She almost had him.

The Blast has a post about a man who is having second thoughts about adopting his soon to be ex wife’s daughter.

He then apparently told his wife that he was afraid to adopt their daughter because 1. he’d have to pay child support, and 2. the ensuing divorce would shatter the family they’re trying to create. When he told her all this, he says she had a panic attack and claims he’s just putting her back in control of her ex-husband.

Even before she showed her hand too soon by filing for divorce, he should have considered the foolishness of what he was planning on doing.  Legally adopting the girl creates a cash incentive for the girl’s mother to eject yet another father from the girl’s life.   Why would a man do such a thing to an innocent child?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Child Support, Denial, Disrespecting Respectability, Fatherhood. Bookmark the permalink.

207 Responses to She almost had him.

  1. wilandmari says:

    Off topic: Apparently nobody wants to watch a movie about middle-aged, unattractive female mobsters. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-kitchen-bombs-furthers-hollywoods-identity-crisis-1230760

  2. Both look like fools. Why would the wife file for divorce before the adoption was complete? Why would a man even consider the adoption after his wife files for divorce?

    My guess: there is more to this story than what he posted on Reddit.

  3. MattyIce says:

    Shocking! No one believed a story about the badass women gangsters of yesteryear?!?! If they didn’t exist how else did Alice Capone, “baby face” Barbara, Bugsy Stephanie, Whitney Bulgar and Washing Machine Kelly all end up in FED court and jail back in the 80’s? The world will never know, I guess.

  4. MattyIce says:

    Sorry, that comment was OT and meant in reply to wilandmari

  5. About wilandmari’s article –

    The most interesting of the August releases, imo, was “Dora and the lost city of gold.” It cost $49 million to make and took in $19 in its first weekend. So it will be profitable, but that’s a weak result for a kids’ film based on a successful TV show.

    Perhaps it will take off next week. Or perhaps the public’s appetite for plucky, brilliant, strong, aggressive, popular young heroines – “practically perfect in every way” – is saturated.

    Perhaps boys are saying “nope” when their parents offer to take them for a dose of feminist indoctrination at the cinema.

  6. Red Pill Christianity says:

    As insane as this is, it is incredible that the Family Courts and in some cases, State Legilsators would make it an even worse deal for a man to marry a single mom or even adopt a child today. You would think they would bend backwards to convince men to wife-up single moms and to adopt their kids (or adopt any child at all), but it is actually quite the opposite. Let no good deed go unpunished, as they say!

    In most US States and all of Canada (that I know of, but I am sure this is also the case in other Western countries, I understand France has some such insane laws as well), when a man marries a woman who has children and the children live with the now-married couple, the man is at risk to pay child support if the couple later divorces. Sperm donors are also being “unmasked” by these willing single moms under the guise of “testing the child for genetic flaws” and the woman then takes the DNA test into court and focuses the sperm donor to pay child support. There are endless news scam created by judicial fiat and not by legislation, as it is the case with almost all Family Law men-traps today.

    This is almost a guarantee if the man imports a foreign spouse children into the USA, since the male spouse will have to do an Affidavit of Support (form I-864) for the foreign spouse and child, even if he does not legally adopts her child(ren). This legally-binding document is required to sponsor any relative into the USA, whether it be a parent, sibling, spouse, adopted child, etc. It helps protect the govt from having aliens be chain-migrated into the United States who become “public charges” (welfare recipients). The aliens often still get welfare anyway later, but it enables the govt to sue to US citizen sponsor for these costs. It also helps the foreign relative to sue the US citizen sponsor for their “financial needs” for at least the next 5 years, sometimes for their lifetime. See why I have not yet imported a woman into the USA?! -_-

    Men have to be particularly careful if he wants to live with his LTR. In many US States, we have a scam called “common law marriage”. That means living together “as a couple” for a certain amount of time, or simply declaring to be “husband and wife” as it is the case in Colorado, constitutes a legally-binding, court enforced marriage. The thing is that in most US States today and Canada, if a man “acts as a father” to the child, even if never adopting the child legally (!!), the man is likely to be forced to pay child support for children who are clearly not legally his. The burden of proof to “act like a father” is extremely low, in some cases a couple pictures of your family vacation to Disney and a signed birthday card to the children can be enough to justify a Court to force the stepdad to pay child support.

    Gentleman, the Courts are a real threat to your financial future, your freedom, and your personal well-being. Be very weary of marrying a single-mom, especially one whose the father of the children is not currently paying child support for his kids. The Courts do not care who pays for a child’s needs/wants, as long as some dumb guy is writing the check, under penalty of prison.

    Never ever adopt a woman’s child, if you choose to marry a woman that has kids form previous marriage(s) or relationships(s). You will only guarantee yourself legal liabilities of all kids, not only child support, but also possible criminal liability if the child commits a crime to civil liability if the child beats some kid at their school to the most obvious danger, child support fo the child from 18 to 26 years.

    Use your brain, gents, and understand the dangers here. They are serious, irrevocable, and consequential.

  7. JRob says:

    “No man should clean up a mess he didn’t make.”

    The primary concept in all this IMO is she truly believes she’s entitled to his resources. Popular fempinion will rush her rescue. How dare he!!

    One need look no further than the pozzed evangelical “church” to see this. The literal interpretation of the book of Ruth and her story has been wrong for millenia, and only a feminist complementarian deconstructionist can hash out the real truth.

    http://www.alliancenet.org/mos/housewife-theologian/understanding-mature-femininity-on-the-connection-between-proverbs-31-ruth#.XVGSY6ZOk0M

    The strong Reformed history of AoCE, and the battles fought by its founders to preserve the belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, means nothing to these skinsuiters.

  8. JRob says:

    And to paraphrase a relevant comment posted on TRM or Alpha Game Plan, I forget which, Women want single motherhood. We should let them have it, good and hard.

  9. locustsplease says:

    A former co worker of mine had it happen to him. He adopted her two kids and she filed for divorce while the kids were in highschool. The boys became active criminals stealing cars high speed chases drugs theft assault. This whole time they dont even live with her and hes stuck paying her CS because they werent legally emancipated. He had two other kids with her. 4 total

    He was so indebted to her he had to have a girlfriend all the time so he had a place to stay. He was sweet talking and making love to obese women as his only way to not b homeless. We all liked him good guy told great jokes never had to pick up the slack for. Didnt complain at work. It was hard to watch.

  10. Warthog says:

    Having read the story, he married an alpha widow, and was going to adopt her kid, but he was so beta she bailed before he could finish the paperwork.

  11. DR Smith says:

    “She almost had him…” Wow, not kidding.
    Thing is, I don’t even understand why this is even a question – I would not use the word “a-Hole’ to describe him for stopping it, rather if he went through with it. Then again, wasn’t it PT Barnum that said “there is a sucker born every minute”…

  12. Warthog says:

    This guy just missed a bullet. In 1934 William Eugene Manson married a single mom and adopted her bastard who took his name to become Charles Manson. They divorced within a year because the mother would disappear for week long drinking binges. No self-inflicted cuckoldry goes unpunished.

  13. Frank K says:

    That this guy somehow thought that he might have some moral obligation to adopt her child is simply stunning. And that she expected him to adopt the girl after filing for divorce is also stunning. One might think that there had to be something else not told in this story, but given that we now live in Clown World, where up is down and left is right it could very well be that there was nothing else to it: due to his conditioning he not only married a single mother and was no doubt already shelling out cash for her daughter as if she was his own, then it isn’t much of a leap for him to question whether he was in the right in backing out of the adoption.

    In her case, she jumped the gun. Possibly because she already had the next guy lined up and was getting impatient to complete the switch. She probably thought that once the adoption process had begun that it was slam dunk, and that he wouldn’t able to back out. Like I said, we live in Clown World.

  14. white says:

    So for some reason even with adblock on I am seeing an ad here from “fatherhood.gov”, asking me to to be a dad. Not surprisingly it turned out to be an american government funded thing.

    Gooogled a bit and found it’s website… absolutely embarassing. I couldn’t make it past the home page:

    https://www.fatherhood.gov/home

  15. Frank K says:

    I wonder what kind of budget “fatherhood.gov” has? I’ll bet there are plenty of well paid .gov employees and contractors working there.

    Now imagine just how many other useless groups there are like this, burning money the governent doesn’t even have.

    And why would .gov want us to be “dads”. We all know that dads are useless and irrelevant, we’re told that on a daily basis. Or is it because they want us to pay to raise other men’s kids, so .gov doesn’t have to fork out the cash?

  16. locustsplease says:

    @white. Important topics for dads
    1 child support.
    At least they are telling the truth dont b a dead beat obey all women! Then die

  17. Frank,

    “but given that we now live in Clown World …”

    That’s the key insight that illuminates these stories!

  18. White,

    Re: website of the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse.
    https://www.fatherhood.gov/home

    Thank you for posting about that. Our tax dollars at work!

  19. Mendelson says:

    From the “fatherhood.gov” page:
    “Important Topics…
    For Dads
    Child Support”

    I’m sure that it’s purely a coincidence that this is the only “.gov” web page where every adult is a white male.

  20. thedeti says:

    @Dalrock:

    Legally adopting the girl creates a cash incentive for the girl’s mother to eject yet another father from the girl’s life. Why would a man do such a thing to an innocent child?

    I really don’t think men look at it this way. The men who adopt a single mom’s kids do it because (1) the woman wants them to do it. The implicit statement and representation she makes to him is, “I need you to adopt my kids. If you don’t, I will break up with you, I’ll find someone else to do it. I will stop having sex with you, and it will be months or years before you get sex again, and we both know it.” and (2) he really believes her when she tells him her baby daddy is abusive, so he thinks he’s really stepping up and being the “real man” in the situation. Because he believes the current zeitgeist stating that a “real man” takes care of kids – even kids that aren’t his.

  21. Adam says:

    I don’t know about anyone else but I am having quite some trouble understanding this story. Man is adopting daughter before wife divorces him? Wait, what? None of this makes sense. [pass me another drink.]

  22. Son of Leod says:

    Dalrock,
    This is not pertaining to this post. I need help finding one of your articles as my search has come up empty. Back in May, I read your post warning about the message to singles that eunuchs receive a better blessings than a sons or daughters by John Piper https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/single-in-christ
    I read the article in question two days before the message was preached at my church singles group by a female leader who was promoted by one of the Associate Pastors. The female leaders theme of her message was out time of singleness is the same as being a eunuch and we will be blessed in you time of singleness. After the message I talked to a few of the male singles in my group and they liked having an excuse for why they where single instead of excepting that they might be doing something wrong. I am single. Since then I have become very critical to my church. I am not going to run away or leave my church until I have a conversation with this associate pastor and if needed the head pastor. I have not had the needed conversation because i want to be able to have the conversation with him without anger. It is now three months later and yesterday, I was asked by the same associate pastor to lead a small group this coming semester. I know have to have this conversation with him and soon.

    Thank you for your time and help

  23. thedeti says:

    From the Reddit post on which the Blast story was based:

    So as the title suggests, I’m currently in the process of adopting my stepdaughter.

    Me and her mom have been married a year and the daughter was the product of a horribly abusive ex-husband. This abuser was still in their lives when we were dating and I used lawyers and the courts to slowly push him out where he has no control over their lives and he is starting to give up fighting the adoption because I’m set to win in a few months.

    Now because of personal issues of our own, my wife has just told me that she wants to file for divorce, but that she wants to wait until after I adopt our kid.

    When I told her that I was afraid of adopting our daughter because of the child support I’ll have to pay and not being a family anymore (which is why I wanted to in the first place) she had a full panic attack and accused me of leaving her in her abuser’s control.

    Notice the tactic women use here: (1) appeal to the man’s protection instinct by claiming the ex husband is “horribly abusive”. Then, when he balks, (2) shame him mercilessly. She does both of these things through telling him her husband is abusive, and that he must protect the child. He must protect the child even though she wants to divorce him. She then has a “panic attack” (triggering protection) and accuses him of “leaving her in her abuser’s control” (shaming). The implicit threat she makes is

    “either do what I want, or I will tell everyone how you are abusing me and how you are not a real man. Because a “real man” will man up and step up and take care of kids, even in the face of our problems, even when the kids aren’t theirs, and even when I leave you. And if you won’t go through with this, then you’re an abuser, you’re not protecting me or the kid, and you’re a big pussy. You’re not a real man.

    Both are extremely effective. And men fall for this all the time. Men have to fight the instinct to stay and protect, and to avoid being shamed. And women do this to men all the time – even men they aren’t related to. Women deem themselves entitled to protection and provisioning from any and all men in their vicinity, and if you won’t provide it, they will try to subject you to merciless public shaming. And you have to resist it hard.

  24. Pingback: She almost had him. | Reaction Times

  25. Adam says:

    Okay, thanks to Deti I now understand and I wish that I had remained in blissful ignorance.

    (I’m laying 5/1 that he adopts the kid.)

  26. thedeti says:

    That this guy somehow thought that he might have some moral obligation to adopt her child is simply stunning. And that she expected him to adopt the girl after filing for divorce is also stunning.

    It’s stunning to you and me, Frank. It’s not stunning to women. Women have become so entitled, and so accustomed to having men, all men, from the most to the least powerful, simply doing their bidding and giving them what they want all the time, that it just simply isn’t registering with women that a man could possibly tell her “no”, even when she is threatening to leave him. In her mind, why, he simply HAS to do this for her. He MUST protect that child, even when the child’s mother is brutalizing and terrorizing him verbally, mentally, and emotionally. He has no right to deny her. And if he does, then he’s not a real man. He’s worse than an abuser – he’s a bitch. He’s a pussy. This is the worst thing a woman can call a man, because she’s essentially calling him a coward, a knave, and… a woman.

  27. Lurker says:

    MattyIce,

    Actually, female crime bosses have been a thing for decades. There are some murderous grannies in Sicily. Crazy, I know. It’s almost as if women are human beings with the full range of impulses, drives, capability, potential for good, and potential for evil. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/godfathers-to-godmothers-female-bosses-italian-mafia/article32556889/

  28. Caligula says:

    Truly, Mr Chump, she’s not your daughter. Regardless of your legal status, she will never be your daughter. Not even in the social-role-of-father sense, post-divorce.

    Someone really should tell him that the only right he’ll have regarding this stepdaughter will be the right to pay. And even the assumption that your money may somehow help her is false, as there’s no legal requirement that a custodial parent actually spent “child support” on the child.

  29. Frank K says:

    It does go to show the slippery slope. Once upon a time, marrying a divorced woman was a non starter. Then, that was normalized. Then marrying a divorced women with children became normalized. Then marrying a never married woman with children became normalized. Somewhere along the way officially adopting her bastard children become normalized (I sadly know of two young men making this mistake). I suppose that the next stop down the old slip and slide will be tolerating your wife’s infidelity and cucking you as normal and the price to pay for getting laid once in a while. And if you push back then you get called all those names deti enumerated in his article.

    And I agree that a lot of thirsty beta guys put up with this nonsense in the vain hope that they will still get some sex, at least once in a while.

  30. Dylan Sexton says:

    Lurker says:
    August 12, 2019 at 2:31 pm
    “Actually, female crime bosses have been a thing for decades. There are some murderous grannies in Sicily. Crazy, I know. It’s almost as if women are human beings with the full range of impulses, drives, capability, potential for good, and potential for evil. ”

    you realize that pointing to exceptions means you concede in the general, yes? crime bosses are men, nearly without exception.

  31. Anon says:

    I wonder what kind of budget “fatherhood.gov” has? I’ll bet there are plenty of well paid .gov employees and contractors working there.

    Obviously. Note that Brad Wilcucks has a cushy sinecure at a university, even though all he does is write one article per year (often a very similar article as a prior year).

    This industry is lucrative. They profit from evil.

  32. Lurker says:

    Dylan,

    The implication of MattyIce’s comment is that THEY DON’T EXIST. But female mafiosi do exist and, in fact, there are quite a few of them. They are certainly in the minority by a large margin but that is not the question. I would, however, point out that given the very different situations, both biological and cultural, in which men and women find themselves, the number of female mafiosi is extraordinary and supports my point that the sexes are, in fact, more similar than different, even if differently situated. I would certainly enjoy seeing a movie about such characters.

  33. thedeti says:

    And I just realized the Clown World we live in.

    Men are expected to “take care of” (read: pay for) kids, even kids that aren’t theirs.

    But everyone freaks the hell out when a man actually takes care of kids (watches them, they live with him, they’re in his physical custody and charge). No, no, we cannot have that. A man cannot be around kids unless he’s under the watchful eye of a “responsible woman”. A man can’t be a Cub Scout leader (that’s for the young boys (and now girls, unfortunately) under age 11, unless a woman is around to make sure he’s not abusing or molesting the children.

    A man who wants to be an elementary school teacher in the low grades? Why, he’s probably a pedophile. A man taking his very young daughter into a public men’s room so she can use the bathroom is obviously a pervert and a child abuser. (What’s he supposed to do? His 3 year old daughter needs to use the bathroom. He cannot go into a women’s room. He can’t send a 3 year old into a women’s room by herself.) A father who takes his kids to a playground and hangs around watching them play with other kids? Why, that father is obviously a sick perverted weirdo pedophile!

    In our child support family model, men being expected to “take care of” children means “men are expected to pay for everything, but get none of the benefits of actual fatherhood or relationship with their children. A father’s only role is that of a bank account/money source.”

  34. American says:

    Even though many of you already have been subjugated by placing yourself under the present radical feminist body of familial law, I have not and continue to never place myself under such a travesty. No marriage, no cohabitation, no progeny, no lawyers, no courtrooms, no judgements, no police, no jail, no hostile ex(s), no social media rants from crazy psychos attempting to destroy my reputation, no nothing. You can keep the madness, the insanity. I have a better things to do.

  35. Men should never take responsibility on a woman’s previous life, including adoption, bills, loans, utilities, phone plans.
    As LOM says “Give Them Nothing!”

  36. Minesweeper says:

    She sounds like your standard BPD nutcase, she would have come onto him to rescue her and her child from the “bad” man, and he would have got a kick out of it.

    Now in sight she will get what she wants, a new dad+3 sources of income (bio,adopted,gov). (Not sure if bio dad dosnt have to any longer pay if he’s no longer dad – if so – he prob didnt make enough, the new one will though.)

    And now she has the ability to find her new rescuier, who will give her the kicks again, as the beta white knight that rescued her no longer fills that role.

    You can just see the scales fall off his eyes.

    One white knight is born every minute. Wouldnt surprise me at all if this guy goes to church.

    Once again deti, your comments are on fire.

  37. Frank K says:

    A father’s only role is that of a bank account/money source

    I was going to add “sperm donor”, until I realized that is strictly optional now. Honk, Honk!

    I remember being a super horny young man, but that thirst would never have pushed me into marrying an “ineligible” woman and legally adopting her brood as mine. It staggers the imagination. Perhaps I had my eyes wide open. Even back in the stone age (early 1980’s) frivorces were not uncommon and I met plenty of young men who were divorce raped and were handing over more than half their paychecks to their ex.

    I was very careful about who I would marry, and I think I might have never married had I not met my wife. Yes, even almost 40 years ago I found that most women were not wife material, not even close. And now, it is so much worse. Back then I would never have expected Evangelical Pastors to shame young men into marrying single mothers. We have gone from dysfunctional to all out clown world.

  38. Minesweeper says:

    Does this look like AFBB ? Or is this just me.

    Also BPD’s love – just love to have panic attacks when something happens they didnt forsee, its part of their make up.

  39. Frank K says:

    One white knight is born every minute. Wouldnt surprise me at all if this guy goes to church.

    This crossed my mind as well. Pastor Bob probably helped talk him into adopting her kids.

  40. thedeti says:

    Frank:

    No, men don’t need to be sperm donors. That’s the “fun” part of fatherhood. And women have Chadly alphas for that. No, we need Billy Beta, Paul Plumber, Louie Lawyer, Tom Teacher, and Ernie Engineer to step up and “man up” and pay for (er, i mean) be fathers for the children of Alpha McGorgeous, Harley McBadboy, F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer and Frank Fratboy.

  41. Minesweeper says:

    @Frank K says:”I was very careful about who I would marry, and I think I might have never married had I not met my wife. Yes, even almost 40 years ago I found that most women were not wife material, not even close. ”

    A wise man ahead of your time!

    “And now, it is so much worse. ”

    Your absolutely not kidding.

    “Back then I would never have expected Evangelical Pastors to shame young men into marrying single mothers. We have gone from dysfunctional to all out clown world.”

    And now to clown church as well. Honk Honk.

    Opus did comment that the circus has moved into a english cathedral, well the shoe seems to fit.

  42. Opus says:

    @Lurker

    Women have as the late David Stove observed been at some time and he took some ps, Paupers, Pirates, Princesses and Prostitutes, just as men have at some time been nursemaids and the like but generally speaking women are in just about everything they attempt nowhere near as good as the best men. The problem with the elite is firstly they insist on forcing women to do things the women would not want to do and secondly to do things at which they will suck. They thus have to denigrate men and overpraise women so as to achieve their vaunted equality. – which reminds:me:-

    I was re reading James FitzJames Stephens book Liberty Equality and Fraternity which was published in the mid-nineteenth century and is largely a riposte to John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham and when Stephens embarks on the chapter on Equality he describes it as the most emphatic and the least distinct of the three heads and goes on to list certain things it might mean and then says that equality is often nothing more than envy – and is that not exactly what Dalrock says about Feminism that it is nothing more than envy for Feminists are always banging on about Equality.

    That these half-baked ideas from mid Eighteenth century France invented (so Vox Day says) to attack the Roman Catholic Church should now be the modern Bible has me shakin muh head, yet everyone thinks that Choosing ones own Religion or Freedom of Speech or the Abolition of Slavery or what passes for Democracy is as natural as Mother and Apple Pie.

  43. thedeti says:

    Frank, Minesweeper:

    I was pretty much in the same boat. As blue pilled as I was, there is no way I would have married a woman with children. I would not have married a divorced woman with kids, or a single mom. (I married a single woman with no kids but with no shortage of her own issues, but that’s a different story.)

    What’s different now is the level of shaming going on in the churches and in the culture against young men resisting marrying single mothers and divorced mothers. The shaming is horrendous. It’s because promiscuity, single motherhood , and divorce have become normalized. Women just can’t compute why a man wouldn’t want them, even when they have kids, because no one calls them out on their behavior. If anything, women are encouraged and empowered to break up their marriages and kick their kids’ fathers out of their lives.

    And women, and powerful men, have browbeaten and shamed everyone else, mostly pastors and high betas, into accepting, encouraging, and embracing aberrant lifestyles. First, it’s promiscuity. Then, divorce. Then, single motherhood. Then, the homosexual lifestyle. Now, the transgender lifestyle. They’ve all become normalized. Christians are already being shamed into being forced to accept gays as having “special friends who they live with but totally aren’t having sex no way uh unh they are not having sex”. Christians are now being shamed into accepting gays as babysitters for their children. It won’t be long before the Protestant family ministries start shaming men into relationships with transwomen. You watch. It’s coming.

  44. thedeti says:

    It also won’t be long before I won’t be free to say what I just said on this blog. It won’t be long before I will not be allowed to say anything critical of gays or transgender. I won’t be allowed to say anything critical of women for fornicating, divorcing, and committing adultery.

  45. Frank K says:

    No, we need Billy Beta …

    AFBB is the new “social contract”, the new cornerstone of our civilization. If you’re a Beta, you’ll have to play along, or you’ll end up being an “incel”. Just be happy to get Chad’s sloppy seconds and remember to be generous to his kids.

  46. Frank K says:

    It also won’t be long before I won’t be free to say what I just said on this blog.

    I expect this blog will be eventually be deplatformed, because “hate”.

  47. Minesweeper says:

    @thedeti says:” What’s different now is the level of shaming going on in the churches and in the culture against young men resisting marrying single mothers and divorced mothers. The shaming is horrendous. It’s because promiscuity, single motherhood , and divorce have become normalized. Women just can’t compute why a man wouldn’t want them, even when they have kids, because no one calls them out on their behavior.”

    I wonder why its only young men they are shaming into marriage and not divorced men, maybe because they no longer appear. It really is a womans club now isnt it. Divorced men, really don’t fit into church. They are the unrepentant sinners, even if it was all her fault.

    “If anything, women are encouraged and empowered to break up their marriages and kick their kids’ fathers out of their lives.”

    Thats whats truly astonishing. It’s what I experienced and it still leaves me speechless.

  48. BillyS says:

    JRob,

    The primary concept in all this IMO is she truly believes she’s entitled to his resources. Popular fempinion will rush her rescue. How dare he!!

    That is a very prevalent attitude among women today. Men owe women because they exist! A wife gives a man years of her life prior to a divorce, even though it was just a temporary arrangement, never a truly permanent one in her eyes/mind.

    Deti,

    The men who adopt a single mom’s kids do it because (1) the woman wants them to do it.

    I would have done it myself in the past since I had/have a deep conviction that a child needs 2 parents and it is a good thing to do. My own experience with adoption (no relations before hand) along with a growing distrust of women as faithful wives make me much less likely to even think that way now of course, but the motivation I would have considered in the past was not threat point based, but the desire to do good and right.

    It is a very cucked attitude of course, but only because the modern system is setup to use and abuse fathers in any way it can.

    Women have become so entitled, and so accustomed to having men, all men, from the most to the least powerful, simply doing their bidding and giving them what they want all the time, that it just simply isn’t registering with women that a man could possibly tell her “no”, even when she is threatening to leave him. In her mind

    Men owe women because they share the same air. A seriously flawed idea, but far too widespread.

    Frank,

    The problem is that those situations exist of course, but having a man take the risk could be made to work if he would not face a high risk of ultimately being the bad guy when he does that. Though so many women wouldn’t be single without a father around if such a risk didn’t exist.

    ====

    General comments:

    Of course the original father in this story was abusive, that is always the claim as far as I have seen. Has anyone heard of any woman saying she was the problem and the man was merely human and doing what he could?

    Part of this problem is the whole idea of “emotional abuse” that has permeated our society. That can take anyone down, even without other false charges. It is a mythical problem that merely means “made the wife unhappy.”

  49. Otto says:

    I thought it was a hoax, till I read his replies to the comments. He’s serious.

    Even after 2,600 replies, he can’t wrap his head around the idea that money is her driving force. It must be because she wants to rid her life of her terrible first husband. The first husband sounds like a jerk–the typical rock band drummer, motorcycle riding bad boy–which is probably why she
    voluntarily chose to marry and have a child with him in the first place.

    Other facts buried in the comments:

    * Husband-2 has been paying lawyers to push the ex-husband out of their life.
    * Husband-2 has decided to adopt the daughter to finally push husband-1 completely out of their lives.
    * The ex-husband came to see her at work (she says to threaten her, my guess it was to get access to his daughter).
    * She quit work over the incident, because it unnerved her.
    * Husband-2 is now the sole support for the wife and child (setting her up for the maximum child support payment, as she has no other means to support the child).

    And then , the wife let it slip that she was going to divorce husband-2 AFTER the adoption was complete.

  50. BillyS says:

    Minesweeper,

    I wonder why its only young men they are shaming into marriage and not divorced men, maybe because they no longer appear. It really is a womans club now isnt it. Divorced men, really don’t fit into church. They are the unrepentant sinners, even if it was all her fault.

    They don’t even see divorced men in so many ways. Most who still come to church have since remarried, so they are on board with all the cucking.

  51. @thedeti,
    There are legions of children out there being raised in single mother households.
    One other reason or thought process running through men’s heads these days – unfortunately – is the notion of chivalry and sacrifice and “doing the right and honorable thing” – that such acts really are appreciated and rewarded with praise.

    There are countless videos of children who no doubt want a good man to adopt them and be there dad.
    If you coach baseball or basketball or football, my God, the boys are just starving for any semblance of attention, encouragement, love and guidance from a man.

    An example from Youtube (step daughter asks step father to adopt her on his birthday):

    7.9 million views.
    The comment section is as one might expect.

    To offset the sea of abandoned children, legions of men also want to be appreciated. They want respect and honor. What better way to “prove” my nobility?
    And our instincts to provide and protect are so easily used against our own personal interests.

  52. Otto says:

    I would have commented this to him on Reddit, but the thread is closed:

    Do you want to have a family one day? A wife, a son, a daughter, a house, with a yard and a dog? If you adopt this child, you will never have these things.

    Few women want to marry a man who is paying half his income to another woman in child support, and for good reason.

    How will feel telling you wife you can’t afford to buy a home, because half your income is going to child support?

    How will you feel telling your daughter you can’t afford ballet lessons, because of child support payments?

    How will you feel telling your son you can’t pay for his college, because the court is making you pay for college for your ADOPTED daughter (and the court will do this)?

    How will you feel telling you family you can’t afford a vacation, summer camp, new clothes, or going to the movies, because half your income is going to child support?

  53. Frank K says:

    Even after 2,600 replies, he can’t wrap his head around the idea that money is her driving force. It must be because she wants to rid her life of her terrible first husband.

    Just wait until he hears her accusations in divorce court that he’s an abusive jerk. And then the people at his church start shunning him, until Pastor Bob quietly approaches him and tells that he isn’t welcome there any more.

  54. Spike says:

    Why do women have sex with a “horribly abusive” men, to the point of having children with them?
    For decades, I have had conversations with female friends and colleagues who have told me of their “horrible abusive” relationship. Given that 75%+ of couples co-ha it before marriage, why can’t that “horrible abuse” be seen before children are conceived? Worse, when asked if they regret their choices, they declare, “ I wouldn’t change anything for the world!” I struggle with the cognitive dissonance.
    My Italian peasant parents had a brutal but fitting saying about children:
    “You make them, you keep them”
    The children are no one else’s responsibility except the biological parents.
    No “Step- ‘s”. No satellite families. No blended families and definitely no Rainbow Families.
    Make them. Keep them.
    Abusive man? Hey: you picked him to have children with. The consequences are yours

  55. Frank K says:

    Given that 75%+ of couples co-ha it before marriage, why can’t that “horrible abuse” be seen before children are conceived?

    We know the answer to that. It is the ultimate red flag. But I can see how a lot of suckers see themselves as the White Knight, riding to the rescue, instead of seeing these women as the damaged goods that they are.

    Some people just can’t be helped.

    No “Step- ‘s”. No satellite families. No blended families and definitely no Rainbow Families.
    Make them. Keep them.
    Abusive man? Hey: you picked him to have children with. The consequences are yours

    As long as there are beta chumps willing to bail them out, what incentive do they have to pick right the first time(s)? For Pete’s sake, the Betas are so brainwashed that they now expect to be cucked, to raise another man’s children, as if that was normal.

    I remember once, decades ago, as a young teen, watching the idiotic “Love Boat” TV show. There was one episode that I found to be so utterly ridiculous that I burst out laughing. In that episode, some chump falls in love with a reformed prostitute. Now, I was a mere 14 or 15 years old at the time, and was not “world wise” in any way, yet I knew that there were few stupider things one could do than to marry a prostitute (maybe Russian Roulette was stupider), even one who had hung up the fish net stockings. Yet I’ll bet that millions of women were pleased with that episode and said at the conclusion “Aw! Wasn’t that just so romantic?”

  56. Anonymous Reader says:

    Spike
    Why do women have sex with a “horribly abusive” men, to the point of having children with them?

    Because the men are Alphas who dominate them. Their hindbrain sparks up with desire.

    That is how AF-BB or if you prefer “Cad Plays, Dad Pays” works. It is a known female reproductive strategy, along with cuckolding. It’s in the biological firmware.

    Do not confuse “is” with “ought”. A woman is what she is…

  57. Iowa Slim says:

    “…the daughter was the product of a horribly abusive ex-husband…”

    BS

    “…This abuser was still in their lives when we were dating and I used lawyers and the courts to slowly push him out where he has no control over their lives and he is starting to give up fighting the adoption because I’m set to win in a few months.”

    This white knight numbnuts has used his money and energy to screw a little girl out of contact with her own father. His levels of self-regard or self-preservation are as low as his compassion for the child. He has a lot of practice doing exactly what his soon-to-be ex-wife tells him to do. He should continue. He’ll have much less destructive potential once he’s broke and alone.

  58. Otto says:

    Off topic: another mega-preacher has renounced his faith.

    “Songwriter for Hillsong Tells Fans He’s Lost His Faith”

    https://pjmedia.com/faith/songwriter-for-hillsong-tells-fans-hes-lost-his-faith/

  59. Anonymous Reader says:

    Excerpt

    Taking measure of the changing landscape, she noted that growing cultural and social costs are beginning to be required of Christians.

    Novaseeker and others have predicted this. It’s just getting started, too.

  60. Minesweeper says:

    @Otto says:”I thought it was a hoax, till I read his replies to the comments. He’s serious.

    Even after 2,600 replies, he can’t wrap his head around the idea that money is her driving force.

    * The ex-husband came to see her at work (she says to threaten her, my guess it was to get access to his daughter).
    * She quit work over the incident, because it unnerved her.
    * Husband-2 is now the sole support for the wife and child (setting her up for the maximum child support payment, as she has no other means to support the child).

    And then , the wife let it slip that she was going to divorce husband-2 AFTER the adoption was complete.”

    OMFG, this guys kipper is already fried, he will be on the hook for at least 50%, bet you a dollar any judge in divorce will make him pay child custody as well as he has been in that role.

    Now she has his cash, she will never work again and maybe 50% of all he has depending on the state.

    He will now become the abusive ex husband. This is standard operating procedure for BPD women, chaos, insanity everywhere. It would NOT surprise me 1 bit, if she went back to the baby daddy while keeping his money of course and even CS.

    He truly has no idea how devious, conniving and ruthless women truly are. He has been played for a fool and slowly I guess getting the idea.

  61. Minesweeper says:

    @Otto, “The ex-husband came to see her at work (she says to threaten her, my guess it was to get access to his daughter).
    * She quit work over the incident, because it unnerved her.”

    What are the odds this never happened – that the ex never came to see her at work? Probably high.

    If questioned she will fall back too, “well I felt he would” or some other BS. BPD women will lie through their teeth for any reason at all.

  62. Anonymous Reader says:

    BPD women will lie through their teeth for any reason at all.

    BPD’s believe what they are saying at the moment they say it. That is one way they are able to convince men of their sincerity. IMO.

    Lurkers: there is no cure for BPD. They are damaged in childhood, often around age 5 or so, and cannot be fixed.

  63. Badman says:

    Actually, Minesweeper, you’re onto something with your earlier comment about the baby daddy: I bet the “abusive” ex-husband did in fact visit her at/after work, which resulted in tingles and/or a sexual encounter. She then lied and said he was there to “threaten” her, the same way many #metoo encounters are rationalized.

    I bet she does in fact get back with the old ex, possibly with the CS payments in hand from the soon-to-be ex. In feminism’s sick mind that would be hitting the AF/BB jackpot.

  64. Spike says:

    Frank K, Anonymous Reader:

    Courtesy of The Red Pill, I think even the most Beta of Betas is waking up to the fact that they can be used by women in relationships.
    This is where “As long as there are Betas who will…”, while still happening, is slowly winding down and coming to an end.

  65. Ras al Ghul says:

    I am going to point something out here.

    He could not adopt the child unless one of two things happen:

    The courts find the father unfit and terminate his rights through actual abuse of neglect proceedings initiated by the State.

    Or the father voluntarily relinquishes his rights.

    I’ve known men that have tried this and failed if the bio father says no. that’s all it takes

    I’ve also known men that have willingly relinquished there rights and inevitably the man that adopts gets divorced and stuck with child support and freaks out.

    regardless in any of those scenarios the women have a million red flags.

    I have absolutely no sympathy for guys like this. not only do they pay captain save a ho which is why the system is currently so messed up.

    they actually believe they’re morally superior to other men when in fact theyre making the system worse.

  66. Minesweeper says:

    @Badman, yeah she will rationalise it “He has changed, and its better for her to be with her real daddy” , while keeping every penny the soon to be ex will have to throw at her.

    Or even worse – “You deliberately pushed him away from his child as you wanted her for yourself- you abusive bastard, it was all your idea” – if this sounds crazy, this is ‘standard’ run of the mill BPD.

    A truly sick in the mind woman. But fairly common it seems.

    And been through the divorce system already, she knows how to work it like a pro, and of course, the system could not bend over far enough to accommodate an ‘abused’ single mothers any wishes what so ever, no matter how insane.

    And BTW she is be the abusive one.

  67. Iowa Slim says:

    Sir Chump-a-lot is pretty hard to feel sorry for. He reminds me of something my grandfather used to say: “If you can’t be a good example, you can always be a grim warning.”

  68. l jessel says:

    When it comes to single mothers, just say NO!!

  69. Minesweeper says:

    @Iowa, he is defo aiming for the Captain-save-a-hoe award of the year.

    We can only hope something of him will survive this.

  70. CK says:

    thedeti: “No, we need Billy Beta, Paul Plumber, Louie Lawyer, Tom Teacher, and Ernie Engineer..”

    Isn’t it Lewy Lawyer?

    http://www.loopholelewy.com

  71. Frank K says:

    This is where “As long as there are Betas who will…”, while still happening, is slowly winding down and coming to an end.

    Far too slowly, if you ask me.

  72. Iowa Slim says:

    @ Minesweeper

    “We can only hope something of him will survive this.”

    All the sympathy I might have had for a deluded Captain Save-A-Hoe goes instead to the little girl whose father he is determined to erase and supplant. I hear a lot about slut-shaming. I don’t hear much about men shaming guys who do this shabby crap, and I think it’s high time for it to start.

    The worst that could happen to this guy he will have volunteered for and begged for. I’m straining my imagination for a set of results that would make me feel sorry for him.

  73. Minesweeper says:

    @Iowa, Good point !

  74. Badman says:

    @Iowa

    The poor chump certainly made his own bed, but I can spare a little sympathy. Likely everything in his life, from his wife to mass media to his church, was drilling into his head how “abusive” men are such a problem and that “real men” need to “step up” “for the children”.

    In non-clown world, a man like this could very well be a respected father and valued employee/neighbor.

  75. Frank K says:

    Likely everything in his life, from his wife to mass media to his church, was drilling into his head how “abusive” men are such a problem and that “real men” need to “step up” “for the children”.

    I am extremely grateful and pleased to have never heard this drivel in my church.

  76. Red Pill Christianity says:

    Locust, I was sad to read your story but nor surprised. I have a friend who has been living in hell with this woman he cannot stand. The woman tricked him last year into getting pregnant after he had been drinking and was quite drunk. He has wanted to leave three times since their child was born in March of this year (2019). Twice, when he tells her they need to split up as it is just a bad situation to live together (they are not married, not in common law marriage State), she convinces him to stay and “give it another go for their daughter’s sake”. Endless guilt trips. he stayed twice now since March.

    But last week, the third time he was about to leave (he got home from work and packed his stuff into boxes and borrowed a truck to have his stuff moved out before she got home and just move into a hotel for time being) the GF changed tune. She has moved from guilt to openly making threats. If he leaves, she will not only accuse him criminally to ensure he never sees his daughter ever until she is over 18 and she will be sure he lives in his car after child support. I do not think he cares as much about seeing his daughter, but I think he worries about being barred to if things changed later. And he was definitelly worried financially. This guy makes less than $40k a year, so 1/3 child support pre-tax could literally mean living in his car or the streets.

    The guy told me, last weekend, that he was considering killing himself. He is living with a woman he hates, he does not like kids and never wanted a child to begin with. He “loves” his daughter out of sheer guilt. Now he is afraid to leave. He said he wanted to get life insurance for his daughter and then kill himself in a way to look accidental. I told him “and let your GF cash the insurance check?” and he looked at me with a “oh damn, you are right, can’t do that now”.

    Now he is staying at work 70h every week ON PURPOSE, since he is salaried and does not get an extra buck for OT. He comes in to shower and sleep basically. He says he feels so bad when at the apartment, he cannot even spend quality time with his baby girl, and he is really trying to want to.

    Let’s just say we spent quite a lot of time last weekend talking about it and looking at alternatives to suicide and alternative to child support. I am trying to see if this guy is willing to move out of the country and just vanish and never face child support.

    Honestly, I think he is so depressed and feels so beatdown and discouraged, he does not even have the will to kill himself or study a language to leave the country for good. I have contacted his cousin to activate family to watch this guy and help him through such a dark period, without letting the guy know that they know he is in such a state.

    We have this one life to live. And yet, when you meet people in this situation, it makes you wonder how so many people have their lives so messed up in a way they do not even want to go on.

    We have one chance to try to live a life that pleases God. We have this one go around to do something meaningful, to have some happiness, and yet we see it wasted and wrecked. There are no do-overs. Time just flies by. Really makes you think.

  77. white says:

    From the reddit post, what’s interesting is that the secular commentors there are overwhelmingly supportive of the man’s decision to not go ahead with the adoption. They also all unanimously agreed that the woman’s actions are despicable and shameful to a huge extent.

    Can you guys imagine the Church responding like that?

  78. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    An upcoming documentary, Quest for Beauty, focuses on the oppression suffered by beautiful women.

    The description: After leaving an abusive and superficial relationship, a former model, sets herself on her quest for beauty and ultimately finds unconditional self-love.

    And the trailer:

    I feel so ashamed for having focused my sympathies on MGTOWs, incels, and frivorced men. I had no idea gorgeous models faced such hardships.

  79. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The Quest for Beauty embed seems not to work. But you can also find the trailer here:

  80. Red Pill Christianity says:

    RPL: women almost always want to be victims. This one guy who worked as a paparazzi-type reporter following Britney Spears and other celebs for years once told me that these rich actors all think they are victims of the media and victims of their own success. he seaid what is so funny is that these celebs think having paparazzi taking pics of them is ooooh such an inconvenience, that they often thinkl maybe being poor and not famous would be better. And then when they do lose their fame overtime, they become depressed and that is why they seek out drugs and self-destrcutive behavior.

    This guy also told me that rich socialites (often children of rich actos/celebs/politicians/etc), the “trust fund kids” who never had a job in their lives and yet have more than $10k of income handed to them each month via direct deposit from a Trust Fund account, consider themselves the biggest victims of society. That is why these spoiled rich brats vote for Bernie and join AntiFa. It is white guilt + wealth guilt combined in a society where living like that is “wrong” and having “victim status” is everything.

    These spoiled brats could fix their “guilt” by donating their monthly trust funds disbursements to charity in full each month and getting a JOB and living off their earnings, but no, they just act out in their hypocrisy. *roll eyes*

    Being a victim in American society today = power and status. That is why women claim rape when it never happened. The victim status makes them special. They get attention galore. That is why people fake hate crimes on themselves. They can then accuse their political foes or blame others they do not like for

    You can be rich, beautiful, and privileged, but if you can make others think you are a victim, you have power and never have to address your own flaws or having to be responsible for your own bad actions.

    https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tucker-carlson-slams-don-lemon-he-wants-you-to-know-that-just-like-jussie-smollett-he-is-a-holy-victim/

    That is what the Jessie Smollet “hate hoax” was all about. A privileged, rich actor wanting to be a victim.

    The American victim worship is one of the top 5 worst thing about our society today. It is exhausting.

  81. Red Pill Christianity says:

    White: ALL men, secular or Christian, should see the legal and financial trap that it would have been to adopt kids in today’s America. It would be insane. Red Pilled men, Christian or not, should NEVER adopt a child of a single mom!! It is guaranteeing child support and actual criminal and civil legal responsibility for the child’s actions for decades. It is INSANE!

    I do not understand why you seem upset and somewhat shocked the man did not want to adopt a child that belongs to his soon-to-be ex-wife. It is financial and legal suicide.

    No church should support something so asinine as adopting a child of a woman who will soon be his ex-wife. If your church supports such insanity, walk away. They are not on your side, not even on the side of justice or fairness of any kind. They are out to see you live a hellish existence on earth.

    With that said….

    You know, I was reading some of the comments here about marrying a single mom. As someone who grew up with divorced parents, I grew up with kids who had divorced parents all around me. I am a Gen X man in my late 30s. Generation X was called the “latch key kid generation” and my generation took the brunt of the newly minted Divorce Revolution, being the first generation of kids to literally have divorce all around us. And somehow we did pretty well all things considered.

    In any case, I never considered my mom a “single mom”, but a divorced mom (involuntarily divorced, since my dad was a serial cheater). My Mom never intended to get divorced, but she could not take it anymore after 6 years of his indiscretions. To this day, over 30 years later, she feels bad about getting divorced, and “allowing other women to break up her marriage”. I find that remarkable she feels this way, given my dad would sometimes take my younger bro and me to other women’s residences to play with LEGOs in the living room while he would bang other women. Then he would take us for ice cream and Chuckie Cheese so that when we got home, guess what we told mom we went to do? We were too young to do anything about it or to know any better at the time. As we got older, after my parents divorced, it became clear what was going on for such a long time.

    Regardless… I was thinking about some of the comments. I, as a red-pilled Christian man, wholeheartedly agree that marrying a woman who has kids out of wedlock willy-nilly (which is my definition of a “single mother”) is a terrible idea! If she has kids by different men, even more of a bad idea.

    Problem is, I think a distinction HAS to be made between a single mother (irresponsible), a divorced mom who frivolously divorced her husband for some dumb reason, and a divorced mother in certain circumstances (such as victim of serial adultery by her husband). And how about a widow with kids?

    When my Mom re-married years later, we were grateful, as our financial situation improved drastically. I have always respected and appreciated what my stepdad (well technically, but my bro and I always treated him as an older friend/mentor) did. He never legally adopted us, because my father was always in the picture, as a “weekend dad”, but always part of our lives. My bro and I always did all sorts of things around the house to ensure things ran smoothly while stepdad was main breadwinner. We always did what we could to help out (mowing law, taking out trash, cleaning, fixing stuff around house, etc) to make sure when he got home, life was relaxing and easy for him (and my mom, who also worked). My stepdad ended up being a Groomsman in my own wedding many years later.

    I guess our situation was rare. Most men do not have such a situation like we did.

    Why am I saying this?

    While I totally understand why so many men MOCK men who marry women with kids from a different man/men, it ia sad commentary about our society today.

    30 or 40 years ago, a man WILLING to marry a wom an with kids from either a previous marriage or from her late husband was considered a role model in his community. He was viewed positively in his church. He was often looked up by the woman’s children, most of the time. He was a patriarch, like Boaz in the Bible.

    Today, such men are viewed as “targets” of predatory women. They are targets for divorce lawyers. They are used and discarded by the family courts. They are made into indentured servants of the court system via child support. He is enslaved and impoverished by a society that not only does not appreciate the massive sacrifice he is mocked by other men, the media, the news, and the courts. When he gets divorce raped and forced to pay child support for kids he never legally adopted and never intended to be legally liable for, he is mocked openly in TV shows, YT, and even discussion forums, where people say things like “he shouldn’t have married her!” Even if he stays married to the woman, he is likely treated like an unwanted gust in his own home.

    There is no sympathy for the victim of a corrupt society and a rigged legal system. The man is the victim and yet very few have any sympathy for his plight. His vision of a family life and of a society that has been long gone for over 50 years and his good intentions end in tragedy for him.

    This is why I find it amusing when some Christians question my own brand of hardcore aggressive Game and unabashed support for Red Pill living, no matter how hard the reality may be.

    Red pill Christianity is more of a survival mechanism for Christian men today than a fix for our society. It is merely a way to live a life that tries to please God as much as possible, give just how bad society and our laws have become.

  82. Hugh Mann says:

    “You can keep the madness, the insanity. I have better things to do.”

    While I can understand your decision to avoid the madness, there’s not much better than raising kids, even with the sturm und drang of the teenage years (my daughter told us many times to our faces that we wouldn’t see her after she went off to university. A few years living away with other people and suddenly Mum and Dad aren’t Hitler after all.)

    It’s just about beaten for fun by downhill skiing, but you can’t do that all the time. And teaching them to ski and watching their first turns and growing confidence combines the two perfectly.

    I did choose a (relatively, she’s still female) solid wife though. AWALT, but they’re on a spectrum and I chose from the more stable end. My previous major LTR was with a woman whose mother had been in and out of mental hospital – with hindsight, dodged a bullet there when she dumped me.

  83. imnobody00 says:

    No sympathy for Captain Save-a-ho, the kind of man who is enthusiastic in throwing other men under the bus and to separate a daughter from his father, only to get pussy.

    This is a kind of guy who, when some man explains his divorce problems, he sides with the wife. For him, all of us are a bunch of mysoginists. If there was no men like him, our society would not be in dire straits.

    He worships Goddess Pussy and the goddess is going to pay him his due.

  84. Minesweeper says:

    @Ras al Ghul says:”I’ve also known men that have willingly relinquished there rights and inevitably the man that adopts gets divorced and stuck with child support and freaks out.
    ..
    I have absolutely no sympathy for guys like this. not only do they pay captain save a ho which is why the system is currently so messed up.

    they actually believe they’re morally superior to other men when in fact theyre making the system worse.

    There seems to be alot of guys like that in churches. I’ve had to deal with my fair share. Needless to say, one got taken to the cleaners as well, although he is still operating in that mode, what does it take for these guys to let it go ?

  85. Iowa Slim says:

    The people who participate in the Musical Father Figures game permanently stamp certain lessons about fathers (and men in general) upon the impressionable minds of helpless young children. Namely that fathers and men are:

    1. Unnecessary

    2. Optional

    3. Interchangeable

    4. To be summoned and dismissed at a woman’s pleasure.

    Our society no longer has a formal operational theory of family life. The practice outlined above is forming the characters and expectations of an alarmingly large percentage of the rising generation. Set aside the modest subset of beneficial stepfather situations played within decent boundaries. Most of the people engaging in this self-centered chaos are spreading destruction and thus worthy of ostracism and ridicule. If men refuse to dive into this outhouse basement, the phenomenon stops.

    Sir Chump-a-lot appears to fit an unfortunately common pattern. If he later posts a set of whining complaints when the obvious results befall him, I’m betting he’ll act as if he was the only one hurt.

  86. Scott says:

    White:

    The reason you could not make it past the first page of the government sponsored dad website, is because the picture.

    American fathers are, at best, depicted as goofy sitcom dads, doing harmless, goofy, sitcom dad things that no woman would ever find attractive. I am constantly amazed at the tutu wearing, dancing, goofy stuff dads are supposed to do (especially with their daughters) and refuse to do any of them, ever. This makes me a bad father in the eyes of the current social cultural norms.

  87. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    American fathers are, at best, depicted as goofy sitcom dads, doing harmless, goofy, sitcom dad things that no woman would ever find attractive.

    “Dancing monkey” game. A slightly older version of “class clown”.

    I am constantly amazed at the tutu wearing, dancing, goofy stuff dads are supposed to do (especially with their daughters)

    Making them “just one of the kids”, and thus his wife becomes Mommy to the entire house. I have seen families like this off and on for years. More than one wound up in frivorce after the youngest child left home.

    From a pure psychological standpoint, putting the “oldest teenager in the house” in charge of everything doesn’t work in the longer run.

    Bonus: In the fantasy above, who will be the genetic father of a hypothetical third child?

  88. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    RPC: Being a victim in American society today = power and status.

    Which is why Holocaust education and remembrance is a growth industry. It allows Jews, who appear white, to claim to be “a fellow non-white” when addressing POCs.

    When I was a kid in the 1970s, I figured that when I was old, I would no longer have to hear about slavery, discrimination, and the Holocaust. No more affirmative action. No more aid to Israel. I figured, blacks, Latinos, women, Jews, they have to get this victim hysteria out of their system. But when a new generation arises, they’ll be over all this guilt-tripping and demand for subsidies, and then we can all get along as equals.

    Instead, slavery reparations are given serious consideration. Confederate statues are coming down. Illegal aliens are heroes. Ever more Holocaust museums, memorials, and classes are being established. And gays and trannies have joined the victim bandwagon. Even some Asians are trying to get on board (e.g., Sarah Jeong).

  89. Kid Charlemagne says:

    Just to add a note regarding BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder). In my 20’s, I was engaged to a gal whom I now realize was BPD. It was a nightmare. But she was a very pretty, cute, petite little blonde with big blue eyes a sweet, little girl type of voice. Perfect for White Knights to swoop in and save. I didn’t know any better, and couldn’t resist her.

    She had a history of destroying all relationships around her (not just romantic ones). So she was estranged from most of her family, had no girlfriends, couldn’t hold a job, etc. Big red warning flags!

    The last straw for me was when, during one of her three hour screamfests (over nothing), she yelled at me “I’ll hit myself in the face, call the cops, and tell them you did it”. At that point I was done. I bailed soon after. She was devastated (no doubt triggering again her extreme fear of abandonment). Yes, she was that far gone – she thought she could make threats like that to a fiancé, and he would still go ahead and marry her!

    I found out later she found some sap White Knight to marry her. Put her on his medical benefits, pay for her bills, support the two of them, etc. His reward was for her to out him in jail numerous times, till finally he had enough and divorced her. She then got some kind of cancer, and died before the age of 50. Penniless, living at the YWCA. Never had kids (in her case, no doubt a good thing). What a wasted life.

    So be very careful of this, gentleman. Esp if you are a young man seeking your life partner – study up on BPD, and memorize the symptoms. If you should recognize the symptoms in a girl you are dating, RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! Because you would, in fact, be running FOR YOUR LIFE. Remember, BPD’ers are compelled by the disorder to destroy the lives of everyone around them. They can’t NOT do it.

    Most estimates are that up to 5% of white American females in their 20’s suffer from some level of BPD. That means that if you date ten girls, you have a 50% chance of dating one of these loons! Be aware. Teach your sons to be aware, as their lives may depend on it. And they sure won’t teach them this in school!

  90. Novaseeker says:

    Instead, slavery reparations are given serious consideration. Confederate statues are coming down. Illegal aliens are heroes. Ever more Holocaust museums, memorials, and classes are being established. And gays and trannies have joined the victim bandwagon. Even some Asians are trying to get on board (e.g., Sarah Jeong).

    This will continue for quite some time. It will persist after the time when whites become less than 50% as well. It won’t end then, because even then whites will still have the largest single racial group for quite some time. And of course straight people will continue to be 90%+, men will likely continue to predominate in positions of leadership and power and so on — so the demands for permanent revolutionary change will continue pretty much until such time as white men are removed from power, the percentage of white people overall is no larger than that of any other single racial group, and heterosexuality becomes utterly de-normed. So we’re looking at a long time — kind of like a forever war, culturally, really.

    I think this is what a lot of people don’t understand about this stuff. When people talk about this they are talking about demographics and numbers as much as anything else. “White supremacy” is about the fact that the country is still 62% white, which means that whites, as a factual matter, dominate de facto simply by virtue of their numbers (even if there is no “unified bloc of whites”) — that is why demographic change is so important. They need to get the percentage of whites in the population decreased so that whites can’t be dominant culturally/politically/economically/etc. That’s what “getting rid of white supremacy” looks like, and so they won’t shut up about white supremacy until the percentage of the white population is decreased such that it has no more of a share of the population overall than any other racial group does.

    Same for “patriarchy”. It won’t matter if women are 95% of college graduates — if they aren’t the majority (at least) of CEOs, Senators, Congress members, breadwinners in homes and so on, it will still be considered “patriarchy”. Again, it’s all about numbers, because numbers are power.

  91. feeriker says:

    Off topic: another mega-preacher has renounced his faith.

    “Songwriter for Hillsong Tells Fans He’s Lost His Faith”>/i>

    He probably never had any real faith to begin with. The overwhelming majority of “Christians” don’t.

    Indeed, the process of separating the wheat from the chaff hasn’t even seriously started yet. We are truly going to be shocked, to the point of near despair, at how tiny the remnant is going be.

  92. feeriker says:

    AARGH! Another tag fail! 😡😡😡

  93. Anonymous Reader says:

    BPD case
    His reward was for her to out him in jail numerous times, till finally he had enough and divorced her. She then got some kind of cancer, and died before the age of 50.

    I’ve seen women alcoholics on a similar trajectory.

    This reminds me of other anecdotes involving divorce. I have seen several cases of grey divorce “once the kids are gone….” where the woman was diagnosed with some form of cancer within 1 to 3 years of the final break. A couple of breast tumors, a blood problem, some others. It didn’t matter who filed, either. As we all know or should know, women can stoke themselves up to frivorce then have second thoughts later on, expeting / figuring reconciliation is always possible (female projection of “War Bride” mindset, perhaps). When the realization hits that “he’s done. He’s totally done, no matter what I say or do” — broken heart syndrome can result.

    “Broken heart syndrome” really exists, and appears to have a link to cancer.
    https://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20190717/can-a-broken-heart-contribute-to-cancer#1
    The link to cancer probably lies through the immune system, at a guess.

    BPD and NPD are apparently more common than they used to be – Scott might know more. If it is true that BPD’s are more “made” than “born”, and abandonment in childhood is part of it, then the divorce industry is largely to blame. The restlessness that hits women when the only / youngest child becomes sorta self sufficient (age 4 to 5) means that some frivorces hit the child(ren) between the age of 5 and 7 or so.

    IF there are really more BPD’s than 30 years ago and IF that syndrome is caused to any degree by perceived abandonment around the age of 6, then the liberation of women is largely to blame. The feminist revo eats its own in multiple ways.

  94. buckyinky says:

    @Nick M

    More people are starting to get it

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/what-fifty-years-of-no-fault-divorce-has-gotten-us

    I don’t know – the article manages to establish “women hardest hit” even with the subject of no-fault divorce by 1) using the author’s (a woman) experience of NFD initiated by her husband, while failing to mention that the majority of NFD’s are initiated by the wife; 2) throwing in a juicy red herring about domestic violence to women under the old regime, subtly suggesting that women are particularly oppressed under the old and the new models; and 3) explicitly stating that women and children are being hurt by NFD, silence about any effect to men.

    Looks like more feral, anti-social protect the women at all costs!, just a little different angle than the norm.

  95. Frank K says:

    Indeed, the process of separating the wheat from the chaff hasn’t even seriously started yet. We are truly going to be shocked, to the point of near despair, at how tiny the remnant is going be.

    Many are called, but few are chosen.

  96. Frank K says:

    She had a history of destroying all relationships around her (not just romantic ones). So she was estranged from most of her family, had no girlfriends, couldn’t hold a job, etc. Big red warning flags!

    Back in the stone age when I “dated” one of the things I looked out for was how easily she was angered (I guess today we would call that “triggered”). I found that most girls I met were prone to easily anger. They didn’t explode in an incoherent rage like they do today, but they no doubt were doing their best to keep their anger under wraps. It’s really no surprise that divorce skyrocketed in my generation. When I encounter an old college acquaintance (once in a blue moon) most are amazed that I’m not divorced. For them it just seems normal. A few of them even say that lifelong relationships are unnatural and even unhealthy, no doubt to rationalize all their failed marriages. What does surprise me is that so many of their children, having witnessed and lived through their parent’s ugly divorces, still get married.

  97. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Novaseeker: This will continue for quite some time. It will persist after the time when whites become less than 50% as well. It won’t end then, because even then whites will still have the largest single racial group for quite some time.

    I thought it would end by now. South Africa has reached the point of literal white genocide. 70,000 whites murdered since the end of apartheid: http://americanfreepress.net/70000-whites-murdered-in-modern-south-africa-obamas-african-legacy/

    I wonder if that’s our future. Is that America in 2100? I won’t live to see it. But I worry for our future.

    For black Africans, we open the borders of Europe. And if 70,000 Jews were murdered anywhere in the world, all of Western media would headline it 24/7. But murdered whites = media silence.

  98. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    buckyinky: explicitly stating that women and children are being hurt by NFD, silence about any effect to men.

    Perhaps the author wants to reform the law, allowing NFD for women (to protect women from domestic abuse), but forbidding NFD for men (to protect women from unwanted NFD).

  99. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    So we’re looking at a long time — kind of like a forever war, culturally, really.

    Nothing in human history has lasted “forever”. No human conflict, or empire, has lasted forever. For example, the Cultural Revolution in China did not last forever, although it lasted a lot longer than many of its victims did.

    Humans at this time have more resources than ever before. Socialized costs means that our civilization can afford all manner of expenses, including lowering women’s TFR by sending them to work, normalizing homosexuality, and so forth. However, it takes a lot of energy (human, monetary, etc.) to “keep the pumps going” as Dalrock put it, just to support the parasite of feminism. Other forms of minoritarianism such as LGBT are even more expensive to maintain at the social level. As long as energy and materials are relatively cheap, we are living in Pasha Glubb’s “Fate of Empires” endgame, but again, there’s never before been quite the level of resources we have now. So the endgame could last a long time.

    An effect of abundant resources is the overproduction of elites. I’m reading this book:
    http://peterturchin.com/ages-of-discord/
    and it’s interesting. One doesn’t have to plow through his equations to get the points.

    At the personal action level, each man has to work out how he can navigate the continuously changing political / social environment. Scott and some other men like him have one solution, and it clearly is workable. There are other options, but all of them require resisting the dominant Narrative, even if only passively. Read Solzhenitsyn’s “First Circle” for one example.

    Joining in the elite’s game has a price, and the farther into the game the higher the price can get. Ask Jeffy Epstein…wherever he is.

  100. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    buckyinky, that woman you cite, the one who wrote against NFD, she now has purple hair: http://www.beverlywillett.com/Blog

    Women mock middle-aged men who buy red sports convertibles. The same can be said of this woman in her 50s (or 60s?) who dyed her hair purple.

  101. Novaseeker says:

    I wonder if that’s our future. Is that America in 2100?

    Unlikely. Again, different demographics. Whites were, when you included the “bantustans”, always a minority in SA. Late 1980s estimate is that whites were just under 15% of population if you include the bantustans and just under 20% if you don’t. So massively outnumbered. Hence apartheid to maintain power. Totally different than US demographics, where whites are still ~62% of the population — whites never were anywhere close to that in SA. When apartheid was removed, the overwhelming black majority immediately took — and kept — power as it always would have without apartheid. Many whites simply left (not a bad idea).

    In the US the more likely analogue is not RSA but Brazil. I expect we will retain a fairly pale elite/professional class (with a smattering of other ethnicities), which is small but has almost all of the wealth and ownership of stuff, and the political/cultural power. Below that we will have a changing mass of humanity — to some extent fairer Latinos will “become white” over time, while to some extent more interracial pairings between whites and blacks, outside the elite, and 2nd generation and later brown Latino mestizos and whites, will lead to more browning of parts of the middle and lower. This, coupled with likely continued low white birth rates will more likely result in a situation where the elite of the country looks more or less like it does right now, with a few more Asians, Latinos and blacks in it, while the mass below that becomes more mixed. The whole scenario will be more left/socialist in tenor, but the social-economic-ethnic class that runs it today will still be running it — the changes will happen below that level.

  102. BillyS says:

    RPC,

    While the guy you mention is being manipulated, I have little compassion for him. He is living immorally and will reap the results of that.

    His daughter’s life will suck. She has a manipulative mother and a father who hates her out of principle (he hates children). That is a horrid foundation.

    Children come out of sex. He would have other consequences even if this woman was not so bad.

  103. Dalrock says:

    @Son of Leod

    This is not pertaining to this post. I need help finding one of your articles as my search has come up empty. Back in May, I read your post warning about the message to singles that eunuchs receive a better blessings than a sons or daughters by John Piper https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/single-in-christ

    This doesn’t ring a bell. Could you give me more detail on the post you are looking for?

    Could it be this one: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/05/01/the-season-of-singleness/

  104. BillyS says:

    RPC,

    I would not remove responsibility from your dad, but you also need to step back a bit and keep in mind that few woman are complete victims.

    My father was not as outrageous as yours, but faced some challenges (based on his own conversion story). My mother was not the perfect suffering angel she portrayed either.

    I am convinced most women know exactly who they are getting (and the reverse) and are not as innocent in the process as they proclaim though few will admit that.

    Marriage “tough stories” are used to justify idiocy and evil just as pregnancy “tough stories” are used to justify killing quite viable children well outside any period justified by the story. Society has built on a very flawed foundation and will reap the results.

  105. thedeti says:

    Beverly Willett’s Washington Examiner article gets some of it right. But, like most women, she focuses on how no fault divorce allegedly injures women worst. But her analysis suffers from other glaring problems.

    As a lawyer, Willett should understand that the “fundamental right” of marriage has to do with freedom of association and the “fundamental right” of individuals to choose whom to marry. Those two things are the substantive due process concerns. It has nothing to do with statutory rights of favorable tax treatment, health care choices, and other benefits government has decided to extend to married couples. The purpose of those statutory provisions is ostensibly to promote marriage, give married couples with kids financial breaks, and to make sure spouses can provide for each other’s health needs (something most states require spouses to do anyway). Those are statutory privileges and are creatures of government, and can be legislated away.

    The federal courts have routinely shied away from constitutional challenges to state marriage laws and court decisions. Willett should understand that the reason is because the federal courts just view these as state law issues, they don’t want to get involved in state law questions that don’t directly implicate serious constitutional concerns, and they don’t want to get involved in reviewing state family court decisions for clear abuses of discretion. I would also guess they don’t want to become the repository for challenging every family law, like they’ve become the repository for all abortion jurisprudence, everywhere.

  106. thedeti says:

    Divorce laws will never be on any major candidate’s radar screen for the following reasons:

    1) Our society has been since its inception geared toward maximum individual liberty. Anything that interferes with that interest will get no political traction. Everyone hates divorce, but everyone needs it as a safety valve and escape hatch, “just in case”. Everyone needs to be able to get out of a marriage that’s not working or otherwise doesn’t serve one party’s interests. That’s the current zeitgeist, and it’s not likely to change.

    Everyone, including conservative tradcon Christians, will tell you that “divorce is bad, but, well, we need to have divorce just in case, for the worst cases, or for me, if and when I need it.”

    2) National candidates can’t do much about divorce law, first, because the courts won’t touch it, and second, because there are 50 separate sets of family laws. Each state governs their own family, marriage, and divorce laws. So, they could bully pulpit talk about it, but Congress can’t legislate very well in that area.

  107. SirHamster says:

    Divorce laws will never be on any major candidate’s radar screen for the following reasons:

    Quite true. National leaders do not lead. They follow.

    So who will lead the way to fix divorce laws? Us. We have to create and sustain the demand. Build a community where divorce is shamed and shunned, and where family is desired and protected.

    50 years down the line, the local laws might reflect the community culture that is already there.

  108. Opus says:

    I often find Novaseeker’s comments pessimistic and depressing even as they are unanswerable though I presume he would say realistic, and they might be but things do not always work out as predicted. I recall in the 1980s discussing and quite often as we were then always being blown-up, Northern Ireland with a colleague – arguably the brightest English lawyer in his year – who was equally pessimistic/realistic. He explained with Malthusan simplicity: the Catholics have more children and will outbreed the Protestants and thus N.I . will turn Catholic and eventually be subsumed in Eire. Well…. Look at Ireland now! – did not quite work out as predicted – so far. Still, I am shocked at what has been allowed to happen to the United States of America. As a youngster I learned that America had a population of some two hundred million of whom ten per cent were Black – and in my Religious Knowledge book at school was a photo of a respectable looking black American ambassador with a moustache wearing a suit and sitting in an armchair and surrounded by his wife and two or three children. proving the equality of races and I suppose the openness thereto of the country to all whether black or white. I wonder who that Ambassador might have been. Funny what one remembers.

    As I mentioned up-thread I have been re-reading James FitzJames Stephen. I had a look at what he had to say about Diversity (Fraternity). He said that many people must share a feeling of disgust as he did at what he called feelings of general philanthropy and singled out Jean Jacques Rouseau as a hypocrite. To my mind something like LIveAid would fit that feeling of disgust and hypocricy.

  109. Joe says:

    I was awake to the whole personality disorder thing 32 years ago when I asked my girlfriend to marry me.
    Of course we did the usual pre-marital stuff with the Church. And that was all fine and good and even addressed submission in a good way. But that was not the main even for me.
    I’ve mentioned here before that I wanted full blown personality tests. I secured that from a man women team of counselors (they worked together). It was 1987 and I paid over $1,000. About $2,250 in today’s dollars. I told her that I was only doing this (marriage) once, and if she had any deep psychological issues, we’re uncovering them now because I wasn’t going to marry anyone with issues. She readily agreed. As s it turned out, she was quite sane 🙂
    I still have all those test results.
    Who does that now and takes such measures? Nobody that I’ve ever heard of. Seemed wise to me as a 27 year old, and it still does, even more so now. Any man getting married should insist on it.

  110. thedeti says:

    Joe:

    Any man in 2019 telling a fiancee he wants her to take a battery of personality tests will soon find himself not a fiance anymore, and will probably find himself sued to recover his former fiancee’s father’s canceled wedding costs. He’ll also find himself the subject of viral social media posts which the Daily Mail will pick up.

    Better to just look for the usual tell tale signs.

    1) Violent mood swings, extreme emotional instability and volatility.

    2) Substance abuse problem.

    3) History of failed relationships.

    4) Talks repeatedly about “life unfairness” and “it’s a man’s world”.

    5) Lashes out verbally and emotionally.

    6) Weaponizes sex. History of giving up sex rapidly to other men, but makes you wait.

  111. thedeti says:

    You might as well tell your fiancee you will be paternity testing all the children born to her. Most women will leave you in a heartbeat for doing that.

  112. thedeti says:

    Oh yeah, and with “history of failed relationships”, when asked about those failures, it is always, all the time, 100% of the time, the men’s fault. Every one of her relationships failed because of the men involved. She cannot or will not take responsibility for her role in their failures. Or, worse yet, cannot see or does not understand what her role in their failures was.

    What does this tell you?

    1) She has a history of choosing bad men.

    2) She has a history of driving good men away.

    3) She does not understand that she is doing 1) and 2).

  113. BillyS says:

    Minesweeper,

    There seems to be alot of guys like that in churches. I’ve had to deal with my fair share. Needless to say, one got taken to the cleaners as well, although he is still operating in that mode, what does it take for these guys to let it go ?

    That is one of the astounding things. Some have been roasted over the coals, yet still don’t see the true picture. Simply amazing.

    AR,

    Making them “just one of the kids”, and thus his wife becomes Mommy to the entire house. I have seen families like this off and on for years. More than one wound up in frivorce after the youngest child left home.

    I have heard more than one alpha-like pastor proclaim he was one of the children his wife raised. I have never heard a wife say on stage that she was one of the children her husband raised, even though women are far more likely to operate truly like children.

    Frank,

    A few of them even say that lifelong relationships are unnatural and even unhealthy

    People justify their own idiocy instead of challenging it.

  114. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Opus: hey might be but things do not always work out as predicted.

    Back when I was in high school in the late 1970s, I predicted that America would no longer be majority white by the time I was an old man.

    What I did not predict:

    * The extent of anti-white hatred. This widespread, media and academia attacks on “white privilege, white fragility,” etc.

    * The extent, or even existence, of white self-hatred.

    * Gay marriage.

    * Tranny normalization.

    And, of course, much else.

    I thought the America of my elder years would be much browner, with much more racial intermarriage. But I thought we’d mostly get along. Assimilated. Racial animosities in the past. Bygones be bygones.

    Instead, the racial animosities seem more intense than in my youth. Demands from minorities increasing, grievances increasing, even as they get more integrated into high positions. It seems there’s no placating POCs and other grievance groups. The demands and anger only increase. I hadn’t predicted that.

  115. feministhater says:

    When apartheid was removed, the overwhelming black majority immediately took — and kept — power as it always would have without apartheid. Many whites simply left (not a bad idea).

    They were given power. They never took it. Without the help of the many western cuck nations who sold South African and Rhodesia out, they never would have stood a chance. We kept them out for more than 60 years. How do you think whites ever survived here? We were always out manned but more than kept our own.

    White South Africans gave blacks their own homelands, homelands they lost in conflict with whites.

  116. feministhater says:

    Apartheid only became a necessity because the rest of the Western world lost its appetite for doing what is needed to keep a country, i.e. conflict and decided instead to appease their former colonies.

  117. feministhater says:

    The reason for the explosion in murders, especially of the farm variety, was the disbandment of the Commando System that white South Africans had set up for centuries, that served as a local task force. When those were still active, white South Africans were pretty safe, even in remote areas.

  118. BillyS says:

    Deti,

    NFD is not an issue of personal choice contrary to what many think. The choice was made at the wedding, not the divorce.

    Few recognize that of course, but it is important to point out (as fruitless as it may seem) that allowing one party to unilaterally negate a contractual relationship damages society far more than anything else.

  119. Mountain Man says:

    Upthread, Red Pill Christianity urged us to make a distinction between the “bad” single moms and the “good” single moms who were (supposedly) innocent in their divorce, or who are widows. While I agree with this generally, I think the distinction is often difficult to make.

    Let me tell you a story about a Christian “widow” I encountered a few years ago. This was not a dating situation. The woman in questions was simply a participant in a small bible study group I attended. This was a white woman who had married an Indian man. They had a child. At some point the man wanted to return to India, and the woman didn’t. Rather than follow her husband to India, she chose to stay in the US, and to keep the child with her, but did not follow through with divorce. The man did return to live in India, and at some point later, he died. This woman now goes around calling herself a widow, when in reality she is an unfaithful wife who separated from her husband and stole his child.

    Be careful out there, gentlemen. Just because a woman claims to be a widow doesn’t mean she is fit for marriage.

  120. Anonymous Reader says:

    thedeti
    Any man in 2019 telling a fiancee he wants her to take a battery of personality tests will soon find himself not a fiance anymore,

    Making it a very good tool for vetting / screening.

    Since men are the true romantics, oneitis aka the “soulmate” myth is very dangerous to them.
    No one has ever been able to show me in the Bible anything remotely like “soul mate”, therefore logically for any given man there’s more than one woman who is fit to marry. Older churchgoing men knew that “the sea has plenty of fish”, they had not been brainwashed with “soul mate” garbage as so many younger men have been. This kind of thinking goes along with the “thirsty beta” mindset, and it is a big part of what leads men to associate with babymommas – the OP is an extreme example.

    It is essential that a man not fear his wife, therefore he should not fear a fiance’. Walking away from an engagement is almost infinitely less expensive than any possible frivorce. Having the mindset, the frame of reference internally “I can walk away from this woman and find another one as good or better” will erase the desperate thirst. It also will be communicated nonverbally.

    Subcommunications matter. Desperation and confidence are both communicated nonverbally all the time by men.

  121. Anonymous Reader says:

    Frank
    A few of them even say that lifelong relationships are unnatural and even unhealthy

    “Man is not a rational animal, man is a rationalizing animal” – Robert A. Heinlein

  122. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The closest example of soulmates in the Bible are Adam and Eve. Eve was meant for Adam. God made Eve specifically for Adam.

    It also seems that Rebekah was meant for Issac. Abraham’s servant prayed for a sign as to which woman was meant to be Issac’s wife. Rebekah fulled that sign.

    I suppose the Issac and Rebekah story is dangerous for modern women, as they’ll think that’s the way that God normally operates.

    It’s also noteworthy that God created Eve and Rebekah for the men’s benefit, and not visa versa.

  123. dudedont says:

    The Proverbs 7 woman is not as well known as the Proverbs 31 woman. Funny how they’re both wives.

  124. Anonymous Reader says:

    @dudedont
    An interesting exercise I suggest to men from time to time. Take two pieces of paper. Go through Proverbs from 1 to 31. On one paper write down quotes about women that are critical or negative. On the other write down quotes about women that are praising or positive.

    Compare the number of words and quotes. Here are a few examples.

    Proverbs 9:13
    The woman of folly is boisterous. She is naïve, and knows nothing.

    Proverbs 21:19
    It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and angry woman.

    Proverbs 25:24
    It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a contentious woman and in a wide house.

    Proverbs 27:15
    A constant dripping on a day of steady rain and a contentious woman are alike. He who would restrain her restrains the wind, and grasps oil with his right hand.

    “Contentious woman” is mentioned more than three times in Proverbs. Maybe it’s important?

    Nah. “Mah Proverbs 31 wahman” is all that matters..

  125. Scott says:

    Gentlemen follow sage Detis advice. Never marry a woman, single mom or not, unless you are sure she will still be crazy about you years later.

    https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/2019/08/13/road-trip/

  126. TheTraveler says:

    @MountainMan

    “Unfaithful wife” who “stole” a man’s child?Seriously?

    India is a pest hole. I don’t blame her for not going there.

    She was foolish for marrying an Indian. But unless he openly and unequivocally told her he WAS going back, for sure, she had every reason to believe he’d stay here.

    Most Indians stay, and eventually purchase citizenship through visa manipulation by shady immigration lawyers, then proceed to work very hard to set up the cr*ppy system they’ve got back home–except with themselves in charge.

  127. info says:

    @Lurker
    Mafiosi women in the article seem to be more worse in violence than men emotionality and irrationality rule their decisions. I remember reading that women were more sadistic torturers than men.

    And they also seem to remind me of Jezebel and Athaliah and their time in power.

  128. info says:

    @feeriker @Frank K

    Hillsong “worship” is so cringy and a lot of “evangelical” worship too. It lacks the gravitas and majesty of proper worship.

  129. Minesweeper says:

    @Kid Charlemagne says:”Just to add a note regarding BPD (Borderline Personality Disorder). In my 20’s, I was engaged to a gal whom I now realize was BPD. It was a nightmare. But she was a very pretty, cute, petite little blonde with big blue eyes a sweet, little girl type of voice. Perfect for White Knights to swoop in and save. I didn’t know any better, and couldn’t resist her.

    She had a history of destroying all relationships around her (not just romantic ones). So she was estranged from most of her family, had no girlfriends, couldn’t hold a job, etc. Big red warning flags!

    The last straw for me was when, during one of her three hour screamfests (over nothing), she yelled at me “I’ll hit myself in the face, call the cops, and tell them you did it”. At that point I was done. I bailed soon after. She was devastated (no doubt triggering again her extreme fear of abandonment). Yes, she was that far gone – she thought she could make threats like that to a fiancé, and he would still go ahead and marry her!

    So be very careful of this, gentleman. Esp if you are a young man seeking your life partner – study up on BPD, and memorize the symptoms. If you should recognize the symptoms in a girl you are dating, RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! Because you would, in fact, be running FOR YOUR LIFE. Remember, BPD’ers are compelled by the disorder to destroy the lives of everyone around them. They can’t NOT do it.

    Most estimates are that up to 5% of white American females in their 20’s suffer from some level of BPD. That means that if you date ten girls, you have a 50% chance of dating one of these loons! Be aware. Teach your sons to be aware, as their lives may depend on it. And they sure won’t teach them this in school!”

    You were lucky she revealed her disorder before you signed on the line ! Most men arn’t that lucky!

    They really should teach this in school, where I am right now i’m surrounded by BPD women, and most of the women in my family are BPD (and nightmares), I read somewhere they actually reckon that BPD in women is about 25% (it was a retired counselor who came up with that figure), but no one will print that figure as the feminists shriek with crazyness (BPD rage) when they do.

    I’m almost starting to come to the belief it’s the default female state, but as a very young child she has to be intensely loved out of it. Whereas men who develop disorders usually lot of abuse\neglect has occurred.

    I’ve known of guys who were adopted and they were fine – even with abuse, but all the women i’ve known who were adopted were absolutely fu8ked to pieces – all BPD and messed up.

  130. Minesweeper says:

    I should clarify, the retired counselor stated that he could now say this (in private) as he was retired, while still in practise it would have been career suicide if he had spoken even in private and it had got out. Beyond that I can remember no other details. But I certainly cant disagree with his findings. From both my ex wives and my mothers fam its 1 in 3. In this block of flats its about 1 in 2.

  131. Anonymous Reader says:

    Most estimates are that up to 5% of white American females in their 20’s suffer from some level of BPD. That means that if you date ten girls, you have a 50% chance of dating one of these loons!

    Ah…no. That’s not how probability works. Each girl dated is an independent trial[1]. Date 20 girls and you may encounter 1 BPD. Or you may not. Young men should be very aware of the signs of BPD and NPD, for their own protection, no question about it. But let’s not exaggerate the risk.

    [1] Not totally so, it is true, because some personality types are drawn into groups. I have known some people with genuine psychological problems who were drawn to people with similar problems, but even now this isn’t common.

  132. Jacob says:

    they won’t shut up about white supremacy until the percentage of the white population is decreased such that it has no more of a share of the population overall than any other racial group does.

    I don’t think it’ll stop even then. Demographics is part of the gripe but only a small part. The “white supremacy” problem is not so much that non-whites have issue with whites positioning themselves above everyone else, but that whites generally don’t have a problem with this. Many believe they are gifted by God to rule.

    Whites are also like gods and heroes to much of the non-white world. White faces appear on movies, TV, internet, advertising, everything that is perceived to be good, right, proper and superior in the world. Whites are on average hugely wealthy and prosperous compared to non-whites. Yet of late, whites are proving themselves to be only human – as weak, feeble and prone to sin like eveyone else, perhaps even more because of our wealth – and that is not acceptable conduct for gods and heroes. Non-whites are seeing whites as no longer worthy of their praise and worship, not that it was ever right for them to treat whites that way. Whites are unaccustomed to being treated like fallen idols.

    If there was no complaint by non-whites, whites would do what whites have always done – apply themselves and assume primacy according to the output and quality of production. Rightly or wrongly, it’s that assumption of primacy that’s the main issue with “white supremacy”. Many don’t want to live the way whites live, therefore the assumption of primacy is invasive and despotic to them.

    The white man’s urge to advance himself not going away. The white man is a builder and expander. You can’t stop people from wanting to do what they’re good at and shaping their environment according to their abilities. That doesn’t mean the world is better like that, just that it feels better to those doing the shaping, and to those who want to live the way white men live. If only 10% of the population were white but that percentage were doing what white people at their historical best have typically done, that is, build and expand, then “white supremacy” will always be a thing in some people’s minds.

    It’s possible to see “white supremacy” not as a racial attack or a flaming arrow but as a challenge to live up to those expectations. People still want (need?) leaders and heroes. Now that liberalism is dominating the West and the rot is spreading to all corners of the globe. The white culture is no longer seen as heroic or even desirable, but as a carrier of moral degeneracy. The hero-worshippers are angry and afraid, they can no longer pedestalise White but have no other heroes to take their place. Asians are leading in many ways but their cultures are not without serious moral flaws of their own, and where is the heroism?

    Whites could use a break from the praise and worship. We need time and space to tear down our multifarious idols and cut out the moral rot from within.

    The white man of virtue is still eminently capable of leading the world – the skills and knowledge and will are all still there – but we need to get our house in order, regain trust and earn back the right to lead. If we can’t, we’ll have to get used to to living without the grace or favor of others. That sucks, but there it is.

    “White supremacy” is a cursed epithet I could certainly do without, but while it remains in common use I’d rather treat it as a motivator to do better than a cut to the heart. For now.

  133. 7817 says:

    @Scott

    Gentlemen follow sage Detis advice. Never marry a woman, single mom or not, unless you are sure she will still be crazy about you years later.

    Thing is, with someone who makes decisions based on how they feel there’s no way to accurately predict this.

    Have you been following the debate on vetting lately? Rian Stone had a decent series of posts on why he is against over reliance on vetting.

    It makes sense why tradcons push it as a strategy, given their discomfort with aspects of the red pill, but if a guy thinks he can vet well in order to do the work upfront prior to marriage, and then just ignore Game and boundaries and upgrading his life I think he’s likely to be disappointed.

  134. Mountain Man says:

    Traveler,

    Good job on completely missing the point of the story.

    I wasn’t saying India is a great place and she should have been jumping for joy to go there. OF COURSE India has problems. I don’t want to move there either. But when she married him, she pledged before God and before her friends and family to love, honor, and obey him in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, for better or worse, etc. She WAS unfaithful to those vows.

    But we live in a society where the preferences and desires of women are paramount, and are assumed to be the controlling factor in any marital decision. A husband is responsible for making his wife’s life awesome. Men were put on earth to be helpers for women, rather than the other way around. Our society also assumes that a child is the sole property of the wife. So of course no one told her what she was doing was wrong, or that she was violated her marriage vows. No one told her it was wrong to deprive a child (a boy in this case) of his father. It seemed completely normal to everyone. There was no social disapproval, no matter how slight. Your white knighting for her indicates that you agree. It doesn’t surprise me when people in normal society express opinions similar to yours, but having you do it on a manosphere blog DOES surprise me.

    OK Traveler, here is the point of the story. Listen closely. You might even want to take notes.

    SHE ended the relationship.

    Many years later he died.

    Now she runs around calling herself a widow.

    While that may be true technically and legally, since they never officially divorced, in no other way is it an accurate reflection of reality. The point of the story was to demonstrate that “widow” doesn’t automatically mean a woman is a single mom through no fault of her own and therefore marriageable.

  135. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mountain Man
    The point of the story was to demonstrate that “widow” doesn’t automatically mean a woman is a single mom through no fault of her own and therefore marriageable.

    A few years back a woman in my area stabbed her husband with something sharp and he bled out in the ambulance. Technically she’s a widow, but…details matter. At least there were no children around to take care of while she was in prison.

  136. It’s possible to see “white supremacy” not as a racial attack or a flaming arrow but as a challenge to live up to those expectations.

    That’s actually a thing: it’s what Kipling meant by his “Take Up the White Man’s Burden” bit.

    The error– on the Rudyard Kipling and John Buchan side a century ago, and on the Al Sharpton and Jeremiah White side nowdays– is attributing it to race. Any and every man with his head on straight and a ball in his sack* IS CAPABLE OF this kind of leadership and change. What makes the difference is the power of the Gospel.

    *Even if only morally: see Jeremiah’s rescue from the cistern in Jeremiah 38 by the eunuch (castrato) called “Ebed-melech the Ethiopian”.

  137. blu says:

    Hi, would anyone please consider reviewing this thread on city-data:
    http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/2762845-irrefutable-proof-male-oppression-female-privilege.html

    I know it’s long but I believe that you will find it worth your while and interesting. I admit at times I got very frustrated and acted un Christian like.

    This thread is similar:

    http://www.city-data.com/forum/politics-other-controversies/3073805-child-support-question-no-one-can.html

  138. BillyS says:

    AR,

    Women react strongly against any attempt to hold them to Proverbs 31 standards as well. I have read quite a few things noting how unrealistic those standards are. These discussions never note that it is a goal and completely ignore any need for women to target them.

    Both aspects are important and neither aspect is taught on, unfortunately for all Christians.

  139. feeriker says:

    She was foolish for marrying an Indian

    And he was obviously just as much of a fool for marrying her.

    American woman + Indian man = a pair that fully deserve each other.

  140. Oscar says:

    @ Scott

    Never marry a woman, single mom or not, unless you are sure she will still be crazy about you years later.

    Unless you know the future, it’s impossible to be sure of such a thing.

  141. feeriker says:

    Women react strongly against any attempt to hold them to Proverbs 31 standards as well. I have read quite a few things noting how unrealistic those standards are. These discussions never note that it is a goal and completely ignore any need for women to target them.

    Both aspects are important and neither aspect is taught on, unfortunately for all Christians.

    If churchian women had even a shallow facsimile of honesty about them (yeah, I know, I know; note again my use of the word if), they would throw very public, very loud, and very profanity-laced hissy fits/tantrums at God for having the unmitigated audacity to hold them to standards of adult behavior. As it is, they both insult men’s collective intelligence and at the same time make themselves look like hypocritical morons by mouthing “I’m-a-child-of-God” platitudes while flipping God the bird and flaunting their rejection of His counsel for their lives.

  142. feeriker says:

    @ Scott

    Never marry a woman, single mom or not, unless you are sure she will still be crazy about you years later.

    Unless you know the future, it’s impossible to be sure of such a thing.

    Oscar stole the words right off of my fingertips. It’s akin to saying “never get behind the wheel of a car, no matter how skilled and careful a driver you are, unless you know for sure that you’ll never get in an accident.”

  143. feeriker says:

    So who will lead the way to fix divorce laws? Us. We have to create and sustain the demand. Build a community where divorce is shamed and shunned, and where family is desired and protected.

    Sorta like what churches (real New Testament churches, not these corporate Jesus fan clubs of today passing themselves off as such) should be doing (and used to do before they became cuckverged).

  144. Wagner Tench says:

    @ 7817

    I definitely like what Rian Stone has to say on the issue, and the recent “Rule Zero” episode on the issue was very interesting. However, I think the issue is more about depending on vetting rather than doing your due diligence and then enforcing your healthy boundaries.

    For instance, I will never sign a legal marriage contract in any country that has comparable laws to the U.S. or Canada regarding marriage, and I will make it abundantly clear to any prospective wife that I refuse to place our marriage in the hands of godless bureaucrats who care nothing about me or any children. That is a personal boundary. However, I also fully intend to learn as much as possible about my future wife’s history, personality, friendships, and other such important things that can be indicators of whether or not she will push my boundaries. Vetting has the potential to save a man a great deal of headache and heartache, but he has to keep a clear mind and an abundance mentality, imo.

    Then again, what do I know? I’m just a 21 year-old college student.

    On a side note: one of the most depressing things this summer has been watching some of my friends start to get married long before they hit their stride in life or even really get established. On the bright side, I now get front row seats to what will happen to them…

  145. Jacob says:

    the error– on the Rudyard Kipling and John Buchan side a century ago, and on the Al Sharpton and Jeremiah White side nowdays– is attributing it to race. Any and every man with his head on straight and a ball in his sack* IS CAPABLE OF this kind of leadership and change. What makes the difference is the power of the Gospel.

    Agreed. The easy part is recognizing the truth in this statement. The hard part is convincing the multitudes, especially those who have carried the Brown Man’s Burden for generations – i.e. the burden of belonging to a class that few, if given the choice, would choose.

    When I was doing a missionary training course, many visiting missionaries said this was a key barrier to genuine conversion. Christianity is widely perceived as a white man’s religion, they said many brown people came to church thinking Christ would make them more like white people. They were seeking white-likeness more than Christ-likeness and so quickly fell away when life’s trials came.

  146. Opus says:

    We have a problem over here who goes by various aliases: Harry Wales, The Duke of Sussex, The Earl of Dumbarton. He is also unfortunately dimmer than a bag of stoats and recently to demonstrate the fact married an aging ”yacht girl”, a friend of the late Mr Epstein. The yacht girl has unfortunately filled his head full of her nonsense and thus and following a few sessions with a devotee of Vienna’s Mr S. Freud has recently managed to insult the entire nation – yet again – this time, by accusing the nation of unconscious bias. Now I would have thought that all bias was always somewhat unconscious. Even so when I was growing up and the number of negroes I had seen approached zero I cannot recall having any bias unconscious or otherwise towards people (that had to be everyone) with darker skin than myself largely of course because I had never seen them and thus did not waste hours pondering as to whether I had a bias. I could dislike people heartily of course, for merely being – say, Welsh – or Irish – and the bias was entirely conscious for they were a lower class of Briton (rather as George and Ringo were second division Beatles) – The Scots were also looked down on but as they were a bit more dangerous one had to be a bit more careful for as the late Duke of Wellington opined when asked if his Scottish troops scared the enemy replied that although he could not speak for the French they certainly scared him. The situation was clear: there were to two classes of people in this world: those who were British and those who wanted to be British. Such an honour falls to few and if you are you must perforce be superior as a cursory view of any atlas will instantly make clear. When finally I did meet a mulatto by which time I was eleven and he was in my class I cannot even claim to have been curious for at that age everything that happens to one seems normal and indeed he came from the heart of darkness itself to be precise in his case Nigeria that is to say part of the empire – I know that because on postage stamps which all boys collect Her Majesty’s head was imprinted thereon as she was on just about every other stamp including Canada’s. If I did have any feelings towards people with darker skins than myself it was thus a feeling of benevolent interest as they were ours – one saved ones hatred for the French or perhaps remembering 1588 The Spanish; for when one is part of the largest and dare I say greatest empire the world has yet seen and on which the sun never sets and where so many of my relatives and everyone elses relatives had gone to keep the natives happy with things like roads, water, sanitation, healthcare and law and order and literature, that sort of thing seems natural. It is thus somewhat disturbing to observe the considerable racial antagonisms in the United States of America largely stirred up by the so-called white people themselves aided and abetted by your strange ‘melting pot’ ideology – strange because if you are all Americans how come one of your number can even now be offended by being referred to as Fredo – I thought Fredo was a Lord of the Rings character so little do I know about Italians (and of course I have never met any) for I detest most white people though usually just look down on them.

    In short: the notion of white supremacy and all that jazz seems to me to be a primarily American concept with which your nation beats itself as if you are wearing a permanent hair-shirt. The sooner then that Baron Kilkeel (another of his aliases) departs for darkest Los Angeles with his bride and Archie the doll the better for then in his gated community he can enjoy the pleasures of diversity and reflect on his lack of bias, unconsciously or otherwise.

  147. Oscar says:

    @ feeriker

    So who will lead the way to fix divorce laws? Us. We have to create and sustain the demand. Build a community where divorce is shamed and shunned, and where family is desired and protected.

    Sorta like what churches (real New Testament churches, not these corporate Jesus fan clubs of today passing themselves off as such) should be doing (and used to do before they became cuckverged).

    That’s a losing strategy.

    The New Testament church did not appeal to the Sanhedrin, or to the Roman Senate, to change marriage law to reflect Biblical principles. They taught those principles in the church (see Ephesians 5-6), modeled those principles in the church (see Titus 1, and 1 Timothy 3), and enforced those principles in the church (see 1 Corinthians 5-6).

    That’s what we need to do.

    For those of us who are not church elders – which is most of us, including me – we need to teach those principles in our families. Our sons and daughters should be well-versed in who created marriage (God the Father), why, and what His vision for marriage was from the beginning (see Genesis 1 and Matthew 19) long before they leave our homes. And we should serve as an example to them.

  148. info says:

    @Lurker
    To expand on the Mafiosi point and women in power in general. I think the reason that women was to be kept out of politics and war.

    Is that such things being the way they are. The fact that its limited to men is to limit how bad politics and war can get.

    If politics is already dirty with just men. Now add in soap opera warped politics to the mix and the vindictiveness of women. Now imagine them possessing the power of organized violence.

    And one sees how much of a mess has been and can be made by women like Jezebel and Athaliah.

    Byzantine politics was specially quite a misama of soap operatic vindictiveness as a result of women being too involved in politics. And helping to destroy the eastern roman empire as a result.

  149. Oscar says:

    @ Wagner Tench

    Then again, what do I know?

    Not enough about Common Law Marriage, apparently.

    http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/common-law-marriage.aspx

  150. info says:

    @Oscar

    Concur

  151. Opus says:

    I much like what info says just above. The woman problem then is twofold: either vindictiveness or what I may term fraternising with the enemy. Some female leaders such as the first Elizabeth spent their entire reigns making eyes at foreign leaders merely to lead them on but in her case she had the considerable wisdom never to consumate any such pretended passion – which of course in turn led to other problems after her death and ultimately in the 1640s to civil war. It is perhaps more forgotten that in the 1140s we had another civil war where one of the protaganists was a woman known as the Empress Mathilda.

    Politics was once a dirty business. English monarchs (and my source is a certain W.S.) happily banished the powerfully troublesome as when the second Richard banished Bolingbroke. The Eighth Henry however sent his ministers to the gallows as well as two of his wives. By comparison then President Trump’s admonition to the four democratic congresswoman was as tame as it was ineffectual yet even that had all the left screaming like children having a temper tantrum.

    Women are deluded: I was recently listening to a broadcast of Berlioz’ Les Troyens where after the second act a musicologist came on to talk with the female presenter about the piece. He said something about the first two acts being very feminine. The presenter instantly fired back as if he had said a rude word ‘what do you mean by feminine?’ He calmly explained. Later in discussing the final three acts which take place in Dido’s Carthage the female presenter waxed euphoric about the fact that Carthage was ruled in eternal peace by a woman. What we know of Carthage however comes entirely from Roman sources and Dido is as fictitious as Helen of Troy. Women cannot tell fiction form reality – and to assume the country that gave us Hanibal Barca was a feminist paradise has to be as daft as it gets.

  152. feeriker says:

    @Oscar

    Either you misread my respond, or, more likely, I wasn’t clear enough in my focus.

    I didn’t mean to imply that the true church should appeal to authority to fix the current mess. Rather, it needs to return to its true roots in Scripture and start exercising Scripture-centered discipline within the flock, which of course would include holding people firmly to what the Bible says about marriage and divorce.

    But you’re probably right, ultimately, about the losing strategy part. Most “churches” today are “seeker-friendly” corporations obsessed with treating their members as paying customer’s rather than parts of a spiritual body. Discipline is a non-starter. Real churches, on the other hand, are comprised of people who are generally already disciplined by Scripture and thus aren’t prone to worldly cultural behavior that would require shaming in the first place. They’re also, sadly, far too few in number to have any wider impact for the better.

  153. info says:

    @Opus
    I let this quote from the article above speak for itself:

    “”In Naples, we say, ‘The bosses gave their balls to their wives,’ ” she says. “Now the power is in the hands of the women mobsters. These women are worse than men. They order murders just like that, not even thinking about the consequences. They are violent and irrational. Money and power make them crazy.””

    Seems a good case for women not belonging in politics.

  154. Hugh Mann says:

    Opus – don’t knock poor Harry. He’s made IMHO a foolish decision, a terrible mistake, and the price will be heavy. The same people lauding him now will be calling him a racist after the inevitable breakup, and the damage his wife will do from the office of her “New York lawyer” doesn’t bear thinking about. It’s going to be Charles and Diana all over again.

    To think back in the 50s the Queen’s sister broke off her engagement to Group Captain Townsend because the guy was divorced. Thus far have we come.

  155. 7817 says:

    I think the issue is more about depending on vetting rather than doing your due diligence and then enforcing your healthy boundaries.

    Right on.

    Vetting is the first step of boundary enforcement. Has she done anything that disqualifies her as a potential partner? That’s crossing a boundary, she’s no longer in consideration.

    The problem in my view is Marriage Calvinism: once married, always married. If there is no bad thing that she can do that will destroy the marriage, the man is in a hopeless position that God doesn’t even put himself in.

  156. thedeti says:

    Scott is too kind.

    What I’ve suggested in the past is that the only marriages that succeed over time in the early 21st century are those where the woman was very, very sexually attracted to the man from the very beginning of the relationship. It must be literal “head over heels” immediately, “Love at first sight” for her. If she doesn’t feel those hard tingles for that man literally immediately, in the first few minutes of laying eyes on him, she never will – and that bodes poorly for any future relationship they’ll have together. Every successful relationship in the Manosphere Ladies’ Auxiliary is described this way. Mychael, and a couple of other women whose names I won’t mention, but they know who they are (and so do I), all describe their relationships with their husbands this way: They were very, very hard sexually attracted to their husbands immediately, and that sexual attraction has remained strong and sustained.

    Those are the only real successful marriages and relationships. And it is because there is literally nothing other that a woman’s own sexual attraction, personal interests, and internal moral code, that will keep her with you. Literally everything and everyone else is actively encouraging her and egging her on to sabotage and destroy her own marriage,

  157. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Will the Third World re-Christianize the West? https://www.christianpost.com/voice/african-korean-missionaries-look-to-reconvert-america-europe.html

    A century ago, as Pew reports, over ninety percent of the world’s Christians lived in Europe and the Americas, and less than six percent in Africa and Asia. Today, over a third of all Christians hail from those continents.

    As this Christian population shift has taken place, something else interesting has also happened. Poor, developing countries that once benefited from Western missionaries coming into their cultures have started sending missionaries of their own back to the rich and increasingly irreligious West.

  158. Anonymous Reader says:

    I think the issue is more about depending on vetting rather than doing your due diligence and then enforcing your healthy boundaries.

    I dunno what is so difficult about the word “and”. But it is a real problem in the androsphere. Plenty of things in life require a multilayered approach. Tell a teenager “Take a shower”, should you have to say “with soap!” as an addendum?

    Men who have been in hierarchies get used to issuing and taking instruction. “This machine requires careful use. Follow this checklist every time. Every. Single. Time.” is an instruction that I was given some years ago. The manager who said that to me expected me to hear and obey, he wasn’t planning on circling back around constantly to see if I was using the checklist.

    We get used to that kind of male directness. “Do this process this way because it works best”, issued to a subordinate, then walk away to get something else done. However, in the case of a contentious woman, “Don’t yell at me” may have to be repeated many times to get the message across.

    Part of vetting is compliance testing .A man should avoid being married to a contentious wife [1], therefore he should avoid being engaged to a contentious fiance’, therefore when a girl can’t even obey an instruction like “wait here” for 30 seconds, he should NEXT her.

    [1] People can change. Pregnancy causes changes to women’s brain structure, and often causes a decline in circulating T in the father. A man who becomes betaized can very easily slack off on leadership, resulting in his girl unconsciously seeking to pick up the slack. This often leads to nagging and contentiousness – “Hey, she wasn’t like this when I married her! What happened?”. It can be a long process back to where they were at the start. Better to maintain Frame, especially in difficult times. To know “this is likely to happen” is the first step to preventing the “this” from causing a problem.

  159. Anonymous Reader says:

    Forgot my tl;dr

    Vetting AND leading AND enforcing boundaries AND maintaining your own mental state…each is an important component. A man can’t just vet his girl then say “Eh, she’s a grown-up girl, I don’t have to correct her behavior when she crosses a line”. Neither can a man say “Hey, my Frame is so strong I don’t need to vet because even Suzie Slutcheeks will bend to my will”. Et cetera and so forth.

    “And”, not “or”.

  160. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Anonymous Reader, HOW does one “enforce boundaries” on a modern woman? How can a man enforce any rules on a woman?

  161. Oscar says:

    @ feeriker

    Either you misread my respond, or, more likely, I wasn’t clear enough in my focus.

    I didn’t mean to imply that the true church should appeal to authority to fix the current mess. Rather, it needs to return to its true roots in Scripture and start exercising Scripture-centered discipline within the flock, which of course would include holding people firmly to what the Bible says about marriage and divorce.

    I see. You’re also right that a church that actually teaches the Bible tends to attract self-disciplined people, so church discipline is less necessary. However, at some point it will attract new believers from messed up backgrounds. And, like the Corinthian believers, there will be growing pains. And that’ll require church discipline.

  162. Frank K says:

    Hillsong “worship” is so cringy and a lot of “evangelical” worship too. It lacks the gravitas and majesty of proper worship.

    I suppose that’s what happens when Jesus is demoted from Lord of all Creation to “Best Friend”. I will agree that Evangelical services are more “entertaining” than an Orthodox Liturgy or a Catholic Mass.

    I once attended Evensong at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, which is basically the Anglican version of Vespers. As we entered we were asked by the ushers if we were there for worship or simply as tourists. We responded that we were there as worshippers. We were seated under the dome. The lookie loos were seated further back, and it was obvious that they were bored as many would leave after a few minutes.

  163. Frank K says:

    And, like the Corinthian believers, there will be growing pains. And that’ll require church discipline.

    I think that a big difference between then and now was that people didn’t have the plethora of choices in churches that claimed to be Christian, and couldn’t just skedaddle off to Pastor Bob’s church if they thought that their current church was too strict, harsh or “unfriendly”. I am speaking of the very early church. Soon enough the heresies began, as Irenaeus documented in his second century book “Against Heresies”

  164. Nick M says:

    I don’t even know what to say. I’ll leave it to you, Dalrock.

  165. Oscar says:

    Vetting is absolutely necessary, but keep in mind that Genesis 3 applies to all humans, and therefore, Eve’s curse applies to every woman.

    Every woman is tempted to dominate and/or manipulate her husband. Every single one of them.

    Regardless of how she was raised, or where she goes/went to church, she will be tempted to dominate and/or manipulate her husband.

    Obviously, some women will resist the temptation more than others. And many factors (covered in vetting) help determine whether she’s likely to resist the temptation, or give in.

    1. Are her parents married?
    2. How does she treat her father?
    3. How does her mother treat her father?
    4. What does the church she attends teach about marriage?
    5. How does she react when she hears that God requires wives to obey their husbands?

    Yeah, obviously a woman who passes all those gates is a far better bet than one who doesn’t. But she’s still tempted to dominate and/or manipulate her husband. So, be prepared. And when she gives in to the temptation to dominate and/or manipulate you, don’t give in to the temptation to let her.

  166. Son of Leod says:

    @Dalrock,
    This doesn’t ring a bell. Could you give me more detail on the post you are looking for?
    Could it be this one: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2019/05/01/the-season-of-singleness/

    In the comments of The Season of Singleness is what I was looking for
    Bee says:
    May 1, 2019 at 4:24 pm
    Recent embrace of Same Sex Attraction (SSA) is making the delay of marriage even worse for
    Evangelicals:
    https://pulpitandpen.org/2019/04/11/young-christians-stop-embracing-your-singleness-and-
    start-preparing-for-marriage/
    It was bad before, now even worse!!

    Thank you for your help

  167. thedeti says:

    HOW does one “enforce boundaries” on a modern woman? How can a man enforce any rules on a woman?

    Dread. Saying “no”. Walking away. From the situation/argument. From the relationship. From the marriage. “Here’s the line. Cross it, we’re done.”

    One thing I know you don’t do is what Tim Bayly would suggest, which is ask, plead, and repeat your boundaries.

  168. Oscar says:

    @ Frank

    I think that a big difference between then and now was that people didn’t have the plethora of choices in churches that claimed to be Christian, and couldn’t just skedaddle off to Pastor Bob’s church if they thought that their current church was too strict, harsh or “unfriendly”.

    That’s true, but it still meets the intent. There are two purposes for church discipline, according to 1 Corinthians 5.

    1. “… the destruction of the flesh, that his [the sinners’] spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.”
    2. Preventing the leaven from leavening the whole lump.

    Whether the unrepentant sinner repents, or leaves, the church is better off either way.

    I am speaking of the very early church. Soon enough the heresies began, as Irenaeus documented in his second century book “Against Heresies”

    Heresies started right away. The Apostles Paul, John and Peter all wrote against false teachers who were spreading false teachings in their day.

  169. Anonymous Reader says:

    Red Pill Latecomer
    Anonymous Reader, HOW does one “enforce boundaries” on a modern woman? How can a man enforce any rules on a woman?

    “Alex, I’ll take What Is The Manosphere? for $500!”

    C’mon, there are entire books on that topic.
    Use a search engine other than Google (the SJW’s have been messing around with results and autocomplete for a few years) with terms such as “wife obey boundary”. Here, I’ll even do it for you.

    https://duckduckgo.com/?q=wife+obey+boundary&t=brave&ia=web

    You’ll have to be careful about the results, though, because there’s a lot of feminism out there, in and out of church sites; you could wind up at Sheila Gregoire’s “Love, Honor and Vacuum” by accident, for example.

    Just for a start, Deep Stregth https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/ has an entire book on the topic from an explicitly Christian perspective. Every man can benefit from it, regardless of religion or lack thereof.

    Rollo Tomassi has three books on the topic. However his Rational Male site is not for the pearl-clutcher, because he’s not kidding about “Why do my eyes hurt?” and comments can be a really hot kitchen.

    The first step to solving a problem: describe the conditions, describe the intended goal, tell yourself a solution exists. If a man doesn’t believe a solution exists he’ll just get stuck. Not good.

  170. Anonymous Reader says:

    thedeti to Red Pill Latecomer
    One thing I know you don’t do is what Tim Bayly would suggest, which is ask, plead, and repeat your boundaries.

    Take any marriage advice from Tim Bayly or Doug Wilson and do the exact opposite is a pretty good start. Because they are appeasers and that fails every time.

    I think it was Scott who once observed here that sometimes he has to do the exact opposite of what he feels he should do. I agree, and it is hard when a woman is spun up in some kind of angry fitness test to not just placate her in order to buy some temporary peace…but that’s like giving candy to a toddler having a meltdown, it merely rewards bad behavior.

  171. Daniel says:

    Right, Oscar. We do not let the government define marriage. God has defined it in his word. He assigns to each man the authority to take a wife, and to divorce her, when required. A married man’s children are his. The children of a harlot are hers. We must stand on God’s word, and not look to the government to define our morality.

  172. Oscar says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    I think it was Scott who once observed here that sometimes he has to do the exact opposite of what he feels he should do. I agree, and it is hard when a woman is spun up in some kind of angry fitness test to not just placate her in order to buy some temporary peace…but that’s like giving candy to a toddler having a meltdown, it merely rewards bad behavior.

    I find it most difficult to refrain from reacting with anger to an infantile temper tantrum, but that too is counter productive. The best response seems to be indifference.

  173. BillyS says:

    AR,

    You have asserted in other threads that change will not come to the system because women won’t give up the power. Yet here you claim a man can do many things to properly control a woman. Which is it?

    A man can certainly do some things to increase his odds of course, but he cannot control things to the extent you note. I am sure you agree with that at some level, but it is dishonest to imply it is an issue of a man not controlling things himself enough.

    That is only a part of the picture. It only works when the woman is willing at least at some level.

    This modern system is not sustainable and thus will break down far sooner than it may seem, though I do expected it to last far longer than I feel is reasonable.

  174. Anonymous Reader says:

    Billys
    You have asserted in other threads that change will not come to the system because women won’t give up the power. Yet here you claim a man can do many things to properly control a woman. Which is it?

    I do not recall asserting what you claim above. You may be reading something other than what I am writing.

    Short answer: “one” is not the same number as 150,000,000.

    Longer answer:
    In the US women did not take powers, they were given powers. Mainly by social elites. See the 19th Amendment for an example. As long as there are men with authority who are willing to cater to women’s whims as a group there cannot be changes to such things as family law. The existence of the 19th Amendment doesn’t prevent a man from telling his wife whom to vote for. This should be obvious.

    On a smaller scale, in an average US church of 100 people a single man will find it difficult to influence all the women in that church. However he can enforce boundaries on the one woman he’s married to, if he’s willing to do the work required and take the risks. If a man cannot imagine what he would do in case of frivorce, then he’s limited in his authority. If a man isn’t willing to deal with the increase in anger and contentiousness that will happen, he’s limited in his authority.

    Speaking of contentiousness: while I was grabbing quotes from Proverbs I found this page. I know that there are churchgoing women lurking here, a few might find it useful. It would likely be imprudent to push this in front of a contentious wife, however.

    I have no idea who or what this organization is, or who the writer is, but the advice is sound and so far as I can tell the Bible quotes are correct. I’m sure many others can examine her theology better than my own self.

    https://wisereaction.org/articles/marriage-divorce-remarriage-resources/33-contentious-woman

  175. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: The UK can’t find recruits.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7343205/British-Army-recruitment-crisis-leaves-regiments-40-optimum-strength-figures-show.html

    The Army has been hit by a recruitment crisis – with a shortfall of more than 2,500 frontline soldiers compared with troop numbers in 2015.

    There was a deficit of 7.6 per cent across the Army on January 1, according to figures published by the Ministry of Defence.

    But for troops on the front line the lack of personnel is much more dramatic.

    As tensions around the world hot up, frontline combat units are operating at as much as 40 per cent below their optimum strength, it has been reported.

    The number of soldiers in the infantry regiments has steadily declined over the past five years, prompting criticism of the outsourcing company Capita, which has managed recruitment in the Armed Forces since 2012.

    Nine of the 16 infantry regiments are operating a fifth or more below the number of personnel needed – and four are operating at a quarter or more below their strength.

    Obviously, there are likely many reasons for recruitment shortfalls, but I thought all the pandering to women, Muslims and homos was supposed to solve those problems. Who could have predicted this outcome? I mean, besides people who grasp the obvious.

    By the way, I’m not picking on our British allies. The US military has similar problems.

  176. Anonymous Reader says:

    I wonder if the People’s Liberation Army of China has a problem finding fit recruits?

  177. TheTraveler says:

    @Mountain Man

    SHE ended the relationship? Not really. HE ended the relationship when he decided to move back to the festering dung-heap that is India.

    Yeah, yeah: “Biblical Headship,” the MAN gets to TELL the wife WHAT TO DO! Thus giving him more authority than God, who encourages us, cajoles us, even sometimes hits us between the eyes (so to speak), but never FORCES us. But a husband can FORCE his wife to move to a terrible place with their kid. Because Bible. Because God. Because HEADSHIP!!!

    Um, no. Parental responsibility cuts two ways. If a mother refuses to move her kid to a country like India, I’m behind HER.

  178. Charles B says:

    The only legitimate way for a woman to not have to move with her child to India is to not marry a man from there. She already made her choice and had to live with all of the consequences of it which is of course what she didn’t want.

  179. Frank K says:

    By the way, I’m not picking on our British allies. The US military has similar problems.

    I know a guy who used to teach at the Air Force Academy. Ten years ago he told me that most of the cadets are very fat and out of shape when they enter the academy.

    I also know that at the High School my kids attended, that about half the graduating boys try to enlist, and that the majority are rejected as either physically or mentally unfit. And we allegedly live in one of the least fat (I hesitate to say “leanest”) states in the country. I can only imagine how hard it is to recruit in states where the obesity rate hovers around 35% My understanding is that whatever a local obesity rate is, that you can usually double it to include those who are overweight,

  180. Minesweeper says:

    @Oscar, The UK military has a very particular problem in that after joining and being posted to conflict your more likely to die at your own hand (after returning) than at the hand of any enemy (in theatre).

    The UK military position is that when you return broken and damaged from the field of conflict, your discharged (if you can move at all) and told to contact the NHS for treatment. Their hands are now clean.

    The NHS at that point says – well WTF did we do to create this mess and we can’t fix it either.

    So really, you can only let your previous staff kill themselves at high rates before word get around, and around it has.

  181. Minesweeper says:

    *Once your previous staff start to kill themselves at high rates, word gets around, and around it has.

    Joining the UK military is now a short cut to suicide, after a few years.

  182. feeriker says:

    The UK military position is that when you return broken and damaged from the field of conflict, your discharged (if you can move at all) and told to contact the NHS for treatment. Their hands are now clean.

    No different in practice from how the U.S. military/Veterans Administration does business.

  183. Mountain Man says:

    To all the other readers, I feel like I’m having a private argument with TheTraveler in this thread. I hope it has not become too tedious, though I fear it has. Since the traffic on this thread is slowing down, it may be a moot point, but feel free to let me know whether I should just drop it.

    @TheTraveler

    I’m not sure why you continue to insist on missing the point. And I’m not sure why you are so fixated on the fact that India is involved. Rather than try to explain it to you again, let me just ask you some questions. Feel free to answer or not. Other readers should also feel free to weigh in.

    What do you think should happen when a husband and wife disagree on where to live?

    Under what conditions can a wife refuse (your word) to move?

    Do you think there is any situation in which a wife’s refusal to follow her husband would indicate that she is responsible for breaking up the marriage?

    Must a husband always live where the wife wants to? And if he doesn’t, does that mean he is always the one at fault for ending the relationship?

    Does the wife always have veto power over her husbands’ desires and decisions regarding living location?

    Does she only have veto power when the place being moved to is a crap hole?

    Who determines if it’s enough of a crap hole to confer veto power on her? Is it only the wife who makes that determination? Do they need to consult her girlfriends? Do they have to consult you to get a crap hole rating on the proposed country, and whether that rating justifies her veto power?

    What if the man had been from France? Is she still justified in staying behind?

    What if they met, married and had a kid in California, but he is from Arizona, and wants or needs to return? Does she still have veto power over his desire to move?

    What about other marital disagreements? Let’s take children’s education, for example. Can a man decide what school his children attend? Does the wife have veto power over his decision if she thinks the proposed school is a crap hole? What if she just prefers a different school? Does she still have veto power?

    Can a man only make decisions which he knows his wife will agree with? And if so, can’t you see that that puts her in control of everything?

    In your ideal marriage, is a husband only allowed to “lead” in a direction his wife already wants to go? Or, do you think it’s right and proper that the wife have all the authority in the relationship?

    In your last message, you were very disparaging of the idea of biblical headship. Are you a Christian? And if so, what do you make of the passages which clearly teach husbandly leadership and wifely submission?

    Or are you just a troll trying to stir up internet drama by being contrarian? I’m genuinely curious why you read Dalrock if you have such a negative view of biblical headship.

  184. Mountain Man says:

    @TheTraveler

    I just thought of another possibility. Perhaps I incorrectly assumed you are a man. Your handle is ambiguous enough that maybe you are one of the female readers of Dalrock. That would certainly explain your apparently reflexive need to side with the wife in my little story.

  185. Mountain Man says:

    @TheTraveler

    Just one more thing, and then I’m done with this discussion. To reiterate, the point of the story was NOT whether she was justified in refusing to move. Nor was it about whether he was right to move to India without her. The point of the story was to raise the question of whether she qualifies for the title of “widow”, and whether a “widow” such as her is safely marriageable. Obviously, my answer to that question is “No”. You, of course, are free to disagree.

  186. Red Pill Christianity says:

    So… I am kind of surprised at some of the statements here about “single moms” vs “divorced moms” vs “widowed women” and regarding “Captain-Save-A-Ho’s”, so I think we need a time-out and define each term.

    There is a major difference between them.

    **Single mom: Often an irresponsible, single woman who gets knocked up by unknown/random men and have kid(s) by different men. Usually on welfare, feeling high sense of entitlement, and is often lazy with a bunch of tattoos and/or unnatural-colored hair. Example:


    (Act now and she will throw in debt and ensuring your dreams never come true – ever!)

    **Divorced mom: was married to the father of her kid(s). She may be a devious one (frivolously divorced husband who has not committed adultery) or may actually be a victim of adultery by husband (which I personally know of this situation all too well).

    **Widowed mom: A married woman who had kid(s) with her married husband and she is a known Believer. The husband has since died and she was not the cause of his demise (i.e. murder). She is involuntarily single and The Bible VERY CLEARLY puts them in a special category, especially older widows (see Acts 6 and 1 Timothy 5:3-16).

    **Captain Save-A-Hoe: A foolish man who married a loose broad, almost always he does so KNOWINGLY.

    Examples:

    *Beta cuck Liam Hemsworth, whom I have lambasted earlier this week for his Betaness and willingness to wife-up a bi-whoremonger rich-trashlike Miley Cyrus.

    Not only Miley dumped him 7 months after their “marriage” she then cheats on him WITH A WOMAN, publicly, he feels all sad and downcast.

    *Any dude who marries a woman who cucks him in his own household by brining in grown men from 3rd world countries to “live with them”.

    https://goodbyeamericainaphoto.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/goodbyeracemixpic.jpeg?w=620&h=779

    This guy is a perfect Captain, who not only saves some hoe and works hius butt off to have a house, he then allows her to bring in a grown refugee to keep her warm at night while the fool works himself to death. Oh yeah and allows his kids to possibly be molested by the refugee as well.

    *Any man becomes a Captain Save-A-Hoe if he knowingly marry/LTR/white knights for the following type of women, such as:


    (Feminists)


    (revirginated)

    That said……..

    imnobody00 says that Captain Save-a-ho is the kind of man who is enthusiastic in throwing other men under the bus and to separate a daughter from his father, and when some man explains his divorce problems, he sides with the wife. For him, all of us are a bunch of misogynists.

    True, BUT, what IamNobody is describing is more of a Cuck than a Captain. A Captain is a guy who wants to “rescue” a problem woman. He is a white knight who marries a known harlot.

    RoK did one of the best (and funny) lists of cuck dudes who may also be Captain-Save-A-Hos (CSAH’s): ReturnOfKings.com/131129/6-signs-that-a-man-is-a-cuckold

    It is a fun read. Bottom line: a Captain is more of a guy who rescues h0es and shows them with money, gifts, and/or marriage. A dunce, in simple terms.

  187. Red Pill Christianity says:

    MineSweeper and Feeriker:

    I watched a video (2018 edition) of the UK health systems by British journalists who wnated to tout why they need to save and grow that system. Even the journalists were shocked at the chaotic situation. Their government-run Health Services in the UK are absolute hell. Newly minted PM BoJo has admitted to the nightmare their health services have become in his opening remarks couple of weeks ago outside 10 Downing. Sick Brits have to sell their homes and empty out their life savings to fly abroad for healthcare in Germany, Switzerland, or the USA or die in UK, waiting. That is because every Abdullah and every Lakisha there gets preference in treatment in queues since they have a “preference system” for “poor migrants” and foreign women giving birth. The UK health services are overwhelmed by “migrants” and foreigners. It is 3rd world now, bordering the even more dismal French health system.

    Even in rich, tiny Norway (5m people and country is rich in natural resources), mass immigration from 3rd world Muslim hellholes have overwhelmed their health system. My friend got sideswiped by a bus in Bergen and was taken (by the bus driver) to a hospital in Bergen. Now, Bergen is their 3rd largest city, and the dude was bleeding and in excruciating pain. He had to wait for 9 hours alone with cloths on his injuries in this hospital hallway and was in such agony he was sweating like crazy. He yelled for help, even called for help and no one came. Since he could not stand up and hours went by and he ended up drinking water from a potted plant. Just insane. he said even Bergen, a small city, is overrun by foreigners from Afghanistan and Africa. They just overwhelmed the socialist health services.

    Then we hear daily rants by Socialist DemonCrats push for this exact system in the USA. Veteran Affairs (VA) HellCare for all (except the rich, politicians, and DC elites). Oh yeah and they want de-criminalization of the Border, thus ensuring we get another couple hundred million new poor immigrants in.

    Yeah, it is gonna work out great here if the DemonCrats win! LOL

  188. Red Pill Christianity says:

    TheTraveler and MountainMan:

    Your argument is all theoretical. Here is how it works in real life.

    Mr. Raj Kaput, the Indian husband says to his wife, Sally McHoebag, that he wants to go back to the hellhole known as India and take their kid with him. She says no freaking way, since even breathing the air in Mumbai, India for 24 hours = smoking 113 cigarettes (see: https://www.indiatimes.com/health-and-fitness/breathing-the-air-in-mumbai-for-one-day-during-diwali-equivalent-to-113-cigarettes-48639.html ).

    Here is how the situation unfolds:

    Husband: “I wanna go back to India! Let’s move there!”

    Wife: “No way. That country is a hellhole!”

    Husband: “If you do not move, I will just take our child with me. I am the man, I am from patriarchy, so you must obey! We are going, period”.

    Wife: Picks up phone and call cops and says her husband is sexually molesting their child.

    Cops come, arrest him, and while the dunce is in jail, she coaches their child in what to say. Cops interview the child along with social services days later and child recites the script. She is sitting there with tissues, crying about how she failed her daughter, how could she marry that man!

    Since they live in lovely Florida, Jessica’s Law (which is also law in 34 States) requires he face minimum 25 years prison, even though this is his first offense and no actual evidence of molestation exists. Then while he is stuck in jail, facing mandatory 25 (no parole in FL), she files for divorce. With arrest record in hand, she has him permanently barred from re-entering the home. She runs a garage sale and liquidates his stuff, all his clothes, books, etc etc. She clears his bank account. Sacks his 401(k).

    Meanwhile, in India, his family finally saves enough cash to bond him out. If dude has any brains, he will fly out of country same day and kiss his loses goodbye. If he is an idiot, he will “face the music” and plea guilty and get severely punished for the rest of his natural life, registering as sex offender OR take it to trial and get guaranteed 25.

    She has to, under State law, to be notified 24 h before his release from jail. Wife then files for divorce 6 months since this whole saga began and serves him as he is walking out of jail. She knows he has zero chance without any money, assets, job, or cash in bank. He may not even show up for court at this point, who knows? If he flees the country, she will get total custody and a final divorce order.

    For her, it is win-win. For him, it is game over. Might well go back to India before he become Big Bubbah’s cellmate!

    Bottom line: SHE GETS TO DECIDE whether they move or not in real life, since we live in a feminist hellhole of a society and a misandrist legal system. Period.

    Therefore, your whole argument is purely theoretical and kind of adorable, actually. 🙂 She can end it all for the guy with one phone call. Since I do not know how to say “Welcome to America, fool” in Indian dialect, so….. let’s just say “enjoy the rest of your day!” LOL

  189. Oscar says:

    @ feeriker, Minesweeper & Anonymous Reader

    You gentlemen probably already know this, especially ferriker, who (if I recall) is a Navy veteran.

    The UK and US militaries both have the same primary (not only) problem with recruiting. The people who’ve formed the core of both militaries for ages fit the same description. In no particular order:

    1. Male
    2. White
    3. Citizens
    4. Heterosexual
    5. Christian (mostly Protestant)
    6. Politically right wing

    Obviously, there have always been exceptions. I am one. I’m an immigrant, but I became a citizen after having served in the US military for 5 years, and I fit the other categories almost exactly. I’m Hispanic, but of German descent.

    These men who’ve always made up the core of both the US and UK militaries are now the most maligned people in both countries. They’re no longer welcome in either military without making all kinds of genuflections that people of every other group are never required to make.

    This is especially true of the Combat Arms. The only group more likely to enlist in the Combat Arms than white males are Hispanic males, and there are a lot fewer of us (for now). Groups other than white and Hispanic males tend to enlist for support roles, like logistics. That’s why infantry units are suffering more than other units.

    Both militaries are literally driving away the men who’ve been its heart and soul since the beginning, and they expected to make up the slack by appealing to women, Sodomites and trannies (and Muslims, in the UK’s case).

    Guess what? Those groups are largely not interested in enlisting. Imagine that.

    Obviously, there are other problems. But this one, I believe, is primary.

  190. Minesweeper says:

    @RPC, you got a link to that vid you mentioned ?

    Just a heads up, as the west abandoned God, and instead took on science and medicine as it’s “God” I’m starting to think, he is going to let it destroy the west – this is after all his playpen and us the ants in it for a short time.

    The kids are starting to come off pretty badly atm. Looks like deregulating the financial system in 2002 is having parallels with deregulating vaccines in 1986.

  191. Paul says:

    @Daniel He assigns to each man the authority to take a wife, and to divorce her, when required.

    Mt 19 “Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
    1 Cor 7 “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.”

  192. Liz says:

    That was a good breakdown (and explanation), Oscar.
    Last statistics I read came from 2017, so I doubt much has changed. At that time, about 40 percent of new recruits were from the south, 60 percent from the South and West. Our active-duty force is comprised of only 0.4% of the U.S. population.
    Having a relative who served in the military is the most a critical indicator as to whether an individual will even consider military service. Among veterans under age 40, 60% have an immediate family tie to the military, compared to only 39% of civilians. Of the new recruits joining, approximately 25% have a parent who has served. 
    Are military parents encouraging their kids to join now?
    We sure aren’t (though our oldest has signed on, it’s not something we encouraged or hoped for).

  193. Pingback: Word from the Dark Side – civil war and everyone calm down | SovietMen

  194. Paul says:

    @RPL

    Definition of a born-again virgin: “I went to bed with 146 men”

    Which act transforms one from the latter to the first? Go figure.

  195. Oscar says:

    @ Liz

    Are military parents encouraging their kids to join now?

    I’m not.

  196. BillyS says:

    Minesweeper,

    Read the what people write about how things happened (stellar evolution or creature evolution). “Evolution” is almost always described as causing this or that. What is written will often intersperse comments about nothing controlling things (unlike the Intelligent Design idea) but the same is attributed to a mindless force.

    That is their god. Unfortunately many Christians have taken this pill uncritically and fail to see the underlying beliefs thus feel compelled to believe modern fairy tails that are nothing more than the old creation myths repacked.

    As a older Christian singer said in one of his songs: “We are so open minded that our brains leaked out!”

  197. Jon Patch says:

    Almost had him? She may yet have him when he decides to do the “honorable” thing, what with the ex being “abusive” and all

  198. Red Pill Christianity says:

    *Paul, only a Captain Save-A-Hoe would “rescue” a born-again virgin (re-virginated woman) after 146 men. That dude is THE definition of a Captain! 🙂 LOL

    It is too bad because the girl looks kinda cute too and at only 18, that is such a horrific notchcount, she is probably damaged for life (not just physically, but mentally as well). Given she is from LA, you KNOW the c0ckbuffet she has feasted on will have been quite intense.

    I would be willing to believe her that she has changed after a few years with her legs closed and in church. True repentance. But to suddenly be revirginated and then look for a guy to marry is suspicious to me.

    Interestingly enough, notice she has no pic of her eyes. Probably due to the noticeable 1,000-c0ck stare.

    *MineSweeper, the problem is that the West was re-educated to abandon God. This was done through the education system. In Western Europe in just a few years past, no one questions anything. The news, like in Norway for instance is owned and controlled by the government and they only have 4 “free” TV channels. They shutdown and arrest any dissenting publications. Go and question the Swedish govt’s mass immigration policy and you will eb arrested for “Racism”. Same in Italy. The govt in-charge almost always stays in power because they control the narrative/press/police. Over1,000 rapes during New Year’s Eve in Cologne Germany by the “refugees” was covered-up completely until RT News put it out there. Then it was a scandal. But notice how Angela and her corruptocrats are still in power, after destroying Western Europe and her country. That is because she controls the media and can arrest anyone for speaking out against any of her policies.

    Thsi was accomplished through education, or re-education. The Nationalist Socialists said clearly that “it does not matter if you agree with us or not. We have your kids and in time, they will follow our mandates”. They re-educated the population. Interestingly enough, it is a CRIME in most of Western Europe to homeschool. In Germany, it is a felony to homeschool. Ever wonder why??

    The problems are not vaccines or the financial de-regulation. The problem is the schools, the media influence, and a legal system that destroyed families. They have criminalized masculinity, even at its most basic, and they have made marriage guaranteed for men. Throw in mass immigration to depress wages combined with outsourcing and you can start to see why our society is in total freefall. These are the core problems.

  199. TheTraveler says:

    @MountainMan

    I’m sorry you’re in emotional pain. Because clearly you are, given your allusions to your own life. No sarcasm meant or implied. That does not excuse your invective.

    You concede my points. Then hurl insults at me for “misunderstanding.” I don’t misunderstand. I’m disagreeing with your dogmatism.

    Given the limited background, as far as I’m concerned, the woman in your story is entitled to be called a widow. She’s a fool for marrying a foreigner from a rotten country, whose natives have an inexplicable, obsessive devotion to said country–always a bad harbinger. But “fool” is not the same as “wicked,” although the results (ironically) are sometimes even worse.

    As for someone else’s Duluth-based scenario, I don’t know whether it’s true or not. Not enough information. Just because she’s a fool, we can’t assume she’s a criminal.

    There are lots of rotten women out there. There are also rotten men. And sometimes, two ordinary people do stupid things and foolishly open the door to a terrible situation.

  200. purge187 says:

    “It’s possible to see ‘white supremacy’ not as a racial attack or a flaming arrow but as a challenge to live up to those expectations.”

    It’s envy. As you said, White men are, by and large, very productive, and that drives Leftists – especially Feminists – crazy.

  201. Frank K says:

    Sick Brits have to sell their homes and empty out their life savings to fly abroad for healthcare in Germany, Switzerland, or the USA or die in UK, waiting.

    I have relatives in the UK who have private insurance and they avoid the NHS like the plague (there is a private health care sector in the UK). From what I have heard, private insurance is becoming a popular fringe benefit for higher level jobs in the UK. Relatives in Hungary also shun the government healthcare if they can. A cousin works for Daimler and I believe she and her family have private insurance.

  202. Frank K says:

    To be clear: The cousin who works for Daimler lives and works in Hungary. From what I’ve been told, the Hungarian government healthcare system is dreadful.

  203. feeriker says:

    Are military parents encouraging their kids to join now?

    I thank God that my 17-year-old grandson shows no interest whatsoever in following in my footsteps. I wouldn’t “disown” him if he were to express interest in enlisting, but I would sit him down and have a very long heart-to-heart in an attempt to talk him out of it. I’ve said it here before, but I’ll say it again and again: the current degenerate version of the United States is not worth any young man’s life to defend, but in any case “national defense” isn’t even the current U.S. military’s mission. It’s nothing but a mercenary enforcement cartel for the corporate Deep State, and no American has any business fighting and dying for that.

    @ Oscar

    Correct, plus what I’ve just added about “national defense” being utterly irrelevant to what either the U.S. or UK military does nowadays.

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.