It was time to settle for a boring loyal dude.

Filed under the category of Losing control of the narrative, I bring you Why It’s OK To Settle In Romantic Relationships – Refinery29

When I met my now soon-to-be fiancé, five years ago, I didn’t really think much of him – or us, as a thing. There was no magic or butterflies. We were in the same group of friends at uni and we had flirted a bit, but he was way more interested in me than I was in him. So I was just kind of messing around and seeing where that would go, when we ended up sleeping together.

He was not my usual type, to be honest. On a dating app, he wouldn’t have stood a chance, with his serious tone and all. Also, I was 25…

[Now] I’m okay with trading some passion for support, for showing up for someone who’s there for me when I need them. I’m done with the fantasy, with chasing a spark that would disappear anyway. I’m much more invested in building a sustainable future with someone who I trust and can come home to after a bad day and just be myself, even my tired-looking, annoying self. But I had to learn this, I had to rewire my brain into separating emotional rollercoasters and actual feelings.

The most highly rated comments demonstrate that the ugliness of the AF/BB model is becoming more and more recognized.  The top rated comment (with 221 upvotes) notes that the intended endorsement for settling fell flat:

OP almost sounds like she’s trying to convince herself she wants this relationship… nowhere does she mention attraction, sexual attraction, spark, or the chemistry that makes long term relationships successful – even if that initial honeymoon period really does fade. Her relationship sounds exactly like the relationship that I just ended because it was lacking attraction and devolved into friendship.

Commenter Slickshoe responded by pointing out how brutal the post was to the boring loyal dude, drawing 118 upvotes:

I’d be devastated if I was her partner and read this……….. I feel like OP had all these grand delusions of herself when she was younger and thought she deserved all the hotties or whatever until she finally grew up and realized that she’s not all that and probably isn’t going to land all these guys who are out of her league so she took whatever she could get. That is so sad.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cracks in the narrative, Finding a Spouse, Ugly Feminists, You can't make this stuff up. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to It was time to settle for a boring loyal dude.

  1. JRob says:

    She’ll settle for half+ of everything he owns and will produce for the rest of her life after the obligatory child(ren) and subsequent divorce proceedings.
    The jig is up, “ladies.”

  2. Off yopic, but did you see Roosh’s Twitter? He officially reaffirmed his Christianity. Really great news.

  3. Poptarts says:

    She had to “rewire her brain”. What a joke. Yeah her brain is rewired until Chad starts flirting with her in line at Subway and then it’s husband? What husband? Proceeds to swallow the ring.

  4. vfm7916 says:

    Cumulative probability of frivorce after 1 child: 65%
    Cumulative probability of frivorce after 2 children: 85%
    Probability of frivorce by age 40: 90%

    Whoever this guy is I pray to the Lord that he has second thoughts and ditches her. If there is ever an example of the sociosexual hierarchy, the effects of lack of Game, and an opportunity to sell popcorn this is it. This is why you don’t pedestalize women, why you should kill oneitis in yourself, and why you take the red pill.

    But don’t worry, we’ll see the eat-pray-love posts coming in the future…

  5. thedeti says:

    AF/BB is really making its way into the mainstream. Outside the manosphere, few people call it that, but that’s what they’re seeing. I’ve even seen AF/BB mentioned by name a few times.

  6. feeriker says:

    I hope and pray that the poor schlub she’s with reads this, recognizes her and himself, and breaks it off, PRONTO, napalming anything that remains of the bridge. This woman deserves a future of cats, booze, and head meds.

  7. JRob says:

    Not sure if this has been posted before, but I believe it’s on topic.

    “…truthfully, no one deserves anything.”

  8. SirHamster says:

    Off yopic, but did you see Roosh’s Twitter? He officially reaffirmed his Christianity. Really great news.

    Tweet here.

    Great news, and doubly amusing because he had an interview with 2 Orthodox chicks, one of whom had a vision of Roosh becoming an Orthodox priest.

    I laughed when I heard them share that, but maybe they will have the last laugh after all.

  9. Dave says:

    Well based on her photo I fail to see how she even achieved the AF side of the equation…..

    https://www.festivaldelgiornalismo.com/speaker/cristiana-bedei

    And I mean this pic is obviously one of her best ones for lighting and angle – could find no body shots…. I wonder why…..

  10. timrean2444 says:

    Really need a glossary linked to this site!!! I don’t know all the abbreviations. AF, BB etc. Maybe I should check urban dictionary.

  11. JD says:

    At least she was 25ish instead of 35ish. My theory is that the time gap between AF and BB will begin to contract until it vanishes again.

    Any kind of big economic bumps along the way and the contraction will accelerate rapidly. The howling of Carousel riders plummeting into the Great Valley of Cats will let the younger ones know the bridge is out.

  12. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Dave, I went to that site and saw Bacar’s bio, in Italian. So I used an online Translator and this is what her (translated) bio says (apparently mistranslating “She” as “He”):

    Christian Bacar, a freelance journalist, is primarily concerned with women’s rights, gender issues, sexuality and mental health. His articles have appeared in i-D, The Independent, VICE, Refinery29 and The Huffington Post, among others. He won a fellowship on the topic of ‘ women in the media world with the incubator of journalism Pro Journo and presented a project on gender gap in art at the UCL Institute of Education in London (2014).

    Bacar is a “freelance journalist.” I guess that means she has no job. Just blogs here and there, maybe earning a few hundred bucks a month.

    And her “freelance journalism” apparently focuses on “mental health,” among other issues.

  13. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Apparently, the online translator also changes Bedei’s name to Bacar.

  14. NotaBene says:

    “I’m okay with trading some passion for support, for showing up for someone who’s there for me when I need them.”

    – I can’t be expected to provide a lot of passion, but I expect support from him when *I* need it

    “I’m much more invested in building a sustainable future”

    – Sustainable means I want my extravagant pleasures to be provided for for the rest of my life

    “…with someone who I trust…”

    – What about him trusting you? You’re the one that’s been sleeping around for years?

    “…and can come home to after a bad day and just be myself, even my tired-looking, annoying self”

    – This will happen often, and you just have to put up with it

  15. Frank K says:

    Really need a glossary linked to this site!!! I don’t know all the abbreviations. AF, BB etc.

    AF//BB means that Alpha men (the ones the ladies find to be “hot”) get easy access to casual sex with women, while “boring guys” have to pay (marry) the same women to get sex. The BB means “beta bucks”. A less crude variant of this is “Alpha Lays, Beta Pays”

  16. Spike says:

    ”Susan” demonstrates graphically what is wrong with the modern Western Monster woman:
    Me. Me. Me. Me. Me. Me ad infinitum.

  17. Pingback: It was time to settle for a boring loyal dude. | Reaction Times

  18. Anonymous Reader says:

    The key words are:

    When I met my now soon-to-be fiancé, five years ago

    and

    Also, I was 25 and pretty much committed to finding a male version of myself.

    Sometime after she turned, oh, 28 or so she started hearing music…

  19. Mitch says:

    When it comes to looks, guys will not settle. They will find something about a woman’s face or body that makes them hard or they will keep looking. I have heard of only one situation where a guy “settled” for someone he was not physically attracted to.

    A non-Christian co-worker was speaking respectfully of a Christian friend of his for the fact that he deliberately married a woman he considered ugly because he believed it would help him control his lust problem.

    My co-worker wanted to know what I thought about that since he knew I was also a Christian. I said that situation sounded really messed up. He took offense that I would be so harsh about it because I think he saw it as evidence of sacrificial nobility. I told him that my problem was that it was both counter-productive and hypocritical. I said it was counter-productive because the Bible is clear that a satisfying sexual relationship in marriage is the best defense against lust (re: Proverbs 5 and 1 Corinthians 7).

    I said it was hypocritical because I very seriously doubted whether he had told his wife he considered her ugly. My co-worker said he never asked his friend if he had been honest with her about it. I said I he was honest it would destroy her self-esteem and probably cause her to cut him off in the bedroom. So much for lust control. So his only choice was to lie to her and tell her she’s beautiful.

  20. Larry says:

    As a wedding present, get the happy couple a gift certificate for a paternity kit.

  21. RichardP says:

    one of whom had a vision of Roosh becoming an Orthodox priest. I laughed when I heard them share that, but maybe they will have the last laugh after all.

    The new Augustine. Following a similar trajectory.

  22. BillyS says:

    Mitch,

    Men generally have a much wider range of what is attractive, so requiring that is not as limiting as what women do.

  23. Opus says:

    The Susan of the article is we are told by way of an astersk, not her real name – can’t have that can we Warhorn Media – and so, is the writer writing of the favourite subject of most journalists, themsleves. Notice that she describes her cohabitee as a, now, soon-to-be, fiancee – thus although she is living with the man, she is gearing-up to fiancee status and further she says – as they all do – that she does not want children. Marriage then seems a long way off. This is clearly a woman persuading herself of the excellence of something that she does not want to do. Notice also how she glosses over how she ended up in bed with him as if it was something over which she had no say or as if it was no significance – something one just does – and so I assume she was and is a massive slut which is usually an indication that she is of average looks. She says they met at ‘Uni’ – the first give away that this is England – and as, in England, people tend to attend College at a distance from their parents homes, to which thereafter they return it would seem to be more than coincidence that after University that they remained together. Could it be: what with, his and her entirely different interests, his failure to send flowers, that far from being the Beta we presume him to be that once he was the Alpha she craved and of whom she has not grown used. America has an expression for this – the seven year itch.

  24. Agreed. Even Big Bang Theory had af/bb quite openly discussed. “You don’t want me because I’m exciting! I’m like the boring bran muffin you have only because it’s good for you!”

  25. Opus says:

    Off Topic:

    In my Mail this morning was an envelope with a first-class stamp that is to say quicker and more expensive than the second-class, the return address of which I did not recognise. Who could be writing to me with urgency and why, I wondered, as I applied the letter opener and in a sadistic manner to the envelope. Inside was a letter from a political party calling itself The Women’s Equality Party seeking my vote in the borough elections next May. They addressed the envelope using both my Christian name and Surname and so knew I was male. My Neighbours in the block have not received a similar letter. What I wonder have I done being singled-out to give the impression that far from being a Woman-Hating Misogynist I might be a White-Knighting Mangina on-board with Female Supremacy – or is the purpose to annoy me. Their first complaint is that of the present forty–eight Borough Councillors, thirty-three are Men and only fifteen are Women.

    It has never been illegal for women, and going back to time immemorial – that is to say before the Mayflower sailed, to vote or to stand for election in Borough elections. I suppose that writing back to her and pointing out this fact will give the Cat-owning, Single, Rom-Com obsessed bint writing to me the attention she so obviously seeks.

  26. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    They addressed the envelope using both my Christian name and Surname and so knew I was male.

    That’s so 2014. This is 2019. Who’s to say there aren’t men named Samantha or women named Bruce? Based on your name, you might be a transwoman, or a transman, or nonbinary. You might even identify as a gender-fluid antelope, or a gender-questioning helicopter.

  27. DR Smith says:

    Sad reality is that this is where most guys find themselves, even if their women never tell them….forever being compared to the one that got away and never living it up to that imaginary standard.

    It has always been this way. However, what has changed is women’s entitlement attitudes, which are worse than ever and seem to last longer than ever…too many women think that they belong in the upper 10% department, when in reality, 90% plus of them were no better than the avenge Joe. They got all the attention and all the sex because they were available, not because they were hot.

  28. Oscar says:

    When I met my now soon-to-be fiancé, five years ago… Also, I was 25… ~ OP

    Ah, the magic of the big 3-O.

  29. info says:

    @Mitch
    That “christian” man doesnt know what lust truly is. Didnt jesus talk about such as referring to “adultery in ones own heart” a man cannot by definition commit adultery with his wife. Lust involves every desire that breaks the mosiac law. And desire for ones wife isnt it.

    His conception of lust condemns what god celebrates and endorses in “song of solomon” that he seen fit to include that is a repudiation of mistaken notions of lust. As if desiring a beautiful woman as wife is sin. Committing the fallacy of treating good as evil. Equivalent in treating evil as good.

  30. purge187 says:

    “I hope and pray that the poor schlub she’s with reads this, recognizes her and himself, and breaks it off, PRONTO, napalming anything that remains of the bridge.”

    Not likely. Cases like these are so commonplace now that he’s one in millions. And even in the off chance he does recognize it, his self-esteem is probably so depleted that he won’t stand up for himself.

  31. Damn Crackers says:

    To paraphrase Jesus, we’re all eunuchs now.

  32. Mitch says:

    @BillyS
    “Men generally have a much wider range of what is attractive, so requiring that is not as limiting as what women do.”

    I agree and it is not only a wider range but it is generally confined to physical attraction. Which is why my co-worker’s friend had to work hard to find that special someone who would not check any of his physical attraction boxes. If he even found her elbows attractive he might lust and his efforts would all be for naught.

  33. Frank K says:

    Ah, the magic of the big 3-O.

    They like to tell themselves that it doesn’t matter, that they know someone who reeled in a Mr. Big when they were well into their 30’s.

    But the bathroom mirror doesn’t lie, nor the fact that men don’t seem to notice them as much as before, if at all. So the ones with half a brain settle before it’s too late.

    But as DR Smith says above, she will pine for the hot guys that “got away”, as all alpha widows do. And some will be open about it. I recall reading an article a few years ago where a middle aged woman who was married to her boring “Ollie” openly admitted he didn’t measure up in bed to the alpha lovers of her youth, but that it was OK, because he was a great companion or something like that. He even posed with her in a photo, with a forced smile that said “this was the best I could get”

  34. Mitch says:

    @info

    “a man cannot by definition commit adultery with his wife… Committing the fallacy of treating good as evil.”

    He’s not alone. I ran across this blog posting about “Objectifying” our wives at the Covenant Eyes blog last year:
    https://www.covenanteyes.com/2018/06/05/christian-culture-and-sexual-purity/

    If you read the comments you will notice I had a few things to say that led to the author writing this one:
    https://www.covenanteyes.com/2018/11/05/difference-between-objectification-and-attraction/

    The author has written other dubious blog postings that could keep me busy for weeks responding to except for the fact that the blog is heavily moderated and most of my comments are censored.

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mitch
    The author has written other dubious blog postings …the blog is heavily moderated…

    These two things often go together. Women bloggers are notorious for this. Feminized men as well.

    Congrats on trying. Perhaps some lurker saw your observation and began to think, rather than just emote.

  36. Gaius Gracchus says:

    After reading this post last night, I woke up this morning with an idea: the Alpha one Alpha pines for is often the Beta another wife despises.

    This post from yesterday has a woman’s take on the issue: https://thetransformedwife.com/premarital-sex-is-so-detrimental-to-marriage/

  37. Frank K says:

    the Alpha one Alpha pines for is often the Beta another wife despises.

    In some cases in can be so, as the single woman often assumes that the married woman she see’s didn’t settle and landed a winner. But as some have noted, a domesticated Alpha often turns into a Beta in his wife’s eyes.

  38. Luke says:

    He should tell that “If the kitten wouldn’t consider marrying me, I won’t consider marrying the cat”.

  39. Luke says:

    He should tell her “If the kitten wouldn’t consider marrying me, I won’t marry the cat”.

  40. farmlegend says:

    “On a dating app, he wouldn’t have stood a chance, with his serious tone and all.”

    I suppose that’s close to the ultimate insult to a man for today’s woman. Bring dem tingles immediately in your online image or GTFO.

  41. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Mitch
    I read the second article and comments until I came to the woman who stated flatly “Porn = adultery therefore OK for a woman to divorce” and then I was done.

    It’s just another blue-pill conservative feminist site. Hence the emotional essays and heavy handed moderation. Not worth much time.

  42. Anonymous Reader says:

    Gracchus
    After reading this post last night, I woke up this morning with an idea: the Alpha one Alpha pines for is often the Beta another wife despises.

    Alpha is situational. Situations can change over time.

  43. Oscar says:

    @ Mitch

    What you describe is a consequence of the irritating prudish strain in Christianity, which is in no way Biblical. See Augustine of Hippo.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2016/12/21/st-augustine-on-sex-and-marriage/

    But because that Continence is of larger desert, but to pay the due of marriage is no crime, but to demand it beyond the necessity of begetting is a venial fault, but to commit fornication or adultery is a crime to be punished… ~ Augustine of Hippo

    According to Augustine, if you have sex with your wife for any reason other than procreation, you’re sinning. Not as much as if you’d committed adultery, or fornication, but you’re still sinning. It gets worse. You can read more at the link.

    I think this prudish strain goes back to the gnostic heresies that influenced early Christianity, and the Apostles criticized in multiple epistles.

    The Puritans, on the other hand, were no prudes, despite their reputation.

    http://www.ligonier.org/blog/sex-in-marriage/

    Puritan preachers taught that the Roman Catholic view was unbiblical, even satanic. They cited Paul, who said that the prohibition of marriage is a doctrine of devils (1 Tim. 4:1–3). Even the Puritan definitions of marriage implied the conjugal act. For example, Perkins defines marriage as ‘the lawful conjunction of the two married persons; that is, of one man and one woman into one flesh’. In contrast with Desiderius Erasmus, who taught that ideal marriage abstained from sexual intercourse, Cotton said in a wedding sermon that those who call for marital abstinence follow the dictates of a blind mind and not those of the Holy Spirit, who says that it is not good that man should be alone.

    The Puritans viewed sex within marriage as a gift of God and as an essential, enjoyable part of marriage. Gouge says that husbands and wives should cohabit ‘with good will and delight, willingly, readily, and cheerfully’. ‘They do err’, adds Perkins, ‘who hold that the secret coming together of man and wife cannot be without sin unless it be done for the procreation of children’.

  44. Anonymous Reader says:

    Luke
    He should tell her “If the kitten wouldn’t consider marrying me, I won’t marry the cat”.

    Maybe so, but he won’t. Men being the true romantics, it is quite possible that he’s convinced himself that by being the patient man who just waited, he’s “won” her when in reality she is indeed settling for second (or third, or fourth) best. He’s getting…seconds…well, thirds…uh, fourths?

    We can expect to see more articles about how great this idea is. Because this kind of behavior is encouraged by the Female Imperative so that carousel riders have a Beta to land on. The fact that men must spend years of frustration before marriage, and may well wind up with an uhaaaaapy “alpha-widow” wife a few years after marriage doesn’t matter to the FI. What matters is that any given woman gets her chance at an Alpha, and then a virtually guaranteed Beta later on.

    Furthermore this kind of behavior is encouraged by the churches with tropes such as “We were friends first!”, “Love waits!” and so forth.

  45. 7817 says:

    The Puritans, on the other hand, were no prudes, despite their reputation.

    Is this generally true of Puritans, or was it mainly an early strain of Puritans? The stereotype we have of Puritans as dour has a source, was this something their descendants became?

  46. Expat Philo says:

    Wow, what a catch.

  47. Anonymous Reader says:

    @7817

    In my opinion the stereotype of the Puritans as dour comes from 19th century American fiction. The Scarlet Letter is a primary example.

    Bear in mind that the Puritans were a social force in New England for generations, and that the 19th century Transcendentalists and Unitarians were essentially their descendants, who went to great lengths to distance themselves from “great grandaddy”. Some of them even became writers.

    In my opinion, the site that Mitch pointed to is just another example of churchgoing men pedestalizing women so that “Mommy” will pat them on the head and say “Good boy!”. Maybe even give a cookie…

  48. The Question says:

    @7817

    “Is this generally true of Puritans, or was it mainly an early strain of Puritans? The stereotype we have of Puritans as dour has a source, was this something their descendants became?”

    The stereotype of Puritans as anti-fun or sexually repressed is the result of works like the Scarlet Letter and The Crucible. Nathaniel Hawthorne was openly anti-puritan.

    In reality, the Puritans argued that sex within marriage was for more than merely procreation and in some instances punished people for refusing to have sex with their spouses. Traditional church teachings more or less said that marital relations was for producing children, only.

    Another argument against them is that they banned theater and Christmas. While someone may be opposed to that decision, they weren’t banning theater because of they hated entertainment, but due to the prostitution and other lewd behavior that was common around the sites. As for banning Christmas, at the time the holiday was more like Mardi Gras than the Victorian era Christmas festivities. At Plymouth, the Puritans didn’t celebrate Christmas – they worked – while the non-believer Mayflower sailors did by drinking beer.

    Puritans had their oddities, to be sure, but this idea that they hated anything fun is a modern misconception.

  49. Oscar says:

    @ 7817

    Is this generally true of Puritans, or was it mainly an early strain of Puritans? The stereotype we have of Puritans as dour has a source, was this something their descendants became?

    I don’t know the source, but let’s think of a few possibilities.

    1. The Puritans were, in fact, extremely strict (downright dour) in their morality, including sexual morality, yet encouraged sexual joy within marriage, because the Bible told them to. Unbelievers – which describes most historians – can’t understand how a person, or people, could have a strict code of sexual morality, yet encourage sexual joy within marriage. They think the two are contradictory.

    2. Historians simply lied about the Puritans.

    What other possibilities occur to you?

  50. It does support the fact that the women today prolonging the courting process and holding out on marriage as long as possible are definitely not just “settling”. They are really settling HARD.

    And it also suggests that the human miserability level of husbands fwithin such “late epiphany OMG SETTLE!” marriages must be just unbearable.

    You are probably not your wife’s first choice. Nor her second. But you probably were not even her 5th or even 10th choice. It gets pretty disgusting and soul crushing after that.

  51. 7817 says:

    What other possibilities occur to you?

    I don’t know any Puritan history, so all I can do is speculate. Some folks I know were raised in the early 20th century Holiness Movement, which has similarities to the Puritans from what I can tell.

    My speculation is that originally the Puritans were a healthy reaction to the degeneration of the church, but that over time they lost their vitality and became more invested in being separate from the world and superior, which gave us the modern Pharisee type. Speculation only, haven’t read their history.

  52. 7817 says:

    If you read much neoreaction, their hypotheses is that Puritans morphed into modern day liberal scolds. I read one of them say (can’t remember which) that >Harvard was created to train ministers, and it never stopped.<

    It's a plausible explanation, but I'm not sure the lineage is as direct as that, or if it is even valid.

    Do any of you have any Puritan history that you recommend that I could read to learn more about them?

  53. Oscar says:

    From the article posted by The Question:

    https://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/life-and-relationships/groups-of-guys-harassed-me-to-tears-in-the-street-and-no-one-acted-20190325-p517g6.html

    I stood there in tears – a woman alone in the dark just wanting to get home – wishing it would stop. Wishing someone would intervene. And thinking of all the women who never made it home safe.

    At first I was annoyed at myself for not being tougher, and for not taking my friend up on his offer to walk with me.

    But then my annoyance gave way to fury that I should blame myself for this all too familiar feeling of being unsafe on the streets of my own city.

    My question to the “good” men who didn’t join in but looked me in the eye and saw my fear and discomfort and did nothing, is why?

    Two obvious observations occur to me.

    1. What ever happened to “everything you can do, I can do better”? Women have been telling us for decades that there are no inherent differences between men and women. If that’s true, why do they need our protection? The people under my protection are the people under my authority.

    Women can’t have it both ways. If they insist on pretending that there are no inherent differences between men and women, and therefore they don’t need male authority, then they can also forget about male protection. If, on the other hand, they insist on male protection, then they need to admit that the reason they need male protection is that there are inherent differences between men and women, and they need to also submit to male authority.

    2. By her own admission, a good man did step up, and offer to protect her, by walking with her, and she rejected him.

    Why should anyone – male or female – help a person who rejects help when offered?*

    Women need to learn that they can’t claim to be a “strong, independent woman who don’t need no man”, then cry for a big strong man to save them the moment a bunch of bad men show up. Sadly, few women** are capable of learning by any means other than harsh experience.

    Buckle up, ladies. There’s turbulence ahead.

    * That includes men who reject help when offered. Keep that in mind.
    ** The same is true of men.

  54. Anonymous Reader says:

    7817
    If you read much neoreaction, their hypotheses is that Puritans morphed into modern day liberal scolds.

    Yeah, I’ve seen that, but there’s some omissions in the hypothesis. For one thing, they neglect 19th century immigration as far as I can tell, and that is not trivial. Pointing to 17th / 18th / 19th century White Anglo Saxon Protestants when the actual modern day liberal scolds are often none of those things is a sort of smoke screen, IMO.

    I read one of them say (can’t remember which) that >Harvard was created to train ministers, and it never stopped.<

    Probably “Mencius Moldbug” also known as Curtis Yarvin.

  55. Novaseeker says:

    I read the second article and comments until I came to the woman who stated flatly “Porn = adultery therefore OK for a woman to divorce” and then I was done.

    Yep. The woman who wrote that comment is actually a counselor type as well, so you can rest assured that she regularly counsels women to divorce their husbands if they use porn, and that this is a-ok per “conservative Christianity”.

  56. F-Code [www.future.code.blog] says:

    At least the woman isn’t complaining — so much as resigned.

    Her spiel, which doesn’t drag on too badly, is showing her true feelings — feelings she dares not expose to her fiance. She treats him gently, not because she cares about his heart and potential hurt, but because she doesn’t want even this sub-standard catch to flip back into the ocean.

    However, he must have something going for him if they slept together way back when. Maybe a trace of alphatude when she was getting solid-core granite betas before then.

  57. Mitch says:

    @Novaseeker

    “The woman who wrote that comment is actually a counselor type as well, so you can rest assured that she regularly counsels women to divorce their husbands if they use porn, and that this is a-ok per “conservative Christianity”.

    She is a regular commenter on the blog who attacks male commentators or encourages female commenters to frivorce their husbands. If she were a man attacking the female commenters, we would never see the comments since they would be moderated into the dumpster. But they give this woman pretty free reign. One of the links she provides is to an article by Rebecca VanDoodewaard: https://gentlereformation.com/2017/07/20/a-high-view-of-marriage-includes-divorce/. It says:

    “The church needs to be clear about this: legitimate divorce is holy and biblical if God Himself can speak of initiating it… By offering biblical divorce, the church affirms that pornography is depravity, and will not be countenanced by Christ’s church. Naming and disciplining sexual sin as the evil it is and offering divorce to the innocent party makes the value of marriage clear as we refuse to see it damaged, abused, or treated lightly.”

    God bless the holy threatpoint!

  58. Yeah man, that Converse youtube commercial.
    Holy Crap! The comments there are just brutal.
    They are getting absolutely annihilated. The ad company can’t keep up with the downvotes. They’ve given up.

    Gives one hope that this giant feminist agitprop barge might just capsize and sink offshore without crashing into the docks.

  59. 7817 says:

    Sucks to be the guy in the OP.

    For a guy like that, there are two Christian schools of thought on recovering proper authority in marriage. One is the Reformed view, which is closer to the complementarian view, but which says the man has to manup and LEAD. The other is the manosphere view or red pill view. This is the idea that a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, sugar being Game, and the medicine being the authority of the husband in marriage.

    My view is if the guy wants to get rid of the woman, option 1 is better, but if you want to save your marriage and be in a better position regardless, option 2 is better.

  60. Random Angeleno says:

    That there article posted by The Question: This was discussed awhile back over at Rational Male and other forums and the gist of the best advice that came out of it was that in today’s environment of little reward let alone respect, a man should extend his protection only to his wife/girlfriend or to women related to them. Other women are on their own; it’s presumed they have men in their own lives to rely on for protection and if she is out there alone, it can be presumed that she either rejected the protection or didn’t attempt to get it.

  61. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mitch
    She is a regular commenter on the blog who attacks male commentators or encourages female commenters to frivorce their husbands.

    This is all too common on religious blogs. Typically the woman / women in question are aging 2nd stage feminists, usually over 50, very often with a divorce of their own in the past. A couple of those plus a blue pill blog owner, and there’s no way to actually debate anything. These sites spiral down to the status of an echo chamber in time, pure “vanity press” for the blog owner.

    In this case, blog owner is white knighting for her, enabling her to be as obnoxious as she wishes while ensuring that no real pushback from men is ever seen. It’s not unique. I have never commented on the Catholic Answer site, but one way to get moderated very hard, or even banned, was to disagree with some of the feminists such as Xanthippe – doubly worse if a man used Catholic dogma or better still the Catholic Catechism. Showing up “a lady” in a bad light using actual Catholic sources is very bad form.

    There’s not much to be done with people living in a bubble like that, beyond making a comment from time to time that is heavily referenced to appropriate sources (Bible, confession of faith, respected Christian dead author, catechism or other similar document). Even that might not be enough. I wager that merely posting selections from Proverbs would be modded at that site, if the word “contentious” were involved.

    It’s not worth the trouble IMO to joust with White Knights on their own blog. Far better to talk with men in real life.

  62. Lost Patrol says:

    Furthermore this kind of behavior is encouraged by the churches with tropes such as “We were friends first!”

    This is big medicine with church ladies and maybe most women church or not, given that they certainly know what the settling is all about. “They were friends first” is used as a seal of approval when applied to any upcoming marriage, and the women emphasize what a good thing this is and will be for the couple’s future. I think many of them know they are blowing smoke, but they outwardly exalt this state of affairs. Maybe at that point it is just damage control and a hope she can pull it off.

    The most likely pigeon for this is precisely the man that has played it straight all the way. He has waited (in some cases for her to arrive at Anonymous Reader’s famous 29.99 years old), courted (in an appropriate chivalric manner), and arranged for all activities to take place within her frame. The man that followed all the blue pill complimentarian rules, that is the man most to be pitied from my point of view.

    But hey, what do I know. I’ve seen marriages that started out that way go on for decades, with the kids and grandkids being raised under the same rubric and everyone soldiers on. Although I keep thinking that if you had a choice, you would not choose to be that man.

  63. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lost Patrol
    This is big medicine with church ladies and maybe most women church or not, given that they certainly know what the settling is all about. “They were friends first” is used as a seal of approval when applied to any upcoming marriage, and the women emphasize what a good thing this is and will be for the couple’s future.

    Agree. It is very odd to hear a man say it. But I have heard blue-pill, seriously Betaized men chirp right along with their wives. They can’t see what is in front of them, so they go with the flow.

  64. Jay Fink says:

    @Mitch “When it comes to looks guys will not settle”. Then why do I see so many average looking guys with fuglies?

  65. info says:

    @mitch
    The sexual dysfunctional views of augustine and co plague us to this day. Calling the sexual objectification of spouse in “song of songs” sinful. Calling good evil of which god through isaiah said “woe to those”

  66. wodansthane says:

    @Dave
    “Well, based on her photo, I fail to see how she how she even achieved the AF side of the equation…”

    If she banged anyone, he HAD to be alpha.

  67. Mitch says:

    @Jay Fink

    “Then why do I see so many average looking guys with fuglies?”

    One man’s fugly is another man’s Miss Universe. As long as his mini-me likes her, that’s all that matters.

  68. Robert What? says:

    I see Divorce Rape in BLD’s future.

  69. Pingback: Less sex for young men points to a new world - Fabius Maximus website

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.