What are fathers for?

Several commenters have noted the troubling image featured at the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (fatherhood.gov):

comic_relief
I’m going to partially defend the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC), as we (as a society) have asked them to do the impossible.  We ask them to stress the importance of fathers, when we believe no such thing.  Since around 1970 we have waged war on the very idea of fatherhood, as part of our war against The Patriarchy.  Fathers are no longer accepted as the head of the family, and aside from fulfilling the role of walking wallet we no longer even have a clear accepted definition of what fathers do.  Fathers are now deputy parents, who serve at the pleasure of the mother.

Moreover, it isn’t just feminists who have waged war on fathers.  If anything, “traditional conservatives” are even more hostile to fathers than feminists are.  Just like feminists, the My Lord Mary Lee crowd can’t stand the thought of fathers in charge.

But making this all the more difficult, we are in denial regarding our war against fathers.  The official party line is some version of:

  1. Fathers are better now than they were in the past.
  2. Fathers are “absent” for some entirely mysterious reason.

When we ask the NRFC to teach the importance of fathers, something we as a society vehemently disagree with, we are creating a no win situation for them.  They dare not speak the truth, and yet they need to be seen encouraging fatherhood or they won’t be able to justify their funding.  So it isn’t surprising that the NRFC would lead with an image of fathers as comic relief.  Who doesn’t love laughter?  And the image of fathers as clowns is one sure to please both feminists and chivalrists.

If you scroll a bit further down the page, there are links to resources, including DadTalk, a blog on fathering:

fatherhood2

The most recent DadTalk blog post demonstrates the difficulty of the task we have assigned the NRFC.  The post is titled How Fathers Shape Their Children’s Development: Revisiting the Literature.  First the post has to deal with the fact that we have done so much violence to the concept of fatherhood;  before we can discuss what fathers do, we need to seriously struggle with the question of what the word father even means.  This is something I’ve noted before, and for practical purposes in government statistics it often comes down to who the mother is currently having sex with.  In the modern family, the word “father” refers to a series of men who come in and out of the child’s life as their mother makes her way through the modern sexual marketplace (emphasis mine):

First, when we revisit the literature about fathers’ involvement, we need to define: what do we mean when we talk about fathers? The definition of who is a “father” has grown and developed alongside the field of fatherhood programming. We could be referring to a biological father or a stepfather, custodial or non-custodial, with a legal relationship to the child or a social one (e.g., a mother’s partner). Each has his own way of shaping the development of a child depending on when he comes into that child’s life and the amount of time he spends with the child on a regular basis. What matters most for a father’s relationship with his children is not the specific type of family situation, but how the father chooses to involve himself in the life and well-being of his child.

Next the post gets into the tricky question of what the proper role of fathers should be.  As deputy parent, this boils down to general parenting assistance for the primary parent (the mother).  The blog cautions that “fatherhood practitioners” (I assume this means social workers) need to be “culturally sensitive” regarding the role of fathers:

Second, the literature informs the question: what is the role of the father in the family? The literature indicates that the image of an ideal dad and notions of a father’s role in the family are diverse, and to a large extent, shaped by cultural and demographic factors.  This is especially important to keep in mind for fatherhood practitioners, who should strive for cultural sensitivity and competence. The way a dad sees himself or his position in the family may vary greatly from family to family, and the way you work with or relate to that dad should take his perspective into account.

With these two questions out of the way, the blog post finally gets to the question of what fathers should do, and what makes them special.  This is, after all, the point of the post.  It explains that today’s fathers are better than fathers in the past, because they know their place.  Now in the role of mother’s helpers, fathers focus on generic child care and playing.  This is where the post takes on an edgy counter cultural tone sure to delight the house despot crowd, because it asserts that fathers play differently than mothers, aunts, etc do:

Third, the literature continues to track the following question: in what ways are fathers involved in their families, and how is this changing? Fathers as a whole are more actively involved in the lives of their children now than they were 50 years ago.  In 2016, fathers reported spending, on average, eight hours a week on child care—about three times more than in 1965. While dads previously may have been seen primarily as breadwinners, they are increasingly sharing parenting responsibilities with mothers.  This increased involvement could look like any, and often all, of the following:

  1. Positive engagement: direct interaction with children, including caregiving and activities
  2. Accessibility: availability to children
  3. Responsibility: participation in decision-making and ensuring that children are cared for

While each family balances these dimensions differently, we know that the quality of father involvement and engagement is just as, if not more, important than quantity when we talk about positive impacts on child development.  Fathers can increase the quality of their involvement through many different means, including showing affection, teaching and communicating effectively, providing emotional support, sharing interests, and sharing activities. Research shows that, on average, fathers tend to be more involved in play than mothers.  Furthermore, they tend to play differently than mothers do—engaging in more physical and challenging games and encouraging independence and risk-taking.

It isn’t just the NRFC that struggles greatly with extolling the value of fathers fathering while agonizing over the question of who fathers are and what fathering is.  See for example the National Health Statistics Report Fathers’ Involvement With Their Children:  United States, 2006–2010.  Like the NRFC, the report’s definition of father is a loose term where men often drift in and out of children’s lives as their mother cherishes her sexual freedom (emphasis mine):

Not all men are biological fathers and not all fathers have biological children. In addition to fathering a child, men may become fathers through adoption—which confers the same legal status, protections, and responsibilities to the man and the child as fathering a biological child. Men also may become de facto fathers when they marry or cohabit with women who have children from previous relationships, that is, they are raising stepchildren or their cohabiting partner’s children. In this report, men were defined as fathers if they had biological or adopted children or if step- or partner’s children were living in the household.

As for what fathers do, the list of activities fits closely with the NRFC’s definition.  Note that all of the activities used to measure the impact of fathers would just as easily work if the report were measuring the impact of aunts and grandmothers:

This report focuses on activities that men did with their children, separately for coresidential and noncoresidential children, in the last 4 weeks. The activities by age group are presented below. For children under age 5, activities include:

  • Eating meals with or feeding the children
  • Bathing, diapering, or dressing the children, or helping the children bathe, dress, or use the toilet themselves
  • Playing with the children
  • Reading to the children

For children aged 5–18, activities include:

  • Talking with the children about things that happened during their day
  • Eating meals with the children
  • Helping the children with homework or checking that the homework had been done
  • Taking the children to or from activities

Men were asked how frequently they did each activity in the last 4 weeks.

H/T White

Related: Children are as likely to end up living with neither parent as they are with just their father.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Disrespecting Respectability, Fatherhood, Feminists, National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse, New Morality, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

489 Responses to What are fathers for?

  1. Eduardo the Magnificent says:

    So dads are basically a babysitter who must pay for the privilege. Gotcha.

    Also, “dad as clown implies” that men are funnier than women. Better rework that idea, quick, before someone notices something…

  2. In case readers missed it, commenters last time were chortling that (a) the first menu item is Child Support, and (b) this is the last .gov site left that features photos of white males.
    My two bob: why do we have to throw yet more taxpayer money at encouraging fatherhood when fathers used to quite naturally undertake their duties without state prompting?
    Regulars here know, of course. It’s a rhetorical question.

  3. Minesweeper says:

    D, you absolutely manage to frame this society as it really is.

  4. The Real Peterman says:

    “Fatherhood practitioners”?

  5. thedeti says:

    I don’t think the reference to “fatherhood practitioners” is a reference to social workers. I think it’s an all inclusive statement to reference anyone filling the “father” role. Could be:

    Bio dad/Mom’s husband

    Uncle

    Grandparent

    Mom’s “Special friend”

    Stepfather(s) (mom’s husband(s) after divorcing her children’s father(s))

    Mom’s boyfriend(s)

    Mom’s live in paramour(s)

    Mom’s lesbian/bi girlfriend(s)

    Mom’s husband 4 days a week, her lover 2 days a week, and her lover’s wife 1 day a week

  6. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    I don’t think the reference to “fatherhood practitioners” is a reference to social workers. I think it’s an all inclusive statement to reference anyone filling the “father” role.

    That was how I originally read it as well. But the bolded part of sentence that follows convinced me it was social workers:

    This is especially important to keep in mind for fatherhood practitioners, who should strive for cultural sensitivity and competence. The way a dad sees himself or his position in the family may vary greatly from family to family, and the way you work with or relate to that dad should take his perspective into account.

  7. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I note that one of the site’s “resource’s” is Dad Jokes Rule: A celebration of the delightfully terrible Dad Joke!

    I don’t suppose any website offering support to mothers has a “resource” celebrating delightfully terrible Mom Jokes.

  8. TheTraveler says:

    Let’s not forget the infamous “Dad Bod.” Yes, it’s cool and funny to make fun of middle-aged men who are losing muscle and gaining fat as their body slows down, with many of them too busy to exercise because they’re working, helping Queen Mom raise the kids, fixing things, mowing the lawn, etc.

    So, “Dad Bod” = hilarious joke of nature on men. But don’t EVER tell a woman she looks anything less than spectacular, because she and all of society (especially her social media frenemies) will rain down fire on you–and you’ll “deserve” it! /sarc/

  9. vfm7916 says:

    I find IRS.gov far more useful as a guide to fatherhood than this one.

  10. Charles B says:

    For any lurkers that still don’t get it after the comments above explain it the real reason all of these descriptions of what a father does are such a joke is that these Same governmental and legal organizations when asked what a mother is and what her role is, will define a her as the one who bore the child and the 1 who makes decisions about the child’s life.

  11. Frank K says:

    We ask them to stress the importance of fathers, when we believe no such thing.

    Another symptom of living in Clown World.

  12. Frank K says:

    In the modern family, the word “father” refers to a series of men who come in and out of the child’s life as their mother makes her way through the modern sexual marketplace

    As I mentioned in the other thread, being the biological father (AKA the sperm donor) is now optional, if not flat out irrelevant.

    This reminds me of a scene in the movie “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”. Bill’s father has gone and married a girl who is just a couple of years older than his son (Missy). Bill has a very hard time dealing with this situation and is clearly troubled by it.Ted,in a moment of ineptitude, blurts out “Dude, she’s your mom!”. Never mind they attended high school together.

    Ted’s outburst is supposed to be absurd, and it still was in 1989, earning a laugh from the audience at Ted’s non stop stupidity. Fast forward today and that line of reasoning is now considered very reasonable: whoever your mother is sleeping with at the time, he’s one of your “dads”.

  13. Ultimately, this is all the result of the Protestant usurpation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, creating a vacuum worldly women like Elizabeth and Victoria came to inhabit, making women paragons of virtue who, when they fell, could not be reined in by men who had lost the masculine spirit of a healthy principality. There hasn’t been a real Patriarchy since the 1540s.

  14. Gunner Q says:

    OT, here’s a trailer for an upcoming documentary on the Social Justice takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention:

    https://founders.org/cinedoc/

    It’s already got the usual suspects like Al Mohler and Adam Greenway yanking their interviews and tone-policing it on social media!

  15. MikeJJ says:

    “A new social statement from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America labels patriarchy and sexism as sins and acknowledges the church’s complicity in them.”

    https://religionnews.com/2019/08/09/elca-names-sexism-and-patriarchy-as-sins-condemns-white-supremacy-at-lutheran-churchwide-assembly/

  16. Pingback: What are fathers for? | Reaction Times

  17. Frank K says:

    Are there any plans to do a Luther biopic, with a black lesbian portraying Mother Martina Luther?

  18. locustsplease says:

    As a working class man my favorite is always. Fathers spend more time with their children now than 50 or 100yrs ago. Really like forging this society out of the wilderness is just messing around. All these roads and bulidings just showed up.

  19. Yet Another Commenter, Yet Another Comment ("Yac-Yac") says:

    @ locustsplease

    “They didn’t build that.”

  20. BillyS says:

    Give it a break Walter. That is utter bunk and the RCC was quite corrupt before and at the time of the Reformation. Popes and Anti-Popes also abounded.

    Lots of flaws with your thinking, but leave it at that.

    Worship of Mary, contrary to the Scriptures, is certainly not the answer.

  21. BillyS says:

    Dalrock,

    The picture at the top is so repulsive as well. I have no problem with men goofing around, but blech!

  22. Kelly says:

    “Let’s not forget the infamous “Dad Bod.” Yes, it’s cool and funny to make fun of middle-aged men who are losing muscle and gaining fat as their body slows down, with many of them too busy to exercise because they’re working, helping Queen Mom raise the kids, fixing things, mowing the lawn, etc.

    So, “Dad Bod” = hilarious joke of nature on men. But don’t EVER tell a woman she looks anything less than spectacular, because she and all of society (especially her social media frenemies) will rain down fire on you–and you’ll “deserve” it! /sarc/”

    Seriously?!?!?!?!? You’re excusing fat men (because their body is slowing down and they don’t have time to exercise) but not excusing fat women – who’s bodies have also slowen down, they’re finding it tough to lose the extra weight pregnancy brings, and who also don’t have time to exercise? YOU try being pregnant, putting on that extra weight that baby needs to be born healthy, having aching joints/pelvis/hips. YOU try losing weight when you’re crazy-busy with kids and have fluctuating hormones. A woman’s body changes when she has babies. Her hips widen, her body softens, her belly wobbles. What is a man’s excuse? He hasn’t battled pregnancy weight/hormones. All he can blame is “lack of time” (same as the woman) and “body slowing down” (same as the woman).

  23. Ryan McConnell says:

    And yet, it mentions nothing about a father’s most important responsibilities for his family and children:

    – Teach his wife and children to love Christ, follow His commands, and be active members of His body the Church
    – Live morally according to the Christ’s teaching
    – Provide for the material needs of his family
    – Protect his family in times of peril
    – Teach and guide his family in matters of ethics, morality, politics, etc.

    Shocking, I know.

  24. dragnet says:

    Fatherhood practitioners.

    Clown World.

  25. feministhater says:

    When you shit on fatherhood and fathers, don’t be surprised when there is a lack of them.

    I spend no more time around children other than to say ‘hello’ and ‘goodbye’. The crippling costs of a false accusation of child molestation not withstanding, the financial risks of being ‘assumed’ as the ‘father figure’ are also now increasing.

    Honk Honk!

    The ‘benefits’ of fatherhood are so many now…. Serving at the behest of your superior, being thrown out at a moment’s notice to be replaced by a series walking dicks, being made fun of, being accused of abuse and sexual crimes, being on the hook financially whether or not you are the real bio dad, playing the clown, dancing like a clown and being turned into a slave, all the while being told you’re of no importance at all really and anyone can ‘play’ your role. Wow! Sign me up, sounds absolutely thrilling, who wouldn’t want to step up and become fathers?!

    Fatherhood is officially a joke. Everyone should be laughing, it’s a terrible dad joke after all.

  26. Red Pill Christianity says:

    American fathers are for:

    (maybe) Passing his genes to his kids (unless DNA-confirmed, who knows).
    Working between 40-80 hours a week while his wife cucks him on FB.
    Taking family on expensive vacations (more work for him). Never any rest.
    (maybe) Getting to raise his kids in some way he sees ift, IF woman/govt will allow it.
    If not… Being forced out of his home; losing his house; paying child support; never seeing his kids; suffering.

    Bottom line: here is a handy chart on marriage and divorce in America today:

    That is what fathers are for today. To become a literal slave. Or be sent to die in some dumb unless war and then have Hillary say the women are the victims when men die in wars. -_-

    Ps. Without trying to be a hypocrite, I am someone who actually encourages Americans to have kids, since I am really not wanting to do that myself anymore. I see the prospects of having my child(ren) growing up in a 3rd world “Brazilified America”, in a world where freedoms exist only in concept and not in actual practice sounds dysmal to me. Big Corporations and government will monitor, control, and censor everything you say and do is not for me.
    Big Brother will seem like a nice, friendly concept considering what we are facing in next 20-30 years. We are already looking at total govt control and monitoring of all financial transitions, total monitoring of everything around us, monitoring of your location 24/7, censorship of everything you ever want to say or write, gun confiscations, and after an amnesty, a country that will be run by the left for the next 100 years, if not forever.

    Leaving for “better shores” will not be an option as our Silicon Valley overlords will globalize degeneracy to a scale we cannot even fathom. We see degeneracy growing exponentially in Philippines, Ukraine, Russia, South America… even in Africa to a lessen extent due to their primitive infrastructure. This level of degeneracy today is but a taste of what global degeneracy will be in one generation from now. Every human being on earth will be tainted by internet-fed degeneracy, without any exceptions in a generation from now. Culture, education, and entertainment will be globalized and every young kid will be exposed to it. They call the next batch “Generation Z” as they will be the zero generation. Zero is what they will inherit and become. Zeros.

    I, however, think some guys should definitely have kids, just in case.

    Go through the hassle, cost, and risk of raising a kid(s) in this world today? I’ll pass.

  27. Ron Tomlinson says:

    Even if the only achievement of the father outside of his work is to keep his wife sane and thereby prevent her from tearing down the household with her own hands, he has achieved more than all the professionals and practitioners ever could.

    And the little they can achieve is monstrously inefficient. Just to get to the point where a social worker can visit the family home, tick boxes, e.g. recording how many times the father has bathed a child, probably takes a hundred dollars with hours of administration and commute.

    And yet they maintain the conceit that they know and can teach people how to be parents. This knowledge simply does not exist, academically speaking.

  28. Opus says:

    Newly made teenagers tend to find their parents excruciatingly and painfully embarrassing just as they find their teachers ridiculous should their teachers pretend to be getting-down with the latest in fashion. My then girlfriend told me that when she was about fourteen and would accompany her father up home from the railway station that she refused to walk alongside him should he be wearing his bowler hat. So embarrassing.

    When I was younger I frequently dated divorced women but now I see that as both bad for the woman, a poor choice by myself and yet worse still for the children of the woman. I am then reminded of something written by one of my ancestors. He was writing about his being a boy at a boarding school in the years around 1820. He was very homesick; his Father had died. One day he heard a rumour that his Mother had remarried. He was quite shocked and simply did not belief the rumour. Eventually to his dismay he came to accept that his Mother had indeed remarried. His Mother had married a Royal Engineer (soldier). He said that he came to love and respect her new husband and could not have wished for a better step-father. Even so and writing vividly of these events many decades later the memory thereof was clearly still painful. Widows should remain widows – preferably – and be role models for their children.

  29. Paul Barnes says:

    In clown world, a responsible father is one who volunteers to be an interchangeable resource battery which can be discarded on a whim or falsely accused of wrongdoing and sent away to exist as a source of child support and alimony payments. Let’s also not forget the endless list of duties expected of a father in the home – breadwinner, mechanic, repairman, entertainer, chef, teacher, etc. Both progressives and traditionalists share many of these expectations of fathers.

    On the flip side, there are no expectations for mothers outside of the kind of people who might be interested in reading this blog. You would be attacked if you even named a single basic requirement for a woman to be considered a ‘responsible mother’. Something even so simple as being expected to put the interests of the child above her own would face massive organized pushback. For example, try suggesting that pregnant women should be discouraged from smoking, drinking and taking illegal street drugs.

  30. Bruce says:

    “Let’s not forget the infamous “Dad Bod.” Yes, it’s cool and funny to make fun of middle-aged men who are losing muscle and gaining fat as their body slows down, with many of them too busy to exercise because they’re working, helping Queen Mom raise the kids, fixing things, mowing the lawn, etc.”

    I keep seeing this commerical for Nugenix testosterone enhancer. Middle age guy walking in the gym with his middle aged wife. They see a middle aged retired pro athlete (I’m not into sports much anymore-don’t recognize him). The wife comments to the husband that he’s a “hunk.” They and two other women approach him and talk to him. The other two women complain – wishing their husbands would be like that.
    They should do a commercial for women – the husband and wife approach a woman with a Hooters body and the husband drools over her – men accompanying them complain about their wives’s bodies, etc.

  31. Bruce says:

    Rollo has identified the phenomenon of open cuckoldry as the path for some men to having children – increasingly accepted as part of our pursuit of the feminine imperative.

  32. Oscar says:

    @ Opus

    Widows should remain widows – preferably – and be role models for their children.

    1 Timothy 5:14 Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

  33. Scott says:

    Paul Barnes, Bruce, others

    Mychael and I often use FB as a subtle way to encourage wives/moms about what would be expected of them in a sane and rational world.

    I’m not sure how big this one will appear, so you may have to zoom in to read the hashtags. The mildest suggestions about modesty, aesthetic, respecting your husband in public, are usually met confusion or obfuscation and redirecting about what the post is about.

    “What about men?????”
    “All women are beautiful no matter how they look on the outside!!”

    Stuff like that.

    This lead me to confirm that for most cases, it is literally incomprehensible to most people that a wife can and should be there to make her husbands job easier. Or make his environment more sublime.

  34. Liz says:

    Widows should remain widows – preferably – and be role models for their children.
    You really think it’s better for a child to be raised by an impoverished single mother than with a good father figure (who happens to not be the bio dad)?

  35. wilandmari says:

    I couldn’t find the National Responsible Motherhood Clearinghouse website. Go figure.

  36. Scott says:

    As for what fathers are for, I would respectfully submit that it doesn’t really matter how much struggling they do once you drill down into the internals of the website. The first you thing you see is a great big advertisement billboard of sorts that says to any female looking over your shoulder:

    “Don’t worry, ladies. Nothing in here but the same old goofy dad dancing like an idiot for his daughters. We won’t be teaching him anything dangerous or toxic or whatever.”

    And for the male visitor, it has the flip side, symbiotic message.

    “You have to start with goofy. Always more goofy.”

    I can think of a million more image that fathers would be inspired to look further with.

  37. Bruce says:

    @Scott, you are an attractive, healthy, fertile couple – handsome husband, lovely wife, so a lot of people will hate you – in particular, other women will hate her – women are very good at hating other women.

  38. thedeti says:

    Bruce:

    I keep seeing this commerical for Nugenix testosterone enhancer. Middle age guy walking in the gym with his middle aged wife. They see a middle aged retired pro athlete (I’m not into sports much anymore-don’t recognize him). The wife comments to the husband that he’s a “hunk.” They and two other women approach him and talk to him. The other two women complain – wishing their husbands would be like that.

    This is standard fare now for women’s treatment of men. The clear import of that message is “hunk up and man up, or your wives will find men at the gym and cheat on you with them. Cuz he’s got muscles and you don’t; and he can get it up, and you can’t.”

    They should do a commercial for women – the husband and wife approach a woman with a Hooters body and the husband drools over her – men accompanying them complain about their wives’s bodies, etc.

    No, we can’t have that. That’s harassment. That’s criminal. Any company using an ad campaign like that will be boycotted, investigated, fined, and sued out of business. Any chump who drools over a Hooters waitress and complains in public about his wife’s body will get the divorce raping of a lifetime. He’ll think he got punked by a train. He’ll be living out of his car for 2 years and will never see his kids again. All she has to do is tell a judge what he did, and it’s over for him.

  39. John James R says:

    @Kelly (If you’re not being sarcastic)

    “but not excusing fat women – who’s bodies have also slowen down, they’re finding it tough to lose the extra weight pregnancy brings, and who also don’t have time to exercise? YOU try being pregnant, putting on that extra weight that baby needs to be born healthy, having aching joints/pelvis/hips.”

    So why are Eastern European and Asian women and many mid to upper class Latin women back down to a sexy buck fifteen just a couple weeks after they’ve birthed their second, third, even fourth child?

    American women invented this baby=60 pounds of gluttony weight voucher.

  40. Bruce says:

    @thedeti
    I have started reading a lot of Rollo lately – he makes some unproven extrapolations but I think he is basically right about the “feminine imperative” – that society is now structured to optimize female sexual strategy at the expense of men. I guess it’s “payback time” even if you are a young man born well after the sexual revolution.

  41. thedeti says:

    Kelly:

    Women have had a 60 year jump on men with your complaints. For the last 60 years, it’s been nothing but complaints about men aren’t this, men don’t do that, men are crap, men can’t do this for me and men won’t do that for me. All we’ve heard from women over the past 60 years in the culture, the church, government, media, EVERYWHERE, if a man isn’t the very epitome of masculine perfection, he’s utter crap, and needs to be jettisoned.

    So I think you women can handle just a little criticism from men.

  42. Bruce says:

    Pregnant women need about 300 KCAL extra per day – two cups of milk will do the trick and won’t make you fat. Pregnancy doesn’t make you fat – most women worldwide and historically don’t get fat from being pregnant. Obesity is almost ALL about what you eat.

  43. Scott says:

    Wife won’t have sex with you? More goofy, foot washing

    Kids don’t respect you, think you are a joke? More goofy, read bible verses to them

    Wife having an affair? More goofy, get rid of the selfishness and the dad bod, go to church more

    She is crapping all over you in public? More goofy, can’t you take a joke/sassy woman? More goofy

    Anyone who is serious about helping dads/husbands would cut back on the cowbell goofy, and add something else. Anything really.

  44. Bruce says:

    @Kelly – the main point is that it’s funny and hip to make fun of the dad bod and horrible-evil to make fun of the mom bod in mainstream, public culture – the point isn’t that either sex has more or less excuse.

  45. thedeti says:

    I really don’t want to hear the “I was pregnant” and “I’ve got to take care of kids” excuses anymore. Things are tough all over. Mychael Klajic is in her mid 40s and has had five kids,, her last one within the past 2 years. And she looks like she does in that Wal-Mart picture Scott put up there. YMMV, results not typical, OK, I get it.

    Millions on millions of men get up and go to work 40 to 80 hours every week. When are they going to get time to hit the gym? Millions on millions of working class men are breaking their asses to get it done. Where are they going to get the money for a gym membership and organic food and Nutri System?

    I’m just fed up with women’s constant complaints about this. Women constantly complain about men’s bodies and how their men don’t look like Brad Pitt or Channing Tatum. Well, honey, you aren’t exactly Angelina Jolie either. So if you can criticize us and complain at us about our bodies, you can damn well suck it up and hear some criticism and complaints about you and your bodies.

  46. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Scott: “All women are beautiful no matter how they look on the outside!!”

    A new short film, Princess, promotes the idea that all woman are beautiful princesses. It’s about a girl who sees herself in the mirror as a monster. A therapist tells her, “Only you decide what’s beautiful. No one else. In the end the girl finds her self-esteem, and learns to love herself.

    PRINCESS – Diversity in Fashion ***Movie Trailer*** from Kinedimorae on Vimeo.

  47. I am secretly “pining” for the day that we get NMFC. This shit makes my head hurt.

  48. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    LGBTQ+ advocacy group sues YouTube for discrimination: https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/laurenstrapagiel/lgbtq-creators-youtube-lawsuit

    After years of complaints that YouTube is unfairly censoring LGBTQ content on its platform, a group of creators has filed a lawsuit against YouTube and its parent company, Google.

    Five LGBTQ channels have joined together for the suit, which alleges that YouTube has discriminated against them by hiding their videos, removing subscribers, and denying advertising. They say the platform unfairly targets any video tagged with words like “gay,” “transgender,” or “bisexual,” even when the videos have no mature content.

    Oh, the irony, that these Leftist whine about their alleged mistreatment by YouTube.

  49. Lurker says:

    @TheTraveler, Slang can morph and change but I don’t think the term “Dad bod” came about to make fun of middle-aged men. I’ve always heard it to refer to an attractive middle-aged man who is not perfectly sculpted — and it’s always in the context that women LOVE “Dad bod.” The point of “Dad bod” is that women are not generally attracted to the body builder physique but more to a fit but regular body belonging to a man who has a life outside of going to the gym. Mmmmmm Dad bod. We like!

  50. Bruce says:

    Women consistently show preference for male muscularity but men consistently overestimate how much muscularity (see Martie Haselton’s research).
    Whatever it’s called, it is socially acceptable to make fun of the chubby man-boob guy but not socially acceptable to make fun of big-hilda-hippo.

  51. Lurker says:

    The dad-as-goofy-clown theme in popular culture is actually a sneaky ploy of the patriarchy. (Note: Despite my word choice, I am not saying the patriarchy is a well-organized conspiracy but rather an organic set of beliefs that permeate our culture and tend to prop up male power.) Who writes the ads and sitcoms that promote the theme of dad-as-clown? Overwhelmingly male writers, though certainly women laugh along with the joke. Humor depends a lot on irony and meaning not always being literal. Thus. “dad as clown” only works as a joke for people who actually don’t believe that women are or should be in charge of anything significant. It’s a kind of lame salve to the female ego offered in exchange for keeping the status quo of men having more power in society while women do the scut work at home. In contrast, I think the notion that men are incompetent at basic household and parenting tasks is meant to be taken literally – and it serves to keep women on the hook for those tasks.

    I agree with OP on two points: (1) There is a dynamic in many families in which the mother is in charge of the household and delegates tasks to the husband. That isn’t a great dynamic for men, women, or children. Responsibility that is truly shared is the key – but getting there is a matter of shedding old assumptions and norms, which is no easy feat. (2) Feminists aren’t behind these dynamics or this disrespect for fathers. Well, OP actually claims that feminists are bad but traditionalists are worse, so maybe I don’t quite agree. Feminists would certainly say that men should not be the heads of their households, but disrespect for men and fathers does not serve the feminist project and is something you see less in feminist circles than in the culture at large.

  52. Lurker says:

    Bruce,

    Totally agree on both your points. It is more acceptable in our society to mock fat or ugly men than to mock fat or ugly women. I think that’s because we don’t see men’s value as tied as strongly to their looks or hotness, and consequently, mocking a man’s appearance isn’t perceived to be as cruel. (To be clear, I do not think it’s okay to mock anyone for being fat or ugly, and I do NOT defend the double standard. Just pointing out what I think is behind it.)

  53. John James R says:

    So men are treated as clowns, mules, ATM’s, natural born criminals, toxic, slaves but it’s only to run diversionary cover so that no one will notice their patriarchal power. So even males’ current status as the overwhelming loser in the battle of the sexes is because they are secretly the winner. The Hamster Abides. Wow.

  54. Opus says:

    I seem to have offended against the blessed Apostle Paul as well as commentor Liz. I obviously cannot defend myself against St Paul but to Liz I would ask rhetorically, why do you assume with tears streaming down your face and a plea to all men to man-up that the woman is impoverished and the future husband good – not that that would make me change my views even were it true for there are many other considerations which persuade me that marriage to a widow (who all seem to be either Merry or Black) is not a good idea. Liz then seems to me to be rehashing the tale of Cinderella (poor Cinders – handsome Prince) and is that not the perennial female fantasy – a man is to blame for Cinders fate (as well as two beeeotches) but somewhere a man exists who is needed to make things right. Now I come to think of it (and I hadn’t) my now late and only Cousin was brought up (her father having been killed in Normandy on the day of her first birthday) by her Mother who went to live with her own Mother and after our Grandmother died went to live with my Cousin’s then young family. Sure, my Aunt had male attention after WW2 including from none other than future Prime Minister, Heath (same town) but on balance decided to remain a widow. Now would you really want Heath – who never married – as a step-father. Perhaps she had a widow’s pension – who knows. She certainly had a three piece suite and that is now mine. I always loved visiting my grandmother’s home – she too had been widowed, but naturally and after WW2.

  55. Lurker says:

    Well, John James R, it ain’t feminists who are saying men should be the breadwinner/ATM. And it ain’t feminists saying that men should serve as mom’s assistant. Do I think men actually screw themselves with patriarchy in various ways? Yep. But don’t blame us for the obligations that come with your preferred set-up.

    Also, kindly screw off with the hamster bullshit. It’s a cheap and unconvincing way to invalidate anything a woman says without having to critically engage. And it only works when you’re talking to your narrow field of men who read these blogs.

  56. Indeed. TheDeti has is correct at the top.
    If we would dare consider the sexual congress that purportedly takes place in marriage anymore – it’s frequency or utter absence – then it is probably true that the majority of American husbands are actually their wife’s girlfriend and emotional tampon.

  57. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lurker
    Who writes the ads and sitcoms that promote the theme of dad-as-clown? Overwhelmingly male writers,

    Maybe. There’s been a big turnover in the advertising, publicity and publishing biz over the last 10 to 20 years. Do you think the Gillette advert of earlier this year that led to an $8 billion loss was written by men?

    Feminists would certainly say that men should not be the heads of their households, but disrespect for men and fathers does not serve the feminist project

    Huh? What? Seriously?

    and is something you see less in feminist circles than in the culture at large.

    What feminist circles are you referring to?

  58. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lurker
    The dad-as-goofy-clown theme in popular culture is actually a sneaky ploy of the patriarchy.

    Thanks for the laugh.

  59. Lurker says:

    Well, John James R, it ain’t feminists who advocate a system in which men are the primary breadwinners and have to support their families, or a system in which women are in charge on the home front. Don’t blame us for the obligations and twisted dynamics that fall on men as a result of your preferred system.

    Also, kindly screw off with your hamster bullshit. It’s a cheap and unconvincing way to automatically invalidate whatever a woman says without having to critically engage with it.

    (Ugh, I thought I posted this already but it’s either in moderation or I didn’t press “post.” Hope this doesn’t end up being a repeat.)

  60. Oscar says:

    @ John James R

    So why are Eastern European and Asian women and many mid to upper class Latin women back down to a sexy buck fifteen just a couple weeks after they’ve birthed their second, third, even fourth child?

    American women invented this baby=60 pounds of gluttony weight voucher.

    70 years ago, American women were not obese either, even after having multiple children (which they did back then). So, what changed? Did they all develop thyroid problems in two generations?

    However, if you’re going to complain about American women’s obesity (which is a valid complaint), and demand that they get their act together and lose the excuses along with the weight, make sure you’re not a fat slob yourself.

  61. Lurker says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    I think I read somewhere that Gillette ad was written by a woman. But I don’t think that was a man-as-clown ad, was it? It’s been a while since I saw it, but I recall it as a statement about toxic masculinity, i.e. a damaging and toxic set of expectations placed on men that actually harm men themselves, as well as those around them. I know it got a backlash because people hear “toxic masculinity” as an insult to the inherent nature of men, but I know men who did not feel disrespected by the ad. My boyfriend really liked it.

    Yes, I stand by my statement that disrespect for men does not serve the feminist project. I respect men. A lot! I just don’t think that means men should be solely in charge of the home or solely in charge of society.

    As for feminist circles – obviously, it’s hard to define who is a feminist exactly and there is a lot of feminist thought throughout society, often in bastardized forms and often in the same space as old-time or patriarchal thought. That ambiguity serves the biases you in the manosphere hold. You can just label any bad behavior or stupid idea by a woman as “feminist.” But I’m talking about self-identified feminists who are immersed in specifically feminist thinking and writing. You will find a lot more respect for men and fathers in such groups than you would expect based on your stereotypes.

  62. John James R says:

    “Don’t blame us for the obligations and twisted dynamics that fall on men as a result of your preferred system”

    Whose preferred system again? In our chivalro/fem-centro/misandrotopia

    Please keep posting.

  63. John James R says:

    “automatically invalidate whatever a woman says without having to critically engage with it.”

    Oh, I critically engaged with your statements already. That’s why The Hamster was trotted out. There was no automatic invalidation because you were a woman. You were invalidated because your thinking is hilarious fem-centric rationalizing.

  64. Lurker says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    Ugh I hope I am not entering all my comments twice. It seems like I post and they don’t always appear and then I rewrite them so I hope this doesn’t end up being a duplicate.

    I think I heard that the Gillette ad was written by a woman. But that’s not a man-as-clown ad. That was an ad about “toxic masculinity” – a concept that is not intended as an insult to men’s inherent nature but rather a critique of attitudes and assumptions men are saddled with and that damage men themselves as well as others around them. Yes, there was a backlash because most people hear the term “toxic masculinity” as an insult, but I know men who liked the ad and did not view it as disrespectful.

    As for feminist circles – it’s hard to define who is a feminist. Sometimes the same person can hold both feminist and patriarchal views. Both feminist and patriarchal thought permeate society. Often feminist thought becomes popular in a bastardized or oversimplified form, which I believe this blog is often quite right to critique. This ambiguity about who or what a feminist is serves the biases you guys have quite well. You can label any bad behavior or stupid idea by a woman as “feminist.” But when I say “feminist circles,” I am talking about self-identified feminists who are immersed in current feminist thought and writing.

    And no, I am not joking when I say that disrespect for men does not serve the feminist project. I respect men a lot. I just don’t think that means putting you all solely in charge of the home or solely in charge of society. And I am not alone.

  65. Oscar says:

    @ Lurker

    You can just label any bad behavior or stupid idea by a woman as “feminist.” But I’m talking about self-identified feminists who are immersed in specifically feminist thinking and writing. You will find a lot more respect for men and fathers in such groups than you would expect based on your stereotypes.

    You mean like Alison Jagger ?

    “The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new women and men, different from any people who have previously existed.” ~  Political Philosophies of Women’s Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co. 1977)

  66. feministhater says:

    Another nagging feminist… proving the point.

  67. Lurker says:

    John James R,

    You’re right. You did engage with my comment to some extent before trotting out the hamster idea. I wouldn’t say successfully, but you did engage. But the hamster idea is still just a made up term to automatically invalidate what a woman says if she disagrees with you. It’s a bunch of a bullshit. Anyway, it’s been real. Gotta go.

  68. Dalrock says:

    @Lurker
    I won’t address all of your boilerplate feminist reframing, but want to touch on this one:

    I agree with OP on two points: (1) There is a dynamic in many families in which the mother is in charge of the household and delegates tasks to the husband. That isn’t a great dynamic for men, women, or children. Responsibility that is truly shared is the key – but getting there is a matter of shedding old assumptions and norms, which is no easy feat.

    My point is that fathers are deputy parents, and like sheriff’s deputies typically serve at the pleasure of the sheriff, fathers serve at the pleasure of the mother. If for any reason she is dissatisfied with his service, he will be ejected from the home and (if she desires) replaced. All of this is at the sole discretion of the mother. This is the role of our family courts, and while there is some pretense given to the process being gender neutral, the reality is this is how it works. There are some rare corner cases where there is not a mother in the picture, and therefore no mother in a position to eject the father from the home, but this is the exception that proves the rule.

  69. Scott says:

    D-

    As a mental health provider I can attest to this. In the thousands and thousands of clinical contact hours I have had, on the rare occasion I meet a man with sole custody of his children, its because the ex wife tried to burn the house down with them in it (true story), hired a hit man (true story) or something outrageous like that.

  70. John James R says:

    “I just don’t think that means putting you all solely in charge of the home or solely in charge of society.”

    This is why I want you to keep posting. The conundrum/self-cancellation here is sublime comedy.

  71. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: Epstein’s corpse has multiple broken bones in its neck.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/autopsy-finds-broken-bones-in-jeffrey-epsteins-neck-deepening-questions-around-his-death/ar-AAFPxjP

    The details add to the bizarre circumstances surrounding Epstein’s death, which have launched a wave of questions and conspiracy theories about how he could have died in federal custody. Even President Trump has egged on speculation, without evidence, that Epstein — whose alleged victims say they were pushed to have sex with his powerful and celebrity friends — might have been killed to keep him from spilling the secrets of others.

    The revelation of Epstein’s neck injuries follows reports that officers at the Metropolitan Correctional Center broke protocol and failed to properly monitor him.

    Corrections officers had not checked on Epstein for “several” hours before he was found hanging in his cell, a person familiar with the matter said, one of a series of missteps in the hours leading up to his death.

    Broken bones would make sense if Epstein had hanged himself from a high point with a long rope. But he didn’t. Because he couldn’t. He supposedly tied his sheet to his bunk.

    They would also make sense if Epstein died while struggling against a guillotine choke.

  72. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lurker
    Yes, I stand by my statement that disrespect for men does not serve the feminist project

    Yet the feminist project is stuffed full of contempt for men.

    . I respect men. A lot!

    In the abstract?

    I just don’t think that means men should be solely in charge of the home or solely in charge of society.

    Men are increasingly not in charge of anything. So be happy!

    As for feminist circles – obviously, it’s hard to define who is a feminist exactly

    It’s almost as hard as determining who is a True Scotsman.
    https://infogalactic.com/info/No_true_Scotsman

    and there is a lot of feminist thought throughout society, often in bastardized forms and often in the same space as old-time or patriarchal thought.

    Society is saturated with feminism. We swim in a swamp of feminism. However, since you are a women, it is not likely you will recognize this, any more than a goldfish understands what “water” is.

    That ambiguity serves the biases you in the manosphere hold. You can just label any bad behavior or stupid idea by a woman as “feminist.”

    Some men do that. But Not All Men Are Like That.
    (See what I did there?)

    But I’m talking about self-identified feminists who are immersed in specifically feminist thinking and writing.

    “All men are rapists and that’s all they are” — Marylin French
    “Men especially love murder” – Andrea Dworkin

    I can go on with quotes from famous feminists for a long time. A long, long time. Of course, all of those will be labeled No True Feminist…surprise, I’ve been down this road a few times before.

    You will find a lot more respect for men and fathers in such groups than you would expect based on your stereotypes.

    How about “based on my personal experience with feminists of various ages and both sexes”, am I entitled to form an opinion based on what I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears, or should i report to the nearest branch of NOW for re-education? You presume a lot.

    Women are much more tolerant of cognitive dissonance. Therefore it is easy for many women to love and respect their fathers, brothers, etc. while at the same time pouring contempt and even hatred onto men as a group. It is easy to find college girls who still are Daddy’s Girl yet who fully support the whole panoply of 3rd stage feminism, including the demonization of masculinity — while at the same time craving just that thing. More cog-dis.

  73. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Trigger warning, the following is offensive to the flesh, contrary to culture and absolutely true.

    Q: What are fathers for?
    A: Father’s are for respecting, giving honor and obedience as delegated authorities and undershepherds of Christ. They are the head of the household, and bear the image and glory of God in a manner that is different than women, who are the glory of men.

  74. Lurker says:

    Dalrock,

    I think the father-as-deputy-parent dynamic occurs in situations in which both parents hold a mix of patriarchal and feminist assumptions, i.e. (a) that care of house and children is primarily the woman’s responsibility and (b) it shouldn’t fall solely on her. That leads to an unfair and damaging dynamic. I don’t see the raw power dynamic you describe in the families where I observe this happening. Women simply do not take divorce as lightly as you claim. And it goes both ways- the man has the power to divorce the woman at any time as well, to her financial detriment. (No, divorce does not equal cash and prizes for women.)

    Yes, women tend to get custody and perhaps the house but that is because they are almost always the primary caretakers of the children.

  75. @Lurker,
    “it’s hard to define who is a feminist.”

    Not really.
    Just look for the emotional thinkers in the room. There’s your feminists.
    If you support one or any of the ideals and policies like egalitarianism (e.g. “equality!!”), the welfare state, VAWA, The Duluth Model, YesMeansYes, MeToo, “diversity initiatives”, hiring and enrollment quotas at school, the military, politics, and in the world of work, then I think it’s abundantly clear.
    Women overwhelmingly support all or a mix of these ideals.
    So please, don’t insult people’s intelligence here and suggest that it is but oh ever so hard to identify! You just won’t get away with that.

    In general, and in this context, feminists are remarkably easy to identify – especially these days because they demand and insist upon rights, authority and privileges (often unilateral and at the expense of others) but simultaneously refuse to accept any commensurate responsibility or accountability for such rights and authority. Merit, performance, ethics, reason, deductive logic are categorical absent from the feminist repertoire. Cognitive dissonance is a hard coded feature among feminists.

    Of course, they will have a lot to say about “equality” – especially in social and legal contracts, and religious sacraments like marriage – even when it is obvious to any thinking person that men and women are not equal in all things – and never will be.

    But Dalrock’s definition or rule of feminism is the most accurate and the most succinct.
    It’s actually hilarious because his rule applies well almost every time, every example, every article, etc.

  76. Dalrock says:

    @Scott

    As a mental health provider I can attest to this. In the thousands and thousands of clinical contact hours I have had, on the rare occasion I meet a man with sole custody of his children, its because the ex wife tried to burn the house down with them in it (true story), hired a hit man (true story) or something outrageous like that.

    It is so uncommon that children are as likely to be with nether parent (4%) as with their father. Giving a father custody is truly a last resort. I’ve added a link to the bottom of the OP to a post with the astounding data on this.

  77. Marquess of Watchtower says:

    …usurpation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, creating a vacuum…

    I think Mary Magdalene’s story better serves the distaff of thotopia.

    Everyone submits, some earlier than others, in love or in terror. Don’t wait too long, baby.

    Fatherhood practitioners. Clown World.

    I’M INDETERMINATELY SHAKING AND CAN/CAN’T EVEN… ARE XHEY ASSUMING XHEIR ESSENCE? HELP, UNHELP, NULLHELP! POSITIVIST SUPREMACISTS! NOT ALL FATHERS ARE FATHERS, CISCOG!

    Is practicing “social” work at all like “healing” the world? The charitable reading is scarier.

    Also, that graphic with it’s Dadbods Are Amazing bacha bazi and the child-mannequin future-succubi failing to simulate human emotion… shit’s so fake it’s hyper-real. Postcards from Gomorrah. I’m gonna have nightmares now. Thanks for nothing, Dalrock.

  78. @Lurker

    No, divorce does not equal cash and prizes for women.”

    That is hilarious. Good one. You should do stand up. I’m serious.

    Maybe check this out first. There’s more hilarity in there for you somewhere, I’m sure:
    http://www.realworlddivorce.com/

  79. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lurker
    Women simply do not take divorce as lightly as you claim.

    In the US, divorce is filed by the woman 65% to 70% of the time.

    And it goes both ways- the man has the power to divorce the woman at any time as well, to her financial detriment immediate benefit.

    FIFY.

    (No, divorce does not equal cash and prizes for women.)

    In your mind, perhaps. However reality is quite different.

  80. Anonymous Reader says:

    Just found a feminist woman in Britland who respects men, in her own way, for her own reasons. Reading between the lines I wager she’s receiving child support from an ex-husband for her two children…

    Not porn but probably not safe for work in most cases.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/fabulous/9721275/two-bendy-willies-and-a-brief-moment-of-passion-my-night-with-a-male-sex-doll/

  81. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    A large majority of TV writers and producers are Jewish. It’s been so since the start of television in the 1940s.

    Back then, America’s Christian values were more solid. The Jewish cultural and media elite hated and feared Christianity, so they used TV to weaken and destroy America’s Christian foundations.

    Every decade, TV shows and ads became ever more secular, and ever more hostile to Christianity and the traditional family. Ideals like courage, honesty, sexual fidelity were increasingly mocked as something for squares, hypocrites, creeps, and losers. Sexual degenerates and loose women were increasingly celebrated.

  82. BillyS says:

    Oscar,

    However, if you’re going to complain about American women’s obesity (which is a valid complaint), and demand that they get their act together and lose the excuses along with the weight, make sure you’re not a fat slob yourself.

    Only to a point. Men always used to be bigger. I am bigger than I would like to be, but I look just like my grandfather, except that I am a foot taller. This was when he was alive in the 1970s and he was reasonably active, not sedentary like many today.

    I am aiming at losing another 50-60 pounds, but I am not land whale size. Walking around Wal-Mart recently showed me few thin women, but a fair number of thin guys. The women definitely have more in the weight area and that points to more than just an overall trend of everyone getting fatter.

    It doesn’t matter what I should care about. I have a hard trigger in my brain on how thick a woman can be for me to be at all attracted. I would rather (and am likely to) stay alone than go with most of what is on offer today in the weight area.

  83. Lurker says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    Do you realize that the Marilyn French quote is actually that of a fictional character in a novel? I understand that you may have personal experience with feminists or people you view as feminists. And obviously, you are entitled to your opinion. But so am I – that’s the whole point of blog forums. It’s not presumptuous or “nagging” (*wave to feminist hater*) for me to express my opinion. I will note that your tired, out-of-context quote plucking supports my view that your opinion of what you hear and see from feminists is distorted by your bias.

    Oddly, you call it “cognitive dissonance” when women allegedly love their fathers and brothers while pouring hatred and disdain onto men as a group. But I read this site quite a bit and see all sorts of comments from men pouring hatred and disdain on women as a group, while purporting to have positive relationships with their wives and daughters. I guess it’s only “cognitive dissonance” when (if) women do it, but not when men do it?

  84. Lurker says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    The statistic about women initiating the majority of divorce filings does not establish that women take divorce lightly.

    And I don’t see how you can say that divorce is of financial benefit to women. When your family suddenly has to two households, you’re suddenly living on much less money. And if the woman has placed her career on the back burner in order to care for children, she is now in the position of having far less earning power than her ex-husband in the wake of the divorce and possibly being dependent on that likely hostile ex-husband for child support and alimony, if alimony is even in play.

  85. Bruce says:

    BillyS:
    “The women definitely have more in the weight area and that points to more than just an overall trend of everyone getting fatter.”

    Statistically, more men are overweight (BMI doesn’t account for lean body mass) but more women are obese and many more women are morbidly obese.

  86. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lurker
    Do you realize that the Marilyn French quote is actually that of a fictional character in a novel?

    Yes. So?

    . I will note that your tired, out-of-context quote plucking supports my view that your opinion of what you hear and see from feminists is distorted by your bias.

    Someone’s triggered…

    Oddly, you call it “cognitive dissonance” when women allegedly love their fathers and brothers while pouring hatred and disdain onto men as a group.

    Yes, and note that the hatred and contempt often results in laws such as VAWA, legal doctrines such as the Duluth protocol, social witch hunts such as #MeeToo, etc. From time to time an ardent feminista suddenly discovers that the legal structure she’s supported has smashed into her own father / brother / son, and there’s a shock of surprise that often plays out as “I didn’t expect that to happen!”. Yet zero feminists ever come to the conclusion that their campaigns of hate could have real world implications for actual human beings.

    How many divorced men have you known? How many men in your social circle have killed themselves during the divorce process?

    But I read this site quite a bit and see all sorts of comments from men pouring hatred and disdain on women as a group, while purporting to have positive relationships with their wives and daughters. I guess it’s only “cognitive dissonance” when (if) women do it, but not when men do it?

    “Men Do That Too” is not an argument.

  87. John James R says:

    “Yes, women tend to get custody and perhaps the house but that is because they are almost always the primary caretakers of the children.”

    Unintentional comic genius again. Perfect circle.

    You can even flip the clauses in your sentence and it works;

    “Yes, women tend to be the primary caretakers of the children but that is because they are almost always awarded custody and perhaps the house.”

  88. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lurker
    The statistic about women initiating the majority of divorce filings does not establish that women take divorce lightly.

    Yeah, it does. Because the vast majority of filings by women are not for anything other than unhaaaapienss. Not for cheating, not for abuse (even by Duluth standards) but “incompatible”.

    How many divorced men have you known?

    And I don’t see how you can say that divorce is of financial benefit to women.

    Ca$h and prizes. She keeps the dwelling, he moves into a dinky apartment and pays whatever child support a Family court judge orders him to pay, and “Imputed Income” can put child support so high that he winds up homeless.

    When your family suddenly has to two households, you’re suddenly living on much less money.

    He is. She better not be, or he’s going to jail. Back child support will accrue while he’s inside, so when he gets out he’ll owe that much more.

    How many divorced men do you know?

  89. Opus says:

    Looking at Lurker

  90. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS

    I’m not telling you what you should do, or what you should like. I’m telling you what is. Women who take care of their appearance, in general, want men who take care of their appearance, and vice versa. You can’t get an “ought” from an “is”, but you can take the “is” and use it to get closer to what you want.

    Or not.

    It’s up to the individual to decide what to do with what is.

  91. Liz says:

    Opus:to Liz I would ask rhetorically, why do you assume with tears streaming down your face and a plea to all men to man-up that the woman is impoverished and the future husband good –

    I neither stated nor implied that above. I was responding to an anecdote you gave regarding an ancestor after his father died. The timeframe was the 1800s, and his new father was described by you as a good man and excellent stepfather. It’s possible that widowhood did not impoverish her (I know nothing of your ancestors beyond your description), but she would be an extreme outlier at the time if that were the case. You’ve stated in this context he would’ve been better off if his mother remained unmarried, and all widows should do that same. Hence, my question to your statement (I’ll post it again for clarity):
    ”You really think it’s better for a child to be raised by an impoverished single mother than with a good father figure (who happens to not be the bio dad)?”
    The stepfather is another topic. Was it better for him? I wouldn’t know.

    not that that would make me change my views even were it true for there are many other considerations which persuade me that marriage to a widow (snipped out tale of Cinderella, and more family anecdotes that aren’t the subject I was addressing)

    I’m not trying to convince you to marry a widow. I think, based on your commentary here that would be a very bad idea.

  92. Oscar says:

    @ Lurker

    It seems to have slipped your mind to address the quotes by famous, influential feminists in which they state their desire to destroy the family. Why is that?

  93. Lurker says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    You have asked me a couple of times how many divorced men I know. I am on extremely close terms with five divorced men. I have other divorced men and women in my circle of acquaintances. None of them are homeless or suicidal. I don’t believe that proves anything, but you asked.

    As you point out, “Men do that too” does not excuse bad behavior by women. I never said it did. I was responding to the fact that YOU claimed that women have a greater tolerance than men for cognitive dissonance and you based that on behavior identical to what I see here everyday.

    As for VAWA and #MeToo being hate movements, come on now. We are obviously never going to see eye to eye if you have a problem with providing services to battered women or if you disagree that sexual harassment in the workplace should be addressed. I certainly support efforts to make VAWA more even-handed so that male victims also get the services they need. And I support due process for men accused of harassment and a proportionate response to men who are found to have committed harassment. I am not familiar enough with the Duluth protocol to speak to it.

  94. Lurker says:

    Oscar,

    Oh the Jagger quote you mentioned. Yeah, I don’t know the context of the quote. I don’t know what her purpose is, what she means by destroying the family or however she put it, or what structures she would replace it with. I can’t say based on what you provided or what I found with a brief google search that her comment evinced a hatred or disrespect for men.

  95. Scott says:

    Being in a conversation like this and not being familiar with the Duluth model puts you at a pretty big disadvantage when trying to wrestle with the topic of family law. It is the dominant model for how the states (all 50 of them) conceptualize and manage inter-partner violence. It is in essence, the law of the land. Every man in America is held accountable to it, legally, whether he knows it not.

    In fact, not knowing about it is a great example of “female” privilege. You have the luxury of not knowing about it, because it will never come crashing down on you.

    This is a good start.

    https://www.treasurestatepsychologicalservices.com/blog/revisiting-duluth-as-a-viable-model-for-explaining-intimate-partner-violence

  96. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Lurker: I am on extremely close terms with five divorced men. I have other divorced men and women in my circle of acquaintances. None of them are homeless or suicidal.

    How would you know if they were suicidal?

    Men aren’t women. Women whine and complain about their smallest frustrations. On social media, to their frenemies, their therapists, their gay best friends. Men are more likely to suffer in silence, pretend everything is fine, and then quietly off themselves.

    “The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation. What is called resignation is confirmed desperation.” — Henry David Thoreau.

  97. Anonymous Reader says:

    On another site Novaseeker made a link to Roger Devlin’s “Sexual Utopia” article. Somehow I had never read the full text before, it is like a freight train of reality. Strongly suggest men read this article. Note that he wrote in 2006, and nothing has improved since then.

    This tiny URL opens up a 30 page document in PDF.

    https://bit.ly/2H22Z7x

    Probably every man over 20 should read this essay once per year. In fact, every young man going to college should read at least part of it.

  98. Scott says:

    RPL-

    Its actually a pretty good point about suicide. If you boil down all the literature has to say about suicidality, the one thing you can glean from it is this:

    The probability that someone is about to kill themselves and you (or anyone else) will be able to detect it, is statistically zero.

  99. feministhater says:

    Doomed Harlot is back it seems. Leave the witch alone. Let her burn with the rest of them.

    Keep walking away from society, feminists can have it all.

  100. Frank K says:

    Looking at that chart, it appears that less than 20% of the population has an acceptable weight.

    This reminds me of an anecdote: In Disneyland there is a ride called “It’s a Small World After All”. on this ride, guests ride in a boat in a flume. Some years ago, word was that the ride’s staff would not fully load the boats because they would bottom out in the flume. This wasn’t always the case. So Disney shut down the ride and made the flume deeper, then reopened the ride, allowing the boats to be fully loaded again.

    Some news articles stated that Disney had to do this because people are fatter now. Disney vehemently denied that was why.

  101. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lurker
    As for VAWA and #MeToo being hate movements, come on now. We are obviously never going to see eye to eye if you have a problem with providing services to battered women

    Oh, is that what VAWA is about?

    I am not familiar enough with the Duluth protocol to speak to it.

    Then you do not know what VAWA is about. Perhaps you could search this very site for essays on that topic.

    PS: Please point to the “due process” part of #MeeToo. I can’t seem to find it on my own.

  102. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lurker
    I am on extremely close terms with five divorced men. I have other divorced men and women in my circle of acquaintances. None of them are homeless or suicidal

    How would you know if any of those men are suicidal, until they killed themselves?

  103. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lurker
    As you point out, “Men do that too” does not excuse bad behavior by women. I never said it did. I was responding to the fact that YOU claimed that women have a greater tolerance than men for cognitive dissonance and you based that on behavior identical to what I see here everyday.

    You have things backwards. Women have a greater tolerance for cognitive dissonance, therefore they have no problem living in a world where men are reduced to various objects (“Rapist”, “Abuser”, “Oppressor”) on a daily basis in popular media and in law and agreeing with those slurs while at the same time having warm relationships with individual men.

    Women can agree with the concept that all men are rapists, yet turn around and be surprised when their own brother / son / etc. is falsely accused of rape. It’s likely an extension of the known in-group preference you have (4 to 1 by one study) that leads to a kind of tribalism.

    Angry and frustrated men have very few places to discuss anything, a handful of web sites like this are pretty much the only venues. No surprise that there are some bitter men here who are still stuck in the anger phase of unplugging from the feminist Matrix.

    Remember though: Not All Men Are Like That.

  104. Lurker says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    I am still not getting your point about cognitive dissonance. Here on this website, I hear women routinely portrayed as irrational, hysterical, overgrown toddlers who have to be led and as psychopaths who can’t wait to ruin men’s lives, while at the same time men here seem often claim positive relationships with wives and daughters. How is that different than your claim as to how women think about men?

    Also you say “women can agree with the concept that all men are rapists . . .” The hell?????

    As for the angry and frustrated men who come to sites like this, I am very aware that Not All Men Are Like That. I would say the overwhelming majority of men are not like that.

  105. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Lurker, did your husband give you permission to post on this site?

  106. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lurker
    I am still not getting your point about cognitive dissonance. Here on this website, I hear women routinely portrayed as irrational, hysterical, overgrown toddlers who have to be led and as psychopaths who can’t wait to ruin men’s lives, while at the same time men here seem often claim positive relationships with wives and daughters.

    Key phrase is “here on this website”. Again, you are reading frustrated, angry men on a single website. Meanwhile men are portrayed as dangerously violent morons, incompetent fools, etc. in all other areas of society including government sponsored web sites. Few women have any problem with these portrayals of men, they do not protest or disagree. Women generally have no objection to obviously unjust regulations or legislation, either. In fact they often support such laws in the abstract. it’s only when some man they are close to is being crushed that they have second thoughts.

    How is that different than your claim as to how women think about men?

    Very different. In the US, thanks to VAWA, any woman who is married or cohabiting with a man can have him arrested merely by making a telephone call and stating that she is “afraid”. No actual evidence is required. it’s rather like the lFrench Revolutionary “Law of Suspects” in application, although fortunately not in terms of punishment.

    Nobody here gets to run Di$ney or fatherhood.gov or Modern Family or write legislation, for a start.

    Also you say “women can agree with the concept that all men are rapists . . .” The hell?????

    What’s your objection to this fact?

    As for the angry and frustrated men who come to sites like this, I am very aware that Not All Men Are Like That. I would say the overwhelming majority of men are not like that.

    So?

    PS: Where’s the Due Process part of #MeeToo? I still cannot seem to find it.

    Hypothetical: Suppose a man were accused of some sort of sexual misconduct by a woman on social media such that he lost his job, was shunned by his former friends, was evicted from his apartment — and it turned out to be a completely false accusation. Where would he go for redress of that wrong? To whom would he turn to get his job back? Who would pay for his new apartment?

    Where would he go to get his reputation back? Who would be accountable?

  107. Paul Barnes says:

    Lurker demonstrates why MGTOW is growing at such a fast pace. Men are the gatekeepers of commitment (marriage and relationships) and this shouldn’t be a controversial statement, even for people like Lurker. Increasing amounts of men are looking at the cost/benefit and risk/reward ratio for committing to a woman like this and we’re walking away from the market. All that’s left is the squabbling, bargaining and shaming to try to get us to take one of those terrible deals. Men don’t suffer when we walk away from these crappy deals. We can be perfectly happy being single for life with no children. On the other hand, women are invariably the ones who suffer. Every man who goes MGTOW means there’s another woman like Lurker out there who gets caught out when her turn on the carousel ends and no one is there to scoop her up.

    Lurker, to make it perfectly clear, men are looking for fertile women with low N counts who will be loyal and will fulfill at least some traditional gender roles assigned to the wife. Men will not accept responsibility over a family without authority and more men are waking up to the fact that they have zero legal or social authority in marriage.

  108. Another excellent post. Dalrock’s thesis is correct: “Since around 1970 we have waged war on the very idea of fatherhood, as part of our war against The Patriarchy. Fathers are no longer accepted as the head of the family, and aside from fulfilling the role of walking wallet we no longer even have a clear accepted definition of what fathers do. Fathers are now deputy parents, who serve at the pleasure of the mother.”

    The feminist model has been to erode the male privileges associated with marriage 1.0, while expanding the responsibilities to men not married. This is the “child support model” that women (and some tradcons) now praise. That is, men who father children out-of-wedlock are treated the same as men who father children in wedlock (basically, they’re sperm donors and walking ATM machines under threat of jail). In that past, married fathers would gain custody by default (no need for the gov’t model of child support). Women could frivorce, but they were on their own and the children remained with their more stable parent, their Father.

    So, how can you bolster fatherhood in America under a system which makes men second-class citizens (despite the family law boilerplate, numbers do not lie). In order words: talk is cheap; actions are hard.

    Part of RedPill and Game is learning to tame uncouth and rebellious women. The most important thing for a man to know is whether or not his woman will let him lead. Filter, filter & filter these dangerous women. Leave communities (including churches) that empower these Jezebels.
    Let them have their silly colored hair, cats and boxed wine. What Solomon says in Proverbs 7 is an apt warning today as it was in his time:

    “With persuasive words she led him astray; she seduced him with her smooth talk.

    All at once he followed her like an ox going to the slaughter,
    like a deer stepping into a noose till an arrow pierces his liver,
    like a bird darting into a snare, little knowing it will cost him his life.

    Now then, my sons, listen to me; pay attention to what I say.

    Do not let your heart turn to her ways or stray into her paths.

    Many are the victims she has brought down; her slain are a mighty throng.

    Her house is a highway to the grave, leading down to the chambers of death.”

  109. Lurker says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    You say: “In the US, thanks to VAWA, any woman who is married or cohabiting with a man can have him arrested merely by making a telephone call and stating that she is “afraid”. No actual evidence is required.” That is just straight up false. VAWA did not suspend the Constitution and, if it had, you bet your boots any such portion of VAWA would have been overturned. Any police department that arrests someone without probable cause supported by evidence is subject to a civil rights suit. Let me repeat: No, a woman cannot simply call the police, say she is afraid and have a man arrested on that basis. Get out of here with that crap.

    #MeToo originally designed to draw attention to the fact that the vast majority of women have been sexually harassed on the job at some point in their lives. (#MeToo, by the way.) It then turned into a demand for greater accountability for those who commit sexual harassment. I don’t think a grass roots movement has the ability to structure due process for every work place. That’s up to the work place.

    As for redress for men facing false accusations, I agree it’s tough. But that’s the case with any false accusation as to any kind of crime or wrongdoing. The redress is to sue the accuser. Those cases can be drawn out and hard to win, but then so is an accusation of sexual harassment or sexual assault. The due process afforded both sides makes it really hard to get justice, whether it is a case where harassment and/or assault occurred, or a case of false accusation.

  110. Dale U says:

    @Oscar

    My best guesses from your graph is that women rate at:
    – 7-8% extremely obese
    – 35% obese

    So if you ignore the overweight women, and only consider those obese or extremely obese, you have 40% to 45% who are completely undesirable for most men. They are also severely lacking in self-control, which also makes them unsuitable for marriage.
    Adding overweight women into the mix pushes that number to about 75-80%.

    Good luck to the single men who will only look for a wife from a western nation. You are going to need it.
    I wish I had gone traveling to find a wife 20 years earlier. Or at least 15 years earlier. But I am very grateful I was still, at my late stage of the game, able to find a woman of good character. A wife’s character is very important.

  111. Lurker says:

    Paul Barnes says:

    “Lurker, to make it perfectly clear, men are looking for fertile women with low N counts who will be loyal and will fulfill at least some traditional gender roles assigned to the wife. Men will not accept responsibility over a family without authority and more men are waking up to the fact that they have zero legal or social authority in marriage.”

    Gosh, these men sound like real catches. I, and I am sure most women, are extremely upset that they are going their own way.

    I am going home now to cry into my pillow.

  112. Scott says:

    This is what a fairly typical domestic violence arrest, trial, conviction, and aftermath looks like.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20150325131117/http://courtshippledge.com/2014/05/the-story-of-jim/#comment-18314

  113. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lurker
    You say: “In the US, thanks to VAWA, any woman who is married or cohabiting with a man can have him arrested merely by making a telephone call and stating that she is “afraid”. No actual evidence is required.” That is just straight up false.

    How do you know what is true or false about VAWA, given your total ignorance about the Duluth protocol?

    VAWA did not suspend the Constitution and, if it had, you bet your boots any such portion of VAWA would have been overturned.

    VAWA essentially goes around part of the Constitution, and it has not been overturned. It has been reauthorized multiple times.

    Any police department that arrests someone without probable cause supported by evidence is subject to a civil rights suit.

    The probable cause for an arrest under VAWA is a woman saying she is afraid, that is sufficient. Some states have mandatory arrest laws; if a woman calls the police and says she is afraid, someone must be arrested in that dwelling. Guess who it’s gonna be?

    Let me repeat: No, a woman cannot simply call the police, say she is afraid and have a man arrested on that basis.

    Suppose a man shouts at his wife in anger, and throws a bag of frozen food on the floor. Nothing else, but she’s afraid. Is that enough for him to be arrested?
    Hypothetically, of course.

    Get out of here with that crap.

    Well, I have to live in reality. I can’t live in Feminist Fantasy Land the way you do. So…won’t be getting out of here any time soon.

    Sorry about that. Nothing personal.

  114. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lurker
    #MeToo originally designed to draw attention to the fact that the vast majority of women have been sexually harassed on the job at some point in their lives.

    LOL. #MeeToo was created by has-been actresses to extort money from obnoxious Hollywood men with casting couches. It then spread to provide a means for other women to smear men.

    (#MeToo, by the way.)

    10 years ago I would have believed this. Now…not so much.

    It then turned into a demand for greater accountability for those who commit sexual harassment.

    Sure, just as the Salem Witch Trials turned into a demand for greater accountability for those who cast spells against neighbors.

    I don’t think a grass roots movement has the ability to structure due process for every work place. That’s up to the work place.

    Yeah, lynch mobs generally don’t structure due process at all. The point of #MeeToo is to avoid anything like due process, and proceed directly fro accusation -> punishment with none of that other stuff getting in the way.

    As for redress for men facing false accusations, I agree it’s tough.

    It appears to be very close to impossible. Because there is no accountability against a lynch mob, even if it is only online in social media.

    But that’s the case with any false accusation as to any kind of crime or wrongdoing.

    Not in practice.

    The redress is to sue the accuser.

    Where does one go to sue an anonymous accuser?

  115. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Lurker
    On the topic of #MeeToo:

    Do you have any sort of problem with the “Billy Graham” / “Pence” rule?

  116. Frank K says:

    Scott – Thanks for the link that documents that no actual evidence is required for a DV arrest.

  117. feministhater says:

    Lurker makes it plainly obvious why MGTOW exists and why fatherhood is dead. They killed it and there is nothing more to do or say to them. Feminists should be left alone. Don’t engage with them, don’t explain yourself to them. Leave them alone.

    Lurker adds nothing but regurgitated feminist boilerplate nonsense, you cannot bargain with your enemy, there is nothing to talk about.

    #metoo was an obvious attempt at removing due process from men. There is nothing else to discuss, any woman who agrees with that is the enemy. Done.

  118. Scott says:

    Frank

    I wrote that in 2015

    Things haven’t changed any for the better

  119. Novaseeker says:

    The internet is a singularly poor place to try to convince someone of anything. Generally people who are convinced by something they read on the internet, especially in an internet discussion/combox situation, are people who were already leaning that way and are looking for confirmation of the way they were leaning.

    I get that there may be some utility to pointing out the arguments such as they are to other people who may be reading and lurking, but that’s also been done in many places and at many times already regarding the same issues under debate here. We can rest assured that our latest commenter here herself is merely trying to “put things in the record” so as to potentially impact lurker readers, in any case.

    So while I get the point of the exercise, at the same time it must be remembered that it’s clear that there won’t be any convincing here, and that’s perfectly normal — feminism is a fully-formed world-view like a religion. Its adherents are not easily moved from it, as we all know well.

  120. Also fellas: don’t feel the trolls!

    A certain poster who adds nothing new, and is simply here to plug their ears saying “nah, nah, nah,” is not worth engaging.

    Again: don’t feel the trolls.

    There are plenty of other forums where that person can spout their nonsense.

    We should be able to “downvote” such people so they don’t waste everyone’s time.

  121. Anon says:

    Men like slender, debt-free virgins who have long hair. Any woman who disputes this is free to make life choices contrary to this statement and see what the results are.

    Most immigration to the US would be overwhelmingly female if not for deliberate restriction of visas for young single women.

  122. Frank K says:

    Lurker adds nothing but regurgitated feminist boilerplate nonsense, you cannot bargain with your enemy, there is nothing to talk about.

    A Devlin points out in his paper (linked above), feminists don’t understand (or in some cases even care) what VAWA and Duluth can do to an innocent man, until a man they care about is crushed by it.

  123. TheTraveler says:

    Trigger alert: apparently, objecting to the term “dad bod” triggers feminists into talking about men in their usual “charming” (hah) way.

    Even objecting to a nasty double standard is cause for venom. Objecting to “dad bod” shows what a fat, sloppy loser a man is, whereas even theoretical allusion to a woman having a less-than-perfect physique is STRICTLY forbidden–YOU TRY HAVING A BUNCH OF KIDS, BUDDY!!!…etc., etc., etc.

    Could anyone ask for better affirmation of the (LOL) “feminist mystique?”

  124. Frank K says:

    I wrote that in 2015

    Things haven’t changed any for the better

    What amazes me is that any man still chooses to marry.

  125. Westray says:

    “feminists don’t understand (or in some cases even care) what VAWA and Duluth can do to an innocent man, until a man they care about is crushed by it.”

    Even then? I bet we would all be stunned with how programmed their reactions are. My own sister “believed the woman” in a case of ‘abuse’ brought against an old family friend. Preposterous and typical divorce accusations. My sister had never even met our friend’s ex-wife.

  126. Yeah, I think we hit the ceiling on intellectual dishonesty here about 50 comments ago.
    It must have been fun for her while it lasted.
    Now the adults can continue the conversation unabated.

  127. feeriker says:

    Also fellas: don’t feel the trolls!>/i>

    Seconded. The majority here should know better by now.

    Walking around Wal-Mart recently showed me few thin women, but a fair number of thin guys. The women definitely have more in the weight area and that points to more than just an overall trend of everyone getting fatter.

    I’m betting that hormonal birth control, which a massive majority of American women are using for years on end, is at least partly responsible for this.

  128. Red Pill Christianity says:

    To those who do not understand the legal system, it is easy to think that the Defendant (the one being accused of a crime) has “all of these rights”. But that is all in theory. In practice, the State (the Prosecutor) literally holds all the cards. The defense can barely react to the State’s moves. The State has all the evidence, almost limitless police resources, can issue subpoenas and easily get search warrants to anyone that opposes them, can file charges against any witness that opposes the Prosecutor. Because they control virtually all evidence in case, they are famous for withholding (hiding) exculpatory evidence (evidence that Defendant would benefit from).

    But the biggest benefit the State has is over-charging a defendant. The State can take someone initially arrested for shoplifting and file murder charges if they want to, by linking the defendant to an unsolved murder crime. This is called “overcharging” and it is a standard procedure in US criminal justice system. The goal is to file so many outrageously absurd charges against a Defendant that if he takes it to trial and gets convicted, he gets decade sin prison, if not life without parole.

    So the game is played this way. Once a Defendant is overcharged, he HAS to take a plea and end up with a conviction on his record, and the Prosecutor gets to chalk that up for his “conviction rate”, which is essentially a badge of honor. The risk becomes too high to go to trial.

    I cannot tell you how many times I have seen this movie before. Guy gets arrested on a BS domestic violence dispute (95% is due to “distubance complaint” by a neighbor in an apartment complex) and next thing you know, the State finds out he has a Carry permit and suddenly they file “updates charges” to including “possession of a firearm during commission of a crime”, for instance. In FL, there is a minimum mandatory 5 years add-on to the original DV. They can also coach the victim to make additional allegations. For example, one strategy I know they employ is having a victim suddenly add to their initial police statement and say that the defendant, during his assault, said “take that fag”, for instance. That adds another enhancement for hate crime.

    It never ends. But the absolutely worst thing about US criminal justice is the ability the State has to prosecute and imprison people on a sole “victim” statement. Back in the 1950s when we were a very homogenous country, where the vast majority of people were Christian or at least adherents of Judeo-Christian culture, people felt bad lying in court. There was community pressure on people to tell the truth. There as at least a semblance of honesty. To lie after laying a hand on The Bible in a courtroom was a disgraceful act and most people had a conscience about not lying on a Bible.

    Today, if you do not lie, you are the sucker. You get taken for a ride. You lose scholarships, you lose out on jobs, you lose out on money, you lose out on women, you lose out on benefits.
    NONE of the women who admitted to falsely accusing Judge Kavanaugh were never charged.
    Harry Reid lied about Romney never paying any taxes for 15 years and when asked, Reid replied “well, Romney lost the election, didn’t he”?
    Women caught lying about being raped are never prosecuted, even when police arrests them for it and files a charging affidavit, the State just drops the charges.
    The college admission scammers are still out there having a good time, living in their luxury mansions.
    The whitest woman I have ever seen in my life, Elizabeth Warren, lied about being an Indian and got a $400,000 a year job at Harvard as a “minority” and the consequences is she is now a Senator and running for President.
    The founder of Ben & Fatty ice cream wrote a book where he encourages leftists to call in Talk radio and pretend to be conservatives and lie about being angry with the President to demoralize the base.
    Frm FBI agent Andy McCabe was fired for lying to the FBI supervisors and he was never charged and now he is suing the FBI for being fired.

    And most despicable of all…. Attorneys who work in family law encourage their female clients to make false criminal accusations against the husband, so she gains leverage on custody, gets to keep their house in divorce as her primary residence (now that husband is forced out at gunpoint), and add pressure on husband by having to fend off a criminal accusation as well. That is why women almost always lie in divorces; the benefits are all there.

    In our country today, lying is so accepted and so prevalent in our society, we should END all proscriptions based on the “victim” sole statement. The incentives to lie and cheat are just too great today and the consequences are literally zero. We should end all single-statement charges against innocent men and end all acceptance of statements as “evidence” of crimes. Punishing the innocent is not justice, even if you feel the falsely accused is part of a “privilege class” that must be destroyed.

  129. Lost Patrol says:

    I like Lurker. She’s earnest. And prepared to engage as best she’s able right here in the (virtual) arena where no one actually gets hurt aside from their feelings. Think of her as a training aid.

    However I would request a moment of silent contemplation for Lurker’s boyfriend, who “really liked” the Gillette commercial. Imagine the life of a man that fits in well with all her commentary. He is this week’s unknown soldier of the Lost Boys battalion.

    May he find his way to daylight.

  130. Anonymous Reader says:

    This thread reopened some old topics for me. Such as the fact that 10 to 30 years of research on Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) has shown over and over again that women physically assault men within relationships as much – or more – than the reverse. At least in the US. Thus the research ought to demolish the Duluth Protocol dogma that all IPV is caused by men attacking women because of “Teh Patriarchy”. However there’s a fair amount of money at stake and not just the big pot of Federal money doled out to feminist causes. There’s also a lot of near-religious belief involved as well. So despite what the research shows, Duluth remains firmly and deeply entrenched in the legal system.

    Feminist dogma doesn’t care about facts.

    Meanwhile, men and their children continue to suffer, sometimes in extreme ways. This story below is from the previous century, but since little has changed in the legal system it’s still “current events”.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20060926200257/http://www.fathersforlife.org/suicides/Allen_Wells/wives_abusing_husbands.htm

    Excerpt:

    After a year and a half of being abused, I finally decided something
    had to be done. I was gradually facing her insanity, and realizing
    she wasn’t sane helped me understand that I was (it was clear that
    both of us couldn’t be). So – I started restraining her and
    slapping her when she beat me. My rationale was that maybe the
    reason she was beating me is because I was letting her get away with
    it. Not too dissimilar to your understanding, I suspect.

    The result was probably predictable to anyone who understands
    abusive relationships. She escalated. There is always a line
    beyond which any sane person will not go. The abusive mentality
    finds that line and crosses it. With me, it was my son. She
    started grabbing my son whenever she wanted to beat me. She would
    hold him screaming in my face with one hand while she pounded me
    with the other. How can you possibly respond to this? (Note: This
    isn’t just me, either. I posted this once previously, and I got
    e-mail from two men who had EXACTLY the same thing happen.)

    The court appointed Guardian ad Leitum did not believe Wells, probably at least in part because this just didn’t fit into the Duluth Protocol. The legal machine began to grind away.

    https://www.fathersforlife.org/suicides/Allen_Wells/The_Trial.htm

    Eventually, fearing (falsely, as it turned out) jail time, Allen Wells killed himself. Just as thousands of other men have done while being ground to bits by the divorce industry.

    Abused and ground on by the system, in despair, real men die by their own hand. Feminists don’t even deign to notice.

  131. Oscar says:

    @ Lurker

    Oh the Jagger quote you mentioned. Yeah, I don’t know the context of the quote. I don’t know what her purpose is, what she means by destroying the family or however she put it, or what structures she would replace it with. I can’t say based on what you provided or what I found with a brief google search that her comment evinced a hatred or disrespect for men.

    I’m not the only one who provided you with quotes from prominent, influential feminists, and the Jagger quote wasn’t the only one provided. But you evaded those as well.

    However; are fathers part of families? Does destroying families evidence love and respect for fathers? What about sons? Are they part of families? Does destroying families evidence love and respect for sons? Do you know what are the results of destroying families? If you don’t, please travel to your nearest inner city ghetto, or Indian reservation to see the results for yourself. Does advocating for those results evidence love and respect for the men who live with those results?

  132. Oscar says:

    @ Dale

    My best guesses from your graph is that women rate at:
    – 7-8% extremely obese
    – 35% obese

    So if you ignore the overweight women, and only consider those obese or extremely obese, you have 40% to 45% who are completely undesirable for most men. They are also severely lacking in self-control, which also makes them unsuitable for marriage.
    Adding overweight women into the mix pushes that number to about 75-80%.

    Good luck to the single men who will only look for a wife from a western nation. You are going to need it.

    Correct. So, here’s the issue. Slender, attractive women have become such a minority in the USA that any slender woman can easily attract the sexual attention of nearly all men. If you add godliness and domesticity to the mix, she can attract pretty much any Christian man for marriage.

    So, what does that mean for a Christian man looking for a wife?

    Well, he needs to ask himself; if this young woman can attract pretty much any Christian man she wants, what do I bring to the table that will cause her to choose me over all the other men who want her? If he’s one of the 35% of American men who are obese, that slender, attractive, godly, domestically minded woman is likely to choose a different man who isn’t obese, because she has that option. That’s not the only consideration, but it is a consideration. That was my point above.

    Obviously, the same goes for women. The young woman who wants the 6’4″ man who loves kids and has a good job needs to ask herself that same question.

  133. Pingback: Friday hawt chicks & links – The don’t be evil edition. – Adam Piggott

  134. Spike says:

    Decades ago, Daniel Amneus in his book, “The Case For Father Custody” stated that “Biology (life) is inherited through women. Civilisation is inherited through fathers”.
    The lessening of the role of fathers in Western life has corresponded to the decline of civilisation. We see this in increased crime, a larger welfare bill, reduced work aptitude and fitness, reduced competence in relationships and a variety of ever-increasing social ills.

    What is never said is that the role of father has been undermined by the relaxation of courtship. From Biblical times through the agrarian and industrial revolutions, courtship was brief, serious and meant to finish at marriage. Couples would meet in Harvest festivals, dances, churches, or other venues. If a woman selected a no-hoper for herself, her father, knowing what men are like, would veto the relationship n favour of a man who had competence in the area of work and who came from an intact family.

    The increasing choices brought about by abundance led to a lessening of the father’s role in place of interest in Romantic love. This not only lengthened courtship but produced a new entity, “The boyfriend”.

    The “boyfriend” is a disposable relationship, as is “the girlfriend”. The trouble with it is, as Dalrock has pointed out many times, that power in the relationship rests with “The girlfriend”. This cult, combined with the social /sexual revolution and its’ enabler, reliable contraception, has led to the ultimate in disposability: disposable relationships, culminating to the ultimate unthinkable, Abortion up to birth.

    This is a pre-amble to my point: “the boyfriend” is a disposable clown who can be kicked out of a relationship at the whim of “The girlfriend”. When “The girlfriend” marries, she continues as if marriage is a continuation of “the cult of the boyfriend”, and this leads to the caricature of Dad as Clown, Dad as Mother’s Helper, Dad as Mother’s Mother’s Enabler, Dad as Walking Wallet, Dad as disposable.
    We want respect for fathers. But do we want to put an end to the root-cause of the ‘cult of the boyfriend”? Those would be the enablers of the cult: the socio-sexual revolutions.

    If we do, it will cost us our careers in pre-marital sex. Are we prepared to do that?

  135. locustsplease says:

    @nick m sounds like demons howling from the PIT!

  136. Paul Barnes says:

    @ Oscar

    1. The top 80% of women are pursuing the top 20% of men. 2. Women have a dual mating strategy of AF/BB. 3. All women are like that, every single last one of them. Yes, even the one you’re holding in your head as a unicorn NAWALT. No really, every single female human in the west is like this. Every. Single. One. Different hardware, same operating system.

    “So, what does that mean for a Christian man looking for a wife?”

    It means you have no control over whether or not your good little Christian wife NAWALT unicorn decides to hit the self-destruct button on your marriage. Are you 6’4″ and ripped? There’s guys out there who are 6’5″ and have more muscles. Do you make bank? There’s guys out there who make more. Do you enjoy a high social status in your community and church? There’s always a larger and more prestigious community / church with men that have higher status than you do.

    The only thing keeping your theoretical wife in this marriage is a continuous cost/benefit ratio she’s calculating based on the resources and provision you provide balanced against the chances of her landing a better deal (almost certainly including the alimony and potential child support, division of community property, etc).

    Take your example of very undesirable (obese) men and put them in the impossible category as their only chance in this market is being an orbiter and uncompensated provider. Now look at the group of Christian men above this cutoff point. Their prospects for a suitable Christian wife exist only in the case that he is perceived by her as the best possible deal she can get – at that particular moment. The mid-20s 6’4″ Christian man who works out, has a great job and loves kids is going to be chucked in the garbage with all the undesirables as soon as cupcake finds a better deal. It’s possible that she’ll even cheat on him and stay in the relationship to try to double (or triple, or quadruple, etc) dip. The entire time, she’ll probably nag him and slowly sap his soul like some kind of emotional vampire.

    You’re not participating in a single market transaction here, you’re being continuously evaluated for liquidation by a hostile entity. Opting out of the market completely is the sane choice for men.

    Oh and before anyone posts it, yes all women are like that. All of them. No, you don’t have an exception. No, really, you don’t.

    I hate driving this point home over and over and I hate the fact that there is no sane recommendation for men to marry. However, this information needs to get out there for less experienced men to see.

  137. locustsplease says:

    RPC this is exactly right. You are taught as a child and thru media that you have all these rights and when injustice happens there is going to b a news crew there. Also theres a camera in court rooms a judge doesnt tell you to literally fuck off right? Wrong! What you see in the public is a show.

    We are taught judges are people who judge on facts evidence and law. If you dont hide things lie have an attitude you wont make them angry. Nothing could b further from the truth. The number one crime a judge jails people for in any state is unpaid CS. They know this and begged for the job for a decade its who they fundamentally are they have the compasion of reptiles.

    If the system turns on you thats it nothing else matters. I am not kidding after what they did to me i wonder are there men in jail for child support for children who do not even exist? In our media presented court someone shows up and defends the truth, wrong. Who is going to defend you? Nobody.

    After my divorce i got a letter in the mail from the court. Ive been ordered to pay my wife tens of thousands of dollars more that before! I was never notified i can prove they sent notification to another person and wrong location. So i never showed to counter argue and lost. Thats in their offical documents. I tried to get it reversed did everything legally right and failed! This took what little financially i was given in my divorce.

    You tell people this stuff in real life they look at me like i just smoked crack cocaine.

  138. Opus says:

    Earlier in this thread Lurker claims that she was #metoo’d. With tears in my eyes and so as to understand better her pain I put what she had written through my Q36B Hamsterlator and it came out as ‘”I was a fickle slut”. Is my Hamsterlator working properly? I do wonder as my Q36B is a Chinese knock-off that I purchased cheaply on Ali Express. Can everything from China really be cheap tat?

  139. Scott says:

    Spike-

    Pretty good synopsis of where the boyfriend/girlfriend arrangement came from. In the early 20th century, there were also some technological advances that sped up its crystallizing.

    But it doesn’t really matter. Search the scriptures all you want, there is no such thing as a boyfriend or a girlfriend. Therefore, managing that kind of arrangement is pretty much possible for a Christian.

    When I go back and tally up the score in my own life, I was the breaker-uper about half the time, and I was broken up with the other half. I’ve never been able to figure out the pattern there. (That is what do those two roles have in common). Other than, as Rollo puts it, the person who needs the other the least has the most power. There were a number of times when I was just bored, and made me the person who needed it the least. So, I left.

    In either case, within a month I was either back on the dating scene or, I was aloof to women for a time, while I rearranged my personal goals and priorities.

    My first marriage was indeed a continuation of the boyfriend/girlfriend arrangement (for her). For me it was a devastating blow because of the seriousness with which I took the sacrament. Took me almost two years to “get over it.”

    I know people in their 40s and 50s who have boyfriends and girlfriends. Mychael was my girlfriend when I was 35 for almost a year. Its really weird when you think about it. The nature of the relationship has not changed except that the label is now husband/wife.

    But, as you point out, the boyfriend/girlfriend thing is here to stay, because its really fun. I admit it. It’s wrong, but fun. Mychael and I are starting to be like those old couples who are still hunched over holding hands walking out to the car while he opens the door for her. So, I think we dodged the divorce bullet, but you never really know. We say the same kinds of things about each other, even when the other is not around to hear. I try not to think about who needs the other more. She says on a regular basis that she is “done.” Meaning, if I died, or something else like that she is single forever. I feel the same way. Being boyfriend and girlfriend first probably had no effect on it one way or another.

    To create a courtship culture out of the ruins that we are all standing in seems so far away.

  140. Oscar says:

    @ Paul Barnes

    You haven’t written anything I haven’t already read. Now, who do you suppose is more likely to attract the wife he wants; the man who works on improving himself, or the man who lets himself go?

  141. I’ll take “How many Liberated Feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?” for 1000, Alex.

  142. As though a lack of self-esteem was the problem!

    Honestly, for all their worldly “Chivalry”-based themes and sexual dynamic, the first two Shrek movies were far more realistic, and biblical, portrayals of gender roles than much ANYTHING else out of Hollywood (including Kendrick-Bros.-et-al) in the past twenty years.

  143. What are you drinking? Because unless it’s Kool-aid or Bud Lite, it sounds like fun!

    But it smells a lot like a grape Kool-Aid, ma’am.

  144. Frank K says:

    To create a courtship culture out of the ruins that we are all standing in seems so far away.

    Especially since so many people, even those who consider themselves Christians, simply view marriage as more formalized form of dating, meaning it can be jettisoned when it no longer serves one’s “needs”.

    Describing the current culture as “ruins” is very apt. It’s next to impossible to have a rational discussion about this with most people, who simply accept the current dysfunctional culture as normal

  145. You seem to be grossly mistaken, and assume that “Feminists” and “women as a group” are identical sets and treated identically. This is both a) demonstrably false, by a plain reading of the actual statements above, and b) a standard point of Feminist (not female, Feminist) catechesis.

    Your own posts can stand as Exhibit A for the arguments you attempt to refute.

  146. John James R says:

    Unless the girl in the photo (pink shirt) is a once-in-a-generation actress, then you can really see how far men have fallen in female eyes. There is a set to her amused face that displays zero respect. You don’t break up that deeply at someone else’s expense unless there is a huge discrepancy in value. Her laughter is purely amused and extreme supremacy. She’s laughing at him as if he’s lower than a bumbling kitten or puppy. I would assume this is a real photo from a real family. Already she is way above her father. There is no awe, fear or even respect. She is just a higher form, just as Disney has told her. It’s entrenched. The smaller girl on the right, okay, she’s laughing at her goofball Dad. But the girl on the left is about; “Men are soooo ridiculous compared to us.” You can see it all over her face. “What a pitiful, laughable gender.” Well, good luck with your future love life, young one. Males are so far beneath this girl that she will never respect one enough to be in love. That’s my call. No O’s for you, if you want to cast it in modern parameters.

  147. Frank K says:

    Even then? I bet we would all be stunned with how programmed their reactions are. My own sister “believed the woman” in a case of ‘abuse’ brought against an old family friend. Preposterous and typical divorce accusations. My sister had never even met our friend’s ex-wife.

    One could argue that your sister didn’t really “care” for your friend. To clarify, I was thinking of sons and maybe brothers. The only time I’ve ever seen a woman “get it” is when her son is destroyed in a divorce. And I will concede that even then it’s possible she might take his wife’s side, even after losing all access to her grandchildren.

  148. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    When an Alpha says no …

    Man refuses sex with woman — so she burns down his house: https://www.nj.com/gloucester-county/2019/08/woman-stood-up-after-late-night-call-for-sex-tried-to-kill-man-by-torching-his-house-cops-say.html

    A woman accused of burning down a Woodbury man’s house set the fire when he didn’t answer the door after inviting her over for sex, authorities said.

    Taija M. Russell, 29, of Blackwood, was arrested Tuesday and charged with attempted murder and aggravated arson in the Aug. 4 blaze, which left the man with first- and second-degree burns.

    The man described Russell as a “side chick” in a police report on the incident. …

    The victim told police he had invited her to his house for sex, but fell asleep before she arrived.

    A review of his phone showed eight missed calls from Russell, police said, along with text messages in which she wrote “You wasted my money to come out here,” “U smoked,” “I see you wanna die,” and “I swear to god I hope you die.”

    Police obtained security camera video showing her purchasing lighter fluid, matches and a lighter from a nearby gas station.

    Other video shows her return to the residence and head to the back door, the only entrance to the residence, with the items. By 4:08 a.m., the house was ablaze.

    That man must be some Alpha.

  149. Scott says:

    The only time I’ve ever seen a woman “get it” is when her son is destroyed in a divorce.

    What I have observed, even in these cases is a reluctance to acknowledge the systemic features of the laws, the courts, the culture, etc that create the injustice in the first place.

    Rather, its “his crazy ex wife had a really good lawyer” or something like that.

  150. Cloudbuster says:

    “This site can’t be reached http://www.motherhood.gov’s server IP address could not be found.”

    Weird. Must be some kind of mistake.

  151. Novaseeker says:

    Rather, its “his crazy ex wife had a really good lawyer” or something like that.

    Or the ever-popular: “well, that’s what patriarchy looks like, and why it’s harmful to men” … even though NOW spends not one red cent lobbying to change divorce practices that favor women. It’s all 100% pure guff.

  152. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Cloudbuster, are you using a VPN? Try turning it off. Some government sites don’t like VPNs.

  153. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    The only time I’ve ever seen a woman “get it” is when her son is destroyed in a divorce.

    Paternal grandmothers “really get it” when they’re unable to see their grandchildren, and they know the maternal grandmother sees her grandchildren on a regular basis.

    How many women think of that? If their son is frivorced, their grandchildren will be entirely cut out of their lives.

  154. thedeti says:

    Do you realize that the Marilyn French quote is actually that of a fictional character in a novel?

    It’s a quote from a novel called The Women’s Room, that French wrote. Spoken by a character named Val, that French created.

    The quote is from a character French created, in a book French wrote.

    Therefore, French said the quote.

  155. Iowa Slim says:

    That upthread feminist frame-juggling routine was a good bit of light entertainment. Kudos.

    The fatherhood.gov website was an eye opener. Among other things, an official government communication platform has fathers depicted as buffoons and defined as whatever male owns the johnson a child’s mother is currently latched onto.

    This is society’s statement to men. “We can’t come right out and say this, but we can’t or won’t protect you. If you want sign up for this like a naive sap, you’re on your own. Don’t say you weren’t warned.”

    A lot of the young men I encounter seem to have gotten the message loud and clear.

  156. white says:

    @Iowa Slim

    Don’t forget the christians/conservatives’ role in this. While the .gov website and seculars are honest in their descriptions of fathers as clowns and mother’s slave, christians and conservatives’ job is to shame anyone into accepting this role. Offering “manhood” and respect to sweeten to deal. Hiding facts if necessary. We cannot forget how the church sold their men out.

  157. Cloudbuster says:

    @Red Pill Latecomer says:
    Cloudbuster, are you using a VPN? Try turning it off. Some government sites don’t like VPNs.

    Um, no. That’s not it….

  158. Spike said: “Decades ago, Daniel Amneus in his book, ‘The Case For Father Custody’ stated that “Biology (life) is inherited through women. Civilisation is inherited through fathers”.”

    That’s one of the most interesting things I’ve read in a long time. Definitely worth some thought.

    I’d add to that: the strength of will to fight in defense of a civilization – the steel in the soul – comes from father. No matter how high the civilization, it’s destined for the dustbin unless its people will fight for it.

  159. Frank K says:

    Paternal grandmothers “really get it” when they’re unable to see their grandchildren, and they know the maternal grandmother sees her grandchildren on a regular basis.

    How many women think of that? If their son is frivorced, their grandchildren will be entirely cut out of their lives.

    I had the pleasure of explaining this to a woman whose son was being threatened with a frivorce. She became VERY wide eyed when the prospect sank in. A real “oh shit” moment when she realized that she was utterly powerless to stop the train wreck that was about to happen. Fortunately for her, her son was able to talk his wife out of pressing the destruct button, but it came close: his wife was messing around with other men and even bragged about it social media. He kissed her ass and she backed off.

    His ex had a child from a previous marriage she nuked, so hitting the eject button wasn’t a new experience for her. I suspect that her replacement dude probably backed out, so she “reconciled” with her hubby du jour.

    I don’t expect this to end well in the long run.

  160. Dalrock says:

    @white

    Don’t forget the christians/conservatives’ role in this. While the .gov website and seculars are honest in their descriptions of fathers as clowns and mother’s slave, christians and conservatives’ job is to shame anyone into accepting this role. Offering “manhood” and respect to sweeten to deal. Hiding facts if necessary. We cannot forget how the church sold their men out.

    Even this isn’t true though. Respect is what they promise for men who marry and father children, but once the mark has fallen for the con their contempt for the man is only increased.

  161. Frank K says:

    What I have observed, even in these cases is a reluctance to acknowledge the systemic features of the laws, the courts, the culture, etc that create the injustice in the first place.

    Rather, its “his crazy ex wife had a really good lawyer” or something like that.

    No doubt. I’m not saying that grandma will always have her eyes opened after the train wreck, just that it’s the scenario where it’s most likely to happen.

  162. Isabel says:

    “Men like slender, debt-free virgins who have long hair. Any woman who disputes this is free to make life choices contrary to this statement and see what the results are.”

    Yes and no. The average american man has relatively traditional values and aspires to have a relatively traditional wife. The problem is that the average man doesn’t motivate women and therefore doesn’t shape her behavior. There are enough men—in many cases the most desirable men— who don’t care about N-count. It matters a lot that Prince Harry and Liam Hemsworth could have married any women they wanted, and they picked the women they did. If celebrity men and the men in big cities with MBAs and Ivy League Law degrees preferred home-schooled virgins, more women would aspire to become them; however increasingly they don’t. ‘Hot’ ‘educated’ women get wifed up by higher quality of men than ‘modest good girls. In the same that that women’s preference for ‘bad boys’ has created more PUAs. High-achieving men’s preference for women ‘like them’ has created more career focused less modest women.

  163. Anon says:

    Paternal grandmothers “really get it” when they’re unable to see their grandchildren, and they know the maternal grandmother sees her grandchildren on a regular basis.

    How many women think of that? If their son is frivorced, their grandchildren will be entirely cut out of their lives.

    I have been beating this drum for years. Women have no ability to connect cause and effect.

    Where is even the SMALL organization of paternal grandmothers fighting against default mother custody (i.e. default daughter-in-law custody)? There is none.

  164. Anon says:

    Frank K,

    He kissed her ass and she backed off.

    Why did this work? Normally this is what make the wife file papers.

    The dumbass was foolish enough to marry a single mother in the first place, so he barely deserves any better himself.

  165. naturallyaspirated says:

    @scott

    As my marriage is imploding, I’ve been thinking a lot about how we (I) got to this point. What marriage meant to my wife and I, how sex fits into the vows, what we presumably asked of God, and what we (supposedly) brought to offer to Him at the marriage altar. Did we sacrifice anything, save anything for the marriage arrangement, treat it as something unique?

    The white dress, the vows, the presumption that this union is different in some way than previous “unions.” I don’t know what to think anymore, it seems we’re doing it wrong.

    She had a live in boyfriend, traveled together extensively together after college. I ran across some of her diaries later in our marriage, it was an eye opener. She had already been “married” as far as I could tell. She had lived with someone else, she was committed to him as long as circumstances didn’t get in the way (which they, of course, did). He got more sexual energy from her than I ever did (had to read about that). How screwed up is it that women have no qualms about giving their young blooming sexuality to someone not their husband, don’t even think twice about that.

    Anyway, it seems looking back it’s about pleasing her parents, wanting to have the title of marriage before having kids (upper middle class women, at least for now, still finds this important), and a big party. Other than that, I’m just the next live in boyfriend, although the one who doesn’t get all the exciting youthful sexual energy.

  166. Scott says:

    naturallyaspirated-

    Its why Mychael and I never present our story as one of “success”

    So far, thank God, it has been an colossal outlier.

    It runs against the grain of all the talk around the sphere about “vetting” and so on. If you look at us, you might conclude that “love” is a thing that just strikes two people like cupids arrow and if you are one of the lucky ones, great. Its like a romcom.

    Yours is the more “typical” story I think. I have often pointed out that mine was a journey of serial monogamy, with multiple variations on the same theme.

    Girlfriend, months/even years, break up, move on. ONS. FB. Girlfriend, months/even years, move on. Lather, rinse, repeat. Never occurred to me that it was “wrong” or whatever. Not once.

    There was a marriage in there as well.

    Then, I met Mychael, and the rest is history. We spend most of our blogging and talking to people in person about how they should do as we say, not as we did, making us essentially hypocrites. So, its kind of a predicament.

  167. John James R. says:

    “Offering “manhood” and respect to sweeten to deal.”

    The church (and society in general) never really offer those two things. Maybe they’re withheld in a way that makes is appear they are being offered, but they’re never truly offered. One’s manhood is insulted and disrespect is a given unless you become a dutiful father. So it logically follows that the badge of manhood and a general respect are what you will be rewarded with in fatherhood. But it’s all Lucy with the football, at best. At best, as in, “Ha ha. You were fooled. Carry on as you were before.” But it’s really even worse. The manhood and respect of father’s even goes further into the red, at least in terms of laws, burdens etc, as compared to men who avoid the fray and basically just aren’t even on anyone’s radar in any way.

  168. Frank K says:

    Why did this work? Normally this is what make the wife file papers.

    I was puzzled too. He kissed her ass in social media. I figured he was a goner, and then, after a few months, she went back to him.

  169. John James R. says:

    “The problem is that the average man doesn’t motivate women and therefore doesn’t shape her behavior.”

    And the vice-versa of that phrase is just starting to arrive and will continue to come in an avalanche. Good luck with the infrastructure in 20 years btw. Good luck with innovation and all forms of civilization building and maintenance.

  170. Scott says:

    On Friday nights, all the blogs and social media posts stop. I sometimes wonder if its because they actually have a social life, or because they don’t want anyone to think they are a total loser sitting by their computer on a Friday night.

  171. Dunbar says:

    “Gosh, these men sound like real catches. I, and I am sure most women, are extremely upset that they are going their own way.”

    There you have it directly from the feminist’s fingers, gentlemen. What more evidence do you need?

  172. BillyS says:

    I don’t have much of a life now Scott, so I have no worries about that kind of label. I suppose some may have that concern however. Congrats on plowing ahead and the fact you keep making progress. I would have done many things to reach that state, but it was never in the cards. (Unfortunately, I can only see that in retrospect.)

  173. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Scott: We spend most of our blogging and talking to people in person about how they should do as we say, not as we did, making us essentially hypocrites.

    No, Hypocrisy involves pretense. If you admit that you didn’t follow your own advice, you’re open about it, so there is no hypocrisy.

    A good article defining hypocrisy: http://enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0718/hypocrite.html

  174. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: I’m deployed again, and therefore have no life, so I’m writing again. This one’s about the Hillsong dude.

    https://snowgoosechronicles.blogspot.com/2019/08/another-one-bites-dust.html

    Mr. Sampson’s muddled, garbled, self-centered theology is precisely the problem with churches like Hillsong that focus on emotion above solid doctrinal teaching. When Mr. Sampson says over and over again, “no one talks about it”, I suspect that he means “Hillsong never talks about it”, because as I’ve demonstrated, plenty of people are talking about the difficult questions of faith.

    Second, as I pointed out in my series about Josh Harris, in the books of Titus and 1 Timothy, the Holy Spirit, through the Apostle Paul, gave us the qualifications for a church elder. Like Josh Harris, Marty Sampson fails miserably to meet those qualifications. Why was he ever made an elder?

    Because Hillsong’s leadership doesn’t actually believe the Bible.

    And that leads us to the real problem.

    Churches like Hillsong don’t preach the Jesus of the Bible. They preach Buddy Christ. Mr. Sampson said that he has “never been about living my life for others”. Buddy Christ approves, but the Jesus of the Bible says “If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake will find it.” (Matthew 16:24-25)

    Jesus spoke the truth, because He is The Truth, but the truth doesn’t fill stadiums with adoring fans. It never has.

  175. Scott says:

    RPL

    I guess I should have been more clear.

    We are perceived as hypocrites.

    I am tracking that the term is wildly overused to describe a person who has ever even once lived inconsistently with their own stated values.

    Even if they changed their stance on something later and acknowledged the error of their previous ways.

    It means that no one can ever have a hard stance on anything, ever.

  176. Scott says:

    As soon as the term “hypocrite” comes out, you’re done. Unless you have lived in perfect harmony with whatever you say believe from the beginning of your life til now, like Jesus.

    It’s almost as bad as being called “racist.”

  177. TheTraveler says:

    @Scott

    I counterpunch, pointing out the egregious flaws/contradictions in the opposition’s leadership (this, “hypocrisy”) or quote arguments contradicting their own — from people on their own side. Typically, they snarl like demons and retreat.

  178. TheTraveler says:

    @Scott

    P.S. You’re doing good work by telling truth, regardless. You’re planting a seed. It’s surprising how often facts and good arguments get repeated back to the originator as though the “converted” speaker thought of it themselves.

    “Go along to get along” types might see the light but be scared to say anything while the bashers attack you.

  179. Liz says:

    Well, the best way to avoid being called a hypocrite or accused of double standards is to have no standards.

  180. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Well, the best way to avoid being called a hypocrite or accused of double standards is to have no standards.

    A saying I once heard: He was so tolerant, he refused to impose his morals even upon himself.

  181. Nick M says:

    Red Pill Latecomer says:
    August 16, 2019 at 12:39 pm

    When an Alpha says no …
    […]
    Other video shows her return to the residence and head to the back door, the only entrance to the residence, with the items. By 4:08 a.m., the house was ablaze.

    That man must be some Alpha.

    RPL, it’s not that much as alpha… boys tend to be more hardheaded, say “no” more, and the women CAN’T stand that!

    It’s a power trip. That’s why the biggest demographic of domestic violence isn’t women, but boys of single mothers. And boys of lesbians… God have mercy on their souls. When the boys refuse to kowtow to their every whim and be part of their male harem or be their spouse by default/play doll by default, the women absolutely lose it!

  182. dragnet says:

    @ Isabel

    Your comment above is a welcome reality check. Thank you for stating plainly what should be an obvious truth by now.

  183. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    As soon as the term “hypocrite” comes out, you’re done. Unless you have lived in perfect harmony with whatever you say believe from the beginning of your life til now, like Jesus.

    That’s a perfectionist and rather immature position. I would expect it from a precocious 14 year old, or a very serious 20 year old, but anyone with even a micron of self reflection would have to give it up once they had any life experience. Life is messy whenever humans are involved.

    Oh, and it also totally ignores the reality of change. I know alcoholics in real life who have not touched that stuff or anything stronger than aspirin in years. Are they hypocrites when they tell obvious drunks “You need to stop this before it kills you”, or are they sharing wisdom gained at a high cost?

    Who are the people that do this? Are they the same people who trot out “Judge not!” and “him without sin cast the first stone!” when the topic is babymommas?

  184. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Scott – do these people ever offer any quotes from the Bible to support their “once screwed up, always a hypocrite” position? Or is it just fast jazz hands?

  185. Scott says:

    AR

    There are a number of bloggers and forums that exist to do nothing but critique the manosphere who label Mychael and I hypocrites.

    The arguments range in vulgarity of the presentation, but the basic idea is

    “Divorced cad with high n count marries former carousel rider who is still very attractive and having his babies in her 40s lectures everyone on the virtues of chastity and courtship”

    Or some variant

  186. Scott says:

    Almost forgot “single mom former carousel rider”

    I’ve had to moderate my blogging comments severely to keep that stuff out.

  187. thedeti says:

    The only thing that’s true about Isabel’s comment is this:

    In the same that that women’s preference for ‘bad boys’ has created more PUAs.

    The rest of it is pure bunk.

    Just disregard people like Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and Liam Hemsworth’s doomed marriage to the “new and improved, reinvented” Miley Cyrus. That’s celebrity culture. Celebrities inhabit a world in which regular SMV/RMV rules don’t apply Cyrus completely chumped out and humiliated Hemsworth, and it’s only a matter of time before Markle does the same to Harry.

    In the real world, Ivy League educated lawyers and IB guys aren’t the Masters of the Universe portrayed on shows like Suits and the like. They’re educated, hard working, driven guys who are mostly Blue Pill beta chumps and AFCs when it comes to women. They have not the slightest idea what they are doing when it comes to women. So all it takes is a nice looking high N slut to toss a few sex acts his way, and he’s hooked.

    The guys who really know what’s up are the naturals, the guys who grew up hard, the guys who made a concerted effort to learn Game, and the guys who got Red Pilled through very hard experiences with women. The men who got to see women up close. The men who got to see how women REALLY are and how they REALLY act, behind closed doors, up close and in person. Who are they?

    The high school star athlete and the NCAA D1 athlete.

    The scrappy guy who came up working class in a poor home and who went into the military or a trade school, or farming.

    The lower middle class guy who grew up with a single mom and her series of boyfriends, some of whom were kind to him, some of whom kicked him around, who got himself out, who’s dated and had sex with his share of women, and who’s built something for himself in a mechanic’s shop or a small business.

    The ordinary middle aged white former AFC, a year out from his divorce, who has lost his kids and his house, lives in a dingy one bedroom walkup, has half his paycheck garnished to his ex wife and kids who he hasn’t seen in 6 months because his ex wife won’t allow him to, and who otherwise has had his money, possessions, life, and soul sucked out of him through all his bodily orifices.

    These are the men who know and understand women. These are the men who get it. The ivy leaguer with the silver spoon up his ass and the investment banker? Unless they’ve gotten completely fucked over, they don’t know what they are dealing with.

  188. thedeti says:

    I forgot to point out:

    Isabel’s post also suffers from massive apex fallacy.

  189. thedeti says:

    Just gonna put this here so you all can see what I’m talking about.

    https://pushingrubberdownhill.com/2019/08/14/lessons-from-my-divorce/

  190. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Scott
    Not face-to-face, then? Only via text on the internet? Whatta surprise.

    Going by what you say, it’s something more than ankle biting but less than stalking. I’m sure that stuff hurts your wife, especially if it’s showing up on social media. That’s what blocking is for.

    Otherwise, there really isn’t much you can do aside from run heavy mod on your own site, as far as I can see. There’s always going to be some claque of people who don’t like you, and sometimes the only way to deal with it is by ignoring them.

  191. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Isabel
    Yes and no. Assortive mating isn’t necessarily the norm anymore, just for a start. The child-support model of “family” has brought a lot of changes, and damage, and the effects continue to ripple outwards.

  192. Opus says:

    When I read Isabel’s comment I thought “she is right”: for men simply do not care or rather overlook or make allowances for a high N, but Deti is correct too for most lawyers are truly hopeless and clueless with the female sex.

    Celebs as he says inhabit a different world. What was Her Maj doing allowing – and she had to give permission – for her Grandson to marry Yacht Girl Markle. I ignore the fakery of the pre-nuptial T.V. interview and the awfulness of the wedding reminding me of this Little Britain clip:-

    Life imitating Art,

    but there have been her all-night drug-fulled parties at Kensington palace annoying its other Royal residents especially with the coming and going of the Helicopters; Markle’s merching – when she is supposed to be supported by the Crown; her politicking when Royals are supposed to be above politics, her insult to your President included, the fake pregnancy, the photos of the doll and the photo-shopped pictures of her showing the ‘doll’ to the Royal Family; the expenses for a house which she does not even live in; her anti-British editing of Vogue; her willingness to play the race card on all occasions – that really annoys us; we are not America – the bananas for the prostitutes and so it goes on. The damage this is doing to the Monarchy and hence to our Constitution has yet to be seen (other than the frequent booing of her husband and the petition to the Brighton Council to treat them as commoners should they ever visit Sussex) but the forces of Republicanism will be sure to move when as will happen QE2 shuffles off this mortal coil. No wonder The Duke of Cambridge and his Duchess are distancing himself from his brother as his hopeless Father stands by gormless and impotent.

    Thank God she is going so we are told to some far flung corner of our Empire in Africa as Colonial Governess (or its modern equivalent).

  193. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Speaking of celebs and single moms …

    * Actress Barbara Bach (best known as the Bond girl in The Spy Who Loved Me), was a teenage “supermodel,”on the cover of many fashion magazines in the 1960s.

    * At the age of 20, she married an Italian count and moved to Italy with him. She began acting in Italian films, and bore him two children.

    * When she was around 28, they separated. She moved to Los Angeles to pursue her acting career. They divorced three years later.

    * At age 33, she married Ringo Starr, who also had kids from a former marriage.

    Bach and Starr have been married for 38 years. By all accounts, they’ve had a blissful marriage. Bach’s daughter has said that she felt ignored by Bach after Bach married Starr, because Bach and Starr are such a close twosome.

    So, Starr married a single mom, age 33. Yet it’s worked out. Bach did NOT pull a Miley Cyrus on him. Perhaps even celebs were less trashy a few generations ago. Or perhaps it’s because Cyrus has major fame of her own, whereas Starr’s fame far outshone Bach’s.

    It also didn’t matter that Starr is a few inches shorter than Bach. You can tell in photos of the two of them.

  194. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Opus: What was Her Maj doing allowing – and she had to give permission – for her Grandson to marry Yacht Girl Markle.

    The Queen didn’t really have a choice about giving permission. Markle is black and possibly also Jewish. The Powers That Be were so thrilled at bringing Diversity to the monarchy, all other standards and qualifications had to be waived. Failure to do so would be construed as racist, thus jeopardizing the credibility, and even the legitimacy, of the monarchy.

  195. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    American mom moves to Saudi Arabia to be with husband. After divorce, she loses custody of their daughter: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7367719/Mother-32-loses-custody-battle-daughter-Saudi-Arabia-new-Islam.html

    A Washington mother, who moved to Saudi Arabia to teach at a university, lost custody of her husband [sic] after divorcing her husband because she was too Western to raise the child, according to a Saudi court.

    Bethany Vierra, 32, lost custody of her daughter – four-year-old Zaina – in July after the court determined that the mother was too ‘new to Islam.’

    ‘The mother is new to Islam, is a foreigner in this country, and continues to definitively embrace the customs and traditions of her upbringing. We must avoid exposing (Zaina) to these customs and traditions, especially at this early age,’ Judge Abdul-Ellah ibn Mohammed al-Tuwaijri said in his July ruling, according to CNN.

    Gee, that doesn’t sound very multicultural. Seems the Saudis don’t value diversity.

    Vierra’s ex husband used her social media as evidence that she was allegedly living a non-Islamic lifestyle.

    His lawyers used her trip to Burning Man in their argument, dubbing it ‘the world’s strangest festival’ where attendees ‘appear in crazy clothes and stay awake all night dancing and surrounded by people wearing only shoes made of fur, or drinking drugs (sic) or cold drinks.’

    Her ex-husband’s lawyers also contended that her social media was ‘full of nudity, intermingling of the two sexes and a lot of things and actions contrary to our religion and customs and traditions.’

    Wow. Women are shamed for their social media posts in Saudi Arabia.

    Vierra claimed that her ex-husband was verbally abusive and used drugs. Her husband denies those allegations.

    ‘There was drug use and that became an issue,’ her mother, Kathi Vierra, explained.

    Custody was ultimately granted to the girl’s Saudi grandmother, who lives with Zaina’s father.

    The court ignored the woman’s claims of abuse?

    I especially love some of the comments:

    Cruel, not only for the mother but mostly for the little girl. Father should be ashamed of himself, depriving his daughter and seeing her as a commodity.

    A woman thinks that the father should be ashamed of depriving his daughter of her mother? My irony detector just broke.

  196. Lost Patrol says:

    Dance like a dad is on freeway billboards now. Saw this one yesterday.

    https://www.multivu.com/players/English/8552551-ad-council-fathers-day-dance-like-a-dad-campaign/

  197. Anonymous Reader says:

    American mom moves to Saudi Arabia to be with husband. After divorce, she loses custody of their daughter:

    Stuff like that has been going on for over a generation. Here’s one version of it:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Without_My_Daughter_(film)

    In 1984, an Iranian physician, Sayyed Bozorg “Moody” Mahmoody wants to visit Iran with his American family. He claims that his Iranian family wants to meet his wife Betty and daughter Mahtob, and asks them to come with him for a two-week visit.

    Contrary to globalist propaganda, not all cultures are interchangeable.

    @Lost Patrol
    Oh, boy, something to look forward to on long commutes / travel.

  198. feeriker says:

    American mom moves to Saudi Arabia to be with husband. After divorce, she loses custody of their daughter

    If there is one species of human that I have ZE-RO sympathy for, it is the ignorant western slore who marries a Muslim vibrant and then is shocked –SHOCKED, I tells ya– to discover that he holds a completely alien set of cultural and religious beliefs that in no way tolerate the degeneracy that passes for her own culture.

    Dictator Feeriker would issue a fiat deporting all such slores, along with their vibrant husbands, back to the husbands’ home countries, in concert with a revocation of said slores’ U.S. citizenship. Let them sleep in the hard beds they’ve made for themselves.

  199. feeriker says:

    A woman thinks that the father should be ashamed of depriving his daughter of her mother? My irony detector just broke.

    Another example of female solipsism on steroids.

  200. Red Pill Christianity says:

    I second that from Feeriker. I have zero sympathy for Western women who have kids with or marry Muslim dudes and then OMG, what do you know? They have a primitive mindset! They consider women to be property, tradable for horses and camels like a TV set or a dog! They are abusive! They take theirs kids/whole family to Shitholistan and then ta-dah, you can’t leave again! Oh dear heavens! What a shock, huh, Western princess?

    I guess not all cultures are the same and just as good, huh? You thought your little female privilege was a get-out-of-jail-free card all over the world, huh? Sucks to be you! LOL 😀

    Listen, I normally do not deride people who make bad decisions and do not laugh at the disasters that befall others. Like that 18-year old kid Beta that married some baby mamma from his high school? Totally Captain SAH, but, the 18-yrear old kid is often just a colossal Blue-Pilled beta, raised in a Matriarchy, beaten down from K-12 that he must white knight for women, that women are always victims, and so forth. The 18-year old Beta thinks he is doing his duty and whatnot. He feels guilt for being male and all that. He is a dunce, but he is well-intentioned.

    But privileged women who grow up in Western countries, in all safety and illimitable benefits, go out and shack up with a Muslim dude and then act like they had oh no idea what Islam was all about? Gimme a break! This is a post-9/11 world, we all know what Islam is all about it, even if your little pampered, Ivory Tower world of college academics and online activism.

    This all stems from the Left’s belief that “white men” are the danger. Sheldon Cooper from Big Bang Theoriy show is the threat. Not the ghetto thug down the street covered in tattoos or some violent and primitive “oppressed” Abdullah she meets in her hitchhiking InstaGram trips.

    So yeah, zero sympathy for such women. I have other people who actually deserve my sympathy and support.

    Ps. Reminds me of that Italian moron Pippa Bacca who wanted to show the world how safe and tolerant Muslim countries were, so she wanted to go hitchhiking throughout the Middle East. No, I am serious. There is even an idiot woman who has guides how “Safe hitchhiking for women in Muslim countries”.

    https://www.tomislavperko.com/en/solo-female-hitchhiker/

    I love her tip #36.. to always wear a Maxipad, because Muslims will not rape a women who is menstruating! LOL Yeah… Muslim barbarians are gonna “respect” a woman’s period. The level of delusion and Leftist-minded wishful thinking is just astounding.

    As for Pippa Bacca, she made it to her first destination, Turkey, where she got raped and killed. That was in Turkey a supposedly “safe and secular” Muslim nation.

    Nature eventually takes its course eventually and weeds out the ones that are simply too stupid to survive.

  201. Red Pill Christianity says:

    Opus, I have to tell you, sometimes a country just dumps their worst garbage into another country. America managed to export one of our top trailer trash h0ebags to the UK: Megan Merkle. And the Betaest dude in the UK wifed her up! LOL The only other famous American women Beta boy Harry could have gone for that was worst then Merkel is Kim Kardashian, whom I despise with the intensity of 1,000 suns. These are rich, spoiled trash of the worst kind.

    I do not feel bad for Prince Harry as he should know better! To me, Harry is worst than some local 18-year old Captain SAH (Save-A-Hoe) who does know any better, is poor, likely grew up in single-mom household, and has no resources or mentorship. Prince Harry is a rich and famous dude with limitless resources and numerous options and opportunities in life. He CHOSE trash… just like Liam Hemsworth chose trash.

    Both dudes are now sticking their D’s in garbage cans. Well, Liam is not even doing that anymore, his “wife” Miley is out there sucking face with some other woman and publicly cuckolding him just for sh!ts and giggles. Harry’s turn will come.

    Some guys, no matter how rich, how good-looking, and how famous still wife up trash and become Captain SAHs. Just astounding to see the depths of human stupidity.

  202. fsy says:

    What the H3LL is a “clearinghouse”, anyway? Sounds like a place to get rid of useless junk…

    Western secular society has chosen to raise (a few) feral children, and for that fathers really are useless or worse. Animals only have mothers involved with the young, and that is enough for purely physical continuation of the species.

    The real dirty word I’m afraid to even mention openly is “parthenogenesis”. If you don’t know what that means, look it up fast and if you find a researcher working on human parthenogenesis, do whatever you can to stop him/her/it. Can’t be more explicit for obvious reasons, but there is no greater danger to real human survival.

  203. Hmm says:

    OT: From The Atlantic, “Scientifically Proven Sources of Sex Appeal”. Sounds like much of what we have been saying is verified.

    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/09/sex-appeal/594709/

  204. feeriker says:

    Ps. Reminds me of that Italian moron Pippa Bacca who wanted to show the world how safe and tolerant Muslim countries were, so she wanted to go hitchhiking throughout the Middle East. No, I am serious. There is even an idiot woman who has guides how “Safe hitchhiking for women in Muslim countries”.

    There was also the case very recently of the two Norwegian slorons who decided to visit and “westernize” Morocco by importing slutty Scandinavian behavior and wound up paying for it with their lives. Inexplicably, the Moroccan government chose to punish the men responsible for defending their nation’s moral foundations by putting them to death, thereby encouraging other western slorons to follow in these first two women’s footsteps (and no doubt meet the same fate as the first two, no matter how hard the Moroccan government might try to protect them).

  205. Anonymous Reader says:

    Hmm
    OT: From The Atlantic, “Scientifically Proven Sources of Sex Appeal”

    “Wear black or red” — really? “Eat spicy food” – Casanova called, he wants his secret back.
    Pretty strong stuff for Atlantic to admit that there’s any science to attraction at all, but tips like that were common in high school. I read to the end of the article and thought it was just a paragraph break. That’s it?

    Very weak for reality. I grade it “D+, needs work”.

  206. Opus says:

    My theory is: those who say Britain would be better as a Republic are the very ones who foam at the mouth when one mentions the words (glorious to some) Donald Trump – they might not like what they get. Everyone wants The Duke of Cambridge to succeed and not his Father and I hope that is what happens for Prince William seems to me to be the best option available – devoid of scandal or tainted by divorce – and with a charming nice-looking wife and three young children. The Duke of Sussex dim-witted remark about not wanting to fill the world with more than two quadroons might be seen as an attack on his brother – really the Monarchy need to reign the Sussex’s in and sooner rather than later – but the person who next ascends the throne is down to the P.M. and The Archbishop of Canterbury – at least it was in 1937 when the former Prince of Wales on marrying an American was rejected and then packed off to Bermuda as Colonial Governor and the Duke of York ascended the throne. Harry is off to Botswana and I cannot see Markle staying there long ere she hot-tails it back to the Clooney’s pad in L.A. Look – it is not that we object to Americans – that Grace Kelly was kind of nice – but you are as a result of a gross miscarriage of historical judgement devoid of Princesses even though every American girl is encouraged to believe that she might be one – delusional or what! Personally i’d never marry a commoner – I have my standards.

  207. Oscar says:

    Gents: New series from me. Stupid on Facebook. I submit my first entry here.

    https://snowgoosechronicles.blogspot.com/2019/08/stupid-on-facebook-20190818.html

  208. Frank K says:

    My theory is: those who say Britain would be better as a Republic are the very ones who foam at the mouth when one mentions the words (glorious to some) Donald Trump – they might not like what they get.

    Especially since it will most likely be the “Islamic Republic of Britain”

  209. Isabel says:

    Just disregard people like Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and Liam Hemsworth’s doomed marriage to the “new and improved, reinvented” Miley Cyrus. That’s celebrity culture. Celebrities inhabit a world in which regular SMV/RMV rules don’t apply Cyrus completely chumped out and humiliated Hemsworth, and it’s only a matter of time before Markle does the same to Harry.

  210. Isabel says:

    thedeti
    “Just disregard people like Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, and Liam Hemsworth’s doomed marriage to the “new and improved, reinvented” Miley Cyrus. That’s celebrity culture. Celebrities inhabit a world in which regular SMV/RMV rules don’t apply Cyrus completely chumped out and humiliated Hemsworth, and it’s only a matter of time before Markle does the same to Harry.”
    Meh. Celebrities and elites are our inspiration. Their lives might not be attainable but they still influence our behavior and set the ‘ideal’.
    I understand that working class men might understand women better, but the question isn’t who knows women, but who can cause women to change their behavior. I had to google the Apex fallacy and no, I don’t think all Harvard MBA’s and Corporate lawyers are mostly philandering studs. But if they are generally attractive in other ways, they are less likely to be MGOW or incels than others. And part of the reason they don’t ‘get the real nature of women’ is because they don’t have to—they don’t deal with welfare queens, their marriages are less likely to end in divorce, and their wives are less likely to be obese etc.

  211. Isabel says:

    As you said, many of these guys will wife up a high-N girl, and that’s precisely the point I’m making. I’m an UMC woman. If the men in my cohort and wanted to marry women who didn’t go to college, were virgins, etc. I would have shifted to fit that ideal. They don’t want those things. They wife up almost exclusively women who aren’t virgins and who have similar education levels.

    This blog talks about how women disincentivize men from being decent, hardworking, loyal husbands and fathers, because the men that follow this script don’t get what they desire—the sexual best of women. The same is true in reverse. Women today who are virginal, modest, accommodating, and not college educated—get the worst pick of men—in terms of hypergamy, its no wonder more women don’t pick this route.

  212. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Meghan Markle is a gift that keeps giving: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/prince-harrys-pals-stop-inviting-18907607

    Prince Harry’s pals have reportedly stopped inviting Meghan Markle to their parties because of the couple’s public displays of affection at the dinner table.

    It is claimed the former actress, 38, has ruffled feathers by insisting on sitting next to her husband, 34, at the fancy soirées, where a certain etiquette is expected to be followed.

    This includes following a seating plan in which couples should not be placed together.

    This is to stop any hand holding, kissing or lovey-dovey behaviour that may put fellow guests off their food.

    However according to the Mail on Sunday , smitten Meghan deemed the ‘rules’ as ‘exclusive’ and ‘traditional’ and has been determined to ignore them and sit next to Harry.

    This has reportedly raised eyebrows among Harry’s society circle as they ‘roll their eyes’ at the Duchess’s ‘American ways’.

    “Kinder members of society roll their eyes and whisper that the poor lamb can’t help being Americaine,” Charlotte Griffiths wrote in her Talk of the Town column for the publication.

    “The less forgiving have just stopped inviting her to dinner.” …

    As I said before, I think Harry really hates the royal family. He probably blames them for his mother’s death. And it’s not like he’ll ever be king.

    So Harry enjoys upsetting the family, and royal tradition, and all things “proper English.” He gets a thrill from marrying trash, and then rubbing that trash into everyone’s faces.

  213. Opus says:

    I had no idea that that is how one is supposed to behave at Dinner Parties – but then I don’t have a wife and no one ever invites me anyway. What would grate with me is the way Americans hold the cutlery in the wrong hand – fork in left hand is where it should stay so that one is not forever putting down ones knife. Like a pianist you are supposed to be proficient with both left and right hand.

  214. feministhater says:

    Women today who are virginal, modest, accommodating, and not college educated—get the worst pick of men—in terms of hypergamy, its no wonder more women don’t pick this route.

    Blah blah blah. Go slut it up then. Go. Stop bothering us and fuck off.

  215. Thursday says:

    Isabel thinks we should feel sorry for all those sweet virginal girls who didn’t get pumped and dumped by Harley McBadboy

  216. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I understand, Isabel. Weak men won’t MAN UP and WIFE UP all those young, uneducated virgins. This forces virgins to become sluts. Hence, sluts are the real victims.

  217. Frank K says:

    I’ve met educated men who married younger, “uneducated” virgins. Sure, many do marry high N count women, because it’s become difficult to find a virgin. As others have said here, even “nice girls” who sit on church pews on any given Sunday have N counts > 0. So now many men have lowered the bar to an N count in the lower single digits,

    What doesn’t happen is that women with degrees (and N counts) marry men who are not educated. Marrying down is a sign of failure for women, so of course you will always see “educated” women marrying “educated” men, and thus it is easy to come to the conclusion that the opposite is true. And since now women are heavily outnumbering men on college campuses, the ladies’ predicament is becoming worse.

  218. Novaseeker says:

    fork in left hand is where it should stay so that one is not forever putting down ones knife. Like a pianist you are supposed to be proficient with both left and right hand.

    Agree. My Brit immigrant parents taught me that way, and so the constant transfer between hands is beyond silly to me. Make it simple, stupid.

  219. Novaseeker says:

    They wife up almost exclusively women who aren’t virgins and who have similar education levels.

    Yep this is more or less true. There are exceptions, but they are exceptional. Today it’s all about perpetuating status in your kids, and that is best done by marrying other high status so as to increase the likelihood of passing on/inculcating the characteristics that perpetuate privilege and class.

    This blog talks about how women disincentivize men from being decent, hardworking, loyal husbands and fathers, because the men that follow this script don’t get what they desire—the sexual best of women. The same is true in reverse. Women today who are virginal, modest, accommodating, and not college educated—get the worst pick of men—in terms of hypergamy, its no wonder more women don’t pick this route.

    This is a false dichotomy. On the one side, women are wasting their primary asset. On the other men are not. A woman can marry an established sexy man who is 35 and he more attractive to her than his 23 year old equivalent. That 35 year old man may marry you at 33, but in no way, shape, or form are you anywhere near as close to how attractive you were at 23. He is giving up your sexual peak and you are giving up … nada. Hey, it’s how it works, women control mating. But as they on the Street — bulls make money and bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered.

  220. Scott says:

    On the “kick ass” gal front. The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    https://geektyrant.com/news/disney-princesses-reimagined-as-badass-warriors-in-this-freaking-cool-art-series

  221. feeriker says:

    Meh. Celebrities and elites are our inspiration.>/i>

    “Our” inspiration? Speak for yourself, woman.

    “Celebrities” “inspire” in me nothing but indifference (at best) or revulsion (at worst).

    The Lord Jesus is my inspiration, however very far short of His example I usually fall. Inspiration from the World has proven to be very much a dead (literally) end.

  222. feeriker says:

    s I said before, I think Harry really hates the royal family. He probably blames them for his mother’s death. And it’s not like he’ll ever be king.

    So Harry enjoys upsetting the family, and royal tradition, and all things “proper English.” He gets a thrill from marrying trash, and then rubbing that trash into everyone’s faces.

    It’s entirely possible that Harry does indeed, deep down, hate being a royal. He may very well have done some sort of internal “cost-benefit analysis” at some point in his young life and decided that the fronting and the BS that is his daily life due solely to an accident of birth just isn’t worth the self-sacrifice, especially given the fact that not only is there effectively ZE-RO chance of him ever becoming king, but of serving any other useful purposes of state. We’ll probably never know, unless one day he decides to publicly renounce all royal titles and ties (I know that other European and Asian royalty have done this, but not sure if it’s possible in Britain).

  223. Hmm says:

    @AR: I especially liked the part about scars being attractive. Ooh!

  224. Opus says:

    Of course I always realised that Novaseeker’s wise words were as a result of British ethnicity and breeding (well well I had no idea). I was of course tongue in cheek:- the American cutlery system does have its quaint and entirely American charm in fact it is one of your most distinguishing features which one sees in every cowboy movie, Every country treats food differently – consider the French, if you have ever lived amongst them, where every item on the menu seems to be its own course and meals seem to go on all afternoon. The Spanish preface everything with Tapas. Personally I dislike foreign food – dislike rice, dislike curry, dislike Chinese, dislike Indian, dislike Pizza and pasta, dislike Smorgasbord and so on and on.. Then there is drink: American beer may have improved but I found myself incapable of becoming inebriated on it. The Spanish drink all day and are never drunk – to see a police officer in a bar during the day as one does in Spain with an alcoholic beverage is for me quite shocking. Despite a change in licensing hours (do you have those) the average English person tries to get plastered between the hours of nine and eleven fifteen pm with the bulk of the (warm) beer being consumed between eleven and eleven fifteen.

  225. Scott says:

    The movie “the kings speech”seemed to give a pretty good account of the exhausting pressures of life as a royal

    And it’s a touching story too

  226. Scott says:

    I just wish I had s better understanding of what their real authority is

    I wish they would just say “alright that’s it. We’re not doing your whole parliament/prime minister thing anymore. We’re in charge.”

  227. white says:

    You gotta love all these female commentors in the Manosphere. They always manage to find some brilliant new way to ask men to Man Up. They just cannot escape Team Woman no matter how hard they try

  228. Frank K says:

    Agree. My Brit immigrant parents taught me that way, and so the constant transfer between hands is beyond silly to me. Make it simple, stupid.

    We taught our kids to do it European style. Curiously, you sometimes get “looks” in the US when you don’t do the fork/hand switch.

    In addition to the clumsy hand switching thing, there are other “quirks” in the US. One involves how you hold your fork while cutting something. I have seen some people hold their fork in a vertical position with their left hand, then do the switcheroo to the right hand.

  229. Frank K says:

    It’s entirely possible that Harry does indeed, deep down, hate being a royal.

    There are some who insist that he isn’t really Charles son. If that is true, it could explain his behavior, as it could be his way of flipping the bird to the “family”. Then again, who cares? The UK has real problems to worry about.

  230. BillyS says:

    He probably doesn’t like many things, as is so common today, but he is more than happy to take advantage of what he can take advantage of. He is a hypocrite just like those he hates.

  231. Scott says:

    My Serb dad never switched hands while eating.

    He reminded me of the dad from “my big fat Greek wedding”

    Thought we were barbarians for not learning how to use a fork with our left hand.

  232. Novaseeker says:

    espite a change in licensing hours (do you have those) the average English person tries to get plastered between the hours of nine and eleven fifteen pm with the bulk of the (warm) beer being consumed between eleven and eleven fifteen.

    We have licensing hours but they vary by state. Also laws on “off license” sales vary WILDLY by state like completely different between states such that people trek between states when they can to get booze. It is a patchwork after prohibition was repealed. Some states vary by county as well (with some counties being “dry”, so no alcohol sales in bars or elsewhere and some being “wet”). Ironically Jim Beam Whiskey is distilled in a “dry” county. Ah, America, our hypocrisy is amazing.

  233. feeriker says:

    There are some who insist that [Harry] isn’t really Charles son.

    I find that hard to believe. A close look at both him and Charles, and the physiological resemblance is definitely there.

    That said, I don’t get the impression that Chucky is especially close to either one of his sons. In fact, I recall reading somewhere recently that William has always been closer to his paternal grandfather (Phillip) than to his father.

  234. Red Pill Christianity says:

    Guys, what you are all saying about “virgin girls marrying down” is simply NOT true. That is only the case when such women come from a working class (or below) background. That often places such women in a social and economic group that is already disadvantaged and thus limits her exposure to men of higher financial means.

    I can say from personal experience that the last thing I care about when I consider meeting a woman is her college education and her job and salary. Job and education are almost irrelevant to me. I never even ask what they do most of the time, I only ask if I am concerned she is a bartender or “tour guide” for foreign tourist (trust me, these women enjoy a huge buffet of roosters) or an InstaGram model. Hah

    I can also say that my own goddaughter was going to marry a guy who was from an upper middle class background/borderline rich family. They met at a church my goddaughter was attending through her co-workers, since our church here is smaller and only 2 young men her age and her other church was bigger with a large young men’s group), by the way. Her fiance worked with his stepdad and got paid a ridiculously high amount of money for the work he did and his lack of educational and professional qualifications. And yet he wanted to marry my goddaughter, who is form a middle class background. It did not matter to him at all, because she is a Christian girl, who beautiful, ultra-feminine, and with long hair (and she was 17 and he was 22 when they first met). She called off the wedding because she wanted a man who is more like me, more Alpha type and aggressive overall. Her fiancee was a good guy but very Beta and his mother was all over his business. His mom would even come over to his apartment to pick his clothes before “big events” and such. It was stuff like that constantly, she even worked with me on strategies to get this guy shaped up but in the end, it did not work, his mom was too dominating of this guy! My goddaughter got tired of it after over a year and broke of the engagement. She could (and did) love a Beta if Beta meant a good Christian man (which is what my goddaughter wanted mostly), but she could not handle his mom hovering all the time. And the guy would not stand up to his mom, it was just terrible and frankly embarrassing.

    In any case, the least concerning factors who have their life together, who can make it on his own and have an established career/business is a woman’s education.

    Honestly, I value 1) Her Christian beliefs/commitment to Christ; 2) Her political views; 3) her feminine appearance and neatness much more than her college degree or job. If I hear she has a degree from a typical “party school”, I actually value that woman -1 on the 1-10 scale and another -1 if she works in hellish careers, like attorney or ER doctor, for instance.

    Have you guys ever dated a female lawyer? Or a doctor always on call? Or a woman who went to a typical leftwing indoctrination university? It is horrible. These women are as unstable and unhappy. They are worst than even young women that were once enlisted in the military. They are damaged goods, my friends.

    If I lost my cognitive faculties completely and had to marry in America today, I would rather marry a young virgin (say 18-23, if that even exists still today) Christian woman that works at Dunkin Donuts than a used-up young lawyer (say ages 24-30) that pulls $150k a year anytime, any day of the year. Just the bitterness and defensiveness of the lawyer would be more than enough to sap any benefit from marrying such a woman.

    Young virgins can and do marry high value men if they are exposed to them either in church or Online or in a social setting. The problem is if the virgin is stuck going to “poor social events”, attends a low-income school, and attends church in a low-income area, then yeah, she will be limited. But in the Internet age, that is simply not the case anymore. Young virgins have massive online exposure to good Christian men around their age for marriage, and yes, that includes men of higher socio-economic status.

  235. Frank K says:

    Also laws on “off license” sales vary WILDLY by state

    In some states the only places you buy distilled spirits is in the “State Liquor Store”, which are owned by the state government.

    In my state you can buy beer at convenience stores and supermarkets, but can only buy wine and distilled spirits at “liquor stores” (not owned by the state). In places like California you can buy anything at the supermarket. Used to be here in my state that liquor stores were closed by law on Sundays and the only beer sold at the supermarket was stuff that was only 3% alcohol. Getting those two “blue laws” repealed was considered a big deal.

  236. Red Pill Christianity says:

    Locust, brother, I am sad to hear what happened to you, but unfortunately, I am not surprised it happened. And I totally believe you it was as unfair just as you say it was. Unlike some guys here, I would never mock someone who married back then and suddenly got screwed over later. Many men who married 20 or 30+ years ago married under one set of rules and then our geocentric, misandrist country changed the rules in middle of the game to screw men over. I feel your pain despite never been through this myself.

    When I sit down with any of my friends who are divorced or any client who is divorced, if I ask about their divorce, they sigh and tell you about the living hell they have endured.

    And yet, you tell some Beta cuck from a local church and he will look at you like you are insane. He will tell you how women suffer soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much in divorce. He just parrots out the Feminist lines he has been fed from his family, from his church, from school, from TV shows… he will tell you how he often sees movies on Lifetime TV about how women get pushed down the stairs and when they want to leave the abusers, they have to hide in a tent in the woods. In their minds, the woman has no way out, no cash out of divorce and the man is always wrong and always make sthe woman (and kids) suffer. It is like they are in a moving, reading from a script.

    These people have no idea how one female’s lie to 911 gets you arrested, permanently barred form your own home (during and post-divorce), while she is out there banging some dude in your bed DURING the divorce and cashes out your life’s savings and steal your kids and your home. Your dignity and self-worth as a human being are just tears for her to drink after court. It is surreal, brother. The Blue Pilled guys do not want to see it. Until it happens to them, they live inside The Matrix. They have no clue.

    So Locust, let me guess? You live in Pennsylvania (PA)?? PA became the “poster child” for feminist marriage rapes in America. So the PA State Supreme Court ordered all divorce settlements going back to early 1980s. The case was based on some woman who complained her divorce settlement back in 1981 did not include “enough Alimony for wife”. She won a State Supreme Court case, which should apply ONLY in her situation.

    But no. The Court ordered ALL divorce settlements, including those that did not include Alimony, going back to 1981 to be re-opened and the ex-wife be entitled to backpay Alimony, including interest, going back almost 40 years! So women who have moved on with their lives as well can no go after their ex-husbands decades later for tens of thousands in cash, maybe even their entire 401(k) and maybe even all the equity in their home! What a payday for the family court lawyers too!

    Imagine how many tens of thousands of Dollars that would be! Many men who got divorced decades ago went on to re-marry and have kids, all whom will be severely punished by this insane ruling. I know some guys from church, they were so scorned by their own church (even though their wife left church as soon as divorce was final and left ex-husband there), the mental damage to them is even worst than financial damage. In fact, I would go as far as to say the MENTAL and psychological damage of a divorce rape is even worse than the financial one. It is a mind-job to be abused by the courts like that. I have been told a divorce for a man is like being raped inside a police station by a criminal and the cops are just there to hold you down and laugh.

    Bottom line is this: We simply cannot trust the legal system in our country anymore. The whole thing has been corrupted, especially the family courts and criminal courts. It has become a tool of the elites and the corrupt to oppress the average man, just as it was at the time before Shay’s Rebellion. Consider all court proceedings to be unfair and prepare accordingly.

    When you have a situation where an un-elected crazy ObamaJudge you never heard of can block an entire nation’s security indefinitely and literally allow terrorists to waltz into our country on a whim (as we saw with Travel Ban, ultimately upheld by Supreme Court), you know the courts have gone haywire and need fixing! Activist judges create law out of thin air and re-write rules going back decades and destroy a man’s life. The courts in our country are simply out of control and have been since the 1960s when judicial activism became the tool of social deconstruction by the Left.

    Judges are lawyers. Most lawyers are leftists. Most leftists are feminists, anti-American, and elitists. So it is no surprise most family law judges are cruel and are feminists. They enjoy destroying and punishing men. Men are the oppressors, the qualification of “white” men is a temporary ruse, since the left still needs “minority” men to vote for them (until they get an illegal alien amnesty). All men are under their system of repression and “retributive justice”. Righting the wrongs of the last 500 years on the backs of the current generation who are not culpable for the sins of those they may not even be related to.

    That is why getting married in the US today is just insane. You get married under one set of rules, then suddenly mid-game, the rules change and you lose it all. No man is ever grandfathered in to the laws when he was first married; he always gets punished by new laws as he goes. And even if rules and laws do not change, the family court judge can simply make any ruling he/she wants out of thin air. It is absolutely insane. Getting myself in such a jam in 2019, knowing what I know now? No thanks.

  237. Lost Patrol says:

    Some states vary by county as well (with some counties being “dry”, so no alcohol sales in bars or elsewhere and some being “wet”).

    I’ve seen a lot of this. Almost invariably and immediately (within a couple of hundred feet) across the county/state line on the old blue highways, will be the first liquor store of the wet county or state. Pretty much a given that they will have a drive through window as well.

    In some dry states or counties there will be “private club” bars in a back corner of hotel restaurants. Only card carrying members can be served. The last time I stayed at one of these the cards were free. You just had to sign up and presto, you’re a member.

  238. Scott says:

    In some dry states or counties there will be “private club” bars in a back corner of hotel restaurants. Only card carrying members can be served. The last time I stayed at one of these the cards were free. You just had to sign up and presto, you’re a member.

    Coryell county, Texas is like this.

    All the chain restaurants (like Applebee’s and Chile’s etc) have a “club” you have to join to drink there. Takes 5 seconds.

  239. Scott says:

    I know this because I totally spend a lot of time at Applebee’s getting shitfaced

  240. Novaseeker says:

    In some states the only places you buy distilled spirits is in the “State Liquor Store”, which are owned by the state government.

    In my state you can buy beer at convenience stores and supermarkets, but can only buy wine and distilled spirits at “liquor stores” (not owned by the state). In places like California you can buy anything at the supermarket. Used to be here in my state that liquor stores were closed by law on Sundays and the only beer sold at the supermarket was stuff that was only 3% alcohol. Getting those two “blue laws” repealed was considered a big deal.

    Lol it gets more arcane than that. In Virginia (where I am) its beer and wine in convenience stores and markets but booze in state run liquor stores. In Penn and NJ though, if you want to buy some beer you need to go to a “distributor”, and there arent that many of them (they are busy as you can imagine lol). All a patchwork.

    Reminds me of that old Michelle Shocked song, “Making the Run to Gladewater”:

    Upshur County’s drier than an empty bottle
    Since the Mormon’s come to town
    And to run out of beer means a run to Gladewater
    Highway 79 thirty miles on down

    Now fair is fair but life’s a gamble
    When it’s eleven forty five
    And it’s a toss of the coin to see who’s got fifteen minutes
    To make a thirty minute drive

    It was Saturday night
    You was sitting ’round the square
    Small town Texas sons and daughters
    But you lost the toss

    That means you’re taking up the money
    That means you’re making the run
    Making the run
    Making the run to Gladewater

    Here’s what you do
    You hustle all your buddies off
    The back of your truck
    You grab your girl, you say, c’mon let’s

    Tuck your jeans in your boots
    That’s what you do
    Slap your gimme cap on
    Turn the country music radio station
    Louder than you ought to

    But it’s okay, you’re on your way
    You lost the toss
    You’re taking up the money
    You’re making the run to Gladewater

  241. Lost Patrol says:

    I know this because I totally spend a lot of time at Applebee’s getting shitfaced

    Typical pretty boy behavior.

  242. Scott says:

    Word

  243. Scott says:

    LP

    You’ll find this funny

    I made the 0-5 list last month and I’m not even in the army anymore.

    Plus it’s really low sequence number. I’ll be pinning it on myself in a secret Montana ceremony at Chile’s

  244. Lost Patrol says:

    Scott

    Bureaucracies gonna bureaucrat. I think you’re obligated to spend one month’s pay differential so the rest of us can drink free while celebrating your success. Something like that.

    Always subject to recall in the event we need you though. Like Clint Eastwood in the movie Firefox, we can bring you back at the exact moment you get everything on the edge of the frontier just how you want it.

  245. Scott says:

    I’m just honored they considered me even though I have had no paper and no board file for over a year. I wonder if this means I can start calling myself colonel

  246. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Scott: The movie “the kings speech”seemed to give a pretty good account of the exhausting pressures of life as a royal.

    I saw the first two seasons of The Crown. I don’t get Netflix (wouldn’t pay for it), but I get free DVDs “for my awards consideration.”

    One thing I noted about the series was how it tried to make the Queen seem so important. Every episode there was some crisis. Churchill, or some other Prime Minister, was always rushing to Buckingham Palace, on a dire mission to urge the Queen to say this or that. As if what she said or who she danced with had earth-shattering consequences.

    I realize it was the writer’s attempt to inject drama into the series. But it seemed silly to me. I just didn’t buy that the Queen’s pronouncements were that influential.

    The show also made much of the family’s “Nazi connections.” Several episodes focused on the former King Edward and Wallis Simpson, and their apparently strong Nazi sympathies. Then I did some research and learned the show’s creator and writer was Jewish, so then it made sense.

  247. feeriker says:

    @Scott

    You’ll find this funny

    I made the 0-5 list last month and I’m not even in the army anymore.

    Plus it’s really low sequence number. I’ll be pinning it on myself in a secret Montana ceremony at Chile’s

    Well, I guess you’ll just have to start your own militia and promote yourself to LtCol in it. Why let a good set of silver leaves go to waste (and isn’t Montana one of those “Deplorable” states notorious for its militias)?

  248. Oscar says:

    Dammit! That means Scott’s going to outrank me again!

  249. Opus says:

    At 03.56 Scott is having some difficulty in getting his head round what is known as Constitutional Monarchy. That is quite understandable and I empathise with his Monarchist sympathies. It is often said that it is not so much the power that the Queen has but the fact that she prevents politicians from exercising that power. I have not seen ‘The Crown’ or for that matter ‘The King’s Speech’ but it is a fact that once a week her Prime Minister visits her to tell what he is up to and why and although we do not know what Her Majesty says it is surely the case that she is not merely receptive. It is she who appoints the Prime Minister and does so on the advice of the outgoing P.M. as she did only a few weeks ago when Theresa May(hem) tendered her resignation and suggested that Boris Johnson could form a majority in Parliament. The Queens occasional remarks such as at the State opening of Parliament have been known to kill off floating ideas before they are entrenched. Each Xmas she addresses on a pre-recorded television broadcast her Commonwealth (i.e. The Empire but we don’t call it that so as not to offend America). The broadcast although chewed over for hints is never the subject of vitriol and is a uniting factor at the season of Goodwill. Confess that you wish you were Canadians!

    The rumour has always been that Prince Harry bears more than a passing resemblance to Major James Hewitt – his Mother’s one time lover – and yet now I think he looks more like the Prince of Wales, yet whoever is his paternal Father he must surely be aware of the insinuation. He has great privilege and although he may think he hates being Royal I am sure Commoner status would quickly persuade him that he was better off before. In her novel The Last Man, Mary Shelley imagines in the year 2100 the King voluntarily giving up his position and taking the title of Earl of Windsor – what prescience, for at the time they were Hanoverians!

    What amuses me is this: England has provided more written constitutions to the world that anyone else (usually of course to be quickly torn up in favour of civil war) and of course I could add to that number Thomas Jefferson who wrote the first as at the time he was English albeit colonial yet England does not have a written constitution indeed it is often said England has no constitution at all and makes things up as it goes along to meet changing circumstances. This is considerably less stressful then than (if I may observe) the bitter fights that occur as you attempt to amend your Constitution and as your Supreme Court Justices drive a coach and horses through the intentions of the said Jefferson and his merry band of separatists.

    So, for Scott here is a clip of Her Majesty with one of her better known Secret operatives:-

  250. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Opus: It is she who appoints the Prime Minister …

    Well, yes, but that’s just a formality. When if Britain elected a Tory government, and the Queen declined to appoint a Tory M.P. to be P.M., and instead appointed Opus or Dalrock or Meghan Markle? Would Parliament simply shrug and say, “Oh, okay.”

    I saw her appoint the P.M. in that movie … the one about the Queen, and Tony Blair, and the death of Diana. I forget the title. But there’s a scene in which a doofus Blair enters to receive his appointment, and he’s all awestruck by the Queen, and gauche about protocol. She has to guide him through his appointment — where to stand, what to say — while he has a goofy grin on his fanboy face.

  251. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Opus, the movie was The Queen (2007).

  252. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: Suzanne Venker sounds a bit like my grandmother. “If women would just keep their legs closed…. ”

    But, seriously, despite approaching marriage from a secular perspective, she sounds a hell of a lot more Biblical than the vast majority of pastors.

  253. Opus says:

    It strikes me as not entirely improbable that at some future time a reader at this blog may find himself on a Friday or Saturday night in an English Public House and thus I thought it might be helpful were I to set out the expected protocol if only to avoid overhearing someone say ‘stupid yank’, which is probably what they will say.

    This then is Opus’ guide for Americans to the English pub:

    1. Do not sit at your table expecting someone to approach and ask for your order. They won’t. Should you do that you not only will not obtain a drink but will be suspect as some sort of dosser come in out of the rain.

    2. Do approach the bar.

    3. Wait until the barman or woman looks at you which is your clue that you are next to be served – the bar man or woman will have a mental tab of the order in which people arrived and will follow that order. It is useful to visibly hold a ten pound note in your hand as otherwise you might be mistaken for someone who is merely standing near the bar. Look keen and eager. After having been served do not ask for a tray – far too girlie or ghey – but do pay the publican and then with both hands and in just one trip if possible take all the pints of beer back to your party. Two trips is a bit effeminate and shows you are not a real man. The Publican will not run a tab for you. Count the change and pretend you understand British coinage – otherwise you not only look stupid but run the risk that some unscrupulous barman will attempt later to short-change you or someone else in your party.

    4. The publican will not wish you a nice day – do not take this as an insult. Your parting to him should be ‘cheers’ but said in a nonchalant off-hand way. You are not his best friend and should not sound as if that is the position you are aiming for – too ghey.

    5. At eleven o’clock the publican will ring a bell and call out ‘last orders at the bar’. This is your clue to approach the bar and to buy more drink – that is if the next round would be yours. there will be a crush so muscle your way in. The fact that someone else has just brought back a round should not stop you from going to the bar for to fail to obtain that last round is seen as cheating and miserly and with the unspoken accusation that you are a skin-flint and an insult to the beer as much as to those in your party.

    6. At 11.15 the barman who actually has a home to go to will call out ‘Time gentlemen please’,. He expects you to drown what are probably by now your two pints of beer and all in thirty seconds otherwise he will get a little shirty with you. That he has just served you will not encourage him to extend the licensing rules for your benefit. No one forced you or your companion to buy that final round.

    7. Do not ask for the bathroom. You will be looked at as if you are very very odd. I have yet to come across ‘gender neural bathrooms’ and so use the one for your designated sex. If you have any doubt as to what that might be then use the one linked to your birth-assigned genitalia. Feel free to make a stupid joke whilst standing at the Urinal – it breaks the ice and shows you have only one reason for presently exposing your wedding tackle.

  254. Hmm says:

    @Opus; Canadian? Please! Just one word: Trudeau. Only half the US thinks our leader is a criminal.

  255. Novaseeker says:

    Opus —

    What I remember (dimly) was that it was basically required to obtain more than one beer at the bell– really worse, socially, to get one rather than none.

    Honestly England went easy mode when the currency was decimalized. All downhill since then, alas.

  256. Lost Patrol says:

    Confess that you wish you were Canadians!

    Now you’ve gone too far. Bermudians maybe.

  257. Scott says:

    New Zealander, maybe. Their country looks beautiful. A friend tells me they have really low speed limits though.

  258. thedeti says:

    ISabel:

    You’re insinuating that the only way a woman can get a high status man is to become promiscuous, because high status high N men marry high N women. You’re complaining that, well, this situation of men only marrying high N sluts at 30 or 35 is because men just won’t marry those 22 year old virgins.

    Bullshit.

    A history lesson is in order.

    Let’s look at a man and a woman, each at 22 and then again at 35.

    The 35 year old man is high status and marries a high N woman. That’s because when he’s 22 and all through his 20s, the 22 year old woman (his female counterpart) is having sex with other men and refusing to marry.

    The 22 year old woman isn’t getting high N men for marriage because she’s spending all her time having fun hot sexy sex with fun hot sexy men. She isn’t choosing marriage.

    If she wanted to get married, she can do that RIGHT NOW. She can choose a man who’s around 26 to 30. Yes, she’ll have to forego sex with sexy men. She’ll have to forego “fun”. But she CAN get married.

    You seem to be claiming that young virgins have to pick the dregs, the castoffs, the leftovers. No. But what you DO have to do is forego sex with top 20% men.

    Let’s look at what you’re really saying here: “The hot men, the top 20% men, won’t wife me up immediately. If I want to get married at 22, I have to pick a Joe Lunchpail or an Ernie Engineer or maybe even a Poindexter. And that’s not attractive to me. I want a Chad and nothing less will do.”

    Women, not men, are driving the delay in marriage. Women, not men, are the ones who are forgoing marriage, delaying marriage, refusing to marry, and blowing up their marriages. Isabell, if you can’t get married, that’s on you. That’s a you problem. That’s not a men problem, and men aren’t causing it. You are causing it.

  259. thedeti says:

    I understand that working class men might understand women better, but the question isn’t who knows women, but who can cause women to change their behavior.

    Women will have to change their own behavior. We’re past the point now of women changing their behavior because of the sexual behavior of men. The only thing that will change women’s behavior now is a hard reset and that’s not happening for a long, long time.

    I had to google the Apex fallacy and no, I don’t think all Harvard MBA’s and Corporate lawyers are mostly philandering studs. But if they are generally attractive in other ways, they are less likely to be MGOW or incels than others.

    No, they’re not “generally attractive in other ways”. There is only one kind of attractive that matters, and that is sexual attraction, whether women want to have sex with him. And most men don’t inspire that in most women. If you’re talking about the fact that they have jobs and cars and some money in the bank, that’s not “attractive”. That’s just how useful he could be to her – something recognized at Donalgraeme’s a while ago when some woman Freudian slipped out that she experienced “utilitarian tingles”. Hilariously, this woman said she felt “utilitarian tingles” by how “sexy” is a man who is responsible, conscientious, religious, devout, and has a job.

    “Utilitarian tingles”. Utterly ridiculous on its face. Stupid, really. There is no such thing as “utilitarian tingles”. There is only “how useful is this man to me? How can I use him? What will he do for me? What will he give me? What can I extract from him?”

    And part of the reason they don’t ‘get the real nature of women’ is because they don’t have to—they don’t deal with welfare queens, their marriages are less likely to end in divorce, and their wives are less likely to be obese etc.

    Bullshit. Guys like this find out the real nature of women full force. They find out when they immediately go on an IV drip sex supply 2 weeks after the wedding. They find out when wifey poo cuts him off sexually and disrespects him in front of his kids. They find out when wifey poo files for divorce after 10 years, 2 kids, 3 car payments, and a mortgage that he’s busting his ass to take care of. They find out when they find wifey poo’s texts to her coworker strongly insinuating her affair with him.

    But, Isabell, do please tell me more about men’s lives. Do please tell me more about how men’s lives are.

  260. feeriker says:

    @deti

    I believe that Isabel is French. Arguing with a woman, in general, is pointless enough, but arguing with a Western European woman on this subject is truly a waste of one’s time and energy, given the debased culture in which Western Europe in general, and France in particular, has been marinating for at least the last century. It’s like trying to argue Christian theology with a tribesman of the Amazon Rain Forest; they have no frame of reference to even understand what you’re talking about, let alone discuss it coherently.

  261. John James R says:

    Yeah, Isabel. No guys in their twenties or thirties want that 21 year old, long-haired virgin country girl. Throw in the fact that she has the natural shyness and modesty of a virgin. Yuck. What we really want is that weary looking 34 year old wine-alcoholic with that ‘hear me roar’ voice. Sure.

  262. dragnet says:

    I hate to white-knight…but I don’t see how anyone who has been awake for more than five minutes can disagree with Isabel. The type of mating she is describing is commonplace in NYC, Boston, DC, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. There are scads of UMC and even higher-caliber guys wifing aging carousel riders. It’s basically the norm and that’s a big reason why women are doing what they’re doing. They know they can spend 10+ years slutting it up and still have decent odds to parachute out of the SMP with a high-status husband at age 35 if they can keep the weight off.

    Yes, women incentivize men to be players by fucking players. And when men wife up aging whores, it crowns the carousel riding strategy with success and incentivizes more women to do it.

    Don’t shoot the messenger, guys.

  263. thedeti says:

    dragnet:

    OK. She’s saying women do this because men just won’t marry those young virgin women. She’s saying this happens because men won’t do this and because men won’t get married. I call BS. That’s not why, and we all know it. The truth is that this is happening because young women don’t want to get married. This is happening because young women want to have sex with hot men. Men marry aging whores because that’s the only way they can get married, and because the sex drive is that strong. Women wait until the last minute to marry because they can, and because for women, the marriage/kids drive is that strong. (But they have to get their hot sex with hot sexy men in first.)

    She’s also suggesting that this is a successful strategy for a happy marriage with strong mutual sexual attraction. Also not true. Sure, these women get married…. to a simp chump who can’t keep her attention. To an unattractive man she’ll divorce once she gets her trophy kids. To a player who will cheat on her.

    She’s framing this as “all men’s fault”, when that’s not true.

  264. thedeti says:

    More to the point: These 35 year old men who are wifing up aging whores are the same men who, 13 to 15 years before, wanted to marry young virgins before they became aging whores. But, oh no, the young virgins didn’t want that, because (1) time to have fun sex with hot fun sexy men; and (2) these men aren’t attractive enough to even date seriously, at least not now, not while there are attractive men to have sex with and while these men don’t have anything – no money, no savings, no career.

    The reason 35 year old men are marrying these women is because they wanted to date and maybe marry those aging whores back when they were young virgins, but couldn’t because the young virgins wouldn’t have anything to do with them back when they were young men. But, hey, now that those 35 year old poindexters have some money in the bank, a job, and a decent car? Now Poindexter’s looking pretty good…..

  265. Anonymous Reader says:

    dragnet
    I hate to white-knight…but I don’t see how anyone who has been awake for more than five minutes can disagree with Isabel.

    Isabel is saying that UMC women are likely to “stick the landing”. That is, they get to ride the cock carousel in their 20’s and still leap off the carousel in their 30’s and land on a Beta. She’s presenting this to men as a good thing, when it’s only “good” for those girls who can succeed at it.

    Isabel is ignoring the fact that the AF – BB or “Alpha Plays, Beta Pays” strategy only works in any sense for the UMC and UC. It’s rather bad for MC and lower people, because many of those girls do not stick the landing and wind up as babymommas, sometimes sluffing their babies off on their parents.

    Isabel is attempting to rationalize the bad behavior of women by claiming:
    (a) It’s all mens fault
    (b) It’s not really all that bad anyway.

    Nothing new to see here.

  266. Frank K says:

    Isabel is saying that UMC women are likely to “stick the landing”. That is, they get to ride the cock carousel in their 20’s and still leap off the carousel in their 30’s and land on a Beta. She’s presenting this to men as a good thing, when it’s only “good” for those girls who can succeed at it.

  267. Marquess of Watchtower says:

    Good luck with the infrastructure in 20 years btw. Good luck with innovation and all forms of civilization building and maintenance.

    You don’t understand.

    You care about working toilets. They do not.

    Plumbing is patriarchy. Propagating that killer instict is waaaaaaay hotter. OMG, entertaining high quality men in my tarp and OSB wigwam! SLAYQUEEN YISSSSSS!

    It is absurd to us, but they geniunely don’t give a fuck. Zero fucks given. In fact, they resent YOU, anonymous oppressor. You fail to empathize, to understand their mentality. You won’t believe it until you live it. Living it down in anarcho-squalor. Joke’s on us, homey.

    For the powerbrokers, cholera is a feature. Your stunted children dying from shitting their guts out is funny to them.

    Your problem is that you are a regular man. You expect fairness and fair play, and that nearly everybody is on the same page as you.

    You couldn’t be more wrong.

    Have you read the “news” lately? They want to feed your kids bugs now.

    No, wait, my bad. They want to disinformat your woke co-ed daughter, the one they already inculcated, wooed, indentured, and asset-stripped, into weaning your high quality babydaddy-posterity on maggots. If the rabbit starvation doesn’t cripple them, the glycophosoy, plasticizers, OLED panoptihypnotizers and attachment disorder-cares will make your surviving grandkids… Totally Amazing!

    You are Pagliacci. They are weeping in elation.

    You are the Clown in clownworld.

    Have faith. They will be cast off in the end. You and I could be, too, though. So serve and glorify God and repent. Atone for your sins.

    Stop healing the world.

    In practice, I expect whatever infrastructure is necessary for uninterrupted asset stripping will be sold to and maintained by private contractors backed by paramilitaries, mercenaries, state armies, whomever. The wahmen are catspaws and will be discarded like cumrags… as were the rentboys of past “revolution.”

  268. John James R says:

    The biggest problem for all these 35 year old men who want to find a 34 year old wallbanger is that they must be able to somehow forage their way through all the throngs of young, fit virgins (who they’re not interested in) until they can find that diamond in the rough 34 year old wine alcoholic. It’s hard because there are soooo many young, fit, modest virgins everywhere that you can hardly move for them. They are like herds of buffalo circa 1820. Young, fit virgins with modest, countrified attitudes are EVERYWHERE. They get in the way. So Isabel must be right because it is difficult to even find a 34 year old empowered wino what with all the young, fit virgins clogging all the streets and sidewalks. That proves how much men really must prefer the 34 year old wino, because it is so difficult to find one, yet they manage to do so anyway. Even harder to find is a 48 year old, 200 pound divorcee. There are too many 110 pound fitness addicts in the way, blocking everything.

  269. feministhater says:

    Obviously one is not really part of the upper-crust UMC unless ones wife had been, at least, at least buttsxed by 20 guys. At least. I mean, that’s what all those upper class guys want out of their wives. Fully laden with debt and career, fully partaken of the buffet of dicks at college. Not one ounce of innocence, youth or fertility will do, no way. That’s for the lower class asshats.

    What Isabel is doing is the same thing women always do, shift blame. It’s not their fault they got fucked through college, it’s not their fault they’re no longer virgins, young or fertile. It’s just that men forced them to choose between marrying a hobo at 18 or a billionaire at 35, what else are women meant to do when given such choices?!

  270. Isabel says:

    “Let’s look at what you’re really saying here: “The hot men, the top 20% men, won’t wife me up immediately. If I want to get married at 22, I have to pick a Joe Lunchpail or an Ernie Engineer or maybe even a Poindexter. And that’s not attractive to me. I want a Chad and nothing less will do.”

    Yes Deti, what I’m saying is the most attractive men don’t WANT to get married at 22. So if you are a woman and you want to get married to the most attractive men you will wait to get married. That’s not meant to be offensive it’s not even my personal advice—it’s a literal reflection of reality.

  271. thedeti says:

    No, Isabel, the attractive young women whom you claim are virgins and you claim are DYING to get married could marry men in their late 20s. Those guys are starting to want to marry. But the young women you claim are so hot to trot to get married do not want to marry them. Because those young virgins don’t want to marry anyone, including men who want to marry them.

    Women are not getting married today because they don’t want to.

    Most of those women will never marry an attractive man. There aren’t enough to go around. It’s always been that way; yet throughout history, most women found men willing to marry them.

    You might be right that they have to wait to marry attractive men. Only the top 20% of all women will marry attractive men. So most women will never get to marry an attractive man even if they wait.

    Bottom line: Women are not marrying because they don’t want to. It’s not because men won’t marry them. It’s because they don’t want to marry.

  272. Anonymous Reader says:

    What Isobel is saying is “it’s all men’s fault” that women do not marry in the US until the age of 27. Blaming men for the actions of women is nothing new. Traditional conservatives and feminists do it all the time.

    F. Roger Devlin explains this in “Sexual Utopia” clearly.

  273. Anonymous Reader says:

    Women do not understand themselves as a general rule. This is why terms such as “apex fallacy” and “hypergamy” are such a mystery to them.

  274. Isabel says:

    “I hate to white-knight…but I don’t see how anyone who has been awake for more than five minutes can disagree with Isabel. The type of mating she is describing is commonplace in NYC, Boston, DC, Chicago, San Francisco, et”

    A lot men here think I’m encouraging something, when I’m just describing it. I’m a 29-year old woman with an MBA living in one of the aforementioned cities (gross I know) dating a more successful also 29-year old MBA. And my boyfriend, nor his friends, nor the male friends I have, are trying to marry virgins. It’s not that they are looking for virgins but have just resigned themselves that they can’t find any—they are not looking for such things in women. They were *never* looking for such things. Nor were they trying to get married at 22 because they were too busy having fun and sex and doing all the things you bizarrely think only women want to do.

    If the men on this board wanted to marry virgins at 22 ( or want to marry 22 year-old virgins now, I believe you. But you ignore a lot of class and culture differences when you project this ideal on all men. Don’t take my word for it—take theirs, which women are they choosing?

  275. John James R says:

    Isabel,

    Stop womansplaining to us. If you think a 20 year old virgin can’t go out and snag a 45 year old programmer with the snap of her fingers, then you don’t understand men at all. If you think post 30 marriage-oriented males would hard pass on a fit, 20 year old virgin then you are basically insane. The fact that chumps man up and save-a-hoe is due to the dominance of the feminine imperative. It also has to do with the severe lack of young, traditional, modest virgins in our culture. Save-a-hoe has NOTHING to do with inherent male nature which is buried somewhere down there with the dinosaur bones. You seemed to imply that 34 year old winos are what men want. ‘What men want’ no longer exists in our culture. It doesn’t happen.

  276. Scott says:

    I think Isabel and others are pointing to a class difference, already mentioned, I know.

    From my own experience, I might add this is a conditioned response in men, but its not fake or subconscious.

    When I was in graduate school, I was 32-36. I had a divorce. I had pricesly 4 LTRs during that time. The three before Mychael, and Mychael. It never occured to me to look for a virgin, for a number of reasons. In fact, to be honest, if I had come across an early 20 something virgin who was interested in me, I would have wondered what was wrong with her.

    The last way younger than me woman I was with was 22 and I was 31. She was fun, but I never had any plan to marry her. As soon as we put our clothes on and she started talking, I realized how young and immature she was. Her voice actually became grating and annoying because of the stuff she was into and talked about. I know this makes me a horrible person and I am going to hell.

    Now, what you are supposed to do is date women who are around your age, and have a similar amount of experience as you, which is pretty much what I did, and eventually, got married. I was very picky about Mychael, but not about sexual history. Its just an off-limits topic in the world in which I operated. It is a totally weird system and the consequences of it are starting to really show, especially in the fraying around the edges.

    The way we got here is pretty screwed up, and no one was really in the drivers seat. Just morals crumbling in a decadent society as they are wont to do.

  277. John James R says:

    “Don’t take my word for it—take theirs, which women are they choosing?”

    Outside of apex alphas, men aren’t choosing anything. We take what scraps are thrown our way. So it goes in a country that not only is the world’s wealthiest but also has the world’s fattest, least attractive women. Man, wouldn’t I like to “choose”. The other day, I was out with a few buddies. We’re all fit, hard-working guys who would do very well internationally (I’ve done so already) but we were so pessimistic that it got down to our “Under, Under, Under” theory. We just want a woman under 40, under 200 pounds, and under 100 in IQ. That’s all we ask for anymore. That’s how bad it is here for men. Yet we’re the same guys telling 22 year old virgins to get lost, right?

  278. Isabel says:

    “What Isobel is saying is “it’s all men’s fault” that women do not marry in the US until the age of 27. Blaming men for the actions of women is nothing new. Traditional conservatives and feminists do it all the time.”

    Woah woah woah. I’m not saying anything of the sort. I’m not saying young virgins are dying to get married but big bad men are stopping them. People—women and men– respond to incentives. When men see other men getting divorced rape, it leads them to the conclusion that they should avoid marriage. When women look at the outcomes of marrying as a virgin without a college degree at 20 or marrying as a non-virgin with a college degree at 28—who has better outcomes? Who is marrying higher quality men, according to statistics. As deti said, don’t shoot the messenger

  279. Novaseeker says:

    Isabel is completely correct when she is describing the highly educated set — of men and women alike. Highly educated, attractive men (advanced degrees, professional degrees) are not marrying anyone until they are around 30, generally. Before that they are getting educated, starting the career, and, for the attractive ones, dating. The unattractive ones are unattractive — so they aren’t dating because they’re not attractive enough. But the attractive men in that set are dating and having sex and not marrying until they are around 30-35, and it’s almost always to another highly educated woman because guys in that set select for that in their *wives* pretty much all the time today.

    I know that this is harder to understand for the broader demographic, and the demographic on this board is broader than that one. But in *that* demographic, it’s how things work. It obviously isn’t how things work in other demographics.

  280. Scott says:

    Nova-

    And it seems the age is going up for the ritual. That part is for sure.

    My first marriage, we were both 23– I had just finished college, went directly into the work force, and was doing grad school at night. She was a teacher working on an emergency credential while she finished her masters in history.

    A little over a decade and a divorce later, I did the exact same thing, just the numbers (ages) were higher. I re-entered graduate school, and was dating. Mychael is almost three years younger than me and a nurse. The match seemed right to everyone around.

  281. Frank K says:

    When women look at the outcomes of marrying as a virgin without a college degree at 20 or marrying as a non-virgin with a college degree at 28—who has better outcomes?

    I suppose it depends on what you mean by “better outcomes”. If by that you mean having a McMansion and driving a luxury car, then perhaps yes. But as we all know, having those things doesn’t make one happy. My upper middle class neighborhood is littered with failed marriages and blended families.

    But, as others here have said, the narrative these days is that women are supposed to sow their wild oats with desirable men (who would make terrible husbands) when in their prime, then as menopause approaches settle down with a nice boring beta (preferably one with a fat paycheck) and magically transform into a solid wife and have the ubiquitous single child, whom she can drive to sports/art classes in her Lexus SUV.

  282. Anonymous Reader says:

    Isabel
    Woah woah woah. I’m not saying anything of the sort. I’m not saying young virgins are dying to get married but big bad men are stopping them.

    Well, yeah, maybe you intended something else, but that’s pretty much what you’ve written a couple of times now.

    People—women and men– respond to incentives.

    Yes. However one sex has incentives, the other does not.

    When men see other men getting divorced rape, it leads them to the conclusion that they should avoid marriage.

    That’s the opposite of an incentive, y’see.

    When women look at the outcomes of marrying as a virgin without a college degree at 20

    That’s two separate things. Interesting that you conflate them.

    or marrying as a non-virgin with a college degree at 28—who has better outcomes?

    Hmm. How about “marries as a virgin with a college degree at the age of 22”? That is an option, although it does mean no riding of the cock carousel, or not much, so…you probably would not suggest it.

    Do you understand that probability of divorce increases monotonically as female N increases? Since divorce still tends to kill men more often than women, it is in a man’s self-interest to avoid divorce, and therefore to screen potential wives in such a way as to minimize risk of divorce.

    Of course that would mean men are protecting themselves from unnecessary risk. This is an idea not at all popular with feminists of any sort (including “traditional conservative”)

    Isobel, in trading terms – you are “talking your book”.

  283. Ray6777 says:

    In every demographic the 10% of men that are physically attractive have fun in their twenties and the 90% that aren’t attractive don’t have fun in their twenties. The 90% are invisible to women until they hit 30.

  284. 7817 says:

    Virginity at marriage is super rare for a woman, true. This is to the point that even the slowest men are figuring it out.

    So what’s the next step for men? Doesn’t do any good to be frustrated about this situation. All we can do is manage it as well as possible, or swear off marriage.

    I remain unconvinced that the situation was ever much different historically, except in rare, extremely religious societies. Even reading Albion’s Seed will show this. If you want the restoration of tradlife, to the point where people are virgins at marriage, you better find some kind of insular religious community and buy in all the way. Society wide restoration to that is extremely unlikely.

  285. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    Isabel is completely correct when she is describing the highly educated set — of men and women alike.

    Pedantic point of order: actual education can be independent of degrees & other credentials.

    You and Isobel are discussing people with various letters after their names; people who may be rather well trained but not educated in the slightest.

    /pedantry

  286. BillyS says:

    Isabel also ignores how many of those “successful women” fail to stick the landing at that age. They may all want that, but it is not always available.

  287. Isabel says:

    ” If you think a 20 year old virgin can’t go out and snag a 45 year old programmer with the snap of her fingers, then you don’t understand men at all. If you think post 30 marriage-oriented males would hard pass on a fit, 20 year old virgin then you are basically insane”

    20 year old virgin girls don’t go out and snag anything—that’s sort of the point. The type of 20 year olds who are aggressive enough to go for 45 year old men–sure aren’t virgins. Certain characteristics clump together ( they don’t have to but they tend to) and virgin girls who tend to stay that way need to be pursed.

    I didn’t grow up in a super cloisered environment, but I was a virgin at 20 and there were not many men to marry. I’m not blaming the men for this, I’m in fact not blaming anyone for this, young people need guidance. And no one told the men to get ready for marriage just as no one told the women to get ready for marriage. So at 22 the vast majority of people of both sexes aren’t prepared for marriage unless they come from unique circumstances that groomed them for it.

    These young 20 year old women could date older men you might say–and in a bubble they could. But my parents would have never let me date or marry a 35-year old man when I was 20. Furthermore, there aren’t a lot of places where 20 year olds and 35 year olds interact so while this much younger woman/ older man thing works as fantasy there are certain logistical and social problems to this ‘just marry an older guy thing’

  288. feministhater says:

    All is well guys. All is well. If upper crust men want walled out, stalled out women. Go for it. All the more for you.

    Now stop complaining. Fuck off Isabel. Leave us alone.

  289. feministhater says:

    I didn’t grow up in a super cloisered environment, but I was a virgin at 20 and there were not many men to marry. I’m not blaming the men for this, I’m in fact not blaming anyone for this, young people need guidance. And no one told the men to get ready for marriage just as no one told the women to get ready for marriage. So at 22 the vast majority of people of both sexes aren’t prepared for marriage unless they come from unique circumstances that groomed them for it.

    There were plenty of men, you decided they weren’t good enough. End of story.

    I’m sick and tired of this bull shit. If you really believe that the upper crust men want non virgins who are 35, then no problem… right? Just go out there and find your upper class cuck and get married. If this is the truth, then women really need to shut up and stop complaining that men don’t step up.

    It’s not happening anymore, I don’t care. I do not want to get married to a middle aged, non virgin, ‘educated’ woman who believes she deserves better. That is it, no more discussions about how men need to accept this, no more discussions on how virgins start sleeping around because no men want to marry them.

    It’s stupid, just because celebrities get married to skank hoes is not my problem. Go marry them then. If you truly believe that. Or go marry a Novaseeker or Scot and be their second wife.

  290. Novaseeker says:

    I remain unconvinced that the situation was ever much different historically, except in rare, extremely religious societies. Even reading Albion’s Seed will show this. If you want the restoration of tradlife, to the point where people are virgins at marriage, you better find some kind of insular religious community and buy in all the way. Society wide restoration to that is extremely unlikely.

    Society-wide restoration is extremely unlikely, I agree.

    Historically things were different, though, in terms of sex due to pregnancy. There were shotgun weddings, of course, elopements, “fallen women” and so on, but the majority of girls didn’t want to run the risk of pregnancy, and that more than anything else resulted in higher degrees of self-regulation. The situation we have now – normal to have women in their early 20s living financialliny independently and with full ability to avoid or terminate a pregnancy — is unprecedented historically, and so the behaviors we are seeing, in terms of the broad scope of them, is as well.

  291. locustsplease says:

    @RPC no not PA. One of the funniest things about my divorce is a buddy was convicted of a felony during my divorce. What they did to him was so soft humane and gentle i do not even consider it a slap on the wrist. I had to read my divorce decree 3x before i realized it was real. It was so damming personally insulting there were claims about my behavior that no person ever claimed, it was bizzare. I would have exchanged 5 years in prison the day it started if i could get out in the shape i started.

    I do not owe alimony and just pay state calculated CS but i was fined so severely in multiple ways by the judge for my supposed behavior that its more than the child support. Its almost 2k a month with taxes if i am to keep up. I actually would have been better off pulling a no show because then they couldnt claim i was hiding information and delaying the process. And i lost every single line item my ex asked for.

    It was such a fraud that as a christian i consider it my punishment for living in the devils world. I am the only one involved that walked out of there with any dignity. I will watch it consume them my ex looks angrier every time i see her i am calm and have let go. I know god is going to pull me thru.

    I started being celibate at the begining it is advised on the divorce forums to avoid the distraction. At this point i definitely fantasize about moving on and having a woman but do not think i could have sex. If i was alone with a beautiful woman i think i would run away literally.

  292. John James R says:

    “These young 20 year old women could date older men you might say–and in a bubble they could. But my parents would have never let me date or marry a 35-year old man when I was 20. Furthermore, there aren’t a lot of places where 20 year olds and 35 year olds interact so while this much younger woman/ older man thing works as fantasy there are certain logistical and social problems to this ‘just marry an older guy thing’”

    Agreed. Society has things in place that don’t allow 35 year old men to date 20 year old virgins. I said a similar thing myself. You see, older men gaining dating access to young women is WHAT MEN WANT (and you have no idea how much we want that), therefore our society does what it can to make sure it doesn’t happen. The Feminist Imperative is always putting out the little fires of burgeoning male happiness. That’s why a lot of us are done.

  293. Oscar says:

    @ Isabel

    I was 28, and my wife 22 when we married. We met in college. We married shortly after I commissioned in the Army. Why do you suppose there aren’t more pairings like that, where the man is a few years older, and better prepared to support a family, but the woman is in her early 20s?

  294. feeriker says:

    If you think a 20 year old virgin can’t go out and snag a 45 year old programmer with the snap of her fingers, then you don’t understand men at all.

    I think that Isabel, like most modet n women, fully understands this to be truth; she just can’t stand to admit it.

    A 20-year-old virgin sincerely committed to locking down a husband at that age is likely to be thin, feminine, pleasant, and submissive. She also puts the wellbeing and interests of a potential husband above her own. This is a REPULSIVE thing to the typical self-centered, hedonistic StrongIndependentWoman[TM], which is the typical western woman nowadays. This is why women like Isabel (who just outed herself as one of these upthread, whether she considers herself one or not) have to deny human bioreality and hamsterize and project themselves as the ideal.

  295. thedeti says:

    but the majority of girls didn’t want to run the risk of pregnancy, and that more than anything else resulted in higher degrees of self-regulation. The situation we have now – normal to have women in their early 20s living financialliny independently and with full ability to avoid or terminate a pregnancy — is unprecedented historically

    I started college in the mid 1980s in the midwest. And this was still a prime motivator for a lot of women. It wasn’t reputation or STDs (except for the AIDS scare which was in full swing). Mostly it was girls who didn’t want an unplanned pregnancy. And it was the fear of an unplanned pregnancy and the knowledge that ultimately the responsibility would be on them to handle it, which led a lot of women to self-regulate their own sexual behaviors and choices, and led them to select “nice men” and “safe” men.

  296. thedeti says:

    Isabel:

    Here’s the point I keep trying to make, and that you are either ignoring, glossing over, or don’t understand. So I’m going to say this as clearly as I possibly can.

    The young women you’re talking about (early 20s,educated) are not getting married because they don’t want to get married.

    It is not because their early 20s male counterparts don’t want to marry them. Those men are unattractive anyway and not ready to marry.

    It is not because men in their late 20s or early 30s don’t want to marry them. Early 20s women, virgins or not, are PERFECT marriage candidates for some 29 year old guy getting established in his career. A 22 year old woman fresh out of college is a fantastic marriage partner for some 30 year old IB guy or law firm associate or fledgling physician. Late 20s/early 30s men would be jumping at the chance to marry a young woman in her early 20s—if those women wanted to get married.

    Young women are not marrying because they don’t want to marry, at least not yet. They’re having fun being sexual marketplace rockstars. They’re having too much fun having lots of fun sex with fun sexy men. They’re having too much fun being unattached, wild, free, earning their own money, making their own rules, getting to be as irresponsible as they think young men are, and- this is crucial – having to answer to no one.

    If these women wanted to get married, all they’d have to do is put the word out, and late 20s-early 30s marriage minded men would line up out the door and around the block just for a chance to TALK to her, much less take her on a date, much less marry her. If these women wanted to get married, they can get that done inside of a year…. if that’s what they really want.

    They’re not marrying because they don’t want to.

    They’re not marrying because they don’t want to.

    THEY’RE NOT MARRYING BECAUSE THEY DON’T WANT TO.

  297. thedeti says:

    A 20-year-old virgin sincerely committed to locking down a husband at that age is likely to be thin, feminine, pleasant, and submissive. She also puts the wellbeing and interests of a potential husband above her own.

    A woman fitting that description can be married by age 25… if that’s really what she wants and if she puts her mind to it.

    It was either Cail Corishev or Anon Reader who first said this, I can remember which one.

    “You know what happens to girls who want to get married? THEY GET MARRIED.”

  298. dragnet says:

    @ thedeti

    “The young women you’re talking about (early 20s,educated) are not getting married because they don’t want to get married.”

    Agree 100 percent with this. Isabel is describing the situation accurately, but she is (willfully) misdiagnosing the root causes. Attractive, ambitious men would absolutely marry in their early 20s if women (read: their parents) demanded marriage in exchange for sex. Isabel is pretending that women aren’t dictating the terms for both sexes in their early 20s when they really are.

  299. Novaseeker says:

    Attractive, ambitious men would absolutely marry in their early 20s if women (read: their parents) demanded marriage in exchange for sex. Isabel is pretending that women aren’t dictating the terms for both sexes in their early 20s when they really are.

    This is true, but the culture entirely shifted away from age gap marriages. Like entirely.

    From the parents’ perspective, the priority is the life script — i.e., getting children set up in terms of education and career. That is the priority in the life script. Everyone knows that it results in delaying marriage and everyone also knows that it results in extramarital sex for almost everyone, but that is a price almost everyone, other than a few outliers (Christian or not), is more than willing to pay in order to actualize the priority, which is the life script. That script per se excludes a daughter marrying at 22. But it ALSO excludes a son marrying at 22. Basically both sexes at 22 are working on the life script.

    The 22-23 marrying 29-30 doesn’t happen due primarily due to the life script, but also to women’s dating preferences (they prefer to date closer in age, for the most part, again there are outliers — sweet spot is maybe 2-3 years older, not 7-8 years older, and certainly not 22 and 35, as has been suggested in a few comments here). The men in those age ranges who are attractive enough for the women to want to date them at their own peak levels of attractiveness are also not interested in getting married — after all they have dating/sex access to attractive girls in their early 20s!

    The main complaint here is from average to lower attraction guys who are not able to access that dating market (i.e., the market for attractive girls in their early 20s) in their early to mid 20s, and then by the time they are in their later 20s or early 30s are confronted with the same women, now 8 years older, who would not date them in their early and mid-20s wanting to marry now, with their sexual histories intact. The issue these guys have is that they are totally cut off from attractive women in their early 20s — they have no access to them at all. Not when they are 22, not when they are 26 and not when they are 33. None. That is the source of the complaint. Attractive women in their early 20s are, due to the life script and women’s own dating preferences, available primarily to guys who are quite attractive and within a few years of their age. There are exceptions and women who date much older men — these are exceptional, but if you are lucky enough to find one you know what to do .. .you likely won’t find one, however, who isn’t some kind of gold digger or other *if* she is attractive … you can always try to date unattractive girls, of course.

    In the prior dispensation things were different because there was no life script that prescribed/mandated financial/career independence to be established for young women prior to marrying. And pregnancy was not reliably/safely avoidable or terminated. So many more women at younger ages were “available” to a larger number of men due to financial need and the inability to ride the carousel prior to the widespread safe/legal contraception and abortion. That changed, permanently, and some men (quite a few men … basically men who are average and below in attractiveness, which is quite a few men) are displaced by that. Hence the complaint.

  300. Novaseeker says:

    Just a little addendum to folks who may dispute that women prefer guys within a few years of their own age, from the OK Cupid study:

    It shifts from being 1-2 years older in the 20s, to around the same age in the 30s, to capping in the late 30s, which appears to be peak male attractiveness, after which women begin to prefer men who are younger, in their 40s, regardless of their own age. This is different from men for whom the same study showed that men have pretty inflexible preferences that don’t change with their own age.

  301. JRob says:

    OT.
    Men in the Church series, with Gary Zieroth. He gets a lot right after a swingandamiss at the beginning. He covers bridal mysticism, the failure of PK, etc. It’s old, but pretty good. Feb 9-11.

    https://issuesetc.org/guest/gary-zieroth/

  302. thedeti says:

    Nova:

    When folks like Isabel come here and claim “no one wants to marry early 20s women, they can’t get married even if they want to”, that’s just not true. They can. They just don’t want to, because (1) Fun hot sex with fun hot men; (2) the life script; and (3) the men available for marriage at that point are (a) too old; or (b) too unattractive. They’re not marrying because they don’t want to and don’t have to.

    It’s also apex fallacy in that, as usual, women think that because a few attractive men in their early 20s are having lots of fun sex, therefore ALL men in their 20s are having lots of fun sex. Also not true, for the reasons you mentioned.

  303. thedeti says:

    I’m just beyond sick and tired of people coming in here, or anywhere really, and complaining that young pretty women aren’t getting married because they can’t get married because no one will marry them. It’s Just. Not. True. At. All. They are not marrying because they don’t want to.

    They could marry if they wanted to. But they would have to forego the party girl lifestyle, forego lots of hot sex with lots of hot men, put the life script on an indefinite hold, and pick an average guy who’s older than they are. And they don’t want to do that. Just like lots of average to unattractive men will have to go to trade school, start lifting weights, and learning some Game. And lots of them don’t want to do that.

    Just like lots of average to unattractive men are going to have to accept that as we revert to a Middle Ages/feudal type landed gentry/peasant/serf system, it’s going to be PS4, internet porn, and the occasional hooker for most of them. It will turn these men into half human/half primates, but then, that’s the price we’ve decided to pay to keep the women happy and satisfy Boomer parents’ life scripts.

  304. feministhater says:

    It’s quite simple for me now. When I was young, women weren’t interested in marriage. I was diligent, hard working and competent. I might not have been financially stable but I was on my way there. They didn’t want that when they were young, fertile and innocent.

    Now I’m well into my thirties, I’m well off, stable and financially set. I’m confident in my own skin and don’t care what women think or want anymore. I am not in the least attracted to women in their late twenties and older, they just don’t do it for me and never will.

    They didn’t want me then, I don’t want them now. Simple as that. They are old sluts now, all the upper class men can have five used up sluts for wives, thus solving the 80/20 rule. Have at it and have fun, but they are your problem, not mine. If that’s the life script young women want to follow, I will have no part of it. Don’t care to. Fuck em and fuck Isabel.

    If you’re not willing to stay a virgin and then marry, what on earth would give you the right to expect marriage at age 30? You’re just not worth it.

  305. The Inimitable NEET says:

    @Novaseeker

    Of course attractiveness is a subjective assessment, contingent on not only prima facie approval but whether the subject matches her expectations, self-worth estimation and exposure to masculine archetypes in media. In this sense women judge men much more harshly than vice versa. The pool of men who are “average and below average in attractiveness” reaches 70-75% if you depend on Tinder as the sole proxy. Unlike the converse, it’s hardly a Gaussian distribution. I expect if we used a data set culled from a wider demographic with less specific preferences, the result would still land in the vicinity of 65-70%.

    Any discussion about life scripts and delays in marriage can’t understate the detrimental effect urbanization has had on unleashing female promiscuity. It was never a huge secret that city culture encouraged libertine views on sex – any peek at Hollywood gossip rags in the 40-50’s would disabuse the naive – but it was tacitly understood that only the rich and well-connected could afford to be so licentious. Besides, the taboos were so closely associated with glamour and mystique that they became enviable from a far distance. Today, their attitudes have trickled down to the upper-middle/middle classes dressed up in multiple justifications: sociological theory, feminist bullishness, cries of individualism, misguided egalitarianism. All of these are nigh-impossible to cultivate against a rural backdrop. Pragmatic concerns crowd out and dissuade anonymous sex, willful alienation and the type of ideological group think endemic to academia.

  306. The Inimitable NEET says:

    @thedeti

    A mass retreat from the sexual marketplace doesn’t mean men will be trapped in quiet desperation and resentment. It pivots on how quickly technological pioneers recognize and cater to that segment of the population. They already sense the potential gold mine.

    I have reservations about the supposed apocalypse of sex dolls that will replace women for the MGTOW crowd, but VR + rapidly improving AI can (in theory) replicate the same attractive looks and behaviors in top-tier women with far greater accessibility, privacy and convenience. And the human brain is very malleable in how it responds to triggers. Men already choke the weasel to visual and aural stimuli alone, despite the phony scenarios and bad acting inherent to porn. Now place the same object of desire within a personal narrative, fix the minor details that separate realistic from uncanny, randomize its responses just enough to mimic spontaneity, and provide sufficient customization to match your specific tastes. Women were already livid over sex dolls. Imagine the aneurysms once previous beta orbiters start ignoring them in favor of the virtual swimsuit models with infinite empathy and an inclination towards flattery. Real life will be meager and dull compared to artificial companionship.

  307. Isabel says:

    Guys,

    If a young hot 20- year old actively wants to get married and she puts all of her efforts behind it, she can. I’m not implying otherwise. I’m simply asking why would it occur to a 20 year old virgin to aggressively seek men for anything? I’m not talking about the Carousel here. When I was a 20 year old virgin, I wasn’t seeking men out. Not 35 year olds not 22 year olds not for sex, not for marriage. Part of being a demure woman was—so I was told — waiting for men to come to you. You can balk and scream at this and criticize me for being dumb, but it would never have occurred to me to chase after men.

    You say a woman with resolve could get married? But where is this resolve suppose to come from? It doesn’t come from her parents? Her peers? She’s just suppose to know? Your complaint isn’t that 20 year olds are turning now marriage proposals but that they aren’t drumming them up— I get that they have the power to do that—but pretty girls don’t go around chasing guys…..you can say they should but in our current culture men present themselves to women not vice versa

  308. thedeti says:

    city culture encouraged libertine views on sex – any peek at Hollywood gossip rags in the 40-50’s would disabuse the naive – but it was tacitly understood that only the rich and well-connected could afford to be so licentious. Besides, the taboos were so closely associated with glamour and mystique that they became enviable from a far distance.

    City culture and upper class/aristocratic culture. It has been so since at least the Middle Ages. Royalty had sex with whom they wanted. King David was married and had wives and concubines, and took Bathsheba. In the Middle Ages, same thing. In late 18th/early 19th century Europe, same thing. (Watch Dangerous Liaisons.) In the Roaring 20s, same thing (Read The Great Gatsby – the 20s, not “the 60s”, was the start of modern first-wave feminism. Got started, then a depression and a world war put it on hold for about 25 years….)

    The moral of that story is that if you have enough money or power, you can have sex with pretty much who you want. The story of Western-style democracy has been expanding individual freedom to the point that now, if you’re a woman, you can have sex with pretty much who you want, and men/the government will make sure nothing bad happens to you, but if something bad does happen to you, a man will be made to pay for it.

  309. feministhater says:

    Blah blah blah Isabel. It doesn’t matter anymore. Why the fuck should men marry 30 year old sluts? They shouldn’t and just because stupid, leftist celebrities do so means absolutely dick shit.

    It’s not even about chasing men for marriage, young women simply don’t even signal their interest in marriage at all. Not one ounce. I saw it with my own eyes, they weren’t interested. Too busy getting drunk in nightclubs, partying on campuses and having sex with guys they don’t even remember in the morning.

    We’ve passed the point of no return. Fuck off.

  310. Isabel says:

    I second what’s been said about older men/younger women. Women prefer men around their same age, they will settle for older guys or seek out older guys because they are more successful (aka have more money) than guys their own age. But all things being equal women prefer youthful attractiveness in the same way as me.

    Additionally younger virgin women marrying older men still causes Less attractive men to get the short end of the stick. If 35 year old men are marrying 20 year old virgins, those 35 year old men Either have to wait until 35 to loose their virginity, or sleep with other women in the meantime, which still leaves us with a lot of carousel riders.

    In order for it to work so that everyone gets a virgin, men and women Need to pair up at similar ages.

  311. thedeti says:

    Now I think we’re being trolled.

    I’m simply asking why would it occur to a 20 year old virgin to aggressively seek men for anything?

    You don’t have to. All you have to do is exist, not be a bitch, and not be fat, and make known that you’re available for marriage and want marriage to the right man, and I guarantee you no less than 5 eligible marriage minded men (and some not so marriage minded men) will find their way to you within 24 hours. I guarantee you that pretty, nice, not fat girls with pulses and respiration rates CAN find men, if they simply make it known that they are interested in marriage. Guaranteed.

    waiting for men to come to you.

    Those days are over. Women beat them to a pulp with “sexual harassment” and “don’t need no man” and “fish and bicycles”, and then finally put a bullet into the back of its head with #MeToo. That’s not our fault.

    Your complaint isn’t that 20 year olds are turning now marriage proposals but that they aren’t drumming them up

    You don’t have to drum up marriage proposals. All you have to do is exist, not be a bitch, and not be fat, and then make it known that you’re interested in marriage. That’s it.

    pretty girls don’t go around chasing guys

    No one said anything about chasing guys.

    you can say they should but in our current culture men present themselves to women not vice versa

    Men are presenting themselves to you, and presenting themselves in general, all the time. You just don’t see them because you’re not attracted to them. If they did present themselves to you so overtly that you couldn’t ignore them, you’d reject them. My guess is you probably already have, many, many times. But you don’t remember them because they weren’t attractive guys, so they don’t register with you. Or, you reject the attractive men who present themselves to you for sex or “casual” only. And you remember those, for reasons we in the ‘sphere understand quite well. That’s where the “no man will marry me; all the men I see just want sex” complaint comes from. You don’t remember the less attractive men you swatted away.

  312. feministhater says:

    In order for it to work so that everyone gets a virgin, men and women Need to pair up at similar ages.

    Oh, but you don’t mean young marriages now do you? Those all end in failure, thus 35 year old men should marry 35 year old women, for the good of the species, right?

    If men are only attracted to youthful women and women are only attracted to men a few years older than them, the only solution that benefits both parties is women aged 18-22 marrying men aged 25-28 but there will be some reason why this is never acceptable… and that reason is that women want to have their fun, eat their cake, take yours and eat it too.

    If women don’t want to marry at young ages, then there is simply nothing in it for men of any age. Something more and more men are beginning to discover.

  313. Opus says:

    Some fifty years ago the average age of marriage for a woman was 20.8 years and for a man just two years older than that. This was lower than it had been in the earlier decades of the century. The early age of marriage put real pressure on men to get their act together and quickly for literally there would be little worth marrying if they did not. I saw this up close: eligible lawyers unable to find a wife; women pushing thirty even attractive ones, more or less on the shelf. School girls being engaged to be married or even married and with a baby was if not common not then be any means rare. For some reason I have never understood why Teenage motherhood was said to be a bad thing. Look, Gt Gt Grandma Opus had her first (of ten) at fifteen! so I am a great supporter of teenage pregnancy. Men will always go where the women are and if it looks as if there is going to be a shortage of women men will do whatever one does when a shortage occurs – buy now. If however there is no shortage or any likelihood of being one people become more relaxed. I have always had great difficulty then in determining which of the two sexes is driving the trend toward late marriage. I can see what encourages women to delay commitment but equally men get to sow wild oats and without – usually – any dip in their marriageability, indeed studs seem to attract women only too keen to marry them.

    Of course this is at its worst in the United States where every female goes to college and most have not merely Bachelor Degrees, but Masters, and Doctorates – which of course fuels their natural female vanity and where they confuse dumbed-down credentials with sexual attractiveness and marriageability.

    Last friday night I was so I imagined being chatted-up by the rather pleasant and not unattractive barmaid in my watering-hole of choice (I ignore the three ugly fat lesbians at the adjoining table) ; I was being quite witty with the barmaid as I received responses to what were, really, personal questions. She was only too keen to confide in me. I tell myself however that as I am well over twice her age she is just being polite. Hmmm. – and then I saw Novaseeker’s chart which suggest her preferred age for a man is in his mid twenties. No point going for old-dogs though, is there.

  314. Novaseeker says:

    1. Men and women are both going to try to get the most attractive mate they can. It will never be the case that a man or a woman who is attractive will go for a less attractive mate, if they can at all avoid doing so. So to expect young 20s attractive women to be interested in less attractive men, because some of those less attractive men may be interested in marrying them … is never going to happen unless some external pressure *forces* it to happen.

    2. Men and women do not have same preferences in age. As the OK Cupid info points out, women’s preferences change over time: in the 20s they prefer men 1-2 years old ( so not 18 and 25 or 22 and 28 — that’s outside the preferred range ), in the 30s it’s right around the same age until women get to the late 30s/40 area, and from then on they prefer men who are right in that area or, when they are 50ish, men who are 5 or 6 years younger. So it changes over the course of their lives, but it’s never the case that they prefer men who are 10 years older. Men, however, do not change over the course of time, and so, unlike women, always prefer women in their early 20s.

    3. Most of this is academic, because the situation is what it is due to the factors we have discussed above. Expecting young attractive women to choose less attractive men just to get married is illogical, and also is unsupported from the culture and their own families. That won’t change soon — in order for it to change you’d need some massive event like a major war that takes out a certain chunk of the male population, some kind of economic reset that makes women financially precarious in a disproportionate way, etc. Nothing like that is impossible, but neither is it particularly likely. You never know.

  315. feministhater says:

    Nova, have all the 30 year old sluts you want. If that’s the preferred route of your precious UMC, go for it, promote the sluttiness to never before seen heights. No one is expecting women to marry at all.

    Isabel is just another aged whore who is trying to convince men here that somehow she never got the message that men prefer young, debt free and tattoo free virgins for marriage. That men really do prefer older, educated and feminist, tattooed sleeved, whores for wives.

    If that is what makes a modern day successful marriage, I need no more convincing that staying as far away from marriage as possible is best.

  316. BillyS says:

    These young 20 year old women could date older men you might say–and in a bubble they could. But my parents would have never let me date or marry a 35-year old man when I was 20.

    So we have it. Isabel is bitter that her parents deprived her of all the worldly experiences she wanted. They even had control when she was an adult and Isabel is offended at that. Thus Isabel must extol the advantages of a woman being a slut, claiming few consequences for that foolishness.

    It is still not a good path, but don’t let that stop women from ruining their life!

  317. BillyS says:

    How did those virgins that could not find men to marry find men to sleep with? Both involve the skills Isabel claims are missing from virginal women.

  318. Novaseeker says:

    Nova, have all the 30 year old sluts you want. If that’s the preferred route of your precious UMC, go for it, promote the sluttiness to never before seen heights.

    I’m not advocating, I am describing the reality. And that reality is that, yes, highly credentialed (to address AR’s comment above) men in this culture seek out other highly credentialed women to marry — that is true in 90%+ of the marriages of these guys today. Just is so. Whether you want that, I want that, anyone here wants that — it IS true. It simply IS THE CASE.

    Why do they do this? All sorts of reasons, but the most pressing ones are (1) it is what all of their peers are doing (docs don’t marry nurses, lawyers don’t marry secretaries, everyone marries another credentialed person — doesn’t have to be, and often isn’t, someone with a high income, but it is someone with high credentials … remember that a significant subset of the women involved in these marriages become SAHMs because the H earns enough to support a UMC lifestyle while W is a SAHM with zero income), (2) they want (or have been convinced to want/brainwashed to want, it doesn’t really matter which) “companionate” marriages with “soulmates” with whom they are “intellectually compatible” and (3) they want to maximize the chances of having kids in whom it will be easier to replicate the cognitive advantages that will allow them to perpetuate the credentialing advantage in the next generation — that is, this is how the new elite class is perpetuating itself today. It isn’t by buying up all the land and hogging it, passing it from generation to generation like “landed gentry” used to do. It is now done by mating very rigidly assortatively on the basis of presumed cognitive abilities so as to preserve credentialing advantages generationally, and thereby preserve social and economic status between generations — something which has been the core concern of every single elite class that has ever existed in human history.

    Why does this matter to everyone else?

    Because this social class determines everything. It sets opinions. It sets cultural mores. It makes court decisions and passes laws. It dominates the media, the law, medicine, education, and so on. As long as its own way of “doing marriage” works for itself, and is successful in terms of having lower divorce rates and, critically, passing on credentialing privilege to the offspring, this will be the model they follow, and it will be the model they expect everyone else to follow … or perish. Hence why their approach to “everyone else” is that “they should just be more like us”. It’s what they actually believe — it’s the main myth that underlies the “meritocracy”.

    If you want to see this system go away, you will need to destroy this class somehow. It’s as simple as that.

  319. The Inimitable NEET says:

    @thedeti

    And Rome in the time of Augustus, Heian Japan, hetaira in ancient Greece, etc. I imagine you wouldn’t have to look too hard to find the same patterns in Sumer.

  320. feministhater says:

    I’m not advocating, I am describing the reality. And that reality is that, yes, highly credentialed (to address AR’s comment above) men in this culture seek out other highly credentialed women to marry — that is true in 90%+ of the marriages of these guys today. Just is so. Whether you want that, I want that, anyone here wants that — it IS true. It simply IS THE CASE.

    You are advocating it. You speak of it as ‘reality’ all the time. You dote on it all the time. If 90% of marriages are like this today for your precious UMC, and this is what makes the UMC successful, in your own words, then of course you advocate it. If this is what UMC Christians believe, then all the more power to them. Slut their daughters up, drive their n counts to the moon, never look back.

    It’s obvious to me now that successful marriages are built on aged but more importantly.. credentialed whores who supposed intelligent men are willing to wife up. Have at it. If that’s what it takes to be apart of the UMC, I’m glad I’m just a simple man.

    LOL!

  321. feeriker says:

    OT. I think we’re in the “Then they fight you” phase now:

    https://www.refinery29.com/amp/en-gb/2019/08/240136/mens-rights-far-right

  322. BillyS says:

    Novaseeker,

    You fail to account that modern prosperity is not the norm in most of history. Things will likely last longer than seems possible and get wackier all the time, but they will change. Things eventually revert to the norm, with perhaps a swing farther back.

    This modern system is not sustainable as well, so arguing it will continue effectively forever is dishonest at best.

  323. Isabel says:

    Billy,

    Young virgins don’t find men to have sex with the men find them. These women are reactive. Twenty something year old women have offers thrown at them all the time—it isn’t just that the men offering sex are the only ones women notice, they are the most persistent. They ask again and again and again. They ask in creative ways. They ask in romantic ways. They ask in ways that make the guys who only ask for dates once, seem uninterested.

    As to women who aren’t sending marriage signals….Gentlemen…I’m 29 and will likely marry my boyfriend. I’ve never sent ‘marriage’ signals. I don’t even know what marriage signals are. Telling people publicly you want to get married is culturally considered desperate. Many of the men on this blog seem to ascribe tknthe apex fallacy for women, that were all self-assured people who know what we want and chase what we want. Lol I’m reactive in dating many women I know are reactive in dating.

  324. Frank K says:

    If that’s what it takes to be apart of the UMC, I’m glad I’m just a simple man.

    What I have observed is that to be a part of the UMC typically requires 2 six figure incomes (there are exceptions, of course).

    So I suppose that if a dude wants to be UMC he has to marry a woman with a fat paycheck, so he either ignores (or just accepts) that she rode the carousel, because unless he can show the trappings of being UMC, then he is a failure. Sadly, that is the world we live in.

  325. feministhater says:

    Lol I’m reactive in dating many women I know are reactive in dating.

    Yeah, you’re the common modern day whore. Tell us more. You’re just reacting to the modern day hook up culture, no self control at all.

    Your boyfriend gets a used up whore for a wife. Wow for him, what a splendid prize. Yipeee!

  326. Isabel says:

    Saying women could get married—but not to anyone they find attractive or interesting— is mind blowing. Why would someone marry someone they didn’t like just so say they were married?

    Most people don’t aspire to marriage in the abstract they aspire to it with a partner they are actually interested in. the men on this board have concluded that most women don’t offer them enough to make marriage worth it; that’s a fair conclusion when either men or women make it.

  327. thedeti says:

    Feeriker;

    observations on the Chicken Littles shrieking about “manosphere” = incel/white supremacists:

    1) No one wants to read or hear about men who are dissatisfied with their lives. Men are not allowed to complain about their sex lives. Men are not allowed to voice dissatisfaction with their lives. If you do, you’re weak, insane, or criminal.

    2) to the wider culture, manosphere/dissatisfied men = incel. Because the only men who really say much of anything to society about their dissatisfaction with their sex lives are incels. And the only people with any kind of tangential connection to the manosphere, however slight, who anyone has ever really heard of, are incels.

    3) The incels who actually committed murders had nothing to do with the manosphere at all.

    4) The effort to link the manosphere to mass murderers is an effort to silence the community; to shut down the sites; to doxx those who write and comment; and to create some sort of “Minority Report”/ “pre-crime” formulation: “He comments at the manosphere! He’s an incel! He’s a mass murderer! No, he hasn’t actually killed anyone, but HE’S GOING TO!!”

    5) The problem with these mass murderers isn’t that they’re incels, or far right. It’s that they’re screwed up in the head. You can be an incel without being insane. You can be far right without being insane. If incel = mass murderer, it would be happening multiple times a day, everywhere. In fact, incels and the mass of men have been surprisingly tolerant of the crushing problems and blame dumped on them literally every day.

  328. feministhater says:

    So I suppose that if a dude wants to be UMC he has to marry a woman with a fat paycheck, so he either ignores (or just accepts) that she rode the carousel, because unless he can show the trappings of being UMC, then he is a failure. Sadly, that is the world we live in.

    Well listen, if that’s what they want, then go for it. There’s plenty of women to choose from, all with their fat asses and huge lists of demands. Wow!

    Just learn to live with less, you don’t have to marry a whore to prove to the world that you’re not a failure. Haven’t heard anything so absurd in my life.

  329. thedeti says:

    6) Also, note that “not a Democrat” = far right”. “Not a diehard Biden/Bernie/Kamala supporter = far right”. “Disaffected man who voted for Trump because he’s not Hillary = far right”. “MAGA hat wearer = far right”.

    And “if you are far right, then anyone who disagrees with you is free to harass you, call you names, and assault you”.

  330. Sharrukin2 says:

    Isabel says:

    it isn’t just that the men offering sex are the only ones women notice, they are the most persistent. They ask again and again and again. They ask in creative ways. They ask in romantic ways. They ask in ways that make the guys who only ask for dates once, seem uninterested.

    That bad-boy filter is deliberate.

    You are admitting that these women are asked, are approached and they know the nice guys are interested…but they aren’t interested in any of the decent ones.

    It is only later in life that they decide to settle and suddenly they spontaneously develop the skills to recognize the nice guys and say yes, and of course resenting them for being nice guys for however long the marriage lasts.

  331. feministhater says:

    Saying women could get married—but not to anyone they find attractive or interesting— is mind blowing. Why would someone marry someone they didn’t like just so say they were married?

    If this were true, women would be getting married at young ages. Once again, that’s the age when they can get the best man they will ever be able to attract.

    They don’t marry men they love, they marry once they’re over thirty to men they are not physically attracted to because these men have money and they want to have children because their biological clocks are ticking.

    If you’re going to pretend that women marry for love, than at least be consistent and realize the best time for that is when they are young, not over thirty year old ham beasts.

  332. thedeti says:

    Saying women could get married—but not to anyone they find attractive or interesting— is mind blowing. Why would someone marry someone they didn’t like just so say they were married?

    Do you really mean to tell me that in your early 20s, you couldn’t find ANYONE, not a single man, who was attractive or interesting, who wanted to marry you? NOT ONE??

    I counter these claims and it is brought up all the time because women are constantly wailing all over the place that they can’t get married, because men won’t ask them and men don’t want to marry them. This is a constant, perennial, neverending complaint from women – “can’t get married, can’t find men, no men are willing to marry us.” The clear implication is that “we can’t get married because men don’t want to marry, and they don’t want to marry us.” That is just flat out false.

    Plus, women marry men they’re not sexually attracted to, or “like”, all the time. Women marry for all kinds of reasons, only one of which is sexual attraction.

  333. thedeti says:

    Nova has the right of it – young women aren’t marrying their male counterparts in large part because they don’t want to, and a huge reason they don’t want to is that their male counterparts are comprised primarily of average to unattractive men.

  334. thedeti says:

    Isabel, women would get a lot farther with their complaints if they’d just be intellectually honest and say “we aren’t marrying because we don’t want to, and we don’t want to because the men in our age cohort are mostly unattractive, crappy men we wouldn’t touch with a 10 foot pole”.

  335. Opus says:

    I have no dog in the fight but is there really any justification in shooting the messenger. People tend to mate assortatively that is to say with people like themselves and more importantly with people who cross their paths. Once upon a time in the middle-class Doctors married Nurses,and Lawyers married shorthand/typists. Not now however for the women who would once have been secretaries and the like are now credentialed with more than Pitman Shorthand and men turn to nursing.

    Here is a scenario: Women continue to push men out of white collar employment. Women are then forced to marry down. The age of marriage once again reduces. Virginity becomes a determining factor separating the desirable from the not so much so.

    The middle-class are hypocrites: they as Novaseeker says seek to perpetuate themselves yet their words tell us how much they care for the poor, the negroes (at home but especially abroad) , the homosexuals and so on – but one should judge people by their actions not their words – which are cheap. America may not always be a rich and powerful country indeed it may not always be one country.

  336. Sharrukin2 says:

    Isabel says:

    August 20, 2019 at 2:50 pm

    Saying women could get married—but not to anyone they find attractive or interesting— is mind blowing. Why would someone marry someone they didn’t like just so say they were married?

    They marry men they don’t like all the time. The elite men they do want won’t have them, though they are fine with a tumble now and then.

    Later these same women develop an interest in the men they wouldn’t speak to a decade earlier. Then they shut off the sex and subsequently divorce them.

  337. thedeti says:

    Opus

    The main problem I have with Isabel and her line of argument is that it insinuates, strongly, that it is men’s fault that young women aren’t marrying; that young women would be marrying in droves if men would just ask them. That’s false. It’s as false as can be. These women are marrying because they’re rejecting their age cohort men left and right; or making it crystal clear that they will have nothing whatsoever to do with these men, at least not now.

  338. thedeti says:

    Sorry… These women are NOT marrying because they’re rejecting their age cohort left and right….

  339. The Inimitable NEET says:

    @Frank K

    The parameters delineating the UMC are social as well as fiscal. You are nominally part of the UMC if you make 150k per year; however, if you’re a staunch Republican in certain areas you will excluded from many of the influential social circles that can cement your status and reputation. Conversely you can make 86k per year writing for media institutions like the HuffPost, yet the connections alone ensure you get invited to all the fancy parties attended by bigwigs. Understanding the local rules of etiquette and which beliefs to profess are essential to maintaining membership in the club.

    Upper-middle class men have more leeway in choosing their partners; after all, they don’t need to choose other professionals if they have sufficient wealth and they probably meet other potential marriage candidates via friends in the same bracket. That is largely influenced by status and location. It can be compensated for by beauty or other factors.

    @Opus

    The bourgeoisie seek to imitate those higher on the food chain. What a surprise.

  340. Isabel says:

    “Do you mean to tell me in your early 20’s could couldn’t find anyone attractive willing to marry you”

    Yes Deti, that’s EXACTLY what I’m telling you. When I was 20 year’s old I went to a school very similar to Duke. The guys at Duke are not trying to get married. They are trying to date and have sex and party. Most guys at prestigious secular universities want to get with girls. I’m not saying they are all successful but most *want* to. Most guys at Duke even average one’s aren’t trying to get married there

  341. Isabel says:

    Again ‘dating’ one kind of guy and ‘marrying another’ is a cultural thing. Most of the girls date guys at Duke and then 10 years later marry the same kind of guy who who to a duke-esque school. This whole date junkies/ motor cyclist and then marry ‘nerdy elite guys’ doesn’t apply here. I’m not saying college girls never sleep with guys they don’t want to marry, but my boyfriend now isn’t a different kind of guy than I was dating when I was younger.

  342. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    So many more women at younger ages were “available” to a larger number of men due to financial need and the inability to ride the carousel prior to the widespread safe/legal contraception and abortion.

    Disagree. In 1992 the average age of a US woman at first marriage was 22, if I recall correctly.
    Hormonal contraception had been available since the mid 1960s, or nearly 30 years.
    Abortion had been available for nearly 20 years.

    Some other factor(s) are involved.

  343. Isabel says:

    “The main problem I have with Isabel and her line of argument is that it insinuates, strongly, that it is men’s fault that young women aren’t marrying; that young women would be marrying in droves if men would just ask them. That’s false. It’s as false as can be. These women are marrying because they’re rejecting their age cohort men left and right; or making it crystal clear that they will have nothing whatsoever to do with these men, at least not now”

    I can only speak to my cohort. Men and women weren’t getting married young because *neither one of them wanted to* Women weren’t rejecting men–no offers were being made. And women likely weren’t looking for offers because their counterpart 20-year old men can’t support families not in college, not when they graduate, and likely not for several years after

  344. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    From the parents’ perspective, the priority is the life script — i.e., getting children set up in terms of education and career. That is the priority in the life script.

    This is the standard UMC life script that is also pushed onto the AP students in high school, and on down to average students. However it simply doesn’t work for people who have a short time horizon; the average woman who works at a chain burger store or in retail is not going to benefit from riding the cock carousel.

    Our entire social structure has been warped to service the sexual desires of a rather small minority: pretty Upper Middle Class and Upper Class women. Everyone else, including some of their future husbands, for the 20-something sexual whims of rich girls.

    This might not be such a good plan.

  345. thedeti says:

    The guys at Duke are not trying to get married. They are trying to date and have sex and party. Most guys at prestigious secular universities want to get with girls.

    The ATTRACTIVE guys at Duke are not trying to get married. The UNATTRACTIVE guys at Duke will get married if that’s what it takes to have sex.

    Most guys, everywhere, want to get with girls, but get very realistic very fast about what they can actually get. The hot guys get the sex. The rest take what they can get and do whatever it takes to get it, including marriage.

  346. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    It is now done by mating very rigidly assortatively on the basis of presumed cognitive abilities so as to preserve credentialing advantages generationally, and thereby preserve social and economic status between generations — something which has been the core concern of every single elite class that has ever existed in human history.

    Therefore upward mobility in the US will continue to decline, coupled with overproduction of elites. This might not be a real good plan either.

  347. Liz says:

    Here is a link to the average ages of first marriage, from 1890 through 2018
    https://www.thespruce.com/estimated-median-age-marriage-2303878

  348. feministhater says:

    I can only speak to my cohort. Men and women weren’t getting married young because *neither one of them wanted to* Women weren’t rejecting men–no offers were being made. And women likely weren’t looking for offers because their counterpart 20-year old men can’t support families not in college, not when they graduate, and likely not for several years after.

    Then don’t speak. Women routinely reject men, all the time.

    If supporting a man when he is still beginning a career and not ready to support children is too much, you’re not much of a woman, just a parasite and a whore.

    You’re a secular whore, who slept around at college, telling a blog where many members are Christian that women don’t get marriage proposals and thus sleep around instead.

    Yeah, fuck off.

  349. Liz says:

    My boys in high school and college are not experiencing the same thing that I did in high school and college. When my husband and I were in school it wasn’t unusual (even in high school) for couples to be engaged or talking about marriage. Now, even calling someone “girlfriend” or “boyfriend” seems to be rare (according to my college aged oldest son).

  350. Novaseeker says:

    Our entire social structure has been warped to service the sexual desires of a rather small minority: pretty Upper Middle Class and Upper Class women. Everyone else, including some of their future husbands, for the 20-something sexual whims of rich girls.

    This might not be such a good plan.

    That is an effect of it, but the intention is to prevent/discourage marriage for those women until they have the full-stretch credentialing and career start behind them. One effect of that is the carousel. But it wasn’t like the dads of these girls were like “oh, yeah, we want Jennifer to get all the cock she wants until she’s 30, and we wouldn’t have it any other way!!!!”. It’s more like they wanted the credentialing script to be actualized prior to marriage and are willing to put up with the carousel in order to get there.

    Isabel isn’t wrong about her male peers either. Heck at a slightly-higher-than-Duke-tier school 30 years ago my own male cohorts had no interest in marrying girls they were “dating” there (wasn’t much “dating”, either, more like ambiguous “hanging out” with sex that turned into coupling without actual dates), and with an exception here and there most of my male peers married … wait for it … around 30. It happened in a pretty quick group between 28 and 35. And these are guys who graduated in the late 80s. Now, no, that wasn’t everywhere, but in that tier that’s how it was even 30 years ago. In the top credential tier it hasn’t been “Mrs. degree” for decades now, and not just because the girls in that set don’t want it.

    I agree it doesn’t work for people in the true middle. But there are a ton of other things that don’t work for them either like the entire economy in general. The whole deck is very stacked in every single way towards the upper middle servant class (credentialed professionals … most of whom have income but not real wealth) and its client class (people who have actual wealth and not just high income). The true middles and below are getting squeezed no question, but it isn’t only, or even primarily, in the sex area.

  351. Dale U says:

    I wanted and was willing to get married, starting at age 20-21.
    Isabel’s statement about 20-year-old men not making proposals, at least for me, is in fact correct. But this is not because I did not want to get married — rather, there was no (discernible) opportunity. It would be creepy, in the extreme, to offer a woman marriage when she has expressed no interest to that man. And I would not offer marriage to any woman without knowing her well, and knowing at least somewhat her responses and interaction-behaviours with me.

    Now, I did try to initiate with several women. I was not rated as good enough however, thus I never got to the proposal stage. Admittedly, I did have an opportunity to pursue a deliberately low-value woman (she was very overweight), but I had too much self-respect to pursue a woman lacking self-control and respect for her future husband.

    Feel free to categorize me as a “lower-tier” man. I was never a Chad, but I was, and continue to be, a very well-paid provider and a (claimed, this is the internet after all) serious Christian.
    My unwillingness to be sexually aggressive/promiscuous torpedoed at least 2 possible relationships with “Christian girls”, of which I remember. Both went on to act in a manner that many here would consider sexually sinful.

  352. isabel says:

    “The ATTRACTIVE guys at Duke are not trying to get married. The UNATTRACTIVE guys at Duke will get married if that’s what it takes to have sex.”

    Now we are getting somewhere. The only men according to you who are trying to get married at 22 are unattractive. So your question is why are attractive women not trying to marry unattractive men? Can’t we answer that rather easily. The men trying to marry at 22 aren’t better suited men in this scenario, not better prepared, not more purposeful about marriage….they according to you just need it for the sex….no wonder they aren’t getting married

  353. feministhater says:

    My boys in high school and college are not experiencing the same thing that I did in high school and college. When my husband and I were in school it wasn’t unusual (even in high school) for couples to be engaged or talking about marriage. Now, even calling someone “girlfriend” or “boyfriend” seems to be rare (according to my college aged oldest son).

    It’s call societal decay, there is no moral agency anymore. Marriage? LOL! Only for those stupid enough still to fall for it.

    There is no point to marrying a 30 year old, college educated women who is a former rider of the carousel. Just to save face? Learn to live a better life, all that material wealth can be gone in a second…. if you’re going to get married, make sure it’s to someone who can plan better than to sleep around in college.

    Madness. Isabel is merely what you have to look forward to gentlemen, that is your future butthexzted ‘wife’ and she will divorce you quicker than you can say ‘no more sex, ever’.

    What are fathers for? I don’t know, maybe to raise sons and daughters properly and not lead them onto the cock carousel like Nova’s UMC dad’s do. Either we have morals or we don’t but don’t pretend like the lack of morals of the UMC is anything to be proud of.

  354. Colojohn says:

    Novaseeker wrote above “the majority of girls didn’t want to run the risk of pregnancy, and that more than anything else resulted in higher degrees of self-regulation.”

    When I read this line, I thought of the Supremes’ song “Love Child”. It would never be recorded today.

  355. feministhater says:

    So your question is why are attractive women not trying to marry unattractive men?

    No. He didn’t say that. He didn’t say that unattractive men are only going for attractive women. He quite clearly mentioned that guys learn their attractiveness or lack there of quite early on… no, he is saying that these guys will marry to get sex due to their not being in the top 20% of attractive men. Clearly this is to their similarly unattractive cohorts on the female side.

    Furthermore, if the men are unattractive, then why do women suddenly want them to marry when they turn thirty? Suddenly love and attraction are no longer important? If the man wasn’t good enough for you then, he’s not good enough for you now.

    Once the truth is known about female nature, it’s not longer feasible to get married.

  356. Opus says:

    If Isabel is correct and men do not wish to marry in their college years then why come thirty years of age when their testosterone is not what it was and when those who can pull the chicks have had their share of females and those that can’t have more or less given up on thoughts of matrimony then why I ask rhetorically do men at that age agree to marry. What is it that happens at thirty that makes men suddenly say, you know what I will put my player/incel ways behind me and marry. To ask the question (which does not require a rebuttal from the resident feminist) is surely to answer it. Hint: men do not have a biological clock ticking away with increasing decibels.

  357. thedeti says:

    So your question is why are attractive women not trying to marry unattractive men?

    No. The point i was making was as FemHater set out. The unattractive men learn their attractiveness levels, their “league”, early on.

    Virtually ALL women in their early 20s are sexually attractive. Or at least attractive enough.

    Attractive women in their 20s do not want to marry. That’s why marriage isn’t happening. It’s not because men don’t want to marry. It’s because women don’t want to marry.

  358. Opus says:

    One might also listening to the resident feminist gain the impression that half of men are attractive and half aren’t and then how dare any unattractive man assume he is even fit to be in the presence of a woman. Most women crowd together as of average looks and figure and so do most men but studies have shown that most women see something over eighty if not ninety per cent of men as being less than attractive. Rejection is their default mode even for objectively attractive men. Men are not like that such that even the Brad Pitt’s of the campus are happy to sleep with any ordinary Jane. If women give off the vibe that they are not serious players men will take them at face value, Men do not in my observation signal a desire to marry for fear of being seen as creepy or needy.

  359. Isabel says:

    “Attractive women in their 20s do not want to marry. That’s why marriage isn’t happening. It’s not because men don’t want to marry. It’s because women don’t want to marry”

    Attractive men don’t want to marry in their twenties because they have too many options; so they marry later. Attractive women don’t marry in their 20’s because attractive men their age don’t want to get married and the only men who want to get married aren’t attractive enough to them. Unattractive men could marry women who are unattractive (which as others have pointed out means actually unattractive because thin young women are generally attractive), these men don’t want to marry unattractive women want these women either. Everyone is looking up and no–one wants to settle for their options which is why no marriage is occurring.

  360. thedeti says:

    Isabel: No. The only men who are unwilling to marry are attractive men. Unattractive men will marry and are willing to marry, if that’s what they must do to get sex.

    What’s driving the lack of marriage and delay of marriage, is women.

    When these women decide they want to get married, know what happens?

    THEY GET MARRIED. They find some simp chump within 2 or 3 years of their own age, work him over, sex him up a little, and demand marriage. And they get it.

  361. Isabel says:

    Women have inherent sexual utility. Men do not have inherent sexual utility.

    If a man has sex with 10 random women he’ll likely have 10 orgasms. If a woman has sex with 10 random men she won’t have half that many. Men aren’t less selective than women because they are more noble, they are less selective because a wide range of women can get the job done–this is biologically not true for women.

    This very idea seems very offensive to some—that men (and women) are gifted differently and that some men will have to compensate with other things to try to attract women, while some will just show up and be attractive. This is more a fact of life than feminism.

    If you are a 30 year old man and you view the women trying to marry you as washed up whores who don’t offer you anything you want—it’s logical for you not to marry them. But if you are a 20 year old man, and you aren’t cute, you aren’t overly sweet, you aren’t charming, you don’t make any money, etc and you don’t offer a woman anything she wants *using the exact same logic* women shouldn’t want to marry you either.

  362. Sharrukin2 says:

    Isabel says:

    August 20, 2019 at 6:38 pm

    If you are a 30 year old man and you view the women trying to marry you as washed up whores who don’t offer you anything you want—

    Well Isabel, what do they offer exactly?

    They are near the end of their youth and their fertility. They have a lot of emotional baggage and a host of sexual encounters that reduce their ability to maintain a stable relationship. They have fond memories of the alpha they screwed in college which the poor bastard who wife’s them up has to deal with. This assumes they don’t have an STD or have become a land whale.

    So what the hell do they bring to the table at that age and with those negatives that would induce any rational man to sign on for that shit?

  363. SirHamster says:

    But if you are a 20 year old man, and you aren’t cute, you aren’t overly sweet, you aren’t charming, you don’t make any money, etc and you don’t offer a woman anything she wants *using the exact same logic* women shouldn’t want to marry you either.

    The 20 year old man isn’t very desirable for marriage as he is.

    But the desirable qualities in men tend to develop with age, so 18-20 women have an opportunity at that point to marry a man that will become much more desirable.

    And if they stay unmarried until their 30s … that 32 year old man will likely be very marriageable, but he is unlikely to find her attractive at that point.

  364. Novaseeker says:

    And if they stay unmarried until their 30s … that 32 year old man will likely be very marriageable, but he is unlikely to find her attractive at that point.

    Except that doesn’t happen above a certain pay-grade, like where Isabel is. In that set, they very much *do* marry women like her. Here’s what they are not doing: marrying 22 year old women.

    Below that, perhaps — my sense is marriage is dying anyway below the upper middle, for various reasons. But in Isabel’s demographic (two people with MBAs from top tier schools), that isn’t what happens.

  365. 7817 says:

    What a lot of comments just to say:

    Hypergamy. Women only want the top 20%.

    AF (the top 20%) is what they all want. BB (the bottom 80%) is what most will settle for.

  366. Spike says:

    Isobel
    ”Men aren’t less selective than women because they are more noble, they are less selective because a wide range of women can get the job done–this is biologically not true for women”

    Two things:
    1)The dating rule for singles is this,
    “Whatever number she tells you, triple it. Whatever number he tells you, halve it”.
    Your statement would only be true if all men were hyper-attractives in the 20% of all men that women want because “hawt” because “cute” because “rich”.
    In other words, men are less selective because most will take what they can get due to most women being completely uninterested in them. Marriage 1.0 was meant to flatten out and eliminate this, while Marriage 2.0 exacerbates it.

    2) Be a marriage-minded man and date the average girl in her early 20s.
    Things will go really, really well – right up to the point where you want to talk about the serious intentions of getting married, pooling resources and starting a family. Then you will be looked at with a look of abject horror, followed by excuses and then,ghosting. I’ve seen it, my now-married son has seen it, multiple times.
    Meanwhile, she shacks up with a detachable hipster/ stoner /struggling Arts Student and soaks up drama while accumulating psychological damage. Why? Because she KNOWS he isn’t marriage material and she can throw him into the trash tomorrow.

    There are “noble” men, serious about the state of relationships, and there are non-noble ones. Women go for the latter, not the former, at least up to her Party-Twilight and Epiphany Phase.

  367. Frank K says:

    AF (the top 20%) is what they all want. BB (the bottom 80%) is what most will settle for.

    And since the ladies are getting far more degrees than men, it means that Emily MBA will possibly have to marry down. She can definitely reel someone in, but that someone will be a fish she would have thrown back into the lake during her prime years. She’ll possibly out earn him. There is no guarantee that she will reel in a Director, a Doctor or a Law Firm partner. I have a niece, who is a young MD. Her husband is a bartender. I’m seeing this quite a bit in my neck of the woods: degreed women marrying non degreed men .It might be less common in the more socially conscious northeastern part of the country, but as has been pointed out, there are only so many top tier men.

  368. TheTraveler says:

    Since the beginning of humanity, women have controlled love, sex, and procreation. Ask Henry VIII–a woman’s intransigence led to a cataclysmic socio-political/religious realignment.

    Women choose. Men are chosen. That is the simple reality.

    “No!” Say the women and white knights. Thought experiment: a man and a woman both want sex. The man is a super-attractive Chad with exceptional game; the woman is ordinary-looking, even plain, with an unexceptional physique.

    If our Chad wants sex, he has to work for it–even as a skilled PUA who has “game” and technique. If the woman wants sex, she goes to a place where there are men, and at least one, probably many, will try to oblige. All but the most slovenly and disgusting will find a taker–who may not be a prize, but will give her what she desires.

    Bottom line: even the most attractive seducer-men sometimes will go home alone; an even remotely attractive woman, almost never.

  369. Oscar says:

    @ Isabel

    You didn’t answer my question, unsurprisingly. Here it is again.

    I was 28, and my wife 22 when we married. We met in college. We married shortly after I commissioned in the Army. Why do you suppose there aren’t more pairings like that, where the man is a few years older, and better prepared to support a family, but the woman is in her early 20s?

    Note that I didn’t say anything about “chasing”, or “aggressively”, or “drumming up”, or men in their 40s.

    Now, please answer the question.

  370. feeriker says:

    The 20 year old man isn’t very desirable for marriage as he is.

    But the desirable qualities in men tend to develop with age, so 18-20 women have an opportunity at that point to marry a man that will become much more desirable.

    As sensible as that theory is, it requires “seeing the ‘big picture,’ thinking long-term, and having high time preference. To say that these things are NOT women’s long suits, especially young women’s, is putting it obscenely mildly.

  371. Isabel says:

    @oscar I don’t think there’s not more marriage like that because 28 year olds and 22 year olds don’t have much in common, don’t meet each other often in the real world, and because such an arrangement favors the 28 year old

  372. feministhater says:

    …and because such an arrangement favors the 28 year old.

    LOL! Better to leave your husband with nothing of your youth and fertility. That’s all he should deserve and all he shall get.

    Hey guys, if this is what you want… please be my guest and take 100 of em each. Have at it. Have all the time in the world trying to get with them but they really don’t want you, they don’t care for you and, at the end of the day, don’t love you one ounce.

    What are we doing here? Isabel has shown us exactly what women think of husbands. They don’t want to give you anything that you want. They want it all. And there’s Novaseeker, extolling the virtues of the UMC where all they have effectively done is give women everything on a silver plater. That’s what makes a successful marriage in the modern world.

    Your move gents but don’t you ever pretend again that there is anything in marriage that favours the man. You have utterly been found 100% wanting. Game fucking over! Weeeeeeeeeee!!!!!

    Go fuck yourself Isabel, good and proper.

  373. Oscar says:

    @ Isabel

    @oscar I don’t think there’s not more marriage like that because 28 year olds and 22 year olds don’t have much in common, don’t meet each other often in the real world, and because such an arrangement favors the 28 year old

    In other words, there are few marriages between men in their late 20s and women in their early 20s because women in their early 20s don’t want to get married, not because men in their late 20s don’t want to marry them.

    Which is exactly what everyone’s been telling you since you first posted here.

    Here’s why you’re not listening.

    August 19, 2019 at 6:25 pm

    I’m a 29-year old woman with an MBA living in one of the aforementioned cities (gross I know) dating a more successful also 29-year old MBA.

    You’re here trying to rationalize your actions. You’re living the feminist life script of college, then grad school (preferably in a big city), then maybe get married in your 30s, when 90% of your egg cells are dead.

    https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/women-fertility-falls-lose-90-percent-eggs-30/story?id=9693015

    And so are all the 20-year-old girls behind you. That’s why your boyfriend is dating you, and not one of those 20-year-old girls. It’s not because he doesn’t want to (not that he’d admit it to you), or because they “don’t have much in common” (as if that matters much), or because they “don’t meet each other often in the real world” (as if they couldn’t, if the girls wanted to).

    It’s because the 20-year-old girls are on year 3 of their feminist life script, and therefore unwilling to even consider marriage for another 8 years, and you’re on year 11 of your feminist life script, and therefore finally willing to consider marriage.

    It’s that simple.

    But, accepting that truth requires self-knowledge, and you’re here to rationalize, not to think rationally.

  374. white says:

    Stop giving this 100mph hamster attention already. She’s not the first post wall troll here and she won’t be the last. Laugh at them and move on

  375. feministhater says:

    Laugh at them and move on.

    Oh no never! Isabel has provided us with the inner workings of the modern day, western slore. A more bountiful harvest for MGTOW isn’t to be found. I welcome Isabel to continue her trolling and to continue to tell us about her future cucked husband. Never miss a beat with women such as this.

    If this is what it takes to show the utter contempt women have for husbands and fathers, so be it. The question Dalrock posed has been answered and then some. Thank you Isabel.

    There is nothing to lament, women like Isabel make a conscious decision to deprive their future husbands of their youth, beauty, innocence and fertility, vastly preferring to give that to a steady stream of boyfriends, one night stands, sexual hook ups and general depravity, that is the truth. This is what women choose, over and over again.

    There is nothing more to do or say. You have your answers. Women don’t want men and never have. They only want male utility and now you get nothing for this utility but a used up whore for your efforts. Good on you UMC, please continue to wife these women up, someone has to. Keep working your asses off and pay those taxes, be the cucks you were always meant to be. You’ve made my decision to forgo marriage truly commendable.

    What a time to be alive.

  376. John James R says:

    “and because such an arrangement favors the 28 year old”

    And we can’t have that! Love it. You had to say ‘favors the 28 year old.” As if it’s just a couple of androgynous characters, aged 22 and 28. You just couldn’t get yourself to type ‘favors the male.’ That would be too transparent, right? Well, I saw it anyway, and I agree. That scenario would favor the male. Actually, it wouldn’t favor the male, but it would at least offer something to the male. It still favors the female. 45 and 18 is when it begins to favor the male. But this 28-22 does make some sort of gesture to male imperatives which everything about our culture just cannot allow. If men like or want something then it is simply a bad thing. We only get to watch football on the weekends because women like it too. Everything about feminism (obv), pop culture, law, education etc. has a radar set on any aspect of the male imperative and then disallows it. ALL women and many of the men have a cultural instinct for eliminating male interests from any situation. Your quote is great. Please always post here. Whether you intend to or not, you’re able to reveal so much truth about the female mind. Endless solipsism.

  377. feeriker says:

    Stop giving this 100mph hamster attention already. She’s not the first post wall troll here and she won’t be the last. Laugh at them and move on

    Seconded. This comment thread is five times bigger than it needs to be, and with no new and valuable wisdom to add to the world, all because some attention-addicted slore who differs not at all from any of the hundreds of other drive-bys who’ve passed through here over the years, got undeserved attention. I really thought that the regulars here would know much better than that by now.

  378. Liz says:

    Prairie wedding, Mark Knopfler.

  379. BillyS says:

    Isabel,

    I can guarantee you that men were hanging around you or looking at you many times that you did not give the time of day to. Those were the marriage prospects. All men are not horndogs, but those are the ones that push through to solicit you.

    You have a boyfriend. What kind of man would push through that to try to date and marry you? You are the one being very unrealistic. It sounds like you want to monkeybranch – keep to your current branch until another better one is available. Most solid men aren’t going to try to reach in that situation.

    I would be well outside your age range now, closer to your parent’s age most likely, but even I would respond to a young woman who was regularly close to me, wanting to know about me, my interests, thoughts on the sermon, etc. It is trivially easy for a woman to show interest with very little risk.

    You sound like my exwife who claimed that men could get just as much sex as women, with no clue to reality. She was convinced that men had the same opportunities in spite of the reality that most men are excluded today.

  380. BillyS says:

    Isabel,

    Saying women could get married—but not to anyone they find attractive or interesting— is mind blowing. Why would someone marry someone they didn’t like just so say they were married?

    Ask my exwife. I am fairly convinced now the reason she ultimately married me was because she was one of the last single women in the small church we met in who got married. She didn’t want to marry, even though she was much closer to 30 than 20. She had no “love” in her heart, due to the ways of her mother (who professes faith, but whose word is meaningless). She did not want marriage but didn’t want to miss the last bus out. This made for a very poor foundation.

    You also fail to realize that women’s expectations today are completely out of line with reality. Men will take a wide range of women as has been shown time and time again. They may prefer a certain group, but they are ultimately quite flexible. Women are not. They may temporarily accept someone outside the range, but they will not remain faithful when doing so, especially since modern society pushes against such faithfulness.

    I have a hard “thin” trigger in my brain, but other looks are not nearly as important. Most men are like that in some manner, with many being quite open to even larger women. A big problem however is that some things that I could easily tolerate in someone I had aged with are an extreme putoff for me now that I am older. Why should I take someone else’s junk as if it was new goods?

  381. Isabel says:

    “And so are all the 20-year-old girls behind you. That’s why your boyfriend is dating you, and not one of those 20-year-old girls. It’s not because he doesn’t want to (not that he’d admit it to you), or because they “don’t have much in common” (as if that matters much), or because they “don’t meet each other often in the real world” (as if they couldn’t, if the girls wanted to)”

    Scott and Novaseeker have explained this phenomenon on why men of a certain class marry women of their same age so I don’t need to. My boyfriends been dating and sleeping with 20something’s for 10 years so I won;t say he’s over it, but I will say he might have a different perspective than the men here. Everyone is dating the best they can do, so it doesn’t offend me that my boyfriend would leave me for Gigi Hadad anymore than it might offend him that I would leave him for Ryan Gosling

  382. Isabel says:

    “But this 28-22 does make some sort of gesture to male imperatives which everything about our culture just cannot allow”

    People marry to benefit themselves not to suit general imperatives and certainly not to suit general imperatives of the other. If it doesn’t make the 22 year old’s woman’s life better, or the opportunity cost is too high–she shouldn’t marry. Same thing if the 28 year old man is courted by a 28-year old woman, if he feels the arrangement doesn’t have enough upside.

  383. thedeti says:

    Marriage is vitally important to women. Except for a few outliers, probably 5% of women, even women who really don’t want to be married, will get married.

    The reason is because of what marriage says about her. Marriage gives a woman a huge status bump, and a legal claim on her husband’s money and property. And if she stays with him long enough and the circumstances are right, that legal claim could be for the rest of her life, or his life, whichever ends first. Yep. A few states are going to lifetime alimony under certain circumstances.

    And they’ll get married to any old man who will date them or have them. When they decide they’re finally ready to marry, they’ll pressure the guy they’re dating to marry them. I’m pretty convinced that’s why my wife decided I was the one – I’m just the guy she happened to be dating when she had her Epiphany.

    Women marry for all kinds of reasons, only one of which is sexual attraction. That was never the prime purpose of marriage anyway. The prime purpose of marriage was to provide an appropriate place for men and women to have sex, and a safe, secure environment for child rearing. That’s it. But, now, marriage has evolved from that into an arrangement that can be created or terminated at will, and one which is to be discarded the moment she decides she’s no longer “feeling it”.

    Because marriage is, now, supposed to be “companionate” and “between best friends and lovers” in which your spouse is your “soulmate” and “equal” and “partner”. That’s never what marriage was supposed to be. Your spouse was never intended to be your everything, your beginning and end. Your spouse was supposed to be the person you pick to have kids with, and that’s it, and you accept them warts and all. Men do that. Women don’t. Women are the ones blowing marriages up.

    Billy, I’m curious – before you married, did you know your wife didn’t want to marry, or did she “pull a fast one” on you by feigning affection and attraction just long enough to extract commitment and marriage from you?

  384. Isabel says:

    “You sound like my exwife who claimed that men could get just as much sex as women, with no clue to reality. She was convinced that men had the same opportunities in spite of the reality that most men are excluded today.”

    No Billy, I don’ think that and I’m sorry about your wife. Our sexual society has winners and losers in the same way we have economic winners and losers. And as our material resources have been skewed to the top and so have our sexual ones. The two are so related that it baffles me that it isn’t talked about more. The cycle of poverty or lower classness is difficult to break–the men don’t have the money to attract mates, welfare prices them out at the lower end of the spectrum, and women adopt many of the vices of the poor, obesity, children out of wedlock etc. The result is we have a lot of men and a lot of women who doesn’t offer each other much.

    I can’t argue that women should be happy with men who don’t make them happy-that’s not how happiness works. Two generations ago, people wanted to be average, people disdain average now–blame instagram as much as feminism for that. Anyway the heart of the issue seems to be income inequality. The same men getting all the sex have all the resources and the men I know, more so than the women, would fight you to the death on bringing back early marriage, not because they are traitor cucks, but because they are ranking it it under the current system. Lots of sex. Stable Marriages when they do get married at 30, etc. Anyway,Thanks for letting me play gents,

  385. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    It’s more like they wanted the credentialing script to be actualized prior to marriage and are willing to put up with the carousel in order to get there.

    The first step to wisdom is to call things by their right names. The cock carousel is now a standard part of US culture even if almost everyone talks around it. There is a church girl version, too. We all know or should know by now the effects it has on women’s ability to pair bond, probability of divorce, etc. and so forth, therefore the cock carousel is a social ill. The fact that it’s widely tolerated and even accepted doesn’t change the damage done any more than wide spread acceptance of divorce changes the damage done to children of divorced people.

    Prostitution was very common in Victorian England, it was referred to indirectly by the upper classes but it still existed and was a social problem that did damage to many people. We look back now at the proliferation of whores in England and wonder what the elites were thinking.

  386. BillyS says:

    Deti,

    Billy, I’m curious – before you married, did you know your wife didn’t want to marry, or did she “pull a fast one” on you by feigning affection and attraction just long enough to extract commitment and marriage from you?

    She spoke regularly about how she never wanted marriage (due to what her parents went through – both had multiple marriages). She didn’t directly say she did not want to marry me, but her reception was not ideal.

    She did tell me that God specifically told her “Don’t let this one go by” (meaning me), so she even had direction from Him. (She clearly ignored that when divorcing, though it took quite a while and lots of passive-aggressive poisoning of the well from her to develop to the state where she could leave and still believe she was true to her faith.)

    My problem was that I had no common sense in that area. My grandparents always argued, but loved each other very deeply, so I didn’t even take that as the huge warning sign I should have. I was also extremely driven to achieve whatever I really wanted and I really wanted a wife who was reasonably thin. (She was, though she would not be on any magazine covers.)

    I completely ignored many warning signs pushing ahead anyway. I believe God connected us and that He wanted to give her a chance at a better life. I never had a “clear word” though so I do not believe I would have been in sin if I had not followed through.

    I strongly feel I should have walked away at the time, from my perspective now at least. Though I can’t change the past. I do find it so ironic that her I was being a reasonably solid Christian guy and I ended up with the dregs, while someone like Scott followed a bad path and ended up with the good part. (No fault to Scott for that of course, but it is a reality.) It is the age-old question of why the wicked prosper. (Again, I am not saying Scott is wicked, he is just a strong example of another path here. Praise God he and his wife are following the right path. I pray they never stray.)

    Hope that answers your question. I was from a different time of course, but I still made some of the same mistakes foolish men make today.

    Ironically, I find I also married my mom in so many ways. I loved her dearly, but she had huge flaws and harmed herself extremely when she kicked my dad out and couldn’t back off enough to stop the divorce from going ahead. That harmed her and me as well. My exwife has harmed herself, but the true part of that will not likely be seen for some time.

    ======

    Something missing from this as well, especially Isabel’s idiocy, is that building a solid marriage requires exactly that: Building a solid marriage! Few women today want the building part and instead want all the benefits with no efforts on her part.

    That was probably one of the biggest reasons my wife left, since our lives did not turn out as she imagined, even though she never lifted a finger to make things work out better when we were married.

    My grandparents both worked hard to get to where they were, but it was only me and I stumbled a bit along the way. Combining that with the fact she didn’t want anyone to control her led to her bailing from all responsibility. She ironically lets her family control her now, but that seems more acceptable to her since I was clearly not family in her eyes.

    The foolishness Isabel posts her leaves a lot out. She would do well to sit down and really understand things from someone like me but she will never do that.

  387. naturallyaspirated says:

    “People marry to benefit themselves not to suit general imperatives and certainly not to suit general imperatives of the other. If it doesn’t make the 22 year old’s woman’s life better, or the opportunity cost is too high–she shouldn’t marry. Same thing if the 28 year old man is courted by a 28-year old woman, if he feels the arrangement doesn’t have enough upside.”

    Ah, the heart of the matter. People marrying to benefit themselves, making the 22 y/o or 28 y/o life better, looking for the most upside. Of course, that’s what we’re all ultimately doing.

    So then, what truths about men, women, sex, commitment, age, previous partners, should we believe? If men caring about lower (preferably 0) N counts for a lifetime partner reflects a truth about how men are wired, what they value instinctively (and logically) in a woman, then searching that out, finding those women should be important for their “upside”. If men truly yearn for femininity, if they connect deeper over the years to a woman they know gave them their entire (or close) sexual desire and experience, they should find more happiness there than ignoring such issues. If men would be happier with a woman who respects and yearns for masculinity, submits to his leadership, directs her femininity and sexuality to him and only him as they grow together during their formative years and beyond, (and he is the iron on which she sharpens her sexual youth) then he has found his upside.

    If a woman’s true relational happiness comes from consistent and loyal desire from a man she respects, and her giving of those things above enhances his loyalty, his desire, then her upside is clear as well. If she instinctively wants leadership, emotional stability, confidence, and resources for future security, then she very well may prefer men older and more established.

    The question for Isabel is this: Do you think these things reflect the true nature of men and women? Do you think denying these truths means happiness is less likely?

    If so, then we’re largely doing it wrong, and the swamp in which we find ourselves reflects that mistake.

    If you don’t think these things are true….well, there’s where the discussion should go.

  388. BillyS says:

    Women want everything to benefit them, whether that is possible or not silly bear. Fried ice all the way!

  389. Cane Caldo says:

    I see Lori Alexander’s admonition that “men prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos” referenced way too often. She rightly amended it to, “Godly men prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos”. It is not true of most men. It is not even true of most men who call themselves Christian.

    Where in history we live men prefer various things and all that matters is our preferences. More on that later, but I would add to Novaseeker’s explanation that men of worldly success are not only willing to “put up” with credentialed whores, but that they prefer it just as a chivalrous knight prefers to take the lord’s place in the lady’s bed. It’s not chivalrous to marry virgins and there’s no oneupmanship if his woman choose his dick before trying others. Successful men aren’t concerned with money alone.

    Likewise, you can add the fact that worldly men know virtually all post-pubescent women under the age of 30 prefer to be whores for successful men rather than wives for anybody. Only a fool would try to marry a whore. Better to wait that time out, have fun in the meanwhile, and then swoop in for the comfort stage. Fox News has zeroed in on this. Their female newscasters represent the sexual prime for middle class men.

    On preferences: Above Isabel said:

    People marry to benefit themselves not to suit general imperatives and certainly not to suit general imperatives of the other. If it doesn’t make the 22 year old’s woman’s life better, or the opportunity cost is too high–she shouldn’t marry. Same thing if the 28 year old man is courted by a 28-year old woman, if he feels the arrangement doesn’t have enough upside.

    To which naturallyaspirated responded:

    Ah, the heart of the matter. People marrying to benefit themselves, making the 22 y/o or 28 y/o life better, looking for the most upside. Of course, that’s what we’re all ultimately doing.

    No offence to NA and perhaps I mistake his meaning, but that does not describe what I’m doing. I’m not a happiness engine. I’m a human being; an eternal soul trapped in a body of corruption who is required every day to sacrifice worldly pleasure for God’s glory because He is God–and to count it joy to do so. This causes me a lot of unhappiness because I like sin just like everyone else. Yet it suits the general imperative of GOOD. I also serve the general imperative of GOOD for others’ sake. I reject wholeheartedly the notion that I should serve my preferences or self-improvement for my own benefit. I reject the idea that men and women should follow their own bests interests above all as the map to right decisions; including the idea that women should be debt-free virgins (until marriage) without tattoos because men prefer it. They should do it because God commands it whatever men might want and even if it doesn’t make them happy. Of course it doesn’t make women happy; they’re sinful just like men! I understand that this message doesn’t sell well and that I’m supposed to extol the personal benefits of a Christian life, but to Hell with that.

    The view from the real world is that Isabel is a whore, she likes it, and it’s working out according to her preferences. She’s far from alone so attention should be paid to what she’s written here because the women in your life operate under the exact same suspicions. They are largely correct in that they lead to temporal happiness. If it were otherwise we couldn’t even attempt love.

  390. BillyS says:

    Cane,

    You know (and admit) you are a flawed human, but you still aim to go above that. Most women today do not admit the first and do not attempt to go beyond their own selfish desires, Christian or not.

    Some may think they do, but reality is far harsher from what I see. Few church messages tell women to do that as well, making the rare women who does it almost a unicorn. Churches instead usually focus on telling women that they deserve the best and can and should do better.

    Notice this conference series that is currently advertising on Air1:

    https://daretobe.com/

    I doubt they say 1 word telling women to

    Dare to be holy
    Dare to be faithful
    Dare to be a wife that honors her husband
    etc.

    A men’s conference would frequently, if not completely, challenge men to stop doing all the bad things they are surely doing (an assumption). That is the significant difference.

    The only thing women are called to repent of is following men or such non-sins. Not much is saying about their tendency to enable Harvey McBadBoy of course, just their legitimate husband or father.

  391. feeriker says:

    Notice this conference series that is currently advertising on Air1:

    https://daretobe.com/

    The “Christian” airwaves are are arguably more satanic and destructive than the garbage filling the worldly stations. The secular garbage, whether music or chatter, is at least open and honest about what it represents. What passes for “Christianity,” OTOH, is deceitful and misleading, and deliberately so, a form of faux Christianity designed to lead weak, easily deceived people –especially WOMEN– away from the truth.

  392. naturallyaspirated says:

    @Cane Caldo

    “I reject the idea that men and women should follow their own bests interests above all as the map to right decisions; including the idea that women should be debt-free virgins (until marriage) without tattoos because men prefer it. They should do it because God commands it whatever men might want and even if it doesn’t make them happy. Of course it doesn’t make women happy; they’re sinful just like men! I understand that this message doesn’t sell well and that I’m supposed to extol the personal benefits of a Christian life, but to Hell with that.”

    Yeah, message doesn’t sell so well for me, you’re right. 😉

    The Christian life isn’t a set of rules God sets out to test our faithfulness, or show our dedication to Him by rule following. True lasting Joy, Peace, Love, Pleasure, and Happiness come from aligning your will with God’s, from (to paraphrase CS Lewis) recognizing the dirt you’re content playing with in the alley is nothing compared to building castles and playing in the surf on the coast, you just have to trust that the 3 hour car ride out there is worth it.

  393. Lost Patrol says:

    She’s far from alone so attention should be paid to what she’s written here because the women in your life operate under the exact same suspicions.

    I think this is why interjections from the like of Isabel don’t trouble me. She merely provides a refresher for what is going on all around us in the way people are thinking and acting in the right now. Other commenters challenge her assertions, Novaseeker places her information in a broader context, Deti attempts to lead her to an understanding of her blind spots and obfuscations, etc. In the end some of us have been able to refine our own thoughts on the issues by this process.

    In military terms Isabel provides one data point of raw combat information, which must be evaluated in light of other information collected from multiple sources in order to become useful, i.e. fused and actionable intelligence. Information directly from the “enemy camp” so to speak is especially valuable in this but has to be gauged against the possibility it is planted, etc. I should write field manuals.

    At the end of the day actual trolls, that have come by only to start riots and provide no other function, get banned by Dalrock.

  394. John James R says:

    “People marry to benefit themselves not to suit general imperatives and certainly not to suit general imperatives of the other.”

    Another can of worms. Look at it like this; a nation full of people marrying or not to benefit themselves individually is what makes up the general imperatives, all added together. We’re discussing society at large, so of course it’s a discussion of general imperatives. These culture-wide imperatives consist of each individual act, if you don’t want to include gov’t misandry etc in the conversation. Right now, our culture won’t even hear of any nod whatsoever to male imperatives. It’s that bad. So bad that men don’t even know it. It’s just assumed that if men want something, then it’s a bad thing. Most males that I know even have free-time hobbies that are utilitarian and subservient to female comfort.

  395. elspeth says:

    @ Cane Caldo:

    Brilliantly and beautifully stated truths throughout your entire comment.

    Thank you for sharing that.

  396. Cane Caldo says:

    @naturallyaspirated

    The Christian life isn’t a set of rules God sets out to test our faithfulness, or show our dedication to Him by rule following. True lasting Joy, Peace, Love, Pleasure, and Happiness come from aligning your will with God’s, from (to paraphrase CS Lewis) recognizing the dirt you’re content playing with in the alley is nothing compared to building castles and playing in the surf on the coast, you just have to trust that the 3 hour car ride out there is worth it.

    If you had understood what I wrote you’d understand that while people cannot escape time they no longer believe in alleys, car rides, or beaches and that this disbelief is the problem.

  397. Scott says:

    Has anyone else noticed the proliferation/trend of dudes coming to work in an office setting and walking around with big, noise cancelling headphones on?

  398. naturallyaspirated says:

    @cane caldo

    agreed that if you don’t believe in the coast, then why worry about the car ride or whether there’s more than the dirt in the alley.

  399. 7817 says:

    @Cane

    Ah, the heart of the matter. People marrying to benefit themselves, making the 22 y/o or 28 y/o life better, looking for the most upside. Of course, that’s what we’re all ultimately doing.

    You disagree with this Cane, yet you got married. Are you honestly going to tell me that you didn’t think getting married would bring any benefit to your life?

    I also serve the general imperative of GOOD for others’ sake.

    It would have been much better for others sake if you had married a very ugly woman that no one else wanted… I’m not serious, but this is where that logic goes. Do you not see the goodness inherent in such an act?

    I’m not a happiness engine. I’m a human being; an eternal soul trapped in a body of corruption who is required every day to sacrifice worldly pleasure for God’s glory because He is God–and to count it joy to do so. This causes me a lot of unhappiness because I like sin just like everyone else. Yet it suits the general imperative of GOOD. I also serve the general imperative of GOOD for others’ sake. I reject wholeheartedly the notion that I should serve my preferences or self-improvement for my own benefit.

    I used to buy into this puritan mindset as well, but honestly it’s a neurotic way of looking at things. When you read scripture, often God granted all manner of material blessings to those he loved. Someone being blessed was a sign of favor from God. It was not the ONLY sign, but it was an indicator.

    My argument is that God does want us to do the best we can to better ourselves and our position in this life, provided that those goals never interfere with fearing and loving God. If personal development requires abandonment of obedience to God, it obviously is sin and shouldn’t be done, but there is a lot we can do that isn’t sin.

    What point is there in Jesus parable of the talents if not to make the most of what you have, as long as you do it in obedience to God and not rebellion. In fact, doing well with their gifts was COMMANDED. The man with one talent was rejected because he sat on his hands.

    I reject the idea that men and women should follow their own bests interests above all as the map to right decisions; including the idea that women should be debt-free virgins (until marriage) without tattoos because men prefer it.

    This is pedantic. A Christian woman has to consider how best to attract the kind of man she should get in order to honor God. Being a debt free virgin without tattoos is honoring her future husband, and it doesn’t interfere with honoring God. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

    They should do it because God commands it whatever men might want and even if it doesn’t make them happy.

    Congratulations on reopening the door to Christian feminism.

    I understand that this message doesn’t sell well and that I’m supposed to extol the personal benefits of a Christian life, but to Hell with that.

    We are guaranteed trouble. That doesn’t mean we are fatalists who don’t act in our own best interest where doing so is not sinful.

  400. Dale U says:

    @Scott

    office setting and walking around with big, noise cancelling headphones on

    Not quite what you meant, but sometimes this is self-defense. I worked on one team where the project manager (PM) did not have enough work to do, so on an almost-daily basis he would come into our office and “chat”, wasting the time of the guys trying to do the work for the project. My buddy started to wear headphones, without any music playing. When the PM would come by to waste time, he would pretend he could not hear the PM 🙂

    Depending on the numbers of SJWs / HR people / women around, walking around the office with headphones may provide a similar defense against undesired interactions.

  401. Cane Caldo says:

    @7817

    Imagine if (instead of however you thought while previously reading my comment) you had read it with a hope to agree with me. You’d probably have a much different interpretation of what I wrote and not found arguments where none actually exist.

  402. BillyS says:

    Scott,

    I would fault the modern work environment the most. The open office plan so popular today (likely because it is cheap and lets some keep an eye on everyone) is hugely distracting to me. I am likely to do something like that if I the work I find (I am actively looking now with less success than I would like) has me working in that environment.

    It is cheaper, but incredibly distracting. Some noise or noise cancelling is about the only way I can handle it, though I can’t handle headphones on my ears too much either, so I am not sure what I will really do.

  403. Frank K says:

    Has anyone else noticed the proliferation/trend of dudes coming to work in an office setting and walking around with big, noise cancelling headphones on?

    This is happening in large part because of the proliferation of the “bench seating” environment in offices.

    I have interviewed for more than a few companies that don’t even have cubicles anymore, just rows of desks. Stretch your arms out and you might inadvertently touch you neighbor. These environments are very noisy, hence the headphones. I am told that this is how Millennials like to work. It is interesting, as when you look at them, they completely block out everything happening around them as they stare at their computer screens. Then they take a break and play foosball or air hockey in the break room. I couldn’t work like that.

  404. Scott says:

    In the army I always a private office and either a shared front office manager or my own.

    Now I have my private practice in a totally new business model I had never heard of. You pay “membership” (it’s not called “rent”).

    I have the highest level, which includes a private office and use of the waiting area and receptionist for my clients.

    Lower levels from there go all the way down to just a big open table of computer spaces.

    It’s weird.

  405. Frank K says:

    It is cheaper, but incredibly distracting. Some noise or noise cancelling is about the only way I can handle it, though I can’t handle headphones on my ears too much either, so I am not sure what I will really do.

    I’m surprised they don’t also wear blinders. The work environment reminds me of a college dorm. One thing I have noticed about those open/bench seating environments: you don’t see many people over 30 working in them, and anyone over 40 is a very rare sight. The Millennials who do work there look like clones: beards, plaid shirts, skinny jeans, etc. It can be educational to look at the company profile on sites like glassdoor. The smaller companies usually have a team picture on the profile and 95%+ are all very young looking. Sometimes you have to look hard to find someone who looks 40. When you see that, you know you’re wasting your time applying for a job there.

  406. Frank K says:

    Now I have my private practice in a totally new business model I had never heard of. You pay “membership” (it’s not called “rent”).

    Yes, I’ve heard of that too. A company called WeWork offers this. Last I heard they’re bleeding cash like there’s no tomorrow.

  407. feeriker says:

    @Billy, Frank, Scott

    I think that this is all symptomatic of the fact that the modern workplace isn’t about “productivity” at all, but about social engineering and control. Otherwise, the following observation wouldn’t even be relevant:

    I am told that this is how Millennials like to work.

    Given that that generation is, by any objective measure, the most UNproductive in modern history, catering to them and their whims and preferences would logically be the LAST thing any employer would do if they genuinely cared about their organization being productive and profitable.

    The truth is that an increasing share of “work” now done by humans has, for all practical intents and purposes, become superfluous. This is why AA/EO is not only tolerated, but celebrated. If productivity and quality REALLY mattered and the competitive market economy truly ruled, no organization would tolerate the status quo. To do so would result in guaranteed bankruptcy, law suits, economic collapse, and all-around destruction.

  408. Frank K says:

    If productivity and quality REALLY mattered and the competitive market economy truly ruled, no organization would tolerate the status quo. To do so would result in guaranteed bankruptcy, law suits, economic collapse, and all-around destruction.

    What really blows me away are the number of companies that lose astronomical sums of cash, year after year. Tesla, Uber, etc. Not only are they in the red, but there is no end in sight, a date when they will finally be profitable. Meanwhile my employer, which makes $10B a year profit, is considered a relic because what we do isn’t sexy.

    Who is bankrolling these money pits? Who is lending them money or investing in them, year after year with no payday in sight? It’s like dousing a huge pile of cash with gasoline and setting it on fire.

  409. 7817 says:

    Imagine if (instead of however you thought while previously reading my comment) you had read it with a hope to agree with me. You’d probably have a much different interpretation of what I wrote and not found arguments where none actually exist.

    No man, I just disagree, because your position is what I used to believe.

    If you don’t wish to discuss it that doesn’t bother me.

  410. Getting back to father’s for a moment, interesting to see Cox Communication’s recent commercial:
    Fun at Dad’s

    Mom drops off 8 year old son at Dad’s place:

  411. Cane Caldo says:

    @7817

    No man, I just disagree, because your position is what I used to believe.

    Ok, let’s do this. Why not? I’m off work early, I have a few beers and it’s been awhile since I last regretted getting too personal online.

    No man, I just disagree, because your position is what I used to believe.

    I see no evidence this is true because you have made wild jumps of conclusion.

    You disagree with this (“People marrying to benefit themselves, making the 22 y/o or 28 y/o life better, looking for the most upside. Of course, that’s what we’re all ultimately doing.) Cane, yet you got married. Are you honestly going to tell me that you didn’t think getting married would bring any benefit to your life?

    1) *Any* benefit? You moved the goalpost. I talked about what should and should not be our *primary* motivations. I say our primary motivations should be The Good which God has determined and we are to obey, and the good of others. You may recognize this concept from the works of backwater thinkers like Jesus, Socrates, Lao Tzu, and even CS Lewis.

    It would have been much better for others sake if you had married a very ugly woman that no one else wanted… I’m not serious, but this is where that logic goes. Do you not see the goodness inherent in such an act?

    No, that’s not where the logic goes. It doesn’t even appear to temporarily veer towards marrying ugly women that no one else wanted. Part of goodness in marriage is marrying someone you see is beautiful. The Good, The True, and The Beautiful–these general imperatives–are always to be served above the self. It would do the ugly woman no good whatsoever for me to marry her because she is ugly. That is a perversion of goodness.

    I used to buy into this puritan mindset as well, but honestly it’s a neurotic way of looking at things. When you read scripture, often God granted all manner of material blessings to those he loved. Someone being blessed was a sign of favor from God. It was not the ONLY sign, but it was an indicator.

    Most people have this sort of The Scarlet Crucible hodge-podge that has no relation to how Puritans actually lived and thought. Is that what you mean? Because I have to say that either way you’ve missed the lessons of the Bible. God blesses whom He will. Sometimes it is for their benefit, and sometimes it is so they will benefit someone else, and sometimes it is both. Sometimes God withholds blessings as a discipline, and He disciplines those whom He loves. Regardless of where in the spectrum we find ourselves is is our duty and (AND!) pleasure to obey him; to do justice and mercy for the sake of Him who makes the sun rise on the evil and the good, and sends the rain on the just and the unjust.

    Here we get back to what I was talking about. To the modern mind, the sun just shines and the rains just come and neither are religious events. But to Christ sunshine and rain are acts of God. They are not mere “facts” about world which we can use to grow crops. The Puritans, by the way, understood that and incorporated it into their worldview, as have other Christian traditions. There are no mere “tools” in this world. Every rock, every mote of creation, has moral content. Yet modern people do not believe this. They believe only in “incentives”.

    My argument is that God does want us to do the best we can to better ourselves and our position in this life, provided that those goals never interfere with fearing and loving God. If personal development requires abandonment of obedience to God, it obviously is sin and shouldn’t be done, but there is a lot we can do that isn’t sin.

    But why? WHY??? Here’s an answer: “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.” So that. According to modernity we should labor for the empty hole of self-improvement. According to this Bronze Age fable (which I believe) we should do it so that we are good for others. It’s not enough to merely stop being a thief.

    What point is there in Jesus parable of the talents if not to make the most of what you have, as long as you do it in obedience to God and not rebellion. In fact, doing well with their gifts was COMMANDED. The man with one talent was rejected because he sat on his hands.

    Because you have to give it back. Because it doesn’t belong to you. Above all because you have a master who requires it of you. Yes, we should pursue excellence in all things; whatever our hands find to do we should do it in the name of our Lord Jesus giving thanks to God the Father.

    This is pedantic. A Christian woman has to consider how best to attract the kind of man she should get in order to honor God. Being a debt free virgin without tattoos is honoring her future husband, and it doesn’t interfere with honoring God. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

    What Isabel and Novaseeker and Scott and others have just told you is that virtually all future husbands feel themselves more honored by marrying credentialed whores than by debt-free virgins without tattoos. Scott himself is living that very life. This is because neither the whores nor the cads (virtually everyone in America) has a religious view of life. To put it in naturallyaspirated’s terms of CS Lewis: They may vaguely believe in the coast and sand as some far-off holy place, but they don’t believe the alley they are in is holy, or the dirt, or that the car ride or even time is holy. Yet all are creations of the Almighty. These are all just so many “tools”.

    Congratulations on reopening the door to Christian feminism (by stating that women should do be debt-free virgins without tattoos until marriage because God commands it whatever men might want and even if it doesn’t make them happy.)

    Right, because “wives obey your husbands” for the Lord’s sake is the cornerstone of every kind of Feminism.

    We are guaranteed trouble. That doesn’t mean we are fatalists who don’t act in our own best interest where doing so is not sinful.

    Again and again you move the goalposts. In the best good everyone’s interests are served. Jesus submitted Himself to die on the cross why? For the Father’s justice? For His own reward? For our salvation? YES!

  412. Cane Caldo says:

    Sadly I did no drink fast enough and so excised all the personal bits.

  413. SirHamster says:

    Cane,
    Always a highlight for me when I see you making long posts in the comments or your blog. Thanks.

  414. 7817 says:

    @Cane Caldo 

    “Are you honestly going to tell me that you didn’t think getting married would bring any benefit to your life?”

    *Any* benefit? You moved the goalpost.

    No. You stated that

    I’m a human being; an eternal soul trapped in a body of corruption who is required every day to sacrifice worldly pleasure for God’s glory because He is God–and to count it joy to do so. This causes me a lot of unhappiness because I like sin just like everyone else…I reject wholeheartedly the notion that I should serve my preferences or self-improvement for my own benefit.

    Rejecting your own preferences is certainly self sacrificial, but it isn’t always the right thing to do. Some sacrifices that we make are ones God doesn’t ask of us. If you overstated your case, great, we probably don’t disagree that much, but this statement

    I reject wholeheartedly the notion that I should serve my preferences or self-improvement for my own benefit

    is not ambiguous. My contention is that utter subservience of self to the good of others causes a lot of the issues that end up driving men to the manosphere. See books like When I Say No I Feel Guilty, or No More Mr. Nice Guy. When I was younger, I thought serving God and others was all that mattered, that my own preferences should be sublimated to those two, even though I often failed. But it’s not a healthy goal, and led me to this website eventually, which began the healing process.

    I say our primary motivations should be The Good which God has determined and we are to obey, and the good of others. You may recognize this concept from the works of backwater thinkers like Jesus, Socrates, Lao Tzu, and even CS Lewis.

    Sarcasm notwithstanding, I also recognize that God is the one who determines the good and we must submit to God’s view of it even when it doesn’t match our own.

    My main disagreement with you here boils down to the fact that the command “You must love your neighbor as yourself” does not work if you don’t love yourself, and I do NOT mean worship yourself, but have a proper regard for ones self in accord with the Biblical pattern.

    Part of goodness in marriage is marrying someone you see is beautiful. The Good, The True, and The Beautiful–these general imperatives–are always to be served above the self.

    This argument is not clear to me.

    1. Goodness is marrying someone beautiful.

    2. The Good, the True, the Beautiful is to be served above the self.

    3. So I serve something higher than myself by marrying someone I consider beautiful…

    It’s healthy to marry someone you consider beautiful, but do we need a religious justification in order to view it as an act of service?

    It would do the ugly woman no good whatsoever for me to marry her because she is ugly. That is a perversion of goodness.

    Right, I agree.

    Most people have this sort of The Scarlet Crucible hodge-podge that has no relation to how Puritans actually lived and thought. Is that what you mean? Because I have to say that either way you’ve missed the lessons of the Bible.

    I was referring to this statement from you: I reject wholeheartedly the notion that I should serve my preferences or self-improvement for my own benefit.

    One of my parents was the 20th century equivalent to a Puritan, I won’t name the particular religious movement, but will say that when I read about historical puritan child raising patterns it largely matches my childhood experience.

    But to Christ sunshine and rain are acts of God.

    Of course.

    They are not mere “facts” about world which we can use to grow crops. The Puritans, by the way, understood that and incorporated it into their worldview, as have other Christian traditions. There are no mere “tools” in this world. Every rock, every mote of creation, has moral content.

    Having come from that tradition, having been raised that everything is either “good” or “bad” I can tell you that my disagreement with you is fundamental. The heavens declare the glory of God, but rocks can either be used to build a house or murder someone, possibly both. One action is good, the other bad. The rocks were mere tools.

    There are no mere “tools” in this world.

    A piano can be used to play Bach or some vile tune. It isn’t good or bad in itself.

     “Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so thathe may have something to share with anyone in need.” So that. According to modernity we should labor for the empty hole of self-improvement. According to this Bronze Age fable (which I believe) we should do it so that we are good for others. It’s not enough to merely stop being a thief.

    My opinion is that doing all we do for others can become an idol just the way doing everything for self can be an idol.

    I do not see this ultimate goal of doing everything for others as a pattern in the Old Testament. Instead they prayed for God’s blessing, worked hard, and then used what they were given for themselves and their families. Not that they didn’t take care of others, but it’s not the modern idea of charity. Abraham used his blessings to rescue Lot. He had a household and servants who were warriors who numbered 300 men. Was the primary purpose of this armed force to serve others? It was used that way once that we know of.

    What Isabel and Novaseeker and Scott and others have just told you is that virtually all future husbands feel themselves more honored by marrying credentialed whores than by debt-free virgins without tattoos.

    Heartiste, no paragon of virtue, mourned the loss of innocent women even as he caused it. I don’t think men generally prefer credentialed whores. This may be true in some strata of society, but men are dealing with the situation as it stands, not as they wish it stood.

    They may vaguely believe in the coast and sand as some far-off holy place, but they don’t believe the alley they are in is holy, or the dirt, or that the car ride or even time is holy. Yet all are creations of the Almighty. These are all just so many “tools”.

    I intimately understand the Puritan view of holiness coloring the world, and forcefully disagree. This world is controlled by the Evil One according to Scripture. God’s Kingdom is within us. At most we can say we are Holy, as the temple of God, but regarding everything beyond that as falling into the “good” category or the “bad” category without explicit direction from God leads to an odd binary view.

    Right, because “wives obey your husbands” for the Lord’s sake is the cornerstone of every kind of Feminism.

    No, that’s not the cornerstone of feminism. Disregard of the husbands wishes, with God as perceived backup for the woman

    because God commands it whatever men might want and even if it doesn’t make them happy

    is the cornerstone of Christian feminism.

    In the best good everyone’s interests are served.

    Right, but Jesus plainly did not WANT to be crucified since he was sweating drops of blood and asking for this cup to be taken from him, but he did want to obey the Father, and disobeying the Father would have been sin.

    Jesus is our example. He endured the cross, scorning its shame. He did not embrace the humiliation but endured it when God told Him to.

    That’s part of why I view the self abasement of living completely for others with no regard for self as an evil, at least as a man.

  415. Cane Caldo says:

    @7817

    First, since it seems to be your primary hang-up with what I initially wrote, my statement “I reject wholeheartedly the notion that I should serve my preferences or self-improvement for my own benefit.” is a more emphatic statement of this, “I also recognize that God is the one who determines the good and we must submit to God’s view of it even when it doesn’t match our own.” What I want to do always must be submitted under what is good.

    The heavens declare the glory of God, but rocks can either be used to build a house or murder someone, possibly both. One action is good, the other bad. The rocks were mere tools.

    This is totally wrong. “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” That’s what it says. And that’s basically how everyone–ever–thought (whatever their religion) until shortly before the Enlightenment. Now we claim to know better and whether atheist or otherwise claim that creation is neutral; that in fact their is no creation but instead random accidents of matter and energy.

    This is the divide between you and I. (In your favor you have the rest of the Western world and Isabel on your side!) I side with the Ancients and the Medievals because I believe the world is created and it is good. It is one of the talents of Jesus’ parable for which I must account to my master. He gave me good money, did I do good with this money, or not?

    Heartiste, no paragon of virtue, mourned the loss of innocent women even as he caused it. I don’t think men generally prefer credentialed whores. This may be true in some strata of society, but men are dealing with the situation as it stands, not as they wish it stood.

    I have learned that to know what people actually believe it is better to watch what people do rather than listen to what they say. I interact with 35 or so college kids every day; most of whom went to church in their parents’ homes. None of those men want to get married now. None of those women want to get married now. They are all fucking now except the fat ones, and even some of those. They all disregard chastity as irrelevant.

    because God commands it whatever men might want and even if it doesn’t make them happy<

    is the cornerstone of Christian feminism.

    You’ve made the mistake of equating all men with husbands and fathers. It is not Feminism to recognize that a woman who is not daughter or wife or subject of a man is not beholden to obey that man. Second, you have taken my statement completely out of context. The context was the preferences of unmarried men and the decisions of unmarried women.

  416. Cane Caldo says:

    @Elspeth and SirHamster

    Thanks.

  417. Scott says:

    Over the last 10 years or so, Cane Caldo has been one of the five most powerful influences on my thinking of memory. And 7817 has made some direct comments to me that have also been very thought provoking and growth initiating. Therefore, this debate is riveting for me to read. For if I find myself disagreeing with either one, I take a step back and wonder if the problem is me.

    Now, here’s my .02$

    Psychologist Robert Fowler developed some years back a model known as the Stages of Religious Development. It borrows from other developmental models in form (think Freud, Piaget and Skinner) but applies “development” to the (in his opinion) predictable trajectory of ones religious lifespan.

    His sixth stage is basically Mother Theresa. This is the person who, upon looking at the world around him, realizes that the only thing left to do is pour yourself into the reduction of human suffering and injustice, sells everything moves to a third world country to help improve the lives of the people who exist on the absolute worst of the margins.

    The bottom stage is a transactional approach, like a child who only fears God because He is able to kill you if you do bad things. This is the faith your parents give you. You can look up all the stages in between if you like.

    Fowler, like me is a psychologist, and as such burdened with the inescapable knowledge that everything–every single dimension of the human experience is normally distributed. On a side note, its one of the reasons I don’t understand how so many of my colleagues in this profession are “liberals.”

    Returning. EVERYTHING, including religious development and ones connection to ones faith falls on the bell curve somewhere. SO MOST faithful people are NOT Mother Theresa. And most of them are also not stuck in the transaction phase, merely walking around fearing hellfire and damnation for doing bad.

    The vast majority, are in the stages under the curve, where, outside of some bizarre event or divine intervention, they stay. Temporally, I got married–>had kids–>got mortgage debt and other responsibilities–>etc. Therefore, even if I had some road to Damascus moment NOW, the probability that I would drop everything and follow that voice to Zimbabwe to feed the hungry is zero. I cannot abandon the people around me who are dependent. Even if my conscience told me this is what I “should” do.

    I must go back and read it again, but Cane does appear to be offering a false dichotomy of sorts. That self-interest pursuits are necessarily the opposite moral choice of Gods. I chose the wife I did for some reasons that are carnal, and that I can easily articulate, this is true. Other reasons are so burried in my subconscious that I do not have access to them whatsoever. And this is the way life is experienced, I think for most people as we grow and develop. If I was at the same place I am now, 20 year ago when I went through my divorce, might I have become a monastic? Maybe, but it doesn’t matter. I am here now, on this trajectory.

  418. TheTraveler says:

    @CaneCaldo

    Frankly, I find just about everything you pist contradictory and confusing. I don’t think it’s because you’re godly and I’m not. I think you’re confused.

    “Father, if it be Thy will, let this cup pass me by.” You DO know who said that, right? Suffering is a byproduct of this world. It is NOT to be sought after–that is gratuitous self-abuse, an abomination. It is to be met with fortitude and faith, when presented, and AVOIDED when not necessary.

    Christ did not spend all of His time in agony. In fact, there is strong evidence He enjoyed life appropriately. All things in their place.

    But you seem to assert that life is for maximum suffering, as penance, or expiation, or something. And even that probably won’t be good enough to get you into heaven, because [insert shrill Calvinist argument here]. What a grim–and heretical–philosophy.

  419. 7817 says:

    @Cane Caldo 

     What I want to do always must be submitted under what is good.

    I’m glad to be on agreement with you on this.

     “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.”That’s what it says.

    Exactly right. But it says this prior to the Fall. Let’s not say that cancer and viruses and moth and rust corrupting are good things.

    When God made it, of course it was good. But how can you say that a musical instrument that I purchased and play worship music on is good or bad, if the prior owner played odes to Satan on it? Did Jesus die for instruments? No. How does all this work? I don’t pretend to know, but if I can worship God in the use of something, but someone else can blaspheme God with that same something, is the thing in itself an absolute good, in this post fall world?

    I would agree generally with being on the side of medievals and ancients rather than moderns, no argument there.

    I have learned that to know what people actually believe it is better to watch what people do rather than listen to what they say.

    No argument here.

    You’ve made the mistake of equating all men with husbands and fathers.

    I don’t think so. The issue was 1. do men prefer debt free virgins without tattoos, and 2. What is righteous behavior for an unmarried woman.

    Your argument was that men in general don’t prefer debt free virgins without tattoos, but that women should fear God rather than men and be debt free virgins without tattoos anyway.

    My argument is that men in general do prefer debt free virgins without tattoos for the purpose of marriage and that even if it is only the Christian men who prefer this, that Christian women should honor God AND the preferences of their potential future spouses by remaining virgins, by remaining debt free, and by remaining unblemished by tattoos.

    @Scott

    Thanks for the kind words.

    I must go back and read it again, but Cane does appear to be offering a false dichotomy of sorts.

    I am no longer convinced of that, or that we disagree as much as I thought. It was probably unclear communication by both of us, but the discussion is worth pursuing because most guys in this part of the internet aren’t here because they are overconfident lovers of themselves.

    For what it’s worth I think disordered self love was one of the main reasons I ended up here, and from what I’ve read that’s common.

    Thomas Aquinas has an article on this that I looked up during this discussion. “FOURTH ARTICLE [I-II, Q. 77, Art. 4] Whether Self-love Is the Source of Every Sin?”

    A quote: Therefore it is evident that inordinate love of self is the cause of every sin. Reply Obj. 1: Well ordered self-love, whereby man desires a fitting good for himself, is right and natural; but it is inordinate self-love, leading to contempt of God, that Augustine (De Civ. Dei xiv, 28) reckons to be the cause of sin.

    false dichotomy… self-interest pursuits are necessarily the opposite moral choice of Gods.

    Like you, I don’t believe this either. But 10 years ago I would have had a lot of trouble with this question.

    @TheTraveler 

    In Cane’ s defense, I’m not convinced he means it the way it’s coming across to us.

  420. Mountain Man says:

    I too grew up in a religious environment similar to 7817. The almost constant message was that we need to live our lives for God and others, without taking into account our own needs, desires, preferences, etc. I have also come to reject that perspective, partly because of the hypocritical and inconsistent way it was implemented.

    An analogy might help explain. Imagine a white preacher. It’s 1830, and he goes to South Carolina, finds a black church filled with slaves, and starts preaching to them that they need to be selfless and always work for the good of others. Regardless of the theological legitimacy of that message, to preach it in THAT situation, while having no such expectation of the white slave owners, is a travesty.

    Similarly, telling men in the current day and age that the only reason for their existence is to be of service to others, while having no such expectation of women, is also a travesty. It’s using the language of religion to prop up and maintain a corrupt social order. It’s using the bible to control and manipulate people for your own benefit, or the benefit of the powers that be.

    Many years ago I had a girlfriend try to push this crap on me using a marriage book by Larry Krabb (don’t remember the title). The gist of the book was that for a marriage to be successful, the spouses should empty themselves of any needs, desires, or preferences, and should devote themselves only to the building up of the other spouse. Regardless of the value of that message within marriage, it certainly was not applicable to the process of choosing a spouse. Yet this woman thought I should behave towards her like that, while having no such expectations of her own behavior towards me.

    I was young and stupid, and at the time didn’t have the words to articulate what was wrong with that situation, but I did have a strong sense that something was “off”. I thank God frequently that I never married her, as I’m quite sure my life would have been hell on earth.

  421. 7817 says:

    Poor formatting on my part, the false dichotomy quote was not from Aquinas.

  422. Isabel says:

    Bill,
    t’s unclear what lesson you think we should take from the situation with your wife. On one hand it seems like a problem that can occur when women marry men they aren’t attracted to because they fear missing out on marriage. On the other hand you (or others) think we should be encouraging more women (just younger women) to marry men they aren’t attracted to and these women SHOULD fear missing out on marriage. Seems like a disconnect.

    Also it was said above that 22 yer-old girls (would) or should marry 28 year old men essentially because these men will appear impressive to these women and they are better suited to support a family. Its well expected for 28 year olds to be more established than 22 year olds so this isn’t likely to impress a 22 year old. Shes likely evaluating him in comparison to other 28 year olds or even the crop of 22-year old men she knows now and where they will likely be at 28. She’s not comparing him to herself at 22.

  423. Cane Caldo says:

    It’s ironic, because my words are read and the responses to them are so similar in spirit to the world’s response to calls for women’s modesty, homemaking, and child-rearing. “Oh, you just think life for women should be all about suffering and serving her husband with no thought for herself! You want them baking muffins in denim skirts when it’s a 100 degrees outside, don’t-cha? You sound like a Puritan, and we all know they were hateful and miserable! Oh yeah: And my parents were shit!”

    In fact it’s doubly ironic. It’s as if Dalrock hasn’t spent seven years or so displaying the deep permissiveness (especially towards women) of one Calvinist after another.

    Mountain Man made some statements that hopefully will demonstrate the difference in what I mean from what is heard. I have stricken the parts which contain meaning I would not offer.

    The almost constant message was that we need to live our lives for God and others, without taking into account our own needs, desires, preferences, etc.

    Similarly, telling men in the current day and age that the only reason for their existence is to be of service to others, while having no such expectation of women, is also a travesty.

    The gist of the book was that for a marriage to be successful, the spouses should empty themselves of any needs, desires, or preferences, and should devote themselves only to the building up of the other spouse.

    @Scott

    I must go back and read it again, but Cane does appear to be offering a false dichotomy of sorts. That self-interest pursuits are necessarily the opposite moral choice of Gods.

    No. I’m saying that:
    1) Priority in our decision-making must go to Good/God (Not sure which you meant there, but either will fit.)
    2) It doesn’t. It might sometimes for you, me, 7817, etc., but generally it is not. Specifically, I’m saying this in the context of the conversation about who men and women want to marry, how they want to go about it, at what age, etc. Not what we think they want, not what they say they want, but what they actually do.

    Across denominations Christian parents and children are not preparing or choosing for young marriage. Instead they are doing their damnedest to send their young woman away to college explicitly to raise her credentials while also fully aware that this means a lengthy path of fornication. The parents want it. The daughters want it. The men they meet and screw want it. It is more than acceptable to virtually all parties involved. It doesn’t concern them. It concerns Lori Alexander, and it sounds delightful to the men who have been put through the wringer by worldly women, but it’s not even a speedbump to anyone else.

    Your priest/pastor wants your daughter in college so she can accomplish all that God has in store for her. Remember, mistakes make us who we are.

  424. BillyS says:

    Isabel,

    My wife was almost your age and that did not make her a better candidate for marriage. She was thin, which stands out today, but her looks would not pull her what she thought she deserved.

    My point with you is that judging solely by what women want is a foolish foundation for a marriage. We need to reinforce the message that they need to be faithful and help build their families, not be a passive participant that lets others do it for them.

    My wife was not degreed nor did she have any motivation that way, but she had many of the same flaws seen by others in positions similar to yours. I plowed my way in, but she would have pushed me away if I had not been so bull-headed.

    Things are far more messed up than you acknowledge and you need to realize and admit how unrealistic most women are today. The problem can only be solved at that point. I do not expect you to do that however, since it would go against your cherished beliefs (and possible rebellion against your parents) and would require a massive mindshift for you.

    Too bad everyone in your life will ultimately suffer for that, but not much anyone can do since it is in your hands at this point. You would be swimming upstream to oppose modern things though, so the path is not easy.

  425. Novaseeker says:

    Specifically, I’m saying this in the context of the conversation about who men and women want to marry, how they want to go about it, at what age, etc. Not what we think they want, not what they say they want, but what they actually do.

    Indeed.

    I would say that undoubtedly there are *some* young people, and *some* of their parents, who do *not* follow the same script, but they’re a very small minority of people, even in the context of strict, conservative Christian communities. It’s that outlierish. And the fact that it is outlierish is the reason that people who are in that small, outlier segment have a very hard time finding mates — there simply are not many of them around to be found who are in the outlier group that is not following the general script. The script is followed by pretty much everyone else, and it is indicative of what they prioritize, period.

  426. Scott says:

    1) Priority in our decision-making must go to Good/God (Not sure which you meant there, but either will fit.)
    2) It doesn’t. It might sometimes for you, me, 7817, etc., but generally it is not. Specifically, I’m saying this in the context of the conversation about who men and women want to marry, how they want to go about it, at what age, etc. Not what we think they want, not what they say they want, but what they actually do.

    Yes, I think this is an important thing you spelled out explicitly here. I would do it kind of like this:

    People make decisions to do, acquire, accomplish something using a number of different rubrics, but they almost never (even Christians) start with “what does God require?”

    Instead, its something like, 1. what do I want? 2. Do I have the means/can I get it with with my current resources? 3. Set out to acquire the thing if they can.

    Later, they may go back through and take stock of the decisions they make and try to force them into a worldview that includes “God opened a door” and other nonsense. But the main reason they don’t check those goals and desires against morality is because every assumes they are a good person and their plans cannot be against God. After, all, I am not trying to kill someone.

    My thoughts are, we are simply not built to seek first the Kingdom of God, no matter how many times we read that verse and sing the song to ourselves. God accomplishes his overarching plan for the universe despite this, which puts the individual (in his mind anyway) in a position where is off the hook for how his personal choices affect the end of the game.

    7817 and Cane

    Also, probably won’t get into it here, but “self-love” appears to me as a presupposition in “love your neighbor as your self” In other words, it should read “Love you neighbor IN THE WAY THAT YOU ALREADY love yourself.” Or, if everyone loved their neighbor in that way, the world would be a much better place. No need to learn to love yourself, as you are already doing that. As for it being disordered or not, I am glad that some of the saints tackled it later, because its just not flushed out well in the original texts.

    Finally, I also don’t believe that people are motivated to act by just one thing. This is a common thing to hear someone say “ahhh now we see the REAL reason he did such and such.” There may be a primary reason we do something, but there can be more than one. This complicates even further the decision matrix above.

    Most people never receive training or even discussion on these topics while growing up. I never once saw my parents or any adult give more than a cursory feign toward “Gods will” when making very big decisions. People talked about it a lot, but not so much on the application. These were good people, who loved God. The temporal is so distracting though. Its like you are staring at a jumbotron TV 1 foot from your nose with the volume turned all the way up screaming at you “she has a really hot body and her face is really cute, and her skin and breath on you feels like heaven. Lets go ahead and do this, and work out the details of the relationship later.” While a tiny transistor radio is 40 feet behind you turned down to 1 saying “you know, this is no basis for a relationship, or whatever it is you are trying to accomplish in the service of Christ.”

  427. Novaseeker says:

    Later, they may go back through and take stock of the decisions they make and try to force them into a worldview that includes “God opened a door” and other nonsense. But the main reason they don’t check those goals and desires against morality is because every assumes they are a good person and their plans cannot be against God. After, all, I am not trying to kill someone.

    This is the natural course of *all* religions, though. They start off as fairly all-encompassing commitments for a small group of people who are very committed, but as they grow and expand to become “mass religions”, they have to become something else for *most* of the “mass of adherents”, because almost all of those people are 99% of the time tied up in real world issues and will prioritize those. Christianity is no exception here — the very early church we see described in the NT letters and acts was a rather radical thing that expected a very serious setting apart and a broadly encompassing commitment and prioritization. As things grew into more of a mass movement, of course this could not be maintained, so other ways of “doing Christianity” emerged that were “doable” for the vast majority of adherents who could not — or would not — make that kind of broadly encompassing commitment for various reasons.

    The best traditions have tried to create/inculcate/provide a kind of spiritual praxis for everyday life that serves to at least remind people at various times during the day about their faith commitment and orient their life choices around it. These still exist in some traditions, but have mostly passed from use even in those contexts. And in other contexts, this kind of approach has not actually been very helpful because what it has done is effectively “baptize” things that are not particularly Christian, like the Dutch Calvinist treatment of the amassment of wealth, or the more recent American Christian “baptism” of the middle class lifestyle prior to 1975 — situations where lifestyles and approaches to living that were clearly not primarily motivated by Christianity or one’s faith commitment nevertheless becoming “baptized” as being at least “a way to be a good Christian”, which then can easily morph into “well I’m a good middle class person, that makes me a good Christian, doesn’t it?”.

    In all of these cases, the quest is to discern “what is the good enough Christian?”. Basically it can become something like this: “If I am what people consider to be a “basically good person” (meaning, typically, that you don’t murder, steal, lie (at least big lies), cheat on your spouse, physically abuse your wife and children) and I go to Church and I pray and read the Bible and teach my kids about Jesus and so on … isn’t that “good enough?? I mean you people are nuts!! You’re all a bunch of fundamentalists!”.

    This is understandable, again, because for most people who are engaged in the secular world (which is almost everyone even in the traditional Churches), a more all-encompassing faith commitment, where one’s entire life is designed around the faith from soup to nuts, is neither feasible nor desirable. Questions can be raised about whether that’s what Christianity demands, but 2000 years later those questions are largely academic because Christianity is a mass religion at this point, and not a religion only for a small group of very committed people. And because of that, there will always be this ambiguity — what is good enough — and disagreements about the answer to that. That’s not a problem that is unique to Christianity as a religion, it is present in all of the other religions as well.

  428. TheTraveler says:

    The big debate here seems to be about the peculiar form of Calvinist-flavored Gnosticism prevalent currently in Western Christendom. This ideology teaches that the world is a horrible, unredeemable place unfit for a true Christian (Gnosticism). Here comes the ultra-Calvinism: the only (micro-thin) chance even Christians have at salvation must be bought by a lifetime of misery. In the horrifying event that joy and contentment make their unexpected, “ugly” appearance, self-brutalization must be inflicted, calling itself “sacrifice” and “penance.”

    We live in terrible times. Hideous times, in fact. Most of us have seen almost exclusively ugliness in the conduct of the world’s affairs, including in our respective churches. We watch the good guys lose, mainly through venality and betrayal; we watch good men (and women) run through the wood-chipper of what passes for public “discourse,” and we see evil seemingly victorious: immanent and omnipotent, its adherents enjoy seemingly boundless energy, resources, and power. Indeed: “Eli, Eli, lama sabachtiani.”

    The arguments here, it seems to me, are between people striving to live good lives and make sense of it all, the Satanic chaos that has taken over our world.

    Just now, it is difficult to believe there was ever a time that happiness, let alone joy, were even possible for more than a brief period. The search is for reasons, and so grim philosophies of human worthlessness, doom, and damnation abound.

    In “Good Will Hunting,” [spoiler alert!] the psychologist tells the abused, confused young man of his childhood abuse, “It’s not your fault.”
    Sherlock Holmes said something along the lines of, once the impossible is removed, the reality is what remains, no matter how implausible. A number of us have said, and I believe it still, the Satanic darkness and ugliness in the world is not our fault. It just IS. We are unfortunate enough to be living in it.

    My suggestion: do what you can to fight the good fight. If so called (“you’ll know it when you see it,” goes the old saying–God can be quite obnoxiously insistent to get our attention), marry a woman even if she does not meet our divinely-inspired ideal, because God can make anything from clay. When worn out from constant defeat, support those still carrying on the battle. Trusting in God has never been harder–and as in the Book of Job (yes, there it is again), if we survive the course, God will pay up big-time.

  429. TheTraveler says:

    @MountainMan

    A very good analysis.

    We do not exist to be exclusively sacrificial lambs for others. If everyone was, it wouldn’t be a better world. It would be a world full of joyless pseudo-Christian robots living in misery to “pay for” the happiness they were trying to offer everyone else–but nobody was buying.

  430. c matt says:

    So, “Dad Bod” = hilarious joke of nature on men. But don’t EVER tell a woman she looks anything less than spectacular, because she and all of society (especially her social media frenemies) will rain down fire on you–and you’ll “deserve” it! /sarc/”

    Kelly, I am sure someone upstream already responded, but i think the comment was not that women should be made fun of, but that there is a double standard. Dad bod jokes do not incur the wrath of Twitter mobs, whereas a comparable “mom bod” joke would get you banished to the wilderness if not strung up on the nearest tree (so long as no environmental impact ensues).

  431. c matt says:

    “All women are beautiful no matter how they look on the outside!!”

    My favorite was always “Beauty is only skin deep . . . but ugly is clear to the bone.”

    Of course, beauty is not skin deep – it depends upon underlying bone and tissue structure.

  432. Lost Patrol says:

    A lot of comments in this thread could be compiled into a most outstanding treatise on – I don’t know what to call it – but it is great.

    My first thought was a treatise on Man’s Fate, but that’s just because the title has been stuck in my head for decades following an assignment to read the most boring book I’ve ever been afflicted with (sorry Andre Malraux, but really dude).

    This is why we come here.

  433. Eavan says:

    Very off-topic: Can any here help me with the name of a relatively traditional Roman Catholic priest in the Arlington, Texas area?

  434. naturallyaspirated says:

    @Scott

    “The temporal is so distracting though. Its like you are staring at a jumbotron TV 1 foot from your nose with the volume turned all the way up screaming at you “she has a really hot body and her face is really cute, and her skin and breath on you feels like heaven. Lets go ahead and do this, and work out the details of the relationship later.” While a tiny transistor radio is 40 feet behind you turned down to 1 saying “you know, this is no basis for a relationship, or whatever it is you are trying to accomplish in the service of Christ.”

    Life in the fallen world. Something about narrow and wide gates was the previous analogy used.

  435. Marquess of Watchtower says:

    and because such an arrangement favors the 28 year old

    Ruhhh roh! It’s that green-eyed monster again.

    Every single time.

    Like some jerk left a paper bag with a big, stinking dworkin in it on your porch, lit it, rang the doorbell and ran. Aww, fuck! Not again… I just finished hosing off all the steinem. Gross!

    Envy is profoundly unsexy, girls. The “equity” you feel is owed to you is a sucking cavity where your heart should be.

    Go listen to and help your neighbor for a while.

    As it stands, you’re not favored to win anything.

    High-achieving invert-pseudogirls of tomorrow! *Fist Pump* Soc Justicing the world and their 1.5 Amazings!

    I feel badly– the poor girls get no moral formation at all from their sadomasochist cuck “partner two, male-identifing” dads. (Some offense intended, cuckdads.) Then it’s all downhill from there.

    From what I see, expect accelerating ferality in the children of what’s left of the MC and petit UC. Rapid reversion.

    By the way, just a reminder to my fellow house wiggers, those who’ve partially escaped the plantation and are a bit out-of-the-loop: prestigious universities in the US are firmly in “diversity hiring” mode when selecting new quarry these days. Often, the inmates are from far more humble origins, intellectual or pecuniary, than they were even ten years ago. Enthralling an “elite” servant-class seems to have taken a back burner to student loan extraction or proselytizing satanism whatever it is they think they’re doing now. I don’t think they even know.

  436. BillyS says:

    [Psa 37:4 NKJV] 4 Delight yourself also in the LORD, And He shall give you the desires of your heart.

    This is clearly Scripture, but is often overlooked by many having the discussion going on now between Cane and 7817/Scott/etc.

    This can mean one of two things:

    – God puts desires in our hearts when we delight in Him.
    or
    – God fulfills the desires already in our heart when we delight in Him.

    I don’t see a major difference between the two. Seeking our desires is almost always fine if our focus and intent are already on Him. We should not seek our own desires apart from Him, but He made us with a brain and other parts that has aspects of Him even after The Fall. He does not want vain robots, but living beings that enjoy life to its fullest.

    I remain one of those much maligned “name it and claim it” believers since I still believe we should seek to have the blessings clearly written in the Scriptures in our lives. It may not always work out as we think (my life is an unfortunately perfect example of this), but that does not change the fact that God still aims at most doing well in this very life even as they delight in Him and His Ways.

    The theology of this is deeper than can be covered in a few paragraphs, but I find that both sides of this discussion are talking about parts of life and fail to cover the entire picture. Remember the idea of blind men describing an elephant? Each sees a part and is stuck on that, not seeing the big picture.

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

    This is another core fact that must be kept in mind when considering this area. The death and destruction happen and must be endured and overcome at times, whether the result in this life is good or not (per Hebrews), but it is not what we should aim for and is not the core intent. The devil and sin are what are causing the problems, not God.

    That is where I would likely disagree with Cane. God did not cause all the pain, however much anyone claims so. He takes responsibility for it, but Jesus’ clear words noted here show who caused it and what the intent is for the Christian. The eternal life is not all pushed to after this life either; since the stealing, killing and destruction is not there but here.

    Ultimately: Seek God’s Will and Ways and believe that He will bless you as you do, even if it all doesn’t turn out as you expect.

  437. BillyS says:

    force them into a worldview that includes “God opened a door” and other nonsense

    Who says that is nonsense? Too bad your “god” is so impotent He won’t do anything for you personally. Must such to live that way.

    I would rather have the True God that does things His Ways rather than one that is passive, just like the modern (passive) Evolutionary system of worship.

  438. Anonymous Reader says:

    BillyS, about 3 years ago I was assisting with an elderly relative’s care. I noted that the fuel gauge on her car was nearly empty. She told me not to worry about that, because the last time she went shopping the gauge was higher when she came out of the store than when she went in.

    Her faith-based conclusion: “God put gasoline in my car while I was in the grocery”.
    She was not joking. She was completely serious.

    I made sure the car was fully fueled anyway. Was that wrong?

  439. Scott says:

    God may or may not open doors for people.

    People use the “God opens doors” meme to retroactively demonstrate that their plans were right all along.

    AR

    God opened a door for her! She did not need to plan her gas station visits because God.

  440. 7817 says:

    I can’t speak for Mountain Man but my parents were good people, Puritan or not. They did everything they could for me, and the fact that I’m emphatically opposed to Puritanism is not rebellion against them. In fact, their example was good.

    The fascinating thing about the Christian red pill sites, at least it used to be this way, was that it held an interplay between all these different denominations, and since pretty much everyone was anonymous, you could learn from one another just based on ideas without people’s appearance or anything else getting in the way. There was even respect for a certain amount of psychology, in learning how to get your mind right and function effectively as a Christian in this intersexual wasteland.

    I remember reading the debate on whether Game is moral or not, and how it eventually clarified things for me far beyond Game itself. That debate helped me move beyond being afraid of doing anything because it might be sin. It helped with developing the understanding that God is interested in more than just having us sit around avoiding sin.

    And even if people disagreed, the debate was educational. I remember reading aquinasdad comments stating that game for the Christian was nothing more than sophreneo. He didn’t end up winning that debate, but what he said was valuable, especially if you went digging into it a little bit. Learning to be the owner of yourself has a lot of value, you could work on it your whole life. It’s not game, but it’s good.

    The old posts have lots of value. Links to therawness and thelastpsychiatrist even had value, though they were not Christian sites at all. But if you read them as a Christian, you could get value from them, as long as you remembered that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

    Hebrews 5:14 ESV
    But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

    I don’t suggest non Christian things are solid food, but there’s a lot of value in going through and distinguishing what is good and what is evil, instead of just throwing it all out because it wasn’t written by a Christian.

    have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.

    Constant practice. It’s a developable skill. There’s not an easy shortcut to discernment, right?

  441. SirHamster says:

    @TheTraveler
    Apart from whether you understood Cane’s post, your counter position is definitely off.

    “Father, if it be Thy will, let this cup pass me by.” You DO know who said that, right? Suffering is a byproduct of this world. It is NOT to be sought after–that is gratuitous self-abuse, an abomination. It is to be met with fortitude and faith, when presented, and AVOIDED when not necessary.

    Jesus did ask for the cup to be taken away. He then went and submitted himself to arrest, and did nothing to avoid the suffering he did not want to suffer. His entire reason for condescending to Earth was about walking towards his death on the cross. In his trial, in his conversation with Pilate, Jesus could easily have come up with answers or made choices to avoid Golgotha. But the cross was his Passion.

    When the Christian is instructed to take up his CROSS and follow Jesus, it’s not about avoiding suffering. Note also that passion literally means suffering.

    An interesting part of Christian history is that some martyrs forced their execution. They could have avoided any suffering, because the Roman officials were bureaucrats who only wanted to keep order, and so offered and advised easy compromise solutions. But the martyrs deliberately removed the middle ground and forced the government to kill them. In a sense, their suffering was unnecessary – but their suffering was good, because it highlighted the truth and call people to Christ.

    And there is something to all of this, that gives us some insight into the ancient serpent’s promise to Eve that gaining knowledge of good and evil allows us to be like God. Jesus, who is God, voluntarily suffers to defeat the power of evil and bring good to those perishing. What does that tell us about the actions of the godly man who aspires to be like God?

  442. BillyS says:

    AR,

    I made sure the car was fully fueled anyway. Was that wrong?

    Not at all. Maybe you were the one God used. He could of course put gas their somehow, He is God after all, but that is not the way He normally works and is presumptuous of us to assume that.

    I am sure you have heard the story about the man in the flood, where he ignores several rescuers and then wonders why he died. That is how far too many who believe God acts carry out their lives in this world.

    I trust for God to move, but I also do what I am capable of, to a point at least.

  443. BillyS says:

    Scott,

    “God moving” should never be used as a justification. I know he moved in my marriage, but it ended anyway. I am not certain at this point if I should have examined the signs better or if I was following His route. I suspect the latter however, since I was not the only one to possibly benefit from the marriage.

    I believe for Him to open doors, but I don’t believe I rarely say that as a reason for something. Definitely not to justify things going the way I wanted.

    ====

    Everyone should keep in mind that God’s will was clear, but unpleasant, when Jesus said “if it be Thy will.” That is used far too often to justify not thinking today. Accepting Him as your savior and seeking to walk free from sin does not need that cop out, only those things where we are completely uncertain and the Scriptures are silent. Or we can say it when we are reluctant, but want to commit to the action (as Jesus did) to firm our resolve.

    It is not a generic life verse to give up ever seeking to directly know His will.

  444. BillyS says:

    SirHamster,

    Eve already was like God, which is what makes the temptation even dumber to fall for. Though how many women today seek better when they already have the best they can or will get?

  445. Anonymous Reader says:

    BillyS
    Maybe you were the one God used.

    I knew you’d write that. Recall the original claim: “God put gas in my car while I was shopping”.
    Not “God takes care of me”, but that while she was in a store for a short period of time such as 15 minutes, a hydrocarbon was added to a metal tank within a vehicle. Cold fusion, perhaps?

    The alternative explanation: she parked on a slight slope, the fuel gauge has a damped time lag so that it doesn’t constantly change with every bump of the road, therefore over the course of a few minutes the reading shifted by a slight amount…that is discarded. Because magical thinking had more appeal than simple fluids and electrical circuit theory. Even though the latter is repeatable and testable, while the former is not. This is a textbook case of the anthropological definition of magical thinking, by the way, right along the lines of the Pacific Islander “cargo cults”.

    Follow that farther down the road and you wind up in a curious form of fatalism that’s closer to some kinds of Islam than anything in Christianity. In my personal experience, the next stop is crazy-old-lady land where any decision, no matter how strange or even foolishly dangerous, is fully justified by “God’s Will”. This can make for some unpleasant situations. Your mileage probably varies.

  446. Anonymous Reader says:

    BIllyS
    I trust for God to move, but I also do what I am capable of, to a point at least.

    As I understand it that is a rather traditional view. However it puts some responsibility on you. That’s not very popular anymore, the idea of personal responsibility. It’s handier to just wave everything onto “God’s Will”, which is quite a lot like some forms of Islamic “Inshallah” fatalism.

  447. Scott says:

    Every one of these Christian wives frivolously divorcing their husbands (that the manosphere lays heavy consternation upon) believes God is opening doors for them and helping them remove “toxic” people from their lives.

    They NEVER stop talking about it posting memes about it on Facebook.

  448. BillyS says:

    AR,

    That was one point that was firmly under what is often maligned as the prosperity message – you get results related to what you do. It doesn’t always happen that way of course, but that is the normal way things work when everything is working properly.

    On the gas: God certainly is capable of making gas in a car’s gas tank, since He is God. I suspect that is very rare, even if He does do so at times. Consider that Phillip the Evangelist was translated to the Ethiopian Eunich and then away, as is written. (I know he was translated for one of those. I can’t remember if he went normally the other way.) God can and does work outside physical laws when He desires, but we do not have much evidence of him doing that so relying on it is presumptuous as I noted before.

  449. BillyS says:

    Note as well that God literally made meal and oil for the widow Elijah stayed with and when the other widow poured out her supply into other containers to sell (I think that was Elisha).

    Both were definitely comparable to creating gas in a gas tank, but were not the norm.

  450. Thursday says:

    Isabel’s BF may indeed enjoy dating a 29 year-old not-virgin. But he hasn’t married her yet, so his actual preference for commitment could still be that 22 year-old.

  451. Paul says:

    Just to be explicit about the core issue that seems to get not named; sexual sin is one of the worst sins one can do. The fact that churches do not condemn it properly, nor prepare young Christians to live chaste (not necessarily celibate) lives is where Christians should worry about. Even if we have a model (“Red Pill”) were we can explain why people rebel against God in many ways (“feminism”, “divorce-rape”, “cock-carousel”), it does not address the solution: obedience to God’s commands by the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. It requires both to know and acknowledge what is sin, and to struggle against it.

    “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who submit to or perform homo-sexual acts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor verbal abusers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”

    “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore glorify God with your body.” 1 Cor 6

    And I understand that many of us have given up on many churches, but even the prophets of old had to warn stubborn and rebellious people who were “religious” but didn’t want to obey God. At least make sure you follow God’s calling for your own life and be involved with the people around you.

  452. TheTraveler says:

    @SirHamster

    It seems that so-called Christians are obsessed with seeking suffering. Like many such, you reference Scripture and give a theology lesson. This is a convenient dodge for inconvenient truths. Suffering is part of life, but only kooks, zealots, and the mentally ill seek it out–that includes saints seemingly obsessed with self-immolation. The Church teaches tjat self inflicted suffering is an abomination defiling the Temple of the Holy Spirit, i.e. the human body. Unless you’re seeking sainthood, apparently, in which casrme it’s a canonizable virtue. (Huh? Srsly? LOL, rt — as the cool kids would say). I suspect these saints possessed all along, or developed, diagnosable masochistic tendencies. Pain is not something normal, sane people seek out. Christ didn’t–in fact, His grief (pain and emotional suffering) at the death of a good friend led Him to resurrect Lazarus.

    @Paul
    Why are you so obsessed with SIN, SEX, and DAMNATION? What a grim, joyless philosophy yours is. Your deity seems to be more like Zeus, throwing lightning bolts–with you and your allies pointing out to the God of Light and love (because He apparently needs human guidance) who should be targeted.

  453. Hmm says:

    @Traveler:

    I am pretty sure most Christians don’t “seek” suffering. But any Christian worth his salt knows that suffering is part of the life God has made us for. In such suffering we imitate our Savior.

    And so, as Jesus did, we pray to avoid suffering, but once it comes to us we embrace it as another tool in God’s toolbox to shape us into the image of Jesus.

    We may also seek to do good things for God that bring suffering in their wake. Missionaries go into dangerous lands, not to seek suffering, but because the goal of souls won to God is worth the suffering. Especially since we know that no suffering for Jesus’ sake lasts beyond this lifetime. And our few years here are a drop in the bucket compared to eternity with God.

    But to those outside, it may indeed look like we are seeking to suffer, rather than just accepting the unavoidable pain of being human in a fallen world.

  454. TheTraveler says:

    @Hmmm

    I don’t disagree with anything you say.

    Following a difficult path as a true calling may very well lead to difficulties and suffering. But in that case, suffering is a by-product of “doing the right thing.”

    But it seems as though many Christians seek out, even self-induce, gratuitous pain and suffering for its own sake, as “penance” or something. Think hair shirts and self-flogging, or living in a state of perpetual self-denial (to avoid enjoying life, to expiate for sin), or in some other way actively seeking misery or gloom. That’s what I object to.

  455. Frank K says:

    Why are you so obsessed with SIN, SEX, and DAMNATION?

    I won’t speak for @Paul, but what I observe is a world that not only tolerates sin, especially sexual sin, but which even celebrates it as something good. I can’t think of many affronts to God bigger than to proclaim that sin is good. And to add insult to injury, many “churches” are guilty of this as well.

  456. Novaseeker says:

    I won’t speak for @Paul, but what I observe is a world that not only tolerates sin, especially sexual sin, but which even celebrates it as something good. I can’t think of many affronts to God bigger than to proclaim that sin is good. And to add insult to injury, many “churches” are guilty of this as well.

    Aw, c’mon. Don’t be so “grim and joyless”. Live a little! Do what feels right, as Spock Sr. tells Spock Jr.

  457. 7817 says:

    You can fall into a ditch on either side of the road. A Law for everything, or Liberty to the point where we are our own god. Both are ditches.

  458. Anonymous Reader says:

    BillyS
    On the gas: God certainly is capable of making gas in a car’s gas tank, since He is God.

    That’s not the point I made. My example was an elderly person making an extraordinary claim with zero evidence other than she believed it to be true. “I believe this therefore it is so” is quite common, especially among women. It is a trait that can lead women to bad situations, such as being taken advantage of by conmen.

    It is called magical thinking for a reason. It is not a serious theology. It is an example of the kind of foolishness that is common, especially among women. It is on the same level as astrology.

    Do you believe in astrology? Just asking.

  459. SirHamster says:

    @TheTraveler

    It seems that so-called Christians are obsessed with seeking suffering. Like many such, you reference Scripture and give a theology lesson. This is a convenient dodge for inconvenient truths.

    You don’t sound like you identify as a Christian. What are you?

    Pain is not something normal, sane people seek out. Christ didn’t–in fact, His grief (pain and emotional suffering) at the death of a good friend led Him to resurrect Lazarus.

    By any reasonable metric you use, Christ “sought out suffering”. Normal, sane people don’t end up crucified on a cross.

    But where your analysis fails is that suffering can be meaningful, and thus desirable.

    Do you lift weights?

  460. TheTraveler says:

    @SirHamster, FrankK

    On one side, we have The permissive Marxist “Buddy Christ” modernists, who are discussed ad nauseam here.

    You are the other side of that coin, obsessed with hellfire and damnation. Like the your polar opposites you portray the Almighty as a harsh, brutal judge for all who disagree with “Him” (meaning, they disagree with YOU).

    @SirHamster, you question my manhood (remarks about weightlifting). You passive-aggressively imply I can’t POSSIBLY be a Christian. Instead of addressing my arguments, you give what amounts to a personal testimony of faith.

    Christ lived the life ordained for Him, which RESULTED in suffering, but that was a by-product, not the goal. “If it be Thy will, let this cup pass me by,” is submission to the Divine Will, the farthest thing from seeking misery. Whole-hearted acquiescence to an unavoidable bad situation does not equal seeking out that situation.

    Christianity is supposed to be about spreading joy and grace, leading a life defined by certain rules. Going overboard on rules, and penance for breaking them, like the Pharisees, makes onesself God, violating a Commandment often forgotten. Demons despise rules to limit personal desires, an even more so, the joy and contentment that come with living the resulting life of restraint. So they undermine, despoil, destroy, creating often-terrible suffering–and for some reason, God allows it, just as He allowed His only-begotten Son to be tortured to death. Or sometimes, circumstances in an imperfect world cause suffering without any supernatural agency.

    Seeking to follow the Divine Will inherently leads to as much suffering as anyone can stand. One would think that upping the ante must surely be displeasing to the Deity who wants us to be joyful–impossible for those constantly seeking “penance opportunities” and equating misery with holiness.

  461. Cane Caldo says:

    @TheTraveler

    Think hair shirts and self-flogging, or living in a state of perpetual self-denial

    1. Have you ever known anyone who does those out of any sense of Christian piety, misguided or otherwise? If not, then you’re referencing phantasms. I’ve known several cutters. None were Christian.

    2. Earlier you attributed “grim and joyless” Christianity to “shrill Calvinists”, but now you link it to pre-Calvinist Christian practices. Those activities aren’t Biblical prescriptions, I happily grant you that, but let the record reflect that Christians have since long before Calvin struggled to understand what it is to be compassionate; that is to choose to suffer with.

    SirHamster, you question my manhood (remarks about weightlifting).

    I interpreted SirHamster to be in reference to the fact that you have to choose to suffer under the bar to get stronger, and that those who do this do it because they recognize strength is good.

  462. TheTraveler says:

    @CaneCaldo

    The talk about hairshirts and self flogging was symbolic and metaphorical, although John Paul II (phantasm, indeed, lol) reportedly committed this sin, which was later used as evidence of his saintly holiness deserving of canonization. If that sounds incoherent, it is. But then, I think everyone here (including Catholics) will agree that there is currently much that is broken in the Vatican.

    Never thought I’d have strutting uber-Christians throw at me a version of a meathead weightroom saying: “Do you even lift, bro?”

  463. BillyS says:

    AR,

    Do you believe in astrology? Just asking.

    Of course not. Everyone born in the same window would be clones if it was at all true.

    Why you so compelled to argue with me? You made a statement that was not as tightly focused or as clear as you are now saying. I provided evidence that God does move outside physical laws when He wants to, noting it was rare. You continue to dispute instead of just letting it go or even agreeing where we overlap.

    I said what I do because so many see Him as an external force that never directly interacts in the human world, except when He is sending a hurricane somewhere to drown people or such. (It is not just insurance companies that believe in “Acts of God”.)

    I can argue with the best of them, but what is up with you? I must believe in astrology if I believe God gave Elijah and the widow and son he stayed with food out of thin air for quite a while? I believe that God still can and does move that way at times?

    Did you not read where I said it was presumptuous to effectively demand that from God?

  464. BillyS says:

    SirHamster,

    By any reasonable metric you use, Christ “sought out suffering”. Normal, sane people don’t end up crucified on a cross.

    Get back to me when you are called to save all mankind. Even so, tell me one place where it says Jesus sought suffering. He sought the Father’s Will, not the suffering. We should be the same way.

    A false focus on “we must suffer” is just as bad as one that claims we should never suffer. Both are perversions of what is written. I hear more of the former taught than the latter however much people claim otherwise.

  465. BillyS says:

    Cane,

    I have met many people who justify their lack of success by a generic “God’s Will” claim when most of it was due to their own stupidity or lack of action. Not a hair shirt, but same principle.

    Intentional suffering most do today (at least in the US) is because of excuses rather than active penance. Most have no true conviction of seeking to live righteously. Claims of such are almost always just justifying what they think someone should do rather than a focus on true righteousness based on what is Written.

    You do have to tune to the modern culture and not just push all idiocy off to the distant past.

  466. BillyS says:

    Cane,

    I interpreted SirHamster to be in reference to the fact that you have to choose to suffer under the bar to get stronger, and that those who do this do it because they recognize strength is good.

    That is because the goal is strength, not suffering. Some suffering is an inherent part of growing in that area, but it is not all suffering.

    And that is the huge difference in the picture and illustrates the contention here quite well. Some focus far too much on the suffering. A few may seem to ignore it, but I see far less of that than is claimed.

  467. SirHamster says:

    @TheTraveler
    Thank you for the laughs.

    You passive-aggressively imply I can’t POSSIBLY be a Christian.

    Whether you sound like a Christian to me is a subjective thing. But I do want to know whether you proclaim Jesus is Lord.

    Do you?

    @SirHamster, you question my manhood (remarks about weightlifting).

    I asked you, “Do you lift weights?”

    I wasn’t going to think less of you if you answered “no”. I wanted to know if you were familiar with the discipline of pushing your body to its limits.

    My dad is too old to lift weights, and I don’t think he is less of a man for it.

    Instead of addressing my arguments, you give what amounts to a personal testimony of faith.

    I asked you some questions to find out where you’re coming from. Questions aren’t a testimony, and knowing what you know and think would help me address your arguments, if that’s what you’re looking for.

  468. SirHamster says:

    Get back to me when you are called to save all mankind. Even so, tell me one place where it says Jesus sought suffering. He sought the Father’s Will, not the suffering. We should be the same way.

    Do you think Christians are called to take up a cross and follow the crucified Jesus because suffering is an optional thing separate from the Father’s Will?

    It isn’t. How many of the Apostles died for their witness?

    A false focus on “we must suffer” is just as bad as one that claims we should never suffer. Both are perversions of what is written. I hear more of the former taught than the latter however much people claim otherwise.

    The chances that you might accidentally suffer too much as a Christian are zero. The world is literally run by a prince that hates you and seeks to kill, steal, and destroy.

    Blessed be ye poor: for yours is the kingdom of God.

    Blessed are ye that hunger now: for ye shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now: for ye shall laugh.

    But woe unto you that are rich! for ye have received your consolation.

    Woe unto you that are full! for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you that laugh now! for ye shall mourn and weep.

    Quick reality check – how many of us even know what hunger is? If you have access to the Internet and the time to comment on this blog … the probability isn’t high.

    Comfort is a greater danger to the Christian than suffering. Just compare the overflowing persecuted churches to the empty pews of the West.

  469. BillyS says:

    Yeah,I have had such a cushy life since serving him early in my life SirHamster. Great you can set me straight! /sarc

    You are focusing on one part to the exclusion of other things. That leads to great error.

    I have nothing that will enlighten you though if you haven’t read my posts here and can’t tell my life has been very far from a great time. I didn’t have to seek a single one of my troubles. They came no matter what. I still go with Jesus’ proclamation that He came to give us life and that more abundantly. This is more than just the rebirth and covers this life as well.

    You are quite arrogant if you want to class yourself at the same level as the Apostles as well, but go ahead if you think that is just great. I just seek to follow and serve Him. I believe what is Written in His Word more than the words of man.

  470. Oscar says:

    @ BillyS

    I didn’t have to seek a single one of my troubles. They came no matter what.

    I agree with that.

    I still go with Jesus’ proclamation that He came to give us life and that more abundantly. This is more than just the rebirth and covers this life as well.

    I agree with that as well. Here’s the problem, though. The “abundant life” that Jesus came to give us includes suffering.

    James 1:2 My brethren, count it all joy when you fall into various trials, 3 knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience. 4 But let patience have its perfect work, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing.

    We’re going to suffer. That’s a guarantee from Jesus Himself.

    John 16:33 These things I have spoken to you, that in Me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”

    Jesus said we “will have tribulation”, not that we may have tribulation. In other words, Jesus guaranteed us suffering, and in the same sentence told us to “be of good cheer”.

    It stands to reason, then, that we don’t need to go looking for suffering, because Jesus will allow it into our lives in His providence, and that when He does allow it into our lives, we should “count it all joy”, and “be of good cheer”.

    By the way, I don’t particularly like those verses, because I have a bad habit of getting whiny, and feeling sorry for myself when trials find me. And that is to my shame, especially considering how minor my trials are compared to 2 Corinthians 11, and because I know that God’s Word is true, and I need to conform myself to His Word, not the other way around.

  471. Dale U says:

    @Oscar
    By the way, I don’t particularly like those verses, because I have a bad habit of getting whiny, and feeling sorry for myself when trials find me. And that is to my shame

    a) very well-written
    b) Me too. (But not #Metoo)

  472. BillyS says:

    Certainly accurate Oscar. The only aspect to consider is that some people have more outward suffering than others. The times you live in often impact things as well.

    Much modern suffering is just results of stupidity. Kind of like how even the poor in the US are rich by world standards. Suffering is very relative.

    It also goes back many times to the question “why do the rich rosper?

  473. BillyS says:

    Certainly accurate Oscar. The only aspect to consider is that some people have more outward suffering than others. The times you live in often impact things as well.

    Much modern suffering is just results of stupidity. Kind of like how even the poor in the US are rich by world standards. Suffering is very relative.

    It also goes back many times to the question “why do the rich prosper?”

    Very little of modern things we call suffering are what is covered in the Scriptures you note. We live in a fairly prosperous time for example. Most in the US who have tight finances do so because of their own money handling, not some Biblical suffering reason. I know that is the case in my life. I would be much better off if I had managed past funds with better stewardship and I am working towards that now.

    Hope that makes sense.

    (Sorry for the incomplete post just prior.)

  474. SirHamster says:

    @BillyS

    Yeah,I have had such a cushy life since serving him early in my life SirHamster. Great you can set me straight! /sarc

    I am sorry for your wife-inflicted suffering. But God will bless you.

    You are focusing on one part to the exclusion of other things. That leads to great error.

    What have I excluded?

    I didn’t have to seek a single one of my troubles.

    So you didn’t. But Jesus still had to carry his own cross to his own crucifixion, and that tells us something about suffering in the Christian life. It is humiliating. Insult added to injury. The crowd jeers as the soldiers beat you.

    And that process starts when you submit to the Father’s Will, and submit to arrest after betrayal by a close friend.

    You are quite arrogant if you want to class yourself at the same level as the Apostles as well, but go ahead if you think that is just great.

    I am not the same level as the Apostles, but their lives are inspiring, especially in how God used them despite their flaws. It is worthwhile to study their lives and seek to imitate what they did well.

  475. Red Pill Christianity says:

    Wow…. a LOT of inspired comments here. Notably:

    **The Inimitable NEET says: “A mass retreat from the sexual marketplace doesn’t mean men will be trapped in quiet desperation and resentment. The human brain is very malleable in how it responds to triggers. Men already choke the weasel to visual and aural stimuli alone, despite the phony scenarios and bad acting inherent to porn. Now place the same object of desire within a personal narrative, fix the minor details that separate realistic from uncanny, randomize its responses just enough to mimic spontaneity, and provide sufficient customization to match your specific tastes. Real life will be meager and dull compared to artificial companionship.”

    Brilliant. Yes, even guys like me that do land 8s here in the USA (and an occasional 9 in Ukraine) would still enjoy the technology and escapism of VR and AI. Who cares of women say that is “beta”. I LITERALLY do not give a 2nd thought to what women want anymore these days. In fact, when some feminist tells me something is bad, I immediately seek it out, almost in an irrational way to tell them to fuckoff and because it means it is probably a good thing.

    **thedeti says: “City culture and upper class/aristocratic culture. It has been so since at least the Middle Ages. Royalty had sex with whom they wanted. In the Roaring 20s, same thing (Read The Great Gatsby – the 20s, was the start of modern first-wave feminism. Got started, then a depression and a world war put it on hold for about 25 years….). The moral of that story is that if you have enough money or power, you can have sex with pretty much who you want. The story of Western-style democracy has been expanding individual freedom to the point that now, if you’re a woman, you can have sex with pretty much who you want, and men/the government will make sure nothing bad happens to you, but if something bad does happen to you, a man will be made to pay for it.

    True, money and power will buy you sex, pleasure, fun, safety, comfort, etc. That has always been the case in all of human history. That will never change.

    City culture is EXTREMELY bad for unmarried women. That is why when I go to Ukraine, I always avoid Kiev, Odessa, and Lviv. The smaller cities are much more like American suburbs, so there is some more accountability and less wh0ring.

    Now, the Western double standard today is a result of women being GIVEN rights and privileges men do not have. This includes almost never receiving prison time for the same crime a men would get prison for; endless goodies in divorce; child support and alimony; policing systems that only target men; preferences in hiring and in college admissions; an entire K-12 education system catered to women’s needs and interests; government loans and special sweetheart contracts for women-owned businesses. The list goes on and on. Now some feminist writers like the women who wrote the “iGen” book is now saying we need to worry about “young girls” and depression. According to her, we are not doing enough to help young women not get depressed, even when they willfully engage in self-destructive behaviors.

    As for the 1920s, feminism started in the 1900s in Germany and moved quickly into the AngloSphere. But it was delayed due to Great Depression and WWII and did not come back until the 1960s thanks to the spoiled Boomers. And the 1920s was NOT all debauchery. The 1920s were indeed wild in a few of the coastal cities (mainly NYC and Lost Angeles), but in most of the country, the 1920s was a time of family, God, and country. It was a prosperous time too, that was wrecked by the costal elites and Progressives in the 1930s, just as they wrecked the country in 1900-1920 period, ushering Conservative govt and the Roaring 20s. But for most of America, the 1920s was an idyllic, wonderful time.

    **feministhater says:” It’s not even about chasing men for marriage, young women simply don’t even signal their interest in marriage at all. Not one ounce. Too busy getting drunk in nightclubs, partying on campuses and having sex with guys they don’t even remember in the morning. We’ve passed the point of no return.”

    Truest words have not been said about young women and marriage. Whether we have passed the point of no return is yet to be determined by an unforeseen national crisis, widespread disease pandemic, Christian revival (a miracle to the scale of parting the Red Sea), foreign military invasion, etc. There are too many variables in history to say “point of no return” for marriage and/or society. Literally, anything can happen in this life.

    **feministhater says: “Isabel is just another aged whore who is trying to convince men here that somehow she never got the message that men prefer young, debt free and tattoo free virgins for marriage. That men really do prefer older, educated and feminist, tattooed sleeved, whores for wives. If that is what makes a modern day successful marriage, I need no more convincing that staying as far away from marriage as possible is best.”

    I am always amused when women like to tell me their degree and how important her job is. To be honest, when I hear “bachelor’s degree”, my mind immediately goes to wild drunken debauchery that go on in our colleges and universities on a daily basis. To me a college degree is a huge negative.

    You SHOULD stay away from marriage or allowing a woman to move in with you ( if you live in a “common law marriage” State)! Marriage has now become the greatest threat to a man’s freedom and financial well-being… maybe only less dangerous than jumping into a Gatorland pond with red meat tied to your calves or less dangerous than being falsely accused of a crime by a feminist (if the man was dumb enough to engage with a feminist woman without HD cameras with audio).

    **thedeti says: “Marriage is vitally important to women. Except for a few outliers, probably 5% of women, even women who really don’t want to be married, will get married. The reason is because of what marriage says about her. Marriage gives a woman a huge status bump, and a legal claim on her husband’s money and property. And if she stays with him long enough and the circumstances are right, that legal claim could be for the rest of her life, or his life, whichever ends first. Yep. A few states are going to lifetime alimony under certain circumstances.”

    Marriage is critical to women, especially as they get older. Women like security. They used to get security from family and then a spouse, but government stepped in and took over. But as they age, their friends begin to comment about her perpetual singleness and her fears of not having the “marriage badge” and fears of missing out on a cash bailout from a husband always kicks in.

    Lifetime alimony is more common than you think. In Pennsylvania, the State’s Supreme black-robed Emperors ordered all divorces going back to 1981 to be re-opened and for the woman to be considered for Alimony, even if Alimony was not a part of their final divorce decree back then. Many States will award lifetime Alimony to women who show they are “unfit to work” due to some emotional trauma or whatever excuse they can come up with.
    So really, marriage in America has become so dangerous, a man can be divorced for over 30 years and suddenly have his divorce re-opened and be forced to appear in Court. And she walks away with whatever money he has worked for in the last 30 years, with interest. Imagine if the man has a new family or kids later… their future is now facing ruin.
    Simply put, unless you are insane or self-loathing, getting married in this unstable legal environment is.. well… insane. The courts can change the rules anytime for any reason and your life can be wrecked decades later, no matter what happens today. No matter how you plan. No matter how alpha your game is. Marriage today carries a level of legal risk akin to inviting Charles Manson to be your roommate and leave your guns and knives unattended.

  476. Minesweeper says:

    @RCC,” In Pennsylvania, the State’s Supreme black-robed Emperors ordered all divorces going back to 1981 to be re-opened and for the woman to be considered for Alimony, even if Alimony was not a part of their final divorce decree back then. Many States will award lifetime Alimony to women ”

    Yep, if Pennsylvania states that any woman from any marriage is eligible for lifetime alimony after spending 6 months in state, well, in 6 months and 1 day, many men will get served. Women will MOVE there to qualify.

    Divorce shopping really is a thing. A marriage contract is literally a perpetual contract that applies and can be cashed in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world that she deems it to be the most beneficial to her.

    Imagine signing a loan contract like that, you would actually have to be insane.

  477. Frank K says:

    You are the other side of that coin, obsessed with hellfire and damnation.

    Really, you know what I am obsessed with? How presumptuous.

  478. Paul says:

    @TheTraveler Why are you so obsessed with SIN, SEX, and DAMNATION?

    Funny how you try to twist my words, but I’m not surprised:
    “This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.”

    Sin is what stands between us humans and God, and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ is able to fully atone for all your sins. His Holy Spirit will transform us from spiritually dead to spiritually alive people, to live in full communion with God and experience eternal life RIGHT HERE AND NOW. That’s the core of the good news (or “gospel”). At the resurrection, either you face a holy God and have to carry the consequences of your sins yourself, or Jesus Christ already carried those consequences, and you eternally live with Him.

  479. TheTraveler says:

    @FrankK
    It doesn’t take a genius to know your preoccupations. I just read what you write.

    @Paul
    You respond to my straightforward statememt with a tent revival and theological word salad. IOW, “A Holy Messenger doesn’t stoop to discourse. Just drown out their views with The Word, According to Me–for the automatic win!”

  480. Red Pill Christianity says:

    @ConstrainedLocus

    I was waiting to respond to your divorce story until I met my friend who does mostly divorce law. So tonight (Sunday), I went to dinner with a friend who is an attorney and only in this State, so clearly nothing said here can be used as legal advice as divorce laws are different in every State and every case and situation is totally different. I wanted to write right away while I still remember in detail what we talked about.

    My friend runs a “discount legal services” law practice which is for people (mostly men) who can barely afford any legal representation in mainly divorce cases. He works hourly rate like all divorce lawyers but he heavily discounted and clients just walk into the door, since he charges 1/3 per hour as typical divorce lawyer. This is a “legal referral service”, the service sends clients to him for free initial consult and his rate is so much lower, he said he signs up about 90% of clients he meets with. The catch is, he does NOT work FOR the client… he works WITH the client, in the sense that these people have seriously limited budgets and this is the only legal services they can afford. No matter, he says almost everyone pays with a credit card, he even has a site you can pay his invoices online with credit card!!! 😮

    The clients must cooperate with attorney, not be a pain, provide documentation promptly and organized, no BS of any kind etc. Clients that are “problematic” or too demanding get dropped from representation. He only has 1 paralegal and no secretary, so it is heavy work loads and they help with basic work and court appearances. He makes sure every client is aware of the scope of services they will get, how they will spend a third of a “normal divorce lawyer”, so it is a win-win for many men who will have to face the judge alone.

    It sucks but it is better than facing a judge and a sleazebag wife divorce lawyer alone having no legal experience. Think the type of legal help you get from Catholic Charities, except the guy is an experienced lawyer and you actually get represented, but basic service. Most have few assets and are desperate type thing. Their lives were already harsh and bad before the divorce, about to get much worse.

    In any case, I actually pulled up ConstrainedLocus story from this forum on my phone and showed him the story. He said in some many words, oh yeah the divorce lawyers are looking for additional work these days. Every since the last major recession it has been this way, some people divorce and lived together for years until economy started to improve, it happens. They will dig up old cases, create legal arguments to re-open cases and many judges totally go with it. Why not, the courts make money and judges have friends that do work in family law, everyone wins, except the guy. And so what if her argument fails in court? The husband almost always pays the costs of the divorce anyway! Her lawyers don’t give a F, they bill like crazy, the man almost always pays.

    I was surprised he said that and he said “for most part lawyers create work when they need to”. Think about it: when Asbestos lawsuits pretty much ended, they started on tobacco. Then medications, they tried and failed with vaccine-autism scam, now legal opiates are on the chopping block and weed-killer spray. Legal marijuana is next. Then they will have something else. “It never ends, they will have something don’t worry and if they don’t they create new work, they re-open old cases, they have courts open cases.”.

    So bottom line this guy explained to me about divorce today: not only wives are now “State shopping” for places to file, it is even worse than that. Some wives who get into “drive-by marriages” (short term) are going to NY or Jersey to file, since in these States, even a 24h marriage can result in some alimony, which is better than no alimony at all, and they give wives wide benefits for even a 24h marriage. Look at Nicholas Cage situation, that is how it works. There is a reason his wife of 4 DAYS wanted his NYC apartment and decades of Alimony. And due to high cost of living in NY, they can get much per month from the man than they would in their home State.

    In Pennsylvania, it has become “Alimony hell” for men who got divorced going back to 1981 (thanks for a State Supreme court decision allowing women to re-open all divorces, even if these divorces never had Alimony in them). In PA, a 24h marriage CAN put a man in jeopardy for alimony. Some case officer in PA decides. Can you imagine?

    As my friend gave me an example, say a couple lives in Indiana, cost of living is low and wages are moderate to low. He has heard (he is not a lawyer in Indiana) that getting alimony there and child support for a child that is not his and not adopted by him can be difficult (using the “acting like a father” scam single moms use on guys). He said he understands all alimony and property division in IN can be challenging, especially so if marriage is less than 10 years long. So the still-married woman can hop in her car, drive to upstate NY, get a roommate there, get a local ID card, and wait a few months. File for divorce. Bam, she is a “resident of NY” which entitles her to screw-over the man 10-ways to Sunday compared to if they both lived in Indiana. And much higher payout for alimony and property division than in Indiana.

    So what if the man earns Indiana-wages? He is paying NY levels of alimony, NY levels of child support, so forth. Failure to comply will trigger an “arrest warrant” from NY. Imaging being stuck for days or even weeks in a county jail in Indiana waiting for “extradition” to NY and then more jail when you arrive in NY, unless you can pay up cash, right there from court. Or more jail.

    The same scam can be pulled in a State where Prenups have more force than in most States (like Nevada, for instance), in contrast to most States where Prenups serve as “advisory only” in terms of the Prenup enforcement by the “family” law judges. (It seems to be the case that in almost all States today, Prenups are treated by judges as a “list of suggestions”, as a “wish list” by the husband, something voluntary and not binding). Some harl0t hops in the car, rents a bedroom roommate situation in another State where Prenups are worthless, waits a few months and files. Bam. Screwed the man over. Forget NV law where marriage and Prenup were done. She is a resident elsewhere now and she filed first.

    The guy also told me a new “trend” family law judges are doing now is ordering family Trusts of all kinds, even Non-Revocable Trust set by a wealthier husband (set up well before the marriage) be dissolved and funds be put for jeopardy in the divorce!! 😮 Judges outright ordering men to sign “Quit Claim deeds” and hand home to spouse, even before divorce decree is final. They just make rulings and issue orders that violate numerous State laws and even Supreme Court precedent. They have unchecked powers not even the President seems to possess.

    This lawyer has confirmed that the whole process has become a free for all, endless abuses. Appeals are made to a Board, not to an Appellate court of jurisdiction and most of these “appeal board” judges are themselves retired or rotating family lawyers, so almost all appeals are summarily dismissed. Their #1 goal is to protect the powers of the trial court judge (the family law judge). So the “appeals” are a sham.

    The family law judge has almost endless powers and the scope of the orders he gives must be followed or the bailiff in his courtroom arrests you on the spot and you go to jail indefinitely, until you obey. Indefinite detention and there is no right to challenge indefinite detention (jail) for failure to obey family law judge or failure to pay child support-based incarceration has already been decided and the family judge has the power to incarcerate indefinitely. Gitmo detainees have more rights to challenge detention than US citizen non-criminal men.

    So even though a family law judge cannot order a Trust to be broken up (that is Estate and Probate division), the family law judge can incarcerate the husband until he signs documents breaking up the Trust, putting assets in jeopardy in divorce. Even if a family law judge cannot force an Estate judge to hand over 1/2 of the inheritance of the husband’s deceased relative be given to wife, he can incarcerate the husband until the Estate (probate) case is complete, so the inheritance is given while marriage is still active and divorce is not final. Endless abuses like this.

    We talked about a lot of other stuff, but it was funny. I apologized for bringing up the subject during a fun dinner and asking him to read Constrained’s story and he laughed and said “it happens all the time, I enjoy talking about it and seeing the expressions on people’s faces. They think they are in Cuba or North Korea”. The family law judge has powers similar to a Roman Emperor or a Soviet dictator.

    The last thing he said to me as we were walking out and talking about my site was “what amazes me is where the f**k do they find so many dumb men to get married this day and age? How f**king stupid do you have to be get married these days anyway? What’s the matter with these guys?”

    I laughed a bit… but frankly, deep inside and from my Christian point of view, the whole ting is sad and rather tragic. I have a lot of sympathy for virtually all men who get divorce raped, tricked into having a child with a woman against his will, or abused by the courts like this. I have pity for married men today, they are either inmates at home or slaves forced out of the home, working for things he does not own or benefits from. One of the other. It is a matter of sadness, even if the stupidity of men getting married today is indeed worthy of a laugh. Even if a nervous one.

    We ended at the parking lot when I asked him to write an article on my site when it comes back up, just about this subject and he said would be fun, if he can find the time. Should be a fun discussion on comments. Until then… Ciao!

  481. Minesweeper says:

    @RCC, good comment !

    England as well seems to be the best place for the wives of millionaires to move too and get a divorce. Ex-wives walking away from the high court having secured $10M+ seems fairly common. And what did she do to earn that exactly ? (Live under some guys roof for a decade and eat his food.)

    Men are marrying as no one tells them the terms of the deal. That’s how the scam is perpetuated. Men are going into this blind, the women are quite aware of the ‘benefits’ of divorce.

    Men should always ask a lawyer the ‘current’ terms of divorce for their jurisdiction, for 24hrs, 1 week, 1 month,1 year, 5/10/15/20 years after marriage and what those (ruinous) terms would be.

    I’m sure they would utterly horrified if they knew. In fact it should be law that men have to know what awaits.

    And in fact, no man should ever sign a contract he doesn’t know the terms of the deal.

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.