline and the other Confederate states had every legal right to secede. And having seceded, they certainly had the right to voluntarily enter into a union of their choice (the Confederacy). There was no treason involved. Which is why Davis couldn’t be hanged for treason – he had committed none.

    This also means the term “civil war” is a misnomer. This wasn’t different factions fighting over who would control the govt, as in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930’s, or the English Civil War in the 1600’s. No, this was one sovereign nation (the USA) waging a war of aggression and invasion against another sovereign nation (the CSA). That’s why the term “The War of Northern Aggression” is the more accurate one.

    I can’t believe any of you little faggots are cucked enough to back the North. Have you no romance in your soul? Why do you think Pope Pius IX sent Jefferson Davis a crown of thorns when Davis was jailed and awaiting trial? Symbolism much?

    Btw, with their “Anaconda Strategy” of blockading the South and trying to starve out the Southern people, the Union quite deliberately waged war against innocent women and children. This was the beginning of “total war” in the modern era, that would horribly culminate 80 years later at Dresden, where the RAF and US Army Air Corps would burn the undefended city to the ground, and roast alive a couple hundred thousand innocent civilians. Not shortening the war by one day, nor saving the life of a single Allied soldier, in the process. Just purely gratuitous.

    The South may have lost the war, but the honor and glory will always go to them. Not to war criminal Abraham Lincoln and his Union forces.

  339. earl says:

    I can’t believe any of you little faggots are cucked enough to back the North. Have you no romance in your soul?

    I can’t believe how quickly you turn to feminist/gamma tactics when people disagree with anything about your world view.

    Besides it might of been legal to secede…but the war still started when they made the decision to do it.

  340. Boxer says:

    Secession was allowed under the Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights. There’s an Amendment in there that says any powers not prohibited to the Several States, nor designated to the Federal gov’t, are reserved to the States or to the people, respectively.

    The yankee constitution? Why are you appealing to a document imposed on you by your northern oppressors, and such?

    I can’t believe any of you little faggots are cucked enough to back the North.

    More homosexual talk from Jeff Strand. Aside from SirHamster and MKT, no one here shares your bizarre fetish for sodomy, and such things don’t support your argument any better than the ALL CAPS nonsense YOU are also KNOWN for.

    HTH HAND,

    BOXER

  341. MKT says:

    “More homosexual talk from Jeff Strand. Aside from SirHamster and MKT, no one here shares your bizarre fetish for sodomy”

    Oldest, lamest leftist argument out there: declare anyone who exposes you as a sexual deviant who’s suppressing their desires. In your case, there appears to be a lot of projection…you just can’t quit talking about homo stuff 24/7. Talk about a bizarre fetish…

  342. MKT says:

    Boxer projectile vomits:
    “Here’s a very accessible article that explains it.
    https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/167224

    I was right, of course. Boxer links to an article by Robin Lindley, whose work has appeared in Salon, PuffHo and Real Change, an ultra-progressive Seattle paper.

    He presents the work of “historian” Keri Leigh Merritt. Here’s his feminst heroine’s FB page:
    https://www.facebook.com/kerileigh.merritt

    Narcissistic selfies: check

    SJW activities: check (she spent a week at the “Institute on Behavior & Inequality”….oh boy!)
    Maturity of a 13-year old: check (“omg omg scroll to the bottom! #MasterlessMen in the NYT!!! This girl’s day is MADE”)

    Completely partisan hack with question-begging research: check. She’s the type who’s completely sold her soul to her progressive worldview and pushes a comic book version of history where the Confederacy is bad, bad, bad and we’ll ignore any evidence to the contrary!
    https://kerileighmerritt.com/confederatelegacy/

    Why do you even bother posting here, Boxer? Your alliances are very clear and aren’t shared by anyone else.

  343. seventiesjason says:

    Innocent civilians. Innocent civilians that “elected” a man that started a war, and wanted war from day one. Innocent civilians that cheered the Army, Luftwaffe, and the SS for their evil and barbarous behavior in eastern europe. Innocent civilians that did nothing to remove their elected leader. Innocent civilians that gladly took the spoils of war from conquored and “absorbed” areas. Innocent civilians that did not cry one iota of protest over the treatment of Poles, Jews, Russians, Dutch, French, the balkans and let alone the blitz over London, Cardiff, Liverpool, which killed plenty of “innocent civilians” as well.

    The Germans deserved exactly what they got. When I lived there I saw a sorry and apolgetic people, and actually a grateful people that did understand by the 1980’s that their western allied victors treated them much better than if the situation had been the other way around.

    A murderous impact on the Europe the Germans committed. The world is damn lucky the allied powers won that war.

    As for the north in the Civil War………reconstruction was a failure………the South should have been treated as a full on defeated enemy, they were not. Jefferson Davis should have hanged, as well as everyone else who cheered from the respected statehouses on supporting succession.

    They were a bunch of crybabies…the guy we wanted to win the elction didn’t so we’re leaving. Sounds like California today.

  344. Boxer says:

    As for the north in the Civil War………reconstruction was a failure………the South should have been treated as a full on defeated enemy, they were not. Jefferson Davis should have hanged, as well as everyone else who cheered from the respected statehouses on supporting succession.

    If you read Ol’ Abe Lincoln’s papers, you find that he had a pretty good handle on the situation.

    https://www.loc.gov/collections/abraham-lincoln-papers/?fa=subject:civil+war&st=gallery

    He was deeply concerned about the plight of small farmers in the south. He also understood the depths of the ignorance of these same people, who were being bilked and starved by their own leaders. The northern elites failed to win over the southern proles, but they had hope that their descendants would figure such stuff out eventually.

    In the end, Abe Lincoln treated the losers honorably, like brothers, and I don’t think that was a mistake.

    They were a bunch of crybabies…the guy we wanted to win the elction didn’t so we’re leaving. Sounds like California today.

    California can’t even keep the electricity running to its stoplights. It’s a mystery to me how that place survives. I lived there for a short while, and can’t say that I liked it much — though I lived in L.A., which, people tell me, is the asshole of California.

    Boxer

  345. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ 8:02 pm:
    “Yeah, Jason. All the North had to do was to allow the genocide of all the white Americans living in Southern territory.”

    Strange how the North never talked about Southern genocide in its propaganda. With the benefit of hindsight, any claim by the North of humanitarian concern for Southerners would have been a sick joke anyway.

    @ 8:30 pm:
    “Absolutely wrong. [Starvation in the South] was deliberately engineered and had existed for generations. Here’s a very accessible article that explains it. … Importing millions of black slaves artificially depressed wages, and allowed big plantation owners to starve small farmers into bankruptcy. Those small farms had been progressively swallowed up by the predators for about 50 years, before the war popped off.”

    Interesting linked article. The theory doesn’t hold up, however. Immigration was Federally regulated and the North had solid control of the Federal gov’t. That’s why the South eventually chose secession. If the South been importing blacks (and Irish, per the link) to ruin the locals then they could only have done so with Northern collusion.

    Which is possible–the industrializing North had plenty of factory “plantations” of its own–but then why the falling out of Elite peers?

    I share MKT’s distrust of female Current Year historians, especially about contentious issues such as slavery. She didn’t reach that PhD without accepting feminist dogma.

  346. seventiesjason says:

    lol Boxer! I love living out here. I fell in love with it the first time I came here back in 1993………worked in a summer camp for profoundly handicapped children….and when IBM brought me out here in 1995 I was happy.

    Californians are productive…and visual for sure…….there is plenty wrong out here but I like living out here.

    For how crazy liberal it is…..the only three presidents that have ever come from this place have been republicans….Hoover, Nixon, and Reagan. People forget……it was overall a republican stronghold until the 1990’s.

  347. Boxer says:

    Dear Gunner:

    Interesting linked article. The theory doesn’t hold up, however. Immigration was Federally regulated

    Wrong. Immigration was regulated by individual states until after the Civil War.

    https://www.uscis.gov/history-and-genealogy/our-history/agency-history/early-american-immigration-policies

    This is very basic history. It’s shocking, to me, how little you guys know about your own country.

    I share MKT’s distrust of female Current Year historians, especially about contentious issues such as slavery. She didn’t reach that PhD without accepting feminist dogma.

    MKT is a halfwit, who can’t even understand that dumbed-down article. The author is really irrelevant to the fact that she’s citing contemporary sources, and teaching you guys what you should have learned in Jr. High.

    Best,

    Boxer

  348. Boxer says:

    Dear Jason:

    For how crazy liberal it is…..the only three presidents that have ever come from this place have been republicans….Hoover, Nixon, and Reagan. People forget……it was overall a republican stronghold until the 1990’s.

    From my perspective, California doesn’t seem any more liberal than Washington or Massachusetts. For some reason, the libs in those places aren’t experiencing brownouts or financial crises. I have to assume people in California simply don’t know how to count, or something.

    Best,

    Boxer

  349. MKT says:

    “MKT is a halfwit, who can’t even understand that dumbed-down article.”

    Your usual ad hom nothwithstanding, there’s zero basis for that statement.

    So where do you peer review articles? Or did you just make that up like everything else? With the current state of academia, it’s possible, though. Your penchant for logical fallacies, inability to understand basics like correlation/causation and third-grade level reading comp would fit right in a women’s studies department.

  350. Luke says:

    Boxer, the People’s Republic of California has more (think “critical mass”) as well as a higher percentage of its population as Third World colonists than do WA and OR. The other differences are likely minor, if narrowing.

  351. seventiesjason says:

    bownouts have not been an issue since 2000 / 2001

    the big problem is CalPers……the state employeee benefit and rretirement pension plan…….this will sink the state in the end…..

  352. Sharkly says:

    Wow, in my brief absence I missed out on rehashing the American civil war. Unfortunately I can no longer gin up the necessary energy to jump into it, even though I have my opinions, I’ve argued that one more than enough for this one lifetime that I am given. However I think I just saw my cue(Feminist heresy):
    … would also have to publicly agree that a long-battered (pounded into the hospital on multiple occasions) wife would have no right to even refuse sex with or move out away from her husband, let alone divorce him.
    Leaving the civil war part out, let me address what I feel the Bible says about that. Because the “what about abuse” screechers, are the ones who hold every door open for all of feminism. Until we can boldly say, “They should endure it for their precious Jesus, the way he endured it for them”, we’ll always get owned by the screechers, and their “well, all men are abusers and rapists” crap that then comes next.

    Wives vowed to be their husband’s “to have(in the sexual sense, and property sense) and to hold”, and for either partner to refuse sex is to wrongly defraud the other of their united body. And the ownership goes both ways.(1 Corinthians 7:2-5) Assuming the marriage is valid, God does not list any acceptable excuses, caveats, or exemptions thereafter.(except briefly, only by agreement, during fasting) Don’t get married if you don’t like the terms.
    1 Corinthians 10:10 And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband: …
    13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. …
    15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

    So, no Christian gets to leave their marriage. If they are left by an unbeliever they are not under bondage to chase after the departed one, but they are never permitted to be the one who does the leaving.(except for Imorality, which throughout most of history was justly punishable by death, making leaving unnecessary)

    1 Peter 2:18 Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust. 19 For this is a gracious thing, when, mindful of God, one endures sorrows while suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is it if, when you sin and are beaten for it, you endure? But if when you do good and suffer for it you endure, this is a gracious thing in the sight of God. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you might follow in his steps. 22 He committed no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth. 23 When he was reviled, he did not revile in return; when he suffered, he did not threaten, but continued entrusting himself to him who judges justly. …
    3:1 Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct.

    The Bible says both men and women should be willing to be beaten, and even give their lives, “for the sake of conscience toward God”.(NASB) It is a hard truth to accept, and a hard truth to live, But it is the way of God.
    Matthew 7:14 For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.
    Once women stop doing the necessary and hard following of God, they quickly lead the men to hell after them. Women are weaker vessels (physically, mentally, emotionally, and constitutionally) that has always been known,(until now) don’t let 50+ years of sex-normed testing fool you into thinking men are not smarter on average. They just don’t ask a lot of questions anymore in the cognitive areas where men most exceed women, because then the tests show men to be smarter, and the goal has been to have tests where men and women are equals.
    But women were made for us, and so it is through our natural desire for them, that Satan can most easily turn us from God, using the more easily deceived women as a wedge or lever. We as men don’t want to hear of a woman being abused or suffering, but women on the other hand are quick to demand that men suffer for them, right up to my wife implying I’m not a good husband, because unlike Jesus, who is my model, I haven’t died for her yet, and she has the nerve to remind me, that because I haven’t died for her yet, I really don’t love her like I should. She really says that stuff. Well, it is time we manned up and started telling the ladies that God wants them to follow Him, even if it means being “abused” and suffering, or even dying for their faith. And keeping your marriage vow to the point of death, is something that both Christian men and women should be expected to do. That is in fact what you vowed. The vow is not until “abuse” do us part. If you don’t have the faith and fortitude to believe God’s ordinances are worth dying for, I hope his death conversely still covers you, but I think there is reason to doubt it.
    Matthew 10:38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
    39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

    You should fear God, more than death, Jesus has conquered death and hell. If you aren’t afraid to die for your faith in God and you fear Him enough to rather die than to willfully cast his commands aside, though you die, yet shall you live, and you will never taste the second death.
    God asked Abraham to sacrifice his only son for him, and by faith Abraham was willing to give up a life more precious to him than his own. We also should be willing to lay down our lives for the cause of Christ. And forsaking our marriage can cause blasphemy against God.
    Titus 2:4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
    Sure enough while my wife was “run off”, her own father told me to “stick my Bible up my ass”. She did not “keep at home” and the word of God was blasphemed by her own (raised 3 whores)dad.
    Women running off when they feel frightened, or even if abuse has happened, is not What God calls women to do. It isn’t only men who are called to suffer and die for Christs kingdom. If you feel inclined to let women off for this or for that, you don’t really fear God,(you fear the wrath of the vagina more) nor do you believe that it is better to obey, than to live on in sin. Basically you’re afraid that by dying in service to God they’ll lose out. You make yourself out to be kinder or more just than God. He is kinder and more just than you. And He will greatly reward those that suffer and die for the sake of conscience toward God. You, by your lack of faith, lack of knowledge, or unbelief, would steal their martyr’s crown, and give them the blot of living on seeking their own life, instead of laying it down for God and achieving the highest and eternally enduring reward.

    Once you make that wrong turn,(saying women are above God’s rules) you pretty much have to accept all of Feminism, or you’re contradicting yourself again. And though I don’t condone evil, you’ll never get Patriarchy back without willingly admitting you may conceivably be enabling some abusive men. But, it is better than to keep enabling abusive women to continue destroying their husbands, wrecking their families, ruining children, destroying civil society, causing the gospel to be blasphemed, and leading the world to hell. And unlike Feminism which is by nature rebellious and out of control, Patriarchy has always been more reasonably self policing. Don’t believe the feminists’ anecdotes of “revisionist history”. Somewhere way back when a woman got abused, so we must throw God and the Family into the dustbin of history. /s Thanks to feminists crying; “but, what about abuse”, we’re now reaping a generation of Bastards and Whores who abuse themselves and others, including their parents who tried to spoil them, now everybody is abused, and nobody is respected. Refusing to allow women to ever be “abused”, is stupid, ungodly, and Cucked! Shit happens! Trust God’s justice and lovingkindness to resolve all things in eternity. To try to play god here on earth, and right all wrongs, brings about the worst tyrannies ever! Newsflash: God didn’t make a fair world, it is going to be unfair. Obey God, and entrust yourself to God who ultimately judges justly, and loves to be merciful. It isn’t merciful to allow women to dodge their marriage commitments when God himself joined them to their husband. Do you think God should have known better? Do you think God was unaware of the possibility of “abuse” when he set up Patriarchy and when he wrote His word before the foundation of the world? Too bad you weren’t there to set God straight for us.
    The same idiots that would rather destroy a family than trust a husband not to “abuse” his wife, are cheering that women are now “empowered” to go into combat. Tools! Why not raise women strong and empowered enough to die for their faith? Crazy churchian Cucks! Run at the cry of “What about abuse”. Suffer it for Jesus, baby! Suffer it for the grace and favor of God! Suffer for eternal glory and unspeakable riches in Christ Jesus! Before so great a cloud of witnesses, suffer it! You don’t want your only suffering to be that time you suffered wearing those painful high heels and pushup bra hoping chad would notice you and fuck you. Women can suffer for Jesus too. They don’t have to only suffer for lipping off to their husbands and degrading them until they snap. If they suffer unjustly for their fidelity to their marriage vows before God, he is more than able to reward them beyond their suffering. Some of Y’all’s god is too small. Stop worshipping pussy. Start worshipping a God who is able to deliver, even after death. Uh Oh! I think there is “abuse” going unnoticed somewhere, Supercuck had better go make it right, in case the vagina he worships is having a period, and is indisposed. Sure we need to have enforcement of our laws and an earthly justice system, but they can’t pass out indulgences for women to disobey God. That is beyond ludicrous! There is no power on earth, no weapon fashioned, no wisdom or counsel, that can stand against the Lord. Even women, yes even the ones with vaginas, will answer to God. And so will the “abusers”. Don’t you worry your pretty little head about that.
    Fear God and flee from evil. And women can fear God and have the faith to suffer well also.

    Sorry if the long rant is too long, But crazy Feminazi heretics always crying; “but, what about abuse”, piss me off.

  353. Jeff Strand says:

    Seventiesjason,

    Wow. So your view is that there is no distinction between military and civilian targets in war, and the Geneva Convention shouldn’t exist. And that it is quite proper to attempt to murder as many civilians on the other side as possible.

    So I suppose you would be all for a campaign to infiltrate poison into the “enemy” baby formula supplies? Hey, those babies will just get what’s coming to them right?

    No wonder you worship war criminal Abe Lincoln, who was willing to exterminate every man, woman, and child in the South if that’s what it took to preserve his Union. And Churchill, who not only approved of the firebombing of cities, but called for anthrax to be dropped on civilian areas (the Channel island where this idea was tested is still uninhabitable today!) and for Western Europe to be “drenched” with poison gas (recall that your hero Churchill had used poison gas against civilian targets in Iraq in the 1920’s). His military advisers talked him out of it. Which was darn lucky for the Brits – they had no idea that Germany had developed and stockpiled massive stores of deadly nerve gas (Sarin and Tabun) that were way beyond anything the Brits had.

    By and large, the Germans (unlike the Japanese) treated their British and American POW’s properly, as per the Geneva Convention. I guess if they had had your mindset, they would have lined up all their POW’s against a wall and machine gunned them!

    Dude, you are a sick f@ck. Seek help.

  354. Opus says:

    Bill Price once informed me on his blog that the majority of inhabitants (saving of course the negroes) in the South were of English decent. He seemed (being of Welsh decent) to approve. Your civil war is therefore the fault of the British and by the way it caused serious problems for our cotton-mills and thus for the people who worked in them – it is easy when watching movies especially Sherlock Holmes to overlook the fact that the British economy was in depression for a decade or two after your war. None of this would have happened had you not rebelled as traitors in 1776 for I can predict with the same confidence and lack of evidence that Boxer uses that all the Negroes would have been returned by His Majesty and Lord North to their ancestral homelands where they would have established Wakanda and lived in perpetual peace – certainly the Indians would have been better taken care of. The point not to be overlooked is that slavery was far less commercially viable than employment/lack thereof and that was the principle reason for the war and not some pablum as to how we could all sit round the camp fire and sing kumbaya – as equals. De Tocqueville with his usual perspicacity observed the inefficiency of slavery in the 1830s and predicted its demise.

    I suspect that the South would have been a far better place to live ante–bellum than the North where there was no false bonhomie between the English and their indentured servants and so far as I can see the civil-war was started by the same nut-jobs who today preach open-borders, feminism and the like because it sounds nice when in fact it has socially been a disaster for your country – the Negroes were far better off then and taken proper care of – abandoned by Lincoln and whoever succeeded him to their own miserable devices post-bellum – but how Jason manages to work the Nazis into this thread defeats me.

  355. Scott says:

    Luke:

    Boxer, the People’s Republic of California has more (think “critical mass”) as well as a higher percentage of its population as Third World colonists than do WA and OR. The other differences are likely minor, if narrowing.

    I think this is correct. California will be like a south/central American banana republic soon. With the super rich/connected folks living behind walls and in gated communities having all the luxuries their hearts desire. The rest will live in huge shanty towns drinking sewage water and all that. They will stand in long lines for tiny amounts of basic needs. The people who live there are from countries like that, so its not a big deal to them.

  356. Scott says:

    Last time I was in California, I went into a store in Ontario to pick up a few things. I had to remind myself I had returned from Afghanistan seven years ago.

  357. seventiesjason says:

    A sick person is someone who when attacked stands there and lets it happen.Geneva Convention? What Geneva Conevntion?

    Hogans Hereos was a comedy Jeff. Most POWs in Germany were treated far worse than what was given German POWs in the USA / Canada / The UK. Far worse. They of course sent all Jewish POWS immediately to the work camps or death camps. Many a POW in a German camps never returned home (worked to death, exhaution, disease or elements). Yeah, the Polish army that were in the POW camps…only 10-15% made it out alive……..but then again Germany wanted all Slavics exterminated. What Geneva Convention?

    Germany started a war. They paid the price. War is a terrible thing. They lost.

    Opus…….well, your British sensibilities of course would view Lincoln the way you do. The British press called him a “baboon” or “the baboon” frequently. The Crown also sympathized with the south…..not because of loyalities genetically to many of the people (you had that in the north as well) but cotton. Those looms had to be fed. Those docks in Liverpool and Cardiff had to be filled.

    A lot was a stake. Despite everyones claims that “slavery was on the out” what was going to harvest “king cotton” in the meantime on a scale that was needed to maintain credit, productivity and an insaitiatable demand for it in the UK and the world for that matter? Endentured servitude?? Their lifepan and treatment was no better that the negro.

    Jefferson Davis was Welsh. So am I. Doesn’t change the fact he was a traitor.

    Did you have slave owners that were kind to their “property”? Sure. I would believe that.

    Even when I lived in India, many an Indian told me “this nation was administered and run much better under the Cown, despite all its faults”

    So is better “red” than dead. So living on my knees a slave versus being killed for what I stand for.

  358. seventiesjason says:

    Scott….it will manifest itself in California first. The rest of the coutry will be like this as well.

  359. JRob says:

    Kommiefornia is well on its way to “Developing” Nation status.

    https://asweetdoseofreality.com/2018/07/22/san-francisco-is-a-shithole/

  360. seventiesjason says:

    Was in Austin in the 1990’s didn’t see a Utopia there either. Houston could be a runner up for Mexico City North. Miami is a Cuban city and I didn’t find the city of Bismark in the Dakotas a place that was crime free and homeless free.

    The small city of Schenectady where I was born was a white city in decline back in the 1970’s. San Francisco, homelessness is a huge business.

  361. Boxer says:

    Dear Luke and Scott:

    Boxer, the People’s Republic of California has more (think “critical mass”) as well as a higher percentage of its population as Third World colonists than do WA and OR. The other differences are likely minor, if narrowing.

    I doubt CA has a higher proportion of foreign-born residents than TX or NM. Why are they able to keep their lights on and water running in Laredo and Las Cruces, and not in Sacramento?

    I think this is correct. California will be like a south/central American banana republic soon. With the super rich/connected folks living behind walls and in gated communities having all the luxuries their hearts desire. The rest will live in huge shanty towns drinking sewage water and all that. They will stand in long lines for tiny amounts of basic needs. The people who live there are from countries like that, so its not a big deal to them.

    That is the basic model of the Confederate States of America, writ small. Of course, the super-rich who live in modern plantations will want to escape to Arizona when their serfs finally have enough of the exploitation. My guess is that guys like you will welcome them in, and allow them to genocide your kids, the way they did with the Native Californians in the 1990s.

    Best,

    Boxer

  362. Opus says:

    I would far rather have been a POW in Germany in WW2 (that was until 1945 when supplies ran out) than in one of England’s R18 camps which were apparently horrid. This may greatly surprise you, but in 1939 Hans Keller a Jewish musician and would-be soccer player arrived in England from Austria and was promptly interned and would have remained interned had not Vaughan Williams and one or two other distinguished musicians approached the government assuring them that Keller had no malign intent – he remained here until his chain-smoking death. Talking of musicians the Germans constantly provided manuscript paper (which musicians regard as gold-dust) to the composers that were locked away in the camps. There was a programme on the radio a day or to ago about this but no one ever seems able to join up the dots and draw the inevitable conclusion.

    Having said that my Mother told me that she some time in WW2 had been to a dinner party and one of the guests was a German officer otherwise interned but obviously allowed out for the evening. She said she was determined to beat him at Bridge or whichever game they were playing. Obviously hot for him: everyone likes a Nazi – I might have been half German – and somewhat older. Things are not always as they appear. Great uniforms, the Germans.

  363. Gunner Q says:

    Boxer @ July 26, 2018 at 10:51 pm:
    “Interesting linked article. The theory doesn’t hold up, however. Immigration was Federally regulated”

    “Wrong. Immigration was regulated by individual states until after the Civil War.”

    Okay, I learned something new. My question still remains, why the falling out between Northern and Southern Elites? At best, that chick is claiming that both the North and South had no respect for the lives of the South’s poor whites.

  364. BillyS says:

    Opus,

    I have read several arguments that slavery in the US would have worked itself out without the war, as it did in the rest of the world.

    Ironically we still have it, just in other forms and true slavery is on the rise in some areas, especially those governed by the “religion of peace.”

  365. BillyS says:

    Jeff Strand,

    But I have seen Stalag 17. The Germans were really bad there, right?

  366. BillyS says:

    Sharkly,

    I had someone say that women didn’t have to leave their families because the Scriptures only say the man has to leave his family. They fail to realize that that context was that the woman was almost property. She could and should be treated well, but she did not have the right to do many things that are so widespread today, to our detriment.

    The problem is the scary cases, as you note. Those are very limited cases and could be easily handled in other ways, but instead we now allow wacky women to break up perfectly valid marriages in the name of saving the tiny number who might really be abused.

  367. illuvitus says:

    The hysteria continues, now on obscure message boards: https://www.freejinger.org/topic/31399-lori-alexander-52-looking-for-debt-free-virgins-without-tatoos/?page=8

    This in particular is a gem: “I married a good man. His father is a good man. And you know what? They wouldn’t be caught associating with a whiny bunch of man-children, who spend their days complaining about how unfair life is. They have families and jobs, and would think men like Dalrock and his ilk are absolutely pathetic.”

    It’s good to use an alias. These radical feminists, under the guise of Christianity, absolutely despise men who don’t tow the line.

  368. BillyS says:

    Boxer,

    The language you rant against was quite common when I was in high school in the 1970s. You have an odd fixation on homosexuality.

  369. BillyS says:

    Earl,

    The North didn’t end up secceding. It ended up just being talk, but it was quite heated for a while. Ultimately, they deprived the South of what they had claimed to want a few decades before.

    I haven’t read the whole article, but it seems to cover the topic: http://www.wbur.org/radioboston/2012/06/15/new-england-succession

  370. BillyS says:

    Jason,

    slavery was a tinder issue, a wedge issue. there were other matters at stake as well. though……if it wasn’t an issue why did the confereate constiution say that “slaves were property” and guaranteed that?

    No one in the North cried “for the slaves” ever. Lincoln despised blacks, per his writings.

    You judge the Constitution of the CSA by modern thinking and therefore miss a huge amount of context. Some in the South were certainly afraid of losing their slaves, but most in the South did not own a single slave. The North feared them because they competed against their sweatshops, another aspect you are ignoring.

    Though you see too much of life through the weird lens picked up from living and loving the SF area.

    Boxer,

    He was deeply concerned about the plight of small farmers in the south.

    Yeah, all politicians really do care about the little man. They would never use them for posturing and preening, right?

    In the end, Abe Lincoln treated the losers honorably, like brothers, and I don’t think that was a mistake.

    He had to, or he wouldn’t have had the Union. Though carpetbaggers were quite corrupt for many years.

  371. MKT says:

    “The hysteria continues, now on obscure message boards: https://www.freejinger.org/topic/31399-lori-alexander-52-looking-for-debt-free-virgins-without-tatoos/?page=8

    “I married a good man. His father is a good man. And you know what? They wouldn’t be caught associating with a whiny bunch of man-children, who spend their days complaining about how unfair life is.”

    Oh the irony. That site is run by people who were homeschooled and/or from large families and now resent it (or others who simply hate the Duggars and similar families). They have threads with literally hundreds of pages where they do nothing but gossip and stalk (via social media & blogs) the teachers/pastors/families that they hate. It’s bitter OCDC on steroids.

  372. MKT says:

    From a quick glance, the “freejingers” are now totally up to speed on Dalrock/MGTOW/manosphere, too, and have added them to their hate list. It looks like a full-time job for some of them.

  373. Opus says:

    Slavery always gets a bad press, does it not. I have often thought that – say – my Father was in many ways hardly more than a slave in relation to his employers. I have never understood how highly paid Soccer players who are sold from club to club for vast sums of money are any different from Slaves. One of the advantages of slavery is that when you own something you tend to care about it and equally you would as a slave owner want to virtue-signal that your slaves are much better kitted out than say your neighbours. Unfortunately, without incentives slaves tend to be lazy.

  374. Jeff Strand says:

    @SeventiesJason: “Most POWs in Germany were treated far worse than what was given German POWs in the USA / Canada / The UK. Far worse. They of course sent all Jewish POWS immediately to the work camps or death camps.”

    I

  375. feeriker says:

    Sharkly says:
    July 27, 2018 at 6:35 am

    What Christian men need to wake up and realize is that almost NO women today are real Christians in the sense that they have truly accepted Jesus as their Lord and Savior and have completely surrendered their lives and souls to Him – which includes denying themselves and suffering for Him and the Kingdom of Heaven, even unto possible martyrdom.

    No, today’s women see Jesus as some kind of cosmic boyfriend/sugar daddy who would NEVER DREAM of making them suffer, NEVER DREAM of denying them anything they want, and certainly NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS get angry with them or judge them for anything they do, say, or think. This is the Jesus that “evangelical” churches sell women, that cucked pastorbators preach to them in order to get them to fill collection plates with their (unearned) money, and to keep them permanently deluded.

    The “Woman’s Jesus” is a toxic, destructive idol that renders women infantile (or perhaps more accurately stated, feeds on and amplifies their innate immaturity and solipsistic selfishness) and thus also unfit for not only marriage and motherhood, but membership in the Body of Christ. THIS is the root of the continuing destructiveness we suffer today.

  376. Jeff Strand says:

    @SeventiesJason: “Most POWs in Germany were treated far worse than what was given German POWs in the USA / Canada / The UK. Far worse. They of course sent all Jewish POWS immediately to the work camps or death camps.”

    Let’s try this post again,

    I notice you don’t give a source for your claims. Of course not!

    That is a very serious accusation you are making against the German side. You are saying that they took British and American POW’s and, if they were of Jewish descent, stripped them of their POW status and Geneva Convention protections and sent them out to be slave labor?

    I have never heard that accusation made before. If it were true, it would be a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions, and I’m sure the Allies would have protested vociferously (they also would have punished their German POW’s in reprisal). Yet I don’t recall the Allies making such claims, either to the world press to the Int’l Red Cross. And I’ve studied WWII in quite a lot of detail.

    Again, that’s a very serious accusation you made. Either provide a source to back it up, or retract it.

  377. thedeti says:

    The Civil War was fought over states’ rights and federal power. At issue was just what the federal government could make the states do.

    And at bottom the war was about politics. Politics is about who gets what, how, when, where and why. Who is going to get the goodies, and who gets to decide who gets the goodies. War is simply an instrument of politics and policy. And the “goodies” is about money, and land, and stuff. Who is going to get to make (and take) money, how, when and where, and who will have to pay money.

    The Civil War, like all wars, was started and fought and resolved over money.

    WW II was started because Hitler preyed on the fears of an economically depressed Germany still reeling from Versailles at the end of WW I where everyone punished Germany for starting that conflagration. Hitler promised the German people a better economy. More money, more land, more stuff. Communist expansion, and Korea and later Vietnam, were about communists getting more stuff and land, and that means more money. Capitalist opposition to communism wasn’t just moral – it was also about “what’s the better way to live and make money? Why, capitalism, of course!” Never mind that that statement is demonstrably correct; the point is that the core opposition between the ideologies is economic in nature – who gets the money, the land and the stuff?

  378. Jeff Strand says:

    Opus,

    Interesting comments you make on slavery.

    Here’s something that I find of interest. For centuries, the RCC had condemned chattel slavery explicitly, in encyclical after encyclical and in papal bull after papal bull. These condemnations started at the very beginning – in the 1400’s, when the Portuguese first started enslaving inhabitants of the Canary Islands. Pope after pope condemned chattel slavery through the following centuries, often pronouncing the sentence of excommunication on slave traders as a class.

    Fast forward to the mid 19th century. Pope Pius IX (the longest reigning pope in history) was certainly of the same opinion when it comes to the evils of chattel slavery – given the many papal pronouncements against it in the preceding centuries, he would hardly have had a choice in the matter (being a faithful son of Holy Mother Church).

    Yet clearly, the pope’s sympathies lay almost entirely with the South (even as the Vatican remained OFFICIALLY neutral). I have already referenced numerous times in this thread the encouraging letter and the symbolic crown of thorns (!) that His Holiness personally sent to the jailed Jefferson Davis. Who received them with much affection and tenderness, even though he himself was, of course, not a Catholic.

    Maybe this should be a little clue that there’s more to the story than your 9th grade history class let on. Just maybe.

  379. Jeff Strand says:

    @SeventiesJason: “Most POWs in Germany were treated far worse than what was given German POWs in the USA / Canada / The UK. Far worse.”

    Again, just factually incorrect.

    Educate yourself. Start by reading the book “Other Losses” by James Bacque. You’ll discover what happened to a few million German POW’s, who were summarily stripped of their Geneva protections by Ike, and had their legal status changed from “POW” to “DEF” (disarmed enemy forces). The term “DEF” was a made-up term with no legal standing, which is why Ike did it. Those men thus became non-human under the law, and had no rights of any kind.

    As Bacque goes on to demonstrate with a mountain of evidence, including the papers of the US military themselves (since backed up by many reputable historians), these “DEF”s were then penned into open-air concentration camps along the Rhine River. They were given no shelter or blankets, no medicine, no food, not even water. Of course, they died like flies from exposure, disease, hunger, etc (which was the whole idea). Approximately one million died in what have come to be known as “the Rhine meadows death camps”, or, more simply, “Eisenhower’s death camps”.

    For years, the post-war West German govt agitated for an answer as to what happened to the one million+ POW’s who never came home. They finally dropped the whole question under Allied pressure, and even bringing up the topic of the “missing million” is verboten in Germany today – it’s career suicide for any historian or researcher to “go there”. It is also forbidden to do any archaeological digs (looking for the mass graves) in the Rhine meadows.

    We did that. We Americans. A million-fold murder of helpless, disarmed, defeated, surrendered former soldiers…who were fully entitled to the protections of the Geneva Convention. But it’s so easy to point out the speck in the eye of the other guy, right?

    Get James Bacque’s book. Read it. (Btw, after the book was published in the mid 90’s, a lot of Americans who had witnessed this atrocity – they had been guards at the camps, for example -came forward with their testimony. A number of them, in tears, told of how they knew what had been done…but were never to speak of it. People would have thought them crazy and refused to believe it. Until Bacque’s book came out).

  380. Anonymous Reader says:

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

    Starts off simple in the Naturalization Act of 1790, becomes more complex in the 19th century.
    Part of the Naturalization Act of 1798 remains active today as 50 U.S.C. § 21.

  381. Opus says:

    @Jeff Strand

    We clearly think in similar ways but there is one matter which I would ask you question: Las Canarias. As it happens my sometime girlfriend lives and works there, Spanish although not native Canarian (and obviously a solid 10 maybe 9 but no less than 8 well when she was twenty-one) and what I understood from her was that the Spanish colonised the seven islands and unfortunately largely killed off the Guanches, who were the native Canarians. Are you sure you meant Portugese or were you thinking of Madeira? Having said that, the Portugese under Henry the Navigator in 1480s were first out of the blocks down the west coast of Africa so it might be right. I am just curious.

    I’ll leave the much maligned Germans for another comment – but Jason has Polish blood which explains his antipathies.

  382. earl says:

    @ feeriker…

    The woman’s Jesus is a Jesus that repeats whatever they say…as opposed to things He actually said in the Gospels and then what his apostles Sts. Paul, Peter, John, James, Jude stated in the New Testament.

  383. Jeff Strand says:

    Opus,

    Here my friend, with this link you can read the actual papal encyclical. It’s entitled “Sicut Dudum” and was issued in 1435 by Pope Eugene IV. The subject matter of the encyclical is “Against the enslaving of black natives from the Canary Islands.”

    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/eugene04/eugene04sicut.htm

  384. 6 million Jews exterminated or “missing”. 22 million Russians. 5 million Poles. Another 2-3 million Slavics in Yugoslavia / Balkans. Let’s not even begin the terror inflicted albiet milder on western Europe, but horrid nonetheless……Liddice in Czecslovakia comes to mind. Lives lost to the Germans will never be known.

    Germany never upheld the Geneva Convention. Never. The liberated camps show this explicitly.

    One million Germans missing by Ike. What a crock. Been to Germany. where would ONE MILLION surrendered German soldiers be buried. The Rhine is built up with towns cities and high ranges on both the sides.

    You would need trenches and firing squads to kill that many people off in such a short period of time, and “swear” everyone to silence. Good luck with.

    I have zero sympathy for what happened to Germany or Japan during the wars THEY started. They were defeated, like I said the world is fortunate that they were not the victors.

    The misery inflicted by the Germans in occupied territories in Europe….especially the East is deplorable, and should not be forgotten watered down, nor should we feel any sympathy for the civilian German population during that time. None.

    Have the Germans changed? I personally believe they as a people have. It was mistake, and its been freely admitted by succeeding BDR governments. The people themselves too.

    Read a definitive history of the Third Reich by William Shirer. A real historian who was there before, during and after. Anyone can write a crackpot book full of made up facts and statistics.

    Admit the German war machine was an evil, brutal force and thankfully it was destroyed.

    Oh, at Boy Scout Camp with my Troop in 2012…during evening campfire…..a ninety plus year old man came to the circle. Told us a story. He was Polish. He was in his early nineties. He was a Boy Scout during the 1930’s in Poland.

    He mentioned during the brutal occupation of Poland…….the rapes. The shameless harassment, the brutality of the Germans……..well, the men in his town decided to blow up some communications the Germans had setup to communicate with the troops massing on the Russian new Russian border at that time…..must have been 1941…………they blew them up.

    Within two hours, the SS arrived in the town. Woke everyone, blocked everyone from leaving with the guard. They rounded up everyone into the town square. He was awakened. He still had his scout shorts, and belt with the insignia on it. He threw that on….came to the square…….the young SS officer spoke Polish fluently. He stated because of their act against the Reich, every fifth person was going to be killed. So, he walked by people counting “One, two, three, four , five.” BANG. Shot and killed a girl instantly with his pistol. He counted again, and the fifth person was shot and killed. It didn’t matter if they were old or young. Pregnant or not. These dumb “poles” should have just accepted their brutal liberation by German and just accepted it right? The shooting continued, and this young man realized that they were going to kill every fifth person until they tired of it…..

    The SS officer counted, came to him…….was ready to fire the pistol, saw his Scout ensignia………on his belt. Hesitated. Gave him the Scout salute, and said “run boy run!”

    This SS officer was a former Scout and after Hitlers abolishing of them and making the Hitler Youth (Satan takes anything good and twists it to pure evil). He had a shred of what was left in him that was good……..that ensignia saved this young mans life…….

    The moral was that Scouting can save a life and evil is evil.

    But you know…in your world Hitler was a good guy was just misunderstood.

  385. MKT says:

    “Lives lost to the Germans will never be known. ”

    The only certainty is that many more were killed under Stalin and Mao. But all of them were terrible despots, no argument there.

  386. ray says:

    Sharkly — Good rant. Folks around age sixty or above will recall the mass-wedge used in the late-Sixties and Seventies to shame the West into embracing Total Gynarchy. It was as you describe, this issue of ‘abuse’ — because almost all males immediately go into Hysto-Hero mode if they see or hear of a female being ‘abused’. It’s a guaranteed trigger to extort, really, anything the satanic sisterhood demands.

    It began with a mass campaign (radio, television, newspapers, government) against the Abuse of Women by The Patriarachy over the issue of back-alley abortions. This was the master key to hell’s gates. Lurid anecdotes about innocent teen girls squatting in filthy alleys while a member of The Patriarchy aborted her child using a wire coat-hanger was the favorite narrative. They pounded that in everywhere, and I do mean everywhere, for about fifteen years. By the end of that time, abortion was essentially accepted (because it PROTECTED FEMALES) and the door was open for satan. This campaign was combined with a related massive campaign concerning ‘domestic violence’ and the ubiquitous — who could guess — Abuse of Women.

    By the end of the Seventies, authority to control wives physically was stripped from husbands/men, and there was no stopping the blood-flood after that. Once this element was considered criminal ‘abuse’, it was all over, really. Everything subsequent has just been more hammering on this ‘enlightened’ assumption. Now, the State was free to be the Husband, and the West’s men were relegated to servant status. Probable perpetrators. Pre-criminals.

    Correct that the only remedy for this is strict Biblical adherence, i.e., the female is ruled by the male, and is expected to suffer (even as mere ‘men’ suffer for females in war, etc.) instances of mis-treatment, in following Christ’s example. Such a notion would get you ejected — and possibly more — from the false ‘churches’ of modern Christianity. What God desires of us is now seen as not only wrong, but evil and illegal.

    All these things will have to be destroyed before Christ will suffer to sit on the throne of this treacherous, vile planet. America, in particular, will not be allowed to exist if she continues in her current condition of Total Rebellion . . . not to mention predation upon the sons of the nation. The United Sisterhood can either undergo a (painful) spiritual revolution, returning to Scriptural standards, or it will be annihilated. With extreme prejudice.

    Anyways, have a nice day! :O)

  387. True MKT, and the forgotten genocide of 3? 4? million Cambodians from 1975-1979…..and Jimmy Carter…Mr. Humanitarian himself nor the UN, nor the Red Cross ever condemmed this

  388. Opus says:

    @Jeff Strand

    That is very interesting and the encyclical refers once to Spanish Bishops and not that I can see to the Portugese.

  389. Jeff Strand says:

    Seventies Jason,

    Read the first paragraph of your post. Stopped reading when I read where you said “The Germans never upheld the Geneva Conventions, not ever.” That is such a demonstrably false lie that I wouldn’t waste my time reading the rest of your lies.

    Again, the book is “Other Losses” by James Bacque, if you want the truth. But we both know you don’t.

  390. Jeff Strand says:

    @Opus: “That is very interesting and the encyclical refers once to Spanish Bishops and not that I can see to the Portugese.”

    Lol, well then I guess I was close. But maybe both Spanish and Portuguese were involved…I think they were both sailing out to these areas. But perhaps I am “misremembering”.

    Anyway it’s very interesting to Google up ALL the papal encyclicals that condemned chattel slavery, starting in 1435 with “Sicut Dudum” and continuing right through the 19th century. I always refer people to this material when they claim that “Christianity condones slavery” because of passsges in the OT or a few remarks in the Epistles of St. Paul.

  391. Okay…..the Nuremberg Trials were a lie too…when the Red Cross demanded access to “camps” POW or otherwise and were told no throughout the war. The IHQ of the Red Cross in Switzerland obviously lied on the stand and in testimony. In fact, there were pictures shown and there were Germans dressed and identified as “Red Cross workers” staged in camps to make it look like they visited frequently. The pictures were propoganda, making it look that the Red Cross was allowed, it was proven otherwise.

    It’s not a bold faced lie.

    The world on a rare occasion stood up to a regime that was indeed pure evil, and won.

  392. Jeff Strand says:

    Seventies Jason: “when the Red Cross demanded access to “camps” POW or otherwise and were told no throughout the war.”

    Thanks man, for the laugh. That was a good one!

    You have de-railed. Of course, it’s common knowledge that the Int’l Red Cross regularly visited the German camps, including Auschwitz, and that the inmates of the camps regularly received Red Cross parcels. Are you seriously that ignorant that you didn’t know that, LMAO? Damn, you are embarrassing yourself!

    Btw, it was the Soviets who never allowed the Red Cross to visit the camps they ran (often referred to as “the Gulag”). Nor were Soviet-held inmates allowed to receive Red Cross parcels. Nor had the USSR ever ratified or signed onto the Geneva Conventions (in contrast to both the Western Allies and the European Axis Powers)

    Your ignorance is truly breath-taking.

  393. Jeff Strand says:

    @SeventiesJason: “the Nuremberg Trials were a lie too…”

    Well, actually…

    It was “established” at the IMT at Nuremberg that it was the Germans (not the Soviets) who killed the 20,000 Polish officers in 1940, burying at least 5,000 of the dead at Katyn Forest.

    So….

  394. I don’t know, I am actively involved in humanitarian Christian organizations…..like my own Salvation Army…even with its faults……..can vouch that the Germans never allowed the Red Cross in to the camps…but they are liars too in your world.

    Great. Sure. Germany signed the Geneva Convention……true statement….did they uphold it? Never. Hitler called himself a Catholic…should we believe him?

    20,000 polish officers? The other 4.9 million poles would be a little upset by those findings

  395. Jeff Strand says:

    @SeventiesJason: “can vouch that the Germans never allowed the Red Cross in to the camps”

    Dude, that is just factually untrue. Ten minutes on Google will instantly prove you wrong. The Int’l Red Cross has records of how many German camps they inspected, how often, how many parcels they sent to the inmates, how much in bulk supplies, etc. They have the records of all of it, for God’s sake!

    Stop spouting such nonsense. If you’re gonna lie, at least make up better lies!

  396. Jeff Strand says:

    @SeventiesJason: “20,000 polish officers? The other 4.9 million poles would be a little upset by those findings”

    The point is, the Allied judges at Nuremberg KNEW it was the Soviets who did the dirty deed of executing the Polish intelligentsia. Yet they were willing to knowingly LIE and pin the crime on the Germans. This is undisputed.

    So you can understand what a jackass you made out of yourself by insinuating that it is “beyond the pale” to think that the sacred military tribunal at Nuremberg would dare to lie. Oh no, they would never do that! The victors lie about the vanquished? Heaven forfend! That would never happen! LMAO! Grow up, dude.

  397. You’re a very sick man Jeff. Talking to you is pointless.

  398. Dalrock says:

    Jeff Strand stop with the Nazi nonsense. I think I’ve asked once before.

  399. Jeff Strand says:

    Dalrock,

    Wasn’t promoting Nazis, just discussing history and was correcting some incorrect statements that Jason made. A few minutes on Google will show you that the facts I referred to are, in fact, well….facts.

    Having said all that, it’s your blog…and history is not the focus of it, certainly. And since I try to exhibit good manners wherever I go, if you say WWII-era history is not to be discussed here, then fine. You got it. There’s plenty of other forums to debate and discuss history.

    Good weekend to you, cheers…

  400. Luke says:

    The Red Cross was allowed to bring so many food parcels into the camps where Western Allied POWs held by the Germans that the POWs there not uncommonly REFUSED German-offered food as superfluous to their needs. The concentration camps, I do not know, but doubt it. I believe I read that Stalin had something to do with how Soviet POWs held by the Germans did not get communication home, parcels, etc., as he considered them traitors that should have died rather than surrendering, but do not remember details.

  401. Sharkly says:

    BillyS says: I had someone say that women didn’t have to leave their families because the Scriptures only say the man has to leave his family. They fail to realize that that context was that the woman was almost property.

    My wife tried to pull that. I had to remind her that her Father gave her away to me, on behalf of their family.
    Minister: “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?”
    Her father: “Her mother and I do.”
    She was her father’s property, and he gave her to me, and I renamed her, reflecting her new position as belonging to my family. Her family relinquished claim to her, before God and a huge crowd of witnesses in a “holy” ceremony, or so I thought. Apparently none of them have the character to stick to their vows before God. Nobody gave me away! I was just to leave my family, and cleave to the wife that had been given to me by her father, creating a new, separate, and independent family, me being only responsible to God directly, and she being responsible only to God, but, that is primarily and almost entirely directly through God directed obedience to her husband. Thus her family is absolved of further responsibility for her, by my gracious accepting of their dysfunctional daughter as my lifetime ward, for better or for worse.

  402. Sharkly says:

    feeriker, & ray,
    I totally agree with what you guys just said. It needs to be shouted form the rooftops.

    And thank you Dalrock, for your comment above. I’m sure there are corners of the web for those who want to engage in that sort of discussion.

  403. Derek Ramsey says:

    Looks like Lori has been reading this post and its comments. She has another post up quoting extensively from here.

  404. Sharkly says:

    @Derek Ramsey
    Wow! that is cool. I’m glad Lori Alexander can come hear and find support from men who have had some of the scales of blindness fall away from their eyes. She seems to have selected some great quotes, and distilled a ton of talk down to a really powerful page. We should have her summarize all our threads for quicker reading. LOL I’d pay to read her Cliff’s notes version of all of our discussions here to save myself time and get to the best parts. Thanks Lori, and God bless you.

  405. Boxer says:

    Looks like Lori has been reading this post and its comments. She has another post up quoting extensively from here.

    Sister Lori tells it like it is.

  406. Jeff Strand says:

    @Sharkly: “My wife tried to pull that. I had to remind her that her Father gave her away to me, on behalf of their family.
    Minister: “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?”
    Her father: “Her mother and I do.”
    She was her father’s property, and he gave her to me, and I renamed her, reflecting her new position as belonging to my family. Her family relinquished claim to her, before God and a huge crowd of witnesses in a “holy” ceremony, or so I thought.”

    Great point!

    Reminds me of a talk I had with a coworker. He had had problems with his wife running back to her parents and siblings, which was causing problems. He told her it had to stop, cause it was truly harming their marriage. She whined, “but they’re my FAMILY”. He answered, “No, this is your family now. They are no longer your family, they are now your RELATIVES.”

    I thought that was pretty cool.

  407. earl says:

    Looks like Lori has been reading this post and its comments. She has another post up quoting extensively from here.

    It also appears from some of the comments on that post…women will just not give up the ‘Jesus is my boyfriend so I’m saved from whatever I want to do and men have no right to judge my marriage material’ case. Temporal consequences happen, ladies.

  408. earl says:

    Besides I’ve been judged plenty by women as far as making a case whether they want to get married to me or not. I’m giving them the same courtesy. Hence if I see a tattoo or hear something about their previous drama, adventures, etc with an ex-bf…I don’t want that.

  409. Boxer says:

    Besides I’ve been judged plenty by women as far as making a case whether they want to get married to me or not. I’m giving them the same courtesy. Hence if I see a tattoo or hear something about their previous drama, adventures, etc with an ex-bf…I don’t want that.

    Who you marry is probably the most important decision you will ever make. It’s imperative that every man use his very best judgment, and get the best deal he can.

  410. seventiesjason says:

    applause Opus….love that show……it aired on PBS in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s in the USA….never was as huge like ‘monty python’ but a great show.

  411. Opus says:

    @Boxer

    Doctor Johnson obviously did not think it mattered who one married saying that as far as he was concerned the matter should be left to the judgement of The Lord Chancellor – and I do not think Johnson was implying that the Lord Chancellor’s judgement in anything let alone matrimonial partners was supposed to be in any way competent. Johnson was a bachelor and amazingly came from the same small village Lichfield as David Garrick, Garrick being one of Johnson’s pupils. Erasmus Darwin and only a decade later also came from Lichfield – perhaps it is something in the water that produced that concentrated level of Genius although personally I think Genius is native to all the English which is why America got such an excellent start in life.

  412. earl says:

    Considering how the divorce rate skyrockets for non-virgins and how women just seem to have any flimsy excuse to divorce with the financial burden of the divorce being placed on men…these harpies who talk about what men should accept for marriage ought to take a big case of STFU.

  413. Opus says:

    @Jason

    Fawlty Towers is simply the greatest sitcom ever written. There are just twelve episodes – six from 1974 and six from 1979. It does give a very good view of how England was in the 1970s – now gone forever. One of the local AmDram companies performed, on stage, three of the episodes a few years back (they usually do Shakespeare).

    You see, we have this thing about Germans – we fear and suspect that they are more capable than us – our middle name being ‘muddling-through’ – how they lost both WW1 and WW2 is a complete mystery to us. I am a big fan of the Krauts – the most civilised people on God’s green earth – but even I have to admit they have absolutely no sense of humour – you can hear the lack of it in their music: Meistersinger is not funny and neither is The Academic Festival Overture (Gaudeamus Igitur) – but Wagner and Brahms respectively obviously thinks they are funny. My Swiss German friend (who does not think he is German) was always in the past on the verge of assaulting me because he could not tell I was jesting – thank God his English wife stepped in and on more than one occasion to prevent the forthcoming beating. On arriving in Koln on my first visit to Deutschland I was promptly arrested by two of their Gestapo and my crime – simply sitting at the Bahnhof on my suitcase figuring out what I would do next – and I had not even attempted to Taharrush any of the frauleins.

  414. Opus says:

    @Jason

    Funny you call it a ‘show’ (this seems to be a very important word in America – even visiting the Opera is taking in a ‘show’) whereas over here we say ‘Sitcom.

  415. Spacetraveller says:

    @ Jeff Strand and Sharkly

    “@Sharkly: “My wife tried to pull that. I had to remind her that her Father gave her away to me, on behalf of their family.
    Minister: “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?”
    Her father: “Her mother and I do.”
    She was her father’s property, and he gave her to me, and I renamed her, reflecting her new position as belonging to my family. Her family relinquished claim to her, before God and a huge crowd of witnesses in a “holy” ceremony, or so I thought.”

    Great point!

    Reminds me of a talk I had with a coworker. He had had problems with his wife running back to her parents and siblings, which was causing problems. He told her it had to stop, cause it was truly harming their marriage. She whined, “but they’re my FAMILY”. He answered, “No, this is your family now. They are no longer your family, they are now your RELATIVES.”

    I thought that was pretty cool.”

    I must chime in here to agree with you both on this.
    One of the most important things I learned in pre-Cana was that a wife becomes the ‘property’ of the husband. I liked this idea very much, but then again, I suppose if I were nervous about this, I would have had to internally examine 2 issues with myself:
    1. Was I really sure I was ready for marriage at all?
    2. Was I sure I was ready to marry THIS particular man?

    Pastor Miles Munroe (May +God rest his soul) preached that when you name something or someone, you own it/him/her, and this is why a woman ought to take her husband’s name after marriage, so that the ‘symbolism’ of ‘belonging to him’ becaomes concretised. It is more than symbolic – it is legal as well as spiritual ownership, in the sense that the head of the family (the husband) is accountable to God on the woman’s and the children’s behalf (sorry for the confused wording – I am not sure how to express it well enough that everyone understands what I mean).

    I offended my mother when I rejected her offer to walk me down the aisle in the absence of my deceased father, in favour of my uncle (my father’s brother). My husband also did not ask *her* for my hand, opting instead to go to the same uncle. She has not forgiven me to this day, lol.

    With this in mind, I think it was rather more elegant for Prince Charles (in the absence of Mr. Markle) to walk Miss Markle halfway down the aisle after she had come alone halfway up, rather than for her mother to have done so from the church doors, as was originally planned, even though it *is* a bit odd for your future father-in-law to take on this role – the oddity being, you are not *his* to give away, he is (along with your grrom), a *recipient* of your good self, and not a donor. Circular thinking, but there we are… 🙂

    I understand why your father-in-law would have responded ‘her mother and I do’ in response to the priest’s question ‘who gives this woman away?’ If the mother of the girl is present at the wedding, I guess it is nice to acknowlege her part in bringing the daughter into the world, raising her, etc, but strictly speaking, only the father (a man) can give her away, to a(nother) man. ‘Cause Patriarchy 🙂
    To this end, I much prefer your earlier statement ‘her father gave her away to me, on behalf of their family’. This covers it VERY nicely 🙂

    Whilst I know that many a modern woman would baulk at the idea of this kind of marital ‘ownership’, I think it helps, to solve some types of marital misunderstandings if the woman is made to understand this principle of marriage already in girlhood, well before marriage. In my case I learned this like 5 minutes before marriage, but thankfully it was definitely not too late.
    It would be much better though, to know this little nugget of information even before starting to date/court.

    And yes, it does require the woman’s family to help the girl uphold this dogma. She should not be left alone to enact it. All witnesses at a wedding but especially family and friends are there as ‘godparents’ to the couple being married. It is not just a party they are attending. They are witnesses to an important event and their job is to offer help/advice through the course of the life of that marriage. But hey, I don’t think many people think of it this way. I remember when a friend whose wedding I attended told me she and her husband had divorced – I had lost contact with her shortly after her wedding (I moved abroad and I don’t do Facebook). Next I knew 3 years later, they were divorced. She could not understand why I told her I felt like a failure. For I was thinking, “I was there at your wedding. The priest asked me to bear witness to your marriage. So I feel bad/guilty that when you hit bad times I was nowhere to be found…”
    Sad…

  416. Sharkly says:

    @Spacetraveller
    And yes, it does require the woman’s family to help the girl uphold this dogma.

    I wish I had been a little wiser and more aware of that sort of thing before I got married. I missed some red flags. My wife invited me as a date to the wedding of a guy friend of hers, for our first date.(I was told later by other men that a wedding date counts as 5-7 regular dates in how far along a woman sees herself in the relationship) I agreed and flew out their (to the east coast from the Bible belt) to be her date. The wedding was(surprisingly to me) officiated by a female posing as a minister of God. I told my future wife, that I didn’t believe in female ministers, and that I would never be married by one. She shit tested me by asking; “Not even for me?”, to which I responded by saying that if she wanted a female minister to do her wedding, she’d have to marry somebody else.
    Unfortunately she grew up in a very feminist mother controlled home. When I was ready to get engaged, and asked to speak with her father, her bitch mom insisted on being a part of my asking her father if I could marry his daughter. She would not let me speak with him alone, and insisted that she be part of it. I almost decided to not get engaged to her at that point over that great disrespect. Because the bitch had made it clear that she needed to be there, that we were not competent to handle the matter alone as men. In hindsight I’d have spared myself a long and miserable marriage. But anyhow, I talked to her father despite the disrespect from her mother, while her mom got red faced and cried, blubbering entirely through, and ruining, what I had always envisioned as a serene(father ~ son in law) bonding moment in my life, and I had always looked forward to. She really shat on our parade with her selfish antics. I had assumed, because my wife initially claimed to have recently been saved(she, after our marriage, moved her salvation to childhood prior to her sexual history), that she would be open to having a Godly husband lead her away from all that ungodly dysfunction. But it turned out she never bonded with me, and has stayed bonded to them, and all the while they play tug of war with me over her. If there is any silver lining in my continuing divorce, part of it for me will be less of any association with my “Jerry Springer” in-laws. My family is mostly dead or distant, but at least most all of them were upright and respectable Godfearing folk. Who would have known, my in-laws would spend the entirety of my marriage trying to deliver “their” daughter from her “Jesus freak” husband? I should have been wiser.
    Love can be cruel to the one who unequally yokes himself to caring for a deceptive unrepentant mess.

  417. ray says:

    Sharkly —

    “feeriker, & ray,
    I totally agree with what you guys just said. It needs to be shouted form the rooftops.”

    When the time is right, nobody will have to shout anything. Folks will have learned the lesson that this page strives to teach.

    Right now is helpful, agreed. At least Jesus seemed to think so, 1 Thess. 4:16. Christ’s people leaping outta graves and sepulchers, Jesus falling onto Earth like manna, human beings get to have Father with them 24/7. It doesn’t sound so awful, does it?

  418. seventiesjason says:

    My mother always liked Fawlty Towers. She would laugh so hard when we watched it……to me, and my dad…it was funny…but some of the humor was just beyond our American senses…she thought Benny Hill was always a “fish n chips” type of humor……when he died she smirked “He died alone…..he actually had a pleasant singing voice”

    My mother had a bunch of “Beyond The Fringe Crowd” comedy records from the early 1960’s that are now in my collection. Really good stuff there too!

    She never liked Tracy Ullman. I enjoyed some of her sketches on her US TV show in the 1980’s.

    Back in the 1970’s / 1980’s, every year a HUGE box of would arrive and there would be oh….40? 50 boxes of “Typhoo Tea” that would be sent from the relatives in Wales……this was before you could buy it in the USA. She in return would always send brand new Levis 501’s to my cousins, and my uncle….and a carton or two of Marlboro cigarettes back to her dad. Marlboro’s over in Europe when I lived there (I started smoking when I was 16) just didn’t taste right…..I don’t know about now…….still the best tasting cigarette in the world IMHO. My grandfather always wanted “american cigarettees produced in America sent over”

    In the 1980’s there would be VHS tapes sent of news, programs, or some big event so she could watch and feel at home.

    She never lost her accent, though it was always……always suddenly more “posh” when she met someone in the USA from back home……..

    Germans have zero sense of humor, or its a bit coarse…esp the Bavarians.

    Anyway…Cleese was a genius…..and still is. I hav

  419. Sharkly says:

    @Opus
    Funny you call it a ‘show’ (this seems to be a very important word in America – even visiting the Opera is taking in a ‘show’) whereas over here we say ‘Sitcom.
    Well, that is why an American politician, Al Gore, invented the internet; so you would always have an American within reach when you need to set yourself straight on how to refer to things or spell certain words, or to know who’s living down under, on the Butt end of the world, or who exactly is a turd-world country. An, always right, American can now be easily consulted by any English speaker.
    And before you respond back with some humorous British reply, remember I’m half Germanic Mennonite, and I likely won’t get it, or I’ll find it funny for some other totally inappropriate reason.

    @seventiesjason
    Germans have zero sense of humor, or its a bit coarse…esp the Bavarians.
    Tell me about it! I am bereft of my kids in part due to a single coarse & sarcastic joke that the female judge must not have found as funny as I thought it. And they claimed I was stating my intention, when in fact I put “LOL” after it to indicate it was a joke. Anybody who knows me knows I joke like that, and apparently, I am discovering there may be a genetic component to it.

    Well, since we are discussing British humor, German social ineptitude, and have our own anti-Semite on this thread, I thought the following clip would either please or offend everyone. I’m part German, so tell me if it is funny, “for my research purposes”.

  420. Opus says:

    @Jason

    You always write well.

    @Sharkly

    As I said I like Germans – had a German girlfriend (solid 10, well, 9 , maybe 8 but definitely a 7 when she was twenty-one) from Freiburg (apologies for bombiing the place to smithereens in 1940 and to no obvious military advantage – but at least Germany got a brand-new city and every silver-lining has a cloud) – never seen that clip before but very very funny – we English really are very taciturn which for me makes that sketch even funnier yet note how, insulting Germans is seen as acceptable in a way that one may not do to the usual pre-designated victims.

    American humour can be very funny yet I have to confess I sometimes have been left incomprehensive not getting what the point might be – and as I recall have had and on more than one occasion to seek explanation from Dalrock. Still didn’t get it.

  421. Sharkly says:

    My Mennonite ancestors bailed out of Europe prior to WWI, so we have not been bombed, but that is about the only thing the Catholics haven’t done to us. I hesitate to say this, but sometimes in a politically correct world, that always roots for the underdog, it is allowed to make fun of the members of the most successful groups, so you can find who has had(past tense) the upper hand by who is allowed to be mocked. White men, and specifically us German rocket scientists, are open to be mocked. And all the claiming to be the “Master Race”, and then failing to master the others in WWII, has only further invited a good jeering.

    For an exploration of American humor, I recommend “Tommy Boy” as a starting point.
    I’m not as familiar with British humor, but I really liked “Without a Clue”.

  422. earl says:

    Who would have known, my in-laws would spend the entirety of my marriage trying to deliver “their” daughter from her “Jesus freak” husband? I should have been wiser.

    It keeps proving that you can either be a feminist or a Christian…but you can’t be both.

  423. seventiesjason says:

    Brilliant Sharkly! As for the Polish in America…..those jokes have all been recycled in to dumb blonde jokes…..and as for the Welsh! I loved this!

  424. seventiesjason says:

    I don’t know exactly what “american humor” is myself Opus. Our standup today has its moments, but for the most part its just foul language, and ripping on safe topics and claiming it to be “dangerous and edgy” (Christians, whites, the sitting president except of ones with a letter “D” for their political afffiliation)

    Some would say it’s “jewish” humor…..and some of Woody Allens stuff form the sixties is good…some of the movies too…….others would cite Bob Hope…..I think personally American humor is best when the timing and delivery with just the right amount of pragmaticism thrown in……..everyone thinks Bill Burr is funny or George Carlin, or Henry Rollins………but their humor became “speaking tours” and “stand up” where “you agree with my view of the world or you are stupid and an a**hole” type of humor.

    Personally, I like Bob Hope as an example, but that is not the norm. Some would cite Jack Benny, and he was a huge influnce on many. Johnny Carson was funny enough as a late-nite show host. Carole Burnett from the 1970’s was good….a very organic comedienne. Funny lady.

    On film, American humor is best represnted in the gaffs, slapstick, and idiosyncrities of life……like “Blazing Saddles” (which would never be made today), or spoof / buffooning films like “Loaded Weapon” or any of the classic Warner Brothers cartoons from the 1950’s……Bugs Bunny et al…..

  425. seventiesjason says:

    She’s tired! Blazing Saddles from 1974

  426. Opus says:

    On the Tl:Dr basis I checked out the trailers for the two movies Sharkly recommended. Maybe were I to watch the full movies I would be amused although somehow I cannot get my head round Caine as Holmes. Jason mentions some great comedians but I am thinking that the funniest American movie (other than the Marx Bros oeuvre) I ever saw was What’s Up Doc though I fear that now I would sit through it rather more stony faced and observe that the Ryan O’Neal is far prettier than Streisand. I was privileged to see Mad*4 World when it was new and still think having seen it many times since that it is probably the greatest comedy ever – so well done America.

    The Welsh have a reputation for verbosity and in the old plays the whore is always Welsh. Shakespeare makes fun of the Welsh in Henry V.

  427. Opus says:

    I am not sure I really understood one word of the clip from Q.I. – too clever by half.

  428. Pingback: If she can’t demand a husband then how do we expect her to demand salvation? | Dalrock

  429. I DontTroll says:

    Has anyone else caught the discrepancy between Sheila’s claim that neither of her daughters followed Lori’s advice, yet the daughter states in her video at 6:26 that she had?

  430. feministhater says:

    I enjoyed this..

  431. Pingback: Mama ain’t happy. | Dalrock

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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