Soulmates: The cuckold and his scold.

The ugly feminist and the chivalrous man are a perfect match.*  Nothing terrifies her more than the thought of suffering feelings of love or gratitude. Nothing excites him more than the privilege of proving his superior manhood by doing the bidding of a cruel unfeeling woman.  She is certain that all men are evil and naturally want to harm women, yet is equally confident that men will be eager solve all of women’s problems.  He awaits his midons’ next demand with great anticipation.

As Roger Boase explained, summarizing Gaston Paris (the man who coined the term courtly love):

…the lover continually fears lest he should, by some misfortune, displease his mistress or cease to be worthy of her; the lover’s position is one of inferiority; even the hardened warrior trembles in his lady’s presence; she, on her part, makes her suitor acutely aware of his insecurity by deliberately acting in a capricious and haughty manner; love is a source of courage and refinement; the lady’s apparent cruelty serves to test her lover’s valour

*This match does not originate in heaven.

Correction:  I originally attributed the quote to Gaston Paris, but it is Roger Boase summarzing Paris.

This entry was posted in Chivalry, Courtly Love, Cuckoldry, Dalrock’s Law of Feminism, Gratitude, Miserliness, Ugly Feminists. Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Soulmates: The cuckold and his scold.

  1. Pingback: Soulmates: The cuckold and his scold. | @the_arv

  2. What’s the logical outcome of the scold-knight marriage. A lifetime of grrl-power abuse for him, or divorce and child support?

    Which option would he prefer after 10 years?

  3. feministhater says:

    What’s the logical outcome of the scold-knight marriage. A lifetime of grrl-power abuse for him, or divorce and child support?

    An example was given already.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2018/10/12/ugly-feminists-high-on-rage/

  4. Poptarts says:

    But why do men keep getting married?? The western man seems to be the epitome of Stockholm Syndrome. How sick and twisted that quote is. Good God.

  5. Dalrock says:

    @LK

    What’s the logical outcome of the scold-knight marriage. A lifetime of grrl-power abuse for him, or divorce and child support?

    Which option would he prefer after 10 years?

    Ha! I meant the marriage as a metaphorical one, on a macro scale. But we do see plenty of examples on the micro scale as well, and it plays out like you suggest.

  6. Jean says:

    I was just going to ask the same question about where a relationship like that would go. Murder-suicide was my first thought.

    This is such a disgusting concept. Love isn’t being obsequious or demanding obsequiousness from someone else.

  7. Anonymous Reader says:

    This ties in neatly with the fact that men are the true romantics, that betaized men are sold the idea of their inferiority to angelic women or the more modern grrrlPower version, therefore men are trained to abase themselves in a “romantic” fashion as the default.

    There’s no shortage of men wearing virtual fedoras out there, and too many are in the position of making laws, enforcing laws, or handing out judgements based on laws.

    In the case of a literal marriage, from my observation; it’s all fun and games until the first child arrives.

  8. Pingback: Soulmates: The cuckold and his scold. | Reaction Times

  9. Sharkly says:

    Nothing excites him more than the privilege of proving his superior manhood by doing the bidding of a cruel unfeeling woman.

    Until after about a decade of degradation, faithlessness, and defamation, when his superior manhood finally realizes that there is absolutely no pleasing this harpy, and that she is only showing him progressively more contempt for his every effort to please her. Then he realizes the retarded whore doesn’t need his help, but that of a mental health practitioner, and things go sour, as she denies being anything but a helpless victim of his, oh so toxic, masculinity, and levels false charges, steals his offspring, steals his income, and she wages a “total war” campaign of character assassination. Then he watches as the satanically directed churches rush to pay homage to her wayward twat, and curse him for presumed flaws, and condemn him as a heretic when he cuts off his unproductive fellowship with the evil bunch of deluded cunt worshippers. He eventually realizes that he never should have obeyed her in the first place.

    Genesis 3:17 Also to Adam he said, Because thou hast obeyed the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, (whereof I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it) cursed is the earth for thy sake: in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life.

    Time to go eat my lunch in sorrow, on this cursed earth. I guess I can’t blame Adam. I fell prey to the exact same shit! I let a talking twat tell me what to do, when God created me to answer a higher call. Apparently we prove our superior manhood, in part by ignoring the incessant nagging of our misdirecting inferiors. Live & Learn

  10. Anon says:

    We need to create a platonic matchmaking service where a ballcutting femtwat is matched up with a chivalrous cuckservative that she can abuse. I suspect there will be a surplus of cuckservatives, so not all of them will be assigned a feminist. Perhaps Premium feminists can get two each.

  11. Dalrock says:

    Anon, there’s an app for that!

  12. Lost Patrol says:

    Gaston Paris, proto-complementarian.

  13. Dalrock says:

    @Lost Patrol

    Gaston Paris, proto-complementarian.

    I don’t know that he was endorsing the view. He was describing what courtly love (what we call chivalry) is. That it lines up perfectly with complementarian thought is very much the point though. Conservative Christians have substituted chivalry for christianity, and nobody noticed.

  14. earl says:

    It’s what happens when men fear women more than fearing the Lord.

  15. Hose_B says:

    @Earl
    It’s what happens when men fear women more than fearing the Lord.

    Not necessarily……. remember that young men are BEING TAUGHT this by the church. They are being told that this IS being true to Gods word. Unless they are very strong in theology and will, they will fall victim to this. All by trying to be a good Christian man. Because the church supports this crap and won’t support actual scripture.

  16. Dalrock says:

    @earl

    It’s what happens when men fear women more than fearing the Lord.

    Courtly love is a parody of Christianity. Where the Bible (and RCC) taught that a wife should submit to her husband and approach him with fear/reverence, courtly love taught that men should submit to women and approach them with fear/reverence.

    At the time I’m sure they immediately recognized the inversion. That was the joke after all. But very quickly it was accepted as a serious moral teaching, just as we see it today.

  17. earl says:

    @Hose_B

    I have read how feminism wormed its way into the churches…so it’s no surprise that men get taught this in the church.

    It’s pretty simple to rip off the mask and see where the church stands…just read any of the Scriptures that denotes the gender roles in marriage that God stated (none of this…well it what the culture and society at the time said it was).

  18. dudedont says:

    Don’t know if you’ve seen this yet Darlock.

    “Half of US births happen outside of wedlock signaling CULTURAL SHIFT.”

    https://www.bloombergquint.com/pursuits/almost-half-of-u-s-births-happen-outside-marriage-signaling-cultural-shift#gs.XMR27Zc

    You first blogged that how many years ago?

  19. RichardP says:

    Reading comprehension???

    Sin is defined as disobeying God.

    Where did God tell Adam to not listen to / obey his wife (or, where did God tell Adam that he should listen to her)? God is absolutely silent on that subject, with the possible exception of telling Eve that Adam would rule over her.

    Genesis 3:17 … whereof I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not listen to the voice of thy wife.

    That is the command given by God that he punished Adam for disobeying, right. It says so right there in Genesis 3:17.

  20. Tom Lemke says:

    In related news, anyone see the POTUS’ tweet flat-out admitting that the government (and his administration takes pride in this) functions as surrogate husband for the women of the country?

  21. earl says:

    Donald just AMOG them all.

  22. Spike says:

    I think the tide’s turning on this one, Dalrock.
    Women might have gotten away with being ungrateful bitches right up until the organization of the men’s movement. Post Red-Pill, the number of chivalrous men lining up for hooks in their collective testicles has dropped alarmingly. This is certain to polarise women’s responses to feminism.
    I predict in 2019, on one pole of feminism, women will be saying that ”they never were feminists” and that ”feminism never really existed” – and there will be an army of men who they can’t shut up or shame, reminding them just how rotten they have been.
    The other pole will consist of the Lunar Left: fat sluts dressed in ugly attire, pussy hats, yelling demands that Trump ”keeps his hands off” their right to murder their own children, be selfish about their work arrangements and their right to disgustingly taunt men with exposed flesh in the workplace.

  23. Stoa says:

    @dalrock

    I threw up at “Inside Amy Schumer.” My boys will be hiding for weeks over that.

  24. Jeff Strand says:

    Dalrock’s comment above made me think of this quote. It’s the better part of 500 years old, and it’s author was St. Francis de Sales. I wouldn’t count on hearing it from your pulpit, whether Catholic or Protestant, any time soon.

    “PRESERVE, then, O husbands, a tender, constant and cordial love towards your wives, for the woman was drawn from that side of the first man which was nearest to his heart, to the end that she might be loved by him cordially and tenderly. The weaknesses and infirmities, whether bodily or spiritual, of your wives, ought not to provoke you to any sort of disdain, but rather to a sweet and loving compassion, for God has created them such, so that, since they are dependent upon you, you may receive more honour and respect thereby, and may have them as companions in such sort that you may be nevertheless their heads and superiors in authority.”

  25. Damn Crackers says:

    OT: It’s not just Christianity that feminism has overturned. The Hindus are having problems with their ladies too:

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/police-clear-protesters-indian-temple-prepares-accept-women-065330376.html

  26. Paul says:

    @RichardP

    For the record:

    Gen 3:17
    And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

  27. feeriker says:

    I was just going to ask the same question about where a relationship like that would go. Murder-suicide was my first thought.

    In a pairing where normal human psychology prevailed that would probably be true (well, at least the murder part, from the male, and in very short order). But this situation is an example of emotional deformity, a strain of Stockholm Syndrome where normal behavior has been disabled. A man in such a relationship will probably suffer both physical and emotional abuse, but he’s unlikely to ever snap.

  28. Just call it “Courtly Love,” already, @Dalrock. You seem to have no idea what ACTUAL “chivalry” consists of beyond that, but what you call “chivalry” repeatedly is to the real thing what the Book of Mormon is to the Gospel. By defining the whole by one cancerous outgrowth (through a single book about said growth), you demonstrate gross ignorance of your topic and of the serious scholarship even your one abused source represents.

    You’re usually RIGHT about feminism. But your persistent ignorance of chivalry is appalling. (Yes, I am still working on the promised rebuttal, but Real Life often interferes.)

  29. Tubalcain says:

    This morning, I overheard a 27 year old single mommy at my workplace proudly telling her other snowflake millennial colleagues how she’s poisioned her 7 year old son against his father and his father’s new wife. The kid refuses to go with his father for visitation, won’t even speak to him, and walks away. I don’t know if the father is a douche bag, but I’ve overheard her going off on him and being combative on the phone. I mean just downright vile and nasty. The other young single mommies pull the same shenanigans with their multiple baby daddies they’ve had children with. Young women who make an art out of screwing off all day, or spend hours on the phone during work hours calling Legal Aid lawyers trying to extract more alimony and/or child support out of guys who make $12 per hour. I’m now 60, never married, and I’ve spent 12 years of my life working in the scrap metal industry working along side with the “unemployable”. I’ve been conducting a stealth job search for awhile, but employers seem to loath older workers, or want to pay substandard entry level wages. This vitriol and temper tantrums from these malcontent modern Millies is reprehensible. The book of Proverbs addresses this issue.

  30. “PRESERVE, then, O husbands, a tender, constant and cordial love towards your wives, for the woman was drawn from that side of the first man which was nearest to his heart, to the end that she might be loved by him cordially and tenderly. The weaknesses and infirmities, whether bodily or spiritual, of your wives, ought not to provoke you to any sort of disdain, but rather to a sweet and loving compassion, for God has created them such, so that, since they are dependent upon you, you may receive more honour and respect thereby, and may have them as companions in such sort that you may be nevertheless their heads and superiors in authority.”

    That is actually pretty beautiful, very respectful of women and their insecurities. I think women would have a kiniptiontion fit only over the LAST WORD there, “authority.” The only way man has authority over anything in his life is if he remains MGTOW. There really is no other way (at the moment.)

  31. Micha Elyi says:

    Take Dalrock’s Gaston Paris quote, reverse the sexes, and you’ve described Game.

  32. ChristianCool says:

    @Tom Lemke

    Read the Tweet again. Trump never said he or the Govt was providing that. My comments in [brackets].

    College educated women want safety [provided by police, which everyone gets], security [likely talking about The Border, as required by US Constitution] and healthcare [a product they buy and since most of ObamaCare is still in the books thanks to traitor rat McCain, women get privilege here] protections – very much along with financial and economic health [a byproduct of de-regulation and low taxes] for themselves and our Country [the good economy benefits everyone, not just women]. I supply all of this [Trump offers these things, as require by Constitution, except for ObamaCare] far better than any Democrat (for decades, actually). That’s why they will be voting for me!

    So what if Trump is appealing to College Educated women? This is a problem voting block… in the 1990s they were Democrat-leaning “Soccer Moms”. After 9/11 they became “security moms” and between 2006 and 2016, they became “the privileged class” sucking off their husband’s pay and worrying about nonsense like “transgender bathrooms”. After Barry Hussein ruined the US economy over 8 years, they shifted to Trump for economic reasons in 2016.

    Now that the economy is better again, they are shifting back to the Left, and the new generation of “white suburban college educated white women” has been radicalized in universities. This is a big voting block for the Left again.

    This is a political appeal. So what??

  33. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    J. J. Griffing, speaking of “chivalry,” I read a funny piece about a woman who expected her future husband to propose to her in front of the Disneyland castle: http://www.returnofkings.com/120025/the-expectations-of-modern-women-have-lost-touch-with-reality-and-common-decency

    She wanted the whole Princess Experience. She drew up an elaborate plan just for the proposal (never mind the wedding). To ensure the proposal’s perfection, she even wrote the “proposal script” she wanted her future husband to deliver.

    This friend of my girlfriend wanted to get married to her Prince Charming one day — if she ever found him. Of course, if poor bastard was “lucky” enough to find her, there were some absolutely insane requirements that he would have to meet before she agreed to take her hand in marriage.

    Basically, she wanted her fairytale wedding, and fairytale proposal, too. In this case, the fairytale proposal was quite literally required to take place in front of the Disneyland castle. While my memory is a bit foggy, the general requirements for her to even consider his proposal were:

    * The proposal MUST occur in front of the Disneyland castle.

    * It MUST be on a specific day of the summer (not coincidentally, when she would have the biggest audience of strangers to clap and cheer for her spectacle) — perhaps her birthday.

    * Her ENTIRE family had to be present — he was expected to foot the bill for all of them. This wasn’t just close family, either — she had a list of 20 aunts, cousins, and BFFs that HAD to be present.

    * The proposal must happen at night, at a specific moment in the fireworks/music cue.

    * He must have the proper arraignment of flowers and other gifts, in addition to the proper ring.

    * To top it off, she had actually written a speech for her own proposal. Apparently her father had it locked away. Upon the princess’ groom-to-be asking her father’s permission to propose, the father was supposed to inform the lucky guy of all these insane requirements, and give him the proposal speech (there were a few parts where he had creative freedom).

    If he did all of this, he might be lucky to get her consideration for marriage. Man, her father must be so proud to have raised such a strong and empowered woman — who is fearless with her demands!

  34. earl says:

    Just say no to fornication. We don’t need any more single mothers.

  35. feeriker says:

    Tubalcain says:
    October 18, 2018 at 9:53 am

    The “good” news (for lack of a better adjective) is that these creatures are feeling less and less compunction or restraint about being the worst that they can be, which will thus serve as “man repellent,” which in turn will go a long way toward making skank-ho single mommyhood a thing of the past.

  36. feeriker says:

    “Just say no to fornication. We don’t need any more single mothers.”

    That needs to be made into a t-shirt/coffee mug image/bumper sticker/billboard advertisement.

  37. Frank K says:

    “Just say no to fornication. We don’t need any more single mothers.”

    Unfortunately, Chads and PUAs don’t seem to care. As far as they’re concerned, if she gets knocked up, it’s someone else’s problem. Chad will hop on his motorcycle and vanish.

  38. Chairman Miaow says:

    I’m getting increasingly convinced that so-called Chads and PUAs are actually sodomites – they are not actually (yet) at the pinnacle of allowing their desires to rule them and others, but they are defo ‘gay’ and ‘child-abusers-in-waiting’ in their approach to sex. The worship of ‘Alph’ males is the worship of buttsex. Funny ol’ world isn’t?

  39. BillyS says:

    And churches will preach sermons against those who pick up the pieces and otherwise remain faithful….

  40. Damn Crackers says:

    Chads and PUAs aren’t the problem. They aren’t the ones creating single mothers. I think you have your Chads mixed up with your Devontius’s or Chucos.

    Stop white knighting for these loose women.

  41. Oscar says:

    @ Damn Crackers

    Chads and PUAs aren’t the problem. They aren’t the ones creating single mothers. I think you have your Chads mixed up with your Devontius’s or Chucos.

    There’s a lot of overlap between categories.

  42. Tubalcain says:

    Feeriker says:
    October 23, 2018 at 9:53 am

    Hope your predictions of “man repellant” and single motherhood becoming less fashionable in the future will be fulfilled. It’s s curse on our society IMO.
    I recently read an article by a young seminarian at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary here in Kansas City. The gist of his article was that young Christian men in his church frequently complained that there were no eligible young Christian women to wed up and mate with. He contended that his particular church was chocked full of unwed single mommies, and that these young men were overlooking opportunities right in front of their noses. He admonished these young men to “man up and wed up these unwed mommies”. But he was very emphatic that these same young men should shun divorced single mommies like the plague. It’s no wonder that emergent church evangelicals are in such a mess.

  43. earl says:

    Chads and PUAs aren’t the problem. They aren’t the ones creating single mothers.

    They provide the seed. They certainly ARE part the problem along with Ms. Tingle Chaser.

    The other problem is the white knights who keep trying to put lipstick on a pig.

Comments are closed.