She did her part, but the man didn’t man up.

As I’ve noted in my last two posts, Lisa Anderson of Focus on the Family teaches modern Christian women that “actively pursuing marriage” means:

  • Praying for a husband.
  • Talking about wanting a husband.
  • Waiting for her godly man to show up and answer her prayers.

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.

Of course, in their “season of singleness” while waiting for God to send them Mr. Right, modern Christian women are forced to focus on becoming independent career women.  And who can blame them if they find themselves riding the carousel to pass the time?  They don’t want to follow the feminist script, mind you, they just have no choice.  They have to wait for God to send them their husband.  They are simply too traditional to do anything else.

This reminded me of a story I shared a little over a year ago about Gladys Aylward.  After converting in her late twenties, Aylward decided to travel from Britain to China as a missionary*.  Some time after she followed Focus on the Family’s advice to Christian women who want to marry.  She started praying for a British husband, and no doubt talked about how much she wanted one.  Then she waited for the man to travel from England to China to find her.  But as Dr. John Piper explains, the problem with the plan was the man she prayed for failed to man up:

“Miss Aylward talked to the Lord about her singleness. She was a no-nonsense woman in very direct and straightforward ways and she asked God to call a man from England, send him straight out to China, straight to where she was, and have him propose to me.” I can’t forget the next line. Elisabeth Elliot said, “With a look of even deeper intensity, she shook her little bony finger in my face and said, ‘Elisabeth, I believe God answers prayer. And he called him.’” And here there was a brief pause of intense whisper. She said, “‘He called him, and he never came.’”

Now, that experience, I would guess, is not unique to Gladys Aylward.

*You can read more about Aylward’s story here and here.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Aging Feminists, Dr. John Piper, Focus on the Family, Lisa Anderson, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Weak men screwing feminism up. Bookmark the permalink.

137 Responses to She did her part, but the man didn’t man up.

  1. I know several women who have been out of the country on long term missions and fairly recent at that. 1 of them is married. She “just met” her husband a year or two ago when she wasn’t looking for one. The other about 6 or so are single. Of course, they are also “not looking” either even though they express that they want to be married….

    The Elliot case is simply egregious. God is not some Aladdin genie that magically drops husbands from the sky. Heck, God does not even promise us that we will get married. Apply some actual wisdom to the matter, and you can see that it’s foolish. But who wants to do that…

  2. These women following expert — but daft — advice is sad, but I suspect affects only a minority of American women. I suspect that the girls interviewed by sociologist Mark Regnerus (described in his book “Cheap Sex”) are more typical of today’s sexually active women (ie., those not sidelined by choice or obesity). Such as Sarah. Running up her number (she admits to 20), while aware that this won’t end well for her. Historians will not understand how our society wreck the lives of several generations of women.

    —-

    [Is her timing of sex intentional?] “It just happens.

    [Nothing just happens.] “It happens if there’s really strong physical chemistry. If there’s physical chemistry then usually it’s gonna, the date’s gonna end with some kind of, like, physical (activity), at least for me in my experience.

    [Even date number one?] “Oh yeah, (laughs). Date number one, like, kissing, and then I feel like the kissing always leads to something else.

    [You feel like it, or you make it, or …?] “It just does, I don’t know. I don’t think it’s me, I think it’s more the guy, and then I’m just OK with it. And then a lot of times, though, I will say, like, there are times when I feel comfortable with having sex on the first date, and other times I don’t feel comfortable.

    [How do you discern those?] “Depending on if I like the guy more or not.

    [So if you like the guy more which one happens?] “I don’t want to have sex with him. (Laughs) … Because I wanna see him again, and I don’t want it to just be about something physical. I feel like I get (sighs) caught up in the moment.”

    So waiting for the second or third date, she asserts, is a better strategy than first-date sex, because “he’s going to stay interested.” …

    As noted above, Sarah was 32 years old when we spoke with her. …Sarah was well aware of her age and the fertility challenges it might soon present, but had grown ambivalent on the matter. Did she want children, as she noted in passing when discussing the end of her relationship with Daniel?

    “I don’t know. I’ve always wanted, it’s interesting because I’ve always wanted children. It was like, ‘Oh, I’m gonna be a great mom,’ and, and umm, the last couple years, I, I don’t know. I definitely want to get married, like that, I definitely wanna get married and do that deal, but I don’t know if I wanna have kids or not. …”

    [But you used to want them?] I used to want them.

    Three years later, now 35, Sarah continues to live in Austin and continues to find commitment elusive. She does not dislike her life, but it is not the one she envisioned a decade earlier.

    Her account is not unusual. In fact, the relationship histories that young Americans tell us about are growing increasingly predictable: plenty of sex, starting early (before expressions of love but not necessarily before feelings of and hopes about it), underdeveloped interest in sacrificing on behalf of the other (especially but not exclusively discernable in men), accounts of “overlapping” partners, much drama, and in the end nothing but mixed memories and expired time.

    —————————-

    Women like Sarah aren’t listening to Christian advisors, but to media gurus like this:

    “You should sleep with at LEAST 25 guys before settling down, and I’ll tell you exactly why. Ideally more, but y’know, whatever.”
    — By Amanda Ross at Babe.
    https://babe.net/2017/12/26/you-should-sleep-with-at-least-25-guys-before-settling-down-and-ill-tell-you-exactly-why-26107

    See the full story of Sarah as told in “Cheap Sex.”
    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/01/17/misadventures-of-a-modern-america-woman/

  3. Pingback: She did her part, but the man didn’t man up. | @the_arv

  4. Dalrock says:

    @LK

    I suspect that the girls interviewed by sociologist Mark Regnerus (described in his book “Cheap Sex”) are more typical of today’s sexually active women…

    Right. Christian women are following the same script. They are doing the same thing, for the same reasons (they want to). But Focus on the Family and their peer orgs found a way to make it sound traditional while blaming weak men for screwing feminism up. If you aren’t familiar with the trope, google “season of singleness”.

  5. Dalrock,

    That’s why your work has such an impact. Most of us thought that Christian churches were a break on our accelerating slide down the slippery slope to Weimerica.

    Reading your posts is like seeing Fireman show up to my burning house – and spray kerosene on it. This is yet more evidence that we’re living in the Crazy Years, as predicted long ago by Robert Heinlein (it just took longer to arrive than he expected).

    https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/09/03/we-are-living-dystopia-of-heinlein-and-bradbury/

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    Larry quoting Regnarus
    [Is her timing of sex intentional?] “It just happens.

    I truly am laughing out loud that any academic would take such an obvious example of the rationalization hamster seriously. But that’s how it goes with blue-pill men. I guess that to you, Larry, in your traditional, conservative bubble this interview is shocking. Most older people don’t really have a very good grasp of what the college and 20-something social scene looks like, although it’s been documented in fact and fiction off and on for years (“I Am Charlotte Simmons” for a start).

    Now, Larry, do you agree with Regnarus that men masturbating to porn is exactly the same as women getting screwed by 30 men? That’s his premise, and you’ve been pushing his book, so if you are the intellectual thinker you claim to be it should be easy for you to defend his premise, and therefore his book. A serious thinker like you will surely cite the GISS data in the reply.

    Looking forward to it.

    Everyone else, you don’t have to read Regnarus’s tedious text. Just open up YouTube and do a search on “East Sixth Street Women”, then view the videos. There’s more than one. Definitely more than one.

    Dalrock

    Christian women are following the same script. They are doing the same thing, for the same reasons (they want to). But Focus on the Family and their peer orgs found a way to make it sound traditional while blaming weak men for screwing feminism up.

    Exactly. The blue pill tradcons just cannot get their calcified minds around the fact that 20-something women like and enjoy sex just as much as 20-something men, and they do what they want to do. Conservative feminists would rather pretend all sorts of obviously untrue things are true, than admit to the actual, earthy nature of women … and what it looks like when women go feral.

    Anyone want to wonder why more and more men avoid churches? The places where they are likely to meet women like Lisa Anderson, who will try to fix them up with women like “Sarah”?

    A man might be willing to buy a used car, but not if the lot has a reputation for rolling the odometer back to 10 miles…

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    Larry Kummer
    That’s why your work has such an impact.

    Yes. He’s been at this for about 8 years now. The insights in Dalrock’s thinking and some commenters just gets better and better.

    Most of us thought that Christian churches were a break on our accelerating slide down the slippery slope to Weimerica.

    Sigh.
    As I said to you before:

  8. Lost Patrol says:

    I was not familiar so did a “season of singleness” search. There were pages and pages of material on it. Another para-church cottage industry I guess. Like man up, servant leader, and “unpacking” Bible passages.

    Lisa is a puzzlement. She tells her charges to actively pursue marriage, and provides an excellent example of her own mother doing exactly this complete with tactics and techniques (my own mother-in-law used this same model to get her husband of 60 years and brags about it); but apparently is herself waiting to respond to the offer of a date. She was shown how and had it explained to her.

    Why is this so hard? Commenter Joe in previous threads mentioned his future wife made things obvious even when he barely knew who she was, with her unsolicited offer to help him paint his rent house.

    Women are more SIW than ever before in history. Ha! Get it in gear if you want to get married girls. This has to be tied in with Novaseeker’s previous thread comment about the endless affirmations they get from social media acquaintances and strangers alike. ‘I just have to be myself and they will come. They always do – on my phone anyway’.

  9. honeycomb says:

    Hmmmm ..

    Amazing I tell you ..

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/jilted-bride-marries-dream-wedding-amazing-know-092355843.html

    So much so she married herself.

  10. feministhater says:

    He called him, and he never came.

    Hilarious! Haha! I’m sure God did answer that prayer and did speak to that British man; and quite categorically told him to stay the hell away from China.

    A man might be willing to buy a used car, but not if the lot has a reputation for rolling the odometer back to 10 miles…

    Sure, if it sold for the price of a used car and not for the price of a brand new one.

  11. Novaseeker says:

    As if on cue … Glenn Stanton of FOTF bashing men again for not manning up and approaching women: https://thefederalist.com/2018/09/11/problem-men-today-isnt-toxic-masculinity-passivity/

  12. Anon says:

    Novaseeker,

    That is the only explanation these clueless cuckservatives can ever come up with. But note that they are still being driven by the greed of appropriating male labor, rather than the fear that men are disengaging and have choices.

    The most infamous video is the Jim Gay-ratty video (he married a single mother, and is desperate to make this choice seem less loserish than it really is, exhibiting a rationalization hamster more powerful than I thought a ‘male’ could even muster) :

  13. Spike says:

    Were you to ask Lisa Anderson how you should fashion a profession, she would say something like:
    -Do a course in that subject
    -Get a job in that area
    -Meet like-minded people who have pursued a career in that field.

    None of this is passive. it is active.

    In other words, a career is a ”Life Project” – a theme around which you fashion your life and make your choices. When it comes to marriage however, Ms Anderson appears to a be completely passive agent that just drifts into a relationship while pursuing other things. Sure, there’s a ”season of singleness”. She also ”has to be allowed to make her mistakes”, so that ”she knows what she wants” (Ahem..cough… cough).

    My son is engaged. His fiance is from eastern Europe, where marriage is still an institution because the church, hardened by opposition to political atheism (Communism), still has teeth and a backbone. So she prayed, and made choices: She kept herself away from liberal culture, didn’t whore herself out, and announced her intentions when asked. She met my son when he ranted angry, loud and long, that he would ”never be a ”boyfriend again, because a boyfriend is a clown that gets kicked to be the curb like trash when ”the girlfriend” isn’t interested anymore”. When she heard this, she approached him, proposing a relationship that would progress to marriage if he wanted it.

    Her friends are still whoring themselves out, living with detachable hipsters, and ”not knowing if he’s the right guy or not”…..

  14. David B. says:

    She assumes that having sex right away means it’s only based on the physical (as if it isn’t still physical after a few more dates). She also assumes that it wouldn’t last if she puts out right away, which is not necessarily the case at all. Or she might just be saying this to obfuscate the fact that she’s testing how beta the guy is by making him wait and claiming it’s her way of seeing if it’s more than just physical. Most guys want to get laid and aren’t players so they will stick around. Its a test of betaness. People either have chemistry or they don’t.

  15. It’s not the God didn’t answer Gladys’s prayers.
    God did answer them.
    It’s just that His answer was “no.”

    Also interesting how it would never occur to a solipsistic woman like Gladys that God may have actually answered the mysterious British man’s prayers first. I imagine that British Christian gentlemen probably met a lovely young Chinese woman in Shanghai a few moments after arriving off the boat.

  16. The Lord works in mysterious ways, Gladys.

  17. earl says:

    Why is this so hard?

    If I were to make a guess…it probably requires them to be humble and submit to the decision of a man which is the message most aren’t going to go along with.

    But isn’t it funny that some women really dig a guy enough she’ll overcome her fears and do it. They might even earn the title ‘strong’.

  18. Joe says:

    “And who can blame them if they find themselves riding the carousel to pass the time?”

    The modern Christian woman who is riding the carousel is actively seeking and selecting her partners. She is very much proactive in this process. When she is ready to get married, I doubt she will change her strategy, become passive and wait for the Lord to provide a godly man. Yes, she may pray about it, but since her strategy has already provided partners there is no need to change it.

  19. Anonymous Reader says:

    NovaSeeker
    Glenn Stanton of FOTF bashing men again for not manning up and approaching women

    Is it bad for a man to find himself wishing that Glenn Stanton would get MeTooed?
    Asking for a friend…

  20. Lost Patrol says:

    As if on cue … Glenn Stanton of FOTF bashing men again for not manning up and approaching women: https://thefederalist.com/2018/09/11/problem-men-today-isnt-toxic-masculinity-passivity/

    I know I’m veering off the main theme a little but this is amazing. He’s delusional. Masculinity is not uniquely male. Well OK then, I can buy that given how hard many women are trying to become mannish. But Stanton paints a picture that women can BE it all. She’s all woman AND masuline. Up to now it was just that women could HAVE it all, I thought.

    “No one would deny Jeannie Leavitt’s masculine qualities. She is the U.S. Air Force’s first female fighter pilot, the first woman to command a USAF combat fighter wing, and a brigadier general. She’s a wife and mother, and all woman. She’s unapologetically feminine, while tougher than Clint Eastwood and Chuck Norris combined.”

    I’ve seen this type of masculine quality woman up close. We pretty much all have by now, except maybe for Stanton. There is nothing all woman, or unapologetically feminine about them. Nothing. The entire point of the enterprise is how much like a man they are.

  21. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lost Patrol
    I was not familiar so did a “season of singleness” search. There were pages and pages of material on it. Another para-church cottage industry I guess. Like man up, servant leader, and “unpacking” Bible passages.

    It’s amazing, isn’t it? Like driving down a familiar road and taking an unfamiliar turn — bam, where did this foreign country come from?

    I suspect (but can’t prove) that those churchy buzzwords are becoming warning signs to young men.

  22. Ray6777 says:

    Stanton thinks the average single woman is going on blind dates. No I don’t think so. The average single woman is on Tinder setting up sex sessions with hot guys. Like Dennis Prager Stanton thinks he’s living in the 1950’s. It’s laughable.

  23. Novaseeker says:

    I’ve seen this type of masculine quality woman up close. We pretty much all have by now, except maybe for Stanton. There is nothing all woman, or unapologetically feminine about them. Nothing. The entire point of the enterprise is how much like a man they are.

    Yes exactly, but it flows from his entire idea, which is absolutely and totally endemic in American Christian thinking, especially among conservative male American Protestant Christians: women are naturally feminine and don’t need to do anything to be feminine (unless they actively abdicate it by becoming butchdykes), whereas men are not naturally and inherently anything, and instead masculinity can be learned and deployed by both men and women alike. Precisely what Stanton is saying here. And the implication of that message is this: women are simply superior to men.

    After all, if this is the case, why the hell would you want or need men in the equation at all, other than as sperm donors? Why not just have these superhumans called women who can be both feminine and masculine at the same time and do both roles at once, and better at each than a man can? Isn’t that so cool? OMG, we are surrounded by true female superheroes!!!

    This explains why they worship single mothers (they see them as being superheroes for being masculine and feminine at once), why they denigrate men on father’s day, why they are constantly bashing men and building up women. It explains why they think the way they do, from soup to nuts, about men and women.

    And the thing is … it’s 100% in accordance with feminism for the most part, when it comes to women. That is, this viewpoint fully embraces that women can, and in fact should, behave as men do, while retaining a femininity that is “natural” ( again, as long as they aren’t butchdykes) aspect of themselves … while men are relegated to being expected to act like the 1950s never ended when it comes to their *own* behaviors, coupling that with a total acceptance of 2018 behavior for women without criticism. Again, remember that: for these guys, men need to behave as if the 1950s expectations still applied to men, while fully accepting that no guidelines and expectations at all apply to women other than the ones floating around in the ambient culture — and this is being hawked by conservative Christian men like Glenn Stanton. In fact, it’s now mainstream thought for American conservative Christians, especially men.

    And this makes sense to them, why? Reason one is that they have daughters/nieces, and they want their daughters/nieces to take every advantage of everything available to them — the more conservative the dad, the more pushy he seems to be about this, and the more cartoonishly macho pride he expresses in favor of his rather masculinized daughter/niece (whom he very much egged on in her masculinization). Reason two is that it feels great to put other men down and put them in their place and at the same time to elevate themselves above other men (both the young men themselves and the fathers of such young men), and the ultimate way of doing this is by telling these men that they are less manly and masculine than their own daughters. This satisfies a primal, deep-seated urge in men to dominate other men, put them down and in their place, and it feels very naturally fulfilling and satisfying in a very deep way. Of course, when you’re saying that your own daughter “is a better man than your pathetic failson, buddy!! hahaha!!”, it’s also macho posing on steroids, cooking with enriched uranium in the endless ongoing game of male one-upmanship.

    Ultimately, the telling line here is this one: “The social opportunities open to women today are making them better catches and thus increasingly intimidating to too many young adult males, who approximate a mole.” The young women, because they are more masculinized and filled with masculine achievements, are “better catches” in the eyes of their fathers/uncles, and far superior to their male peers. This is the punchline to the issue, gentlemen. Understand this, and you will understand that the real adversary here, especially inside the church, is these guys. Not women. It’s these guys.

  24. earl says:

    ‘They don’t approach with any intentions.’

    LOL…is he for real?

    I’ve stated my intentions before to a woman…I can’t help it if they reject it or leave.

  25. earl says:

    At lunch with some colleagues the other day, some of the women—ladies in their 20s—were discussing how rare it is for men their age to step up, approach any feminine peers, and ask for a date, much less show any interest that could be seen as a move toward romance.

    Done it…heard she liked it…then didn’t get past 2 dates because she didn’t like it anymore.

  26. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I once dated a Christian woman nearly 10 years ago. She was in her late 30s. She said that finding a husband was her most important life goal.

    We went on one dinner date (yes, I paid, I’m still blue pill about that). She emailed me a day or so later, and said that I wasn’t The One. She’d prayed to God, and God told her so.

    I guess I just didn’t give her the tingles.

  27. Pingback: She did her part, but the man didn’t man up. | Reaction Times

  28. earl says:

    She’d prayed to God, and God told her so.

    Yup last two I dated gave me that reasoning. And I heard all sorts of other reasons as well.

    I didn’t go ‘passive’…I just got tired of hearing the same hamsterization over and over again after I initiated it like a ‘real masculine man’ should. It’s a load of BS what these tradcon boomers think because it’s not the 1980s anymore.

  29. Spike says:

    Lost Patrol says:
    September 12, 2018 at 8:02 pm
    As if on cue … Glenn Stanton of FOTF bashing men again for not manning up and approaching women: https://thefederalist.com/2018/09/11/problem-men-today-isnt-toxic-masculinity-passivity/

    Hey, Glenn Stanton: Men are only responding to what feminists and their minions, like yourself – have wanted. For every moxie-filled kick-ass daughter, there is a brother who has to take a back seat.
    Being passive is smart in the age of #MeToo, no-fault divorce, enforced fatherhood and man-shaming.
    What is this ”step up” bullshit? If a man does it, he’s likely to get destroyed.

  30. JRob says:

    https://www.boundless.org/blog/gentlemen-dont-finish-last/

    Posted previously. However, I’ll go a a bit further and post the “best” parts which require eye bleach. This is Focus on the Family. This is what Boundless propagates. This is “Christian” according to the ChurchioFemCuckIndustrialComplex.

    I know, times have changed and chivalry is dead. That’s not entirely true, though. It’s dying, and it’s completely our fault, guys. Women have never stopped wanting to be treated like ladies. They’ve just grown tired of waiting for us to get our act together.

    Guys, you’ll never learn what women enjoy or look for in a man by watching sports, playing video games, reading science fiction books or playing poker with your guy friends.

    There are countless opportunities for men to explore what women want in a relationship but most of us are too manly for our own good.

    There’s not a modern equivalent, but it’s kind of like marrying and taking your bride’s last name instead of her taking yours

  31. honeycomb says:

    I guess you Blue-Pill guys have fed a lot of “first date” contestants ..

    It’s not your fault. It’s these wimminz who want free stuff .. because feelz!

    When the free stuff stops .. then they complain about where have all the good (free meal) men gone?

    Your “sell by date” ™ has an actual date stamped on it. Pray on that all you want .. tempus fugit.

  32. earl says:

    Women have never stopped wanting to be treated like ladies.

    But they’ve certainly stopped being ladies. And that’s what these morons don’t get. And I’m not going to take the blame for that…I’m trying to stay in my lane and be a man.

  33. earl says:

    It’s not your fault. It’s these wimminz who want free stuff .. because feelz!

    I kept it to coffee or drinks. If they did their con job on me I was out 5 bucks.

  34. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker

    Excellent analysis that ties together multiple different strands to form a clear pattern. Thanks very much for this, it’s copy/paste/save material.

    Understand this, and you will understand that the real adversary here, especially inside the church, is these guys. Not women. It’s these guys.

    Nah, it’s both. Same as everywhere else: the “traditional” “conservative” men AMOGing other men on behalf of the feminist women, who have absolutely zero problem giving those “traditional” “conservative” men their orders. Because those orders will be followed without question.

    Therefore it is both the women and their boys.

  35. earl says:

    Reason two is that it feels great to put other men down and put them in their place and at the same time to elevate themselves above other men (both the young men themselves and the fathers of such young men), and the ultimate way of doing this is by telling these men that they are less manly and masculine than their own daughters. This satisfies a primal, deep-seated urge in men to dominate other men, put them down and in their place, and it feels very naturally fulfilling and satisfying in a very deep way.

    Hopefully Jeff Strand if he’s lurking around reads that.

  36. honeycomb says:

    Earl (re: coffee / drinks / $5) ..

    I don’t buy career wimminz chit either .. in fact when we go for drinks .. I ask the wait staff to start 2 (i.e. two) tabs.

    Theze wimminz are shocked .. as am I .. BWHAAAAAAAAA .. buy your own chit .. coffee or a glass of wine shouldn’t be a burden .. but you’d think it was the end of the world .. just like the loss of free things / dates.

    “Somedays your the bug .. somedays your the windshield.”

    The wimminz don’t like being anything but the windshield .. and complain about having to clean a dirty winshield.

    I make sure they experience what it feels like as the bug. Good times.

    (Note: A good Godly woman wouldn’t get the bug treatment.)

  37. Pingback: Review: The Dating Project Movie |

  38. Scott says:

    Pardon the interruption. I finally got this up.

    https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/2018/09/13/a-picture-tour-of-the-last-few-days-and-travel-to-montana/

    D-

    This series is great. I will chime in with an American Dad post featuring some of them soon.

  39. Minesweeper says:

    ” “Isn’t it true that in this age of toxic masculinity and the Me Too movement that your problem is exactly the opposite—young men approaching you regularly and just taking what they want?” Their reaction? Eyes. Rolled. They said the problem with masculinity today is not toxicity, but passivity. Full Stop. ”

    https://thefederalist.com/2018/09/11/problem-men-today-isnt-toxic-masculinity-passivity/

    The the problem with masculinity today is not toxicity, but feminists lies.

    Do you think they can ever connect the dots ? We really are looking at a generation of women who will either get p&d’s via tinder or forgotten completely. Will women ever rise up against their feminist overlords demonisation and abuse of men ?

    Its actually quite a surprising thing to see, most men will bend over backwards to defend women against men at any opportunity, women essentially will never do a damm thing to help any man.

    You have to wonder – how blind can women be to causing their own destruction.Maybe eventually, the chickens will actually come home to roost. Of course I forgot, feminism is only a temporary cultural phenomena before full society collapse. Once they have destroyed everything, what then ?

  40. Minesweeper says:

    I forgot, also don’t these eye rolling young women realise they are living in a RAPE culture ???

    I can only assume they forgot their feminist indoctrination (brain-washing) .

  41. Novaseeker says:

    I forgot, also don’t these eye rolling young women realise they are living in a RAPE culture ???

    I can only assume they forgot their feminist indoctrination (brain-washing) .

    No, no. It’s more subtle than that.

    Rape culture, metoo, enthusiastic consent, Title IX, open hypergamy, etc. — these are a given — men are expected to behave as if it’s the 1950s for their own behavior while at the same time navigating all of that, because they are men. A man who can’t or won’t? Why, he’s less masculine than my daughter/niece! What a pussy!

    That’s what’s going on. These are seen as obstacles for men to overcome, more pieces of gym equipment for the monkeys to best so that they can prove their manliness to these women and their dads/uncles. That’s the whole point. The more feminist burdens we place on them the better — gives them more chances to prove how manly they are, after all — in the eyes of both these women and their dads/uncles.

  42. Anon says:

    That’s the whole point. The more feminist burdens we place on them the better — gives them more chances to prove how manly they are, after all — in the eyes of both these women and their dads/uncles.

    You would think that cuckservatives would be the ones to understand market forces and the concept of pricing oneself out of the market.

    But as we know, when the prospect of being a cartoonish feminist presents itself, these cuckservatives jettison all their other stated values.

    No wonder they hate video games so much. That men play video games is itself time that they are choosing not to devote towards the entitled, white elephant daughter.

  43. earl says:

    The more feminist burdens we place on them the better — gives them more chances to prove how manly they are, after all — in the eyes of both these women and their dads/uncles.

    Nothing like having to prove your manliness to the most emasculated generation ever.

  44. Minesweeper says:

    You know, I thought the rest of the article was absolute bullsh8t. Then I happened to glance at the footnote.

    “Glenn T. Stanton is a Federalist senior contributor who writes and speaks about family, gender, and art, is the director of family formation studies at Focus on the Family, and is the author of eight books including “The Ring Makes All the Difference” (Moody, 2011) and “Loving My LGBT Neighbor” (Moody, 2014).”

    Explains everything.

  45. Minesweeper says:

    What an absolute fool he is, from his article.

    “At lunch with some colleagues the other day, some of the women—ladies in their 20s—were discussing how rare it is for men their age to step up, approach any feminine peers, and ask for a date, much less show any interest that could be seen as a move toward romance.”

    What he see’s as passivity\weakness and male failing, is really dis-engagement and male protection.

  46. Minesweeper says:

    Considering a single accusation from any female to any authority concerning any male has the strong potential to sink his entire life.

    No wonder young men are not engaging.

    “Just saying”, is going to enjoy the hell out of his next 20 years 😀

  47. Frank K says:

    The modern Christian woman who is riding the carousel is actively seeking and selecting her partners. She is very much proactive in this process. When she is ready to get married, I doubt she will change her strategy, become passive and wait for the Lord to provide a godly man. Yes, she may pray about it, but since her strategy has already provided partners there is no need to change it.

    This reminds me of birth control. Once upon a time it was something that no Christian woman did. That was something harlots did. Then it crept in and eventually became mainstream. Few pastors dare speak against it now.

    And now “good girls” who sit in pews on Sunday are riding the carousel with wild abandon, and fewer and fewer pastors dare speak against it. Of course, don’t even think of picking up a girl at church. She meets new Chads elsewhere.

  48. Minesweeper says:

    @earl says:”Nothing like having to prove your manliness to the most emasculated generation ever.”

    you know I really can’t imagine what it must be like for young men nowadays, they have been born into a situation that we could have only regarded as utter hell. These women are going to have to spend the next 70 years with men who understand just how little women think of them.

    what an absolutely dreadful position. if women wanted to create an entire generation of men who think women are nothing but mindless brainless fu*k toys who if they engage with them will treat them with the utter disdain that they deserve – they couldn’t have done a better job.

    to see how fast things have changed for the worst in 20 years, is incredible and its not stopping now.

  49. earl says:

    Often for a pastor it’s not about speaking truth so as to lead your flock to salvation…it’s about speaking things that don’t offend the flock so that you don’t get forcibly removed from your comfy surroundings.

    And let’s face it the main one pastors don’t want to touch with a ten foot poll is promiscuity…both slut-cad driven and homosexual driven…those on the sexual depravity train be it women on the carousel using birth control & abortion, homosexuality, or whatever in between are going to be easily offended by those who speak out on the sinful behavior it is. At this point really only porn and jerking off is still on the table for easy rebuking because it’s the type of man emasculated pastors and tradcon boomers can still rip into to make themselves feel more superior. Let’s see them take on women having irresponsible sex like this woman did and she ended up getting death threats.

    https://winteryknight.com/2018/09/12/pro-life-journalist-gets-police-protection-after-receiving-death-threats-and-rape-threats/

  50. JT says:

    Elizabeth Elliot had some pretty red pilled comments on dating actually.

    In between the lines of these stories of men not stepping up, are the ones that did and were rejected. Very few people have truly zero options.

    There is a great King’s College conference audio I can’t find now, where a girl tells M. Olasky she can’t good guys, and there is a guy in the audience that wants to go out with her.

  51. Cane Caldo says:

    @Novaseeker

    And the implication of that message is this: women are simply superior to men.

    After all, if this is the case, why the hell would you want or need men in the equation at all, other than as sperm donors? Why not just have these superhumans called women who can be both feminine and masculine at the same time and do both roles at once, and better at each than a man can? Isn’t that so cool? OMG, we are surrounded by true female superheroes!!!

    Case in point: https://apnews.com/2c27a4fe1e9948c7a0195c135dd28168

    She won the game and the homecoming queen crown. Analyzing the symbolism embodied in these traditions and the queen is her own champion knight. Stanton would add that she had no choice: No males were manly enough to do her job.

  52. feeriker says:

    It’s not the God didn’t answer Gladys’s prayers.
    God did answer them.
    It’s just that His answer was “no.”

    And women respond to “no”s from God in the same way they respond to them from human males: with hissy fits, open defiance, projection/blamestorming and doubling down on the very behavior that is getting them into trouble in the first place.

  53. Hugh Mann says:

    That Gladys Aylward story is sad, not funny. I know “the Lord helps those who help themselves” is not Biblical and goes back to the old Greeks, but it seems wrong to ask for something to be granted without any effort on your part, when you are capable of making that effort. On the other hand she was doing good works in a then-remote place…

  54. feministhater says:

    Guys, MGTOW! Ghost the bitches in plain sight. Have fun with it. Trust me on this, you really, really don’t want a relationship with these kind of women. They’re doing you a favour. They’re miserable and will make your life a misery too.

    Let the women come to you. If they don’t come, you can live your life free of them. Don’t pursue, just ghost them. They’ve asked for this for over 60 years of putting men down, telling us how bad we are, how useless we are, how unmanly we are whilst reminding us how toxic masculinity is anyway. This is all deserved on their part. Men don’t owe them anything.

    I don’t care what Glenn Stanton ‘single moms are heroes’ thinks. Fuck him. He’s a bitch. Let them drown in the mire of their own creation. I love it when women complain, I just laugh at them. They’re the cause of their own misery and by God, I will have zero to do with unfucking their own sluttiness.

    Just have fun with them. Approach, talk and then walk away. Don’t ask for their number, don’t ask for a date, just have some fun. When they start asking you questions, just say ‘no’. It’s so funny! They don’t know how to respond. The amount of power men have in just walking away is immense. What are they going to do?! Pursue you?! Lol! Hilarious!

  55. Nick Mgtow says:

    Cane Caldo says:
    September 13, 2018 at 12:05 am
    @Novaseeker

    And the implication of that message is this: women are simply superior to men.

    […]
    Case in point: https://apnews.com/2c27a4fe1e9948c7a0195c135dd28168

    You must be kidding me!

  56. Nick Mgtow says:

    When you shared this link about women who can do it by themselves without men’s help, Cane Caldo, it reminded me of this movie with Christian tones, again.

    If they believe that girls benefit from mentorship, what about the boys?

  57. Lost Patrol says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    It’s amazing, isn’t it? Like driving down a familiar road and taking an unfamiliar turn — bam, where did this foreign country come from?

    That is apt. My previous ignorance and acceptance is intersecting my growing awareness and rejection, but I still can’t figure out precisely where I am.

  58. Novaseeker says:

    She won the game and the homecoming queen crown. Analyzing the symbolism embodied in these traditions and the queen is her own champion knight. Stanton would add that she had no choice: No males were manly enough to do her job.

    Yep, exactly. A woman who has the innate sexual/reproductive power of women coupled with aspects of male power that she is allowed to attain simply destroys most men. As former model Paulina Porizkova (Czech but grew up in equalist Sweden) put it of her youth in Sweden:

    “As high school approached, the boys wanted to kiss us and touch us, and the girls became a group of benevolent queens dispensing favors. The more the boys wanted us, the more powerful we became. When a girl chose to bestow her favors, the lucky boy was envied and celebrated. Slut shaming? What’s a slut?

    Condoms were provided by the school nurse without question. Sex education taught us the dangers of venereal diseases and unwanted pregnancy, but it also focused on fun stuff like masturbation. For a girl to own her sexuality meant she owned her body, she owned herself. Women could do anything men did, but they could also — when they chose to — bear children. And that made us more powerful than men. The word “feminist” felt antiquated; there was no longer a use for it.

    This is simply what results when you give women access to male power sources. Women have access to their own power source (sexual allure and reproduction), which by nature cannot ever be transferred to or shared with men. It’s solely the province of women. So when you add male type power to that, most men simply fall behind, unless they are exceptional men with exceptional power themselves. Women are very well aware of this fact as well (as we see in Porizkova’s article), and if people think it isn’t impacting how women are evaluating men as mates they really are fooling themselves.

    The seemingly unlikely thing, though, is that men support this empowerment of women at their own expense across the board, as we see reflected in Stanton’s article (among many other instances we are all aware of both in print and in the flesh). The reasons are the ones I stated above: preferences for their own daughters/nieces and competition with other men vicariously through such daughters and nieces. Men really are, in many of our tendencies, the core source of our own undoing as a sex.

  59. Lexet Blog says:

    Glenn is a cuck faggot who doesn’t realize that there is no such thing as a feminine woman in the military. Quite frankly, true women don’t exist in the military. And there is no way in hell a career officer can be a parent to their children.

  60. Lost Patrol says:

    Novaseeker

    Excellent analysis that ties together multiple different strands to form a clear pattern. Thanks very much for this, it’s copy/paste/save material.

    Seconded.

    Understand this, and you will understand that the real adversary here, especially inside the church, is these guys.

    This is becoming more evident to me over time as this blog and comments explain it further. It’s like buying a type of vehicle you never had before. Now you see them everywhere you go as if every other person has one, whereas before that you noticed very few of them.

    What can you even say to these men? “Yes, I agree, your daughter/niece/daughter-in-law is very like a man in many ways. You must be proud.” It’s the effect he’s going for but if you grant it to him he will likely hate you for it – with all bridges burned from that day.

  61. “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.”
    Once again men have to find the gem in the dung heap while women just hope some fool goes after them because modern woman is still about cash and prizes after the marriage/divorce paradigm.

  62. Tam the Bam says:

    “I’m sure God did answer that prayer and did speak to that British man; and quite categorically told him to stay the hell away from China”
    He did actually turn up, was as Christian as one can imagine (in a “muscular Christianity” style), and worked as a missionary for many years.
    Unfortunately for Gladys, he was the fastest runner in the world at that time, and married Florence.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Liddell

  63. “Elisabeth, I believe God answers prayer. And he called him.’” And here there was a brief pause of intense whisper. She said, “‘He called him, and he never came.’”

    😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

  64. Dalrock says:

    Good to see you around Tam.

  65. ChristianCool says:

    Dalrock says: Of course, in their “season of singleness” while waiting for God to send them Mr. Right, modern Christian women are forced to focus on becoming independent career women. And who can blame them if they find themselves riding the carousel to pass the time? They don’t want to follow the feminist script, mind you, they just have no choice. They have to wait for God to send them their husband. They are simply too traditional to do anything else.

    “‘[God] called [the man of her dreams from other side of the planet], and he never came.’”

    And some here on Comments section have suggested men who did the right thing by God their whole lives should wife up these sluts to avoid the sin of non-marital sex!!! LOL 😆

    Uh.. no, thanks. I am passing up on Ms. Carousel Rider, thank you.

    Marrying up a slut later in life to avoid un-married sexual sin. I am not even sure what is worse… that or moving to another country hoping a man from across the world will find them magically.

    Man… I can’t make this stuff up! 😀

    @Larry Kummer, Editor says: “Historians will not understand how our society wreck the lives of several generations of women”.

    They will probably blame the men, of course. And if that fails, they will never mention that millions of men sought out wives in their early to mid-20s and when no woman was interested, they moved on and gave up on marriage. Any man knows that ocne a guy reaches 30 and if he is still un-married by then, he will likely stay single forever, either as an Alpha Player or an Incel (Involuntary Celibate).

    That is how SJW/Feminism works, of course. They make the mess, demand men come clean it up. When no man is around to submit to their whims, they bitterly go online to complain and call curses down on men for the mess they made. It is a vicious cycle.

  66. Oscar says:

    Gents,

    Gladys Aylward was a Godly woman who did a hell of a lot more for the Kingdom than the vast majority of us ever will. And yet, on this subject, she was deceived.

    Guess what, gents; we’re not immune to deception either. Everyone has blind spots. By definition, none of us can see his own blind spot. We need Christian brothers to point out our blind spots to us. But then, we need to be open to having our blind spots pointed out to us.

    Proverbs 27:5 Open rebuke is better
    Than love carefully concealed.
    6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend,
    But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

    Proverbs 9:7 “He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself,
    And he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself.
    8 Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you;
    Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.
    9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser;
    Teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

  67. AnonS says:

    Has their been effort towards setting up a Christian red-pill discord channel or something? I would like more live community but I’ve been having trouble sitting through getting blue pills thrown in my face every Sunday.

    Dalrock should start a Patron have $1/month access to a private discord.

    If I start an in-person meetup group, not sure what I would call it. “Anti-modern Theology and Culture Discussion Group”

    Unsure how many men would care or how far such a group could grow to without being attacked and having member’s lives ruined.

  68. AnonS says:

    Ephesians 5:
    15 Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise,
    16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil.

    becomes:

    “Just be open to God bringing people into your life!”

  69. feministhater says:

    Gladys Aylward was a Godly woman who did a hell of a lot more for the Kingdom than the vast majority of us ever will. And yet, on this subject, she was deceived.

    What’s your point? She was obviously deceived, do you really think she heard God tell her that the man she prayed for didn’t come? That God was meant to send some British man on some quest to find her in between her sessions with her Chinese boyfriend and her spying on the Japanese?

    Marriage was something that she had never ruled out. Even before the war she had prayed for a husband and dreamed that one day her Prince Charming might come walking into Yangcheng. He never came—at least the one of her fantasies. But the war did bring another man into her life. His was Linnen, a Chinese military officer—the man who convinced her to become a spy against the Japanese. At first it was mutual patriotism that brought them together, but as time passed a romantic relationship developed, and as the suffering and hardships of war increased, her desire for marriage and security grew more intense. She wrote home to her family in England that she was planning to marry him. But the marriage never took place. In the devastated war-torn countryside nothing short of death seemed certain, and plans were made to be broken.

    Hm, do you think perhaps that any British man was slightly, I don’t know….. involved in a war….

    Do you think any person could have talked sense into her?

    The days were routine and dull, and the occasional nights off were cut short by an early curfew. Only in her fantasies did she break out of her drab existence. Here she moved in fast circles—drinking, smoking dancing, gambling, and attending theaters.

    Exactly like all women today. She spent her best years partying and doing what knows else and then decides to go off to a far away foreign country and expects a man to come save her?

    Of course she was deceived.

    She left England at the ripe old age of ….. 30…. just like the women of today, expecting marriage to prince charming after giving her best to others first. Make no mistake, she could have married young and had the life she wanted but that would have been boring…

    Whatever.

  70. ChristianCool says:

    @ Oscar says: “Gladys Aylward was a Godly woman who did a hell of a lot more for the Kingdom than the vast majority of us ever will. And yet, on this subject, she was deceived.”

    I agree, I do not think anyone is looking down on Aylward’s work to spread God’s message. The issue here is that Aylwad did a lot of good and so did Mother Theresa.
    But Mother Theresa was not out there demanding a Godly man from the other side of the world magically find her in the heart of a huge country far far away. China is a huge country with over 1 Billion people. Finding a British woman from the other side of the world is simply impossible.

    The issue here is that Ms. Aylward asked something absurd from God. That is like standing at the deck of a sinking ship and refusing help from a helicopter, a Coast Guard boat, and a life raft then say “God will rescue me”. 🙄

    “Do not put the LORD your God to the test…” Deut 6:16

    @AnonS

    I would be down for an in-person “Anti-modern Theology and Culture Discussion Group”. That sounds like the meet-ups that Roosh was setting up a few years back that were shutdown by FemiNazis organized online.

    Are you concerned about FemiNazis coming to the meet-up like what happened to Roosh’s meet-ups back in the day?

    There are ways around that problem. Roosh just had a highly successful in-person meet-up in DC…. The FemNazis seem to have lost interest in confronting and harassing Red Pill groups lately. They are too busy banning words and people on Tweeter or complaining about the world and the millions of daily rapes in wealthy universities that never happen in real life! lol

  71. JRob says:

    Quite frankly, true women don’t exist in the military

    Truth. Several comrades and I retired early because of them. #MeToo was rampant in the mulitary during the 90’s before it was #MeToo culture wide. The damaged feminist types joined up. Same behavior as celebrated in the civilian world decades later. A blog can easily be filled with these stories. Fully research Captain Jill Metzger, 2006, as an example.

    http://articles.latimes.com/1997-05-23/news/mn-61653_1_air-force

  72. Hmm says:

    @Tam:

    What an amazing coincidence (if coincidence it is)! Eric and Gladys were born the same year, both went single to China. Liddell went there in 1925 (and started a second stint in 1932), Aylward first showed up in 1932, two years before Liddell married. Maybe she didn’t pray soon enough!

    Still, God spared her 25 years of widowhood – Liddell died in 1945, and she lived until 1970.

  73. ChristianCool says:

    @feministhater

    I did the right thing and married young, at age 22 and she was 22 as well, a Christian woman who believed (and demanded!!) male headship in our home. She was the prime of her beauty.

    Can I do anything if she passed away after we were happily marred 12 years, years I faithfully worked hard and dedicated myself to our marriage?

    Now some here on Comments are suggesting that I marry a reformed slut, so I am not in the sin of non-marital sex!! As noble as that may see, I would be contributing to the problem by bailing out some post-Wall reformed slut.

    And what do I get from that? Well, I am out of the sin of non-marital sex if I man up and marry the slut…. but I put at risk everything my late-wife and I worked hard for over a decade. What a way to honor her memory… by marrying a reformed slut and putting at risk the little we worked hard for, my personal freedom (from false criminal accusations), my career, and my future. To the whims of a woman. lol

    That is exactly what the Feminists want me to do! Man up and marry a slut! 😆

    No thanks!

  74. ray says:

    Larry Kummer — “That’s why your work has such an impact. Most of us thought that Christian churches were a break on our accelerating slide down the slippery slope to Weimerica.”

    ‘Weimerica’?

    Lovely. Goes well with ‘Femerica’.

    Probly over the head of ninety-five percent of ‘college’ grads today, tho. They’re too busy studying how to destroy white males and the ‘Patriarchy’ to bother learning who/what the Weimar Republic was. Is.

  75. Joe says:

    Lost Patrol says:
    September 12, 2018 at 6:22 pm
    I was not familiar so did a “season of singleness” search. There were pages and pages of material on it. Another para-church cottage industry I guess. Like man up, servant leader, and “unpacking” Bible passages.

    Lisa is a puzzlement. She tells her charges to actively pursue marriage, and provides an excellent example of her own mother doing exactly this complete with tactics and techniques (my own mother-in-law used this same model to get her husband of 60 years and brags about it); but apparently is herself waiting to respond to the offer of a date. She was shown how and had it explained to her.

    Why is this so hard? Commenter Joe in previous threads mentioned his future wife made things obvious even when he barely knew who she was, with her unsolicited offer to help him paint his rent house.
    **************************************************************
    I had NO IDEA who she was! Never laid eyes on her before.
    All I could see was that she was a 5’10” brown eyed 125lb stunner. So “yeah sure you can come help”!!
    Turns out she was and still is a VERY hard worker.

    We still laugh about that day and how she showed herself off to me so obviously and the tension between us.

  76. ray says:

    Lost Patrol — ‘“No one would deny Jeannie Leavitt’s masculine qualities. She is the U.S. Air Force’s first female fighter pilot, the first woman to command a USAF combat fighter wing, and a brigadier general. She’s a wife and mother, and all woman. She’s unapologetically feminine, while tougher than Clint Eastwood and Chuck Norris combined.”’

    I would deny Jeannie Leavitt’s masculine qualities. To her face. (After which would come a physical attack on me, followed by phone pleas to the police to ‘save her’ from the abusive, violent man. I can almost hear the sirens now.) :O)

    Masculinity comes from Father. It is unique. It does not exist in the female, nor is it equivalent to testosterone or any other discrete element or substance. He ‘breathed’ it into the human male and something likewise for the Sons of God, long ago. It cannot be replicated, it can only be artificed and mocked by awarding it to females. Thereby denigrating and polluting Father’s original gift of masculinity to His sons, whether of Adam or otherwise.

    Glenn Stanton is an agent of satan, doing the work of satan. He’s got a lot of company, a whole legion of Professional Christians and their willing audiences.

    Note how Gyno-Glenn has to degrade recognized figures of masculinity (Eastwood, Norris) in order to raise himself up via whiteknighting for some wannabe-male skank.

    See you down the road, Glenn.

  77. Oscar says:

    @ feministhater

    What’s your point?

    I’ll repeat it for you.

    Guess what, gents; we’re not immune to deception either. Everyone has blind spots. By definition, none of us can see his own blind spot. We need Christian brothers to point out our blind spots to us. But then, we need to be open to having our blind spots pointed out to us.

    Proverbs 27:5 Open rebuke is better
    Than love carefully concealed.
    6 Faithful are the wounds of a friend,
    But the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.

    Proverbs 9:7 “He who corrects a scoffer gets shame for himself,
    And he who rebukes a wicked man only harms himself.
    8 Do not correct a scoffer, lest he hate you;
    Rebuke a wise man, and he will love you.
    9 Give instruction to a wise man, and he will be still wiser;
    Teach a just man, and he will increase in learning.

    Do you have any questions that pertain to anything I actually wrote?

  78. ray says:

    The butterflies, the daisies, and the Trying Hard but Failing ManBeard really says it all, Glenn. Oops I hear your mommy calling you home for lunch. PBJ and cookies, Glenn!

    Run along now like a nice little boy.

  79. BillyS says:

    CC,

    Now some here on Comments are suggesting that I marry a reformed slut, so I am not in the sin of non-marital sex!! As noble as that may see, I would be contributing to the problem by bailing out some post-Wall reformed slut.

    Where are those replies? They are not there if you are referring to me. I just said to be faithful to God’s commands or stop proclaiming to everyone that you are a Christian. His commands don’t have a clause “except if the world is bad.”

    If I can do it after almost 30 years, you can do it as well. Quit making excuses for your sin.

    (I am talking of being chaste. I refuse to get very physical with anyone prior to marriage, because I know where it would quickly lead. I don’t see any eligible candidates, so I expect to never get out of this state in this life.)

    Many justify their sin, but it remains sin and open rebellion. That is no different than a woman riding the CC while claiming she had no other options.

  80. feministhater says:

    Rather just explain what you mean and be done with it. Don’t be obtuse, just explain in concise English what you mean.

  81. ray says:

    BTW Glenn and the ‘Moody Collective’ is part of Moody Publishing out of . . . wait for it now, waaiiiit . . . Chicago, Ill-i-noise! Whoda thunk, eh? Spawn-land of the Michelle ‘n Barry Show. And so many other demonic delights! The very crotch of satan’s church in America.

    I’ve been tracking the corrupt Moody Church Empire for about a decade now, ever since I heard their radio broadcasts during homeless periods living in the mountains. Thank you BayGen Radio! :O)

    The modern Moody ‘church’ truly puts the ‘Pro’ in Professional Christianity.

  82. BillyS says:

    Wouldn’t a moody church tend to be feminine?

    (I know, it was named after the founder, but the idea is still humorous and too close to reality.)

  83. earl says:

    Guess what, gents; we’re not immune to deception either. Everyone has blind spots. By definition, none of us can see his own blind spot. We need Christian brothers to point out our blind spots to us. But then, we need to be open to having our blind spots pointed out to us.

    Well we are pointing out her deception which hopefully women lurking around here see it and don’t get decieved…when you find ours, point it out.

  84. ray says:

    Novaseeker — “And this makes sense to them, why? Reason one is that they have daughters/nieces, and they want their daughters/nieces to take every advantage of everything available to them — the more conservative the dad, the more pushy he seems to be about this, and the more cartoonishly macho pride he expresses in favor of his rather masculinized daughter/niece (whom he very much egged on in her masculinization).”

    Yup. Exactamundo. And yes, this IS the modern ‘Christian conservative’. I butt heads with them all the time on their sites, Breitbart and whatnot. They are clearly and openly feminists, but will reel in fake-shock, indignation, and rage if you call them that. They demand that their daughters/sisters/nieces etc. be awarded Superior Class Citizenship, and they preen thereby in their self-righteousness, in their cucking out of other (stronger and fitter) males, and in the monetary/status advancement that such a betrayal brings in this world.

    The feminist nations/cultures of the West have spent the past half-century pouring out incentives on the dads and male relatives of Princess, to facilitate the fem-takeover of the nations. None of this is even vaguely accidental. Monetary, social, psychological, institutional/structural . . . every possible kind of incentive you can imagine.

    Satan’s strategy for the modern world was not to thug and terrorize them, as of old, but rather to induce and incentivize rebellion against God, to such degree that the wide majority of people will accept the easy route, particularly when they can call themselves ‘godly’ and ‘Christian’ while doing the exact opposite. Christianity is the perfect cover.

  85. ray says:

    Novaseeker at 8:30 —

    Right on the button. You have these weasels down pat.

    I mean, take a look at the pictures of these Professional Preachers constantly trotted out before us as leaders of the faith. Stanton e.g. is just pathetic. They’re the third-rate dorks who in their forties and fifties are STILL waging Total Sperm War on boys and men that are patently superior to them. They’re still stuck in resentment and rage from effing Junior High School! Instead of trying to better or improve themselves, they take the Smooth Road and become eunuchs for Jezebel. Ain’t nothin’ changed but the names of the countries, folks.

    They’re too cowardly to confront and fight other men, so the only way they can destroy their betters is via using females, Christianity, and whiteknighting as a shield. Because they know the Feminist State will back them with force.

    There are a LOTTA these punks in modern America. Far more than the Faithful. The ones you’re fighting for are the Undecideds. And the young.

  86. Oscar says:

    @ feministhater

    Rather just explain what you mean and be done with it. Don’t be obtuse, just explain in concise English what you mean.

    I’ve done that twice now. If you don’t understand what I mean, you could try asking a question that pertains to what I actually wrote. Or not. Your choice.

  87. feministhater says:

    Okay Oscar. Whatever.

  88. earl says:

    What deception is that? I never said I worship Mary…I understand the importance of her veneration.

    As far as the Israelites worshiping other gods and God…you’ll see eventually the idolatry wins out among them and God’s anger is upon them. Hence why I said IF they worship Mary as a goddess and worship Christ…the idolatry will win out. Is that what’s going on in central America?

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/09/07/an-unshakable-faith-in-mens-benevolence-an-inexhaustible-supply-of-good-will-from-men/#comment-285369

  89. earl says:

    ‘Church theologians have long adopted the terms latria for the type of worship due to God alone, and dulia and proskynesis for the veneration given to angels, saints, relics and icons. Catholic and Orthodox theologies also include the term hyperdulia for the type of veneration specifically paid to Mary, mother of Jesus, in Catholic and Orthodox traditions. This distinction is spelled out in the dogmatic conclusions of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787), which also decreed that iconoclasm, i.e. forbidding icons and their veneration, a dogma central to the Iconoclastic controversy, is a heresy that amounts to a denial of the incarnation of Jesus. ‘

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

  90. ray says:

    Oscar — “Gladys Aylward was a Godly woman who did a hell of a lot more for the Kingdom than the vast majority of us ever will.”

    No way you could know that, unless you are God. You ain’t.

  91. AnonS says:

    Oscar — “Gladys Aylward was a Godly woman who did a hell of a lot more for the Kingdom than the vast majority of us ever will.”

    One women vs hundreds of decedents in a few generations…

  92. Lexet Blog says:

    I did this review of a movie boundless is hawking right now

    https://lexetiustitia.wordpress.com/2018/09/13/review-the-dating-project-movie/

  93. Oscar says:

    @ earl

    What deception is that? I never said I worship Mary…I understand the importance of her veneration.

    And I never said that you worship Mary. That’s a straw man argument. Your deception is that you refuse to even consider the fact – and it is a fact – that the Catholic Church in Latin America teaches believers to worship Mary. Again, i never asked you to believe me. Go to Latin America and see for yourself. Otherwise, you’re speaking from willful ignorance, i.e., self-deception.

  94. Oscar says:

    @ AnonS

    One women vs hundreds of decedents in a few generations…

    What does that mean?

  95. Oscar says:

    @ ray

    No way you could know that, unless you are God. You ain’t.

    Have you read what she did? Can you point to anyone here who’s done as much as she did?

    But hey, let’s suppose you can. Does that somehow negate the point that we need to guard against self-deception?

  96. Oscar says:

    @ feministhater

    Okay Oscar. Whatever.

    Typical.

  97. earl says:

    Your deception is that you refuse to even consider the fact – and it is a fact – that the Catholic Church in Latin America teaches believers to worship Mary. Again, i never asked you to believe me. Go to Latin America and see for yourself.

    If you got the factual proof…show me. It shouldn’t require me to go to Latin America if you got the proof. If they worship Mary as a goddess and a lord in a Catholic church it should be clear as day in any Mass what they are doing.

  98. earl says:

    This was the inside of a church in Guatemala…I see a tabernacle with the body of Christ.

  99. earl says:

    Looks the like the holy sacrifice of the Mass…not the worship of Mary to me.

  100. Oscar says:

    @ earl

    If you got the factual proof…show me.

    I gave you eye witness evidence. feeriker corroborated it. If you won’t believe the testimony of two witnesses, then by all means go there and see for yourself. Unless you wish to remain in willful ignorance/self deception.

  101. ray says:

    Billy S — “Wouldn’t a moody church tend to be feminine?”

    You got me there. Truth in advertising, I guess.

    There likely was, at one time, and actual Christian named Moody who started … I dunno, something. Not trying to slag him, obviously. He’s probly long dead by now and unaware of what they’ve done with his name.

  102. ray says:

    Oscar — “Have you read what she did? Can you point to anyone here who’s done as much as she did?”

    But Oscar, even if I studied her life and works, how would I know fully the works of persons on this page, by which to compare? Neither of us can know that.

    Look, if she did good, or even great, works for the Kingdom, then so be it and gladly will I praise her. When the time comes. But I’m not ready to evaluate her works against those of some here, much less set her efforts above. I would not under-estimate the reach nor resonance of this humble page, and its persons. This place is a grade A meteor impact as concerns the Kingdom and the planet. Gonna make a big splash.

  103. ray says:

    Earl I’ve visited Latin America many times, and live there currently. Mary is much more ‘adored’ than Christ, who often remains only a nino in mamacita’s arms. You know very well there is no such thing as ‘proof’ of such worship — how can you prove the heart of a person, or a people? I tell you only my perceptions about this, and no other can do more.

    Latin America was decidedly pagan — and swimming in the worship of various ‘goddesses’ — a lot longer than it’s been Christian. For many, the Catholic cult of the virgin transitioned seamlessly from their familiar goddess/god worship, with many rites attendant, often involving human blood. Jeshua, the real thing, is still very much a mystery in most of Latin America. Paradoxically, the cultures here, aside from those already destroyed by the Left (Venezuela, Nicaragua, working on Brazil) are far more masculine than the anglo nations. Families are still led by dads, and single mothers are not embraced — including by the women — at least in the smaller towns where I’m likely to be found.

    I grew up Catholic, I like the social conservatism that Catholicism championed in my youth and I have a lot of sympathy for your defense of that church. But the reality on the ground here is what it is.

  104. Oscar says:

    @ ray

    But Oscar, even if I studied her life and works, how would I know fully the works of persons on this page, by which to compare?

    So, is that a yes, or a no? Also, I reiterate; let’s suppose you can point to anyone here who’s done as much for the Kingdom as Gladys Aylward did. Does that somehow negate the point that we need to guard against self-deception?

  105. ray says:

    Oscar — “But hey, let’s suppose you can. Does that somehow negate the point that we need to guard against self-deception?”

    No, I’m with you on the self-deception thing. It’s the part about her works being above those of others here that got me.

  106. OKRickety says:

    ChristianCool,

    ‘Now some here on Comments are suggesting that I marry a reformed slut, so I am not in the sin of non-marital sex!! As noble as that may see, I would be contributing to the problem by bailing out some post-Wall reformed slut.’

    It seems clear that you are participating in non-marital sex, but wish to justify your sin. If you think you can do so, I’d be curious to see your reasoning.

    However, as I recall, Paul said it is better to marry than to burn with passion. If you have the passion, the onus is on you to find an acceptable wife. If you can’t find one, then your remaining option is to refrain from sex. I understand that you may not like those choices, but I don’t see any other Biblical option.

    If you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with God!

  107. Oscar says:

    @ Earl

    This is from Segovia, Spain. The title of the article is, “so what if we’re a Marian people?” I’ll translate for you.

    https://www.elnortedecastilla.es/v/20110926/segovia/somos-pueblo-mariano-20110926.html

    It’s said in some corners that we are more Marians than Christians; that’s not an insult, or even an inaccuracy… Of course, do not be afraid that they might criticize us for being a Marian people, because the shortest and simplest path to Christ is the Virgin Mary.
    ~ Ángel Rubio, Bishop of Segovia.

    Just like Christ is the way to the Father. Right?

    This is from Managua, capital of Nicaragua. The title is “Marian people turn out on the streets of Managua to celebrate”.

    https://www.el19digital.com/articulos/ver/titulo:64445-pueblo-mariano-se-vuelca-a-calles-en-managua-para-celebrar-la-griteria

    The Virgin Mary is our advocate… ~ Byron Delgado

    I’m very devout toward the Virgin because she’s our Intercessor before God, I owe her so many favors… we’re returning to her a little of everything with which she blesses us all year. ~ Norma María Pérez

    Just like Jesus is our advocate, intercessor, mediator before God. Right?

    Funny. The Apostle Paul said that “there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim 2:5). I guess he was wrong.

    Definition of worship
    1 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence
    2 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual
    3 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem

    You know what it’s called when you build an altar to, pray to, sing to, and bring offerings to a supernatural being in religious rituals?

    It’s called worship.

  108. Oscar says:

    @ ray

    No, I’m with you on the self-deception thing. It’s the part about her works being above those of others here that got me.

    Hey, I don’t know of anyone here who’s gone to a pagan country and raised over 100 orphans in the admonition of the Lord in war time conditions. If someone has, I’d appreciate it if they’d speak up.

    But yeah, even someone with her faith – as evidenced by her works – is susceptible to self-deception. So are we.

  109. earl says:

    I gave you eye witness evidence. feeriker corroborated it. If you won’t believe the testimony of two witnesses, then by all means go there and see for yourself. Unless you wish to remain in willful ignorance/self deception.

    Does it lead them away from Christ though? That’s what I want to know.

    ‘MOTHER MARY – OUR POWERFUL INTERCESSOR IN HEAVEN!’

    http://www.drcm.org/divine-call-archive/302-mother-mary-our-powerful-intercessor-in-heaven

    The Bible tells that Mother Mary is a virgin. But it is also mentioned in the Bible, “Then his mother and brothers came.” (Mark 3:31) Who are these brothers of Jesus? Did Mother Mary have other children? Jesus answers in the Gospel of Mark 3:33-35, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” He looked at the people sitting round him and said, “Look! Here are my mother and brothers! Whoever does what God wants him to do is my brother, sister and my mother.” By saying this, Jesus showed the whole world that His Mother is the first human being who always did the Will of His Father in Heaven. Jesus raises Her up as a model for all of us to follow and thereby become His brothers and sisters too! Thus who were ‘Jesus’ brothers’? They were not children borne by Mother Mary but those who were doing the Will of the Father. That is why Mother Mary also insists, “Do as he says.” (John 2:5) Thus, Mother Mary is not someone who takes us away from Her Son – but on the contrary – She is the one who brings us closer to Her Son Jesus through Her most powerful intercession.

  110. earl says:

    In fact if you want to understand how devotion to Mary leads us into closer union with Christ…St. Louis de Monfort wrote the book on it.

    https://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM?__hstc=198926896.baca13b87c0b872e36059560e02c5108.1536879113121.1536879113121.1536879113121.1&__hssc=198926896.1.1536879113121&__hsfp=3173800533

  111. sipcode says:

    The trajectory of the woman is so far off because of Genesis 3:16 …her desire. And, it is far off because, as John MacArthur said, “No biblical standard is more viciously attacked today than the God-ordained role of women in society. And no passage is more ridiculed or reinterpreted by assailants within the church than [Titus 2:4-5].” The tough pill to swallow: who is attacking whom? See the final comment below.

    It is comical, and sad, just how far off we are in God’s order for the male – female roles and relationship. And just as important, how this mirrors, how this then projects into the church’s role and relationship with God.

    We don’t speak His language; we speak the language of the world. We fancy that we speak His language, but the church’s worldview is much more carnal than spiritual; much more the words of man than the Word of God.

    We don’t acknowledge the purpose of the male, and we don’t acknowledge the purpose of the female. We, throw out half-truths that give an appearance of righteousness, mixing in all kinds of “cunningly devised fables” to the role of each, “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof …ever learning [think of the ridiculous amount of marriage counsel books and teaching] and never able to come to the knowledge of the Truth” …and end up blaspheming the Word of God; even in the seeming best of marriages …they miss out knowing the fullness of the Lord their God.

    Why: the male was created to help God, to tend God’s creation, having dominion over God’s creation. The female was not created to help God. The female was created to help the man; nothing more, nothing less.

    God made Adam, in His image, making the man for Himself: “For a man …is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man” 1 Cor 11:7. God later made the woman for the man, to meet the man’s emotional and physical needs, while the man was responsible for dominion over God’s creation …for “it was not good that the man should be alone.” The woman was not made directly for God; she was made directly for the man, from the man.

    Marriage is not about the woman any more than marriage is about the church. Marriage is about the bridegroom, not the bride. But in this day of ‘lovers of self’ it is about the bride: Black is White. This is what we are used to seeing, and why fewer and fewer women want to get married or stay married –because they find out it is not really about them. Marriage is not about the church, it is about Jesus. When Jesus says ”Ye shall ask what ye will and it shall be done unto you” He had included a qualifier: the bride must first ”abide in Me and My words abide in you.” This means the bride is devoid of herself; the church is devoid of itself. It is not about her. So with the wife; she gets her way when it is his way, when she abides in him and in his words, his desires, his being. She, as the bride, is devoid of herself. Marriage is all about the bridegroom. All. “If ye abide in Me ….” …otherwise don’t bother asking. Further: “Take ye wives …take wives for your sons …give your daughters to husbands…” Jeremiah 29:6. This is about possession: taking possession and giving up possession [see Greek ‘lord’ definition below]. As Christ takes possession of our lives –if we will be married to Him– so a husband takes possession of a wife and her life. Likewise, a father gives up possession of his daughter into the hands of a husband.

    The woman does not glorify God; the woman glorifies the man: again in “For a man …is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man” 1 Cor 11:7. This is the sole created purpose of the woman, to glorify the man. Nothing more, nothing less. And it is at his instruction she heeds, and no one else’s. The Greek: “glory” 1391G ‘doxa’ [forming doxology] =dignity, honor, praise, worship. A wife praising and worshiping her husband is not making an idol of him because she is following the Word in doing so, the very being of Jesus Himself. THAT, is glorifying the Word of God. In making her husband a seeming-to-the-carnal-mind idol she is denying herself, which is her cross, and following Him; following His Word. This is the example to the church. And, notice Paul never makes any exceptions to wives obeying their husbands, including forsaking other principles of the Word …because they apply to the man in his responsibility for dominion.

    “Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord” in 1 Peter 3:6; “lord” = 2962G = kurios = owner, master, controller, absolute ownership rights, supreme in authority, God, sir, owner, possessor, disposer, sovereign, chief, supremacy, dominion, ruler, government; from kuros = supremacy, authority.

    “Glory” and “lord”: this is a position of worship; the woman does not worship the Lord directly; the woman worships the Lord by effectively worshiping the man with her obedience to his every word [Eph 5:24], glorifying him as lord. The man openly worships the Lord, directly.

    These concepts are essentially foreign to God’s people and the church has built a materially bogus relationship with the Bridegroom, endorsing women in usurping the position of men in and out of the formal church. The focus on women –THE WORSHIP OF WOMEN–her taking the Illicit Authority she desires in Genesis 3:16, and men hearkening to her voice in Genesis 3:17, has led “My people” to “children are their oppressors and women rule over them” and “seven women shall take hold of one man” Isaiah 3:12 + 4:1, and the troubled hearts of fathers and children that Elijah will return to heal in Malachi 4:6. This Illicit Authority of women is the ‘blasphemy of the Word of God’ addressed in Titus 2:5.

    Come, know the Lord your God.

    “No man is as anti-feminist as a really feminine woman” – Frank O’Conner, quoted in the April 1967 Reader’s Digest … and why I say…

    … ‘The healing of the church starts with women taking their rightful place.’

  112. Bee says:

    sipcode,

    Excellent essay. This should be preached in every church as a Sunday morning sermon. Thank you.

    I have gone to church all my life, sometimes 3 or 4 times a week. I don’t remember ever hearing a teaching from I Corinthians 11 on this important subject.

    Hat tip to Sharkly, he has written similar comments.

  113. Sharkly says:

    Thanks Bee,
    I agree with sipcode. When Sarah called Abraham Lord, it wasn’t flattery(which would be a sin), it was acknowledging their relationship as God would have it. That is why she is praised as an example for saying that and acting accordingly.(in 1 Peter 3)
    Also there is no honest way of reading 1Corinthians 11 but to acknowledge that it contrasts man being in the image and glory of God, with woman who are told to behave as someone who is not. And we are instead told that she is the glory of the man.(much lesser) If men are all higher by their creation, then every woman who acknowledges that, can look up to her husband as a higher being, and satisfy her hypergamy. You don’t look up to an equal. A woman will never be fully happy thinking she is married to her equal. She will wish she had married somebody she could look up to. She can, but we’ve all been deceived away from what God’s word explains.

  114. ChristianCool says:

    @OKRickety

    I am NOT denying that I am engaging in non-martial sex with women I engage in RELATIONSHIPS with. I do not go on Tinder to engage in random hook-ups, even though I certainly could.

    Engaging in random sex with random loose women (which the Western world seem to create an unlimited supply of) is not what I wanted in my life anyway. That is why I got married when I was 22.

    Problem is for me to re-marry at my tender age of 36 (I have no kids, btw) in America is financial, emotional, and legal suicide. I can go into it for those of you who have not had their fill of the Red Pill (or talked to anyone divorced or any attorneys specialized in “family law”).

    To marry in America in 2018 is to hand a woman a loaded handgun with an authorization for her to shoot you anytime she wishes. She may not use that gun but the threat of her having the gun + your authorization to use the gun against you ANYTIME for ANY REASON is always there. Dalrock calls it the ThreatPoint: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/04/14/threatpoint/amp/

    In sum, the woman holds all the cards in a marriage in the West today. Some of the highlights:

    *Woman has the full moral protection/defense of the church if she cheats and/or frivolously divorces the man. In fact, she will claim abuse or “not being supportive” and will turn whole church against you anytime she wants.

    *Marriage is a “permission slip” for her to become lazier, get fat, act irrationally, be disrespectful, and violently… whatever SHE wants. One wrong move by the man and she files for divorce and destroys your life.

    *She has the right and the law behind her and can easily and I mean EASILY send the man to jail and then prison anytime for a variety of crimes that are impossible to defend against, from rape 20 years ago to “marital rape” to “abuse” etc. Try disproving her in court and see what happens (please do not give me platitudes of “innocent until proven guilty”, ’cause I got 6 years of law firm work + 1st year law school and I know how criminal justice system works top to bottom). This is the #MeToo era, women are believed and shielded from any responsibilities at all times.

    *She is the default owner of any children produced with a man; Family courts view children as “wife’s property” and only in cases where man can show with overwhelmingly evidence the woman has committed extreme abuse against children, she will have full custody.

    *She is guaranteed MINIMUM 50% of everything you owned, even assets prior to marriage. I personally know a guy who gave wife 90% of all their joint assets because he could not take the divorce hell anymore. She is guaranteed “primary residence” if she accuses man of “domestic violence” and gets a restraining order against man, which is insanely easy to do.

    *She is guaranteed, under penalty of prison for the man, a large part of the man’s FUTURE income and child support, even in cases when man is proven NOT to be the biological father of the child. If she had kids form before marriage and man “acted as a father” (easy to prove in court too), the stepdad will be forced to pay child support for her kid(s) form prior marriage.

    *Child visitation is not guaranteed and almost ever enforced against ex-wife. being even 1 minute late to return a child enables her to call cops and press charges for “child kidnapping” if her lil’ heart so desires.

    Marriage is THE worst thing a man can do in this country today. I would rather spit on a tough judge’s face and take the consequences of his wrath than face a frivolous divorce.

    So yeah, given all that, where do I sign up to marry a post-wall AmeriCunt right away??? LOL 🙄

    Yeah, let’s keep bailing out the “reformed” Cock Carousel Riders… ’cause women don’t respond to incentives for bad behaviors at all! 😆 lol Let’s keep bailing whores out, it will fix this whole societal mess we are in that way!

    🙄 I gotta laugh!

  115. ChristianCool says:

    @OkRickety

    One of the best quotes by Dalrock:

    “The reality of course is that all but the most clueless Christian women eventually figure this out, which is why we see so many women suddenly marrying in their 30s and even early 40s. The women who marry late in life DID NOT suddenly get thinner, prettier, or sweeter. Nor did their options suddenly improve.” https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/09/13/feminine-wiles/

    Marrying a clueless 30-40 year old ex-Carousel Rider will be the death of any MAN who dares enter such a agreement. It is a folly even blue pill betas are starting to get.

    If you must marry for religious reason, move to a non-Common Law marriage State, have a pretty wedding at a church in said State with a woman you are committed to living with, and move in together. Have a lawyer draft a “tenant agreement contract” beforehand.

    DO NOT LEGALLY MARRY. No marriage license or any sort of marital document/papers are filed with any court, Bank accounts and finances are 100% separate. Woman should not even know any financials, you should run it all yourself as a man anyway.

    I do not know anywhere in Bible where a marriage has to be controlled by State. It is funny yo imagine God, a Patriarch, sitting down envisioning this “glorious feminist age” when men would be cucked, frivolously divorce raped, jailed unfairly by the woman’s wishes, and have his kids taken away form him by Feminist-controlled courts using police (force) to carry out woman’s demands and prerogatives.

    Just hilarious to hear people preach Marriage when Marriage 2.0 is the absolute and unquestionable law of the land. Adapt to survive or die. That is Femerica, welcome!

  116. OKRickety says:

    ChristianCool,

    Let me make it clear that I do not greatly disagree, if at all, with your assessment of the state of marriage today and the problems associated with it. Your repeated diatribes are not adding significantly to the discussion here.

    ‘I am NOT denying that I am engaging in non-martial sex with women I engage in RELATIONSHIPS with.’

    I’d like to focus specifically on this behavior. Do you agree that sex outside of marriage is sin? If so, then why do you continue to sin in this way?

    If it is not sin, then it appears you are considering it acceptable on the basis of “relationship”. That is just as absurd as the currently popular idea that romantic love makes sex acceptable.

    You indicate that biblical marriage is not equal to legal marriage. Fair enough. Are you biblically married to the women you “engage in RELATIONSHIPS with”? Repeating myself, I only see the Bible to allow sex in marriage.

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

  118. ray says:

    Oscar — “Hey, I don’t know of anyone here who’s gone to a pagan country and raised over 100 orphans in the admonition of the Lord in war time conditions. If someone has, I’d appreciate it if they’d speak up.”

    Jeez dood, give it up. Are you really trying to make an actual argument, or are you just stubbornly holding out for Being Right?

    She could have raised ten thousand orphans in Bangladesh and it would not be proof that her works are greater than works here. You wanna believe that, believe it then. But your personal belief and bias is not the same as an objective standard of the relative value of works. Only God can judge that — it’s not in the authority of Oscar. No matter how insistent Oscar is that Oscar is correct.

  119. BillyS says:

    OKR,

    If it is not sin, then it appears you are considering it acceptable on the basis of “relationship”. That is just as absurd as the currently popular idea that romantic love makes sex acceptable.

    If he answers, it would be “no”. He is merely slutting over time. He won’t pick someone off tinder (he claims) but he will not commit for a lifetime either. It is almost guaranteed he jumps to next someone when he is no longer satisfied. And he is complaining that marriage is meaningless. It is just like the man digging a hole through the hull complaining that the boat is sinking.

    He is as much a part of the problem as the women doing the same on the other side.

  120. BillyS says:

    Oscar,

    It depends what the highest calling of a woman is. Is it to do some mighty work someplace or to raise the next generation and be a faithful wife? It seems you think the former may be higher than the latter.

    Though you might have a point about her being called to being single so she could fulfill the Lord’s will, but that doesn’t fit with her proclamation that a man failed to come and wife her up, especially after she gave her youth and fertility to other pursuits. (She already wasted a lot of that if she left for the mission field at 30. What was she doing the decade or more prior to that?)

    Learn to acknowledge accomplishments without worshiping them. She will get no more rewards for her action than the faithful homemaker if that was not God’s primary call to her. Her bitterness about a man not coming around the world to wife her up indicates some major underlying problems.

  121. Dan says:

    @OKRickety I’d say that “relationships” are closer to Biblical marriage than legal marriage is now, as the latter puts the woman in the seat of authority over the man.

  122. OKRickety says:

    Dan,

    Even so, are “relationships” biblical marriages? If so, on what basis, if any, does one divorce the wife in a biblical marriage? And how does one accomplish this divorce?

    This is relevant to ChristianCool as he clearly states a plurality of “relationships” in less than three years (12 years of marriage from age 22 to his current 36). If nothing else, he is engaging in short-term serial monogamy, essentially the equivalent to women riding the cock carousel.

  123. Paul says:

    The Church and the State have gone into a sorry state of affairs if men who want to follow Christ are better off upholding holy vows WITHOUT a LEGAL marriage.

    I remember ‘Braveheart’ where in the beginning Gibson illegally marries a woman in the dead of the night before the witness of a priest. Interestingly enough, in RCC dogma marriage is a sacrament the couple bestows upon each other and to which the priest is only witness.

    When will the Church starts taking the following serious again?
    “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”

    Marriage it to be held in honor AMONG ALL

    that means, all Christians should do all they can to uphold and honor the institution of marriage as God made it.

  124. Paul says:

    @earl: “Does it lead them away from Christ though? That’s what I want to know.”

    Well, you know the answer yourself if you’ve read what others witnessed of here. These people see Christ as practically subordinate to Mary, and Mary is their focal point in worship NOT Christ. So it does lead them away from Christ.

    And as for your quote how Mary would bring someone closer to Christ, I think it perfectly illustrates the amount of Scripture twisting necessary to teach people how to focus their veneration/worship towards Mary instead of towards Christ.

    ““Look! Here are my mother and brothers! Whoever does what God wants him to do is my brother, sister and my mother.” By saying this, Jesus showed the whole world that His Mother is the first human being who always did the Will of His Father in Heaven.”

    No, that does not follow from the text. Not at all. Conveniently it is ignored that Jesus mentions ‘mother’ last, after ‘brother’ and ‘sister’. And we know from St.Paul that all have sinned, that includes Mary, hence she did NOT always do the will of the Father.

    “Jesus raises Her up as a model for all of us to follow and thereby become His brothers and sisters too! ”

    No, not all. He effectively DENIES the special role of his physical mother Mary and instead points to anyone who does the will of God as ‘brother’, ‘sister’, and ‘mother’, i.e. his spiritual family. Jesus effectively says he thus has many mothers, and that physical relationships do not have spiritual significance.

    “Thus, Mother Mary is not someone who takes us away from Her Son – but on the contrary – She is the one who brings us closer to Her Son Jesus through Her most powerful intercession.”

    So we are instructed we need to pray to Mary to act as an intercessory between us and Christ, who is the mediator between God and man. But He is not really mediator, because we need Mary for us to mediate towards Christ.

    That effectively places Mary between Christ and us, and by definition does NOT one bring one closer to God.

    This not even addresses the total lack of support from Scripture to even suggest that Mary is the one we should address to mediate between us and Christ.

  125. earl says:

    That effectively places Mary between Christ and us, and by definition does NOT one bring one closer to God.

    How does her bringing us closer to Christ also mean that she is a barrier between Christ and us? She brought Christ to Elizabeth and John as her first act after the Annunciation.

    I think your hang up with Mary is you see her as a sinner because of St. Paul’s verse. Whereas Catholic church dogma with the Immaculate Conception is that through God’s grace she was kept from original sin for her part to bring Christ into the world.

    https://www.catholic.com/tract/immaculate-conception-and-assumption

    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/all-have-sinned-vs.-a-sinless-immaculate-mary

  126. ChristianCool says:

    @ray

    How often do you hear “we are doing a school program for young BOYS to learn entrepreneurship and how to succeed further in life”??? How about…. NEVER!

    How often do you hear “we are doing a school program for young GIRLS to learn entrepreneurship and how to succeed further in life”??? I hear one in the news at least every day!

    How about “our foundation is researching cure for prostate (or testicular) cancer and we doing a fundraiser ‘Walk for The Cure'” type thing? Almost never.

    How about “our foundation is researching cure for breast cancer and we doing a fundraiser ‘Walk for The Cure'” type thing? Yearly guaranteed walk and billions of Dollars raised + whole month of “pink ribbons” everywhere.

    I could go on and on.

    The problem is not Conservative dads pushing their daughters to succeed. The problem is they are failing their sons/not giving their sons enough attention/training/encouragement, following the societal mantra of “girls need our help” or that anything female-related is worthy of our time/energy and resources.

    The moment you are born a male in the Western world, you are only given your natural talents to rely on. The entire system is against you from day 1. This is not even in dispute anymore. Sociologists from the Conservative Dr. Helen to even extreme leftists like Hanna Rosin all agree this is indeed the case. They differ on the benefits, causes and solutions to this problem widely, but they agree men are grossly disenfranchised in the West.

    The problem is that structurally, this is an unsustainable system. It has made America weaker and more volatile than ever before.

    Think of how unsustainable Apartheid was in South Africa where 10% of population repressed 90% or even the other way around, when 13% of the population in USA back in 1960s was black and denied many rights. The system becomes volatile with time and unsustainable.

    This is why even the most radical Feminists like author of “The End of Men” by radical Marxist-FemiNazi Hanna Rosin own book is basically Rosin popping the champaign and shouting 60% “yahoo!” and 40% “oh shit, now what”. Although I never read the book, but a friend was required to read this shitty book for Freshman Comp 101 and told me that even a radical like Rosin understands that this is going to be a massive societal problem that will trigger some sort of crisis in next decades. Although Rosin applauds the job of educators, entertainers, and academics for creating this system to weaken and disenfranchise “dangerous men/masculinity” (whom she says are now obsolete), she understands this will become a huge problem in the future.

    In UK and even Australia, both Feminist hellhole countries light-years ahead of USA in male oppression and systematic FemiNazism, sociologists and academics are now trying to figure out what to do about this “problem” they themselves created.

    I saw this documentary about the “problem” with white British young boys. Many white British girls interviewed were complaining about how “aggressive” and “racist” or “homophobic” so many of them are (and yet these “women” still give it away to these thug white guys faster than Santa on Christmas morning) because they are in gangs. The bad boy factor works across the AngloSphere as it does in USA without missing a beat. The problem is that societal shame in these marginalized men does not work as it used to. They act like American black males do in inner city S#itcago; they are in gangs, engage in crime, and have zero shame about it.

    In UK example I mentioned, they have this “white thug culture” that has recently developed in a large-part of a generation of white male Brits, who have become violent and who join gangs by the tens of thousands. Shamed across all spectrums of British society for being male and white, having their jobs exported at record speed and communities overrun by masses of cheap Muslim foreign immigrants, these “lost boys” have simply adapted to survive. They form gangs to make money and defend themselves from violent foreign gangs and since Western women like thugs and violent men, they Game women that way as well, free. Instead of “provider game”, they simply run aggressive alpha/criminal game. Once they see it works, they continue the lifestyle.

    (A British friend pointed out to me the movie “The King’s Men: Secret Service” (first movie) main character is a perfect example of this white British subculture in UK. Egsy is a typical “white thug”, lower middle class, violent, profane, without any class. He hustles for money, does not work, and fails at anything “institutionalized”, like military. Eggsy is transformed into a typical British chap we all imagine with a nice suit, umbrella, and class, but as my friend pointed out, that is the imagination of foreigners who have never been to UK and imagine it 40 years ago).

    I did not mean to stray from my original point, but such a system is unsustainable. In USA, we are in 100% total denial about the reality of this situation, of the systemic disenfranchisement of boys, schools designed to fail them, and a society that blames tem for every problem. This is why we see “epidemic” of school/mass shooting by mostly white males. They are repressed to the point they burst and decide to be violent and famous from killing. And no surprise, it works; their names become household names and women sent them racy picture by the bunch, hoping to bang these guys, but only AFTER they murder innocent people.

    The famous Ben Styn once said that in economics, but also in life that “what cannot go forward anymore, doesn’t. It stops.” We will see a reset of this unsustainable system of male repression in our lifetimes, there is no question about it. Question is: how will it play out, how will the system reset, and what will be the societal consequences of all this.

  127. ChristianCool says:

    @OKRickety

    I am not trying to start a beef with you, but talking AS IF men today have a viable option to marry or not to avoid non-marital sex is not a valid argument.

    The issue is that I do not have a valid alternative. Nowhere in The Bible are women allowed to cuckold men without consequences. Nowhere in The Bible are women allowed to steal a man’s work for life. . Nowhere in The Bible are children allowed to be taken from their father on a whim.

    I understand you are making a valid Biblical argument and I do not contest that point, because I believe The Bible is to be read/applied ‘as written’ (prima facea) and not re-interpreted. I agree sex outside marriage IS a sin.

    But describe Biblical Marriage for me. Did Adam and Eve go to a courthouse somewhere and get married? Who married them? Where did their marriage ceremony take place? What documentation did they file (somewhere) to prove their marriage exists (or their commitment to each other)?

    Biblical marriage = lifetime commitment between man and a woman and a promise of the two before God. There are no legal and bureaucratic requirements involved.

    Romantic love has nothing to do with marriage for me. And relationships (LTR) with a woman is basically a way to see if we are compatible or not to go further. It does not start with sex, it starts with a few dates, but many women today, especially ones from church will not have a date after date #2 if we do not bang.

    The problem here is that you understand marriage to be a government-sanctioned legal contract where the State uses police force to enforce a capricious Feminist “family court” judge’s orders, regardless of how insane/unfair/un-Christian they may be.

    Under the government-definition of marriage, I would rather live in sin for the time being. I do not see anywhere in The Bible where marriage = slavery for a man and comfort for a woman. Maybe I missed these verses….

    What I understand from Biblical marriage is Male Headship and female submission to a loving man who cares and protects her in exchange. There are no legal requirements except lifetime commitment between the man and woman and a vow between the two and God. The commitment is enforced by God not a Marxist Judge with unlimited authority and power to destroy the man for any reason at anytime.

    Is Biblical marriage even possible in today’s America? What woman would agree to Biblical marriage, since it will not afford her the legal protects she wants? (and yet will deny she will ever need 🙄 Oh no… she would neeeeever divorce, unless she is not haaaaaaaaapy)?

    And if Biblical marriage no longer exists in today’s America, is it a sin NOT to enter into it?

    @BillyS

    No, I am not going for random hook-ups. I never did even when I was younger. I have always wanted to marry young (and I did, at age 22). But that was a world that was somewhat sane and women were still sane for most part and there was a large supply that were not feminists. Now I am 36 windowed, no kids, and trying to figure out way forward.

    I am basically trying to figure out two things right now:

    1) Is it worth it to even have a kid(s) in today’s FemiNazi hell we live in? I always thought I would raise a few kids of my own, but now, that is in serious doubt.

    2) If I decide NOT to have any kids, then is there even a point in marriage again for me, whether the court-enforced slavery contract or the Biblical vow between a man and a woman and God?

    Let’s be honest…. I am not sure how life will be after 50 or 60 years old, but by then, will I even care one way or another? I bet when I am 50+ I won’t even care about sex much anyway, so why even bother getting married if not having kids? Maybe I will still want regular sex… but who knows? I am not even close to 50 yet. lol

    BTW, the purpose of dating is to gauge compatibility with a woman. Did you guys ever date, like we did back in the 1990s when I was in high school? Talking, ice cream, putting your best foot forward, etc etc? (I think some call it 1950s dating?)

    Otherwise, how do you even find out if a woman is compatible with you or not? What SANE man would agree to make a marriage commitment with God as a witness, not being sure if he and the woman are compatible to stay together for life?!?!?! 😮

    Ps. BillyS, I am actually doing a favor by avoiding court-enforcement marriage 2.0. By NOT bailing out some post-wall slut/reformed Carrousel Rider/re-virginated Christian recent convert, I am helping FIX this mess. As long as men continue to bail out Carousel Riders after they get bored and tired with a comfortable lifestyle and a divorce-rape robbery, HOW will women stop this behavior?

    Incentives matter. Bailing out reformed sluts is a guaranteed way to continue this insanity forever. Women need to pass on the message: marry young or stay single forever. This is a simple concept, I would hope Red Pillers would get this.

  128. ChristianCool says:

    @Dan

    Isn’t it funny how the onerous of “not being in sin of non-marital sex” is ALWAYS ON THE MALE?? LOL

    I wonder if BillyS or OkRickety EVER tell some woman “you should not be having non-marital sex”. Maybe, but for some reason, I doubt it! lol

    An LTR with a vows and commitment to God between a man and a woman is much more stable marriage than a court-enforced one. The court enforced “legal marriage” is completely unstable because the woman has a loaded gun you handed her along with a notarized permission slip to use the gun you gave her at anytime for nay reason.

    Incentives matter and if a woman KNOWS she can ruin a man’s lifer and steal close to everything he worked for BEFORE meeting her + if she knows she can send man to prison for any reason she damn well desires, than such a marriage is unstable. She has every financial incentive to leave and divorce. Divorces are unilateral, always granted, and enforced to be sure the man is ruined and woman lives in a big house and continues her Carrousel Ride.

    And then SOME wonder why I won’t sign up for it! lol

    @OkRickety

    I never said “Relationships” = marriage. Marriage is a sacred convent between man woman and God. Two witnesses are required, such as Pastor or two friends. There is ZERO Biblical requirement of any paperwork being filed with courts (maybe I missed that in The Bible, and if I did, please post verse(s). Thanks.

    If one of the partners in that Christian Marriage covenant break their vows, the couple separates. If kids are involved, courts WILL be involved if couple cannot work it out because State laws will kick in. The Court will treat as child(ren) are from unmarried parents which makes ZERO difference in rulings.

    The child custody rulings will almost certainly be dad pays child support and almost never sees kids (just as any court marriage divorce would result) and wife takes kids and raises them to be losers and spends most of the child support money on Gucci purses.

    The only difference is woman has NO incentive to leave a non-court Marriage. In actual, real Biblical “covenant marriage” the marriage is witnessed by two people and enforced by God. The courts have no bearing. In such a case, Courts cannot force man to become a slave and lose everything he worked for his whole life. So the woman has NO incentive to frivolously divorce, as she would in court-enforced marriage.

    Remove incentive from divorce. problem solved.

    Question is: will any Christian woman today, raised in an entitled society where she has 100% of benefits and rights and men have 100% of duties and obligations ACCEPT Christian, Biblical marriage?

    Ps. I have been single/widowed just over 2 years now (less if you count period I was too depressed to date). I am not riding the Carrousel. I could ride the carrousel by pretending to be willing to court-enforce marry women I meet, so she can feel like like cock carrousel adventure was all justified and worthwhile. But I choose NOT to have my life destroyed and sent to prison at a woman’s whims, and yet I still chose NOT to deceive women I meet. I am clear I would like to marry but in a Christian way, not Marriage 2.0 scam. How many do you think want that? 🙄 Haha… Women want the loaded gun and signed permission to shoot their man and rob him blind while he is left for dead (or sent to prison after false criminal accusation), of course.

    @Paul

    At risk of sounding like broken record: where does it say, specifically or implicitly in The Bible, that marriage is a legally-enforced civil contract?

    Good point about BraveHeart wedding…. is that a valid Christian marriage between man, woman, and God or invalid? I am only concerned about God’s approval, not the FemiNazi family court judge’s approval.

    What is RCC?

    Again, define the “…honor the institution of marriage as God made it”. Does it have to be a civil legal document filed with court or a lifetime vow, enforced by God?
    I am interested in this concept, because Marriage 2.0 scam is not from God. I simply have no Biblical evidence that God intended for Marriage to become a legal charade for women to rip off men and enslave them.

  129. feministhater says:

    Think of how unsustainable Apartheid was in South Africa where 10% of population repressed 90%…

    Lol. South African blacks were brought to a level of prosperity unseen anywhere else in Africa. They had their own homelands given to them, the most arable parts of South Africa. They had schools, hospitals, houses, infrastructure built for them by the white South African tax payer. Their population exploded under Apartheid.

    The media lied to you as they do today.

  130. feministhater says:

    Christian Cool. The white population in 1900 was 1 million, the black population was 2 million. By the end of Apartheid, the white population was 5 million, the black population was 36 million. Do you see the problem? White South Africans realised back in the 1960s, as Europe and America realise today, that if they do not do something, they will be breed out of existence and the country they built will be lost. South Africa was the canary in the coal mine..

    The Zimbabwe of today is South Africa’s soon to be future as the black government moves to expropriate farms. We saw this all over Africa once the colonial powers withdrew. South African whites put in place a system to defend themselves from black encroachment and it became the most economically successful country in all of Africa, this during war time and during entire world wide sanctions. All this on the shoulders of a couple million working aged whites. Yet blacks streamed from their own lands into white South Africa to be, as you call it, ‘repressed’.

    None so blind as those who will not see.

  131. ChristianCool says:

    @feministhater

    I agree, white South Africans (Brits and Dutch) helped that 3rd world hellhole into a livable country. I agree with that 100%. Apartheid was “not so bad” given the immense improvements that Europeans brought to a barbarian, tribal culture. The end of Apartheid brought about sky-high crime, declining wealth for South Africa and mass unemployment. Same with Rhodesia, that was a prosperous and safe country and now it is a hellhole with Trillion dollar bills to buy a loaf of bread, hunger, and poverty. I get all that. I do not buy into the left’s propaganda.

    BTW, South Africa is about to become a 3rd world hellhole soon now, by stealing from few white farmers left. I bet hunger is coming soon to South Africa, in place of rising obesity thanks to white farmers mass producing cheap food for all. Once the barbarian hordes violently take over white farms, they will destroy everything and then bitch about famine. You just wait. 🙄

    Back to the issue…. The issue is that 10% of the population cannot systematically repress or control 90% under almost any circumstances. That is unsustainable, even if you have a Saddam Hussein-like regime. Syria is a perfect example where Alawites religious minority (less 10% pop) ruled over 90%. It is unstable.

    The same issue can be said for America. Men are about 50% of total population. Women, the other 50%, cannot continue to systematically imprison, economically disenfranchise, ridicule, purposely refuse to properly educate, and steal from the males forever. It will not last. It is not economically or socially sustainable long term.

    In America, FemiNazism in Courts is largely due to “English Common Law” judicial decisions and precedents = law ) and juridical discretion is VERY BROAD, which allows majority leftist judges to enforce their view of FemiNazism. There are many laws that are openly feminist and Misandrist, but not as common.

    In Brazil, the laws ARE openly and clearly feminist. They even state their intent. My point is that IF systematic male repression = prosperity and stability, then was Brazil, one of the world’s largest openly LEGISLATED Feminist legal system hellholes, would be heaven on Earth and it is hellish place to live in.

    My point being: feminism and systematic misandry is unstable in long term.

  132. Paul says:

    RCC = Roman Catholic Church

  133. Paul says:

    NT = New Testament
    OT = Old Testament

  134. Paul says:

    @earl
    “She brought Christ to Elizabeth and John as her first act after the Annunciation.”

    Equivocating two totally different actions is not a proof of your point for either one.

    As for Mary’s being a sinner, I wasn’t aware RCC theology holds her to be without sin since the 19th century (Wikipedia)
    “Although the belief that Mary was sinless, or conceived without original sin, has been widely held since Late Antiquity, the doctrine was not dogmatically defined until 1854, by Pope Pius IX in his papal bull Ineffabilis Deus.”

    Although it surprises me somewhat, Mary being a sinner doesn’t make any difference for my argument that teaching Mary to be the intercessor between men and Christ, who is the mediator between men and God, does not bring men closer to Christ, but puts someone between men and Christ.

  135. Paul says:

    And John 6 teaches it is God the Father Himself who draws people to Christ:
    “”No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

  136. OKRickety says:

    ChristianCool,

    I said: ‘Let me make it clear that I do not greatly disagree, if at all, with your assessment of the state of marriage today and the problems associated with it.’

    What part of this don’t you understand? Because you continue to repeat that marriage today is not biblical marriage, etc.

    ‘I am not trying to start a beef with you, but talking AS IF men today have a viable option to marry or not to avoid non-marital sex is not a valid argument.

    The issue is that I do not have a valid alternative. Nowhere in The Bible are women allowed to cuckold men without consequences. Nowhere in The Bible are women allowed to steal a man’s work for life. . Nowhere in The Bible are children allowed to be taken from their father on a whim.

    I understand you are making a valid Biblical argument and I do not contest that point, because I believe The Bible is to be read/applied ‘as written’ (prima facea) and not re-interpreted. I agree sex outside marriage IS a sin.’

    Since you agree that my argument about non-marital sex is valid biblically, and you, I presume, consider yourself a Christian, then, yes, you do have a valid alternative. It would appear that you find this alternative to be unacceptable as you clearly choose to sin in spite of knowing the truth.

    ‘And if Biblical marriage no longer exists in today’s America, is it a sin NOT to enter into it?’

    There is absolutely nothing in your own definitions of biblical marriage and state-approved marriages that makes it impossible for a biblical marriage to also be a state-approved marriage. Thus there is no reason to suppose that biblical marriage does not exist today. In other words, your claim has no valid basis.

    ‘I wonder if BillyS or OkRickety EVER tell some woman “you should not be having non-marital sex”. Maybe, but for some reason, I doubt it! lol’

    Not that I can prove it, but I’m reasonably certain that I have told women this. And even if I didn’t, that would not change the truth of what I have said to you.

    As far as I can tell, you are trying to argue that the lamentable state of marriage, divorce, etc. today denies the possibility of biblical marriage and this somehow results in your sin of non-marital sex to be acceptable. I’d be interested in an actual attempt by you to do this logically. However, I am not interested in further repetition of the deplorable state of marriage today. If that situation is somehow critical to your argument, please refrain from ranting about it and simply refer to it as, for example, “the awful state of marriage in society today”.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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