A few more Warhorn notes.

I see that I missed a snarky tweet from Warhorn the other day:

It is true that I have said I haven’t listened to the podcast yet (although I did make it somewhere between 5 and 10 min in last night).  But as I explained in the very post Warhorn is referencing, at that point I had already read Nathan Alberson’s email to me telling me about the podcast.  I published that email and others on a subsequent post, but I’ll re post it here for reference:

Nathan Alberson

7:29 AM (11 hours ago)

to me
Our podcast came out today: https://simplecast.com/s/793c8cb6

It’s brutal, as you’ll see. But after much thought and prayer, we decided what you’re doing is not just misguided but harmful, and we wanted to inoculate people against it.

I hope you don’t think yourself ill-used. I did ask the questions in good faith, despite what your followers say about me. And then we took a long time to weigh our options and craft a response.

And I hope you consider seriously what we say in the podcast. I hope you stop or radically change your method of operation. I hope you really are the considerate and thoughtful man you present yourself as.

I have my doubts, for the reasons enumerated in the podcast. And because your followers are thoroughly nasty people. The way they treated me in the comments was without charity, dignity, or kindness. Yes, I’m generalizing. And no, I’m not personally offended. But I do want you to see that, no matter how reasonably you present yourself, a man like me is not going to take you seriously. Not with a rabble like that validating you.

So consider this a personal exhortation: drop the pseudonym, and place yourself under the authority of men who can discipline what your write and help you discipline your followers. That or get out of the business altogether.

Your followers who validate you are are not really loving you.

I am.

Sincerely,

Nathan

So yes, I feel very comfortable assuming the podcast is brutal.  And yes, I was ill used by Nathan, as he publicly admitted he went against what he had assured me multiple times in private.  I don’t need to listen to the podcast to know that Nathan and Warhorn were duplicitous.  They told me they were.  And the closest I’ve received to an apology to date from Pastor Tim Bayly is his outrage at me upon finding out the men of his team were communicating with me behind his back for a month and a half.  How was I to know his team had gone rogue if he didn’t?  Their greatest point of pride is that everything they do at Warhorn is under his authority!  And given all of their boasting about his authority, why has Pastor Bayly still not taken responsibility for the dumpster fire at Warhorn?  The world wonders.

Another Warhorn tweet that makes me wonder who is in charge of the show over there is this thoughtful entry:

While I’m rounding up odds and ends, part of Pastor Bayly’s complaint was that I didn’t give him credit for saying “no” to a woman in his church who wanted to become a naval officer:

That said, at the same time as I was writing, a student at IU decided to go into the Navy as an officer responsible for nuclear reactors. I loved her and told her she should not do so. We’re still friends and she’s always known I think she was not obeying God in this. Full stop.

This is just one of many, many examples of my fulfilling my responsibility as husband, father, and pastor to say “no” to women, and rebuke them. That Mr. Anonymous spreads his false accusations otherwise is disgusting to me. False charge after false charge after false charge. Long ago I decided not to answer him, and then I find out Warhorn is providing him a platform, so now I’m having to do what I determined wasn’t worthwhile, or even right.

One commenter asked how I was supposed to know Bayly had told her no, since he hadn’t to their knowledge written about the incident.  However, I actually had read what I believe is his account of the same incident in his 2011 blog post Would I support our daughters enlisting in the military… (emphasis mine):

But that begs the question whether today’s Armed Forces are a place any man, let alone a Christian man, wants his daughters to serve, and I say “no.” I don’t want my own son serving in the military, let alone my daughter. We have a bunch of men in our congregation who are in the military and one officer in the Navy from our congregation who is a woman. We tried to discourage most of these men (and certainly the woman) from enlisting, but they chose to proceed and we’re proud of them and support their work, praying for them when they are deployed and loving them when they get home.

Why then to did we oppose their enlistment?

Because of many factors, including the gross immorality that permeates the military bases, the purposes Washington’s pols make of our Armed Forces which often are not only unconstitutional, but contrary to historic Christian just war criteria (NB Vern Poythress’ footnoted comment in our report); because of the continuing degradation of the distinction between soldiers and civilians in modern warfare; and on it goes.

The majority of our men serve in the Marines, and if I had to acquiesce to one of my sons going into the military (which I don’t ever want to do), I would hope it’s the Marines since they’re the branch of the military least corrupted by sexual perversions and the loss of military discipline that is its inevitable result.

There’s much more to be said, but I’m off and running, dear sisters. The long and short of it is that I don’t’ want my sons to go into the military because historic just war criteria have been trampled by our Armed Forces this past century, and one criteria still hanging on is almost dead: namely, that men should bear arms in defense of their mothers because those mothers shed blood to give birth to their children.

Please read the full post at the link and correct me if I’ve overlooked it, but I can’t find any reference to him telling her she was sinning.  I see him saying that he is proud of and supports the work of his church members in the military, and I don’t see this as excluding the woman who joined the Navy.  I also see him closing with a reference to the canard of men not being willing to serve forcing women to do so in their place, even while explaining in the same breath that he discourages the men in his church from serving.

One final miscellaneous bit (for today at least). 

As you may recall Bayly was outraged at my characterizing the PCA resolution he chaired as failing to call women serving in combat sinful.  This was the manufactured outrage from the underhanded Warhorn Media team.  Part of why I didn’t expect him to be outraged was his description of the process in his post Republican candidates want their daughters drafted…

Fifteen years ago, even the feminist pastors on the Ad Interim Study Committee on Women in the Military of the PCA’s General Assembly were opposed to women being drafted. They were in favor of women serving as combatants and they ridiculed committee members who were opposed, saying our view of women was to keep them “barefoot and pregnant.” Still, none of them wanted their daughters drafted.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Military, Nathan Alberson, Pastor Tim Bayly, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Warhorn Interview, Warhorn Media. Bookmark the permalink.

220 Responses to A few more Warhorn notes.

  1. steve heller says:

    Anyone who wants to comment on the Warhorn site even though they have disabled comments should get a Gab account and use Dissenter, which archives every web page that anyone wants to comment on, then enables comments on that archived page.

    This could destroy the censorship currently being implemented by Silicon Valley…

  2. 7817 says:

    Still, none of them wanted their daughters drafted.

    That’s why the recent court victory is one that I have mixed emotions about. Certainly I would not want to have a daughter drafted. But on the other hand, this is the consequences of feminism, and often consequences are what it takes to get people to turn around.
    __
    The podcast is indeed brutal, but it is because it is a giant self own. It is cringe; it’s like reading leftist comics. Sometimes it’s funny but almost never in the way intended.

  3. I dunno. It looks to me as if even their commenters are pretty lukewarm about their posturing. They really should just drop the subject and move along as quickly as possible.

  4. Expat Philo says:

    Yep, looks like I was correct in my assessment that they don’t even have the sense to be good at being dishonest. Including feeriker’s comment makes Dalrock look reasonable here. If they wanted to present our humble host as britsley, they should have just quoted Dalrock talking about them looking bad (sentences 3 and 5, but not 4). As it is, the incidental reader doesn’t even need to to do any extra work to get relevant context. The only people who can read this and agree with Warhorn’s conceit are those who refuse to hear.

    On the Idaho front, Scott’s a bit far, so it looks like Sean, you’re the closest. You can shoot me an email at expatphilosopher@gmail.com, if you like.

  5. squid_hunt says:

    @malcolm

    I don’t think they can. What they’ve demonstrated is that Dalrock has deeply stung their pride and they are out for blood. They’re flushing all integrity and decorum down the toilet in an attempt to get him back.

  6. Nitpicker says:

    Are you not giving the wretch more attention than deserved?

  7. The Question says:

    Altogether, everyone:

    SJWs always lie.
    SJWs always project.
    SJWs always double down.

  8. @squid_hunt

    It is truly messed up. The thing is I do think a lot of their commenters are fairly reasonable. They present themselves as conservatives and do a credible job maintaining that image.

    So what I see there is that these commenters trust them and want to give them the benefit of the doubt but still are having some trouble seeing what they’re seeing. Or at least this seems true of some of them.

    It’s so bizarre. They look so bad and don’t really seem to realize it.

  9. squid_hunt says:

    @malcolm

    I have a friend who listens to them that I kinda went off about their behavior to and he said he was shocked that they would do that because he typically really likes what they have to say, but he would look into it more.

    I don’t know them other than maybe one message he sent me, but this is repugnant.

  10. Sharkly says:

    Off Topic , but…
    https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/southwest-valley/2019/02/27/brittany-zamora-public-records-detail-goodyear-teacher-sexual-assault-allegations-student/2980023002/

    Not only does the woman go to new levels of depravity, but her husband deserves to be crowned as King Cuck.

  11. 7817 says:

    @The Question

    Speaking of doubling down:

    Nathan
    nathanalberson

    Since Tim’s disapproval of this episode has been used by Dalrock to paint Warhorn Media and Clearnote Church as chaotic, undisciplined, and lacking in authority and accountability, let me just say, Tim doesn’t always agree with everything I do anymore than I always agree with everything he does. We had a very cordial conversation the day this episode went up, partially about the fact that he didn’t particularly approve.

    But if Dalrock thinks that authority means micro-management, if he thinks it means Tim Bayly and Clearnote Church don’t invest the directors of their ministries with real authority, to make real decisions, to even make mistakes … I can only say that Dalrock has a very rigid, shallow, dichotomous view of what authority and accountability look like.

    This is in line with the rigid, shallow, dichotomous, and thoroughly uncharitable view he has of most everything.

  12. Dalrock says:

    Thanks for that 7817. Do you have a link for it?

  13. The irony, in my opinion, is that these are supposed to be mature Christians. Mature Christians should be able to admit when they are wrong and repent, irrespective of what the other party(s) are doing. It’s pretty clear that the podcast people are duplicitous and their pastor is covering for them.

    Playing the blame game is no different than pointing out specks in a brother’s eye while ignoring the plank in their own eyes.

    If you are the “true” Christian here, where’s the humility? Where’s the repentance? Where’s the loving your enemy and praying for those who persecute you? Where are your fruits of the Spirit?

    Can’t say I’m surprised. There are very few mature Christians nowadays, and the lack of mature Christian men in leadership positions is especially concerning.

  14. So if Nathan does something Bayly doesn’t approve of, they all agree it’s Bayly’s fault then, yes? He takes full responsibility? As the leader?

  15. feministhater says:

    What exactly do they think they’ve achieved by pulling this little stunt? Do they really believe they’ve painted Dalrock into a corner so badly that men are not going to read his blog anymore? What is it they don’t understand about this blog? Men come here because we are sick and tired of their pathetic, half arsed attempts at leading Churches.

  16. The Question says:

    @Deep Strength

    “The irony, in my opinion, is that these are supposed to be mature Christians.”

    The irony is that they are supposed to be Christians. This behavior would be considered beneath that of classical Roman and Greek virtues. Christians are not even supposed to treat their enemies this way, let alone fellow believers.

  17. 7817 says:

    Dalrock, it’s a comment he added to their locked thread on the podcast:

    https://sanity.warhornmedia.com/t/into-the-manosphere/661/44

  18. Anonymous Reader says:

    This is in line with the rigid, shallow, dichotomous, and thoroughly uncharitable view he has of most everything.

    With that kind of projection, Nathan could open up a drive-in movie theater. In the daytime.

    I’m still wondering if the conference on Bayly’s new demonination-like-thing this week or next week isn’t stressing everyone there up. I mean, here they are setting up a new (something) that will be an especially good and better-than-any-other group of churches, & some nobody on the Internet points out an error by Bayly. So what better time than now to slap that pesky Internet nobody right down with squeeky dog-chew-toy noises and mid-high Mean Girl posturing, all in the name of TRVTH?

    Seems to me that the Baylys and their employees have kind of lost sight of their own mission.

  19. Lexet Blog says:

    It’s very sad. I’m not surprised. My time in the PCA was with a very liberal church that kicked out conservative leaning members. It split, and a group of people stayed behind, with the intent of starting a secret church plant behind the back of the church they attended. It was extremely petty and immature. I separated after that. If you want to plant a church, be open about it.

    Ps, one of the heads at family life did the same thing when he started his church.

    Never trust a church plant created in secret

  20. feministhater,

    >What exactly do they think they’ve achieved by pulling this little stunt? Do they really believe they’ve painted Dalrock into a corner so badly that men are not going to read his blog anymore?

    My shot in the dark: I think Warhorn’s team has a mix of individuals. Some of them are suspicious of a certain portion of the Red Pill subculture because they view it as distasteful and an overreaction, even if it has some sense.

    But others just plain seem like SJWs converging what they can. Nathan and whoever runs their twitter feed reeks of SJW. The usual signs are there: this weird, catty, feminine lashing out and snark, the anti-men attitude (“Men: stop sucking” being their tweet), the utter fear and worry about even drawing any attention to Dalrock as opposed to deplatforming. The demands for self-doxing. Etc.

    So I think the Warhorn has some discordant notes, ha ha.

    I’d suspect that at this point it’s a divided team, with Nathan showing his true colors more than ever before and doubling down, while everyone else is going “Woah, wait, what’s going on here?” and being lost about what to do. Since if they try to restrain Nathan, he’s not going to accept it and now they’re going to risk fracturing. But if they don’t, he’s going to make them come off worse and worse, and jeopardize what they’ve done anyway.

    In other words: this smells like a mix of more weak-willed conservatives and a camouflaged SJW. Nathan intensely dislikes Dalrock and wants to damage him. It’s not working, and is just damaging Warhorn. Others at Warhorn get this, but don’t know how to control Nathan without Nathan exploding and walking and now attacking them too, and splitting the team.

    Watch and see, I guess. Maybe I’m wrong.

  21. Anonymous Reader says:

    What exactly do they think they’ve achieved by pulling this little stunt?

    I don’t see a lot of actual thinking in this whole episode, so far as Warhorn is concerned.
    A whole lotta emotion, yes, but no thinking.

    All of those guys should get their Testosterone checked. Seriously.

  22. Patrick says:

    Not that I much care but Bayly better watch his back. A certain runt is flagrantly diminishing his authority in public.

  23. Patrick says:

    “I’d suspect that at this point it’s a divided team, with Nathan showing his true colors more than ever before and doubling down, while everyone else is going “Woah, wait, what’s going on here?” and being lost about what to do.”

    Yep.

  24. squid_hunt says:

    @feministhater

    What exactly do they think they’ve achieved by pulling this little stunt?

    They let their emotions get the better of them. They’re Hannibal pushing through the alps to destroy Rome, just knowing everyone’s on their side and they don’t care what it costs them. They don’t realize some people might actually like Rome.

    @7817

    it’s a comment he added to their locked thread

    Wow.

  25. Swanny River says:

    Building off another comment here, it seems they really are focused on power and credentials. What do you want to bet, that if they were personally convicted from this, they wouldn’t repent, but in womanly petulance would say something to the effect, “fine, Dalrock and your basement dwellers are right, what do you want us to do?”
    If so, I’d find that an odd response.

  26. Tiresome says:

    Here’s the link to the comment 7817 mentioned if you hadn’t found it already: https://sanity.warhornmedia.com/t/into-the-manosphere/661/44

    For my part I attempted to make it through the podcast but only managed about 45 minutes. None of Dalrock’s points were addressed up to that point, but plenty of snark was directed at his choosing to remain anonymous as well as his decision not to appear on the podcast. As if that has anything to do with the validity of his arguments. Also some very painful-to-listen-to “skits” sprinkled throughout in which strawman characterizations are used for, I assume, humorous effect, although it implies that they were never really taking this seriously from the get go.

  27. squid_hunt says:

    @Swanny
    When I was in boot camp, I was taught a phrase I have learned to utter when I messed up and there was no excuse for my failure:

    I. Am. Inadequate.

  28. white says:

    5 bucks say they’ll remove everything within a week.

    (save everything guys, NOW)

  29. feeriker says:

    Once again, Dalrock, I truly do stand corrected in my original comment that you highlighted. Not only did your exchange with Nathan encapsulate the philosophy and content of the Christian manosphere, but served as the “holy water” that caused a fraudulent, deceitful churchian font of disinformation to begin self-destructing. For that I am grateful.

    Meanwhile, from Bayly:

    We tried to discourage most of these men (and certainly the woman) from enlisting, but they chose to proceed and we’re proud of them and support their work,

    I wonder if this is the attitude he would take if one of his own kids did something sinful that he didn’t approve of. The mind boggles at the CogDis.

    “Son, dealing drugs is NOT the way to earn a living or ensure a stable future, but since you’ve decided to do it anyway, I’m so proud of your success thus far in being the methamphetime kingpin of our city. Well done!”

    “Sweetheart, prostitution is dangerous, sinful, and will ruin your life. You should have chosen a profession more in line with what God wants for women, or married that nice young man who sits in the front pew every Sunday who clearly was interested in you. But since you’re raking in so much money turning tricks, I’m proud of your accomplishments!”

    Does.Not.Compute.

  30. Cane Caldo says:

    @7817

    Great find. From the link to Nathan’s comment:

    But if Dalrock thinks that authority means micro-management, if he thinks it means Tim Bayly and Clearnote Church don’t invest the directors of their ministries with real authority, to make real decisions, to even make mistakes … I can only say that Dalrock has a very rigid, shallow, dichotomous view of what authority and accountability look like.

    These guys lack in everything; including imagination. There’s another option, and that is to think Tim Bayly is in authority and that he approves of Nathan’s underhanded tactics when they are effective, yet disavows them when they fail; such as in this case.

    This is in line with the rigid, shallow, dichotomous, and thoroughly uncharitable view he has of most everything.

    Nathan would be happier if he just came out and called Dalrock cisgendered and heteronormative.

    [D: Hilarious!]

  31. Swanny River says:

    Adding to, or trying to make my above comment more clear – they seem to see this blog as a challenge to their authority, which would also be a partial reason they won’t address content.
    Hopefully my assumption is incorrect, but if not, then I wonder what is motivating the valuation of their “power.” Any ideas? They say they are suffering for their views, so I think they’d laugh about my hypothesis that they are clinging to authority (via “respectability, which a theology degree confers amongst Christians).

  32. Pingback: Why Christianity? – v5k2c2.com

  33. Anonymous Reader says:

    Tim Bayly

    Fifteen years ago, even the feminist pastors on the Ad Interim Study Committee on Women in the Military of the PCA’s General Assembly were opposed to women being drafted. They were in favor of women serving as combatants and they ridiculed committee members who were opposed, saying our view of women was to keep them “barefoot and pregnant.” Still, none of them wanted their daughters drafted.

    Feminist PCA men engaging in namecaling is not a reason to cave in to feminism[1]. Yet that is exactly what Tim Bayly did in writing yet another “Women are behaving badly, it’s all men’s fault! ManUP!” document for the PCA.

    The podcast played audio of what sounded like a dozen or so girls screaming at Wilson. Bayly recounts that PCA feminists called him names. This apparently is oppression, so far as the Warhorn boys are concerned. Just like the Roman Emperor Nero, when he called in early Christians to his banquet and called them names, then yelled at them. Right?

    I repeat: those Warhorn guys need their T checked ASAP. Do any of them even lift?

    [1] In fact, as reported this is just a basic test no different than some toddler screaming “I HATE DADDY!” at bedtime or a contentious woman flouncing around the house yelling “YOU DON’T LOVE ME ANYMORE!”. Bayly failed to deal with feminists, his compromise was all loss and no win. Maybe he sees that now and it frusttrates him, or maybe he’s still in the “women are Wonderful!” pedestalization phase.

    Bonus: I bet those feminist PCA men were aging Boomers just like Bayly. I don’t see Mr. Kathy Keller aka “Tim” on the committee list, but maybe he was there in another capacity?

  34. Cane Caldo says:

    @AR

    With that kind of projection, Nathan could open up a drive-in movie theater. In the daytime.

    Too true. In the closing statements of the podcast, one of the casters quotes Psalms 1:1

    “Blessed is the one
    who does not walk in step with the wicked
    or stand in the way that sinners take
    or sit in the company of mockers”

    as an indictment of Dalrock and his commenters. Remarkable since the podcast is over an hour of mockery of Dalrock, his readers; complete with several lengthy and ridiculous skits included by their own admission for no other purpose than to poison the well of discussion with mockery. Not to mention the opening segment of the podcast where every branch of the Men’s Sphere is mocked. They call Rollo gay because Rollo has muscles. MGTOWs are equated with Feminists who have aborted their children; because–by their lights–refusing to marry is the same as chopping up a baby. It’s one thing to be hoisted upon your own petard. It’s a whole other kind of dumb to supply the work.

  35. Emperor Constantine says:

    Brothers with Twitter accounts: commence firing for effect on Warhorn. Azimuth SJW, range cucksville, multiple rounds HE.

  36. squid_hunt says:

    @Emperor Constantine

    This is considered targeted harassment and will get you banned. If you actually like your Twitter account, I wouldn’t suggest it.

  37. feministhater says:

    MGTOWs are equated with Feminists who have aborted their children; because–by their lights–refusing to marry is the same as chopping up a baby.

    Not marrying is entirely Biblical. Monks did it for centuries without complaint from these idiots. Nuns, Priests, the Knights Templar for Heaven’s sake; all have not married, and suddenly now it’s equated to ‘abortion’ because MGTOW are doing it. Lol!

  38. Lexet Blog says:

    It needs attention. War horn is pushing a new denomination right now. People need to know who they are

  39. Lexet Blog says:

    @dalrock it just occurred to me that warhorn are monkey branchers. They want to stay on one denomination, while plotting another.

  40. Lexet Blog says:

    False teachers often claim persecution when they receive criticism. Bayly is a wolf

  41. Lexet Blog says:

    Scratch that. They aren’t PCA. They are just looking to take advantage of a situation.

  42. Charles B says:

    @ Cane Caldo 12:36.

    The attacks on Rollo are interesting to me particularly for two reasons. The first is the obvious attempt to disqualify a more attractive Male by equating his accomplishments with disordered and therefore unattractive sexuality. It’s what jealous nerds do to jocks who get attention from girls (I used to be that nerd, a lifetime ago).

    The second is the more interesting in light of Dalrock’s analysis here. It is a requirement of their denial of female fallen nature. They require women to not be culpable for their own flaws such as attraction to “bad” men, so women cannot be attracted to qualities other than the chivalrous/moral. Thus, muscles cannot attract women, so men with muscles have them for other reasons.

    Additionally it let’s them deny that women lust after men physically. The obvious examples of female lust are like sunlight to vampires for these people, so they must deny it. If women are sexually attracted *on their own* to powerful physiques, then female sexuality is not a conduit of the divine, but just another example of man’s physical nature.

  43. Anon says:

    CC,

    It’s one thing to be hoisted upon your own petard. It’s a whole other kind of dumb to supply the work.

    Remember what I have said about manginas/cuckservatives doubling down. The number of times they are willing to double down will surprise many red pillers. Their faith in their own goddess-cult pedestalizing beliefs is total. They are convinced that THEY are the apex of male attractiveness, despite overwhelming daily evidence to the contrary.

  44. Emperor Constantine says:

    @squid_hunt Good point, but that is an actual Twitter gif, it’s not my own. I mean start responding to Warhorn on Twitter with Tweets since they are banning comments on the blog post. They haven’t blocked me yet.

  45. Dalrock says:

    @Cane Caldo

    They call Rollo gay because Rollo has muscles.

    I heard that part last night. They really don’t like men lifting. I referenced a post of Bayly’s a while back where he called men who lift gay.

    Guys primp in front of the mirror. Guys spend their wealth and time primping their hair. Guys work out in the gym, then parade their obviously artificial muscles. Guys are narcissists and avoid responsibility like the plague.

    Guys are effeminate—we’re all gay.

    See also this thread at “Ask Sanityville” where the author first assures his fellow sanityville members that he was only at the gym to swim, not lift weights, before asking if a man looking in the mirror after working out is effeminate:

    I was in Gold’s Gym, having completed my allotted number of laps in the pool. I was just about finished dressing and packing up in the locker room. A few others around me were doing the same.

    One of these was a young man – early 20s perhaps? – who’d donned his form-hugging briefs. As I stood to depart, he was about 10 feet away, facing squarely to my right, posing in a mirror another 10 feet from him. He struck careful poses, turning slightly this way and that, adjusting the angle of his torso to his legs, as if seeking some optimal posture.

    To what end? Surely so that he could present to the world a vision of himself, one which he most approved (or supposed that the world would most approve).

    Was I looking at effeminacy in action?…

    Here’s the question that popped up in my mind – can effeminacy encompass the sort of self-referential fussiness that one sees in . . oh, say, male television news anchors? Is, for example, Jim Acosta effeminate?

    Pastor Tim Bayly responded that a man who looks at himself in the mirror is indeed effeminate:

    In ancient world, a man looking in a mirror was the definition of malakoi. What is hard work for woman is vanity for man, and vanity is the epitome of malakoi. Love,

    You can see the whole post and all of the comments here: https://sanity.warhornmedia.com/t/ask-sanityville-is-this-effeminate/595

  46. squid_hunt says:

    @EC

    Fair enough. It’s all in the delivery, though, and since they’re obviously monitoring the comments over here, that sort of wording can make people vulnerable to pettiness.

  47. The Question says:

    @ Dalrock

    “They really don’t like men lifting. I referenced a post of Bayly’s a while back where he called men who lift gay.”

  48. The Question says:

    Now we know who these guys would be in basic training.

  49. Otto says:

    If you need an example of you shouldn’t mix your personal life & work/public life…

    Woman posts comment to knitting forum about her trip to India; she’s branded a racist and her knitting business destroyed, because she said traveling to India seemed like traveling to another world. She was swarmed by SJWs.

    https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/2/25/18234950/knitting-racism-instagram-stories

    There are good reasons to remain anonymous in today’s world.

  50. ys says:

    Mostly OT, but from Tim Bayly’s twitter feed:

  51. Emperor Constantine says:

    @Dalrock

    Jack Donovan has also criticized working out “just for looks” and to increase attraction, in his essay “Train for Honor”:

    “However, as a primary or sole motivator, “looking good” is a harlotrous reason for working out. It’s basically saying you spend hours every week trying to stay pretty. [] Striving only to be desired is passive and effeminate.”

    That said, working out to look better for your wife to increase her attraction is Biblically sound, IMO, as long as it’s not the ONLY reason and its about her, not you.

    But he goes on to say training for strength is more manly, even though in our modern society the actual uses of that strength are limited to work around the house and perhaps increased threat display for personal protection (i.e., people are less likely to jump the guy who looks like the Hulk).
    It’s obviously good for your health and helps you age better. Experts like PD Mangan have made a very strong case that burst strength training (i.e., more masculine training) has much more positive impact on health outcomes than lots of cardio training. In fact, my workout place has mostly woman who do cardio, and >80%, including the trainers, are overweight. I do hardcore strength training and am an outlier while I huff and puff and grunt my way through a workout. (At 57 I can deadlift 240 pounds and do 10 pullups, close to 40 straight pushups).

    But he ultimately settles on honor as the reason for training:

    “I train because I refuse to be a soft ambassador of this Age of Atrophy. And I refuse to be the shuffling, slobbering, potato chip gobbling evidence of modern decay.”

    “I train because somewhere in my DNA there’s a memory of a more ferocious world, a world where men could become what they are and reach the most terrifyingly magnificent state of their nature.”

    He’s a pagan, he trains to honor his barbarian ancestors. Not really a bad reason.

  52. squid_hunt says:

    “I train because I refuse to be a soft ambassador of this Age of Atrophy. And I refuse to be the shuffling, slobbering, potato chip gobbling evidence of modern decay.”

    “I train because somewhere in my DNA there’s a memory of a more ferocious world, a world where men could become what they are and reach the most terrifyingly magnificent state of their nature.”

    How is this not “doing it for yourself, just to look good”.

  53. Paul says:

    @Otto

    Typical SJW behavior; just notice how often the writer uses ‘white’ and ‘of color’ to label people. It is purely racist. The only thing is roles have swapped; people of color are superior, white people are to be scalded. It’s tiring.

  54. I think I’m starting to see Warhorn’s central gimmick, and why some of them sound so much like the usual SJW Feminist set: it’s because both Warhorn and standard feminists shield women from culpability.

    Both of them agree that women’s problems are men’s responsibility to fix. Both insist that men are the ones with all the power (whether the men admit it or not). Both are obsessed with demeaning and talking down men for their failures. Both regard shaming women as horrifying, wicked and sinful.

    You can say “Well, they differ from the feminists in terms of what they think is moral and not – abortion, or female headship, for example”. But since they frame women rebelling against that view as exclusively indicative of the failure of men, it’s the same as giving women veto power anyway.

    The more I read of their stuff, the more foul it seems. Artificial.

  55. Lost Patrol says:

    I thought we had to lift so we’d be strong enough to set up the chairs for the women’s meeting.

    I wish those guys would make up my mind.

  56. BillyS says:

    Men who exercise (lift weights) are artificially making themselves look good?

    He really is ignorant. He must not have lifted any weights other than the fork or piece of pizza to his mouth.

  57. Hugh Mann says:

    Otto – “she’s branded a racist and her knitting business destroyed, because she said traveling to India seemed like traveling to another world”

    It IS another world – the Third World. Fascinating place to visit, maybe not so great to live in, huge rich/poor differentials, much worse than here. But it’s changing fast and the middle class is growing.

    (I went past an Indian Air Force base near the Pakistan border. “Trespassers Will Be Shot” said the notices, and I think they were serious)

  58. Pingback: A few more Warhorn notes. | Reaction Times

  59. Anonymous Reader says:

    Secular Blasphemy
    both Warhorn and standard feminists shield women from culpability.

    Exactly. The Traditional Conservative (TradCon) is just a conservative feminist; opposed to abortion (except for mumble-maybe), lesbian weddings and possibly women in combat. That’s it. Everything else that feminists have pushed for since the 1960’s they accept and are even willing to defend.

    Test this. Ask a US Tradcon if the 19th Amendment should be repealed. Ask if Title IX should be repealed. Ask if Duluth should be repealed. Ask if they would support working to repeal divorce laws. Ask if they would be willing to change post-divorce child custody laws. The response will tell you very much about their version of Feminism.

    PS: Don’t be surprised if the Tradcon has no idea what any of these things are, either. Often they know little to nothing about the real world other men have to live in.

  60. SirHamster says:

    Men who exercise (lift weights) are artificially making themselves look good?

    He really is ignorant. He must not have lifted any weights other than the fork or piece of pizza to his mouth.

    Worshiping weakness is soy.

    Men are not called to be weak, but meek.

  61. ringbark says:

    On the one hand we have Bayly agreeing with:

    The dearth of men ready to serve their country in defense of their wives and children is a concern shared by our entire committee.

    And on the other hand we have him saying:

    But that begs the question whether today’s Armed Forces are a place any man, let alone a Christian man, wants his daughters to serve, and I say “no.”

    Can you have it both ways?

  62. Paul says:

    Note the similarities to what is happening around the globe; watch this analysis of David Wood on the mainstraim media and the influence of bloggers and their followers, more specifically the attack on Tommy Robinson who recently exposed the hypocrisy of BBC reporters

  63. Opus says:

    It is surely the more racist to assume that people who come from a different place are no different than to suppose otherwise. In my block where I live we had an Indian family. Perfectly pleasant I thought – now returned to India. They could not however get the hang of the Rubbish or as you would say The Trash just leaving the rubbish outside making a tasty meal for the pigeons. One of my other neighbours a self-confessed leftie and a victim with a very bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome kindly went and out of his own money purchased dustbins marking each with the letter of the appropriate apartment. I told him ‘They wont get it if for no other reason than it will never occur to them that anyone would deliberately spend money on their behalf’ – white man’s burden and so patronising. They did not get the hint so he had a word with the wife. Yes she said she would do what he asked. Naturally she didn’t at which my left-wing neighbour lost his temper with the Indian man. Soooo raaaayyycist. ROFL

  64. Given that the gentlemen at Warhorn have intimated that one must be a pastor to opine on theological matters (or any cultural criticism that mentions Christianity), I’d ask them to refrain from opining about the military or physical fitness as they seem to lack any personal experience in these matters. I wasn’t sure before, but after reading the senior Bayly discussed how a man flexing in the mirror and admiring his progress was effeminate and gay, I think his bone to pick with military service probably comes from a similar area. All of his talk of fake machismo and constant critique of other mens’ masculinity raises the question: what is realmasculinity, Tim? Manning up and marrying degenerate women who are, if not genuinely sorry, sorry they got caught?

    Also, I’d be curious as to what makes muscles “artificial.” It seemed a very odd choice. I can only suppose he thinks everybody who has an impressive physique is on steroids. I read a lot of projection, jealousy, and ego in his posts, especially how he lashes out at his perceived inferiors. Maybe that’s why he has to put his name on everything he does and get a subscription rather than trying to help people in his spare time under a pseudonym. And maybe that’s why he has so much of a problem with people who do.

  65. Mike G. says:

    Warhorn is dripping with sanctimony over there.

    And I imagine their preoccupation with anonymity rests in hope that Dalrock might be victimized by the ever-more-popular Maoist mob denunciations, career destruction, and permanent Google “crimethinker” labelling.

  66. Kencole says:

    A little more discussion about all this happening today under a separate thread on sanity forum.

    https://sanity.warhornmedia.com/t/women-registering-for-the-draft/645/35

    “There “may” be? These men are everywhere and a number of them served on the committee. This doesn’t even include fathers and brothers and pastors and elders and husbands with authority over these women—many of whom are confessionally Christian—who are capitulating very personally. Men responsible for this are everywhere! I’ve suffered at their hands. I’ve been mocked and lampooned and dissed and passed over for honors. So have all the other men who stood for God’s truth on this committee. One of them was in line to become a chief of staff in D.C. and I have on my hard drive this minute his email saying he’d sacrifice his career rather than dishonor his Master and Church. The most precious email I have on my hard drive. My saving it is intentional.

    He and I barely got the votes to be the majority report, and this among an entire group of male officers of Christ’s Church. The report was NOT adopted by the Assembly, but only the resolutions, and this is very unusual. It was male pastors and elders who debated and voted…

    But Anonymous One and his followers are sure men are not to blame.

    That there are Christians sympathetic to these whiners (and that is precisely what they are) complaining that men are not at fault for women in dangerous positions in the Armed Forces today, and should not be blamed, is incomprehensible to me.

    But then, Anonymous One and his acolytes did not suffer on the committee, did not write for the committee, did not shepherd the vote of the Assembly on the committee’s work, did not suffer under the condescension and cynicism of the male-only commissioners on the Assembly floor, did not suffer in their reputations because of their work, and on it goes… They are not pastors and so their words are costless. They are anonymous, and so their words are cheap.

    The disconnect between their echochamber and the world where men work and suffer under their real names is so obvious.

    How I wish we had never dignified them on this site. Sincerely,“

    And,

    “For months now, the anonymous man who writes publicly as “Dalrock” has been claiming I denied the moral agency of women and did not rebuke women warriors in a report I wrote back in 2002 for the Ad Interim Study Committee on Women in the Military of the Presbyterian Church in America’s General Assembly. I encourage everyone to read this report, particularly now as it appears we are on the path to the conscription of women for our Armed Forces.

    Of course, as is his habit in criticizing others’ work, Dalrock misreprented what I wrote. I haven’t felt the need to show his incapacity for accurate dialog in the past, but now that he is being discussed here and some of his supporters continue to quote his deceptions, this morning I read the report and pulled out of it a sampling of the text that faults women, and not just men. Here then are those texts from our Final AISCOWIM report to the 2002 General Assembly 4.

    We speak of “woman’s inability to act independently of that male authority which God has placed in her life for her own well-being and protection.”

    We state: “it behooves us to recognize that such teaching constitutes implicit guidance on the role and responsibilities of womanhood. But Scripture also teaches explicitly on womanhood…”

    We state: “Devoting herself to her children and home is a central part of the curriculum older women are to teach younger women of the Church, warning that those Christian women who turn away from these things dishonor the Word of God…”

    We affirm: “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD your God…”

    We affirm: “…it is disgraceful for …women to affect manliness in their dress and gestures.”

    We affirm this by Calvin: “The words of the heathen poet (Juvenal) are very true: ‘What shame can she, who wears a helmet, show, Her sex deserting?’”

    We declare: “Deuteronomy 22:5 declares that God abhors woman camouflaging herself as a man (and vice versa). Man and woman are not to exchange clothing because to do so is an attack upon the glory God has attached to sexuality. Thus it is that the Church has condemned women warriors. For example, Luther comments on this text: ‘A woman shall not bear the weapons of a man, nor shall a man wear female clothing.…for it is shameful for a man to be clothed like a woman, and it is improper for a woman to bear the arms of a man.’”

    We affirm: “No woman shall put on the gear of a warrior…”

    We declare: “If our church finds herself unable to say more than that it is ‘unwise’ for her daughters to enter the military because of the ‘difficulties attendant to her service there,’ what possible reason will PCA daughters give for refusing conscription? Will they tell their Selective Service Board that their church believes women should have ‘freedom of conscience’ in this matter, but that such freedom of conscience is a matter of their church’s counsel—not duty under the Word of God? Such an apology for conscientious objector status will not suffice.”

    In other words, we here state this is not something women can disagree with. It is NOT a matter of her conscience. She is to obey the Word of God and make it clear to the civil magistrate this is her duty.

    We declare: “We, the undersigned, are convinced that the creation order of sexuality places on man the duty to lay down his life for his wife; and further, that those who, in a sustained way, deny this duty in word or action thereby oppose the Word of God.”

    “Those” is both men and women.”

  67. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Tim
    Genuinely want to see your examples, since you are a long time reader it should not be difficult for you to find and cite some. Because as a long time reader I have gone back and found my own comments from as far back as 2010, it isn’t that difficult to search WordPress archives if one knows how to use search engines, multiple windows / tabs, etc.

    Plus it is a surprise to me to find out that in addition to being part of the “rabble” as Pastor Tim Bayly noted in his very Christian way, I’m also part of an echo chamber. Did I imagine all the times that I have disagreed with Dalrock? Or did you just not see them while you were reading for a long time?

    Please do interact with me, TIm. Help me to see where I’m wrong. Use facts, though, not feelz.

    PS: To any Warhorn readers, as someone whose ancestors go way back in the US and parts of Europe, being called “rabble” amuses me. It’s a poor choice of words in particular for a Presbyterian pastor. Remember Fort Ticonderoga? King’s Mountain? Rabble! Nothing but Rabble, sirs!

  68. The Question says:

    “He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.”

    1 John 2:9-11, KJV

  69. Bee says:

    The truly sad thing is that for Protestant Christians in North America, Tim Bayly and Doug Wilson are about the best we got!! Sure they have some major blind spots, and they only advance manly ideas 40% of the time, but almost all other Protestant pastors are worse. Sad.

    I would also include Voddie Baucham as one of the best Protestant pastors.

    I am a life long Protestant so I will not try to speak for Catholic or Orthodox Christian men regarding their leaders.

  70. seventiesjason says:

    Dalrock team and whoever he and his petty crew (the only real men in the room) disagrees with this week:

    A bunch of dying men in a cancer ward, bedridden. Grunting over bedpans. All arguing about “who’s cancer is worse, and who had it more rough, who’s chemo was just that much worse than yours and who, even in this state…has got to somehow lord it over you that they are more right and more Christian than you could ever be.”

    In the Dalrock sphere, only 20 men or so are going to heaven.

    This is such a joke……..he said, no he didn’t, he did this, they did that……….

    Exactly why “real men” leave this room and get on their lives…..even if they are in a cancer ward

  71. Okay I have collected my thoughts.

    After listening to the podcast in full and trying to come to terms with the points that Nathan and the other two were making (with each other) I have come to what I believe is the fundamental truth of what really happened: Dalrock, there are people (men) in Bayly’s congregation that read your blog and read what you said about Bayly and they probably confronted Bayly with your links and comments wanting answers for his un-Christian positions on women and feminism. This is a non-starter for Pastor Bayly. Obviously, he CAN’T go rogue and define feminism as the cancer we all know it is since he makes his living from women entering that church and he is forced to say whatever they want to hear, but at the same time he can’t have YOU giving information about how Churchian Bayly really is. You really put him in a tight spot. So (in protecting himself and his earning power) he sicks Nathan and Warhorn media on you in an effort to try and trip you up and (thus) discredit you with the people in his own congregation. Obviously, that didn’t happen (since Warhorn basically agreed with everything you said) so they flip the script and call out your character because, well, there is nothing else they can do!

    I think this is why they go bananas over your blogging in an anonymous manner. You don’t make a living from your “preaching.” You don’t have to answer (to feminists) if you say anything that they don’t want to hear. That puts you into a position of great strength, a position that Bayly does NOT have and (thus) enables you to speak what Christ has truly taught. If you keep going more and more of Bayly’s followers will stop listening to him and will just listen to you. I gave up listening to Pastors in my neck of the woods years ago…

    I really think all this was, was an attempt to find a way to shut you down. If they can’t discredit you, I suspect the next thing they will attempt to do is contact wordpress and try and have someone in authority bring down this blog. They can’t have you writing. If you wont just stop typing then they are going to seek out someone (anyone) in authority over wordpress to end you, that I am almost certain.

  72. stickdude90 says:

    Exactly why “real men” leave this room and get on their lives

    Then leave the room and get on with your life. Please. For your own sake.

    Numerous men here have offered to provide you with whatever help they could, but you’ve always come up with some reason why it wouldn’t work. You even took an extended break, but clearly that hasn’t changed the “Woe is me” attitude you carry around like a badge of honor. I’m far from a psychologist, but it simply doesn’t seem healthy for you to keep reading this blog.

    I do wish you the best, Jason, and hope you’re able to defeat whatever inner demons continue to torment you.

  73. Swanny River says:

    I don’t know about seeking validation, but I do seek exposure and engagement with blue pill evangelical leaders. I think that is a common sentiment and helps explain the popularity of these recent posts.
    I wasn’t going to respond to 70’s, but I think that my post indirectly provides an alternative perspective to yours Jason. I agree that I don’t try to follow the details of who said what-when either, but that doesn’t mean you can conclude that people here are saying only 20 people are going to heaven.
    Some said Bayly is lost, but it’s been a minority.
    It sounds like you had a gripe, and didn’t ask any questions, so I hope your gripe brings you closer to peace this evening.

  74. Novaseeker says:

    I really think all this was, was an attempt to find a way to shut you down.

    Possibly. I think at a minimum the desire was to poison the well, to undermine influence, to turn others against Dalrock and so on so as to minimize the influence. If they were able to get Dalrock to dox himself (seemingly their initial goal), the shutting down would have been easier to do, because once someone is doxed, all manner of real world pressure can be brought down on them to comply. The failed at that, so then the goal turned to undermining Dalrock and poisoning the well so as to try to reduce the influence. I doubt that the podcast was successful in that effort, either, given how they chose to go about it. I do agree with you, though, that in general they were/are concerned about this site and the influence it has developed — enough to specifically do what they did.

  75. thedeti says:

    drop the pseudonym, and place yourself under the authority of men who can discipline what your write and help you discipline your followers. That or get out of the business altogether.

    That might have some credibility if we hadn’t already emerged from the “authority” of limp wristed effeminate men who live to pedestalize and supplicate to women. I’ve been under the authority of men who were even more masculine than this and who still pedestalized and supplicated to women. And it didn’t work.

    We tried it Warhorn’s way. It doesn’t work.

  76. The Question says:

    @thedeti

    The gatekeepers are scared. People are bypassing them and going to the source – and not giving them money anymore.

    Not the first time this has happened.

  77. Nereus says:

    Dalrock,
    Thank you for your work and please be encouraged to keep at it.

    [D: Thank you. Welcome. And excellent work in the comments over there.]

  78. Nova,

    I do agree with you, though, that in general they were/are concerned about this site and the influence it has developed — enough to specifically do what they did.

    More and more, I really think this is just people like Pastor Bayly who are rent seeking.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

    Dalrock is to Pastor Bayly and Pastor Chandler what Pete/Jonah Hill was to the professional scouts for the Oakland A’s in Moneyball. Under no circumstances does Bayly want Dalrock to be seen as any kind of spiritual authority. That is a non-starter.

    I mean seriously, why attend church and PAY Pastor Bayly to preach what Dalrock preaches for free? Unlike Bayly, Dalrock is purely Biblical. That is speaking truth to power. Pastor Bayly can’t do that so he must try to find some way to get Dalrock discredited so that no one will listen. Failing that (and Warhorn failed) the next step is to find someone in authority to shut Dalrock down. I truly believe we have not heard the last of Nathan and his ilk.

    If you pay $1,000,000 for a taxi medallion in NYC, you don’t want Uber or Lyft there. And you will seek out whatever authority there is (government) to go about shutting down Uber and Lyft locally. You have no choice. The value of what you were bringing to the table is greatly reduced by market forces. Such as it is with the Red Pill. Once you take that pill and you know the truth, you don’t pay to listen to lies. And that means that someone (somewhere) is losing a livelihood.

  79. tteclod says:

    What’s begun to bug me most about this warhorn episode isn’t the attempted take-down: it’s that somehow what you, Dalrock, post – opinion, comment – is somehow perceived as a threat. How did the Dark Enlightenment become so threatening to people? They don’t call up prostitutes, or soldiers, or pro-abortion or pro-LGBTQ “Christians” for an interview – they called Dalrock. They didn’t even attempt to contact an identified person among the Manosphere – they contacted Dalrock, an anonymous man, and asked him to out himself for their fringe podcast.

    It’s not that what you, Dalrock, do is “free” – it’s that you’re offering something that threatens them.

  80. thedeti says:

    I think it’s that when it comes to the Church and its spiritual/moral authority on sex, marriage and intersexual relationships, Dalrock has just revealed that the Church is headed by emperors with no clothes.

    They resent that Dalrock, a nonordained layman, is one of the few who has noticed the emperors’ nakedness.

  81. thedeti,

    >That might have some credibility if we hadn’t already emerged from the “authority” of limp wristed effeminate men who live to pedestalize and supplicate to women. I’ve been under the authority of men who were even more masculine than this and who still pedestalized and supplicated to women. And it didn’t work.

    The Churchian types bleat “You have to submit to the authority of proper pastors, like us and those we approve of!” But really, one of the most important things Christians can do right now is rebel against rotten leadership.

    It means rebelling against the female “pastors”, liberal priests and cardinals, and yes, even cuckservative Christians whose bladders would evacuate if they were faced with an angry woman screaming, or worse, crying about them.

  82. They resent that Dalrock, a nonordained layman, is one of the few who has noticed the emperors’ nakedness.

    Right there, the red pill.

  83. 7817 says:

    I’ve been under the authority of men who were even more masculine than this and who still pedestalized and supplicated to women. And it didn’t work.

    We tried it Warhorn’s way. It doesn’t work.

    This, exactly this.

    If you have tried marriage the way most evangelical leaders promote, and then do it the way unchivalrous men do it and realize how much better it is, the whole rotten edifice of unbiblical ideas the church promotes comes crashing down.

    It made me start to wonder in what else I had been lied to, especially by the church. A lot of pastors are just as decieved about these issues as the rest of us, in other words, the typical pastor is probably not deliberately decieving his people. However, those that should know better and are still leading people astray on this are ones to watch out for.

  84. seventiesjason says:

    “I do wish you the best, Jason, and hope you’re able to defeat whatever inner demons continue to torment you.”

    A lie, but you know…..God will forgive you

    As for advice?

    I was told to learn game. Ummmmm….learn game…………….and let’s see, learn game……………oh and read books called “Bang Poland”m and go to Roosh’s page. All the answers are there.

    Dalrock told me to go to the “third world” and meet a wife.

    So…..great advice I am sure in your eyes 😉

  85. Swanny River says:

    70’s,
    I still haven’t weighed in on your angst. I had a friend that you remind me of. His name was Don, a believer who I was in a small group with for several years. He struggled with the bottle for so many years as a Christian. He finally became victorious over it for the last 10 years or so of his life. He liked to paint and was kind, and shared the Gospel with everyone. To be continued….

  86. seventiesjason says:

    Been victorious over alcohol and drugs now for 15 years. No relapses. Service. Action. A gift of helps that is lived with intensity?

    My reward?

    “don’t worry there is no marriage in heaven…but in the meantime, I have to hear DAILY in church, in the culture, out in the street, in the man-o-sphere, any activity I do…..I am reminded….oh, just so slightly by mostly supposed *Believers* of what I don’t have, and how everything I am is wrong……

    Then watching this interview banter…about who said what, who isn’t a real Christian…..who is leading the flock astray…..who said this and when by what txt or message, or email…..

    and you all think I am PETTY…..

  87. King Alfred says:

    Where did the folks are Warhorn get their authority, from a Cracker Jack box? It is truly laughable that those who have no authority from Christ have called Dalrock to submit to their authority. At least the pope claims authority through St. Peter. What source of authority do the people at Warhorn claim? It is easy to demonstrate that their authority does not go back to St. Peter. Rather, they pulled it out of thin air. They are nothing but pompous play actors.

  88. Emperor Constantine says:

    @7817 said:

    “If you have tried marriage the way most evangelical leaders promote, and then do it the way unchivalrous men do it and realize how much better it is, the whole rotten edifice of unbiblical ideas the church promotes comes crashing down.”

    That was the biggest shocker on my Red Pill journey, that contrast.

    Although Roman Catholic, I lived it to: from starfish sex to utter exhaustion.

    It didn’t shatter my Faith in Christ because He never taught the Blue Pill, but it did force me to relearn my Faith from the ground up because Church leaders were teaching feminism and chivalry, not Christian sexuality.

    So in the end, it has been a great gift, and so has this awesome blog and its erudite and ferocious rabble of brilliant commenters.

  89. King Alfred says:

    @ Emperor Constantine
    I concur. Next to scripture, this blog has been one of the most valuable educational resources I have encountered. Thank you to Dalrock and others who have enlightened me.

  90. Dalrock says:

    @seventiesjason

    As for advice?

    I was told to learn game. Ummmmm….learn game…………….and let’s see, learn game……………oh and read books called “Bang Poland”m and go to Roosh’s page. All the answers are there.

    Dalrock told me to go to the “third world” and meet a wife.

    So…..great advice I am sure in your eyes 😉

    I can’t speak for others, but while I offered the best advice I could think of when you asked, I don’t (and didn’t) think it was great. I wish I had a magic answer. I wish we lived in a culture based on marriage. We don’t, and it is a terrible indictment on us as a society. But if you will recall my advice was to focus on provider status and finding a place where that would be valued. From your recent comments you have already made a huge shift professionally. I still think you are in a relatively difficult place in the country when it comes to women’s expectations for a provider, but others corrected me at the time and I don’t live there so I could well be wrong.

    Either way, why are you angry with others for advising game, and me for suggesting game is not where I would focus in your situation? Do you think we have better ideas than we share but refuse to out of spite, or that we could think of ideas you would love if only we tried? In short, are we at fault in some way? I can only imagine how frustrated you are. I would be too. If what you want is for me to detest our elitist view of marriage, I’m there. If you want want my deep respect for your faith and incredible service to others in the name of Christ you already have it, more than I can express. If you want me to shut up and offer no further suggestions, I’ll do so.

  91. Sharkly says:

    Pastor Tim Bayly’s cunty Imagineer Nathan says:
    “But if Dalrock thinks that authority means micro-management, if he thinks it means Tim Bayly and Clearnote Church don’t invest the directors of their ministries with real authority, to make real decisions, to even make mistakes…”

    All I read was: Bayly, if you fire my stupid mistake making butt for this disgraceful debacle that has made your ministry look out of control, I, Nathan Alberson, will accuse you of micro-management, consolidating all power to yourself, and being unforgiving of other’s mistakes. Don’t fire me, or I’ll make yet another stink, and from entirely within your own support structure.

    If the dildo had any self respect, or love for pastor Bayly, he would resign and take full responsibility, thus helping to allow bayly to come out of this with more dignity.

  92. seventiesjason says:

    Lol…’provider status’ that’s a hoot….yes, every man with a good marriage today I am 100% positive at the tender age of 25 had the house, a retirement plan maxed out, a few cars, the future college fund all ready to go for the future children, the career at full-potential and maxed out at the higher end of that careers pay-scale…….enough for the wife to stay at home all day, be feminine, and just longing for her hubby to return home from work to give him sex in every imaginable fantasy, and raise perfect children……yeah….

    I recall the disciples were subsistance fishermen who left their wives and families for three years to follow an unknown Rabbi at the time…fine examples of provider status I am sure…….even in our modern era, I watched Upstate New York close and shut down one-fine-late-1970’s day leaving countless “providers” out of work. Must have been their own fault right? If their marriage then failed…it was because you know…they were not being a good enough provider and finding only minimum wage work after GE, American Locomotive, Westinghouse, International Paper, and the remaining carpet mills of Bigelow, Mohawk, and Sanford closed up. Even the tough work in the slate pits of WAshington County that paid decently closed up, and automation killed most of the heavy “real man” work down the veins into the hewn deep of 2,000 feet underground…….And to the younger men? “Just put your nose to the grindstone, take a shower and you’ll be an investment banker really quick”……or what is it today? Yeah, just “learn code.”

    Living in India, I saw families with six, eight, ten children all living in a small house with electricty only a few hours a day…….and they were delighting in their brood. The couples had each other, and a deep committment to the betterment of their children……part of the problem in our “Christian America” today is that success somehow equates “God has favor on you” and to the man who labors in the ditches loses his job to automation and takes any job to keep his pride and food on the table at home is some sort of slacker, and not a real man, or not trying hard enough, or lazy and isn’t trusting God enough to “be a provider for his wife and children…/ future wife and children……tsk, tsk, he needs help from the church pantry…..a real man would do 10x more to improve himself……”

    Crass materialism to me, is more of a problem in the modern church and our Christian culture than femminism, or what some unknown writer said in the 14th century about courtly love……

    I have a decent job now, and I *fully* and *deeply* understand that it could be gone tomorrow. Poof. I spent years barely holding up the rent, keeping the lights on, the phone on and my hair neatly barbered while juggling to kill the past debts I had, and to keep my sense of basic pride as a man. The USA, California, or BanCal Property Management doesn’t “owe” me a living. I lost an excellent career due to drink and drugs….will *never* make that mistake again…..but I saw first-hand where I grew up that it all could just “disappear” as well through no personal action of my own doing………

    I am a man that could be happy with a wife and children while living in a tiny, cramped studio in downtown Fresno….our modern Christian culture hates that. Our mega-church- celebrity pastors hate that. The man-0o-sphere hates that. Women hate that. We hate men that actually love their wives and children today…..that man is a simp, a cuck, a tradcon, a chump, is whipped!

    God doesn’t care about ANY of that. Jesus talked a lot about money, and never once did he tell people to become “rich merchants” or “own flocks” or “be this amazing provider”

    He told them to love God with everything they had.

    Sure, I don’t think ANY man dreams of becoming some ditch digger, but even that man is beholden to Christ and is no less worthy of the Kingdom or a wife because of his economic status

    ……..and as usual, if I am wrong……I am sure you all will tell me with a swagger and snide put-down as well 🙂

    Dalrock. I posted the same comment under my full name, it threw it into moderation (as it should have btw). Please do not post it…….

    [D: I noticed the full name when I saw it in moderation and binned it, but the separate heads up was a good idea in case I hadn’t noticed.]

  93. seventiesjason says:

    Sharkly. Lets suppose he did everything you suggested….even with the colorful words you used…..did everything you said.

    It still wouldn’t be good enough to you, and most of the folks here.

    Besides….what do you care about Nathan, Bayly, Warthorn Media thinks? You are all real men of God and these guys are all nothing compared to you all……I mean, you think they were going to be honest? Change their ways? Christians today are the most arrogant of the lot…..I am seeing that firsthand from all of this with these postings and tit-for-tat “see what he did!!!!” and “see what they said!!!”

    This is like a male version of “The View” at this point.

  94. Luke says:

    “So consider this a personal exhortation: drop the pseudonym, and place yourself under the authority of men who can discipline what your write and help you discipline your followers. That or get out of the business altogether.”

    Dalrock IMO IS one of those men who is worthy of disciplining other, theologically lesser men. The Warhorn-associated men AFAIK appear to be the latter.

  95. Anon says:

    Pastorbator Bayly said :

    Guys are effeminate—we’re all gay.

    Who says things like this? Imagine how self-loathing these cuckservative Pastorbators are.

    Plus, muscles generated by lifting weights are ‘artificial’? That must mean that being a pasty mangina is ‘natural’, to these lunatics.

  96. Sharkly says:

    Apparently Dominic “Bnonn” Tennant is feeling a bit eclipsed by the Dalrock Vs. Whorehorn Media fireworks, and wants to get in on the fray.

    Bnonn says: “It’s true, you can post whatever vile filth you want on Dalrock’s blog, and he will sponsor it.”
    https://bnonn.com/are-women-made-in-the-image-of-god/#comment-41569

    Oh, and if I’ve never said so before … Thankyou Dalrock for sponsoring me.
    Later! I’m off to search the internet for some filthier words to use. Poor Bnonn.

  97. OKRickety says:

    I have a rough draft transcript of the Warhorn podcast at Transcript of Warhorn Episode. I hope to improve it in the next day or two.

  98. Anon says:

    Nathan the mangina said :

    drop the pseudonym, and place yourself under the authority of men who can discipline what your write and help you discipline your followers. That or get out of the business altogether.

    Note the arrogance of his position. That Dalrock and his readers need to be ‘disciplined’ (since they are not manginas). Plus, he orders Dalrock to ‘get out of the business’. Well, Dalrock makes no money from this blog (there are not even any ads), plus he has free speech rights. Note how a leftist like Nathan appoints himself as an authority on who should have their free speech rights revoked.

    Has Nathan ever been with a woman? I would imagine not.

  99. Warthog says:

    @seventiesjason You don’t need game, you just need an internal locus of control. Women are never attracted to self-pitying men who blame everything but themselves for their lack of success. Men aren’t either, meaning that Eeyore is a drag even as a brother.

    “Sure, I don’t think ANY man dreams of becoming some ditch digger, but even that man is beholden to Christ and is no less worthy of the Kingdom or a wife because of his economic status.”

    True, but that is not the problem. I don’t buy your story Jason. There is no shortage of three-hundred pound women in North America who would take whatever man they can get. It’s not the plumbers who cannot get a wife, it’s the pencil necked college boys. The reason is the college girls are too busy doing other things. But there are many spinsters young and old in churches all across the land. Men make the same kind of excuses spinsters do. Spinsters say nobody ever asked, when what they really mean is, nobody *that I wanted* ever asked.

    Christian men who cannot find a wife are invariably punching above their weight. They have standards that most women fall short of. Every church has some overweight homely virgin wallflowers that nobody pays any attention to. They respond to attention. If you spent years in India, and no women were interested in you there either, the reason is almost certainly inside your heart and your head.

    If women are not attracted to you, I highly doubt is is because of your economic status, your looks, or lack of game. The reason, I strongly suspect, is that you ooze self-pity. Your comments certainly do.

    All of the women are broken, but so are you, as you’ve admitted. Maybe you should quit wasting your time pining for a wife and instead find something useful and satisfying to do with the remainder of your days. Dalrock is too kind.

  100. Mountain Man says:

    Seventiesjason,

    Do you have some Christian brothers in real life to encourage and challenge you? Sounds like you did when you were in Fresno. Have you found some new ones after the move? If not, I here and now am offering to be your friend. I’m also in CA, and will drive up to the Bay area from SoCal to meet with you. Though I’m about 10 years older than you, I think we have much in common, even beyond both being single, Christian, red pilled men reading and commenting on Dalrock’s blog.

    I’m concerned about you, as I’m sure are other men on this blog. It doesn’t sound like you are in a good place right now. Your frustration and bitterness is coming through even stronger lately compared to when you were in Fresno.

    I don’t mean for this to sound condescending, though I know that is a danger. I sincerely want to offer you IRL friendship. If you are interested in this, Dalrock has my permission to pass along my email address to you.

  101. Cane Caldo says:

    @thedeti

    I’ve been under the authority of men who were even more masculine than this and who still pedestalized and supplicated to women. And it didn’t work.

    We tried it Warhorn’s way. It doesn’t work.

    Great comment.

  102. Mountain Man says:

    Oops. I should have added:

    Dalrock, this is me explicitly giving you permission to give my email address to Jason, if he chooses to take me up on my offer.

  103. Nereus says:

    Though I’ve had this handle for years, I can’t claim credit for the posts at Warhorn, though I suspect it may be a personal acquaintance of mine. Nereus is an obscure mythological character but a very fitting symbol for Christian Men watching out culture collapse around us, but I wouldn’t expect folks to know that unless they’d read a little-known book called The Parthenon Code. I sometimes explain the fitting symbolism of Nereus to IRL friends.

    Over five years ago, a friend of mine interested in Bayly’s church introduced me to Bayly’s writing, and I introduced him to Dalrock’s writing. One of Bayly’s folks (Nathan?) visited our church and I shook hands with him back then. I’ve read Dalrock and Bayly side by side for years, but after this travesty I’m done with Bayly, yet will be keeping Dalrock in my daily reading. Like they said, character matters, and the character is clear and public for all to see.

  104. Nereus says:

    I saw problems in the first five minutes of the podcast. I was shocked when they mentioned that speaker, Texas Dom, whom I’d never heard of before, so I immediately looked him up to see if it was true. In about 60 seconds I found a December blog post of his explicitly stating that his ministry was definitely not what they describe it as. Also, his “about me” page explains that it was a last ditch request from his wife to avoid impending divorce. She heard the idea from a Christian ministry focused on dominant, leading husbands and submissive wives and felt it was the answer and asked him to look into it. So Warhorn opens by blatantly mischaracrerizing and smearing folks, then turn around and accuse Dalrock is mischaraterizing folks.

    And what would they say about guys like me who read both Dalrock and Bayly? That I’m nasty rabble who can be counted on to not check sources when reading Dalrock, but a discerning truth seeker who checks sources when I read Bayly? Does my character just depend on which website I have open in the browser?

    Their podcast should be a feature exhibit of pot calling the kettle black. I found no fault in Dalrock’s work, but they did everything they accused him of, and in excess.

  105. Bayly’s Leathernecks says:

    So if I understand Pastor Tim Bayly’s logic re: the military:

    1) It is Pastor Bayly’s desire that his son should never enlist.
    2) Women are forced to join the military due to male cowardice in not enlisting.
    3) That if Pastor Bayly’s son does not enlist, some unknown woman will be forced to enlist due to his son’s cowardice (and Bayly’s desire for that cowardice to be realized).
    4) When Rule 3 is realized and a woman in his congregation enlists, Pastor Bayly discourages her, though this may be the exact woman forced to enlist because of his son’s cowardice (and Pastor Bayly’s desire).
    5) Ideally, all men should desire to join the military because their mothers shed blood giving birth to them (undetermined if this supplants Rules 1-4).
    6) The Marines are the best because they aren’t as perverted as soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

    Is that about right? Did I miss anything?

  106. Bayly’s Leathernecks says:

    7) Should Rule 1 not be realized and Pastor Bayly’s son does enlist, it is his desire that he join the least sexually perverted branch of the military (see Rule 6), which naturally is the U.S. Marines.
    8) The U.S. military engages in unjust wars that do not follow Christian Just War doctrine.
    9) Should his son or other members of his congregation join the military over Pastor Bayly’s strenuous objections and engage in unjust war on a voluntary basis, Pastor Bayly will praise and commend such men and women for their actions.

  107. feministhater says:

    Jason, am I correct in saying that your most pressing needs are met currently? You’re not in dire straights physically, financially, mentally, even Spiritually if I might say so…

    Are you in fact searching for some meaning in your life beyond the mundane aspects of life itself? Do you think family life will bring you such meaning?

  108. feministhater says:

    My reward?

    Don’t focus your life like this. Stop. Think. You’ve overcome some nasty hurdles in your life already and came out the other side a better man. Why are you so hard up on yourself? Well done! You did well enough to get yourself out of your predicament and sometimes that is ‘reward’ enough. Stop punching yourself down.

    God doesn’t give you what you want but what you need. If you want a family, you have to take a realistic look at how you could do it at your age. It’s not going to be easy but you have to be willing to take it as a challenge. One that is probably going to test you to your limits.

    Take Mountain Man up on his offer, make a new friend. Life is for living.

  109. seventiesjason says:

    Warthog

    “men who blame everything but themselves for their lack of success”

    I don’t blame women. I don’t blame other men. I have just put out the situation.

    So, since no other “Christian” in the room gets called out for their foul language

    “FUCK YOU!”

    Is what I say to you.

    You have zero clue. Ugly women in church???? But, but….but I though God made us all beautiful…..and there is someone for everybody???????????????????????? (sarcasm)

    You don’t think I asked??????????????????????????? Or Tried????????????????????????????

    They have ZERO problem dating up a notch or two, and I am now stuck to look for women in the “third world” or “just learn game”

    Let me say this again….so I am CRYSTAL CLEAR here

    “FUCK YOU”

  110. seventiesjason says:

    Mountain Man

    So you can dox me????? Have a laugh like Scott, Poke Salad, Anon and others do at my expense?

    No. I don’t need accountability or to be “challenged” (which means talked down to). I alos just don’t believe you. Sorry. Never seen you post here, and suddenly “you want to be my friend”

    I’m not that much of a sucker.

    I would perhaps talk on the phone first…….but your “christian virtue signalling” here is a little trite. Want to be friend? Okay……we speak on the phone for a bit first before you drive up here or I fly from the Charles Schulz airport dow to the Southland….

  111. Emperor Constantine says:

    Nereus says:
    March 1, 2019 at 2:04 am
    “I saw problems in the first five minutes of the podcast. I was shocked when they mentioned that speaker, Texas Dom, whom I’d never heard of before, so I immediately looked him up to see if it was true. In about 60 seconds I found a December blog post of his explicitly stating that his ministry was definitely not what they describe it as. Also, his “about me” page explains that it was a last ditch request from his wife to avoid impending divorce. She heard the idea from a Christian ministry focused on dominant, leading husbands and submissive wives and felt it was the answer and asked him to look into it. So Warhorn opens by blatantly mischaracrerizing and smearing folks, then turn around and accuse Dalrock is mischaraterizing folks.”

    Texasdom is an online friend of mine. He works with the Fraternity of Excellence to help young men find themselves in our fem-centric world. He is doing great work. FoE is explicitly Christian but one of its two leaders is Christian.

    BDSM is a way to make sex and relationships more interesting and it works for some people. It’s not my cup of tea because for the dominant male, it is a huge amount of work and responsibility.

    Tex is a good man and is making the world a better place IMHO.

  112. ys says:

    SeventiesJason-
    Glad to see you are here and doing ok.
    I think people who care are offering you advice. As Dalrock said, it might not be great advice, or ideal, but it is there. I was the same in what I said. I wish I could tell you there were a pleathora of options out there for someone of your age and situation, but that isn’t true.
    Again, some here have given you a bad time, and I understand your anger towards them, but don’t push away folks trying to help either.

  113. ys says:

    Kudos to OkRickety also for doing such a great task of transcribing. It must have been rough and I for one appreciate it. If you are like me, and read faster than you listen, and hate tedious sound effects that many podcasts have, then please follow this link:
    https://okrickety.wordpress.com/2019/03/01/transcript-of-warhorn-episode/

    Since this thread is a few days old and several comments deep, a few of my own observations:
    1. I can’t believe they compared MGTOW with women having abortions, but there it is. Pathetic.
    2. The Devil’s advocate segment was odd. Some of it I would agree with.
    3. These guys need to stay on topic, badly.
    4. Yeah, really hung up on anonymity, not even saying that Dalrock’s ideas are bad, just that he dares to not name himself.

  114. seventiesjason says:

    FH

    When I was a drunk and addict…….I didn’t care. I didn’t worry. Pay the rent? Whatever….I’ll just couch surf somewhere. Bad credit? So what…the corporate banks have a rigged game to begin with. I won’t even “touch” what I saw with women professional or otherwise at this time. They didn’t want me…….well, they liked the cocaine I shared with them

    Now? I have some serious long term sobriety and I am “productive” and “responsible” again….and have been for a long time. Now I have to deal with cold realities. Daily. Nightly. At work. At church. At some “ministry” or “fellowship”. Find hobbies. I have plenty. Volunteer. I do. Pray. I challenge any man here to prayer.

    Your prayers get answered. I get parables.

    I am reminded in NA and AA weekly of “my past” and not that I should be reminded, but I (as usual) have to live with the consequnces of my sin…….everyone else is allowed to “move on”

    I notice more and more the church, the culture, the times “require” men like me to sit around to be lectured, reminded about and talked down to about “what is wrong in the world” and if I agree….well, I am dorrmat and not a real man for not standing up for myself.

    If I question…I’m bitter, angry and that’s why (insert answer for any particular) situation.

    I can’t raise my IQ by 50 points. I can’t go back to the womb and curse genetics at conception.

    I may want to change, but no matter the change…..it just isn’t done correct enough, right enough or the way of Scripture because I didn’t study Greek, Hebrew, or attend some seminary……..and hairsplit over what the word “is” meant in what context of what chapter or what translation or in what historical context.

    I won’t speak for Christ because I can’t. I can’t articulate properly in this medium because it is a skill I just don’t have……and when I try “you’re bitter!” “you’re wrong!”

    I may want to change, and I have done some pretty awesome stuff post 2004….and it has been a hard climb back to a modicum of respectability…….but no matter what, it just will never be good enough, I still won’t be smart enough, articulate enough, wise enough, good looking enough, or have done enough to “bask” in your correct assesment of the world.

    It’s a closed club here…………and I have been questioning lately why I even bother……..or what difference does it make……………because since becoming sober, I really see that it has made none.

  115. BillyS says:

    and you all think I am PETTY…..

    You are petty. You insult others here in your rants and can’t acknowledge your role in anything.

    I have 40+ years of serving the Lord and yet I remain alone. The Christian wife I was building a life with turned out to be building herself, not our marriage and I am now alone after almost 3 decades of that.

    Do I post regular whines here? It hurts far worse than you realize Jason, yet I do the only thing I can, keep plugging away. Quit acting feminine and thinking the world revolves around you. It doesn’t.

    Serve Jesus as your Lord or don’t, but quit whining about it. You sound just like an SJW whining about everything and everyone, refusing to take any personal action. Your posts make me question your “being clean of drugs etc.” claim since you act like you have fallen off the wagon. Though I still suspect a lot of sock puppetry.

  116. AnonS says:

    but no matter what, it just will never be good enough, I still won’t be smart enough, articulate enough, wise enough, good looking enough,

    There is no such thing as enough. If you have desires you can’t fulfill based on immutable characteristics you can rage or lower your desires.

    Living a simple life in a tiny house in a rural area and growing your own food is not losing.

  117. seventiesjason says:

    (clears throat)

    FUCK YOU BILLY

  118. 7817 says:

    It’s the gift that keeps on giving. From one of Warhorn’s podcasters:

    https://mobile.twitter.com/jacobmentzel/status/1100528509154484226?p=v

    Jake Mentzel
    @jacobmentzel

    I think you’re right. False attacks on character to dissuade people from paying attention to someone are common and evil.
    2:50 PM – 26 Feb 2019

    Jake Mentzel
    @jacobmentzel
    Feb 26
    Bottom line, integrity in argumentation is a rare thing to come by today.

  119. BillyS says:

    Warthog,

    Christian men who cannot find a wife are invariably punching above their weight. They have standards that most women fall short of. Every church has some overweight homely virgin wallflowers that nobody pays any attention to.

    So we have to aim at a woman we are not attracted to so we can be proper? What idiocy. Do you give the same advice to women?

    You also ignore that even those “homely overweight women” have high standards and do not want to be a helpmeet to any man. They know their rights as “daughters of the King” and they deserve the best!

    Men have far fewer requirements than you indicate. Women have far more, as has been shown over and over. They consistently see 80% of the men as below average. That is not true of men, as can be seen with the number of very large women with skinny men in public places.

    Get out in the real world a bit Warthog.

  120. BillyS says:

    Mountain Man,

    I would be quite cautious with Jason. He needs personal interaction, but the doxxing potential is quite high for anyone who helps him.

  121. BillyS says:

    Jason,

    I don’t blame other men.

    Your posts are full of blaming here. Closed club here? Who is doing that? You may get challenged, but that is a part of real life.

    What do you expect? Why do you bother coming here if it is so bad?

  122. feministhater says:

    I may want to change, and I have done some pretty awesome stuff post 2004….and it has been a hard climb back to a modicum of respectability…….but no matter what, it just will never be good enough, I still won’t be smart enough, articulate enough, wise enough, good looking enough, or have done enough to “bask” in your correct assesment of the world.

    Why the need to ‘bask’ in anyone’s assessment of the world but your own? Good enough for whom? Smart enough for whom? Articulate enough for whom? Who are you trying so hard to impress?

    You certainly don’t need to do so with me. I would like to see you enjoy your life rather than to lament it. I’m not a genius, I’m just me, trying to find a piece of this world for myself. Finding contentment in the small things that might build to something bigger in time. There are far worse things in life than not finding a wife.

    It’s a closed club here…………and I have been questioning lately why I even bother……..or what difference does it make……………because since becoming sober, I really see that it has made none.

    You’re searching for meaning for your life. The big question that no one here can possibly answer.. what purpose your life serves. There is no solution to this question that any man on this forum can give you, none that will satisfy you. That is your task, only you can find that out. Life is a challenge you have to overcome, you’re not going to overcome it by drinking or by taking drugs. That just numbs your senses and will, once again, place you in a deep hole.

    If you’re not finding the answers here, I would encourage you to seek elsewhere, perhaps it is time for you to look for more meaningful connections in your own town or city? Try to use up all the time you have free doing things that take your mind off your longing for a family. Keep your mind busy. Dwelling on your problems drags you down. Stop.

    You’re in a position now where your most serious needs are met, that means you now have the time and energy to seek out what you want in life. Do so.

  123. Novaseeker says:

    Jason —

    I think it would probably be best to stay away from the internet for a while — not just the sphere but the net in general. It certainly appears from your writing that you’re going through a particularly rough phase recently and right now. The internet won’t help you with that — it never does. The internet really is just a place where people mostly react to other people in text — that’s it. It’s fine as far as it goes, and can be of help to people as well, but it generally isn’t helpful to engage much with the internet when you are going through a rough phase, because the harder edges of the internet will interact badly with that rough phase, on the one hand, and, on the other, you’ll be temped to use the internet as a kind of therapy of sorts, which is almost invariably a disaster for the same reason.

  124. thedeti says:

    On my prior point:

    We tried it Church’s way. We tried it Focus on the Family’s way. We tried it Family Life/Dennis Rainey’s way. We saw women as crockpots who took a long time to warm up.

    We believed them when they told us that women really are sexually attracted to nice, kind, friendly, devout, mild mannered, effeminate man-boys who would weep and cry in church speaking in vocal fry and airy breathy tones about their love for Jesus and singing love songs to Jesus while their wives/girlfriends rubbed circles on their back

    We believed them when they told us that women really are attracted to men who go to the men’s “ministry” meetings on Saturday mornings to eat donuts, drink shitty coffee, talk about our battles with porn, “keeping our eyes and hearts pure”, and learning more about what we should do at home so our wives will have sex with us.

    We believed them when they told us at men’s ministry that “porn is bad mmmmmmkay, not because it’s immoral and will hurt you, but because it hurts your wife and hurts her feeelings”.

    We believed them when they told us at men’s ministry that the problems in our marriages were 100% because of our own failures, because we were terrible husbands and crappy fathers, and if we would just change this and do that and stop saying this then our wives will love us and we will have better marriages.

    We believed them when they told us that women are wonderful and never lie, and they especially never lie about sex. We believed them when they told us that women are just more “in tune” with God, and are just more moral, more spiritual, more caring and nurturing, and just all around better human beings than men are. We believed them when they told us that the only sins women really commit are lack of self-esteem, and failure to be “true to” themselves.

    We believed them when they told us that a woman’s sexual attraction/gina tingles are holy barometers that measure the moral fortitude/spirituality of the men around them. We believed them when they told us that if our wives are not sexually attracted to us, it is because we are not sufficiently submitted to God and we are not “living right”.

    We believed them when they told us that to get our wives to respect us and have sex with us, we have to lead Bible studies, “lead” them “correctly”, “properly submit ourselves” to God, and otherwise obey their teachings.

    We believed them when they told us that “head” in Ephesians 5’s reference to the husband doesn’t mean “leader” or “in charge”, but really means “source”. (As, like, not that a man is in charge, but that he is supposed to be a “source”. Or, perhaps, “resource”.)

    We believed their false theologies, their “man up” screeds, and their exhortations to marry the sluts.

    And many of us have paid with our marriages and a whole lot of money and property.

    And this was on the word of at least outwardly masculine appearing men who were biblical scholars.

    So, you know, everyone will have to forgive me for not submitting to soyboy juvenile snarker podcasters. Everyone will have to forgive me for not taking seriously these high pitched, whiny, snarky idiots who don’t understand what they’re talking about, Everyone will have to forgive me for tuning out the “HOW DARE YOU” Mark Driscolls of the world and the “Boys who can shave” Matt Chandlers of the world.

    Everyone will have to forgive me for extending a middle finger to limp wristed, effeminate, vocal fry, Jesus love song singing, pansies when they tell me they’re the “real men” and I should submit to them. Everyone will have to forgive me for concluding that men who weep and cry in church and who can’t even tell me honestly that Ephesians 5 means what it says have absolutely no cause to demand my submission and have no moral or spiritual authority.

  125. Nereus says:

    To Emperor Constantine,
    I’m going off texasdom’s Dec27 post “Ds is not BDSM.” He writes that a couple can have either one without the other, and then goes on to explain that the Ds emphasis is on husband and wife roles.

    Of his writing, I’ve only read that post and his about page so far. Since you know him, am I correct or incorrect in saying that Warhorn mischaracterized him as a teacher of BDSM?

    It struck me as odd that a major manosphere conference would bring in a BDSM expert for a fatherhood conference. But a father and husband whose emphasis is on proper leadership role of a husband, as texasdom’s emphasis currently appears to me, seems a good fit. Or have I rushed to judgement on the man’s work?

  126. Barnie says:

    I actually give Tim Bayly credit for actually speaking clearly and making falsifiable claims unlike Doug Wilson and his pretentious squid ink.

  127. Anon says:

    BillyS,

    What do you expect? Why do you bother coming here if it is so bad?

    As mentioned before, this is the reason (he is a rare male with ‘nail girl’ psychology) :

    Mountain Man,

    I second what BillyS said to you. Your generosity might be misplaced here. Every well-intentioned action to assist this person will be seen as a secret attempt to undermine or sabotage him.

  128. OKRickety says:

    seventiesjason,

    Mountain Man said: “Do you have some Christian brothers in real life to encourage and challenge you? … Have you found some new ones after the move?

    I tried asking much the same a week or so ago. You did not respond to me then, nor have you responded to the above questions here. I think, but will not claim to guarantee, that finding even one true Christian brother there might be invaluable.

    “And if one can overpower him who is alone, two can resist him. A cord of three [strands] is not quickly torn apart. [Ecc 4:12 NASB]

    By the way, I don’t know if you noticed Opus commenting recently. I think you asked about him a while back in connection to your upcoming travel.

  129. seventiesjason says:

    Rickety

    And he (Opus) didn’t reply……so, he obviously has other things planned for when I am there the month of June. No harm. No foul.

  130. @thedeti

    talk about our battles with porn, “keeping our eyes and hearts pure”, and learning more about what we should do at home so our wives will have sex with us.

    Don’t knock battling porn. Most men have no idea how much it contributes to their own sense of emasculation. A lot of guys have a problem with it, and don’t realize how much it is affecting their physical and emotional health by flushing testosterone from their system and getting them into a drug-like dopamine cycle.

    I would strongly encourage Christian men to head over to Reddit’s NoFap forum and read up there and other places. What’s really sick IMO is how so many “leaders” take a smug know-nothing (that’s not what Paul meant about knowing nothing but Christ, you flaming morons) attitude toward things like this. They cannot link the moral and spiritual with the real world other than “it’ll make your wife feel bad.”

    The reality is that it makes A LOT of guys feel bad too.

  131. thedeti says:

    Il Deplore

    I’m not knocking battling porn. I’m knocking the limp wristed, effeminate manner in which men are encouraged to talk about it and the focus on its effect on women.

    Men’s ministries tell us to avoid porn because it objectifies women, hurts women, and hurts wives. To the modern church, porn is bad because it makes wives feel bad. Porn is bad because it makes wives feel like they cannot or are not sexually satisfying their husbands. Porn is bad because it hurts marriages.

    (When, in fact, the main reason many husbands are so pornsick is precisely because their wives refuse them. It is precisely because their wives will not have sex with them, exercise so much dominion and control over sex so as to make it like scheduling a maintenance session for a piece of machinery, and act as though sex is just another chore like vacuuming or dusting. If wives were actually doing their jobs as wives and having sex and not resisting and “paying the marital debt”, so to speak, we might not have this problem.)

    Well. How about “porn is bad because it’s not good for you men.” Death grip. ED. Premature ejaculation. Distorted beliefs about sexuality.

    Can we all please have a discussion about what is going on with men, and not always in the context of how it hurts women?

  132. Anon says:

    BillyS,

    Men have far fewer requirements than you indicate. Women have far more, as has been shown over and over. They consistently see 80% of the men as below average.

    Indeed. Men lowering their standards is most certainly not the solution in the current marketplace. Many have already done so far more than they should. Anyone who suggests this is a ‘man up’ Tradcon.

    Regarding the 80% thing, it is astonishing how uneducable women are. Men correctly rated 50% of women above average and 50% below average in the same test. Even if men are just attracted to the top 20%, they still don’t let that fact cloud their grasp of what an ‘average’ is.

    With women, despite parents + taxpayers spending $500K total on educating each woman from K-12 through college and often more, they still lack the ability to separate basic 4th-grade level knowledge from their SMV thoughts. How unhappy must women be if they think 80% of men are ‘below average’, and cannot differentiate the threshold of ‘average’ from their attraction threshold? Of course they are unhappy – almost all women end up with a man that they believe to be below average (even if he is in the 75th percentile).

    In other words, if a 50th percentile woman gets a 75th percentile man to be her husband, she still thinks she married down since he is ‘below average’ in her view.

  133. thedeti says:

    Porn is an aid to masturbation. Men masturbate because they cannot have sex. If men could have the sex they wanted, they would not masturbate, or at least they wouldn’t masturbate as much, and they wouldn’t be so preoccupied with sex.

    The main reason men get preoccupied with sex is because they want it and cannot get it. And the main reason they cannot get it is because they aren’t attractive enough to get it.

    A main reason married men are preoccupied with sex is also because they want it and cannot get it. And the main reason married men cannot get sex is because their wives, who are supposed to be taking care of that need for their husbands, won’t do it. Or they harrumph and complain about and bitch and nag and whine about it, like a 10 year old kid you’re trying to get to take the garbage out. So, many times, husbands just say “forget it, I’ll take care of it myself” and just go rub one out.

    Men do not want to have sex with women who clearly and unmistakably, by word and deed, do not want to have sex with them. That includes wives. Husbands do not want to insist on sex with wives when wives are making it incredibly clear that sex for them (with their husbands) is about as much fun as a teeth cleaning.

    You know, if you wives reading this would take this to heart. DO. YOUR. JOBS. You’re there to have sex with your husband and take care of that need so he isn’t thinking about getting that need met all the time and so he can do all the other things he needs to do. THAT IS WHAT YOU’RE THERE FOR. THAT’S ONE OF THE MAIN REASONS HE MARRIED YOU.

    DO.

    YOUR.

    JOB.

  134. squid_hunt says:

    @seventiesjason

    You seem to be marching around a very obvious hurt, not naming it, blaming everyone else instead. But you came close in your last couple of posts. Bitterness is a dangerous sin because it is blaming God for everything wrong and refusing to acknowledge anything that he does is right. You’re angry at everyone on here because you can’t shake your fist at God.

    You admit to doing heavy drugs. You can look up the phyisiological effects of what that does to you. You can’t ignore its effects on your brain, your body, your mental state. Coke burns out your pleasure centers. Of course life seems stark. But you have a job and a steady position. You have a church and God is allowing you to serve him, giving you work to do. Letting you build up treasure in heaven.

    The goal is not marriage and a happy life now. The goal is eternity with your rewards and Jesus Christ. No one wants to be Lazarus, but someone clearly was. I know that’s not a comfort, but there it is.

    No one else has to face the consequences of their sin? Are you kidding? The only thing I’ve wanted to do my entire adult life, for over fifteen years is be a pastor. I’ve come to terms with the fact that I’ve pretty much disqualified myself by my own sins and willful stupidity. That’s hard for me. It is literally all I’ve ever wanted out of God. I still have more to claim as my reward for my behavior.

    LIfe is tough and we make it tougher on ourselves. All I do now is look for opportunities to preach and it isn’t happening. Whether that changes in the future I don’t know. It’s not wrong of God, though. I’ve earned it. I do other things instead. You’re serving God. Why isn’t that enough for you?

    Some are telling you to get off the internet. I disagree. I think you should come back and rail on us every day. Tell us all the terrible things that people on here are doing to make you angry if it helps. There’s nobody on here that can’t take it and if they can’t, they’re no better off than you right now. Don’t run off into the wild blue yonder. These people have been and are your friends.

  135. thedeti says:

    Wives should be settling the issue of sexual attraction in their minds, hearts, and nether regions long, long before they marry. If she cant find it in her to keep her vows and “have and hold” this man until one of them is dead, (and that includes having sex with him), then she should not marry him.

    If she doesn’t understand that one of her marital obligations is to have sex with him when he wants to at reasonable intervals, and she can’t do that, then she should not marry him.

    If she can’t bring herself to have frequent, decent sex with this man she is considering marrying, then she should not marry him.

    Wives, your husbands are supposed to have sex with you like rutting bucks. That is not sin. That is how they are supposed to approach you. If you don’t like that or if you think that is sin, you need to avoid marriage.

    If you have no problem having extramarital sex with men who approach you like rutting bucks, but insist that your husbands come to you with airy breathy Jesus love songs, whiny high pitched vocal fry snarky voices, candlelight, and sweet slow “lovemaking” that you choreograph, then you do not understand anything about what marriage is supposed to be and you need to get your head on straight before you say “I do” to some man you don’t want and ruin the lives of everyone around you.

    As for men: It’s your marital bed. Have sex with her like a rutting buck. If she won’t do that, you got a big problem on your hands.

  136. nereus600 says:

    I’m the Nereus who wrote the comments on Sanityville. I did not realize there was an older commenter here with the same handle, Nereus. It appears we’ve had a pseudnymn collision! My apologies to the original Nereus. Yes, I did enjoy Robert Bowie Johnson’s books, who posits that Nereus was a Greek memory of Noah. Additionally, one of the Babylonian chronological periods is 600 years, which is also called a neros or nereus. It appears to have been a 600 year intercalation of the solar and lunar year, which was based on the rough astronomical estimates made by Noah in the century after the Flood. From now on I will use a completely different pseudonym to avoid confusion. Nereus600 is now retired. Please accept my apologies.

  137. Anon says:

    thedeti,

    I’m knocking the limp wristed, effeminate manner in which men are encouraged to talk about it and the focus on its effect on women.

    Indeed. It is amazing how many supposedly pro-male men don’t get it.

    If porn harms MEN’s health, or prevents them from being in a relationship they might otherwise be happy in, then porn is bad.

    Porn is NOT bad if it is simply creating competitive pressure on overvalued, entitled women. If women need a situation of artificial scarcity created in their favor so that they can be fobbed off on men, that is bad. *Any* system based on artificially-created scarcity to engineer an outcome is bad.

  138. OKRickety says:

    seventiesjason,

    Are you avoiding the question about finding Christian brother(s) there?

  139. Emperor Constantine says:

    Nereus says:
    March 1, 2019 at 9:56 am
    “To Emperor Constantine,
    I’m going off texasdom’s Dec27 post “Ds is not BDSM.” He writes that a couple can have either one without the other, and then goes on to explain that the Ds emphasis is on husband and wife roles.

    []

    It struck me as odd that a major manosphere conference would bring in a BDSM expert for a fatherhood conference. But a father and husband whose emphasis is on proper leadership role of a husband, as texasdom’s emphasis currently appears to me, seems a good fit. Or have I rushed to judgement on the man’s work?”

    Good point, I stand corrected. I’m not into BDSM but apparently the term covers a variety of practices. Tex’s focus is on teaching the dominant/submissive lifestyle to men in the manosphere, rather than BDSM technique. I know for a fact Rollo Tomassi asked him to not focus on the “kink” part (whips, chains etc. which frankly I have no idea if Tex does that or not) of the D lifestyle. Tex also pointed out that you can have BDSM with a dominant/submissive lifestyle, i.e., that can be something that happens only in the bedroom. For Tex and his wife, it’s a lifestyle outside the bedroom as well as in it.

    Texasdom clears it up this way from that piece you pointed to:

    “Yes, D/s happen to be two of the letters but I can surely testify you can live a D/s life with your girl and never explore any BDSM kink. And that works both ways, plenty of kinksters out there that love their BDSM scenes and toys who would never claim to lead a D/s life.

    BDSM is this huge catchall term that is open to so many different types. It’s a welcome space for those who do not feel welcome in mainstream society. Go to a BDSM dungeon and you will see things you simply cannot un-see! Their kink won’t be your kink. That’s okay. You may not have any kink in you at all. In which case, I’d strongly recommend you avoid dungeons. They will not be your cup of tea.

    When a couple chooses a Dominant/submissive life, they are focusing on the relationship aspects of trust, communication, love and respect. The deepening of the understanding of each other fuels an intensity that goes beyond the bedroom.

    The concept is simple in design. One leads, one follows. Many couples I’ve encountered have been fed this dream that both are equal partners in all things. There is no leader. They both lead. This is a total power exchange. She gives up her attempts at control in order to be free to explore who she really is without having to struggle with making decisions and trying to lead. He takes on the role he was destined for, allowed to lead without constant second guessing and unsolicited advice. Both THRIVE!”

    https://texasdom.com/2018/12/d-s-is-not-bdsm/

  140. Warthog says:

    > Well. How about “porn is bad because it’s not good for you men.” Death grip. ED. Premature ejaculation. Distorted beliefs about sexuality.

    > If porn harms MEN’s health, or prevents them from being in a relationship they might otherwise be happy in, then porn is bad.

    I would suggest a different approach.

    We belong to God, who created us. The God who created us commanded us to be fruitful and multiply, through sexual union with our wives. The same God prohibited all variations of group sex, including incest and adultery, as perversions punishable by law.

    Porn enables third parties to vicariously participate in the sex acts of the performers, making it a form of group sex. It is a gateway to the soul used by its purveyors to introduce all manner of perversions.

    Porn is a tool of conquest, just as Balaam used the sex priestesses of Midian as a weapon to seduce the Israelites away from God. It brought down God’s wrath upon Israel in a plague that killed many of them. Balaam used sexual revolution as a weapon of war against another nation.

    Porn is simply an enhancement of the Balaam attack which uses technology to mass produce it. This enables a small number of sex priestesses and catamites to corrupt a much larger body of men. Just like crack is enhanced concentrated cocaine, porn enables all the men to be tempted by the most beautiful women, instead of the filthy ho down on the corner.

    Those who use porn are being enslaved to the synagogue of Satan, the followers of Balaam and Jezebel, and slowly destroy themselves, and will receive God’s judgment. Porn destroys not just the man, but the nation. Like alcohol, drugs, gluttony, and gambling addictions, porn addiction is the symptom of a weak man who is enslaved to his own pleasure.

    If your wife refuses sex, that is definitely a problem. The solution to that problem is not to then become an alcoholic, gambler, drug addict, or glutton. Neither is porn a valid solution.

    Men can live without sex. Men can live without porn. The fact that a man’s wife refuses to have sex with him is not a valid justification for using porn instead. It is usually a symptom of a combination of sins in the woman, and blue pill behavior by the husband. (Though not a Christian, Athol Kay has a very solid video series about red pill married sex life, that deals with this issue quite convincingly.)

    I don’t think the man’s use of porn is justification for a woman to divorce him. While it may be spiritually adultery, it is not physical adultery. But a husband who refuses to repent of using porn should be kicked out of whatever church he is in.

    I agree that women’s reasons for being offended by porn are primarily about jealousy, and are not valid. It is God’s reasons for hating pornography that we should be concerned with.

  141. thedeti says:

    The Warhorn Snark Patrol’s complaints seem to boil down to:

    1) Dalrock unfairly criticizes us for not insisting on women’s agency. Hey, here’s some quotes from Doug Wilson and Tim Bayly! See! We have long said women have agency! So Dalrock’s not being fair.

    2) Dalrock mischaracterizes what we say and what others say. It doesn’t matter that he drafts lengthy posts setting out his positions clearly, linking to what others say so you can read it for yourself, and then laying out in painstaking detail exactly what they said and exactly what the problems with it are. No, he “mischaracterized” it. (Which really means “I disagree with you, but am too lazy to point out the things you said that I disagree with and the reasons I disagree with it.”)

    3) Dalrock posts under a nom de blog and not under his real name, so he isn’t credible. You know who we are, we broadcast and post using our real names. Therefore, even when we are wrong and push false theology on others, we’re still more credible, because at least we’re being wrong under our own names.

    Whether the arguments and logic we put forth are sound and grounded on scripture doesn’t matter. The merits don’t matter. The truth of what is said doesn’t matter. No, all that matters is that everyone know the real identities of who is saying it.

    It’s not fair that we don’t know Dalrock’s true identity, because we cannot then use SJW silencing and intimidation tactics on him. We cannot doxx him and then hold him up for public ridicule. We cannot try to get him fired from his job, harass him at his work/home, harass his wife, and terrorize his kids. And that’s not fair.

    4) Dalrock is shining a light on a lot of uncomfortable things that we all know women are doing, but we don’t want to bring to light because it will make the women mad. Dalrock and his commenters are not being nice to women.

    5) Dalrock and his followers cultivate a “locker room” atmosphere. They’re saying mean things about women and use vulgar language to refer to men, women, body parts, and sex acts, and this offends our delicate effeminate sensibilities. They’re not being nice to women. And it makes the women mad. The anonymity lets men say things online they would never say in real life.

    (Never mind that these things need to be said. Never mind that men need to have a place to go where men can talk to men about male issues important to men. No, the Warhorn Hall Monitor/Snark Patrol must police the locker room to make sure there’s no “hatespeak” or thoughtcrime going on. The Snark Patrol must make sure that every men’s space is a safe space so that no one ever gets hurt or offended.)

  142. seventiesjason says:

    Rickety

    No. Who is here? Old women. Old men who say “God has this amazing plan for your life” and I try to suggest a mens group, or prayer meeting “We tried that, it didn’t work” but with the same slight of hand that more mature Christians than me are famous for ask “How come men don’t want to know Him? What can we do to attract men to church?”

    Vicious circle. Make suggestions. “We tried that, it didn’t work.”

    When Iw as invited to the Orthodox church back in September by that kindly woman in the Orthodox Bookstore………I was greeted with “grunts” and suspicion. I asked an Orthodox here some questions………”oh sweet Jesus…..”

    The other protestant churches are empty but have plenty of “BLM” signs and rainbow flags and banners outside “Jesus Was A Socialist” and “Love Trumps Hate”

    Even the ‘cultural church’ of my boyhood (Episcopal) says has a huge banner as you enter “non judgment day is coming! are you excited?”

    I don’t need accountability. I don’t need more “boring Bible studies” published by some church or evangelical group that is twenty years behind the times (including my own Salvation Army).

    I need a friend….and I have not really had one since college, or grad school…..I live in a county now that voted 95% for Hillary in 2016, at least in Fresno, a comfortable majority voted for the other stooge…..who really isn’t much better but at least there were people who were more in line with my thinking.

    I have posted online at Craigslist. The replies for “fellowship” with “like minded Christian men” are “The Bible says we cannot judge” and “maybe you should move to The South and join the KKK”

    The Word says He leaves a “remnant” but this isn’t Israel……it’s absolutely gorgeous in this part of the state. My manager suggested I join a few civic orgs / clubs for the sake of promoting the building….and I agree…..I joined the Rotary. Check-pants old golfer republicans my dads age who call me “kid”

    I am being encouraged to join Sonoma County Democrat Club…….and I will not do that. I joined the Schulz Museum…….the same, go to a special event at the museum “Trump this, Trump that…..hate, hate, hate, hate” I joined because I loved “Peanuts” and Schulz’s work, wit, and whimsical philosophy in his strip.

    The few “brothers” I knew from Fresno were friendly but it was never a “friendship” it was the “God has this amazing plan for your life”

    I am almost 50……still waiting, wondering what this “amazing plan” is, and if its not what I want, I am still supposed to rejoice in it? Okay. If this plan is me being the guy who is told daily “their is no marriage in Heaven” and by the same slight of hand told that I am not a real man because I can’t meet, date, marry, father children, be a step dad (because all single moms are no good….according to THIS blog) and I am belittled for the confusion I face.

    Like I said before, I could feed 5000, and one of you bozos here would say “Yeah, but you didn’t feed 5001”

    so there you go

  143. Joe2 says:

    Let me see if I understand this –

    So if Nathan does something Bayly doesn’t approve of..

    If it’s true that Nathan did something Bayly didn’t approve of, it would seem reasonable for Bayly to implement some discipline, corrective action, change in procedure, etc. to help prevent the recurrence of such behavior. If he didn’t, then why not? Simply to state his lack of approval without corrective action doesn’t pass muster.

  144. Warthog says:

    > Just like crack is enhanced concentrated cocaine, porn enables all the men to be tempted by the most beautiful women, instead of the filthy ho down on the corner.

    Ironically, this is the male form of hypergamy. Men who watch lots of porn with the most beautiful women find difficulty getting sexually aroused by the plain Jane they are with.

    Women who ride the carousel with alphas or omegas, but then tie the knot with beta bucks, often discover they cannot get sexually aroused by a beta.

    For both sexes, forms of fornication that allow the average person to have some kind of sexual experience with an elite person, then make it difficult to have a normal sexual relationship with another average person.

    When the wife is not interested in sex with her husband, one question the pastor/counselor *should ask* is whether she is carrying spiritual baggage from riding the carousel. (But they never ever ask that question.) It isn’t likely to be 100% the husband’s fault.

    But men who watch porn are just mirroring the sin of their wives instead of correcting it.

  145. @thedeti

    Porn is not just a coping mechanism. It often does prevent men from having sex with wives who really do want an active sex life. Many wives are a big contributor to the problem, but many wives are also legitimate victims of the habit too. In both cases, though, men need to understand that it is not healthy for them. Their health is being torn down, their relationships, etc.

    And yes, porn often does cause “hyper-sexualization” which puts men into the awful place of being “over-sexed” without the sex. Once they start to wake up and break away, they find that it’s not really their natural sex drive, but feels a lot like a heroin addict finally waking up and fighting the needle.

  146. I am almost 50……still waiting.

    Plenty of young ladies out there are also “waiting” for God to send their Prince Charming ramming through their door/wall like the Kool Aid man to propose to them. It’s like a relative of mine who was in law enforcement used to say to people he caught sitting in the office all day: “unless you’re internal affairs, all of the criminals are out there.”

  147. thedeti says:

    Il Deplore

    One of the main points of marriage is to give men an outlet for sex, and to put it into its proper perspective.

    One of the main reasons men get married is to have a regular sex partner and to not have to work for it. Sorry, but there it is.

    It is a wife’s job to have sex with her husband. Period. Full stop. If she can’t or won’t do that, she has no business getting married.

    It used to be, culturally, that wives would stop having sex with their husbands after the last kid is born. “I’m a wife, i don’t have to do that stuff anymore. If he needs that, he can take care of it himself or get a mistress or a hooker.”

    That all changed with outlawing prostitution and making women “equals” in marriage. Women insisted that their husbands get sex only from them for lots of reasons – obedience to scripture, no diseases, no drama, no diversion of assets or attention away from the marriage, etc.

    Then, women demanded to have it both ways: “You cannot have sex outside this marriage. But I will not have sex with you because, well, I just don’t want to because I’m not attracted to you/don’t feel like it/have a headache/am tired. And if we’re going to have sex it will be on my terms and you have to just deal with that because if you don’t, it’s rape and you are going to jail for a long time.”

    So what wives have been doing is holding their husbands’ sex lives hostage. And that’s just not acceptable.

    If wives don’t want to have sex with their husbands, then they need to release those men so they can find women who do want to have sex with them. And if they are going to insist that they must be their husbands’ sole sexual outlets, then they have to actually be those sexual outlets and have the sex with their husbands they promised they would have.

    Either do your jobs, or get out of the way and let these men find someone else who will get the job done.

  148. thedeti says:

    If these wives really do want active sex lives, then they need to speak up and say that to their husbands. They need to make it extremely crystal clear that they are sexually interested in their husbands and that they are not going to turn them down left and right and that they are ready, willing and able to have that sex when he wants it at reasonable intervals.

  149. thedeti says:

    These wives need to start communicating, directly and in words, their desire for active sex lives with their husbands. Not bitch about it to their moms or their girlfriends. Not hem and haw and hint around about it. They need to SAY so using their words. They need to communicate it with a clarity so crystal clear you could make a chandelier out of it. They need to bang their husbands over their heads with it.

  150. thedeti says:

    7817:

    You should read the Twitter feedback they’re getting on their manosphere “expose”. TLDR:

    “you guys screwed it up. Snarky sarcasm is not a substitute for argument. You didn’t actually engage the arguments Dalrock made; all you did was point and snicker.”

  151. Novaseeker says:

    Ironically, this is the male form of hypergamy. Men who watch lots of porn with the most beautiful women find difficulty getting sexually aroused by the plain Jane they are with.

    No, although this is a common source of confusion.

    You’re correct to say that men’s saturation with images of the women in porn often can make them less interested in pursuing real life women. However, that’s quite different from female hypergamy, because hypergamy is the natural/default setting in women. That is — women are naturally attracted to what is above them, and their attraction floor is, at the very least, on their own par level, and in most cases somewhat higher than their own level. It isn’t the result of warping, as you are observing in porn: it’s the default setting.

    A man who is not using porn is not hypergamous in his attraction to women. He will of course try to *optimize* (everyone does), but optimization is not hypergamy. Hypergamy has to do with where the attraction “floor” lies — if it is at par or above, then it’s hypergamy, if it lies below your own par, then it isn’t hypergamy. Men, especially high value men, often access women who are “below” them for sex due to the combination of the desire for variety and sexual availability of such women to them — that is the opposite of hypergamy, and it is a behavior one basically never observes in women (I don’t mean just appearance — there are “ugly” men like Mick Jagger who do very well with women, but the women are not dating him hypogamously because despite his looks … he’s MICK JAGGER, and women’s assessment of men is based on more than just appearance — it’s whether a man is perceived by a woman to be above her in overall SMV as a woman measures that in men). Men will try to optimize, women will try to optimize — that isn’t hypergamy. Hypergamy is when the natural floor or one’s attraction is set at one’s own par or above, as a “cut off”, below which there is no attraction. That’s the case for women, and not for men.

    Now, I know you will say that in effect this is what porn can do to men, and that may be the case for a small subset of men who view a lot of porn, but the effect is due to warping and isn’t the natural pattern of male attraction, and is only arising as a result of the porn use. If the porn use stops, so does that warping — whereas women are always naturally hypergamous. The only thing that constrains female hypergamy is lack/limit of choice, which is what pertained historically.

    Personally I think the main effect of porn on most men in terms of their interaction with real world women is that it takes the edge off their sexual desire such that it reduces their interest in approaching women, even if they still find the women attractive. Why? Because approaching involves risk, requires preparation, can be a kind of a pain, and so on. Men will do it when their libido has no outlet, because their libido will drive them to do so. When they are habitually using porn, it takes the edge off their libido just enough to discourage just enough of them from actually approaching women they are attracted to, because the intensity of their libido is reduced due to the masturbation outlet, and therefore they don’t feel under as much pressure to approach. This effect is observed more strongly in men who use porn a lot, and that tends to be men who are in some ways less attractive (either physically or personality wise) to begin with, which means it can have a pronounced combined effect on their participation in the dating market. I think these guys are still attracted to real world women, though — it’s just that their libido is slaked just enough such that they don’t feel under as much interior pressure to actually pursue.

  152. 7817 says:

    I saw some of the feedback.

    Interesting that the manosphere is having this much of an effect on Reformed, of all people, to the point that Foster and Tennant tried to start something to co-opt it for their people who were being influenced..

    The fact that a less socially aware podcaster in Bayly’s church blew all this up by screeching Dalrock man bad has got to be incredibly frustrating for Foster especially, as he was sidling up to the manosphere, acting like he was tangentially a part, and trying to establish his own thing that would siphon men away, presumably for the purpose of sanitizing it.

    I don’t know if everyone has noticed, but the Sanityville forum is not that large, and both Bnonn Tennant and Michael Foster post there a fair bit according to their profiles. All of these people are connected: Doug Wilson, Tim Bayly, Nathan Alberson, Bnonn Tennant, and Michael Foster. It just happens that Foster was the saavy one of the group that looked the friendliest to the manosphere. He was trying to play this whole thing down on his twitter timeline by telling a commenter not to bring that convo here. He does not want to be visibly connected to this whole ugly mess, but like it or not, there is a connection there, and not a weak one, and Foster is connected to the Warhorn side of things.

  153. Kevin says:

    All the most intense battles are internecine.

    That we disagree with these Christians in degree hardly makes them the true enemy. I don’t agree with nonsense that Christians who disagree on the Bible and its teachings on men and women are the worst enemies are traitors given the significant overlap of things we do agree on and the wide chasm between that and the very few areas of agreement with the feminists.

    Its the same bizarre argument that the old school conservatives are the true enemies not the socialists who want to reform society (coming from a right leaning point of view). People you agree with about most things, even with variation, are still better than people on the opposite end who share almost no beliefs.

    So, despite using our host, I still see these people as generally allies even if disagree in part about this. I don’t like that they save their most intense scorn for other Christians but that is typical just like many give them the greatest scorn as traitors.

    I am amazed at the hubris of telling our host he needs oversight because his followers are too intense. Too few attempts to argue for their view of the world while I think our host has been thoughtfully helpful in explaining where he is coming from.

  154. Tom Lemke says:

    What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Thomas Lemke (@ThomasJLemke) Tweeted:
    @warhornmedia Hey anon @warhornmedia employee, how bout you sign your name to these passive-aggressive tweets instead of using your employer’s (formerly) good name as a pseudonym? https://twitter.com/ThomasJLemke/status/1101558099368914944?s=17

  155. The Question says:

    @ thedeti

    I am continually amazed at tone-deafness of the Christian culture when it tries to engage young men or bachelors such as myself about how we should get married (to 29-31 year old women, naturally) before having sex. Biblically speaking, they are correct, but we aren’t dumb. We listen and observe the married men and see clearly that marriage offers little promise of sex, or that the women will work to maintain her physical appearance. The only guarantee is that we surrender precious freedom and independence.

    If marriage offered plentiful sex, then married men would be encouraging, not shaming, young men to get married, too. If marriage was an Amazon product sold to men, what would the reviews look like?

  156. Anon says:

    Novaseeker,

    When they are habitually using porn, it takes the edge off their libido just enough to discourage just enough of them from actually approaching women they are attracted to, because the intensity of their libido is reduced due to the masturbation outlet, and therefore they don’t feel under as much pressure to approach.

    Yes. And this is not the reason to restrict porn.

    Tons of cuckservatives (including Warthog) are merely concerned with creating artificial scarcity to boost the (low) market pull of most women. The notion that women should be protected from having to compete by creating artificial scarcity is terrible.

    VR Sex will make the aforementioned effect 10x. 8s in the real world will be the new 5s. This may not be ‘good’ for society, but the idiots who think putting men into a system of artificial scarcity (where nothing of the sort is done to women) will get their just desserts.

  157. Kevin says:

    I guess Jack Donavan should know if working out for looks is gay since he is … gay.

    Working out and posing in the mirror is kind of effeminate. Homosexuality is rampant among body builders. The gym is sometimes called gay church.

    However, working out in this day and age of desk jobs is simple health maintenance. Its not for everyone but its pretty basic fitness. Criticizing what others do for fitness is just childish. Swimming is hard work – good for him. The fact that lifting has an aesthetic value as well does not diminish its fitness benefits.

  158. Tons of cuckservatives (including Warthog) are merely concerned with creating artificial scarcity to boost the (low) market pull of most women.

    Men who choose porn over females comparable to them in attractiveness are like that rat that is wired to a machine where a press of a button causes an orgasm. Yes, they’re ignoring the females, but not be cause they have a viable alternative to getting laid.

  159. OKRickety says:

    seventiesjason,

    Thank you for providing an answer: “No.”

    I’m sorry. So, since you haven’t found Christian friends, maybe you should try to find non-Christian ones. I am not fond of that suggestion, but, if they are reasonably moral and well-behaved, it could be better than having no friends.

    I wouldn’t expect you to befriend someone you meet in a business networking group or a museum group. Have you tried looking for social groups in the area that might interest you? One resource is Meetup.com. I didn’t see any groups in your immediate area intended specifically for Christians, but I might have missed it. I did, however, see at least one hiking group that appears to be quite active, even during the week, so it sounds like a possible fit unless you work every day of the week.

    There would even be a slim possibility that someone you meet in such a group is Christian, or might know a Christian and be willing to connect you with them.

    Now I know you are reasonably content with your job there, but I wondered if you might have better results in your search for friends or a wife if, with a year or two of current property management experience, you were to find an equivalent job in another part of the country. If you do look into this, remember that the cost of living in some parts of the country is likely lower than your current location.

  160. Mountain Man says:

    Seventiesjason

    So you can dox me?????

    Really, Jason? You think I offered you friendship because I want to dox you? Over the years, you have provided more than enough detail about your life that anyone wanting to dox you could do so quite easily. The fact that no one has should be some indication to you that no one wants to. While I don’t like the idea, I guess it’s possible you are an internet troll who has created an elaborate false online identity which has nothing in common with your real life, but I don’t think it’s likely. I have no desire to dox you, and I doubt anyone else here does, either.

    Have a laugh like Scott, Poke Salad, Anon and others do at my expense?

    I’ve been reading here for a couple of years, and have never seen anyone laughing at your expense. I have seen people getting frustrated with you. Men here have offered you help and advice. Admittedly, some of that advice may have not been on target. Some of it may not have been realistic, Some of it may not have fit your situation. Some of it you may just decide, for whatever reason, you don’t want to follow. All of that may be true. But when help has been offered, your standard response has been defensiveness, a litany of reason why the advice is stupid, and even going so far as impugning the good will of those offering help. After a few rounds of that, I’ve seen some of the men you mention above got frustrated with you, and perhaps even become dismissive. But I’ve never seen anyone laughing at your expense or enjoying your pain.

    No. I don’t need accountability or to be “challenged” (which means talked down to).

    I agree with you that “accountability groups” within Christianity are mostly a joke. I also agree that being “challenged” can often come across as being talked down to. That’s why I specifically said challenged AND ENCOURAGED. They have to go together.

    I also just don’t believe you. Sorry. Never seen you post here, and suddenly “you want to be my friend”
    I’m not that much of a sucker.

    You are right. It’s a bit weird to have a random stranger come up to you and say “Let’s be friends”. I’ve been reading here for a couple of years, but rarely post my own comments. I’ve been following your story, at least as you have presented it through your comments, so I know more about you than you know about me. It’s understandable for that discrepancy to make you uncomfortable.
    I wanted to reach out to you months ago when you were still in Fresno. But I’m a pretty strong introvert, and that is hard for me. Then you moved, and stopped commenting here, and I just let it drop. Sorry.
    There have been times in my life where I really needed a friend. In at least some of those situations, there were people around me who noticed it and stepped up to offer their friendship to me. They did so not because of the friendship they could receive FROM me, but because of the the friendship they could offer TO me. Now, admittedly, that’s a shaky foundation for a long-term friendship, because the friendship is only flowing in one direction. In order for the friendship to mature and become long-lasting, some level of mutuality and reciprocity needs to develop. To my shame, when I was on the receiving end of a friendship, I sometimes didn’t reciprocate well enough, or consistently enough, and those friendships withered and fell by the wayside. I regret that, but it doesn’t mean those friendships were not valuable at the time. Maybe I’m attempting some belated reciprocity by paying it forward … by seeing someone in need and reaching out.
    Then again, I could be completely wrong. Perhaps you have good friends around you. Maybe your life is good and fulfilling. I could be completely off base by thinking you are “in need”. If so, then great. I certainly will not be offended if you decline my offer.

    I would perhaps talk on the phone first…….but your “christian virtue signalling” here is a little trite. Want to be friend? Okay……we speak on the phone for a bit first before you drive up here or I fly from the Charles Schulz airport down to the Southland….

    I hate talking on the phone, even to my friends and family. I grit my teeth and do it because I know it’s expected, but it’s not comfortable or enjoyable for me. Speaking on the phone misses out on all the important non-verbal communication which happens face to face. Besides, I tend to express myself better in writing than I do verbally.
    Besides all that, there is the logistical problem of a phone conversation. I’m certainly not going to post my phone number here, and given your concerns about doxing, I doubt you will either. That’s why I suggested getting my email address from Dalrock.
    So, to summarize, you have accused me of wanting to dox you. accused me of wanting to laugh at you, implied I was trying to talk down to you, claimed I was lying, accused me of running some kind of “con” on you in order to make you a sucker, and told me I was engaging in trite “christian virtue signaling”. It would be easy for me to take offense at that and withdraw my offer. However, I suspect you are hurting and therefore defensive, and your harsh words are flowing out of that defensiveness. I choose not to take offense, and my offer stands. But if you choose to decline, that’s totally OK, and is, of course, your right.

  161. Warthog says:

    @Novaseeker I agree that men’s attraction to porn is not the same thing as hypergamy. I meant that it was analogous in some the effects.

    Bottom line is that porn gives men visual access to women at the top of the scale of physical beauty, who have often been engineered (plastic surgery) to further enhance the traits that God wired men to find sexually attractive (breasts, butt, facial symmetry, long hair, etc).

    The more that men feast their eyes on the super attractive women, the less attractive his ten or twenty pounds overweight wife begins too look. Men with porn addiction often develop ED with the actual woman in their life.

    Hypergamy + Carousel gives women temporary access to higher status men, which then spoils them for marriage to a man of similar rank/station to her. Romance novels and fifty shades of grey have a similar effect.

    In both cases, there is a zero commitment sexual experience with perceived “elite” members of the opposite sex, which then sets unrealistic expectations and encourage dissatisfaction with the spouse you can actual earn/afford.

    What pornography and hypergamy have in common is that both tend to create dissatisfaction with someone of the same sexual market value as yourself. They both create unrealistic expectations that end up diverting energy away from successful marriage and reproduction.

    Is that a fair summary in your view?

  162. thedeti says:

    The QUestion:

    I am continually amazed at tone-deafness of the Christian culture when it tries to engage young men or bachelors such as myself about how we should get married (to 29-31 year old women, naturally) before having sex.

    Dalrock has chronicled this, and the Warhorn hall monitors confirmed it. The modern Church is stuck in a fictional version of 1955 “Father Knows Best/Ozzie and Harriet” land, where nice girls are sexually attracted to and marry nice boys. You get married because it is the right thing to do. You marry because that’s your duty.

    That’s been updated slightly to conform to the new false theology. Women’s vaginas are holy divining rods set up to find “good men”. She knows a man is “good” and “right” for her when her vagina starts vibrating like a tuning fork. And if he is “good” and “right”, then he is The One. He is the Man God Has Chosen For Her.

    Women don’t have sex with “bad men”. Women are not attracted to “bad” men. Why, how can you say she’s “bad” when we know that God has built into her body a holy device designed to make her “good” and to find “good” men? We know that God did this because Pastor Dave Wilson tells us that God used his wife’s vagina to speak to him and give him a very important message about his wife’s lack of sexual attraction.

    If she is not sexually attracted to him and does not want to sleep with him, he is a “bad” man. Conversely, if she is sexually attracted to him, he’s a “good” man. If she was attracted to him but no longer is, he was a “good” man who has turned “bad”. And we know this because her vagina no longer tingles in his presence.

    And you must spend your time trying to make her tingle.

  163. Warthog says:

    @thedeti You seem to be under the belief that women can negotiate sexual desire. Supposedly they cannot, though prostitutes seem to do so, but maybe they are faking it. Most women do desire and fantasize about sex. And a red pill husband tends to get a lot more of it than a blue pill husband does.

    The issue of sexual desire and the morality of conjugal rights within marriage are separate. Women who complain to others about their husband’s sexual desire are sinning. But a husband whose wife is turned off by sex with him probably has other issues.

    There was as study a few years back that found that women who were virgins at marriage tended to have an active and satisfying marital sex life. Women who rode the carousel before marriage seem to lose interest in sex after marriage. Those are generalizations, but seem to be reasonably factual.

    “These wives need to start communicating, directly and in words, their desire for active sex lives with their husbands. Not bitch about it to their moms or their girlfriends. Not hem and haw and hint around about it. They need to SAY so using their words. They need to communicate it with a clarity so crystal clear you could make a chandelier out of it. They need to bang their husbands over their heads with it.”

  164. seventiesjason says:

    Okay Mountain Man. You’re on.

    Dalrock has my permission to give you my email address.

    I have a stupid fundraiser to go to tonight until about 8PM, as soon as I get out of this office. Rotary Club……driving golf balls at the one course here to raise money for a scholarship so “young girls can afford to go to college”

    Makes me want to puke. Ugh “Did you know girls take on 3x the amount of debt than boys do when going to college? Did you know it takes them so much longer to pay it off because they don’t make as much as a man after college?”

    I can drive about 100 yards with a 7-iron, so that is the club I’m bringing…….too bad its not going to be “Bukowski Invitational” and then I could dress like a pimp and get away with it

  165. thedeti says:

    Warthog:

    No, I don’t beleive women can negotiate sexual desire. Yes, sexually attractive dominant confident in-shape husbands with high paying high status jobs get more sex than blue pilled men who don’t have those traits.

    The problem is that women are having a lot of sex with very attractive men, and then marry men they are not as attracted to. They lie to these men about their attraction; or more often, simply “decide” that sexual attraction to these men “isn’t important” because “it’s about marriage now and getting married and having babies and starting a family”.

    The problem after that is women not knowing or understanding what their marital duties and obligations are. And that’s mostly because no one ever makes that clear to them. It’s more commonly because all of society is set up to excuse them from living up to their marital obligations. Even the church excuses them from living up to their marital obligations while at the same time blaming men for not enticing them to live up to their marital obligations.

    Which is why i said way up there:

    If she can’t find it in her to have sex with him, she shouldn’t get married.

    It’s also why a man should not ever marry a woman today, unless she is so sexually attracted to him she can’t see straight. No other kind of marriage can work today. Because if she isn’t so insanely attracted to him, she sees no reason to have sex with him. Because no one will make her live up to her marital obligations. Everyone will excuse her from that obligation and will in fact goad and encourage her to end that marriage and head back out to the carousel.

  166. AnonS says:

    Female empowerment = less stable marriages and more unhappy women.

    This is where Rollo is missing something. “Negotiate” can mean men negotiating among themselves to change the environment, and changing the environment changes attraction even if the man doesn’t change at all (the options have changed, not him).

    No welfare towards government jobs, schools, and hospitals. How many women now out of “work” (government make-work jobs)? Having laws that hold women accountable to contracts changes the environment, no more no-fault divorce and no more child support.

    Fair laws can create dread so that the average guy doesn’t have to (and can focus on creating surplus value), and dread creates attraction.

  167. PokeSalad says:

    Why, how can you say she’s “bad” when we know that God has built into her body a holy device designed to make her “good” and to find “good” men?

    ..and if you disagree, she’ll throw a holy dinnerplate at ya 😉

  168. Mountain Man says:

    Thanks, Jason.

    Hey, Dalrock! Jason and I need your help. We need you to be a go-between, and to either give him my email address, or give me his. Not sure how to accomplish that logistically, while also protecting your email address from us and maintaining your anonymity. Any ideas?

    [D: Delighted to help. Done.]

  169. Method Man says:

    I’m still having a hard time getting over how just plain uncool these Ned Flanders wannabe bad boys are. It’s tough to pick a favorite part of their podcast to mock but I must say that their posturing as the toughest Christian tough guys in the mean streets of Bloomington freaking Indiana is hard to beat. Gimme a break. It really sums up their delusional self-unaware approach to this entire situation: just goofy (and dishonest) churchy PCA poseurs who met their match.

  170. Mitch says:

    @thedeti

    Even the church excuses them from living up to their marital obligations while at the same time blaming men for not enticing them to live up to their marital obligations.

    This is one of my biggest complaints about women’s ministry. They mostly assume women only struggle with low self-esteem and only need to be encouraged to make Jesus their boyfriend. Beth Moore and Priscilla Shirer are the most popular and they are mostly biblical expositors (and questionable ones at that) who use the text to help women feel better about themselves.

    Contrast that with men’s ministries that are all about being “ruthless with our sin” (Act Like Men with James McDonald), accountability groups about porn addiction, and exaggerated displays of cartoonish masculinity (fire walking, beating drums, smashing bricks against their head). All of this is followed by admonishments to be better husbands and fathers and take the Courageous fatherhood pledge.

    Where is the Titus 2 example?

    3 Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.

    What are the most important ways to love a husband? Respect. Submission. Sex.

    A Titus 2 women’s ministry would be instructing the younger women on the importance of sex as a biblical mandate to be obeyed several times a week and not just as a nice suggestion for something reserved for those special occasions when their husbands have been really really nice to them and they are ovulating.

    And how many churches do this? Check out Lifeway Book stores. How many DVD/Blu-Ray studies are there that talk about fulfilling conjugal obligations?

    So without the church confronting them on this, many Christian wives are convinced by that little demonic voice in their ears that their husbands only want sex because they lack self control and because they are selfish perverts.

  171. thedeti says:

    You can give my email address to Jason too. He should have it from his blog days. But please do give mine to him as well. He can contact me if he wants to, any time, day or night.

  172. ray says:

    ys:Bayly — “Always give preferential treatment to women. Among Christian men, at least, “women first” is iron-clad law. With or without children each woman is a mother.”

    Uh, no.

    You however boyo, are assuredly a mother.

    That photo IS the modern ‘church’. You pander or you perish.

  173. ray says:

    Karamazov Idea — ‘I read a lot of projection, jealousy, and ego in his posts, especially how he lashes out at his perceived inferiors. Maybe that’s why he has to put his name on everything he does and get a subscription rather than trying to help people in his spare time under a pseudonym. And maybe that’s why he has so much of a problem with people who do.’

    Yoop. On the button. This is just everyday Sperm Wars stuff, with a mask of Christianity and Goodness pasted over.

    Down the road, it’ll be clear just how much of modern male behavior in collusion with feminism was simply inferior men trying to take down their betters. Guess why? :O)

    Somebody does something better than me, I got two choices. I can either admire their skill, and perhaps learn from them. Or, I can hate them and work towards their downfall, as any gift God gave to another is clearly grounds for lifelong resentment. WHAT was God thinking about when He tried to show me up!?

  174. Novaseeker says:

    What pornography and hypergamy have in common is that both tend to create dissatisfaction with someone of the same sexual market value as yourself. They both create unrealistic expectations that end up diverting energy away from successful marriage and reproduction.

    Is that a fair summary in your view?

    The difference, again, is that women come that way out of the box, whereas men do not. Drop the porn and men are not that way. Women, by contrast, are *always* that way.

  175. Swanny River says:

    70’s,
    Maybe I will continue the story of my friend Don another time. Like someone said, there is a limit to the amount a person being able to connect with another (especially if one of the two is in torment)on the web. I can’t say anything more meaningful than Dalrock did yesterday. What’s better than the internet is in person, and Mountain Man offered that. I will pray that goes well.

  176. Oscar says:

    Gents,

    Warhorn’s response is what it looks like when someone thinks he was punching down, then discovers – to his horror – that he was actually punching up.

  177. Anon says:

    Warhorn’s response is what it looks like when someone thinks he was punching down, then discovers – to his horror – that he was actually punching up.

    At least Ronda Roussey has the good sense to not actually fight any men in an MMA match, and keep her boasting to the verbal realm.

    Warhorn believed in their own narrative – they are a textbook example of the Dunning-Krueger syndrome.

  178. Lexet Blog says:

    He literally paid me to tell you that he literally paid me, because he sponsors me.

    lol. These guys are really the clueless gifts that keep on giving.

    It is sad, because I have enjoyed Its Good To Be A Man’s website

  179. Lexet Blog says:

    The amount of assumptions he makes is laughable. Effeminacy is confused with narcissism, and quite frankly, a book worm has no right to go out and define masculinity (which he defines so that he is the arbiter of it).

  180. Lexet Blog says:

    Look up John Piper. He is the epitome of closeted homo. As with Matt Chandler. Warhorn likes both of these “guys.”

  181. Lexet Blog says:

    The label “conservative” is pure idiocy. What is there to conserve? What is the point of going back in time, if the course ends where we are today? The system failed, and it needs a retrofit/redesign.

  182. feeriker says:

    Can we all please have a discussion about what is going on with men, and not always in the context of how it hurts women?

    No, not in a churchian context. That would imply that men’s wellbeing matters for its own sake. Heaven forbid anyone should get that idea.

    I’m sorry. So, since you haven’t found Christian friends, maybe you should try to find non-Christian ones. I am not fond of that suggestion, but, if they are reasonably moral and well-behaved, it could be better than having no friends.

    If it makes Jason (or any other man here) feel any better, having ANY true friend, Christian or not, is a precious rarity for most of us. I’m honestly hard pressed to think of any man I consider to be enough of a friend that I could confide in him in absolute confidence, trust him to have my back when things get difficult or the chips are really down, be able to rely on him as a source of wisdom and inspiration, or even be sure I’m regularly part of his prayers. (How many of my fellow Christian men can say that they have a pastor or priest who has even ONE of these attributes?)

    I’ve lived long enough to know that it wasn’t always like this for men, that there were many groups and organizations in the past that built strong, often lifelong comradery and friendships amongst ourselves. All of them are today either gone or thoroughly converged to the point of being at best useless and at worst toxic. This is why most of us, if we’re honest with ourselves, will admit that we’re little or no better off than Jason is in this regard.

  183. white says:

    @innocentbystanderboston

    Modern churches are all rent-seekers in some way. It’s something I expected the Christian Manosphere to be more aware of, but all in good time I guess.

  184. I Art Laughing says:

    Wornwhore

  185. Opus says:

    Friends: Aristotle distinguished between friends and friends of utility – he was obviously thinking of men. Robin Dunbar (a Professor of Anthropology) has posited that it is not humanly possible to have more than four friends. What happens when one acquires a wife – do the number of ones friends increase to five? No, what happens is because of the investment one makes in the woman the number of friends drops to two – plus the wife.

    Observe a group of people chatting at a table. If there are three they can all talk together but if that number is increased to four one always finds that the conversation will split into two groups . With five people the group will be split three and two.

  186. cshort says:

    @feeriker

    It doesn’t help that there are no male spaces anymore. It’s frustrating as I’ve had experience with how much that type of environment can help keep people centered. The church is the worst offender in demolishing these things. In my area there’s a concerted effort to have a ministry for every group except men. I recently talked to my pastor about helping start a men’s ministry at our church. He had no interest in it. And if you try to carve out some space for just guys socially, at least one if not most of their wives/girlfriends will through a hissy fit for being excluded.

  187. Emperor Constantine says:

    @cshort

    There is a reason that there are no more male spaces. It threatens female social control.

    “Overseers in the Locker Room

    The second purpose in the goal of female inclusion into male space is really a policing of the thought dynamics and attitudes of the men in that space. When women are allowed access to the locker room the dynamic of the locker room changes. The locker room can take many different shapes: the workplace environment, the sports team, the group of all-male coders, the primarily male scientific community, the ‘boys club’, the group of gamer nerds at the local game store, even strip clubs and the sanctuary you think your ‘man cave’ is – the context is one of women inserting themselves into male space in order to enforce the dictates of feminine social primacy.”

    from

    https://therationalmale.com/2014/06/03/male-space/

  188. cshort says:

    @Emperor Constantine

    I’m aware. I’m just frustrated that so many men, including men that I know for a fact know better, that participate in this destruction. My stressing the need for male only spaces amongst my social circle has many women in it thinking that I’m anti-woman when I’m just sick of the double standard they’re trying to enforce. At this point I don’t care and I’m going to continue to push for this.

  189. feeriker says:

    The church is the worst offender in demolishing these things. In my area there’s a concerted effort to have a ministry for every group except men. I recently talked to my pastor about helping start a men’s ministry at our church. He had no interest in it.

    Yup. Status quo in nearly all churches today. I don’t know why it would surprise me, given the barrel-bottom quality of most “pastors” today, but I can’t help but be astonished at how they are almost genetically incapable of connecting the cause (lack of spiritual nourishment for men resulting from the absence of fellowship [“iron sharpens iron”]) and the effect (churches devoid of spiritual leadership, and thus of any positive growth).

    I suppose that if they were to start actively building a men’s ministry it would … build strong, spiritually mature men who would lead. That would kinda trash pastoral ability to AMOG, wouldn’t it?

  190. feeriker says:

    @cshort

    Have you given thought to starting your own men’s ministry/fellowship without your pastor’s involvement? It’s sad that we have to take this approach (an “end run” around church leadership), but it’s becoming apparent in most churches that the problem won’t be solved otherwise.

  191. feeriker says:

    My stressing the need for male only spaces amongst my social circle has many women in it thinking that I’m anti-woman when I’m just sick of the double standard they’re trying to enforce.

    I wonder if anyone has done any scientific research to determine if there comes a point in a man’s life where his surroundings contain “too much estrogen” and he simply becomes overwhelmed and non-functioning as a man, or just burned out to the point of not caring anymore.

  192. Emperor Constantine says:

    @feeriker @cshort

    We have to do this ourselves, with like-minded men. I would keep the pastors out of it and keep it low key. Call it a Bible study if you like.

    Don’t ask permission from your wife. Just tell her you meeting up with the guys. If she complains, you know what to do.

  193. 7817 says:

    In this post at sanityville forum Joel (don’t know who he is) is doing some good work pointing out problems with the PCA resolution in women in combat, and how since it doesn’t say that women serving in combat is sin, women can’t use their churches stance as a reason to use conscientious objector status to avoid serving in the military if they are drafted.

    https://sanity.warhornmedia.com/t/women-registering-for-the-draft/645/43

  194. 7817 says:

    We have to do this ourselves, with like-minded men. I would keep the pastors out of it and keep it low key.

    Exactly. Used to do this with some church guys, and would just go eat somewhere and talk. Lot’s of good aspects to doing this without calling it a Bible study or a men’s group or anything official.

  195. Lost Patrol says:

    I suppose that if they were to start actively building a men’s ministry it would … build strong, spiritually mature men who would lead. That would kinda trash pastoral ability to AMOG, wouldn’t it?

    There are actually churches with substantial men’s ministry components. No women anywhere to be seen. However in my experience what they build is a better beta dedicated to SERVANT leadership in marriage.

  196. Nereus says:

    Trailer for 21 Convention shows images of desirable masculine achievements (strong, respected, can afford to drive hotrods) to inspire men to achieve more.
    Warhorn podcast: “Artificial. Machismo. Gay.”
    Warhorn forums: “Why won’t these Peter Pan boys get off the couch and make something of themselves? We called them names and told them they have a God-given duty to forgive and wife up the carousel riders…”

  197. Sharkly says:

    thedeti says: We believed their false theologies, their “man up” screeds, and their exhortations to marry the sluts.

    Yep! And until I manned-up and married that slut my life was almost a non-stop meteoritic rise, but one sinner destroyeth much good.(Ecclesiastes 9:18)

    While pastorbaters and my wife would like to tell me that I can’t blame any others for what happens to me, I’m not stupid enough to believe nonsense like that. We don’t live in an illusion where we control it all with our own mind. Pastor Bayly gets to moan ‘woe is me, I’ve suffered so much as a pastor in my ivory tower, with my fawning audience, making an easy living off of my compromised seeker-friendly sausage-gospel of the church growth industry.’ The truth is: that if I’m an angry whiny woman hating divorcee for sharing my cautionary tale, then that also makes Bayly an angry whiny God hating pastor for his complaining tale, when he suffers in his attempt to serve whomever he is serving. Consider what you dish out, cunt-worship leader. Repent of your compromise with the satanic Feminism of this generation. Repent of your political sausage-making resolution, instead of taking a Biblical hardline.
    Go hardline Bayly. No man can serve two masters:
    Joshua 24:15 If it is disagreeable in your sight to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves today whom you will serve: whether the gods which your fathers served which were beyond the river, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living; but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
    You could powerfully tell women to take back their rightful place at home, and quit their usurping men, to submit to their heads, and show that submission by covering their heads, And you could build up men who are the image of Christ in marriage, but you are lacking. Take the shit out of your own eye first, before accusing your brethren of failing to cunt-worship like you.

  198. Nereus says:

    Tim Bayly: “Is it really possible this man Anonymous Two as well as Anonymous One don’t understand man’s authority? When a daughter enlists in the military for a combat position, the father has placed his daughter there by virtue of allowing her to do so. Same with a wife. Can it really be these men are so oblivious to the way the authority of a father and husband works?”

    My wife: “Rubbish. If I wanted to go enlist right now, how on earth are you going to stop me? All the laws are on my side. If I am in rebellion, why would I care that you say no? What authority do you have over me in today’s culture and laws?”

  199. Nereus says:

    My memory of a wise statement from Bayly years ago:
    Pastors, even if you are willing to stand for scripture to the bitter end, what will you do when the world comes after the members of your congregation, to disemploy and persecute then for listening to your “hate speech”?

    Bayly ministry today:
    Ordinary congregation members,, unless you are willing to be publicly targeted for listening to and repeating our “hate speech” then you are not really fighting for God’s truth, like pastors are. Never mind the clear first amendment precedents protecting that speech for pastors more so than others in America.

    And they think this is a winning strategy in our times?

  200. thedeti says:

    Warthog:

    Nowhere did i say that men should use porn because their wives won’t have sex with them. I’m saying that’s why husbands DO use porn.

    And nowhere did i say that porn is a “solution”. Porn and masturbation are a bandaid over a gaping festering rapidly bleeding gunshot wound the wife has inflicted on the marriage by refusing her husband sex.

    Again: Most husbands, most married men, use porn and masturbate because their wives will not have sex with them. Period. Full stop. This is a problem women, specifically wives, are causing.

  201. BillyS says:

    You could have a men’s ministry that focuses on confronting men for their sins: Telling them to treat their wives/children better, not commit adultery, stay away from porn, etc.

    Those are not necessarily bad things to confront, but the problem comes when they are the main focus of a men’s ministry. The women’s ministry never confronts women on their sins, except perhaps for very soft warnings in a more exclusive, limited access ministry. (Such as one meeting during the day.)

  202. Nereus says:

    Bayly, over recent years: “Look at all these photos of our big, beautiful, new church building we are building because we have grown so much. God has been so good to me and my congregation.”

    Bayly today: “I’ve been horribly persecuted for 15 years.”

    My seminary professor last month: “You students, who think people in America saying mean things about you is persecution! Go spend some time among Christians in Southeast Asia and see what real persecution looks like!”

  203. Nereus says:

    Dalrock: Consider this PCA document Bayly signed, which compromises with feminists.

    Warhorn podcast: Dalrock picks on us because of a group document our pastor happens to have his name attached to!

    Bayly: I may have been the author of that document and leader of that committee, but….

  204. thedeti says:

    @Warthog:

    The issue of sexual desire and the morality of conjugal rights within marriage are separate.

    From a moral perspective, yes. From a practical standpoint, in today’s sexual and marriage marketplaces, where there are no differences between Christian women and every other kind of woman, no differences between the Church and the rest of society, no. In today’s society, sexual desire and morality are one and the same. In fact, sexual desire determines what is moral and what is not. Today, sexual desire and romance are what sanctifies marriage. And if sexual desire is absent in marriage, then the marriage must be jettisoned, according to today’s “morality”.

    Women who complain to others about their husband’s sexual desire are sinning.

    So what? No one, not her friends, not her parents, not even her pastor, not even the “wise Titus 2 women of the church”, will confront her about that sin and call her out on it. No, if she complains about “having to have sex with” her husband, it is HIS fault. It is because he is not hot enough, not sexy enough, doesn’t work out enough, isn’t in good enough shape, his body fat percentage is too high, his BMI is too high, he doesn’t earn enough (and is always around and underfoot), or he is always working to earn a good living (and thus is not at home enough).

    Or he’s not nice enough, not kind enough, doesn’t do enough chores (per Sheila Gregoire), isn’t “loving” enough, doesn’t “care” enough, won’t “give her” enough, isn’t sufficiently “emotionally available” (Per Tim Bayly), hasn’t “earned the right to the marital bed” (Per Albert Mohler), won’t lead Bible studies, or some such other reason it is his fault that she won’t do her job and have sex with a husband she promised to give sex to.

    No no, see, he needs to listen to his wife’s holy vagina. “She” will speak to him through her (non)burning bush. (Dave and Ann Wilson). Or he needs a wakeup call, usually occasioned by her smashing wedding china (Kathy Keller) or her leaving him and threatening divorce and kicking him out (Joel and Kathy Davisson).

    But a husband whose wife is turned off by sex with him probably has other issues.

    Then why did she marry the guy in the first place? If he has these issues, why did she marry him? That’s on her.

  205. Nereus says:

    Dalrock: Bayly compromised with feminism on this PCA document.

    Bayly: How dare you. This is not at all characteristic of my ministry. Besides, I had to compromise my principles on that document because of all the feminists there! And look at all the strong denunciations we had throughout the document, except in the final resolutions.

    Bayly, later: The whole document was not adopted, but only the final resolutions, which is highly unsusual in those things.

  206. BillyS says:

    Deti,

    Porn is an aid to masturbation. Men masturbate because they cannot have sex. If men could have the sex they wanted, they would not masturbate, or at least they wouldn’t masturbate as much, and they wouldn’t be so preoccupied with sex.

    To a point. I would add that they can’t get an engaged partner. A man who gets “regular” sex with a starfish with (spread apart, but no engagement) will not get all he should out of sex.

    Some sex will end up being mechanical, but that is definitely not a man’s desire for much of the time.

    Women in porn almost always want sex. How many wives do?

  207. thedeti says:

    To a point. I would add that they can’t get an engaged partner.

    I don’t understand how this relates to what i said. What does a man using porn to masturbate because his wife refuses him have to do with a wife “engaging” in sex? How can she be “engaged” if she refuses him outright?

    A man who gets “regular” sex with a starfish with (spread apart, but no engagement) will not get all he should out of sex.

    This is just one step above masturbation. Starfish sex is the wife/woman essentially allowing her husband/a man to masturbate into her vagina. It’s not really sex; it’s just her letting him use her body as the friction/lubrication he would otherwise have to furnish himself.

    In some ways this is even more degrading, debasing and humiliating than masturbation is. No man wants to have sex with a woman who would rather be doing literally anything other than having sex with him.

    Women in porn almost always want sex. How many wives do?

    Most women in porn are acting as if they want sex. It is acting. It is fantasy. That’s the entire point of porn.

    This is one of the main problems with video porn today, the depictions of sexually aggressive, sexually forward women, depictions of women with proactive sexualities. Nearly all women’s sexuality is reactive – dormant until put next to a man who is sexually attractive to them, or until a man in their vicinities does or says something or a series of things that arouses sexual interest in her.

    Most women are not “hotwives” or “sexy stepmoms” or cougars on the prowl all the time. This is fantasy invented in films by actresses like Mae West, Ann Jillian and Ann Wedgeworth – the oversexed, insatiable, perpetually horny middle aged divorcee preying on unsuspecting, hapless, clueless men; and transitioned as a stupid plot device into MILF porn. The other main problem with porn is that it depicts people having sex in manners, ways and positions in which almost no real people actually have sex.

    How many wives want sex? They all do. It’s just that after all that hot sex with men who wouldn’t marry them, and having to settle for men they’re not attracted to, they don’t want sex with their husbands. Now that marriage happened, life is all about keeping up with the next door neighbors, jobs, kids, housework, neighborhood gossip, running for vice president of the Junior League, and getting to the PTA meeting on time.

  208. thedeti says:

    Billy:

    Of course he can’t get an “engaged” partner. He can’t get any partner. That’s why he uses porn and masturbates – because he can’t get his wife to have sex with him.

  209. BillyS says:

    I was just noting that “having sex” in marriage is not enough, at least the way most define it. Your definition is stronger than most.

    I would agree porn is not a good outlet, but it is the only one most have today, so it gets a lot more attention than it should. I still suspect it would remain an issue, though not as serious, because it is a root sin area.

    Your main points are valid, but the issue is deeper than most realize.

  210. BillyS says:

    I would also expect that a significant amount of porn does get used within a marriage, even when the wife is “giving sex” because that “giving” is not very enthusiastic. You have a stricter definition of what is sex as I noted.

    Engagement in marriage is a part as well with the attractiveness of porn, though that can vary by individual in my experience.

  211. thedeti says:

    a significant amount of porn does get used within a marriage, even when the wife is “giving sex” because that “giving” is not very enthusiastic.

    Again, this is masturbation into a vagina. The only thing more humiliating for a man than masturbating, is masturbating while his wife watches him (which is effectively what’s going on in the starfish sex situation). They both know that he masturbates because she won’t have sex with him. She’s doing this because she “feels she has to” or some such other reason borne of duty, guilt, etc. He’s doing this because he wants sex so badly he’ll take it any way he can get it. And she is utterly repulsed and disgusted.

    So when she starfishes, she’s essentially laying there watching him masturbate. Enormously humiliating, debasing, and degrading all around.

  212. Novaseeker says:

    How many wives want sex? They all do. It’s just that after all that hot sex with men who wouldn’t marry them, and having to settle for men they’re not attracted to, they don’t want sex with their husbands. Now that marriage happened, life is all about keeping up with the next door neighbors, jobs, kids, housework, neighborhood gossip, running for vice president of the Junior League, and getting to the PTA meeting on time.

    Women also get bored with sex with the same person significantly faster than men do.

    See: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/02/women-get-bored-sex-long-term-relationships/582736/?utm_medium=offsite&utm_source=google&utm_campaign=newsstand-ideas

    This also matches the pattern we see in lesbian relationships (i.e., “lesbian bed death”). Notice that there isn’t any equivalent “gay bed death” term.

  213. Sharkly says:

    Warthog says: But a husband who refuses to repent of using porn should be kicked out of whatever church he is in.

    Only If the church has already previously kicked his wife out for refusing him sex. Otherwise the entire church should be kicked out for being cunt-worshipping apostates who welcome sinning sinners and their willful sin, when they are “blessed” with a cunt.

    Do you kick out smokers?
    Seriously, if a husband is using porn, shouldn’t the churches first question be: Why?
    The adultery is already in his heart. Just like it is in yours. Jesus point was not to literally pluck out your eyes and cut off your hands to prevent masturbation. Jesus was saying to those Pharisees who thought they were accomplishing the law, that you cannot be pure enough to be innocent before the law of God. Even one hateful thought, and you’ve got the root of murder in your heart. Even one lustful look at a woman, and you can clearly know you’ve got the root of adultery in your heart already. Jesus wasn’t asking us to blind ourselves, but to see our need for repentance and His forgiveness. Even if you never touch your pee-pee your whole life, you will go to hell if you fail to see and acknowledge your own depravity, and seek out Jesus Christ’s forgiveness for it.
    First help the husband turning to porn, by turning his wife back into his arms, restoring the unity that God desires. One must use wisdom, discernment, the full authority of the church, and do it in keeping with 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, and all other scripture, in situations like this.
    Knee-jerk husband bashing while he is already admittedly in the humiliating position of having to go fuck himself, will only add to your own complicity in his wife’s sin, and the churchian permissiveness of her sin. I don’t doubt God will judge most harshly those who condemn husbands for their lust of the eyes, while refusing to lift a finger to lighten the man’s burden, by confronting his sinful and selfish wife who is engaging in actual physical sexual immorality by refusing immorally to do what she vowed, and is physically sexually commanded to do by God. Her real sexual immorality goes unconfronted, and unpunished (because cunt-worship) while you throw her husband out of the church for ‘adultery already in his heart’, that is already in your heart as well.

  214. Mitch says:

    @Sharkly

    First help the husband turning to porn, by turning his wife back into his arms, restoring the unity that God desires. One must use wisdom, discernment, the full authority of the church, and do it in keeping with 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, and all other scripture, in situations like this.

    I have had numerous interactions with people at the anti-porn Conquer Series (https://conquerseries.com/whats-the-conquer-series/) on their chat box concerning their statement about Ted Roberts “teaching men how to use the weapons God has given them to prevail against the enemy of their souls.”

    There is much talk about using God’s weapons against lust and porn, but not once is sex with a married man’s wife ever mentioned as one of those weapons. The response I get is that getting off porn will help heal the marriage and restore the sexual relationship provided the husband follows their process and that the wife herself seeks healing through another program called “Betrayal and Beyond.”

    Their assumption going in is that the betrayal only goes in one direction – husband betrays wife with porn – not in both directions. They also refuse to acknowledge the role that sexual relations in marriage has in preventing temptation re: 1 Corinthians 7. In fact, this passage is not even cited during the study as being about anything but a husband’s responsibility to his wife.

    On the Covenant Eyes blog, citing 1 Corinthians 7 is considered “using the Bible as a weapon against your wife.” This is considered a bad thing, although Ephesians 6:17 commands us to “take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

    My theory is that these anti-porn ministries are driven not by the good of the husband but by angry complaining wives and by the white knighting impulses of church leaders trying to protect the women of their church from the evils of their porn-using husbands. An anti-porn ministry that tells wives to sex up their husbands to help them defend against lust, while biblical, is not the ultimate point. The ultimate point is to keep sinning husbands firmly under the sexual control of the wife. To do this, you have to destroy the competition.

    Another problem with telling wives to sex up their husbands is that it is the one defense against lust and porn that actually involves husbands getting something they really want. And that would almost be like rewarding the evil sinning pervert. And we can’t have that.

  215. Paul says:

    @thedeti this is masturbation into a vagina.

    You’re making too much out of sex. Yes, it’s more desirable to have in-tune sexual desire, but labeling it ‘masturbation into a vagina’? Come on ….

    “The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife.” 1 Cor 7

  216. Paul says:

    @Mitch There is much talk about using God’s weapons against lust and porn, but not once is sex with a married man’s wife ever mentioned as one of those weapons.

    … which is actually one of the few direct commands in the bible as a SOLUTION against sexual immorality

    ” But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. ” 1 Cor 7

  217. Warthog says:

    @Sharkly Sure. The church should also discipline the wife for the same. I’m just saying, using porn *is* sinful. But, it doesn’t rise the same level as physical adultery in terms of justifying divorce.

  218. Warthog says:

    “My theory is that these anti-porn ministries are driven not by the good of the husband but by angry complaining wives and by the white knighting impulses of church leaders trying to protect the women of their church from the evils of their porn-using husbands.”

    Hmmm. Seems like the women who don’t want to have sex with their husbands should be grateful for porn, rather than complaining about it. But what am I thinking, that’s just logical toxic masculinity.

    The reality is the anti-porn accountability filters/sites charge a monthly fee. So they are like doctors pushing vaccines. They have one solution that requires you to make a monthly payment for the rest of your life. What’s not to love about that business model?

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.