She wasn’t God’s best.

Adam Piggott makes an astute observation about Wendy Griffith’s claim that God doesn’t want women to settle in Are you special enough for women like Wendy?

…when it comes to selecting their future spouse apparently God purposely made a great number indeed of very average men who are entirely beneath consideration just so that women like Wendy could test their faith by rejecting them. How is it even remotely statistically possible for God to supposedly want all of us to wait for His very best?

Implicit in this delusion is that Griffiths herself is one of these very best from God. Why else would she be holding out for the very best if she were not also one of the highly anointed?

Griffith has overlooked the fact that she wasn’t the only person involved in her relationships.  For surely God wouldn’t create a puzzle that couldn’t possibly fit together.  For the countless men Wendy decided weren’t God’s best for her in the roughly four decades she would have hooked up with, dated, or rejected before marrying at 54, Wendy wasn’t God’s best.

She simply wasn’t good enough, and God was sparing these men the misfortune of marrying her so they could marry someone immensely better.   Chances are we are talking hundreds of men, really millions, even billions of men if you think about it.  For even if Wendy never crossed a man’s path, she still wasn’t God’s best for that man, as God had a better woman in mind for him than Wendy Griffith.  To marry her would have been to (in Wendy’s words) settle for crumbs.  Moreover, if billions of men deserve better, and God is faithful to what Wendy claims He promises, that means that billions of women are better than her.  Getting picked last sucks under any circumstance, but in this view it is especially brutal.  At age 54, God finally found a man who didn’t deserve a better woman than Wendy.

I’ll clarify that this is the implication of Wendy Griffith’s feminist friendly view of Christian marriage, not my own perspective.  But the conclusion is logically inescapable if you accept her claim that God has chosen His very best for all of us, and so long as we are faithful and wait, and don’t settle for someone who isn’t good enough, He will ultimately send us His best.

Griffith: If we don’t know [our value], again we’ll settle for much less. You know it breaks God’s heart when we settle. And that’s the other thing that the Lord taught me through the heartbreak was God hates compromise! He hates it when we settle, because He’s a good daddy, he wants to give his daughters – and his sons – His very best. And He’ll let us settle if we ignore all the red flags and if we keep going He’ll say ok but He desperately doesn’t want us to settle. He want’s us to hold out for His best.

This entry was posted in Adam Piggott, Aging Feminists, Finding a Spouse, Solipsism, Wendy Griffith. Bookmark the permalink.

168 Responses to She wasn’t God’s best.

  1. Jack says:

    A severe lack of introspection going on there. Hamster solipsism reigns supreme!

  2. Iowa Slim says:

    “–and his sons–”

    This is a diplomatic afterthought. These narcissistic dingbats have a thought system that is aimed at, and only applies to, females.

  3. I read this at the gym and nearly dropped my phone laughing out loud.

  4. feministhater says:

    It doesn’t matter. It might be logically thought out but it doesn’t mean a thing. All women hear is that she landed her God given man, even at age 54, and that means they can too. Remember, women don’t let logic determine their decisions, instead allowing feelings and emotions and instagram posts determine their thought processes.

    The whole thing is an exercise in the delusions of grandeur of one Wendy Griffith and everyone plays along, especially women, because they too suffer from the same problem. It’s not Wendy who is the problem but Bill, for decided to marry her at the ‘nubile’ age of fifty fucking four.

    If men accept this, they deserve the crumbs. It stops when men decides it stops.

  5. feministhater says:

    I blame Bill, not Wendy. Wendy pulled it off against the odds. I duly take off my hat.

  6. tteclod says:

    She’s childless.
    I wouldn’t wish that on any woman.

  7. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    What did Wendy pull off? She settled, and settled hard. She’s an alpha widow several times over, and settled for a man she likely feels no attraction for, to save her face.

    She’s like Ayn Rand, who kept telling the world that her milquetoast, failed actor husband was her Ideal Man, because Rand couldn’t bear for the world to think that she’d failed at marrying the Rational Hero she kept writing about. Instead, Rand praised her husband in public, and cuckolded him in private.

  8. BillyS says:

    Bill didn’t necessarily lose. He likely doesn’t have as many options if he wanted a spouse at his age. That may or may not have been a good idea, but she is 5 or 6 years younger than him and reasonably good looking, especially in her age bracket. Most older men can’t pull 20 year olds, like it or not.

    She is just spinning this to sound great, when the reality is far different – she gave up the ability to birth and raise any children a long time ago. She and the other hosts on the show may not admit that, but the truth remains the truth.

  9. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    From what I’ve read on this blog, Wendy hasn’t said much about Bill. That’s telling.

    Had he been an amazingly handsome, celebrity billionaire, Wendy would have showcased him to the world. She’d have paraded him onto her TV show, talked daily about him in her social media, held him up as a trophy to be admired, proof that she was wise to wait, because God did indeed save The Best for her.

    Instead, not much bragging or fanfare. Is that how one reacts to receiving The Best after a 40-year search, much of it in public?

    As for Bill, good luck to him.

  10. Frank K says:

    From what I’ve read on this blog, Wendy hasn’t said much about Bill. That’s telling.

    This. In an age where millions of women swoon when a slutty TV star marries an ordinary looking dude who just happens to be a prince, it does seem odd that there has been zero publicity about this. I mean, ol’ Wendy is the Evangelical equivalent of royalty, surely there would be some reporting: wedding pictures, honeymoon shots, something. Instead, we don’t even know his last name. Very odd, indeed.

  11. MNT9791 says:

    Wow… this was savage. I’m going to use this against all these dumb women I constantly hear spouting the “God’s best…” crap. Yeah honey, God was saving his best for all the men you turned down. There will be crying indignation galore.

  12. Of course she isn’t going to talk about Bill. SHE is the prize! All eyes on her.

  13. Mycroft Jones says:

    His first name is Bill. Last name “Collector”. 🙂

  14. Teek Lor says:

    Is Bill what you call a Canadian husband? He’s great- just not around when anyone can see him.

  15. jg1 says:

    Are nice church girls just as slutty as the secular girls? Am I to assume that this 54yr old has been plowed many times over by Chad and Tyrone types?

  16. Eduardo the Magnificent says:

    Wendy’s life is “prosperity God” taken to its logical extreme. “It breaks God’s heart when we settle.” No, it breaks God’s heart when we fail to live up to His commands and strengthen his kingdom on Earth. How, Wendy, during this entire encounter, in the four decades you’ve been searching for a husband, have you done that? I forget who said the phrase “I prayed for twenty years and got no reply until I prayed with my legs”, but I’m sure as hell Wendy never said it. Did she learn to suffer (ha) quietly and grow in strength and wisdom and attempt show a future husband how he can be won over to Christ without a word? No. She “waited” and “didn’t settle” and all the while lived a very successful, worldly life. How has she, through this ordeal, showed she has learned grace, humility, and any of the other attributes God delights in us to see?

    “At that time, I didn’t even want to get married.” Right. God’s plan, as long as it’s on your schedule.

  17. JRob says:

    Are nice church girls just as slutty as the secular girls? Am I to assume that this 54yr old has been plowed many times over by Chad and Tyrone types?

    Excellent point and delivery.

    One of the recurring themes in all these non-settling Wallinated Christofem bloggers is, “I was unlucky,” and/or “I had failed relationships/they didn’t work out/etc.” Which, in hamster code:
    = thedeti’s “Elephant in the Room”
    = serial monogamy (at best)
    = carouselling
    =Alpha widowhood.
    It’s worse in my opinion when women who sit in church do it as they tend to be more duplicitous than the norm. And often more freaky. Ask any accomplished PUA.

    “Being Judgemental” is public enemy #1 in the Uteroanity sin hierarchy.

  18. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Of course she isn’t going to talk about Bill. SHE is the prize! All eyes on her.

    Yes, but if Wendy is the prize, then Bill is the mirror, reflecting back her glory, so that her light might shine all the brighter.

    Wendy is the sun, and Bill is the planet, orbiting and reflecting back her glory.

    So why is Wendy hiding her mirror and her planet? Are they not resplendent enough to magnify her glory? Did she marry a scuffed and broken mirror? A minor planet invisible to the naked eye? Are they so dull and insignificant as to make Wendy appear as a dying sun?

    Successful prizes are proud of their orbiters. The greater the orbiter, the greater glory to the prize.

  19. jsolbakken says:

    I watched the video of Wendy Griffith talking about being a prize, and I think the problem boils down to her inability to honestly take responsibility for her choices and her actions. There’s nothing wrong with rejecting men who do not have a good attitude and who do not act properly. That’s what a woman should do. That’s what I’d want my sister or daughter to do. But a woman needs to own up to her own shortcomings, in this case the fact that she was attracted to bad boys with selfish and abusive attitudes in the first place. Instead of blaming the bad boy, how about admitting that you were a bad girl for even thinking of being with him? Either that or decide that enjoy getting bitch slapped.

  20. Pingback: She wasn’t God’s best. | Reaction Times

  21. Hmm says:

    This whole thing reminds me of Pride and Prejudice writ large. Except no woman stays around Mr. Darcy long enough to see beyond the surface.

  22. JRob says:

    I finally got the stomach to watch the insipid video, after all the discussion here. Ick. Blasphemous.

    “I’m giving you back to God.”

    Mute the sound and watch her eyes. TCS?

  23. “…the conclusion is logically inescapable if you accept her claim that God has chosen His very best for all of us”

    That’s not her claim. Her claim is that God has chosen His best for any particular girl reading one of her articles, who is herself God’s best — so much the best, that even God Himself may take 54 years to find a man who deserves her company for more than one night. Math doesn’t apply to feelings; any anybody with ovaries and she’ll tell you. I’m serious: Griffith would probably tell you that. She would consider it *crazy* and obviously wrong to apply simple arithmetic here.

  24. jabrwok says:

    She will bear this man no children. Mine is an unpopular view, I think the institution of marriage exists solely to ensure that men have equal parental status with women by virtue of restricting female sexual activity to the husband alone. Any relationship which doesn’t fulfill that function, no matter how personally worthwhile it is to the participants, isn’t really a marriage at all.

    Absent marriage, motherhood is naturally obvious. Fatherhood though, that becomes a matter of opinion. Few men will fight, bleed, kill, and work themselves to death making a better world if they have no personal stake in the future after their own deaths. Real marriage gives them acknowledged paternity, and thus a very personal stake in the future. Paternity gives men a reason to step up and lead. Rule by fathers gave us civilization.

    Romantic love is utterly beside the point.

  25. Lexet Blog says:

    Many are. Those that aren’t are immature Disney fanatics with the minds of children

  26. locustsplease says:

    More pictures online of her at everest base camp than walking down the isle. This has to b a fake marriage. A massive attention whore like this probably doesnt let a meal go with out a picture. We don’t even know his last name dont need to he lives in another state.

  27. feeriker says:

    A severe lack of introspection going on there.

    Women and introspection go together like mustard and ice cream.

    I watched the video of Wendy Griffith talking about being a prize, and I think the problem boils down to her inability to honestly take responsibility for her choices and her actions.

    In what way does that differentiate her from any other woman on the planet?

  28. American says:

    Wendy’s that horse which came in last place.

  29. BillyS says:

    OT:

    Even the women who are thin in this look disgusting in so many ways. Common attitude though. Are we sure this is a spoof?

  30. JB Harshaw says:

    All of this “God’s Best” and “God wants the BEST for you!” nonsense…

    It’s just “Special Snowflake/Disney Princess” stuff with a faux-Christian/Churchian candy coating.

    It’s the Garden of Eden “Eve” wanting to be “as a god[dess]” — and the SOURCE of it is the same as it was with Eve — it is the serpent whispering in her ear.

    NONE of this has anything whatsoever to do with God the Father, nor his Son, and is most certainly NOT the “Fruit of the Holy Spirit”… it is another “spirit” altogether.

  31. feeriker says:

    It’s just “Special Snowflake/Disney Princess” stuff with a faux-Christian/Churchian candy coating.

    Yes. As Rollo puts it, secular behavior justified by perversions of Scripture, stamped with an ichthys seal, and proclaimed “Christian Kosher.”

  32. Shaka Zulu says:

    Logic is brutal. Brilliant post.

  33. feministhater says:

    Real marriage gives them acknowledged paternity, and thus a very personal stake in the future. Paternity gives men a reason to step up and lead. Rule by fathers gave us civilization.

    No longer. The children are now the property of the mother. Marriage in no way guarantees paternity. It’s a sham now, with no stake in the future for fathers at all. You are a wallet and nothing more.

  34. DrTorch says:

    Of course Wendy is disgusting- a self absorbed liar who puts herself as God.

    But what about 700-Club? They broadcast this heresy. They explicitly endorse this deceit by airing her on their program.

    I know there have been many controversial positions from these guys over the decades, but now any guise is off, they are putting forth Eve to show what they truly believe.

  35. Otto says:

    “Wendy’s that horse which came in last place.”

    No, she came in second to last. The woman who never marries (old maid) came in last.

    But, in Wendy’s mind, she won, because only the last place finisher is a loser. As long as you come in ahead of someone (anyone, even the person in last place) you are a winner.

    Alone most of her life, no children, no grandchildren, but SHE GOT MARRIED! She didn’t come in last. She’s not a loser.

    Not having children is the biggest risk of Wendy’s waiting strategy. But, women seem brainwashed into not thinking about that.

    Recently, Taylor Swift (who is turning 30) was asked if she is thinking about children. Instead of recognizing the obvious (her biological clock is ticking) she became huffy and replied “Men don’t get asked that question when they turn 30”. Yea, because men don’t have a biological clock.

    Taylor Swift is on the Wendy Griffith path. So focused on her career that no man is going to be good enough for her. One day (about 8 years from now I’ll guess) she’ll wake up and realize she’s given up her chance at a family for…a pot of stew.

  36. Scott says:

    She simply wasn’t good enough, and God was sparing these men the misfortune of marrying her so they could marry someone immensely better. Chances are we are talking hundreds of men, really millions, even billions of men if you think about it. For even if Wendy never crossed a man’s path, she still wasn’t God’s best for that man, as God had a better woman in mind for him than Wendy Griffith. To marry her would have been to (in Wendy’s words) settle for crumbs. Moreover, if billions of men deserve better, and God is faithful to what Wendy claims He promises, that means that billions of women are better than her. Getting picked last sucks under any circumstance, but in this view it is especially brutal. At age 54, God finally found a man who didn’t deserve a better woman than Wendy.

    I’m not going to pay the devils advocate here, but something like it.

    I grew up and matured into manhood believing in the fairy tail about the “one” God has picked out for you too. It’s just the flip side of the script.

    Now, the movies and the books and the narrative never explicitly talk about the one God has picked out for every man–you know the one you will find and not have to settle for–but it is implied as Piggot and Dalrock demonstrate. Romcoms and all that stuff are for women. That’s why they call them “chick flicks.” But again I say, you can’t help but notice the math here.

    And so it is, that through my years of serial monogamy, every break up — no matter if it was initiated by me or the girl — was processed through my cognitions as “whew, close call. Almost ended up with one that wasn’t right for me.”

    Maybe it was protective for me. Maybe its why I never was really devastated by a break up. Just moved on knowing there was plenty more where that came from. And experience proved me right! Within a few weeks I was right back into the dating scene.

    Now, my divorce was a different matter. I reasoned that once I was married, all the talk of whether or not this was the “right” girl for me was jettisoned and I was indeed demolished (and went through a year and half dry spell of not even a single date). I could not contextualize what was happening to me as I filtered the events through my Christian understanding of the permanence of marriage.

    But as soon as I got over it, I was right back to the “God has something better for me” life script and that is, after all, how I found Mychael. Serial monogamy with an eye out for the “one” that was meant for me. A series of girlfriends, ONSs and other sub-optimal relationship conditions leading to marriage.

    The math is solid. Dalrock’s puzzle that can’t be solved is a perfect analogy. God ruled out every woman one earth (including the billions in other countries and other continents I have never, nor will ever meet) and worked Mychael into my life according to His precise timing and good judgment?

    Please. But its a good way to get through life without going crazy. You just tell yourself “she was nice, but God has someone in mind who is exactly right for me.”

  37. Scott says:

    Fairy tail. Funny. Stupid autocorrect.

  38. Ron Tomlinson says:

    *Women and introspection go together like mustard and ice cream.*

    It’s part of a husband’s job to do the “introspection” for her: to tell her about her motives and so on (since she hasn’t a clue). Perhaps this is why women enjoy being teased.

    Clearly, if a woman is out of control and without a man, there’s going to be no introspection, only rationalising.

  39. jsolbakken says:

    “In what way does that differentiate her from any other woman on the planet?”
    So, what you’re telling me is, I actually do understand women, I just didn’t realize it.

  40. info says:

    @jack
    Ruled by the flesh and having no indication of the holy spirit.

  41. Bee says:

    St. Paul said the reason to be unmarried was to be concerned about the things of the Lord, because the time was short. God does not intend for women like Wendy and Mandy to spend their decades of singleness traveling, hiking in St. Lucia, taking exotic vacations, pursuing career status and money, being independent and sassy, etc.

  42. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    It’s amazing to me how a narcissistic sense of entitlement can be framed by christian-incorporated to be “not settling” or “God wants you to only have the best”. Best being a synonym for what I want. Oscar Wilde once quipped “I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.” Some women are never going to be satisfied. He also wrote “There are only two tragedies in life: one is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it.” The best is not the best for long. Hypergamy blocks contentment and entitlement is never satisfied.

    I thought God desired to shape his children into being their best for his glory. And by “best” I mean best in their character as defined by the Word of God and not according to our own flesh. But then I’m not a woman or a host on the 700 club.

  43. Opus says:

    I had been wondering about her mountaineering. Is she a real climber or is she ferried up together with hundreds of others, where the mountaineering skill seems to be zero and where for £50,000.00 one can enjoy looking at the world from 36.000 feet – much as one can from a jet airliner. I climbed Helvellyn; I climber Gibraltar and it is quite easy to fall of the latter – you are not supposed to go beyond the no entry sign but I did and have the photo to prove it.

  44. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I wonder how much of any social media is accurate. People invent lives on social media, much like a PR person. They post carefully selected photos, trite greeting-card aphorisms, charity event photos (that one did not necessarily attend). All to create an image of one’s lifestyle and moral values.

    Celebrities do it to promote themselves. Fans post comments to feel that they are a part of the celebrity’s life.

    I’ve seen Instagram pages where an actress will post photos of her family. Hordes of fans will post: “Beautiful! Don’t ever forget the love that you feel for each other!”

    A vapid, pointless phrase. Why would a celebrity need, or listen to, a stranger’s family advice? Yet it makes the fan feel a part of the celebrity’s family. The fan also gets to virtue signal her admiration for the celebrity, even as the celebrity virtues signals about her loving family.

    Celebrities will post: “What an awesome time at Sundance! Family is everything to me! London is an amazing city! Please donate for these refugee children! Love and peace! God is everything to me! No haters allowed! Love is a must! Having a great time at Big Sur! Friends are everything to me! No hate!”

    Fans respond: You are such an inspiration! I love you! What an amazing talent! Don’t ever forget your love for your wonderful family! Your son is so handsome! Thank you for fighting hate! Why are you so good!!!!

    I’ve seen that exact phrase. A celebrity will virtue signal, posting a meme for some charity, and fans respond, “Why are you soooo gooood!!! As though amazed that such an important person would be humble enough to care for the less fortunate by posting a meme.

    In summary: Don’t believe everything on Wendy’s social media. It’s just carefully cherry-picked PR.

  45. Opus says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer

    I once worked with a woman then in her late seventies who in the early 1950s had been an assistant to a PR man at one of the British movie studios. She said that the PR man made it all up but the actor or actress would sign it off as true before publication.

  46. Jack Russell says:

    How many women now or down the road will regret taking Wendy’s advice when they get older? There are many who listened to Oprah and the Eat, Pray, Love woman who ended up being a lesbo. i wonder how many of these trips Wendy took around the world were paid from donors to the 700 club slush fund.

  47. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451 foresaw that in the the future (our present) people would feel closer to celebrities and fictional characters than to their own family.

    See how Linda imagines herself part of a fake TV family, while ignoring her own husband:

  48. Nick Mgtow says:

    RPL, well, today, we have that with interactive screens, like smartphones and their apps, or, now, even TVs are smart and record you. They have cameras that look at you. Imagine that now, instead of Twitts, TV programs ask people, directly in their homes, what they think?

    Kim Jong Il… but all the rulers, of course, would dream of such…

  49. Oscar says:

    @ Jack Russell

    How many women now or down the road will regret taking Wendy’s advice when they get older?

    Very few. The vast majority will never realize that their actions led to their loneliness. I know three women who are following Wendy’s script. One is my age (43), and I’ve known her since high school. The other two are in their mid-to-late 30s. None will admit that they’re missing out on something they want because of something they’re doing.

  50. Oscar says:

    I forgot to mention that I’ve known the other two since college.

  51. Warthog says:

    >It’s amazing to me how a narcissistic sense of entitlement can be framed by christian-incorporated to be “not settling” or “God wants you to only have the best”.

    You guys have to understand that Wendy’s church context is Pentecostal, where “God told me X” translates to I want X.

  52. Big20s says:

    700 club? That must be her notch count

  53. Big20s says:

    “I have to give you back to God”
    Lolzolzolz he must have read heartiste as well

  54. Spike says:

    Thanks, Dalrock. The condescension of the “don’t settle” logic had to be called out for what it is: condescending, patronizing and belittling to men. A solid dose of equality means that ”not settling” cuts both ways! It is rampant in ”advice” columns in secular newspapers, and for a Christian woman to make a living out of encouraging women to look down their noses at fellow Christians is disgusting.
    Griffith has in summary made a ”ministry” or more honestly, a business, out of putting down men for doing what men should – biologically and biblically. That is, marry, have a family, raise godly children and lead a godly life. Success in ministry is not a measure of correctness: Friendship with the world will get you success, but it’s still enmity with God.

    What is ”settling” anyway? It is a brake / ceiling on Hypergamy, and women HATE that brake /ceiling on their hypergamy. They hate any woman who makes marriage a priority, any woman who decides that she doesn’t want to go the slut route to get there.
    My son’s fiancée has had a terrible time because, having grown up with deeply Catholic Christian parents, having made her commitment early in life, she made marriage a priority and eschewed frivolous (Read: stupid) relationships. She has endured vicious criticisms from women for years (“You need experience!”; “You won’t know what to do on your wedding night!” ; “You’ll regret not having tried other men!”) and so on and so forth. And these comments are what her FRIENDS told her.

  55. American says:

    You were so self-absorbed and narcissistic that you blew it Wendy. And you have no biblical right to mislead other females into your error. Shame on the 700 Club for playing along with the heresy.

  56. Mr Based says:

    In the recent PCA magazine, ByFaith, we read an article about toxic masculinity by Phil Mobley. Most of his content seems to spring from the head of someone calling herself Hannah Anderson, a Christian author and speaker (sometimesalight.com).

    Phil tells us about some consequences of the church not preparing men for fatherhood and family:

    “I lay the responsibility for the singleness of many Christian women at the feet of Christian men”

    “They aren’t thinking about a life partner, a family, or future generations. Instead, they are thinking that they aren’t willing to commit until they find the one girl who’s good enough to give up all other women for”.

  57. DrTorch says:

    “You guys have to understand that Wendy’s church context is Pentecostal, where “God told me X” translates to I want X.”

    Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there, I see it in every denomination. It’s obviously been true for millennia, “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” Jer 17:9.

    Christians are supposed to have a new heart, Jer 24:7; 32:39; Ezek 36:26. So many of these church-goers are not Christians, even the Pentecostals who insist they’ve been baptized in the Spirit.

    Nevertheless, I have grown impatient seeing all of the mini-heresies that people propose while they insist they are holier than everyone else. I tolerated it when I was young, often I didn’t know any better, or accepted that it was simply opinion. Now I believe it’s a sign that these people don’t care about worshiping the Lord in truth. That they delight in pretending they are God, as they project their whims onto Him. And so they have no ground upon which to oppose things when the heresy or unsound doctrine gets serious like Wendy’s (or so many others’)

  58. TheTraveler says:

    The flip-side is the men Wendy and her ilk dated and rejected, damaging the men and society.

    By the law of averages, these women probably dated good guys. In the course of three decades, Providence likely gave Wendy the green light to marry at least a few of them. They would have been decent fellows with virtues important to society, to which “enlightened” women pay lip service. Patently, those men weren’t good enough for these Pearls of Great Value.

    These women abused their free will and thwarted the Divine plan. The result was hurt (sometimes probably very deep) for individual men and severe damage to society.

  59. Dalrock says:

    @TheTraveler

    The flip-side is the men Wendy and her ilk dated and rejected, damaging the men and society.

    These men did fine. Griffith isn’t really the pearl of great price, and other (wiser) women profited from her foolishness.

  60. Scott says:

    If you were an alien humanoid from a galaxy far away and a long time ago…

    And you were whisked away to earth. Lets say you looked like Harrison Ford in 1977.

    You are given the following guidance about mate selection.

    There are billions of people on this planet, about half are men, and half are women. You, as a man should see your self as a key wondering around the planet looking for the precise keyhole that was designed particularly for you. In order to do that, you must engage in something called “dating,” wherein you engage in a serious of platonic activities for a minimum of three dates, then you get naked and test the key/hole compatibility.

    After that, you take the current one around to meet all your friends and family (and hers) and move forward with wherever it leads. Maybe you move in together, whatever. After some time, if both of you mutually agree that it is “working out” you, the male offer a marriage proposal, which symbollicaly signals legtimacy to what you are already doing, and everyone around knows you are already doing.

    If, on the other hand, one of you feels it is not working out, that person may unilaterally dissolve the relationship without cause. It doesn’t matter if you feel it is working, you just have to get over it. This means it was not meant to be. She wasn’t the one for you. The good news is, there are several billion more of these key/keyhole combinations to try!

    You can tell yourself whatever you want about the situation. Many find it convenient to believe that no matter how many key/keyhole combinations they try, it has no bearing on finding the pre-ordained mate, nor does one have to believe in any sort of timeline or trajectory that is rational.

    —–OR——

    There is a way smaller group of people who follow religious rules of engagement with courtship. betrothal, sex, getting parents and trusted community members involved. They believe in God and marriage also, but theirs is a much more regimented, structured path to it that exists for moral reasons and something to do with raising children or whatever.

    Which would you choose?

  61. Scott says:

    With a little follow up here.

    It should be self-evident that what I am describing with option one is without regard for the morality of it. It is simply a bare bones description of what anyone over 30 was brought up with. (Hook up culture is different).

    I also understand that Rollo (primarily) and others have described exhaustively using constructs like hypergamy, game theory, the alpha/beta paradigm and preferred sexual strategy how we got to this place.

    I am not sure about the sexual strategy stuff. I operated in this environment (option one) for many years “successfully” not because I preferred it, but because 1. I am not gay and 2. serial monogamy was/is the rules at the time.

    There was never any use crying over the rules.

    To fret over Wendy Griffith and the outcome she got using the extreme version of this model strikes me as fruitless. What are offering our kids that is different, and not lame?

  62. Scott says:

    Sorry to be a threadhog.

    I forgot to add. The overwhelming majority of people engaging in option one are, at least in their mind and according to their own consciences operating in good faith. They do not believe they are doing anything wrong.

    Every LTR I have had started with me being a “gentlmen,” talking to my friends about “where it was going” trying to consult with those close to me about whether it was “true love” and all that.

    Thats the hand we were dealt.

  63. Anon says:

    I actually don’t have a problem with Wendy Griffith profiting from the cultural zeitgeist.

    If there are millions of Quistian women who are stupid enough to not see the apex fallacy in trying to emulate Wendy Griffith, and millions of cuckservative men who will glorify ANY decent-looking women who says virtually anything remotely Quistian/Cuckservative/Republican, can you really fault her for being an entrepreneur?

    If not her, it would be someone else.

  64. info says:

    @scott

    Indeed. But those who are born again will end up knowing god’s will and law. Using myself as an example I used to accept the explanation that ephesian 5:22-23 actually did not mean male headship. Or that the sexist passages of scripture is explained in a different manner than I thought.

    Until god guided me to truth.

  65. info says:

    Its no coincidence that god had led us to reject chivalry.

  66. Exile says:

    Does God “choose” someone for you or does He present you with choices? There’s an issue of predestination vs. choice here, and a major issue with the “arrow of causality” as well. “Inshallah” is not a universal tenet of Christianity but Wendy’s argument begs that concept on bended knee. Absent an unambiguous sign from Heaven, her choice of Mr. 59 is a posteriori. God must have willed it because I chose to will it? Choosing your own path (much) less traveled then declaring that dubious choice as God’s will is an option Calvinism leaves all too available, although its credibility is debatable. As with America’s early Puritans, we’re left with the verdict of history to decide: if Mr. & Mrs. 59 are the “elect,” their lives will demonstrate the fruitful results of that divinely ordained submission to God’s will. Those of us who don’t subscribe to strong Calvinism are free to predict the results of Wendy’s decision and consider her behavior as disastrous well before history has rendered its verdict.

  67. Testi says:

    Scott, wtf man? Jeezus

  68. Testi says:

    Regarding the CATHOLIC CONFERENCE ON ‘RAISING CHIVALROUS YOUNG MEN’, some guy
    called Brother Andre said there is “an epic failure in manhood”.
    Also, “the only remedy to this crisis is the truth, goodness and moral beauty of Catholic chivalry.”

    Incorrect diagnosis, followed by an even more lethal cure. Good luck with that bullshit.

  69. Novaseeker says:

    Serial monogamy was the rule, yes. I think it still is the rule for “dating”. Right now what you have, though, is a hookup culture and a dating culture existing side by side, with people engaging in both of them at the same time, or at different times, in series, depending on what they are looking for at the moment. The result is muddy (is this a date? is it a hookup?) because the two cultures slur into each other, but the older “dating” culture has not disappeared — it just coexists with the newer hookup culture.

    I would say that also under the “old” rules a hookup culture existed then, too — it just was not as out in the open as it is today. There were players, there was promiscuity, there were different rules for different kinds of guys then, too — it’s just that before the internet and social media and hookup apps and so on it was all hidden in clubs and enclaves that most men had no access to. Women did, and more partook in that culture, even on a very limited basis, than has ever been admitted by them since then, but because it was hidden, more or less, at the time, at least compared to the wide open situation we have today, so it didn’t have an impact on the perception of most men. Most men just went along with the serial monogamy culture and were none the wiser, and this made sense anyway because for most men it was the only thing on offer.

    I didn’t like serial monogamy so I didn’t participate in it (the sex part) which cost me a few relationships under the old system. But it certainly was the norm (this is going back to the 80s/90s). Any kind of extended “dating” culture is going to feature serial monogamy because most people, whether they are religious or not, re simply not going to be able to discipline themselves to go without sex for years.

  70. Scott says:

    Nova-

    Very good observation about the blurring of lines between dating and hookups.

    I found, during the two longest stretches singleness (16-23 and 29-35yo for me) that if you wander into “is this a date?” territory, that ambiguity and mixed signals is always driven by the woman. Never in those two stretches of being “on the market” did I ever propose to a prospective partner “hey, just letting you know, all I want is a FB/no strings attached.” When a relationship like that develops, its because of clear signals from her. At that point, you have to decide how much of the weirdness of such an arrangement (and it is pretty weird) you can tolerate, and for how long.

    If you hang around with the type of people I do/did, that kind of scenario is unsightly, and can’t really be maintained for more than a few months or weeks.

  71. thedeti says:

    To Nova’s points:

    There has always been a casual sex culture, and there was when I was in high school in the early to mid 80s and then in college in the late 80s. I remember seeing glimpses of it in high school where the most promiscuous girls developed “reputations” as sluts. There were a few who did sleep around and you could tell who did.

    The point was that in high school and more so in college, more and more women did have at least a couple of casual sexual experiences. More and more women at least tried out the carousel, even if they took just one ride. And most women never admitted it; never talked about it; never discussed it. Growing up, many boys and young men had some idea it was going on, but not to the extent that it was. I grew increasingly surprised in college running across women who wanted casual sex.

    I was famous for saying at the now defunct Hooking Up Smart site that almost every woman I knew had had at least one casual sex experience, at least one sexual encounter that never went further; or with a man she barely knew and never saw again.

    Also discussed at HUS was the concept of “changing lanes”, or switching from casual sex to “serial monogamy”. Just another phrase expressing AFBB. But part of what changing lanes described was women’s ability to move from the “serial monogamy” lane to the “casual sex” lane, and back again, fluidly and easily. Whereas, most men were in the “dating/serial monogamy” lane, and had to stay there. Only some men could change lanes.

    And key to this was lack of judgment. You weren’t allowed to judge a woman for anything, ever. She could have casual sex at will, as much as she wanted. No matter how much casual sex she had had, she was entitled to be judgment and consequence free for it, and move with impunity to the “serial monogamy” lane and entitlement to a boyfriend, relationship, fiance or husband. Most women could do exactly that, and did do so. And are still doing so today.

  72. Lost Patrol says:

    @ Scott

    What are offering our kids that is different, and not lame?

    In the USA mostly nothing of course, which I suppose is why you are emphasizing the point. This should cause each of us to evaluate current circumstances within our own homes, churches, social circles. No sweeping changes are likely to be forthcoming, so what are we doing individually at a level where we have some influence?

    The overwhelming majority of people engaging in option one are, at least in their mind and according to their own consciences operating in good faith. They do not believe they are doing anything wrong.

    Church people too. Though some (not all, as evidenced within my own extended family) church goers might cluck about the moving in together part, the other aspects of the model you describe appear to be in full force equally with the religious and non-religious. Both groups are following the societal norms you explained, because there is little to nothing else on offer.

    To fret over Wendy Griffith and the outcome she got using the extreme version of this model strikes me as fruitless.

    Practical as always, but I see a connection across the points you have made. I mean a certain amount of fruitless fretting goes on here from time to time about a variety of things and persons, and dead horses do get beaten. I’ve given some carcasses a few whacks myself.

    But as in other things I learn here, I will collect some of the particulars and inject them where I can within my own home, church, social circle. It’s little enough to be sure, but in this specific example there are some young women of my acquaintance with whom I will drop some comments about “using the Wendy Griffith approach I see”; and they have enough background with the subject to know what I am talking about. It may give them pause, and perhaps play a small part in helping them break the mold to their benefit.

    This has been my way of doing business with most of Dalrock’s subject matter, to bring it to people I know so as to make them think in the same way the material made me think. Some people have told me they appreciate it. Some people have been offended by it, though I take pains to lay it on easy. Maybe I am only a tilter at windmills.

  73. feministhater says:

    I hope women starting taking Wendy up on her challenge. I really do. I hope and pray, daily, hourly… no, no, minute by minute, second by second, that they all take her up, to wait, wait and wait some more. God has saved his best for all of them, in no way should they ever, ever settle. This is good. This is what God wants for his precious, precious princesses, which must be brought as the expensive and worthwhile pearls that they all are, every single one of them, precious in the sight of the Lord.

    They should wait at least to sixty years of age, marrying sooner is a travesty as God only wants them to experience his best; and no way could God give his best to them when they are young, fertile and inexperienced. No, that will sorely not do, God needs his daughters to get thoroughly vetted before marriage, at least 40 or more years of constant relationships with God’s worst is wanted, nay, needed! These precious daughters must experience it all, on all seven continents.

    All praise the Godly, golden vagina!

  74. feministhater says:

    Wendy’s approach to marriage has my 100% seal of approval. High praise indeed! Moar waiting is needed, Wendy settled far too soon, she didn’t get God’s best for her at all by marrying so soon! What was she thinking?!

  75. feministhater says:

    If there are millions of Quistian women who are stupid enough to not see the apex fallacy in trying to emulate Wendy Griffith, and millions of cuckservative men who will glorify ANY decent-looking women who says virtually anything remotely Quistian/Cuckservative/Republican, can you really fault her for being an entrepreneur?

    I can’t fault her at all. If this is what women want. I would give it to them all. Wendy made millions of dollars selling this to women and churchian cucks and it paid in spades. I applaud her fully, I love what she has done! This is freaking amazing. I truly, down to my soul, hope all women do what she has done. Praise be!

  76. feministhater says:

    This is so, freaking amazing, I can’t get over how much I’m so in support of Wendy and her marriage advice! It’s simply the best. The worst men get to have these women in their prime with no payment necessary at all, they don’t have to prove a thing. They impart these women with their gift and then these women grow into better women so that, finally, finally.. after at least 40 to 50 years of waiting and playing the field by God’s princesses that God’s best for them, the churchian cuck, finally gets to have his churchian princess at the nubile young age of 54. I can’t think of a better solution to any of this! They truly get what they all deserve! Praise be to the Lord for providing Bill and Wendy this amazing gift, they fully and absolutely deserve it!

  77. Dalrock says:

    @Mr Based

    In the recent PCA magazine, ByFaith, we read an article about toxic masculinity by Phil Mobley. Most of his content seems to spring from the head of someone calling herself Hannah Anderson, a Christian author and speaker (sometimesalight.com).

    Good find. Hanna Anderson is on the feminist fringe of the complementarian movement. I searched on the PCA magazine website but can’t find that specific article. Do you have the title or a link?

  78. jsolbakken says:

    ” Those of us who don’t subscribe to strong Calvinism are free to predict the results of Wendy’s decision and consider her behavior as disastrous well before history has rendered its verdict.”

    Gee, I used to think I was a strong Calvinist, but I guess I can’t be because I am inclined to predict the results of people’s decisions the same as a normal person.

    But seriously, the Calvinist notion of predestination is about being elected to salvation, and is most certainly not supposed to be a formula for a posteriori justification for all those wicked evil selfish stupid things that we do constantly. “Whom God foreknew He did also predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son,” says Romans 8:29. So, if we sin willfully and eschew conforming to the image of God’s Son, well, how can we say that we were foreknown by God to be predestinated to be amongst the Elect?

    What, shall we sin that grace may abound? God forbid.

    All things work together for good to them that love God, but, for those who do not love God, all things do not work together for good, by my reckoning.

    Romans 8:
    26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
    27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
    28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
    29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
    30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

  79. I actually don’t have a problem with Wendy Griffith profiting from the cultural zeitgeist.

    One of the few times Anon and I find ourselves in agreement. Any woman who wants to get married and have kids, and who takes Wendy’s advice, is probably a lost cause. It’s like taking dating advice from a guy who sits on the couch all day playing video games and watching porn and whose last “girlfriend” was a girl who kissed him on the playground.

  80. @Dalrock

    Suzanne Venker has an interesting take from a woman’s perspective on how feminism created the self-esteem movement and conditioned girls to be full of themselves:

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/we-have-greatly-underestimated-feminisms-harmful-influence-on-millennials

  81. Otto says:

    I’m surprised someone hasn’t written a book aimed at men that mirrors Wendy’s advice.

    You are a son of the king.

    Don’t settle; God is saving his best for you.

    Be patient, God will send you the perfect wife.

    Enjoy your season of singleness; explore life, have fun, and don’t get tied down with the wrong woman; your perfect wife will appear before you when God says the time is right–and not before.

    Don’t worry about preparing to be a husband; God made you perfect just the way you are; you are a prize to be won.

    Seriously, someone could make money writing a book like that. But then he’d be attacked be every woman in the church, simply because he pointed out that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

  82. gazza90 says:

    https://agonyandhope.com/2019/06/03/what-virtues-appeal-to-men-and-women/

    The latest blog post by the trad-Cath spinster is unintentional comedy gold. Note when she talks about the virtues she supposedly desires, with the exception of her milquetoast definition of leadership, she solipsisticly talks about how SHE manifests those virtues. How can any women (he says rhetorically) be so clueless to think she is actually attracted to humble men as opposed to being attracted to socially dominant men who exhibit some degree of humility?

    I posted a comment which I am sure will be deleted so we can be entertained by further musings by the 50-something never-married female commenteron what marriage is really about.

  83. Dalrock says:

    @Otto

    Don’t worry about preparing to be a husband; God made you perfect just the way you are; you are a prize to be won.

    Seriously, someone could make money writing a book like that. But then he’d be attacked be every woman in the church, simply because he pointed out that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    Such a book would be funny, but it would be a colossal flop. Christian men love the chivalrous feminist message Griffith is selling as much as Christian women do. They would also hate the book you propose as much as Christian women would.

  84. feministhater says:

    Now we just need a book suggesting that marriage at age 70 decreases divorce and thus is a positive for Christian families!

  85. Frank K says:

    some guy called Brother Andre said there is “an epic failure in manhood”.

    In the comments someone mentioned that this Brother Andre was censured by his Bishop and ordered to not engage in teaching doctrine.

  86. vandicus says:

    The problem with Calvinism, other than the theological issue of people being predamned, is that it encourages virtue signalling.

    Only some people are saved and they display certain qualities, so if you’re truly a member of the elect you better damn well show it(or else your fellow church goers will suspect you’re one of the pre damned instead).

    Denial of free will also has its own issues because it encourages bad behavior. Believing in free will causes people to take moral responsibility for their actions and generally act better.

    Tha Jamestown expirment in communism is an excellent example of how the pride that believing oneself to be saved while others are damned encourages. We’re all such great people being the elect that we can live and work purely on our love for our fellow men(rather than the natural economic incentives that the rest of us as mere inevitably damned sinners can live by). The natural results followed, you can’t actually run an economy on virtue signalling or social pressure.

    This doesn’t even get into the wild iconoclasm, but relatively small errors become big problems over time. What might seem harmless as a mere intellectual difference becomes harmful when put into practice.

  87. gazza90 says:

    Otto,

    If you take the God part out the what you are proposing is pretty-much standard PUA advice. Attractive women think they are a pearl of great price, you flip the script and persuade her to see you as the prize to be won. The more she has to prove herself to you the more she becomes attracted you.

    The difference is that men don’t have to be sold the reverse-Griffith notion because fit, socially dominant 30-something men can follow the wait for the best you can get advice and have a really good chance of a relatively-successful outcome. But pushing the absurd notion that women can wait until their 30s and still find the same quality man they would have landed at 23 requires a relentless propaganda offensive and intense social pressure to be believed.

  88. Lost Patrol says:

    Off Topic, glass ceiling report. The woman running the Air Force determines it’s best for the service to protect another woman that fabricated her SpecOps flight time.

    https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/06/01/afsoc-one-star-falsely-claimed-flight-hours-disrespected-subordinates-ig-found/

    “After reviewing the report of investigation and considering the details of Brigadier General Cartier’s career, the Secretary of the Air Force [Heather Wilson] determined her promotion to the rank of brigadier general was in the best interest of the Air Force,”

  89. thedeti says:

    Christian men love the chivalrous feminist message because most all of them see themselves as literally the knight in shining armor, riding in on a trusty white steed, with jousting bar in hand, ready to save the day. They really do see themselves this way. They really do believe that the young women they attend church with want this from them, and that portraying this makes them sexually attractive.

    They believe this because folks like Griffith, Hale, etc. peddle this on the Christian talk shows and marriage ministries. They believe this because Focus on the Family, Family Life Today, James Dobson, Dennis Rainey, the thrice married Steve Arterburn, and others, allow them to peddle that pap.

  90. Gazzo,

    2 things. First, it’s entirely possible for people to train and order their passions through virtue. Using the analogy for men, while our passions will always be attracted to women with certain body shapes, ways of walking, etc., it’s possible, through virtue, to value virtues in women such that, when it comes to who we are attracted to, the fact of a woman being virtuous plays a bigger role than body shape, etc. likewise for women, it’s possible through virtue to train oneself to be attracted to men with virtue; so
    without further information, it’s entirely possible that she really is attracted to humble men, just as it really is possible for men to be attracted to modest women.

    Second (and this goes for thedeti and anyone else who also makes this argument) the “what would a never married 50 year old know about marriage” is an ad hominem which shouldn’t hold much water with anyone. Some of the most beautiful reflections on marriage have come from those who were not married (such as St. Paul). If you disagree with what she’s saying (i disagree with her on a number of points) then disagree on the merits of the ideas, not the fact that she’s unmarried.

  91. jsolbakken says:

    “Denial of free will also has its own issues because it encourages bad behavior. Believing in free will causes people to take moral responsibility for their actions and generally act better.”
    I don’t believe people have “free” will. I believe that only God has “free will.” I believe people have a “will,” which they must willingly and willfully and deliberately with purpose and knowledge submit to God’s perfect and Free Will. Nobody comes to the Father except the Spirit draws him.
    James 4:
    5 Do ye think that the scripture saith in vain, The spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy?
    6 But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble.
    7 Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
    8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double minded.
    9 Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.
    10 Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.

    I like to point out to my fellow Neo-Calvinists who go too far in the anti-“free” will direction that
    verses like the ones above are full of verbs!!! Resist!!! Submit!!! Draw Nigh!!! Cleanse!!!
    Purify!!! Mourn!!! Weep!!! Humble Your Self!!! and then God will do His verbing by lifting us up.

    God gives us the power to become the Sons of God, it seems it’s up to us to verb it in to reality
    on some level.

    John 1:
    12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
    13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
    I’ve studied and meditated on this issue and I can say with some confidence that there seems to be a difference between theological soteriological doctrine and the practical worldly necessity of holding people accountable for their behavior and actions. People can say “the devil made me do it” but the truth is that people submit their will to the will of the devil instead of the Will of God and that’s how spiritual catastrophe occurs. Is it only Calvinists who can say as they pronounce the sentence of death upon someone convicted of a capital crime, “may God have mercy on your soul?” with sincere hope that God may actually show mercy to a capital criminal?
    God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and He will have compassion on whom He wills to have compassion, and that is our only real hope.

    Romans 7:
    18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
    19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
    20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
    21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
    22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
    23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
    24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?
    25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

  92. thedeti says:

    Second (and this goes for thedeti and anyone else who also makes this argument) the “what would a never married 50 year old know about marriage” is an ad hominem which shouldn’t hold much water with anyone. Some of the most beautiful reflections on marriage have come from those who were not married (such as St. Paul).

    I’ve read St. Paul. His writings were inspired by the Holy Spirit. He was a great man.

    Anna Hitchings, Julia, Phillipa, and Hitchings’ commenters, are no St. Pauls. They aren’t even in the same galaxy as St. Paul.

    Yeah, I’ll hear what actual married people have to say over people like a never-married thirty-something journalist and a 50 something never married ex nun.

  93. Damn Crackers says:

    @thedeti

    Is it known that St. Paul was never married?

  94. thedeti says:

    DC:

    It’s speculated that Paul was never married, in part because (1) no mention of a wife appears in scripture or historical writings about Paul, either things written by him or about him; and (2) he mentions in the context of writing about marriage that he wishes “all were as I am”, meaning, currently unattached and unmarried and able/available to devote his full efforts to ministry. It’s speculated that he was unmarried at his conversion and during his ministry, and more to your point, that he might have been a widower.

  95. vandicus says:

    That denial of free will is corrosive can be readily observed. The pride and sin that emerges from reckless self-assurance instead of humble acknowledgement of one’s own unworthiness is likewise readily apparent. There are sufficient exhortations against this attitude in the Bible that I need not reference too many. The pharisee and the publican or the prodigal sin are relatively well known references.

    Logically speaking if the elect became sinless or perfectly conformed to the will of God we would not have so many directives to forgive our fellow Christians or references to their sins. Nor would the Apostles have bothered to go to heretical groups to correct their instruction. We will fail, we should repent, and if we repent, we will be forgiven.

    That it contradicts God’s perfect nature can be seen logically. If all actions are an endless series of causes and mankind no more able to make choices than a rock or a stream, then mankind is not culpable for his actions. As Cavlin says, the damned were made for damnation. This makes a mockery of God’s perfect love and general salvific will.

    It is the height of arrogance and demonstrates a lack of love to say to oneself, I am surely saved while this fellow is surely damned(which is of course the position by the prominent Reformers taken regarding those born and living in ignorance for hundreds of years in the Americas before the arrival of Christianity). If you do not have love, you do not have God, because God is love. If you love your neighbor, and love your enemies, you will naturally desire their salvation. Then you will have come to some understanding of God’s love.

    “For anyone who does not love his brother, whom he has seen, cannot love God, whom he has not seen.”

  96. vandicus says:

    Martydom is a powerful example of loving one’s enemies and desiring their salvation so strongly as to die so that their eyes may be opened to the truth, in emulation of Christ.

  97. vandicus says:

    To quote Calvin “All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestinated to life or to death.”

    Naturally it is so abhorrent that Calvin found it to be dreadful(“The decree is dreadful indeed, I confess.”), but it’s where his particular reasoning, though flawed led him. I do not think God would judge a man for intellectual errors(who might we say has been damned over the question of the filioque?). But some intellectual errors can lead to seriously bad teaching that leads people on to sin.

  98. @Deti,

    Perfectly reasonable to choose not to listen to them; there’s only so much time in the day. But if you’re going to engage in conversation by commenting on their comments you need to deal with their ideas and what they’re saying, not simply dismiss everything they say with an ad hominem.

  99. gazza90 says:

    Tim Finnegan,
    I am in limited with number one, but I would point that the nearly universal innate female reaction to a better-looking guy with a less-attractive woman is to lower a female observer’s opinion of his attractiveness while the effect of a less-attractive guy/more-attractive female is the opposite.

    As for the ad-hominem thing, what is Dalrock other than relentless mockery of feminist Christian women. But your attitude is exactly the attitude among traditional Christians that has brought about our current status as a despised minority. All mass persuasion is fundamentally about the status of person or institution doing the persuading and the current state of Christianity is a result of it’s practitioners being seen as low-status. I have yet to meet a female, however intelligent (and I live in one the wealthiest neighborhoods in the nation so we are talking top 1% IQs) who can be persuaded of anything of importance by dialectical reasoning. As a Christian one can take Dreher’s Benedict Option and retreat to somewhere we are tolerated or fight back against the dominant culture which inevitably means lowering the status of those people and institutions that wish to do Christians harm. My children have resisted the call of the dominant culture in no small part because I subtly mocked the dominant secular culture and lowered the status of it in my children’s eyes. As a result, as adults they respect me more than the culture that would lead them astray.

    As for the solipsistic beatings of Philippa Martyr they are no more than a post-hoc, therapeutic rationalization, much like Wendy Griffith et al., as to why the path that led her to her current state was not in any way a failure on her part but was actually a kind of glorious victory. If she held her choices in life as a cautionary tale, that would be admirable, but everything she says is subtly framed to lower the status of marriage in the eyes of the women reading a blog ostensibly devoted to finding Catholic marriage partners. She is just another crypto-feminist posing as a traditional Christian and mockery is the only rational response.

  100. Dalrock says:

    @Lost Patrol

    Off Topic, glass ceiling report. The woman running the Air Force determines it’s best for the service to protect another woman that fabricated her SpecOps flight time.

    https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/06/01/afsoc-one-star-falsely-claimed-flight-hours-disrespected-subordinates-ig-found/

    If cowardly men hadn’t been unwilling to falsify their own records, clearly she wouldn’t have been forced to falsify hers.

  101. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    A major theological flay in Wendy being a Pearl of Great Value … I am reminded of some images and news stories from the past several years …

    * A Texas boy, a toddler, had all his limbs amputated due to an infection.

    * A Utah woman also had all her limbs amputated due to an infection.

    * I found a biography written by a woman, Joan Brock, who went blind at age 32 due to a rare form of macular degeneration. He husband died a few years later due to cancer.

    * I saw a photo of an African man with no arms, because he was attacked by a lion.

    * I saw a photo of a woman who had no face, just melted scar tissue, because was burned after a drunk driver hit her car.

    The world is full of people who’ve suffered all sorts of tragedies, losing their sight, their limbs, due to random accidents and health crises. Did God not want his best for any of them?

    God apparently allows these “acts of God” to happen, inflicting incredible suffering onto people. He is apparently cool with that. Yet it breaks God’s heart to watch Wendy settle.

  102. RichardP says:

    In this thread or the last there is a link that leads to Wendy Griffith being interviewed by a female someone. I didn’t pay attention to the link path I took, so I can’t post that path here. In the video, Ms. Griffith tells the interviewer that she was not living as a christian in her twenties, and did everything that non-christians do in their twentys. If memory serves me correctly, she changed the tone of her voice and her facial expression and repeated herself – and I mean everything. To which the interviewer answered thoughtfully: I understand

    Without using the same words used here, she verified what those here have been supposing. She had sex with different guys during her twenties. And she also verified the truth that is expressed here by saying that she ultimately found that lifestyle empty and without meaning and not fulfulling.

    Hearing her admit to that, and knowing that most guys will not marry sluts, and knowing that most guys and gals know that is how guys think – the reason why she keeps repeating her favorite catch-phrases suddenly becomes unmistakeably clear: If she repeats them often enough, perhaps they will become true. You are the pearl of great price, the prize to be one – all designed to counter the truthful message that most guys don’t marry sluts. So – for all the gals who ruined their chances at establishing a solid family with loving husband and well-behaved children – here is something to hold on to, to explain why you still don’t have that solid family that you now desire: God sees your value (even if men don’t) and he will give you his best (because you can’t get a good man on your own, with your slutty past) – no matter how long it takes. Well, it will always take long enough for the gal to be old enough that the man who will have her is at the end of his life – so probably he doesn’t care so much about the slutty past. He’s not marrying for sex, and if she is starting menopause, may be marrying only for the companionship. That probably IS God’s best for her. Because he is certainly not the kind of husband a healthy, chaste, spiritually-minded young woman could have, and build a solid family with.

    That is, I think Ms. Griffith is correct about getting God’s best – for her. I just think she doesn’t really understand what that means.

    And – buried somewhere in this story is the truth we all face – God’s forgiveness does not mean no punishment. There are consequences to behavior, and Ms. Griffith is living proof of that truth.

    Addendum: Ms. Griffith’s husband, Bill Susewind is a Senior Vice President at Beach Municipal Federal Credit Union in Virginia Beach, VA. He can be found as (2 pages) Bill Susewind or William Susewind on Linkedin. He can also be found as an officer or a participant in a number of sports fishing organizations operating out of that area. He graduated high school in Virgina Beach and graduated from Virginia Tech. I believe that Pat Robertson’s organization, for whom Ms. Griffith works, is based in Virginia Beach. Which means that Ms. Griffith and her current husband have been in the same neighborhood for quite a long while. Which raises the question of why God did not consider Mr Susewind his best for Ms. Griffith until just now – when he could have “given” Mr. Susewind to Ms. Griffith long ago, since they live basically in the same neighborhood.

  103. emery says:

    “First, it’s entirely possible for people to train and order their passions through virtue. Using the analogy for men, while our passions will always be attracted to women with certain body shapes, ways of walking, etc., it’s possible, through virtue, to value virtues in women such that, when it comes to who we are attracted to, the fact of a woman being virtuous plays a bigger role than body shape, etc. likewise for women, it’s possible through virtue to train oneself to be attracted to men with virtue; so without further information, it’s entirely possible that she really is attracted to humble men, just as it really is possible for men to be attracted to modest women.”

    No. You cannot create attraction where none exists no matter how many mental gymnastics you perform. A person can value things but “to value” is not “to be attracted to”, attraction cannot be negotiated. The phenomenon which shows the separation between the two, for women, is aptly named Alpha fucks/Beta Bucks. A woman isn’t attracted to the beta she had to settle for but values his money vs. her self-perceived ability to keep living a cosmopolitan lifestyle. To say that attraction is trained is to subscribe to blank slate absurdism and is a quick buy-in into transgenderism/open borders/fat acceptance.

    “Second (and this goes for thedeti and anyone else who also makes this argument) the “what would a never married 50 year old know about marriage” is an ad hominem which shouldn’t hold much water with anyone. Some of the most beautiful reflections on marriage have come from those who were not married (such as St. Paul). If you disagree with what she’s saying (i disagree with her on a number of points) then disagree on the merits of the ideas, not the fact that she’s unmarried.”

    No. The onus is on her to prove that she’s worth listening to in any way, shape or form. No one deserves your time and reflection just because they manage to blather on about something. Even worse, Wendy is the anti example who gives us more reason not to listen to her than most. Paul performed miracles through God and the Holy Spirit washed over those who listened to his words, plenty enough reason to listen to the guy. Wendy is a barren old hag who chose fornication and money over being a wife. Worse than that she has a biased incentive to paint her life and motivations in the rosiest manner possible because her entire livelihood is based around selling books about her life and advice that stems from it.

  104. thedeti says:

    When women use the word “attract” and its various forms, they mean “things I like that draw that man to me at the moment”. This is accurate since the word “attract” translates literally from Latin, “pull toward” or “drawn to”. So that could be anything from looks to money to status to confidence to the way his forehead meets his hairline to his hands to his penis. It could mean anything from “I want to have sex with him” to “I think he’s a nice man who is a nice companion/beta bux.”

    When men use the word “attract” and its various forms, they mean one, and only one, thing: She is sexually attractive. She has traits that arouse him sexually. She is, for lack of a better term, “fuckable” to him.

    That’s the confusion we always run into. Women will say lots and lots of men are “attractive”. And to women, “attractive” means whatever they decide it means at that moment, depending on what they’re looking for/wanting/needing right then.

    A corollary to this is the kinds of men women have sex with, and why. This is also why the average guy “gets lucky” sometimes . Women have sex for all kinds of reasons under the sun. Many times, they enjoy the sex. They want to have sex, especially with a man who’s “attractive” to them at that time. Women very much enjoy sex with attractive men. They will also have sex with nice guy BB types to lock them down for commitment. They will also have sex with all different kinds of men for fun, validation, excitement, drama, to make a boyfriend jealous, or just plain horniness. And the guy is there, he looks OK, he fits her threshold looks requirements, he’s nice enough, and his game was more or less on point.

  105. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    emery: You cannot create attraction where none exists no matter how many mental gymnastics you perform.

    I’m not sure that’s true. I’ve met women who didn’t think were attractive. Then, sometimes, as I got to know them better, I became sexually attracted to them.

    I’ve also read of studies which show that, as men and women spend time together, they’ll become sexually attracted. They weren’t at first, but attraction grew over time. It has to do with evolutionary biology and bonding. Apparently, we’ve evolved to become attracted to members of the opposite sex that we spend time with. Not always. But time can create sexual attraction.

    This explains many office romances. And why it’s not a good idea for women to spend much time with men who are not their husbands or family members.

  106. thedeti says:

    RPL:

    It’s much easier for men to get sexually attracted to women they weren’t attracted to before; than it is for women to get sexually attracted to men they weren’t attracted to before.

  107. BillyS says:

    RPL,

    Bad stuff happening just proves we live in an evil world. It doesn’t prove God doesn’t want God for those who follow Him. Too many OT and NT Scriptures clearly note God’s principals of blessing.

    The problem is that what Wendy and those like here build is not based on any Scriptures, but her own inflated view of self.

    This is what brings me into confrontation with both those who love Scriptural prosperity and those who hate it. I take what is written, in its overall context.

    I have asked God many times why He couldn’t have given me just one single “good thing” wife as is written. (“He who finds a wife finds a good thing.”) He will never tell me in this life and it doesn’t really matter. I am where I am, as painful as it is. But I refuse to start maligning Him because of it. Idiots like Wendy don’t negate core principles.

    [Jhn 10:10 NKJV] 10 “The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have [it] more abundantly.

  108. jsolbakken says:

    ” If you love your neighbor, and love your enemies, you will naturally desire their salvation. ”
    Sure, of course, any and all real Christians who love God will desire that everyone everywhere be saved and have eternal life. God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
    But what makes anyone think that means everyone is actually saved? Anyone who openly and clearly denies Christ is reasonably supposed to not be saved, at least not yet. As for those outside of our purview in the space-time continuum, they are God’s problem, not ours. God will have mercy on whom He will have mercy, and He will have compassion on whom He will have compassion.

  109. BillyS says:

    I can find some woman nice to be around, but the thought of sex with them repels me when it rises up.

    Virtuousness is definitely a good value, but it is an outward covering that layers over everything. A very attractive woman who is nasty loses what her looks provide by her attitude. A really fat woman can’t generate sexual attraction by being nice. I might enjoy talking with her, but marrying her won’t be happening for me due to some very strong underlying drives.

    I am overweight, so I will never attract what I am attracted to, but I doubt I would want someone I was attracted to even if I were to get into really good shape (which is somewhat possible, though difficult), because the thought of them being very loose and foolish sexually in the past is a complete buzzkill.

  110. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: In other news, women still can’t grasp cause and effect.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/biological-man-who-beat-women-in-cycling-complains-about-toxic-masculinity/

    This weekend, a biological male who identifies as a transgender woman and who won a global cycling championship last year complained about how “toxic masculinity” makes women feel uncomfortable. Some feminists found this remarkably ironic.

    “Toxic masculinity includes not being able to recognize when women are deeply uncomfortable with your behavior or presence,” Rachel McKinnon, an assistant professor of philosophy at the College of Charleston in South Carolina, tweeted. McKinnon became infamous for winning the gold medal in the women’s 35-54 age group in the 2018 Masters Track Cycling World Championships.

    I find it hilarious that feminists “found this remarkably ironic”, since it was feminists (i.e., women) who made this possible by deciding against all evidence that there are no inherent differences between men and women, and that men and women are therefore interchangeable.

  111. c matt says:

    At age 54, God finally found a man who didn’t deserve a better woman than Wendy.

    Ouch!! That’s gonna leave a mark.

  112. c matt says:

    I grew up and matured into manhood believing in the fairy tail about the “one”

    I saw through the BS at 15, but then, I did like math. I may have even mocked a female friend with the numbers (literally, one in a couple billion level).

  113. Anon says:

    thedeti,

    Christian men love the chivalrous feminist message because most all of them see themselves as literally the knight in shining armor, riding in on a trusty white steed, with jousting bar in hand, ready to save the day. They really do see themselves this way. They really do believe that the young women they attend church with want this from them, and that portraying this makes them sexually attractive.

    Yep. Not only are these cartoonish cuckservatives preposterously ignorant about how female attraction works, but these cuckservatives don’t even want to take personal risk, and use the government to propagate their leftism.

    i) All the brutal CS and DV laws are cuckservative creations, and have obviously just increased single motherhood, divorce, etc.
    ii) Within 30 days of 9/11/01, I noticed that cuckservative notions of how we would stop future attacks no longer seemed tied to terrorism, and instead has a ‘whiteknighting’ flavor to them. The cuckservatives believed that if they ‘liberate’ women from Islam, Islamic women would be grateful. Nothing could have been further from the truth, which is no surprise to anyone who is not a blue-pilled uber-cuck.

    Note that on the previous thread, the Il Deploro cuckservative thought he was the first person to think of the innovative idea for punishing men exclusively for out-of-wedlock births (and divorced mothers). Typical cuckservative cowardice and pig-headedness.

  114. Anon says:

    This weekend, a biological male who identifies as a transgender woman and who won a global cycling championship last year

    This is awesome. The whole premise of female sports is absurd outside of sports where the primary appeal is aesthetic.

    Cuckservatives actually think that whiteknighting for XX women by condemning XY transgenders will win them the womens’ vote. Nothing could be further from the truth.

  115. Anon says:

    Wendy made millions of dollars selling this to women and churchian cucks and it paid in spades.

    Yep. Ann Coulter is exactly the same thing. She is not really a far-right Republican in real life (nothing about her life choices matches up with the conservative ethos), but knows how to sell to that audience. There is nothing wrong with bilking cuckservative men out of money this way, since it would simply go to the next woman or the next or the next.

  116. Pingback: Attraction and Virtue – The Wake

  117. Anon,

    Note that on the previous thread, the Il Deploro cuckservative thought he was the first person to think of the innovative idea for punishing men exclusively for out-of-wedlock births (and divorced mothers). Typical cuckservative cowardice and pig-headedness.

    Let’s stop polluting Dalrock’s comment sections with your sodomizing of strawmen. I think the easiest way to do that is to simply state what I would do if I were given Emergency Powers to Make All Things Right ™:

    1. I’d abolish the child support system and no fault divorce.
    2. I’d replace child support with very specific programs to ensure bastards get access to government cheese, surplus clothes, etc. Essentials to keep our less fortunate citizens alive and ok, not to enrich mommy.
    3. I’d felonize adultery as a sex offense with a mandatory minimum of 5-10 years in prison if the cheating spouse had more than 1 partner.
    4. I would replace all family law courts with civil arbitration that would enforce a mandatory contract structure specifying which terms the spouses agreed to in advance. This would allow things like Catholics explicitly using canon law, not secular law and letting Evangelicals use whatever covenant marriage contract they want.
    5. Any woman who has more than two children out of wedlock will have her bastards placed up for adoption at her expense and will be considered a sex criminal if she has anymore unplanned pregnancies absent marriage or a signed rape complaint.
    6. Any man who fathers more than 3 bastards by 2 or more women would be given a choice between chemical castration and serving a mandatory term of 25 years in prison.
    7. I would make all married families have standing as legal units with the husband serving as the legal authority over the family including clear authority to inflict limited corporal punishment to keep the peace.

    As I said, I’m not a libertarian. I’m also a “crazy right winger” to most cucks.

  118. WRT #5 and #6 the only legal mitigation would be an agreement to get married and stay married for at least 5 years. During that time, the sentence would be suspended.

  119. Red Pill Lit says:

    Even money says she divorces him within 2 years.
    Because he will betray her.Though not by cheating or any other banal reason.
    No, his betrayal, his real sin, will be not being the kind of man promised to her by God.

    In seeking to be the climax of her story, he finds himself to be a sub-plot.

  120. jsolbakken says:

    “Ann Coulter is exactly the same thing. She is not really a far-right Republican in real life (nothing about her life choices matches up with the conservative ethos), but knows how to sell to that audience. There is nothing wrong with bilking cuckservative men out of money this way,”

    Or, maybe Ann Coulter is a sincere alt-right Nationalist who happens to have never married. She has been pretty consistent over the last several decades. I think what you see is what you get. Read her books, listen to her speeches, watch her tv appearances, that’s what she’s selling. If you don’t like it, you are free to lump it.

  121. Anon says:

    I think what you see is what you get.

    Ann Coulter :
    i) Never married, no children.
    ii) New York City lawyer chick who would never consider not living in Manhattan.
    iii) Has dated numerous non-white men, and still is.

    Sidebar :
    a) Nationalism is a left-wing ideology, on account of its left-wing economic views.
    b) Nationalism is another wing of feminism, since it defaults into extreme woman-worship given the slightest chance. Any race/ethno-centric ideology always gets obsessed with production of babies, and thus always becomes a woman-worshipping cult.

  122. a) Nationalism is a left-wing ideology, on account of its left-wing economic views.

    The Founding Fathers and Henry Clay were one big cabal of Communism…

  123. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Any race/ethno-centric ideology always gets obsessed with production of babies, and thus always becomes a woman-worshipping cult.

    Ultra-Orthodox Jews are obsessed with large families (8 children is the norm, though some couples have more), yet their lifestyle isn’t exactly feminist.

  124. jsolbakken says:

    So, it’s not really about Ann Coulter, it’s about thinking that Nationalism is inherently left wing.
    Nationalism transcends other ideological considerations. Neo-Nationalism is all about rejecting the Globalism of the misnomered “United Nations,” and the IMF, World Bank, BIS, etc. One reason for the misunderstanding could be the antagonism between the Libertine wing of Libertarianism and Neo-Nationalism. The Libertines believe in Free Trade and Open Borders and the Sexual Revolution and they believe the same as the Left Wingers about Nature, that it is oppressive and stifles human freedom and autonomy and must be smashed and annihilated. I’m a Nationalist because I believe Nature cannot be defeated in any case and making peace with it instead of rebelling against it is a better more healthy and more enjoyable policy.
    I used to be a Libertarian but I was never a Libertine and now I’m a Nationalist because I think it’s more humane and consistent with human nature. Of course, I want a Nation with a Constitution that limits the power of its government. I don’t want a straight up democracy with mob rule by demagogues who manipulate the ignorant imbeciles.

  125. jsolbakken says:

    “The Founding Fathers and Henry Clay were one big cabal of Communism…”
    OK, Henry Clay we have to concede the point.

  126. Anon says:

    Look, Ann Coulter is obviously a center/moderate NYC lawyer/spinster who knows how to act like a conservative for the sole purpose of bilking cuckservative/nationalist men out of money and increasing her fame. ‘Nationalism’ is something she only arrived at around 2014.

    She has dated many, many non-white men.

  127. jsolbakken says:

    “‘Nationalism’ is something she only arrived at around 2014. ”
    Or, she was like me and was always a Nationalist but didn’t yet realize it was the most important issue until around that time. It was only in 2014 that I started ingesting Spetsnaz videos, which really changed my mentality.
    She’s a political commentator, so it’s fair to judge her on the content of her commentary. I don’t like her personal life style either, but that’s not what she’s paid for. If you disagree with a particular point she has made, and have a coherent intelligent argument against it, I’d love to hear it, I’m sure she’s been wrong about something at some point. Personally I think she’s too soft against immigration.

  128. vandicus says:

    There are broadly two forms of nationalism, often confused. There is the nationalism which originated in the French Revolution, which is largely about Romantic views and mythmaking. It forges smaller groups into a larger group. It frequently is a tool of manipulation. This is not inherently a good or bad thing, it does after all end longstanding conflicts, but its almost always messy, and can certainly be employed by the unscrupulous. The Europeans are trying to pull this off by inventing a European man(much as the Frenchman was invented from Gauls, Latins, Germans, etc.) through the EU.

    Depending on the myth chosen this can create instead of eliminate internal conflicts. The Jews of Germany were German nationalists(their service to Germany during WWI is sometimes noted) and the Jews of France French nationalists. Hitler obviously created a nationalism which was hostile to the Jews and the denizens of various countries which he conquered(like Poland). In theory he could’ve created a nationalism aimed at uniting German and Slavic peoples instead.

    Then there is the nationalism which is opposed to globalism, related to the concept of Westphalian sovereignty. That is, nations are groups of people with their own interests and diplomatic representation. Kind of a well, duh, sort of thing, but this is coming from an era where countries weren’t really countries so much as series of vassals and titles.

    So in summary there is nationalism as a means of creating a new national identity to forge disparate groups into one, and nationalism in the sense of viewing a country as a mutual interest group rather than subjects(this is essentially what the Founding Fathers argue), where the purpose of the state is to serve the interests of the people.

  129. vandicus says:

    It’s worth noting the American Left frequently attempts to use the Romantic form of nationalism to encourage separatist sentiments within the United States.

  130. info says:

    @vandicus
    Rampant Virtue signalling is also a sign of perdition. The pharisees were the epitome of virtue signallers who are very like the people you described.

    Its as much as sign of damnation as the apparent opposite.

  131. Jesus Rodriguez de la Torre says:

    When Miriam objected to Moses second marriage to a black woman, God turned her white as snow with leprosy from head to toe and demanded she repent of her racism. There’s only one book entirely devoted to marriage in the Bible: Song of Solomon. Early on in the courtship she points out that others mock her for being black, and God fully approves that interracial marriage also.
    To criticize Ann Coulter for living in Manhattan and remaining singleand suggesting the possibility she is on a life long campaign of hypocrisy is acceptable; even though not a shred of evidence exists, it is a logical idea. To fret about the skin color of those she has dated is sinful. The Bible is extremely clear regarding race. Canaanites (who were not black) were under a separate category. Regarding all others, so long as they put away their other Gods completely, no problem.
    God has firmly put His stamp of approval on inter racial marriage and I can cite more passages from both testaments if you wish. Dalrock gives clear evidence of being serious about the Bible. Anon gives no evidence of even being anonymous. As a biracial Christian, Anon can kiss my grits.

  132. Most of the race-mixing pushed on us by society is not about authentic Christian unity or any secular counterpart. It is mainly about destroying the white race. That’s why you see black men and white women and people tend to shriek “racism! Power disparity!” when it’s a hot black woman and a white guy. The idea of a beautiful black woman and a handsome white man being together can turn an “anti-racist” into David Duke in seconds.

  133. see black men and white women

    ** pushed in all of the media and usually fawningly approved by All Good People.

  134. Anon says:

    She’s a political commentator, so it’s fair to judge her on the content of her commentary.

    Captain Capitalism and others in the Androsphere have pointed out the ‘thot’ phenomenon, where if a somewhat attractive woman (for her age) says the most minimal words associated with whatever the cuckservative/trashionalist liked, they can barely contain their glee and desire to give her fame and money.

    The women are not traditional/Christian/Nationalist in their own lives. Their enterprise is just formalized beta-bux harvesting.

  135. Novaseeker says:

    Isnt this all unregenerate chatter? Why do we care about this?

  136. Spike says:

    Il Deplorevolissimo says:
    June 3, 2019 at 6:12 pm

    To your list, add:
    MANDATORY Paternity DNA testing for all newborns while still in hospital.
    In an age where women’s sexuality is NOT regulated,it is only fair that the Father KNOWS that the child is his. He will be paying for the child and so has every right to know.

    I have found this to be a great ‘fitness test” for women. If you ever mention to women that it should be a legal requirement that the child be DNA tested, furore ensues. I frequently allow that furore to occur, after which I say, “You all failed the shit test. If you didn’t have guilty consciences, you could easily say, ‘Test away. I’ve got nothing to hide….”

  137. feeriker says:

    [Christian men] would also hate the book you propose as much as Christian women would.

    All the more reason to publish it, even if only as a limited edition eBook, just to make the churchian cucks scream in self-righteous agony.

    Now we just need a book suggesting that marriage at age 70 decreases divorce and thus is a positive for Christian families!

    I have no doubt whatsoever that somebody out there in bizarro clown world is about to publish exactly such nonsense (and NOT The Onion or The Babylon Bee either).

  138. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lost Patrol
    Off Topic, glass ceiling report. The woman running the Air Force determines it’s best for the service to protect another woman that fabricated her SpecOps flight time.

    Eh, didn’t Heather Wilson resign as head of the Air Force to go be president of some college?
    If so…could there be a connection between the events?

  139. Anonymous Reader says:

    I D to Anon
    Let’s stop polluting Dalrock’s comment sections with your sodomizing of strawmen. I think the easiest way to do that is to simply state what I would do if I were given Emergency Powers to Make All Things Right ™:

    Live action role playing should be limited to appropriate venues.

  140. feeriker says:

    On topic:

    Lori Alexander weighs in on “Wendy the Prize:”

    https://thetransformedwife.com/are-you-a-prize-to-be-won/

  141. Anon says:

    Spike,

    I have found this to be a great ‘fitness test” for women. If you ever mention to women that it should be a legal requirement that the child be DNA tested, furore ensues. I frequently allow that furore to occur, after which I say, “You all failed the shit test. If you didn’t have guilty consciences, you could easily say, ‘Test away. I’ve got nothing to hide….”

    Due to revelations like this, female suffrage is just an unmitigated failure.

    Of course, the way to not have it in the first place is to never decouple voting rights from income tax (or, as it was in the US before 1920, land ownership).

  142. BillyS says:

    Perhaps Wendy has as much value as the prizes in the carnivals that roam throughout the US in the summer. The ones you have almost no chance of winning (rigged games) and that end up costing many times their purchase price if you do somehow manage to play long enough to win them? Or maybe the cheap ones you get for picking a duck in the floating pond?

  143. Emperor Constantine says:

    @feeriker: Was just about to post Lori Alexander’s rebuttal to Wendy G. and you beat me to it 🙂

    An excerpt:

    “But, young women, there are no perfect men just as you aren’t perfect. Thinking of yourself as a “prize to be won” may cause you to be full of pride and married a lot later than you would like to be.

    We are no “prize.” We are human beings with weaknesses and struggles. Some of us have deeper sin issues and scars than others, but we are all far from perfect and expecting to be “won” since we’re a prize is bad thinking. Instead of thinking this way, think about ways to become more like Christ. Learn to be content, joyful, hard working, kind, loving, a servant, and forgive quickly. Practice not getting offended easily, not having your feelings hurt, never being manipulative or controlling, accepting others as they are, and being light in this world.”

    Amen Sister.

  144. BillyS says:

    Notice here instruction to women to seek to build up their marriage and husband. That is rare today. Most expect the husband to do it all to make her happy.

    That is why I believe God keeps telling me to not bother reaching out to my exwife, even though that is my inner drive. (I generally seek reconciliation with others far too aggressively.)

    She never sought the best for “us” but only expected me to do all to make her happy. That is why she felt abused and controlled by anything she did for me. It felt compelled to her because it was. She didn’t want to do anything and too many forces, including Christians and Christian Leaders reinforce that message.

    Men are slaves to their wives in the minds of too many. A lousy situation.

  145. Emperor Constantine says:

    @BillyS:

    Sorry for your pain. It takes time. I have to tell you that finding a decent gal after I took the Red Pill helped accelerate the process of forgetting my ex. My standards for my current girl’s behavior are very high. She’s not a unicorn but she is definitely an outlier, while still confirming AWALT.

  146. Hmm says:

    Something struck me this morning. By her own testimony, God has planned Ms. Griffith’s life so as to remove her entirely from the gene pool (assuming her exploits in her 20’s didn’t bear fruit). Biblically, this is what God does to idolatrous nations (Canaanites, Perizzites, Hittites, Jebusites, etc.) and people (Jeroboam and his sons). Could the idea “you are a prize to be won” be considered by God a form of self-idolatry?

  147. vandicus says:

    It is a form of self-worship. Idolatry as term tends to be overused. It is like viewing all sins as variants of theft, which you can do, but isn’t really the correct mindset. We’re sufficiently distant from the Greek pagan days that its forgotten that idol worship involves thinking that the idol is in some way a god.

    Having no other gods and not worshiping idols are two different commandments because they are not interchangeable(except when the use of the word idolatry is metaphorical, like killing is stealing another’s life metaphorically).

  148. Scott says:

    Vindicus-

    It seems to me that most people use the term idolatry as place holder or nick name if you will for “Have no other gods before me.”

    Its just shorter and easier to say.

    If you seek after it, desire to spend time with it, use your resources to obtain it, think about it throughout the day, place your trust in it, anticipate being with it, etc…

    at the expense of God Himself, it may be an idol to you.

    A great many things can get in the way of worshipping God that way.

    I kind of get the feeling thats all most people mean by it.

  149. vandicus says:

    As long as its metaphorical its all good. God used metaphors too. Always the possibility of a person misunderstanding though. Just recently I heard some people come to the conclusion that all sins are variations on theft.

  150. vandicus says:

    The all sins=theft framework causes problems because certain sins, like fornication with a fiance, don’t appear to meet that theft criteria. How can you steal from yourself after all? I imagine thinking of sins broadly as idolatry would have similar issues though I’ve not thought about it extensively.

  151. vandicus says:

    Come to think of it I think we’ve seen “Don’t make an idol of your marriage” from rebellious women on this blog(as a topic) before.

  152. Scott says:

    The “everything can be an idol” thing is a tough one, really.

    There are things we are obligated to do because of responsibilities in our lives that take an enormous amount of energy, time and resources. As a father, I spend most of my energy doing things that are ultimately for my family. At the same time, I enjoy doing some of them.

    The extreme version of “not letting things become idols” seems like monasticsm, in which case nothing gets done at all except your own contemplation of the Creator.

  153. Emperor Constantine says:

    @Scott:

    That’s what the top angels do: contemplate God’s goodness. They then pass that knowledge down to lower ranks of angels. So pretty monk-like.

    That’s quite a long way from considering yourself a prize to be won.

    From Dr. Taylor Marshall’s short tract on Thomas Aquinas (“Thomas Aquinas in 50 Pages”):

    WHAT EACH RANK OF ANGEL DOES
    1. The greatest angels are the Seraphim since they consider God’s goodness as the goal of all creatures. For this reason they are called seraphim. Seraph means “burning,” and they are continually burning with the love of God.
    2. Next are the Cherubim who consider God’s goodness as it applies to creation—the providence of God.
    3. Third are the Thrones who contemplate how the goodness of God is reflected in divine judgments.

  154. jsolbakken says:

    I’m not defending Ann Coulter as a person, I’m more interested in knowing if there is anything she has said or written that you want to disagree with.

  155. Opus says:

    So, what it comes down to when you cut out the self-serving rhetoric of the present Mrs Susewind is that God was waiting for a Senior Vice President to offer his hand in marriage. Who knows, perhaps until now she had been hoping for someone even more financially advantageous but settled at Senior Vice President level. Now I don’t object to people (with the exception of Meghan Markle) marrying where financial considerations are important but quite why she should be entitled to anyone with a higher salary than a janitor is not clear. I am sure God has nothing against janitors.

    The word I have on the tip of my tongue is Hypocrite.

  156. Scott says:

    My biggest fear about eternity is that after a billion years of holding hands and singing kumbaya, we still have infinity rounds more to sing.

  157. locustsplease says:

    We can complain about wendy all day. The real problem i see is men dont acutally raise their daughters to b wives. And yeah i know they have no authority with the law. But they can use what they have a few years ago i decided i cannot sit by and watch my daughter become a feminist harlot! I just cannot take it.

    I have put together things i saw did wrong and was either taught wrong into a plan to shape her so she has a good chance of getting out of my house and being a faithful happy wife.

    1 show her the missery of the career gal including her mom and why they hate it.
    2 no fraternizing dating anything with opposite sex until your ready to get married.
    3 show her god says NO sex before marriage but after marriage its mandarory enjoy yourself.
    4 show her the horrors of the abortion industry and that these same people want you to b feminist hate men and hate god.
    5 show her that women lead divorce so if she works on self will have great chance of happy marriage. And she will really stand out not many decent wives.
    6 b celibate myself till if i get remairried or stay celibate forever not b a hypocrite!
    7 tell her every girl starts with one guy they think is cute to loose virginity to then half of them become whores when women have all this sex they are nobodys wife.
    8 dont compete with men women suck at things men dont rub it in their face that doesnt make you great it makes men passive. Aka tire changing b good at being a woman men love to do things for women let your husband do that.
    9 feminism is the enemy of god i am trying to lead a godly life. If you side with the enemy of god i cannot help you any further till you change.
    10 live with me ill buy her a vehicle she can work after highschool and spend all that she makes i dont care go to all the church social events until she finds a guy. Dont get any debt learn to b frugal.
    11 last i dont give a shit about what society thinks i never have and i never will if she neess any explinations as to why i believe what i do i will explain in great detail because i have invested a lot into finding the truth.

    People told me to not have sex with their daughters and didnt not have the courage to tell their daughter shes not allowed to date until looking for husband. This is hypocritical they just pass blame when boys hang out with girls sex happens. You dont really think you date someone 3 years with no sex its impossible.

  158. BillyS says:

    Scott,

    My biggest fear about eternity is that after a billion years of holding hands and singing kumbaya, we still have infinity rounds more to sing.

    I believe life is going to be much more fulfilling than that. The Bible does show some future times of worship and singing and that will likely be far more compelling in the literal unmasked presence of the one who deserves it, but I don’t think it will be one long “worship service” (of any form) even though some imply that and seem to be overly looking forward to it.

    I have never been drawn to that. I used to tolerate services better and I have had the rare service really touch my heart, but I can’t think God put this wonderful universe together (and likely more) just for us to stay in a very limited place. That doesn’t fit with the overall flow of the Scriptures at all.

  159. BillyS says:

    Thanks Emp C. One thing that irks me more than anything else is that protestant churches do such a lousy job today building community. I am currently faded from my last church which I went to for 2 years without being able to make any solid connection outside of the church.

    I believe the pastor is a really nice guy inside, but he made promises of the church being a family, yet that does not happen, even when I tried to push in for it in many ways. Church is great if you need another small activity or three most weeks, but it does a lousy job of building a family.

    I am not sure I could really handle it, but I would almost return to my RCC roots or even check out an Orthodox church if they had solutions, but the local RCC of my youth didn’t have that. My grandfather was staunchly RCC and went to the Latin Mass weekly each week, but he got his social needs met with the Lions club and family that I do not really have. (He was likely more of a loner than I realize too, but he had a VERY faithful wife, his second since my dad’s mom died when my dad was young.) (I noticed the Lions club is now coed too, which is ludicrous, but it seems to have been gutted.)

    That makes this enforced season even harder.

    Though I am not God, but I will serve Him no matter what, so I will plow through until the end.

  160. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    BillyS: Perhaps Wendy has as much value as the prizes in the carnivals that roam throughout the US in the summer. The ones you have almost no chance of winning (rigged games) and that end up costing many times their purchase price if you do somehow manage to play long enough to win them? Or maybe the cheap ones you get for picking a duck in the floating pond?

  161. Anon says:

    jsolbakken :

    I’m more interested in knowing if there is anything she has said or written that you want to disagree with.

    Again, you miss the point, and confirm the stereotype.

    Much of what she says is correct. She is one of extremely few women to attack feminism.

    So? If a man said the same things, you would not be interested. You only become excited once an attractive-for-her-age woman says them.

    Effectively, you are looking for rationalizations to worship a woman, simply for saying things that are also said by thousands of men in the field.

    Note that the red pill of gender realism is so jarring and contrary to obsolete human hardwiring that entire ideologies have been created to enable avoidance of these truths in favor of something much easier. Cuckservatism and Race Trashionalism are refuges for men terrified of the red pill who need a safe haven in which to hide. Both of these ideologies are centered around woman-worship.

  162. jsolbakken says:

    “So? If a man said the same things, you would not be interested. You only become excited once an attractive-for-her-age woman says them”

    I concur that this is a common syndrome, but not always in every case. In my case I got very excited, for example, when I found Dalrock a few years back, but I still have no idea what he looks like, much less do I suspect that he is actually an attractive woman.

    I will admit that there are men and boys out there who overreact when a female expresses something besides purple-haired nose-ringed man-hating-lesbian opinions. I just feel a need to point out that I think Ann Coulter seems to have some real substance and has shown serious consistency over the last 20 years she’s been speaking out publically.

    But maybe I’m wrong. Maybe she’s played up the Hot Thot game and I failed to notice it. I’ve mostly only read her books and articles, I don’t actually watch tv very much.

  163. BillyS says:

    Ann Coulter isn’t perfect and thus isn’t acceptable to some here. She is certainly not worthy of worship either, but hating everything is not smart to always say, even if you truly believe that.

    She may be worth challenging on her life choices, but she isn’t the one claiming that waiting for God’s best is the ideal direction for a woman.

  164. Novaseeker says:

    It’s a given that Ann Coulter would have had much less impact and influence in her own circles if she were a 300 pound Andrea Dworkin looking woman. That’s obvious. She was probably the first of the “conservababes”, and is now the oldest – Coulter, Ingraham, Malkin right on down to the newbie youngster ones you can see on YouTube. It’s because getting a speaking platform works better if you’re good looking (same for men, as well, but the impact is obviously even stronger for women). You can’t therefore separate her looks from her influence — one would not have happened without the other.

  165. jsolbakken says:

    God knows I would not be as successful in my tax preparation business if I was not the handsome devil that I am.

  166. purge187 says:

    Even as a far-Right advocate, I never liked Ann. She’s a self-serving bomb thrower out to make money. And I detect some serious sexual repression going on as well.

  167. Ken_Jablonski says:

    Crazy people don’t know they’re crazy. Mememe

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.