Returning to a past that never was.

The problem with conservationism is that it isn’t rooted in anything real, anything solid.  This leaves conservatives grasping for anything they can claim as “traditional” in opposition to the current culture, while taking care not to do anything that would be considered offensive to current culture.  One quite comical example of this is Dennis Prager’s pretzel logic on gender bending*.  Prager isn’t a bigot, so he is all for a man deciding he is a woman, or vice versa.  But Prager is a traditionalist, and tradition requires that men have men’s names, and women have women’s names.  This applies equally to men who declare that they are women, and vice versa.  You are whatever you say you are, so long as you choose a name that fits.  To do otherwise would blur gender distinctions:

When Bruce Jenner came out as a woman, he/she took a female name, Caitlyn. Once he presented himself to the world as a woman, Jenner thought being called Bruce would be confusing and inappropriate. Rabbi Silverstein could have taken a male name — if only, for example, by shortening “Becky” to “Beck.” Had the rabbi done so, I would never have cited this example.

Retaining a distinctly female name while being called a man represents a desire to blur gender distinctions — which is all I care about in this matter,

Modern Christians do something similar with dating.  The goal is to conserve something they are sure must be God’s plan, and must have been the way men and women met and married in times past. This doesn’t come from the Bible though, it comes from chivalry/courtly love.  As I noted yesterday, Lisa Anderson’s book on finding a spouse is titled The Dating Manifesto: A Drama-Free Plan for Pursuing Marriage with Purpose.  Dating is a key part of Anderson’s solution to delayed marriage.  And this dating must be “intentional”, as the Bible commands (emphasis mine):

Marriage is a good thing, and biblical, intentional dating is a great way to get there. But it takes work. And that work should start earlier rather than later. Learn from my mistakes on that one, folks.

To Anderson, seeking marriage means men ask women out on paid dates, and women wait to be asked on paid dates (emphasis mine):

HOW DO YOU ENCOURAGE YOUNG ADULTS TO ACTIVELY PURSUE MARRIAGE, INSTEAD OF PASSIVELY ASSUMING THAT IT WILL JUST HAPPEN “SOMEDAY” OR “EVENTUALLY”?

I believe marriage is an intentional pursuit. It begins by praying boldly for marriage and your future spouse. It involves preparation and growing into mature adulthood so you’re in a position to marry. And finally, it’s an active search. For men, this means literally finding women of character (Prov. 18:22) and asking them out. For women, it means being open to marriage, talking about our desire for it, and accepting offers of dates from eligible, godly men. For both sexes, this means getting out of our comfort zones, managing expectations while still holding high standards for the things that matter (walk with Jesus, maturity, emotional health), and building a community around us that will help us through the process.

Anderson reinforces the importance of the courtly love/paid date model in the following youtube video:

All of this is required if we are going to get back to the dating mores of the glorious 1950s, a time before hookup culture, when women sat around waiting for men to declare their intentions and take them out on paid dates!

I did a bit of skimming from the parts of her book that are available for preview on Amazon.  She offers her mother’s experience at finding a husband in the 1950s in contrast to what she experienced.  Except she doesn’t notice that her own parents “courtship” bore no resemblance to the myth.  Instead, it happened the way that Cane Caldo and I have said this usually happens.  As it turns out, her mother actively pursued her father, overcoming his initial rejection of her:

My mom’s story is something you’d expect from someone who got married in the 1950s.  She met my dad in college, stalked him at a few basketball games, went to a senior banquet, and he popped the question.  They got married, started out dirt poor, built a life together, started having kids, became dirt poor again, and before they knew it, they had fifty years together.

“I don’t know why it’s so difficult for you,” she tells me with a frown.  “When I met your dad, I just knew.”  Of course, she conveniently omits the fact that my dad wouldn’t even date her at first.  She was from Conneticut;  he was from a small farm town in northern Minnesota.  She arrived as the new girl on their Chicago campus with her powdered face, red lips, and kitten heels.  My dad was convinced she was unsaved and didn’t give her a second look except to hope that she would attend the next citywide revival and meet the Lord.  Her friend did the requisite reconnaissance to determine my dad’s misgivings, and within a week my mom was makeup-free and looking substantially more spiritual and demure.  With that minor issue resolved, her road to the altar was blissfully unencumbered.

To clarify, I’m not against dating.  I’m also not against a culture defining traditional rules of courtship.  What I’m against is declaring something essential, and from God that is neither.  Moreover, what modern Christians are doing with the dating myth is erecting unneeded barriers to men and women who are already struggling to meet and marry.  We are adding a false level of formality that only gets in the way.  We may as well teach that women who want to marry need to wear poodle skirts, and men must slick their hair back, don leather jackets and play a neato doo wop song on the jukebox to show they are serious about marriage.

Related:

*H/T Red Pill Latecomer

This entry was posted in Chivalry, Courtly Love, Death of courtship, Dennis Prager, Finding a Spouse, Focus on the Family, Lisa Anderson, Traditional Conservatives, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

144 Responses to Returning to a past that never was.

  1. Pingback: Returning to a past that never was. | @the_arv

  2. feministhater says:

    She arrived as the new girl on their Chicago campus with her powdered face, red lips, and kitten heels. My dad was convinced she was unsaved and didn’t give her a second look except to hope that she would attend the next citywide revival and meet the Lord. Her friend did the requisite reconnaissance to determine my dad’s misgivings, and within a week my mom was makeup-free and looking substantially more spiritual and demure. With that minor issue resolved, her road to the altar was blissfully unencumbered.

    Well, spank me sideways… are you telling me she not only pursued him but made required changes in her dress and make-up to appeal to his desire…. that she, dare I say it… submitted to his will and not her own?

    No no, can’t be. Never mind.

  3. Cane Caldo says:

    Instead, it happened the way that Cane Caldo and I have said this usually happens. As it turns out, her mother actively pursued her father, overcoming his initial rejection of her: […]

    To clarify, I’m not against dating. I’m also not against a culture defining traditional rules of courtship. What I’m against is declaring something essential, and from God that is neither. Moreover, what modern Christians are doing with the dating myth is erecting unneeded barriers to men and women who are already struggling to meet and marry.

    Yes, exactly.

  4. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Conservatives”, having conserved nothing, should be publicly mocked at every chance. The “traditions” that TradCons wish to “conserve” typically are whatever was common in the culture back when they were 20-something. A sliding window algorithm isn’t memoryless, but it doesn’t retain anything beyond a certain point.

    Anderson looks at a vase containing water and wonders “How did that vase chase down the water? What did the water do to make the vase chase?”.

    Her friend did the requisite reconnaissance to determine my dad’s misgivings, and within a week my mom was makeup-free and looking substantially more spiritual and demure. With that minor issue resolved, her road to the altar was blissfully unencumbered.

    She figured out what he wanted, and she submitted to it? Wow, whatta concept.

    So how many advanced degrees did Anderson’s mother have? How many overseas mission trips?
    How many internships in different cities? How many years of a successful career? How many trips on the cock carousel? How much debt? How many abortions? How many treated STD’s? Huh? Huh?

    Duh?

    Maybe it’s just me, but a lot of conservative feminists show so much incongruence between their words, their actions and their stated goals, it’s as if they have a low level mental illness…

  5. Robert What? says:

    @feministhater,

    You are right: what her mother did to pursue her father in the 1950s would today be denigrated as being “subservient”.

  6. feministhater says:

    It involves preparation and growing into mature adulthood so you’re in a position to marry.

    So 40 to 60 years of age then? Sounds about right for the modern, churchian woman these days. Wait till her eggs are all dried up, her pussy ravaged by mistakes and father time, her expectations at Godly levels of hubris, her debt piled up, baby rabies a distance memory and just the milquetoast malaise of the indecisive, middle aged cat lady spinster waiting for her hunky, handyman prince to show up.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    Oh, and just for any few remaining Dennis Prager fans:

    The first step to wisdom is to call things by their right names. Do not look at “cat” and say “dog”…

    Dennis is not wise, nor does he wish to be. He wishes to be popular with the “in crowd” who pretend that cutting up a man’s genitals can convert him to a woman. In other words, people with mental problems who want other people to share in their mental problems, those are the people Dennis craves approval from. It is a common problem among those who trumpet “traditional conservatism” IMO.

  8. feeriker says:

    feministhater says:
    September 11, 2018 at 11:35 am

    That’s why all this hand wringing and wailing by lifelong cat ladies is just so much brainless, pointles hot air. There is NO WAY IN HADES that any modern YugoGrrrrrrl is going to repeat what Lisa Anderson’s mother did sixty years ago in order to land her father (funny, that for all of their verbal vomitus/diarrhea about “conserving” values from a [non-existent] past, “conservatives,” especially “conservative” WOMEN recoil in abject horror at the idea of submission/doing anything “patriarchal” or, God forbid, engaging in some introspection and identifying things about THEMSELVES that they need to change in order to move forward in their lives).

  9. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    They got married, started out dirt poor, built a life together…

    But how could that be when every Christian princess wants a prince who is already established in a career, already a leader, already a spiritual giant. Did she even wait for him to get his MBA or MD? Clearly her mother should have waited for a prince with a bigger billfold kingdom.

  10. feministhater says:

    That’s why all this hand wringing and wailing by lifelong cat ladies is just so much brainless, pointles hot air.

    Au contraire mon feeriker! Just where would we get all these juicy snippets for the gems Dalrock regales us with then?! Oh no, no, it serves us very well! Very well!

  11. The challenges men and women face in finding a mate are just part of the greater societal collapse all around us. Conservatives are dead lazy in understanding these things, so have not offered any meaningful opposition, and offer no viable solutions.

  12. Hmm says:

    “We may as well teach that women who want to marry need to wear poodle skirts, and men must slick their hair back, don leather jackets and play a neato doo wop song on the jukebox to show they are serious about marriage.”

    We may as well teach that women who want to marry need to hang around a well and draw water for men and camels, and that men must send their servants out to find wives for their sons, to show they are serious about marriage.

    One might argue that this is at least from God, but even in the Bible it is not essential. Smuggling spies out your window, or working seven years (for the wrong one), works just as well.

  13. Arthur Sido says:

    “It involves preparation and growing into mature adulthood so you’re in a position to marry.”

    Baloney. My wife and I married young, when I was 20 (now 46 with 8 kids). We grew into mature adulthood together through being married and having children together. We don’t form our own distinct identities until we were 32 and then tried to cram those together. You will never be completely ready for marriage but you can learn to grow and mature together. Nothing makes you grow up into a mature husband and father like being a husband and father.

  14. Damn Crackers says:

    Who would ever go on another date in the U.S. after seeing this map:

    http://digg.com/2018/cost-of-date-mapped

  15. Damn Crackers says:

    An average $200 dollars a date from where I live for being with a girl who may not want to be with you is too much risk in my opinion.

    https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/5ya_wZx9.Lj0lRu8ia9RKg–~A/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjtzbT0xO3c9ODAwO2g9NzAw/http://media.zenfs.com/en/homerun/feed_manager_auto_publish_494/18025fa72b8abe0247628d6bc9c12609

  16. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    @Damn Crackers If you think the cost of dating is high it is low compared it to the cost of marriage even without the associated accompanying risk of frivorce.

  17. Bee says:

    Arthur Sido,

    “Baloney. My wife and I married young, when I was 20 (now 46 with 8 kids). We grew into mature adulthood together through being married and having children together. ”

    Congratulations on having 8 kids!

  18. squid_hunt says:

    I was going to say, but it’s been pointed out repeatedly, that Anderson’s mother demonstrated genuine submission. I intend to teach my sons to deliberately issue a ridiculous request as a test early in their relationships to see how the woman responds. Something about her dress or someone she hangs out with or someplace she goes. Don’t make a big deal about it, just express displeasure and see how she reacts.

  19. AnonS says:

    I used to listen to Boundless years ago when I was just started to unbluepill. It gets a bit worse.

    I tracked down the episode that stuck in my mind; Lisa had female guests on and they tried to rate themselves 1-10 “without cheating”.

    https://www.boundless.org/podcast/girls-and-dating-leagues-episode-362/

    “Rate yourself from the guy’s perspective.” -“but how are we supposed to know what a guy is thinking?”

    “Women are notorious for always downgrading ourselves first of all, so we are all going to have lower numbers…” 7:14

    “I’m a seven on a good day.” “-Good for you Lisa!” 7:44
    “My number would go now because age plays into it… but I have good social skills and I’m funny.”

    “I think guys like tall women.”
    “A tall guy is like definitely a prerequisite, as tall or higher, right?”
    “Some guys don’t like my strong personality. I’m like a 6 or a 7”

    “I’ve gone seasons where no guys were asking me out, including men I would rank 3-4 leagues below me!” -“Oh, they are just not as intelligent.”

    “Guys are generally unrealistic in the league they place themselves in. Men are more likely to over rank themselves and women are more likely to downgrade themselves.” 14:55

    Guest- “My mom always told me I had way too high of standards.” 15:55

    “I dated a bunch of dumb guys I was embarrassed to be seen with.”
    “One guy was so attractive but he dumped me, but in reality that I learned later he was just really dumb and immature.”

    “I want to marry up, who doesn’t?” 19:00

    “Everyone should stop ‘shopping for a spouse’ and stop feeling entitled.”

    Predictably they all rated themselves 6-7 and all dated guys they considered below their league. Lisa as unmarried 40+ year old rated herself as a 7. They basically had no understanding on how their age would impact their score and since their personality is “awesome” (of course) then they should be above average.

    They really think that men would be indifferent between them and a 21 year old 6 or 7. I’m sure this had no impact on them discounting all men that they don’t rate 6 or 7.

  20. Anonymous Reader says:

    AnonS, that’s an audio version of this:

  21. vfm7916 says:

    So, the prior post’s article giving advice on being intentional in getting married simply has the wrong person being intentional.

    You, the father, with the assistance of your wife, should:

    Intentionally brainwash your daughters to believe that becoming married and having children is her highest calling. Brainwash them to understand that a woman who fails to get married and have children is a failure.

    Intentionally brainwash your daughters to know how to flirt, submit, and make their intentions known to the man they pick.

    Intentionally do not pay for college in any form, including your approval, for your daughters.

    intentionally teach your sons Game and how to place themselves as a priority in their life, under God, but otherwise in charge of their own life. I.E. How to be a man who women will want to submit to and follow.

    Intentionally teach your sons and brainwash your daughters that men and women are not equal, but complimentary. Teach them that this is NOT bad or wrong, but how God intended they become.

    I intentionally use brainwash, as you have to take extreme measures to counter the propaganda girls are awash in these days.

  22. purge187 says:

    “Moreover, what modern Christians are doing with the dating myth is erecting unneeded barriers to men and women who are already struggling to meet and marry.”

    Joshua Harris.

  23. vfm7916 says:

    @AR

    That one never gets old.

  24. Dalrock says:

    Great find AnonS

    Starting at 2:37 of the roundtable segment, one of her guests:

    Girls, for me, I would put guys in leagues as far as their social acumen. Well, he understands that he’s got manners, or he’s just a dufus. You know, so you kinda put that, “This guy is definitely Jersey Shore stupid.” vs like “Oh I could totally take this guy home to mom and dad and they’d be totally fine”. That’s kinda how I put people when I was dating into leagues. So it was like “OK, is this going to be approved by mom and dad or is this one that I’m gonna hide in the closet and just date and have fun with?” kind of thing.

  25. BillyS says:

    Purge,

    I am not sure if that is a Josh Harris quote or opposing him, but the hate his book gets is almost completely without thought for the exact reasons Dalrock notes. The 1950s were not the heaven on earth that some retroactively think.

    Arthur Sido,

    Congrats to you. That is what annoys me the most about what my exwife did in my life. I could have been building a life together, but she never accepted her role and thus fought against it continually until leaving after many years. Destroyed my chance to build such a life. Really harmful and something many preachers will be judged for because they contributed to the unrealistic expectations that lead women to not filling their Biblical roles.

  26. ChristianCool says:

    @AnonS

    Personality plays adds +0 points to looks scale! Personality only really counts on LTRs or marriage, if short-term dating, it means very little and adds nothing to physical appearance.

    Women’s looks are 1-10 and based on physical appearance ONLY. They can add or subtract only 1 point for hair length, hygiene, teeth-quality, make-up skills, and clothing choices. But that +1 or -1 for these things are temporary and they are only subjective and used to skew true beauty scale a bit.

    Beauty is genetics, eating habits, exercise, avoidance of cigarettes/too much booze/drugs/late nights/etc and low-notch count (look at Lindsay Lohan who at age 26 looked like a 40+ year old woman due to party lifestyle, alcohol, and drugs).

    Age is a factor that skews beauty considerably. Some women age terribly, especially Carousel riders. A 21-year-old 7 beats a 40-year-old 7 all the time.

    Women never “downgrade themselves”. We live in the United States of Delusion, the women here are entitled and delusional beyond anywhere else in the world, save for FemiNazi-hells of Western Europe. You see fat disgusting orgres wearing half-shirts with stomach popping out farther than Michael Moore’s, fat popping ut of their shoes!! 😮 If anything lard-buckets with grandma haircuts and poor hygiene rate themselves 7s or 8s.

    The fact they rate men 3-4 points BELOW them tells you they are NOT 7’s, they are likely 4-6 tops. No woman dates down, ever. Hypergamy is hard-wired, no escaping that.

    Someone PLEASE give their hamsters some water, carrots, and a break. This is animal cruelty to make them work this hard! I am calling SPCA! These poor hamsters must be exhausted. LOL

  27. The Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse annihilated dating and courtship and changed it forever into something completely different and unrecognizable.

    You cannot undo this, ladies. And no amount of shaming will work anymore.

    1. The Pill
    2. No-fault divorce
    3. Working women – (female financial independence and economic advantage)
    4. Man-hating feminism – (laws that disincentivize flirting/pickup/dating and marriage and incentivize divorce)
    5. Penicillin (namely FDA approval of Doxycycline in 1967. Perfect timing!)
    6. Porn

    There will be no return to 1950s courting, sock hop dances, sharing a cream soda with two straws, bowling or dinner and a movie.

    As for No.3 above, No, Lisa guys are not “just paying” for dates anymore. They don’t have to, and girls now know this.

    Just ask any 17 or 18 year old guy. They have so many better, more entertaining and fulfilling options than the dating scene anyway, and with which no modern day girl can compete, unless she is offering free sex. Sports, gaming, porn, work have higher priority.
    We are already seeing a lot of young guys not even willing to pay for a cup of black coffee at Starbucks for her, let alone some elaborately planned “romantic date” that will meet some girl’s approval. On top of that, younger guys are not going to even “hang out” with her more than twice
    This is his 3 date rule versus her 90 day sexual layaway plan. Unless he has gotten to 3rd base or a home run, there ain’t gonna be no 3rd date. Next and ghost!

    These are the kinds of waters that young girls are already swimming in. They don’t know any different, and probably won’t. By the time they hit 25, 28 and 30 and epiphany stage hits, they may have a very different attitude to what we’re hearing from the Lisas, Wendys, Julias of today.

  28. thedeti says:

    From the Boundless podcast that Dalrock transcribed:

    Girls, for me, I would put guys in leagues as far as their social acumen. Well, he understands that he’s got manners, or he’s just a dufus. You know, so you kinda put that, “This guy is definitely Jersey Shore stupid.” vs like “Oh I could totally take this guy home to mom and dad and they’d be totally fine”. That’s kinda how I put people when I was dating into leagues. So it was like “OK, is this going to be approved by mom and dad or is this one that I’m gonna hide in the closet and just date and have fun with?” kind of thing.

    Let’s get out the Q36B Space Hamsterlator, that hasn’t made an appearance for a while.

    “Guys who are doofuses are fun for dating (i.e. casual sex). Guys with manners are Beta Bux simp chumps you take home to your hyperreligious parents to show them you’re dating OK and not totally screwing it up.

    “The Jersey Shore stupid guy? He’s for casual sex. The guy you take home to the ‘rents? He’s a Beta Bux you keep on the back burner for “paid dates” (i.e. make him wait and wait and wait while you extract resources, and the ring and the date, from him). So, that’s what I did with guys in leagues. “Is this a beta bux guy I can use and exploit; or is this one I’m gonna have casual sex with away from my Churchy friends so no one gets all judgy with me and stuff”? kind of thing.”

  29. vfm7916 says:

    Deti

    I read that in a bugs bunny voice.

  30. Joe says:

    Churches don’t teach that marriage is important. I have heard Pastors say “if you are here to meet a girl WE WILL FIND YOU (and get rid of you)!”
    Sheesh. Are you kidding?
    Back in the mid 80’s, they would have been talking to ME. I DID go to a singles class thinking that I’d find a girl to my liking to marry. And I did. Actually, she found me there. Even though she remembers her first day sitting next to me, I’ve no recollection of that. I just remember her butting into one of my conversations. Her first words to me were “I’ll help you”. This was another month or two after her first day. Until she spoke to me, I didn’t know she existed. Bottom line: she showed an interest. So I let her help me. She painted the inside of my rent house all day with me. She specifically pointed out how she was dressed that day ( old T-shirt and jogging shorts) as if to apologize for looking so scruffy. Buy hey, we were just painting. And I found her little shorts and tight old t-shirt quite fetching LOL. Still do 32 years later!
    As an aside we did a huge project this weekend. I put up a stacked stone wall with some new electrical and led accent lights. Very long story short, she went out in the rain and dark to buy the 5 stones I needed to complete the job before the stone saw rental was due at 10PM that night. It was a race against time. A 90 minute trip. Seriously, my wife is f&$%ing awesome. And she “buttered” the back of all the stones with mortar for me to set and made all the mortar for me. And she still had the energy for sex, and then more projects done the next day, mowing the lawn for me. Heck, I was going to do it, and she said “you’re tired. I’ll do it for you”. I don’t know where she gets all her energy at 58. She the flipp’n energizer bunny.
    That night in bed, she said “I’m a good helper aren’t I”? Hell yes women, you are!

    But anyhow… Boy girl relationships these days are practically discouraged in the church. . The attitude is “I’m too busy seeking God and being a Christian to be bothered with a relationship”.
    It’s hard to describe… it’s like those kind of relationships are seen as shallow and selfish and are not emphasized. I don’t completely understand this phenomenon. I dunno. Maybe it was because I wanted to go out with every attractive girl in my (large) Church. I told a friend of our this and that these girls were going to decide to focus on it when they turned 30,, but the guys would be looking for 25 year old girls. She was in complete agreement (she was married by the time she was 21 or 22).

  31. @thedeti

    So it was like “OK, is this going to be approved by mom and dad or is this one that I’m gonna hide in the closet and just date and have fun with?” kind of thing.

    I’m trying to remember – before I personally became redpill aware – whether women really kept this kind of stuff under wraps or not (female hypergamy: alpha fux/beta bux)? I don’t remember anymore. I’m told that they did. But part of me doesn’t believe it really. It was visible even in the 1950s and 1960s too.

    But today its so blindingly obvious not only by their actions – which are duplicitous – but here they are admitting to their hypergamy and separation of breeding stock vs. draft animals publicly in the blinding bright light of day! They are not even denying it anymore.

    So after reading such remarks I can imagine lots of red pill-aware guys thinking to themselves: “Well, yeah, of course she would feel that way.” Numbness, indifference and ennui. Not great ingredients for enthusiastic dating.

  32. ChristianCool says:

    @constrainedlocus

    You are right about that. Dating as we Gen X’ers knew it back in the day, is truly done. The younger guys simply do not care anymore. Women killed dating, now they are complaining it is gone (typical!).

    I actually experienced “1950’s dating” as you may call it back in the late-1990s when I went to high school in middle America. It was an enjoyable experience, and I am not going to lie, I missed that whole thing. As easy as it is today using Apps or even doing in-person approaches, the “old dating” system was a lot of fun. I have great memories from my high school days. It was a lot of work for men and women to date, but we Gen X folks really enjoyed a great time in America. We missed “free love” and missed out on the “hook-up culture”, but we had a great “middle place” where dating and life was awesome. 🙂 Ask anyone from Gen X who lived in “middle America” how was high school and dating back then and it is a nostalgic great time.

    Realistically, Millennials are not going to experience this anymore – ever again. Even the idiotic PromPosals are pretty much finished (thank God, it was a stupid thing anyway). The amount of work involved in a “1950s date” as you call it, is too much for Millennials. Most Millennials cannot focus more than 90 seconds on anything, so there is no way they could “1950s date”.

    The younger guys, as constrainedlocus says, simply have too much distracting them. Having a smartphone going off every 2 minutes is too much for a human brain to cope with and focus on real life. It is much more fun to have a PS4 and battle it out with people online than have to get a job, save money, buy a car, have to groom yourself hard, ask bunch girls out on dates until one accepts, then take girl out on dates (with no guarantee of return/benefit for man), all for her benefit (courtship).

    Heck, I have plenty of nights I rather stay home and game online and chill out on couch with iPad and read or watch something on TV than have to go out with some woman.

    One personal anecdote from a few months back: one of my buddies here just got married (he is 27 and the 21-year old scatter-brain he was dating got pregnant ON PURPOSE (after lying to him) and he ultimately married her out of guilt, so we will see what will happen). Anyway, my friend’s 19-year old brother-in-law agreed to come over to their apt and watch their young son, so me and this guy and his wife could go out on double date with a girl I was dating at the time.

    My friend told me he was sure his brother-in-law would call up his girlfriend for a bang. We had a good laugh about it, I told him I would have apartment-sat when I was his age, but never had the chance, making out in car was best we could do….

    So we get back to his apartment after midnight and I go up with them because my friend wanted to return my spark-plug change kit back. When we get inside the apt, his brother-in-law and one of his guy friends are playing xBox One on couch, his bored (and fully dressed) girlfriend is on the kitchen table, alone messing with her phone, and one of his other male friends is outside smoking weed n the patio.

    We cannot believe he called his guy friends to come over and game and smoke weed! I told my friend “if he is that busy, maybe I should bang his girlfriend for him” (and she was probably 19, I would rate her a solid 7, maybe an 8, long hair, in-shape, cute…). 😆

    Women killed off romance, and then they killed off dating. The hook-up culture, which was supposed to “free and empower women” has simply backfired once men adjusted to the new rules of the game. To be able to bang some loose broad off Tinder, go home, and wake-up the next day NOT in a relationship at minimum cost is very appealing to a guy.

    Throw in drugs (legal weed in so many places now), alcohol, video games, porn, “dating apps”, slutty women, no shaming of any behaviors, and you have the perfect storm. Why buy the cow when girls are giving out the milk like it is going outta style… lol

    Women totally misplayed their cards badly. They thought guys would be stuck in “old dating” system forever while they “discover themselves” (banged every Tom, Dick, and Harry) and “date them” later. 🙄 lol

  33. MikeJJ says:

    Dalrock, the same guest you quote appears on other episodes. This one about “missionary dating” where she complains about her non-Christian boyfriends being more fun and courageous than the Christians she dated, present husband included. The men listening are lectured to, of course.
    Her (pastor!) father was aware of her sexual activity, but could only sheepishly disapprove as he drove her to the airport so she could spend new years in the Caribbean with her boyfriend. (12:00 min.)
    Another guest has a similar story, but managed to keep it secret from her parents. This was while she was working at FOTF as an intern. https://www.boundless.org/podcast/missionary-dating-episode-284/#unequally-yoked

    This episode has her father sitting in her bedroom crying over her dating choices. The roundtable giggle over their college “rebellious phases”
    https://www.boundless.org/podcast/risky-behavior-episode-311/#daddys-girls

    They used to have a comment section that could reach the hundreds, but got rid of it about the time I noticed more red pilled comments. The decade of “men are losers, women are innocent” articles got to be too much for the male readership.

  34. Lost Patrol says:

    …which is all I care about in this matter,…

    HaHa! Prager, you crack me up dude. I don’t care that the ship is sinking, but I am bothered by everyone around here saying port and starboard instead of left and right.

    Lisa explains (churchladysplains?), I guess, “biblical intentional dating” on the video. Watching and listening to her gave me some additional insight into how she got where she is today. I’ve been around women like this and I find them off putting. Could just be a personal problem on my part. Intimidated by her self confidence and strength. Stuff like that.

  35. DrTorch says:

    Who would ever go on another date in the U.S. after seeing this map:

    It’s nonsense. I know for a fact that it’s 2-3x higher than given in my area.

    Of course you [i]can[/i] spend that much. But it’s not essential. And it’s ridiculous to believe it’s “average.”

  36. DrTorch says:

    Who would ever go on another date in the U.S. after seeing this map:

    It’s nonsense. I know for a fact that this map is presenting a figure 2-3x higher than in my area.

    Of course you [i]can[/i] spend that much. But it’s not essential. And it’s ridiculous to believe it’s “average.”

  37. ChristianCool says:

    Dennis Prager is a moralist, not a Christian Conservative. he would rather see America sink into a 3rd world country filled with poverty and despair than to violate some moralistic idea of closing down Border or re-negotiating “trade deals” that are ruining the nation. All over some obscure principle.

    I never heard of Boundless, but just saw this article on their home page:

    https://www.boundless.org/adulthood/sexuality/promise-rings-and-purity-talks-dont-work/

    Ok, well, that was revealing. 😮 Basically, Boundless is ADMITTING sex before marriage is a fact, and so common, do not try to teach anything else (like purity of virginity for marriage) because it is pointless. They are raising the white flag and waving the checkered flag for women to go out and bang away.

    Essentially, they are justifying the “bang countless guys” on the “journey” to find some fool to marry them later. Feminism in place of Biblical teaching.

    In sum…. if you are a man,l accept that your women will be a flavorless, well-chewed piece of gum by the time you marry her. And I bet if I looked enough on Boundless, I will find tons of articles about failed marriages are all men’s fault, etc. I have no doubt such a group would justify divorce raping men as “sanctified”.

    Yeah… men, pull out of the marriage market. It is the only way we can even TRY to reset this mess.

  38. @ChristianCool,
    I grew up myself in the midwest US. I remember that dating was always serial, not simultaneous.
    One after the other. If a couple broke up, the entire school new about it that day or the next. The very notion of a guy (or even a girl) that would “spin plates” and date multiple people non-exclusively and simultaneously was obscene, not to mention absurd because in middle- to small town America, everybody knows what the hell is going on and what you’re trying to do. You’re not going to get away with being a “whore”, male or female. The social media Tinder harlots of today would have been obliterated through public shaming. I’m serious that back then parents would be calling her parents asking “just WTH is wrong with you people?”.

    Now all that shaming and judgement is dying off. The local middle school schedules dances with trendy music and snacks. But nobody freaking shows up, except a couple dozen girls. So do you know what the school organizers decide to do to boost attendance, especially of boys?
    They bring in huge OLED HD TV monitors connected to several Playstation 4s and X-box’s and gaming chairs and a couch!! During a freaking middle school DANCE??? Even then, dance attendance is underwhelming. Nobody is dancing or eating or drinking. The girls who do show up have their faces buried in their cell phone anyway, so what’s the point?

    I can only shake my head at this kind of social dysfunction. It’s all backassward.
    I’m really not that old nor am I the “Hey, get off my lawn, you damn kids!” type of guy.
    I just don’t understand WTF this all means. Something is really out of place here.

  39. Pingback: Returning to a past that never was. | Reaction Times

  40. thedeti says:

    Constrained:

    Also from Midwest. can confirm. Except that with girls who slept around or were dating “older guys” (i.e. a 15 year old high school sophomore sleeping with a 19 year old local mope scumbag), they did it – but :

    1) They suffered the approbation and “shaming” of girls who didn’t do that (openly), and

    2) Everyone knew they were doing it, and

    3) They didn’t care that everyone knew they were doing it because they got something out of it and had little else going for them; and

    4) Their friends were the other minority of sluts who were doing the same things.

    Girls who slept around – everyone knew who they were. They were sluts. The only guys who slept around (sometimes) were the top 10%ers, the jocks and the popular guys, and even then most of them went through all the girls one after the other and passed the girls around like blunts at a frat party. Most of those girls quite enjoyed being passed around, from what I hear. Even casual sex and high school slutting around back then was subject to some “rules”, some things you just did not do. If you were anything below a top 10%er, you absolutely were prohibited from even trying to date two girls at once, and if you did try it, you’d never ever ever date again in that town and no girl (not even the sluts) would have anything to do with you for the rest of your natural born life.

    That’s completely different now. 8th Graders are blowing guys in the back of school buses. high school sophomores aren’t even waiting to get to their cars to have sex – they’re doing it in bathrooms and locker rooms at the high school. They don’t even sneak around anymore. There’s no shame at all in having had sex with several boys by the time you’re 18. Girls are going to college already with Ns over 5, and they’re not even 18 years old.

  41. ChristianCool says:

    Now that I am thinking about it, I did not even have to read that whole bunch of drivel at Boundless. All I had to do was look at the author’s bio… grandma haircut, Feminist grin. Typical… 🙄

    This is my favorite part of this Feminist “Christian” drivel, Ms. Feminist here wrote:

    The purity narrative is inconsistent with biblical truth.
    Think about the overarching message of the Gospel. The fact is none of us is 100 percent sexually pure — we have all missed God’s “plan A” of perfection. Our purity, according to Scripture, is determined by the blood of Jesus Christ, not by our sexual choices.

    https://www.boundless.org/adulthood/sexuality/promise-rings-and-purity-talks-dont-work/

    —-

    Not only that is totally un-Biblical, we know that:

    “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery;
    idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions
    and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God”. – Galatians 5:19-21

    ^^^ That is Biblical. Not “our sexual purity is irrelevant”. 🙄

    The interesting question for me is what happens next, when we have a generation of “Christian” kids completely raised on this pseudo-Christian trash like Boundless-style Feminist “Christianity” like we see above? This article from 2013 is as close to what I think the reality will probably be like:

    https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/sex-after-christianity/

    But is it possible to have Christian teaching that is non-Biblical in the sense that sexuality and marriage will be completely “divorced” (pardon the pun) from Biblical Christianity??

  42. Hank-T says:

    When conservative means conserving instead of traditional, that’s when terms are already useless. What’s Traditional about marriage? Today it means obviously you’re married. Otherwise, you’re not traditional and conservative about marriage. Getting to marriage should never be a marathon. It should be quick especially for the bride who should have no time to waste, but she is wasting her life. So forget about formality for that is everyone’s own tribal traditions, but I don’t know of any marriage tradition that delays marriage forever.

  43. earl says:

    She figured out what he wanted, and she submitted to it? Wow, whatta concept.

    It’s Biblical if you think about it.

    And we wonder why today’s woman doesn’t get it…

  44. earl says:

    It doesn’t need to return to the 50s or working for her father for 14 years to get the wife you want….in order for dating, courtship, marriage to work men and women need to perform their God given roles which are timeless. When the so called dating and marriage experts lead with somehow pretzel twisting Scripture into a wife doesn’t have to submit to their husband…they are part of the problem.

  45. SnapperTrx says:

    “Our sexual purity is irrelevant” leads to “virginity is nothing more than a pile of horse manure”. An interesting trail, all leading downhill.

  46. earl says:

    Tradcons want to conserve how women rebelled and refused to submit 20 years ago.

  47. feeriker says:

    The challenges men and women face in finding a mate are just part of the greater societal collapse all around us.

    Yup. An obvious truism that people of all political and religious persuasions are lodging their heads farther and farther up their asses to avoid recognizing.

    Conservatives are dead lazy in understanding these things, so have not offered any meaningful opposition, and offer no viable solutions.

    Oh, they understand. Even they’re not that stupid (hard as they might try to put on the facade). Like the liberals that they pretend to oppose but with whom they’re actually in lockstep, they are willfully avoiding having to face a problem that they themselves had a huge hand in letting get out of control (think: Dr. Frankenstein being destroyed by his own monster).

  48. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    constrainedlocus: The local middle school schedules dances with trendy music and snacks. But nobody freaking shows up, except a couple dozen girls.

    From what I read online, school dances are all about gay couples, or trannies, suing to be celebrated as the official Prom Queen, or whatever. And all the students dutifully line up to say how fantastic it all is.

  49. squid_hunt says:

    @RPL

    What else do you expect out of government funded schools run by women and unions?

  50. JRob says:

    Modern Christians do something similar with dating. The goal is to conserve something they are sure must be God’s plan, and must have been the way men and women met and married in times past

    This is the crux of my experience, and that of many others. The assumption of everybody reading the same Bible we are and believing what’s written. I’m of a flyover/east coast evangelical background. Eighteen years ago I had my Mayberry RFD/Pollyanna view of life. Everyone (wymnz) who sat in church and said “I love Jesus” was A-OK and 1955 June Cleaver-esque marriage material. Thus I wifed up a temporarily holy skank and the natural progression described in the manosphere unfolded verbatim. Yes, even now I point and laugh at myself to save everyone RP else the trouble.

    I forced on my existence what I thought *should be* instead of what *is*. Once I woke up, I saw things as they are. I ruminated on the body of work and feral behavior of the fairer sex in my life, family included. AF/BB is real. The Baptiskank smiling at you while she escorts children down the hallway for Sunday school very well may be headed to the county jail after church to post bail for Dirtbag so she can get hammered in the back seat of a Chrysler Cordoba. The Hamster is a hungry animal.

    Now I warn and try to teach men in the church of the true nature of the Western female. They are not our friends.

    Yesterday I ran across a successful acquaintance who has a MDiv and volunteers many hours as a chaplain. He is well liked and respected. I noticed he’d lost a bunch of weight (Divorce Diet, guaranteed 30 lbs.) and he was sans weddin’ rang. I asked him if his wife ran off. He said, “Yeah, she said she loved Jesus and she taught Sunday school, I thought she was good. I guess I didn’t look deep enough.”
    I wrote the URL to this blog, told him to start from the beginning. Like I did. Just not at work.

  51. earl says:

    The Baptiskank smiling at you while she escorts children down the hallway for Sunday school very well may be headed to the county jail after church to post bail for Dirtbag so she can get hammered in the back seat of a Chrysler Cordoba.

    AF/BB is just what widespread female rebellion looks like. It’s the roller coaster of fornicating with dirtbags and wearing the pants and refusing sex when she marries the simp husband.

  52. feeriker says:

    Churches don’t teach that marriage is important. I have heard Pastors say “if you are here to meet a girl WE WILL FIND YOU (and get rid of you)!”
    Sheesh. Are you kidding?

    I can do you one better.

    On my wedding day back in the Spring, right before the ceremony started, I was standing in the church foyer with our pastor’s 20-year-old granddaughter (who was one of my wife’s two bridesmaids), her grandmother (our pastor’s wife), and the son of one of the church elders who was providing the music for the ceremony. In the course of casual conversation, the pastor’s wife says to her granddaughter and the elder’s son “do you two think either one of you will ever get married? I can’t believe any boys today want to deal with us women, given how we are today, so I can’t blame either of you if you don’t ever bother.”

    I was floored. While hearing such a thing from the typical churchian MC/UMC CEO’s wife is par for the course, this is a woman who comes from a traditional Hispanic family, has been married for 52 years, has seven children and 28 grandchildren, and, along with her husband, constantly harps upon how divorce, broken families, and fornication are unacceptable evils. To say something like this even in jest to young people already facing an uphill battle against a sinful and hedonistic culture from your position of influence is just disgusting, destructive, and wrong. I held my tongue because I wasn’t about to ruin my wedding ceremony, but I told my wife about it after the reception and we’ve been looking for a new church ever since. Unfortunately (though certainly not unexpectedly), we haven’t yet found any in which the leadership’s attitude differs significantly from that expressed by our current pastor’s wife.

    Again, if PASTORS AND THEIR WIVES are spewing sewage like this, what hope is there for young people to find positive biblical examples to follow for the future?

  53. JRob says:

    @feeriker
    Good point. I ask, which is worse? Your experience or the “she’s in church, holy and just waiting for you to marry her!!” propaganda? Many Gen Xers including yours truly fell for the latter.

    No disrespect, a legitimate question.

  54. feeriker says:

    Good point. I ask, which is worse? Your experience or the “she’s in church, holy and just waiting for you to marry her!!” propaganda? Many Gen Xers including yours truly fell for the latter.

    No disrespect, a legitimate question.

    I’d say that your question is sort of like asking whether prussic acid or cyanide is tastier for committing suicide, but I guess I’d have to give Mrs. Pastor some credit for being honest, no matter how Freudian the slip was.

    Bottom line is that it appears that in very nearly none of today’s “churches” will young people seeking wisdom inre marriage and family find it anywhere.

  55. Vektor says:

    Traditional marriage is dependent on the traditional environment, ie. the world before the pill, no-fault divorce, female economic participation, etc. Basically the last several thousand years up until around 1960.

    That didn’t mean that the social contract between men and women fell apart overnight. There is a lot of social and religious inertia that has kept things going. Many people still find a way to make it work despite the headwinds, but that momentum will continue to slow in the face of the new reality. Every day, awareness of that reality becomes more undeniable for men. Women are just locked into the herd mentality to pursue the almighty career and forgo marriage/family. I give it another 50 years if things don’t change.

    There is nothing to ‘conserve’. That ship has sailed unless the environment reverts back to its former conditions. The old social contract of marriage is obsolete IMO. I am referring to the societal contract…the State, not the religious ceremonies. Something new is required. Not sure what exactly it will look like, but this ‘steal the man’s kids and make him an indentured servant’ shit is going to end.

  56. Lost Patrol says:

    The purity narrative is inconsistent with biblical truth.

    Boundary-less.

  57. Spike says:

    It is said that conservatives of all sorts – cultural social and economic – all harp back to a ”Golden Age”, when things were easier. Close looks at that Golden Age, though, show that those times weren’t so golden.
    It is true that pre-feminism, things were easier, because roles and obligations were clear cut (Thank you, Patriarchy). Men worked, women kept the home and raised children.Divorce was shamed and fault-based, so women understood that choosing a good man and keeping him was important. There wasn’t any welfare, so the marriage had to be kept intact.
    Enter the 1960s, and Lyndon Johnson’s ”Great Society” policies. They started the downward trend, followed by the various social revolutions.
    Lisa Anderson’s parents did find it easy, because her mother’s hypergamy was held in check by the social fabric around her. Dismantling that fabric means that Lisa’s hypergamy isn’t held in check, so while she ”dates with intent”. That intent not only lasts a long time, it remains in the ”íntent” stage until hypergamy dictates that Lisa can’t find anyone better, since Lisa would çonstantly have looked over her ”boyfriend”s shoulder for Mr Big.
    Chick logic.
    This is why the Bible has two states for people in it: Married, or not.

  58. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lost Patrol
    Boundary-less.

    Wins the thread!

  59. earl says:

    I can’t believe any boys today want to deal with us women, given how we are today, so I can’t blame either of you if you don’t ever bother.”

    I was floored. While hearing such a thing from the typical churchian MC/UMC CEO’s wife is par for the course, this is a woman who comes from a traditional Hispanic family, has been married for 52 years, has seven children and 28 grandchildren, and, along with her husband, constantly harps upon how divorce, broken families, and fornication are unacceptable evils.

    Sound more like about as close as you can get to a ‘red pill’ woman to me. Usually the pastor UMC wife is the one who is more than accepting of women doing all sorts of sinful rebellion or not submitting to God or husband (which eventually leads to fornication, divorce, broken families)…and doesn’t get that’s why men don’t really want to marry them.

    Put it this way would you be more floored at her statement…or more floored that she should tell men to ‘man up’ and marry those rebellious sluts?

  60. Changing names? What is Daniel Mallory Ortberg then?

  61. RichardP says:

    Playing devil’s advocate here in defense of what Julie Slattery is getting at – whether she knows it or not. What follows is the real red pill. Few will swallow it and live by its implications:

    ** There is none righteous. Romans 3:10

    ** No one can say that Jesus is Lord, and mean it, unless the Holy Spirit helps them.
    1 Corinthians 12:3

    ** No one comes to the Father except by me. [but] No one can come to me except the Father which sent me draws him. John 14:6 and John 6:44

    Therefore …

    ** Few will find the road to salvation (far less than 50%). Many will find the road to destruction (far more than 50%). Matthew 7:13-14
    ————-

    Per the standard established in the Old Testament, God did not hold kids under twenty years of age accountable, because they did not know the difference between good and evil.

    – In the story of the exodus from Egypt, all whom God rescued from Egypt were caused to die in the wilderness because of their unbelief. Those younger than twenty years of age were spared, because they had no knowledge between good and evil.
    Deuteronomy 1:34-39; Numbers 14:26-30; Numbers 32:10-13; .

    – When Moses was taking the census, numbering the children of Israel, he was to collect atonement money from everyone except those under the age of twenty years. Atonement money was payment for sins. Those under twenty years did not have to pay for their sins. They were not held accountable. Exodus 30:11-16.

    So – at what age did the “there is none righteous” become fixable in the Old Testament? Twenty or older. Younger than that, it didn’t matter whether you were righteous or not – God would not hold you accountable. (If God is the same yesterday, today and forever, does this still hold? God doesn’t hold those younger than twenty accountable today, because they don’t know the difference between good and evil?)

    And – at the age of twenty or older, you cannot be righteous, you cannot say that Jesus is Lord and really mean it, without the help of the Holy Spirit. The implication is that, if the Holy Spirit chooses to not help you, you are stuck. Remember that Jesus said that no one can get to the Father other than through him. [but] no one can come to him unless the Father which sent him draws them. That drawing will be at a time of the Father’s choosing, not ours. So the salvation we think we see in the 17-year-old (because our hormones are talking) may not actually come into existance until the person is 43. And we have no control over that timing.
    —————–

    That is the red pill. Who is going to take it? Who is going to teach it to young men?

    If you want a wife, you have to take Eve. God did not make more than one design for women. And it will be a rare woman who is one of the few on that road to salvation. All the rest are on the road to destruction. Moaning and whining that women are sinners instead of saints isn’t going to change that fact if that is God’s design.

    Wearing a purity ring means nothing in the face of “there is none righteous”. If you truely understand this, you will come to understand how unrealistic it is to expect to find a righteous wife that has no unrighteous baggage in her background. Regardless of whether she wore a purity ring.

    That is the red pill. Who is going to take it? Who is going to teach it to young men?
    That is also the message that Julie Slattery is pushing.
    She is speaking based on what the Bible actually says.

    She is only making the Biblically-backed statement that it is impossible to find any person, male or female, with no unrighteous baggage in their background (there is none righteous). All those under-twenty churchian girls who appear to be righteous most likely aren’t. If God doesn’t hold them accountable for their sins until they are twenty – because they don’t know the difference between good and evil, how does that make us look when we do hold them accountable? Well – for starters – it makes us look like we have not swallowed the red pill of “there is none righteous …”

    If the Bible is correct when it says there is none righteous, then there is not a person anywhere with no unrighteous baggage. Therefore, looking for one who does have no unrighteous baggage is a futile activity.

    Take the Bible at face value. Believe what it says. And do what Adam did. Build a useful life outside of the Garden in spite of the flaws inherent in both Adam and Eve.

    Or go your own way. Just remember that Adam and God were together, just the two of them. And God saw that Adam was alone, and that it was not good for him. God was with Adam, yet God saw that Adam was alone. God saw that Adam needed something more than just God. So God made that something more for Adam. A help, proper and fitting for him; Eve – with all of her flaws. For Adam to have rejected what God made as the cure for his aloneness, and instead to have returned to God, (the God who said Adam needed something more than just God) would have been to
    seriously misinterpret God’s intentions for Adam.

    Taking the Biblical red pill means that we don’t misinterpret God’s intentions for us. God intended for us to struggle with more than just the ground outside of the Garden (God told Eve that Adam would rule over her, Eve, the one who desired Adam, in both meanings of the word. Adam’s rule over Eve would be a struggle against Eve’s desire to overpower Adam. That is the prototype for us.). There is not a cure for this until the resurrection. Based on God’s words to Adam, MGTOW is not a cure, although it may be a respite. Being cloistered in a monastary or nunnery or a hermit’s cave is not a cure. God saw that Adam was alone, and that it was not good for him to be alone, in spite of the fact that God and Adam had a thing going with just the two of them. If being alone with God was not good for Adam, it is probably not good for us either. But the only ones available to us to cure our aloness all have unrighteous baggage – so says God’s word to us. Whatever shall we do? Stamp our feet at God?

  62. earl says:

    Moaning and whining that women are sinners instead of saints isn’t going to change that fact if that is God’s design.

    God did not create women as sinners though…that wasn’t His design.

  63. earl says:

    A help, proper and fitting for him; Eve – with all of her flaws.

    Again she did not have flaws with her initial creation…it was who she listened to and what she did that caused it.

  64. feeriker says:

    earl says:
    September 11, 2018 at 7:38 pm

    Hmmm … good points, Earl. I can’t believe that I overlooked that angle of it.

    I guess what upset me most at the time was the impression that Mrs. Pastor’s stance represented capitulation to the popular cultural attitude rather than just an observation of “what is.” That, or maybe I was prepared, like so many RP men, to believe the worst – that she was expressing actual pride in modern women’s despicable attitudes and behaviors.

  65. Sharkly says:

    RichardP,
    What were you trying to say in all that? Was it “man up and marry those sluts”? That’s where I thought you were going with that.

  66. Sharkly says:

    Vektor,
    Not sure what exactly it will look like, but this ‘steal the man’s kids and make him an indentured servant’ shit is going to end.

    I’m beginning to think it won’t end without bloodshed. Before there will be the willpower among the public to turn from their sins, and kill the 450 prophets of Baal.

  67. info says:

    The historical solution to premarital sex is often the shotgun wedding including in biblical times where the man had to pay bride price even if father still refuses to give her to him.
    (Exodus 22:16-17)

  68. Paul says:

    @RichardP

    I can agree to much you say, but there’s an important difference:
    When someone is born of the Spirit, he or she is made a new creation, which should result in fruit of the Spirit getting visible in their lives. I think people are not taught enough the importance of continuously submitting oneself to Christ, to be led by His Spirit and to act accordingly, living a life of increasing holiness.

    We know can expect such examples because we’re taught by the NT. We should also expect to see people still occasionally sin. But we’re specifically told that we should not have fellowship with persistent sinners who call themselves Christians.

    Unfortunately, when talking marriage, we are not responsible for the sins of our spouse, and from experience I can tell it causes real suffering, which cannot be avoided.

    In all these, cling to Christ, through all suffering, as He is our Shepherd and King, to be forever praised!

  69. Did you goys not figure out the white genocide program yet? Under the current regime, marriage and family is not meant to happen. You can’t plant a seed in a desert and expect some great fruit tree to spring up.

  70. Paul says:

    @RichardP

    Still the NT teaches it is better NOT to marry if you can control your sexual desire.

  71. earl says:

    That, or maybe I was prepared, like so many RP men, to believe the worst – that she was expressing actual pride in modern women’s despicable attitudes and behaviors.

    Well let’s not become complete ‘misogynists’ here. If a woman actually shows something that is against being sinful & rebellious she at least deserves an attagirl. Perhaps more of the herd will start taking that stance if alpha men start rewarding good woman behavior and rebuking the rebellious stuff.

    What seems to be the norm though is what you are saying…most women take pride in being the worst they can be and a lot of men are more than willing to just nod along with them.

  72. We are living through the last gasp of air of Western Civilization before that long good night.

  73. earl says:

    OT: It was internet rumor when I first saw it. More coming out about that police woman who ‘forgot’ about which apartment she lived in and shot the guy. I still think the V pass will win out and the family of the man who got shot won’t receive proper justice.

    https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/reports-of-pepper-spray-projectile-use-concern-dallas-chief-1.4088376

    ‘Merritt said Monday that two independent witnesses have told him they heard knocking on the door in the hallway before the shooting. He said one witness reported hearing a woman’s voice saying, “Let me in! Let me in!” Then they heard gunshots, after which one witness said she heard a man’s voice say, “Oh my God! Why did you do that?”

    That would probably put a big hole in the ‘you forgot what apartment you lived in and thought a burglar was in your apartment.

    More…

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/amber-guyger-botham-jean-shooting-police-must-face-impartial-justice/

  74. feeriker says:

    I still think the V pass will win out and the family of the man who got shot won’t receive proper justice.

    1. She’s a cop.
    2. She has a cunt.

    The first by itself is almost a guarantee of never having to face justice if your victim was one of us “mere mundanes.” The second by itself increases the odds exponentially of getting off scot free no matter how obviously guilty you are (the “pussy pass” or “cunt card”). Combine the two, and there is no way in hell this bitch will get convicted or do any prison time. Hell, they probably will eventually drop any charges against her.

  75. feeriker says:

    Not sure what exactly it will look like, but this ‘steal the man’s kids and make him an indentured servant’ shit is going to end.

    I’m beginning to think it won’t end without bloodshed. Before there will be the willpower among the public to turn from their sins, and kill the 450 prophets of Baal.

    There most certainly will be bloodshed. That you can count on. It’s the last thing any of us want, but “they” are not going to allow a peaceful restoration of western civilization, nor will they give up their satanic powers without a fight to the death. Things haven’t even begun to get ugly yet. Only the Second Coming might stop it, but I suspect it will all be part of the Great Tribulation.

  76. Spike says:

    ”…This one about “missionary dating” where she complains about her non-Christian boyfriends being more fun and courageous than the Christians she dated, present husband included. The men listening are lectured to, of course…..”

    MJJ: The podcast is all about a bunch of women laughing while breaking scriptural rules, parental rules, and God’s laws. Confronted again and again, the result is always the same: SHE is right, SHE will make things different. The rules don’t apply to HER.

    I wonder if Christian women are actually followers of Christ, or even if they are capable of reading comprehending and applying scripture to their lives. From this sample, evidently not.

  77. Nick Mgtow says:

    Mike JJ, I’m two minutes in the missionnary whoring podcast -excuse me, I meant dating- and I’m already cringing and all!

  78. Anon says:

    But instead of using an issue that can turn out white voters, the GOP has busied itself with yet another push for unpopular tax cuts

    A pretty well-established practice in PUA circles is that the man spend only $0-$15 on the first meeting with a woman. The second meeting should be dinner at either his place or hers. Then, have sex.

    To spend $200 on a woman one is not even having sex with is just absurd. Then again, the is a tak on blue-pillers, and a tax exemption for informed red-pillers.

  79. Anon says:

    Vektor,

    Not sure what exactly it will look like, but this ‘steal the man’s kids and make him an indentured servant’ shit is going to end.

    Note that it is GOPe cuckservatives who did all the heavy lifting to make these laws possible. These were Republicans from the reddest of red states.

    Lefty Democrat feminists are not the ones who devised this model, as they have too little contact with actual families to realize exactly what to do.

    Always remember : It takes a cuckservative to destroy the family.

  80. I think LA is just marketing herself. “Maturity” is the new 20. The rest is just a smoke screen. I see I’m not the only one to catch on, but there could be a lot more focus on the solipsism rather than the smoke screen logic.

  81. earl says:

    A pretty well-established practice in PUA circles is that the man spend only $0-$15 on the first meeting with a woman.

    I thought that was common sense…but I guess it’s not common anymore.

    I’m not sure how many dates it would take me to spend 200 on a lady…but it’s certainly not 1, 2, or 3.

  82. feeriker says:

    I wonder if Christian women are actually followers of Christ

    “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

  83. Perhaps more of the herd will start taking that stance if alpha men start rewarding good woman behavior and rebuking the rebellious stuff.

    Fat chance. Those guys either insist that it is a man’s stoic duty to eat shit (or else he is “whining”), or they sell the false hope of self improvement to lower status men so they don’t pull out of the system and spoil their fun. They know game doesn’t elevate most guys to their level, so from the alpha’s pov it’s a harmless lie. The 80% are only a threat if they act collectively. If enough of them go MGTOW and pull out, or try to re-implement traditional values, the fun is over. The betas hold all of the cards, but they don’t realize it. Alphas don’t want them to realize it so they use “self-improvement” to deceive them.

    There are also some alphas who are like an inverted Elliot Rodger. Because they have mostly positive experiences with women, and since a great deal of them are narcissists, they assume that anyone and anything that women don’t like is bad. If a guy gets shafted in a divorce settlement, he must have failed the woman in some way. “Don’t blame the women, brah – they have no agency. You failed as a man.” The alpha narcissist has total faith in the instincts and judgment of women because it reinforces his ego.

    They use the behavior of women as a barometer to assess how beta today’s men are. The worse that women behave, the worse men are according to these guys. Men today are a bunch of cowardly low T betas, and that’s why women are divorcing them and tattooing their bodies. They say this because they are either malicious or clueless. They are the biggest aiders and abetters of feminists because they enforce this system with shame and deceit. The omega male feminists like Jonathan McIntosh are jokes. It’s guys like Joe Rogan who keep the gears spinning.

  84. earl says:

    @FSG…

    They use the behavior of women as a barometer to assess how beta today’s men are. The worse that women behave, the worse men are according to these guys.

    Well that was different from what I was talking about…but yes a lot of them use that barometer as reasoning to crap on their fellow man instead of rebuking the bad behavior of women. It’s easier to tear into men no matter what what that man does in a gynocracy.

  85. Anon says:

    FSG,

    There are also some alphas who are like an inverted Elliot Rodger.

    On what planet was Eliot Rodger an alpha. He was a whiny incel, and thus nothing near an alpha (at least until he committed murder, which always raises a man’s attractiveness in female eyes).

  86. Well that was different from what I was talking about…but yes a lot of them use that barometer as reasoning to crap on their fellow man instead of rebuking the bad behavior of women. It’s easier to tear into men no matter what what that man does in a gynocracy.

    My comment was a bit of a rant, but it’s why no one in these corners should expect them to do anything in our favor. Feminism has given them subsidized polygamy, which is what they’ve always wanted. (We’re just jealous of them, of course. We could slay pussy if we’d hit the gym and learn to talk like a cartoon character, but we’d rather whine.)

  87. On what planet was Eliot Rodger an alpha.

    I didn’t call him an alpha, I wrote that there are alphas who behave like an inverted Elliot Rodger.

    Rodger hated women because they rejected him, whereas some alphas hate anything that women reject. They have positive experiences with women, so they tend to think that women are good and that anything they like is good. And because Rodger (himself a narcissist) had negative experiences with women, he thought that women are bad and so are the people they like. He said he “hated” the men who were successful with women.

    I’m not saying that all alphas follow this mentality, just the ones motivated by narcissism.

  88. This tweet and the followups must be read:

  89. ranger says:

    regarding the female cop who killed the guy. We can be sure that if she is punished, she can always pull a Serena Williams and blame sexism. After all, male cops do worse all the time and get away with it.

  90. Sharkly says:

    The worse that women behave, the worse men are according to these guys. Men today are a bunch of cowardly low T betas, and that’s why women are divorcing them and tattooing their bodies.

    Until men can show each other respect in society, Women will surely not show men respect. The behavior has to be modeled for them. Feminists won’t start the trend to show men respect. #MeToo is directly targeted to eventually disrespect all men as vile sex offenders. Men have to institute respect for other men’s headship and teach it to their children by example for it to become a culture of respect for men, like previous generations had. If all men are respected, then hypergamy is mostly satiated. Every woman says she wants a husband she can look up to. But then women are told they are equal to men. And you don’t look up to an equal. Everything goes to shit when women are deceived into believing they are equal or superior to men who are created in the image and glory of God. So now, not even Brad Pitt can’t stay married. And if a man like Brad Pitt can’t keep a wife looking up to him, the rest of us are doomed. We need to figure out a way to show other men the respect that is due to men created in the Image and Glory of God. A way to treat other men with the same measure of respect we would like to be treated with.
    Romans 12:10 Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

    Otherwise, give up, enjoy the decline, and as Turd Flinging monkey advises: Just get a [sex] doll.
    Romans 1:26-27a Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women …

  91. Sharkly says:

    The churchian pastorbaters are some of the worst about disrespecting men in front of women, followed closely by Hollywood, and then our political uniparty leaders.

  92. greenlander says:

    I don’t post here very much anymore, but I still love reading this blog. Every time our host puts up a new post, I’m like, “yeah, that hit the nail on the head!”

    But what’s the point of writing, “yeah, that hit the nail on the head!”? It doesn’t add much to the discussion.

    Anyways, Dalrock, keep doing what you’re doing.

  93. ringbark says:

    Not wanting to split hairs or anything, feeriker, but prussic acid *is* cyanide. But I take your point.

  94. feeriker says:

    Feminists won’t start the trend to show men respect.

    Just for the record, I sincerely hope that no human male out there is stupid and naive enough to believe that ANY woman, “feminist” or not, is ever going to be at the forefront of a campaign to respect men.

  95. feministhater says:

    Per the standard established in the Old Testament, God did not hold kids under twenty years of age accountable, because they did not know the difference between good and evil.

    Can someone please verify this? I don’t believe the assumption of age at all.Something seems fishy with Richard’s presumption here.

    God saw that Adam was alone, and that it was not good for him to be alone, in spite of the fact that God and Adam had a thing going with just the two of them. If being alone with God was not good for Adam, it is probably not good for us either. But the only ones available to us to cure our aloness all have unrighteous baggage – so says God’s word to us. Whatever shall we do? Stamp our feet at God?

    Dude, fuck off. Seriously, take a big cucumber, stick it up your arse and fuck yourself sideways. Not going to marrying your born again slutty tarts. You can do it. Marry a thousand, you will never be alone again.

    They are not worth the time, the risk, nor the heartache and headaches that come with them. They do not submit, they do not give your comfort or affection, they merely take, take and take some more.

    I will happily watch the whole world burn before I will marry a non-virgin.

  96. Heresolong says:

    Interesting that someone would pick one small item (dating rituals) and dismiss conservatives as “only wanting to conserve the way things were in their twenties”, while ignoring serious issues like the nuclear family, personal responsibility, limited government, fiscal responsibility, restraint, community, etc. All conservative values, and all time tested over far more than the time since we were in our twenties.

  97. Ofelas says:

    Regarding the 20 years of age limit for accountability: I believe bar mitzvah and bat mitzvah was/is a threshold after which a child is supposed to follow commandments, could marry, etc, ie is expected to act adult, and doesn’t seem likely it was happening at 20 for the OT peoples.

    The 20 years limit is mentioned on one particular occasion and it is when JHVH decided who would get to live to see the promised land ( “the kids” would do – the ones under 20) and who will on the contrary have to wander in desert until they perish without ever getting there – the ones older than 20 were considered to be so soaked in the old wrong ways, that they were not allowed in, the ones below 20 yes, but still only after years of dwelling in desert, spiritual quarantine in a way.

  98. feministhater says:

    ….while ignoring serious issues like the nuclear family, personal responsibility, limited government, fiscal responsibility, restraint, community, etc. All conservative values, and all time tested over far more than the time since we were in our twenties.

    Oh, you haven’t done well at ‘conserving’ those either, now have you?!

    You’ve empowered women to the point most men can’t compete, fiscal liabilities have skyrocketed, government interference is everywhere, the nuclear family, i.e. father led families, have been absolutely gutted and single motherhood is at an all time high….

    If limited government, personal responsibility, fiscal restraint and nuclear families are what you want, you have to dis-empower women and give men authority over their families, there is no other way. Women spend more, work less, receive more and don’t defend your nation. The social systems exists for women. Men work longer, take more risks, build, protect, provide more than they consume, they are your societal builders. Take away man’s authority, then let women vote and decide on government expenditure and you end up with a cradle to grave welfare system where women are unfaithful to the men in their lives, have children out of wedlock, spend more than men can make, leading to men dropping out, infrastructure collapse, social collapse and the eventual increase in corresponding violence once all vestiges of civilisation crumble.

    You’ve conserved nothing. You’re abject failures.

  99. Damn Crackers says:

    So, boys and girls were allowed to be married before the age 20 “age of accountability?”

  100. Ofelas says:

    No, sorry, I haven’t expressed myself properly – it doesn’t seem likely that 20 was any age of accountability, ‘an OT standard’, at least not in the way RichardP above suggests – that it would cover all possible situations and circumstances.

  101. Ofelas says:

    thats what I meant to say originally, otherwise yes – 20 was not an age limit for marriage for OT people.

  102. Anonymous Reader says:

    heresolong
    Interesting that someone would pick one small item (dating rituals) and dismiss conservatives as “only wanting to conserve the way things were in their twenties”,

    If you have really been “heresolong” you know the answer to this strawman. So I’ll assume you are just another driveby feminist, probably a conservative, churchgoing feminist.

    while ignoring serious issues like the nuclear family, personal responsibility, limited government, fiscal responsibility, restraint, community, etc. All conservative values,

    Then why didn’t TradCons conserve them?
    Feminist anti family court demolishes the nuclear family, the standard TradCon line when a man is being frivorced is “What did HE do wrong?”. TradCons do not believe in “personal responsibility” for women. The TradCon tradition is blue-pill pedestalization of women, catering to women’s whims so that their “mommy” will pat them on the head and say “Good Boy!” for once. Maybe even get a cookie! That is why getting TradCons off of their couch to do the slightest effort at, oh, minor reform of anti Family court policy on child custody is nigh on impossible – because “Mommy” might not like it.

    and all time tested over far more than the time since we were in our twenties.

    Sure, sure.
    Conservatism couldn’t even conserve separate bathrooms for little girls.

  103. Anon says:

    Heresolong squeaked :

    while ignoring serious issues like the nuclear family, personal responsibility, limited government, fiscal responsibility, restraint, community, etc. All conservative values, and all time tested

    But cuckservatives have destroyed all of these things. They pretend to support these values, but abandon them in a microsecond when the prospect of being a woman’s beta orbiter presents itself. For example, cuckservatives love Communism as long as all the payers are male and the recipients are female. On such matters, cuckservatives jump to out-left the leftists.

    For example, cuckservatives think that the way to reduce abortions is to punish *men*. Yes, cuckservatives really are that stupid.

    Furthermore, most of the laws that destroy families were invented and passed by cuckservatives, not lefty Democrats. It takes a cuckservative to destroy the family.

  104. Anon says:

    RichardP above wrote a page-length comment that is effectively just ‘Man up and marry those sluts’.

    I have a far better idea :

    i) Pickup artists want to have sex with women.
    ii) Women want to have sex with pickup artists.
    iii) RichardP gets to pay the bills.

    Everybody wins! Everybody reaches their full potential, especially RichardP, who gets to man up, step up, and enable a woman’s sacred path.

    Everybody wins!

  105. Gunner Q says:

    feministhater @ 8:16 am:
    “Per the standard established in the Old Testament, God did not hold kids under twenty years of age accountable, because they did not know the difference between good and evil.”

    “Can someone please verify this? I don’t believe the assumption of age at all.Something seems fishy with Richard’s presumption here.”

    Verified false. God forced the Israelites to wander the desert for 40 years until all who knew Egypt, those of age 20 or older, died off because He was tired of them bitching about how much better life was under the Egyptians who killed their babies to keep their population in check. That is not at all “you shouldn’t be punished for doing evil until age 20” and age 20 is not given significance anywhere else in Scripture.

    A fun Biblical counterexample, 2 Kings 2:23-26: “…Elisha went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, some boys came out of the town and jeered at him. “Get out of here, baldy!” they said. “Get out of here, baldy!” He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys. And he went on to Mount Carmel and from there returned to Samaria.”

    So much for God not punishing evildoers under age 20.

    Age of innocence isn’t Biblical. It’s a concept meant to comfort parents whose children die at an extremely young age, too young to have understood the concept of evil or Christ’s salvation. It’s a legal technicality, not a Scriptural doctrine, and anybody who can claim it for himself is ineligible because he knew he needed it.

  106. Swanny River says:

    Sharkly,
    I see a connection between your post and Dalrock’s. Your emphasis on the lack of respect might be tied to the 50s and 60s, whereas, a golden age of dating doesn’t. Maybe it corresponds to the start of youth marketing or to removal of prayer in schools in 1962, or I am curious about a graph of federal spending. Anyhow, I am trying to figure out if a connection can be made with Dalrock’s data of decreasing marriage rates starting in the 50s and your hypothesis of men not having respect for men.
    I am sorry that a 12 year old boy uses the F-word, more so that it was your son in your presence.

  107. thedeti says:

    Cuckservatives destroyed all those things because they were scared to death of liberals’ disapproval. They saw how Dan Quayle got eviscerated. They saw Jesse Helms, Phil Gramm, etc. get torn apart for being insensitive, mean spirited, cruel and heartless rich old white guys. They saw liberals calling them racists and sexists and homophobes. And they saw their popularity and reputations get absolutely destroyed.

    Cuckservatives, or the “go along to get along”ers, just wanted to keep getting invited to the white wine and brie parties in Washington. They wanted to “appear nice”. That’s why when they’d say or do something Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson didn’t like, they’d apologize, go to the NAACP meeting, and promise to go to therapy. And then they’d still get eviscerated, called names, and waved around like a bloody flag. Michael Richards still hasn’t recovered from his “N-word” episode, what, 7 years ago now? Everyone STILL thinks Dan Quayle is a dope, 26 years after he and Bush The Elder were marched out of office in favor of BJ.

    They bowed to public pressure because they thought they could get people who hate them to like them. Lesson: If someone ideologically hates you, there is NO getting along with them. They will NEVER EVER like you, ever. It’s a war. They want you not only defeated, but destroyed, decimated, and ruined. Forever. They want you run out of public life, silenced, pariah-ed, and unable to earn a living. They want to destroy you, your spouse, your kids, and your grandchildren, to the third and fourth generation. They want to erase you.

    There is no getting along with people like this. There is no getting along with or agreeing with or compromising with people like this. That’s why they’re cuckservatives – they didn’t understand that it was a war. Pat Buchanan rightly called it a culture war and was excoriated for it.

    He was right. And we’ve lost. Because cuckservatives laid down and waved the white flag. I will never give a dime to the Recucklican party ever again. Ever.

  108. thedeti says:

    Sorry; Richards’ poorly timed and offensive comment was 12 years ago in late 2006. And he still hasn’t lived it down, and he never will. His career will never be what it was. Because it’s a war. And his ideological enemies destroyed him for one mistake. Entertainmentwise, Richards is radioactive. He has the Reverse Midas Touch – everything he touches turns to shit. And the PowersThatBe saw to it.

  109. ray says:

    OP — “To clarify, I’m not against dating.”

    To clarify, I am against dating. It is aBiblical and anti-Christian. It encourages and preserves almost every vice and fault of the modern age — particularly the ‘independence’ of females and their operation outside the authority (and spiritual protection) of males. Spiritual protection that is the MAIN and CRUCIAL issue here on satan’s happy little planet . . . not ‘what girls like’ or ‘what makes women feel more empowered’.

    The Scriptural model doesn’t even recognize dating, which is a Romanticist tradition, drawn from the goddess-centered ‘sacred whore’ cultures so prominent in the ancient world, particularly in the Near East. The cultures the prophets constantly made war against — such as the ‘religion’ set up by Jezebel in Samarian Israel during the (cucked) rule of Ahab.

    Girls are under the authority of their biological dads (or nearest male equivalent) until marriage, at which point they are transferred to the authority of their husbands. If they don’t marry, they remain the responsibility of that man/men lifelong. Female meetings with males are strictly supervised, and girls are betrothed and married young. Marriages are for life and divorce is very rare.

    Oh noes! does that sound horribly oppressive?! Evilly Patriarchal?! Unfair to females and downright illegal!? An abomination before God, who only wants to make women happy by giving them their way?

    In truth, it is the dating/hookup culture which God hates, The Dating Culture is the Feminist Culture. The Hookup Culture (which inevitably evolves from the Dating Culture) is the Feminist Culture. Christians should not encourage dating or hookups, as it merely reinforces and deepens the gynocracy.

  110. ray says:

    Mike JJ — “Her (pastor!) father was aware of her sexual activity, but could only sheepishly disapprove as he drove her to the airport so she could spend new years in the Caribbean with her boyfriend. (12:00 min.)”

    That right there tells us everything we need to know about modern conservatism and the American/Western ‘pastorate’. These dorks — almost to a man — do what their wives, daughters, and female congregants command. Period.

    Then they puff out their chests and berate ‘lesser men’ in the pews. Send their daughters to college. Ad nauseum.

  111. Novaseeker says:

    There’s no way things are going back to even the earlier procedures, anyway. Young men and women are thoroughly indoctrinated and brainwashed in the sexually permissive regime, full stop: https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/12/opinions/end-abstinence-only-education-public-school-mcelroy/index.html

  112. ray says:

    Lost Patrol — “HaHa! Prager, you crack me up dude. I don’t care that the ship is sinking, but I am bothered by everyone around here saying port and starboard instead of left and right.”

    This guy Prager and Prager University (hubris much?) is getting a LOT of play the past couple months in various ‘conservative’ outlets. Consistent and effusive praise.

    He goes to mucho trouble in his attempts to avoid anything that might Offend the Goddesses. Yappin’ bout the veins on gnat wings.

    Satan is a master propagandist. Give him that.

  113. ray says:

    earl — “Sound more like about as close as you can get to a ‘red pill’ woman to me.”

    Yeah that’s how I interpreted her statement, too. As actually expressing truth. That is, actually being a Christian.

  114. feministhater says:

    Hmmm … good points, Earl. I can’t believe that I overlooked that angle of it.

    I agree with earl here. She showed a great deal of understanding quite frankly. Probably well aware of the short comings of modern women. Doesn’t look like you need to find another Church at all.

  115. feeriker says:

    ringbark says:
    September 12, 2018 at 6:47 am

    Yeah, I realized that about five seconds after I hit “post.” Thanks, for the catch.

  116. ChristianCool says:

    I read a lot of comments coming down hard on “Conservatism”. I think there is a bit of confusion on the term, because this is a Christian-focused site and people like me (political Conservatives/Biblical Christians) see ourselves as “Christian Conservatives”. I openly describe myself as a “Christian Conservative”, as some may have noticed. Maybe because I am someone highly interested in politics and Christian theology, I blend these interests into my writings. This may confuse a “Christian Conservative” to mean “Christian conservatism” (small/lowercase “c”), which is a religious way of thinking that is based on human traditions, not on Biblical texts. That is what the Pharisees believed in during Jesus’ time, a human tradition, not based on God-given doctrine.

    “Christian Conservatives” are Biblical Christians first, Conservatives Americans second! ❗ This means we are Christians who follow The Bible as written (strict constructionists), just as in our politics, we see Conservatism as trying to “conserve” (preserve) the Constitution as written by the Founders (Justice Scalia called this “Originalism”).

    To further expand, let us take the “Christian” first in the term “Christian Conservatives”. We follow a STRICT reading of The Bible and adherence to the original intent and actual-worded meaning of The Bible and the human writer, as guided by God. The goal is to minimize any “wild interpretation”, unless the context is clearly and obviously allegoric. Unlike “Christian” Feminists, twisting words is un-acceptable and viewed as heretic and un-Biblical.

    In terms of courtship, family life, charity, Salvation, etc, we follow actual Biblical texts in such matters, following the strictest and most “textual meaning” possible, to take everything in The Bible “at face value”. We avoid “Christian books” that seek to “explain away”, “re-interpret”, or “modernize” Christianity (i.e. we avoid Sheila Gregoires, Brad Wilcoxes, Russell Moores, and Doug Wilsons of the world). These books seek to re-write established Biblical truths, not questioned until recently, in a fool-hearted attempt to “moderate to attract new members”.

    The failure of this “moderating the Bible thinking is that moral clarity is essential to religion, and being wishy-washy simply weakens interest in religion. Twisting and re-interpreting Biblical texts to accommodate “gay marriage” for instance, simply drives away current believers and fails to attract new “moderate” new converts. It is folly.

    Being a Christian that follows Biblical texts do NOT necessarily mean we cannot have a band in church instead of a 18th Century choir using a Hymnals book. 😉 I personally do not care either way, because neither worship style is on Biblical texts. The manner of worship is much less important to a Christian Conservative than it is to follow Biblical, centuries-old established truths, such as male headship, Salvation based on faith, Paul’s rules for Christian life and living. We avoid focusing too much into a certain aspect of Biblical Christianity (example: Quakers are obsessed with avoiding pride, or puritans were obsessed with sexual rules, for instance). It is a balanced approach to Christian life.

    As for being a “Conservative”, when I say this term, I am speaking politically, not when it comes to Biblical norms. It means to protect and preserve the principles and textual writings of The US Constitution. If you have been following news lately, the American Left (Democrats) has gone buckwild and violent, demanding total and complete open borders, instant-citizenship for anyone entering the USA illegally at anytime, and the end of American sovereignty. The new chant is “No borders, no wall! No USA at all”. 😮 They are demanding a Stalinist style of Socialism be immediately implemented to supplant our current blended economic-political system, pushing for insane programs like “universal healthcare” (translation: VA-style crap care for everyone!) and 60% base tax rates for middle class families.

    Political Conservatives (many who are Biblical Christians as well) want to protect America as a nation, with rule of law, economic opportunity, keeping America out and pulling away from “international governing bodies” like the ICC and the UN, immigration controls, textual interpretation of the Bill of Rights and Constitution (to mean broadest individual freedoms possible), and low taxation, fewer regulations, and lower spending. True Conservatism calls fro avoiding “foreign entanglements and alliances”, as advocated by Thomas Jefferson.

    Political Conservative requires courage to say “we need to drastically reduce immigration”, even when the left screams of “racism” or “xenophobia”. Political Conservatism is hard because our enemies on the Left control the media, educational system, and entertainment. Just like Biblical Christian or to a lesser extent Orthodox Judaism, Conservatives face many challenges and attacks. That is because the goal is individualism and freedom, which require drastic actions after the last 30 years. Individualism and freedom are core to this ideology because under Christianity, God made us individuals, not as a collective group. Socialism/Communism/leftism are collective systems where individuals do not matter, the collective good is supreme – this is the antithesis of Conservatism.

    You can links Conservatism (political) and Christian Biblical knowledge together in many aspects, because political Conservatism is linked to Biblical truths. Individualism, for instance, is a Biblical concept that dates back to the Tower of Babel. God made humans as stones, all different in shapes, sizes, colors, textures, purposes, specific uses, etc. The collectivists in Babel sought to “make us into bricks” (all the same shape, size, weight, etc) so they can build this Tower. God of course, opposed this insanity, and created confusion and broke up the project. The old-fashioned term “he/she is a Nimrod” is an attack of the collectivist idiot that sought to make humans into bricks instead of stones. Leftists today scream for “equality” and “Social justice” because they are all about making everyone equal, like Communism.

    The way both Biblical Christianity and political Conservatism come together best is that both we seek to protect a way of life that is based on textualism and well-established political and Biblical truths. Individualism and respect for the original texts are the basis of both systems of living, thinking, and prospering.

    Bottom line is that a “Christian Conservative” is NOT a SJW, is not a Biblical heretic, or a Sheila Gregoire. We do not seek to return America to any specific “dating style”, do not seek a return of Medieval-era chivalry, do not have in mind any specific church worship methods, or demand a return to a certain period in history. We seek to apply TIMELESS Biblical and political Conservative ideology to everyday life, individual thinking/decision-making, government, personal freedoms, family creation, and more.

    I hope this clarifies a bit about the confusion. 🙂 Sorry this got too long, but this is a complicated subject.

  117. Heresolong says:

    So you condemn conservatives because “cuckservatives” (a stupid term that basically means “not a conservative”) didn’t effectively defend conservative values. OK. So you’ve proved my point. Conservatives did not do this. Let’s not conflate the Republican party with conservatives as the two are not identical, must as Democratic party voters are not necessarily the same as communists.

    “You’ve empowered women to the point most men can’t compete, fiscal liabilities have skyrocketed, government interference is everywhere, the nuclear family, i.e. father led families, have been absolutely gutted and single motherhood is at an all time high…. ”

    You? Are you blaming conservatives for this? Perhaps they did a poor job of fighting back, but were they actively pushing these policies? To the extent that they did push these policies, was it because there was a general lack of recognition of what the consequences would be? I’ll admit that some conservatives bear some blame for not pushing back harder, but I would also suggest that most people didn’t realize the end result of the policies, assuming that the opposition was acting in good faith and weren’t pushing the country over the edge of the slippery slope.

    “I’ll assume you are just another driveby feminist, probably a conservative, churchgoing feminist. ”

    Since you know nothing about me (as evidenced by your being wrong in every single assumption) I’ll assume that in general, when someone resorts to ad hominem attacks, they don’t actually have an argument, therefore you probably don’t actually have a rational response to my question. And no, failure to conserve something is not antipathy towards that thing, especially if you try to conserve it. (See my comment above about claiming that people are not really conservatives and then attacking conservatives for their failures.)

  118. Anonymous Reader says:

    “No True Conservative” is a really boring game. I know this because I’ve played it too many times, with “conservatives” around the planet. Like “No True Feminist”, it is also a logical fallacy.

    https://infogalactic.com/info/No_true_Scotsman

    If the term “cuckservative” stings, that is because it is accurate and packs a semantic punch.

    Ironic to read these “Mah TROO Conservatism!” rants in this particular comment thread, since the O.P. makes clear that conservatives tend to engage in fantasy while ignoring reality. Thus they conserve nothing. Not even Reagan-style conservatism…

  119. Sharkly says:

    ray says: Girls are under the authority of their biological dads (or nearest male equivalent) until marriage, at which point they are transferred to the authority of their husbands. If they don’t marry, they remain the responsibility of that man/men lifelong.

    I agree. Here is an example of a man who was in charge of his female cousin:
    Esther 2:7 He [Mordecai] was bringing up Hadassah, that is Esther, his uncle’s daughter, for she had no father or mother. Now the young lady was beautiful of form and face, and when her father and her mother died, Mordecai took her as his own daughter.

    I think women need to always be in subjection to God through the male headship that is to be over them. “Women’s liberation” has only brought societal decay and licentiousness. And although rebellion seems enticing to men and women, the fruits of rebellion make life much worse than if people had obeyed. Women would be much happier if they were “ruled over well”, even though they’ll still always be tempted to complain about it. We have to disregard the foolish complaints of those who prefer rebellion to God.

  120. Anon says:

    Heresolong,

    You are in fact a cuckservative. You verbalize the faintest and most cautious protests against leftists, and then actually do a lot of heavy-lifting for them. Then, when the left advances, you won’t admit that you failed to mind the store.

    but were they actively pushing these policies?

    Yes, they were. Single motherhood and divorce are such huge industries in America due to cuckservatives passing laws to make this so.

    Remember that cuckservatives take a mere nanosecond to eject all pretense of favoring personal responsibility, low taxes, small government, proper enforcement of contracts, etc. when the prospect of groveling to women presents itself. Cuckservative, at the end of the day, LOVE forced wealth transfers as long as the transfer is always from a men to a woman. Cuckservatives jump to out-left the leftists in these matters.

    I doubt you have any problems with the current laws around divorce, child custody, alimony, father’s rights, false rape accusations, and paternity fraud.

  121. al thomas says:

    There’s been an increasing cultural and political deluge from the left going on in this country against conservatives for the past several decades. Given the institutions the left controls and the tactics they use, it shouldn’t be a surprise that conservatism is on the ropes. Yet, those of you on the alt-right piss and moan about “cuckservatives” and wait for your virgin wives as you sit on the couch eating cheetos with a finger up your ass. Quit whining about us conservatives and go try to reshape this country in your image.

  122. Anonymous Reader says:

    al thomas trolled:
    Yet, those of you on the alt-right piss and moan about “cuckservatives” and wait for your virgin wives as you sit on the couch eating cheetos with a finger up your ass. Quit whining about us conservatives and go try to reshape this country in your image.

    Couch cliche, “Cheetos” cliche, whining cliche. Mediocre trolling, about 3 out of 10.
    Would laugh at again.

    PS: First time I’ve seen anyone claim that Dalrock’s site is “alt-right”. Funny stuff! You work for the SPLC, “al”? Run on down to Target and “conserve” the little girls bathroom, there’s a good boy.

  123. ChristianCool says:

    @constrainedlocus

    I did not even live in a rural area that long while in high school. I lived in rural KY (population 75,000) for almost a year and rest of the time in the Orlando metro area – pop 1.1 million. IN BOTH cases, “traditional 1950s style dating” still existed and was considered “normal”. In Orlando, people did not what everyone else was doing and yet, the girls WANTED dating situations, pair bonding.

    There was no “hook-up culture”. Tinder did not exist, of course and online dating was like what you saw in movie “You’ve Got Mail”. There were, of course, the few “school whores” and everyone knew who they were (it was obvious) and they avoided them, unless they were looking for a quick hook-up. But everything else was relationship-based. Shaming of whores and players was quite common. Being a guy accused of “being a player” was a surefire way to have girls avoid you like the plague.

    A “school dance”, especially Homecoming was a “coming of age” tradition between couples dating. Many would lose their virginity then to their “steady”. Men were expected to pick-up the girl in a tuxedo and bring a flower-corsage for her and girls were supposed to wear fancy dresses especially purchased for this dance and look fabulous for their man. There were WEEKS worth of working PT at White Castle or bagging groceries to save for the event and this taught personal responsibility, hard-working, budgeting/savings, and commitment. Guys had to approach girls to ask them to the dance and this was a private thing, you had to try to isolate the girl from her little group of girlfriends to ask her. There no idiotic PromPosals. 🙄 This was a simple thing, a special moment for single guys and girls to do, and many would enter relationships after going to a Homecoming dance or Prom together (unless they went as friends).

    You may think I was a teen back in 1950, but no, I am 36 and graduated class ’98 (I graduated a year early).

    @hedeti

    Yes, I think every high school had the “football team whore” or the “baseball whore”, she was one of the few “SchoolWhores” everyone knew about.

    The media has managed to remove shame from public life. remember when High Grant was caught with a hooker and his career was basically over? Now Charlie Sheen is glorified by media for “winning” by banging hundreds of hookers.

    The removal of “shame” in our society began in the mid-2000s when the cute Hannah Montana became the vile Miley Cyrus, Kim Kardashian became a celeb by releasing her own mudsharking sexvideo, and everything became hyper-politicized overnight (I would say 2006 was the most obvious turning point year). Since then we saw Rolling Stoners mag put the Boston terrorist on the cover as a rockstar, girls send hot pics to serial killers from Aurora to school shooters.

    *Simply put: the removal of shame = evil became cool. 😮

    @Vektor says:

    My point exactly!! 🙂 The world from the spread of Christianity until the pre-1960s era was a “traditional environment”, a place where gender roles, shame, personal responsibility, and faith played a major role.

    Once that changed, evil became cool.

    The social contract was unilaterally re-negotiated and re-written by the FemiNazis and the Left. The problem is that MEN did not have a say in this and they continued to live by our “old contract”, but now that is rapidly changing, because men are taking The Red Pill or going MGTOW in such numbers that we will be in almost parity to the new Feminist contract soon. This is both good news and bad news; good news is men MUST adjust to survive; women on the other hand, are pissed off at men adjusting to their dual dating/marriage strategy.

    The problem with that is that it will be a societal crisis to the likes we have never seen before, maybe the closest example was the collapse of the Soviet Union in late 1980s. The good news is that this will force a reset. The Feminist system becomes unsustainable once men begin to pull out of the job/dating/marriage markets in such large numbers. IT WILL RESET in time.

    I agree 100%. There is nothing to “conserve” right now. Our country and our society has been pulled SO FAR to the left, we need to restore in order to conserve what was good from the OLD, pre-1960s system. Trying to preserve the status quo is NOT political or social Conservatism. It is preserving Feminism, globalism, and cultural Marxism. We need a RESET.

    Think about the Trump presidency. It is a reset and restoration of Conservatism. The cuckservatives like Ben Sasse, Paul Ryan, the Bushes, McConnell, are all up in arms because Trump is dragging country back to a more sane and sustainable place. Trying to “conserve” what we have now is impossible.

    @Spike

    Think about the “Golden Ages” of America: the 1920s and the period post-WWII until the mid-1960s. We had a brief restoration in 1980s, but it was brief.

    The Left derides 1920s and 1950s as a “Christian fundamentalist” period. But think back at low crime, financial prosperity, the rise of the middle class, no Feminism, Gender roles, low divorce, low suicide rates, no legalized abortion, Churches were the center of life for most in America, low immigration, and more.

    No wonder the Left hated these periods so much. They were the antithesis of what they believe in.

    @earl

    Agree 100%! Following basic Biblical concepts would fix this entire mess. Even going back to a relationship time like the 1990s would be infinitely better than the mess we have today. What we have today is the FemiNazism 3rd wave crashing down while men begin to revolt against it through Red Pill knowledge or by going MGTOW. It is a mess.

    Just removing Feminism and cultural Marxism from any society improves it and changes it overnight. Drastically reducing immigration would save billions on welfare costs, restore voting to American citizens, and greatly reduce the social instability we have today in America as well.

    Basically at this point, political Conservatives want RESTORATION, not conservation. We cannot preserve the mess we have now. Under this context, once can understand why Conservatives love Trump – he is a reset button to pull country back from the extreme leftism we have today.

  124. 447 says:

    @ constrainedlocus:
    They bring in huge OLED HD TV monitors connected to several Playstation 4s and X-box’s and gaming chairs and a couch!! During a freaking middle school DANCE??? Even then, dance attendance is underwhelming. Nobody is dancing or eating or drinking. The girls who do show up have their faces buried in their cell phone anyway, so what’s the point?

    I can only shake my head at this kind of social dysfunction. It’s all backassward.
    I’m really not that old nor am I the “Hey, get off my lawn, you damn kids!” type of guy.
    I just don’t understand WTF this all means. Something is really out of place here.
    —————————–
    It is crass, yet easy to understand (speaking as someone who witnesses similar things from young people and being in touch with lots of younger people):

    Step 1: Assume that nearly everyone involved is spiritually empty and thus is guided purely by biological urges and social force, mostly just “avoiding punishment” and “maximising pleasure”.

    Step 2: Assume that pleasure (via biology) is achievement and maximum sexual access (guys) or maximum social info/digital gossip and presenting oneself to biologically attractive alphas for sex(gals).

    Step 3: Assume a society in which (no matter how formal the event or how expensive the dresses) cultural marxist rot and punishment for all western civ values is present and very threating (by social destruction, metoo, feminism, leftism etc)

    Step 4: Realize that the MOST RATIONAL ACTION (not the most good or even proper!) is to…
    A. For guys: Not be present, but follow allowed and unsupervised to the fullest indulgence at home (porn, games for betas, sluts and action for alphas)
    B. Be present for the off-chance of alpha cock appearing/appearing like a socially good girl in public, but swiping left & right for PUAs, useless fun guys or toxic, sexist pot belly asshole guys (like me) on Tinder.

    What you see is perfectly rational -even though highly distasteful.
    People do what they can get away with – you just have to consider the dynamics underlying the false flag social conventions layered above that.

  125. ChristianCool says:

    @447

    You make an excellent point. But the nihilist and narcissistic nature of Millennials is EXACTLY what the SJW, social engineers, and the Feminist crowds had in mind all along. A generation of incompetent, non-thinking zombies.

    Obummer once said “we are the ones [generation] we have been waiting for”. He was refereeing to the Millennials, the generation I call the “loser generation” and my friend calls “the s#ithead generation” (he is a Millennial, while I am Gen X). He was right about the failed generation. Even though Obummer spent 4 years creating havoc globally and literally decimating our middle class through debt, despair, job exportation, open borders, amnesty (deferred executive amnesty for “Dreamers” – entitled Millennial illegal aliens), and even enabling Iranian groups to mass import opiates and fentanyl via US-Mex border, idiot Millennials still turned out in droves and re-elected Obummer for 4 more years of misery. We lost an entire decade, like we did in the 1970s.

    Non-politically speaking, yes, we have a generation that ahs been set-up for failure from day 1. 1 in 5 Boys are being drugged at school with Ritalin for ADHD when there is nothing wrong with them, ensuring their failure and suffering later in life. Boys are prevented form playing with building blocks, which help develop their STEM and cognitive abilities in preschools forward. Our entire education system is set-up to only stimulate girls and purposely fail boys.

    Throw in video games, legal weed widely available, HD porn, and every distracting influence imaginable and you have the exact scenario you described. Millennial boys in Western Feminist countries did not even have a chance. They were doomed to fail from the get-go.

    The only thing is that the girls are going to join the boys in failing in life too. Not because they will fail the same way as boys who are systematically repressed from day 1. No, the girls will fail by becoming lonely angry hags, nasty brawlers amongst themselves for the attention of fewer and fewer Alphas. They will become the cohorts of anti-depressant and alcohol addicts we see today, but in much greater numbers. They will be like the angry 40+ year olds HR lady’s you meet from time to time in greater intensity before they even turn 30.

    No society has ever been socially engineered in such a manner in such a short period of time. Look at Western Europe for a preview because they are about 10-15 years ahead of America.

    I am not even sure how this will all shake out once the Millennials take over reign of the country someday. When the reformed Hippies from the 1960s took over America once their parents retired, we saw “sugar high” periods of economics booms and busts because the Boomers grew up in such property, they felt entitled to create booms and busts to benefit them the most.

    When the Millennials finally take over someday, we will have a generation of socially-disconnected narcissistic people in charge of a society. That is such a scary proposition, God help me not be alive to see that day.

  126. Dalrock says:

    @Greenlander

    Anyways, Dalrock, keep doing what you’re doing.

    Thank you.

  127. feministhater says:

    Yet, those of you on the alt-right piss and moan about “cuckservatives” and wait for your virgin wives as you sit on the couch eating cheetos with a finger up your ass. Quit whining about us conservatives and go try to reshape this country in your image.

    Lol! Still shaming. The left control those institutions because you pieces of excrement couldn’t conserve them at all. You failed. You didn’t fight the left, you made way for them. You still insist on empowering your daughters to the detriment of your nation and sons.

  128. ChristianCool says:

    Alt-Right is a derogatory term used by globalist, warmongering cuckservatives (like the Bushes, Paul Ryan, Lindsay Graham, McCain, etc) to besmirch true Conservatives who want a RESTORATION of true Conservatism, so it can THEN be preserved.

    What we have today, cultural Marxism (feminism), marginalization of Christianity, never-ending wars, global welfare systems masquerading as “trade deals”, open borders, ending Constitutional individual freedoms, systematic judicial abuse of men, and other far left ideas.

    NONE OF THAT I just described above/herein should be conserved. No True Conservative is calling to “conserve” (preserve) any of that. We the “alt-right” Conservatives are calling for a total reversal of these policies, by hook or by crook.

    And yet the cuckservatives desperately are fighting to keep this leftist status quo, so they besmirch us, the ones calling for restoration of true Conservatism, to be “alt-right”. 🙄

    I wear the Alt-Right smear in style, just as I call myself an “adorable deplorable” in response to Hillary’s speech. I wear these in pride as blacks wear the N**ger slur on their sleeves today or Christians (“little Christs”) wore that derogatory term as a badge of honor in the 1st Century AD.

    I am a proud Alt-Right Christian Conservative – a real life “adorable deplorable”! 😀 I am straight, Christian, hetero, capitalist, anti-Feminist, Trump supporter. I make no apologies.

    One issue I have with @FeministHater is that “I did not fight the left”… being 36, almost all the leftist/feminist policies we have today were implemented or were well-underway for full implementation when I was a child.

    By the time I came of age, 3rd Wave Feminist was well-underway in America. I was powerless to do anything about it at the time. Gen X’s fight started last 5-10 years and you have SEEN our fight with movements like Red Pill, MGTOW, and men’s reaction to Christian feminism.

    The fight is still going and will go on for more decades. But to say “we did not fight the left” is simply re-writing history. Gen Xers are in the forefront of this fight.

  129. 447 says:

    @ChristianCool:
    Marxism
    &
    When the Millennials finally take over someday, we will have a generation of socially-disconnected narcissistic people in charge of a society. That is such a scary proposition, God help me not be alive to see that day.
    ————–
    I agree very much with your diagnosis of the root problem.

    But fear not. Pepe’s legions of fun provocation, bottles full of red pills, evil heterosexual white indoctrination of youths, discriminatin’ leftists and feminists in real life, “hate facts” and many other, seemingly scattered and diverse incidents are starting to bring back at least a little bit of light into darkness.
    And for me at least, there is some hope: More and more people of the white western civilizations (no matter the skin colour) are recognizing things and doing their little part.

    When you destabilize young men by taking away meaningful, good quality women for at least a solid majority of goid betas – you go to far and your (((ideology))) will fall. Because they will have to alpha up by being forced to.
    Hopefully before our civilization(s) fall.

    And some of that hope certainly rests on European and/or White Christian values, because…well, we all know why. Guess nobody here wants to live in what Haiti, Somalia or the Thunderdome is.

    The alternative is being
    A. Outbred by muslim immigration, then being literally gutted.
    and/or
    B. Outmemed/culturally being gutted by cultural marxism

    A and B lead to the same outcome: Civilizational annihilation.
    Gen Z is increasingly reluctant to accept this.

  130. white says:

    And what if a man married a woman, only to realize the woman she married is nothing like the woman he thought he married, cos it was all an act? Countless men in the manosphere have fallen prey to the female “chameleon”, and you didn’t call it out in your post

  131. Anon says:

    The primary goal of a cuckservative is to surrender to the left.

    Cuckservatives have also deluded themselves into thinking that this sort of surrender is a form of virtue signalling.

    Cuckservatives are pathetic.

  132. earl says:

    Cuckservatives submit to the left…they don’t oppose them. They are like women…they’ll put up a whine fight against the left but then eventually submit to them because they are the weaker political ideology.

    I honestly don’t know if there is a current political ideology that doesn’t submit to the left in some way.

  133. Sharkly says:

    I honestly don’t know if there is a current political ideology that doesn’t submit to the left in some way.

    Nobody will have a right ideology, until they have a right foundational understanding to build it upon. Throughout “Christendom” people proclaim that we didn’t evolve equally from monkeys, but that we were created equally in the image of God. Which is still untrue. We were created as separate creatures. The man was created first in the image and glory of God. Womankind was created last, for men, as the glory of mankind, and to help men.

    1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

    A man is not to pray with his head covered because he is in the image and glory of God. Conversely women are to cover their head, because they are not, but are instead the glory of the man.
    The sex roles will not be established correctly and function correctly until we establish them based on that truth from God. Our bodies are the temples of the Holy spirit, not to be profaned with immorality. We need a system able and willing to purge the sexually immoral from among us. That is a requirement. We can’t just have a system that gives us a pass and holds the other guy accountable. Martin Luther was right that we were headed down a slippery slope when the king quit executing all adulterers. Here we are.
    Don’t wait around for the Muslims to enslave or kill all Christian men and cut the clits off of all the women. If we were wise we could repent and return to the God of our forefathers. And the gates of hell would not prevail against us.

  134. Pingback: When “traditional” means socially awkward. | Dalrock

  135. Pingback: Kids these days | Dalrock

  136. My wife likes to say she chased me until I caught her. Seemed to work out for us.

    I assume Chesterton’s take has been mentioned before, but it bears repeating here:

    “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.” — G.K. Chesterton

  137. ChristianCool says:

    @447

    There is no doubt that the Left has become so extreme that even the clueless Millennials are beginning to see some light amidst their own shroud of darkness. That sure is encouraging.

    I think you have the problem figured out as well: young men have no reason to do anything because they have nothing to gain from hard work or goals. In some ways, because women will put out to “starving artists” and “degenerate men” based on their appearance alone, these guys have nothing to live for.

    Incentives matter. If young males have no incentive to succeed and accomplish something, why bother? Live with parents until age 40, master the PS4 and chill. It is depressing for me to think that is where so many guys are headed to, but their life, their choice.

    BUT…. long as men keep incentive sluts to ride the Cock Carrousel with a “bailout” after these sluts go post-Wall and have an Epiphany and decide to marry urgently, more generations of women will continue to do so. Women live inside a heard, their mentality is collectivist, and they do not really improve based on personal experience; they look at other women for examples.

    If guys either Red Pilled more often or at least MGTOW and do NOT marry reformed ex-sluts, this problem would end in less than a generation. But Blue Pillers do not seem to get it and keep bailing out the sloots. This is why I am bucking marriage completely, been there done that. I would be willing to re-marry if she was in her mid-20s, but going on 36 and being in USA, it is a huge uphill climb, even for someone like me (good looking, jacked, great financials, no ex-wife, no kids). Feminism is BRAIN a cancer that infects the brains of Western women and they think a 10-year gap with a man is too much.

    I was considering going Eastern European route but divorce rape risk is just as bad in America. So I am just trying to figure out next steps…

    I share your concern about being outbred and becoming outnumbered by the foreign Barbarian Hordes (like France, Germany, or Sweden in a few years). I get that. Someday I think to LTR with a woman (or have a Biblical, non-court marriage in non-Common Law Marriage State) and have like 5 kids. It would be fun to have a big family and I can totally afford it.

    But then I wonder… is there even a point to having kids?? I mean I will be gone by then, so why should I care?

    Then I wonder do I wanna be like my neighbors in their late 60s, no kids, 3 dogs, and gonna die alone later in life?

    And then do I wanna bring up boys (I checked geneticists page and I have almost 98% male chance due to father’s family history of births, by gender) in a FemiNazi hell of a country?

    Can we realistically reset this mess before my kids would be 15-20 years age range?

    Lots to consider, but I totally get your point and agree fully. Good news is am only 36 and got time to figure this out. I am not even dating any woman right now to clear my head and think this through…

  138. ChristianCool says:

    @Sharkly

    Did you ever get new attorney? I hope my post on that issue a few weeks back helped point you in a new direction, new lawyer, etc.

  139. Sharkly says:

    No, I have not switched lawyers yet, but nothing much has happened recently with the legal process. I am waiting to hear back from her. Meanwhile I am praying and trying to get my wife to attend counseling. Sunday I got to spend over 6 hours with my sons unsupervised finally, for the first time in 9 months. I was finally able to put the false accusations of Sex/Porn Addiction to rest after they had moved the goalposts on me, and kept me from my sons for as long as they possibly could. I have been quite busy with personal battles lately, but I have been gaining ground on them all, where before many of them were stalled.

  140. Pingback: Models of Courtship and Marital Structure | Σ Frame

Comments are closed.