The gospel of the carousel.

Scott from Treasure State Psychological Services was kind enough to send me a quote that is making the rounds on Facebook:

Jesus didn’t die on the cross for you to be a side chick.

This is just one expression of an ubiquitous perspective by modern Christian women, and the corruption of the message of the Gospel is breathtaking.  The problem with this perversion is twofold.  First, Christ didn’t sacrifice Himself on our behalf so that Christians (male or female) could have a pleasurable life of sin.  Yet the implicit frame of the statement is that women deserve a rewarding experience on the carousel, and if they aren’t getting it men have let them down.

Second, the message of the Gospel isn’t that we are worthy, but unworthy.  This is a profound misunderstanding of our relationship to Christ and the very nature of His sacrifice.  We don’t deserve the sacrifice He made for us.  We are utterly unworthy.  If we deserved forgiveness for our sins Christ’s sacrifice would not have been needed.  Nor would we have reason to forever thank and praise Him for what He has done for us, since He would have merely been treating us as we deserved.

This twisted frame of mind is everywhere.  One commenter at Lori Alexander’s blog reacted to her observation that men prefer debt free virgins by asserting that the message of the Gospel is that she is worthy:

Whether I have or have not gone to college, had sex before marriage, aquired debt, gotten a tattoo, etc. does not make me any less worthy of the sacrificial love of Jesus Christ, so what right does any earthly man (or woman) have to call me less than worthy to simply be his wife due to the same criteria?! Christ > humanity. Be careful that you preach Christ and not your own ideals.

For an even more astounding example of this perversion of the message of the Gospel, see Wendy Griffith’s book for Christian women looking for a husband.  Griffith takes the parable of the Pearl of Great Price and twists it so that she and her readers are the Pearl of Great Price, not salvation!

Pearl of Great Price

Ladies, the Lord wants you to know that you are a pearl of great price, a treasure worth pursuing and protecting. You are worth fighting for and, like the pearl in the parable at the head of this chapter, worth everything it might cost a guy to obtain you. You are worth someone sacrificing his time, his routine, his comfort, his money, his whatever in order to have you. You are worth it! You are a prize to be won.

Keep in mind that the error isn’t just by modern Christian women.  Christian men aren’t challenging this perversion because to them it is perfectly sensible.  This message is anti-biblical, but it fits with the chivalrous paradigm so Christian men remain silent or even promote this message.  See for example Pat Robertson at CBN promoting Wendy Griffith’s book:

I’m holding in my hand a very special book. It’s a book that every young girl should have. Teenagers should have it, college students should have it, and young single women should have it. It’s called You are a prize to be won. Written by none other than the lovely Wendy Griffith, and she has had all kinds of experiences!

 

See Also:  Call me unchivalrous.

This entry was posted in CBN, Chivalry, Lori Alexander, Solipsism, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists, Wendy Griffith. Bookmark the permalink.

144 Responses to The gospel of the carousel.

  1. Anonymous Reader says:

    When pride comes, then comes disgrace; but wisdom is with those who have humility.
    Proverbs 11:2.

  2. Lost Patrol says:

    Written by none other than the lovely Wendy Griffith, and she has had all kinds of experiences!

    Pat said it, not me.

  3. vandicus says:

    Humility and gratitude are part and parcel. Pride and ingratitude likewise.

  4. Here’s a post about this on “Girrrl Stop!” – “the blog for Christian women.”

    “Jesus Didn’t Die On The Cross For You To Be A Side Chick”
    http://www.girrrlstop.com/2015/08/jesus-didnt-die-on-cross-for-you-to-be.html

    “We all know the real reason Jesus died for us but in essence, this quote drives home the fact that Jesus wants you to have His best. God’s best is not being with someone else’s man ladies, this has to stop! Stop believing the myth of there’s not enough men because it’s not true. Stop believing the myth that all the good men are taken because they’re not!

    “Don’t settle for sloppy seconds. Don’t settle for used goods. This is what I mean: you wouldn’t wear another woman’s underwear after she took them off, right? Then why are you sleeping with her man? I pray my readers aren’t doing this but I’m just trying to make a point here!”

    Her post wanders on to discussing why women shouldn’t be the second girl in a three-way. But the opening section implies a different meaning: advocating for chastity before marriage – for both men and women. My guess (guess!) is that this is unintentional, perhaps because that is outside of the author’s imagination.

    Also, I don’t understand how this interpretation meshes with Dalrock’s post.

    Can anyone explain all this?

  5. My 2 Cents says:

    More of the same feminist double standard nonsense:

    1. Men, you are nothing but a sinner and an abuser until you prove otherwise by bending to submitting yourself to the leadership of women. If you ever want to be married, you’d better work hard until you’re handsome and rich enough to give a woman everything her heart desires all the time.

    2. Women, you are a beautiful treasure, sinless in the eyes of God. You were born prepared to be the perfect wife, and men should be fighting for your attention no matter what you do or how you treat them. Never forget that if you have problems, men are at fault, not you.

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lost Patrol
    Pat said it, not me.

    Lol.

    Related:
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/09/24/girl-power/

  7. Jim says:

    Cunts are gonna cunt.

  8. Anonymous Reader says:

    Larry
    Her post wanders on to discussing why women shouldn’t be the second girl in a three-way. But the opening section implies a different meaning: advocating for chastity before marriage – for both men and women. My guess (guess!) is that this is unintentional, perhaps because that is outside of the author’s imagination.

    Perhaps the first part is where her forebrain writes the things that she ought to believe. Then her more feral nature rouses itself and the real girl-power comes out. There’s a lot of projection going on. Do we have to get all detailed about what the term “sloppy seconds” means, for example? She knows what she is and where she’s been and what “experiences” she’s collected, she just doesn’t want to be held to account for that past behavior.

    Wants to ride carousel ponies, but not have to admit it and still wear a white dress to her wedding at 29.99 years of age, with no snickering aloud in the pews on the groom side of the church. No snickering!

    Also, I don’t understand how this interpretation meshes with Dalrock’s post.

    “I want to have my cake and eat it too, with a side of fried ice” is one way to put it.

  9. Chuck Headroom says:

    There seems to be two separate issues here: 1.) Promiscuity/chastity and 2.) worthiness/entitlement.

    IMHO, both Dalrock and Larry Kummer are reading a little too far into the post to draw conclusions about the author’s stance on 1. But it doesn’t really matter. 2 is the point here. And what a point it is.

    Imagine reading the bible just enough to twist it into a justification for your own entitlement. What would that say about your own Christianity?

  10. Anonymous Reader says:

    “She has had all kinds of experiences”!

    Yes. Yes, she has.

  11. Men can tell in about 10 seconds which one of us guys in a given situation is bullshitting or trying to blow smoke up our asses with lies, extraordinary claims, whopper stories and other gross embellishments. We also immediately identify braggarts at work, or in the locker room, etc. We either ignore them, isolate them, or if needed, verbally or physically put them in their place.

    Women don’t seem to do this, or do it very well.
    They don’t seem to ever be brought down on the mat.
    This constant self-congratulations and adulation, and Oprah-esque “you go girl, mmm-hmmm!” herd-like behavior would never happen among guys.
    It just wouldn’t. We are too competitive, and just too indifferent to one another, unless we have a common goal and objective (like a war, or team game, etc.)
    I find this interesting, because I think men know and accept our limitations and shortcomings to a greater degree than women – mentally, physically and even spiritually – because we will never get away with telling everyone how perfect and beautiful and wonderful we are.

  12. Minesweeper says:

    Why don’t they just come out and say that women themselves are now God.

    It’s truly astonishing.

  13. Jack says:

    It’s so hard for them to realize that their standing with God has nothing to do with their behavior, but their place in this world has everything to do with their behavior.

  14. Scott says:

    Thanks for the mention and linkage.

    As a side note, I save these crazy memes pretty much daily. They come like a hail of hamster gunfire so overwhelming that you can’t catch it all. Point being, this isn’t “one off” stuff. This is the normative view.

    Daughters of the King.

    Even the mildest rebuke or alternate viewpoint results in the hammer coming down swiftly from “friends” or “friends of friends.”

    Some of the worst and chronic defenders are men. The bottom line? The white knight is actually the bigger problem. Once he shows up, you might as well leave. Rationality and calmness are now ejected from the conversation in favor of getting long distance virtual pats on the head from random unseen women.

  15. Scott says:

    I would also add that this particular meme fails to invoke even basic logic as it is ultimately a non sequitur.

    It might as well read “Jesus didn’t die on the cross and my pajamas are green.”

  16. swiftfoxmark2 says:

    What we need are speakers to reach out to teenage girls and tell them the truth about riding the carousel. They need to emphasize that their value as a woman to be married to goes down and that many men will find them less desirable for marriage as they grow older and with the partners they have.

    As an extreme example, a former porn actress who reforms herself, gets married, and has children will see those children suffer for her past decisions. It’s one thing for the boys on the playground to call a kid’s mother a whore, it’s entirely another thing to have photographic evidence of this fact.

  17. white says:

    Again, I’m finding it hard to separate Biblical teaching of identity, versus feminist teaching of identity. Again, I’m not refering to the quotes about “pearl of great price” or any other obvious chivalrous BS. I am referring solely to the side chick quote. Is it not a technically true statement? (though somewhat cringy due to the intentional lack of mention of males)

    Yes, the gospel does teach that we are completely unworthy. That Christ completely do not have to die for us. But now that He did, doesn’t that make us worthy NOW? Doesn’t that make us children of Christ NOW? Heirs in the Kingdom? (Romans 8:17) Now made righteous through Christ? (Romans 3:22)

    If you have a son, would you not teach him that he is a child of God, bearing His image, to “Don’t settle for sloppy seconds. Don’t settle for used goods.”? (quoting Larry from above) I know I would. I would tell him to never buy the whole chivalrous BS and to never play Beta provider for any woman because he is made worthy and righteous through Christ. Wouldn’t you?

    Don’t get me wrong, I do realize the side chick quote is sneakily trying to use Bible quotes to moralize the carousel. I am not defending that. I am focusing solely on the teaching of worth and identity from these quotes.

  18. Jim says:

    Minesweeper says:
    October 15, 2019 at 1:17 pm

    Why don’t they just come out and say that women themselves are now God.

    It’s truly astonishing.

    They pretty much already have without saying it. Hell, they treat women like they’re God Himself already. They can do no wrong to these idiots. Cucks are gonna cuck.

  19. Hmm says:

    OT: Maybe the gender gap in marriage isn’t so dire after all:
    https://quillette.com/2019/10/14/good-men-arent-getting-harder-to-find/

  20. vandicus says:

    @white

    Justification versus sanctification. Sanctification is a work in progress, you’ll note that we are not immune to sinning after conversion to Christ. We are all works in progress until we are united with God.

    The parable of the Pharisee and the Publican as well as the Prodigal Son communicates what attitude we ought to have(and accurately so, not as a matter of putting on airs).

  21. Novaseeker says:

    OT: Maybe the gender gap in marriage isn’t so dire after all:
    https://quillette.com/2019/10/14/good-men-arent-getting-harder-to-find/

    Yes this is something I pointed out as well at DS’s blog post about Gerard Baker’s WSJ piece. There isn’t a gender gap at the higher SES level, like Baker’s daughters. There’s an issue at the lower level, where you have nurses who are too uppity to marry their SES peers (plumbers and cops) because they don’t have degrees. If women from Harvard and Stanford are having trouble finding mates it isn’t because of 60/40 because 60/40 isn’t the case in their SES set. It’s because they made stupid personal choices.

  22. Scott says:

    White, allow me the indulgence of brushing off my reform theology, of which i am no longer an active subscriber.

    I do, however, like to represent ideas accurately, even if I don’t totally agree with them.

    i believe the relevant doctrine is known as penal substitution, and it is closely related to the doctrines of justification, and sanctification.

    No one is ever “made worthy” under this way of understaning salvation.

    Imagine a courtroom where the jury finds the defendant guilty. But then the Judge stands up and declares “well, I have my son here, who is willing to bear the burden and mark this debt paid in full, even though the defendant is totally guilty and deserves his sentence.”

    In this case, the defendant is still totally useless and unable to repay his debt. He basically has a stand-in who stamps “good to go” on his forehead.

    Under that rubric, it makes the whole idea of “what Jesus died on the cross” for irrelevant to what you think you deserve now.

  23. Anonymous Reader says:

    Scott
    The white knight is actually the bigger problem.

    Yes. Because far too many women can’t distinguish between “some” and “all”.

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=White%20Knight

    How about an example?
    Joe Biden was massively White Knighting in 1994 when he got VAWA enacted as part of the “Anti Violent Crime Act”. Now VAWA and thus Duluth are deeply embedded into law and custom, with results discussed here from time to time.

    When women and feminized men complain “This mess is ALL MEN’s FAULT” they are actually pointing the finger at White Knights – ironically, those men most likely to argue like women “Men! You clean this up!” tend to be among the biggest of White Knights, IMO.

    BTW, when women play the game of “Don’t hit me, I’m a girl!” they can almost always count on a White Knight to erupt out of some corner, like an irate, spoiled Pekinese dog appearing from under the couch. I don’t have to explain what DHMIAG means, because Dalrock wrote an entire essay on that topic.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/12/26/dont-hit-me-im-a-girl/

  24. Dalrock says:

    @Larry Kummer

    “Don’t settle for sloppy seconds. Don’t settle for used goods. This is what I mean: you wouldn’t wear another woman’s underwear after she took them off, right? Then why are you sleeping with her man? I pray my readers aren’t doing this but I’m just trying to make a point here!”

    Her post wanders on to discussing why women shouldn’t be the second girl in a three-way. But the opening section implies a different meaning: advocating for chastity before marriage – for both men and women.

    I don’t see where you are getting that her message on not being a side chick is that women should stay chaste until marriage. Is there another part you didn’t quote where she says this?

  25. Expat Philo says:

    https://currently.att.yahoo.com/news/ventura-county-woman-accused-sexually-092257291.html

    Seems relevant, and if you really want to have your blood boil, read the comments.

  26. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker to Hmm
    There isn’t a gender gap at the higher SES level, like Baker’s daughters. There’s an issue at the lower level, where you have nurses who are too uppity to marry their SES peers (plumbers and cops) because they don’t have degrees.

    Because I associate with a range of men, I can confirm this. Just last weekend I was catching up with some people that I’ve known for years, and heard about whose son has moved to Alaska with his girlfriend, etc. The lower middle class 20-somethings are more likely to cohabit than marry, although marriage remains aspirational for them. The authors of these pieces are showing their own blind spots and prejudices quite clearly. There was a time when the higher SES people actually liked their middle and lower class neighbors, or at least had some compassion for them.

  27. So…in my best Cathy Newman voice: Jesus died so you could stay a whore?

  28. BB says:

    OP is confusing because the quoted statement lacks context.
    It seems to indicate women deserve better but it’s not clear it means “better experience on the carousel” or better than the results of this sinful lifestyle they bring on themselves (carousel riding with the guys who have other chicks). Maybe that’s why in the OP, Dalrock mentioned “implicit frame” – it’s not clear what’s meant.
    The “Jesus didn’t die so you could sin” meme is a good thing if that’s what they mean. It would be nice if they were explicit.
    Larry quote might (with some charity) support this reading.

  29. Frank K says:

    Wants to ride carousel ponies, but not have to admit it and still wear a white dress to her wedding at 29.99 years of age, with no snickering aloud in the pews on the groom side of the church. No snickering!

    It is my understanding that it isn’t unusual for carousel riders to invite former lovers to their weddings.

  30. BB says:

    “I don’t see where you are getting that her message on not being a side chick is that women should stay chaste until marriage.”

    I can’t answer for Larry but…

    “Don’t settle for sloppy seconds. Don’t settle for used goods.”

    That sounds exactly like the language of chastity before marriage. The “used” and “sloppy seconds” as a description is usually directed towards women. She’s directing it towards men – but I see no reason to think she is excluding women -she’s just writing from the female perspective. I can’t see (logically) how women would be exempt.

  31. Anonymous Reader says:

    So…in my best Cathy Newman voice: Jesus died so you could stay a whore?

    [hands on hips, then right hand up with index finger wagging]
    “Judge not! Judge NOT! Let him without sin cast the first stone!”
    [stomp foot! backturn, leave in a huff]

  32. The Question says:

    Most Christians are not Christians and cling dearly to heresies. If you accept this, everything else suddenly makes sense.

  33. The Question says:

    @Dalrock

    Not sure if you saw this, but earlier this year a feminist critic took aim at Toy Story 4 for its portrayal of Bo-Peep. Thought you might find this interesting.

    https://www.unilad.co.uk/film-and-tv/toy-story-4-slammed-for-lack-of-diversity-anti-feminism-and-disablism-by-writer/

    “Oh look! Bo-Peep’s a feminist. No she’s not! She’s still going to fall in love, she’s still going to have the happily ever after, that’s not feminism It’s a woman who kicks off her skirt to reveal bloomers.”

  34. Pingback: The gospel of the carousel. | Reaction Times

  35. Novaseeker says:

    Seems relevant, and if you really want to have your blood boil, read the comments.

    Why? Acting like it’s the same thing regardless of the sexes involved is mindless equalism. Calling that kind of thing a sexual assault makes no sense — the boys involved almost certainly loved every minute of it. Totally different if it’s a *man* raping the boys (they don’t want that), but older woman with teen boys? Hardly.

  36. cynthia says:

    I can appreciate the idea that women (especially young ones) should have enough self-respect to not let a man treat them badly. I’ve been in this situation myself and it can turn into a pretty horrific downward spiral if you don’t catch yourself in time. There’s a weird thing in female psychology where our sense of self is tied to what other people think of us. For most women, this is most keenly felt from larger groups of women, and the guy you’re having sex with. The idea that you should find a man who will treat you with respect is very important in this regard; being with a man who doesn’t respect you can be a very damaging experience.

    However, I don’t think we’re talking about men mistreating women here, or men who are callously indifferent to their wife’s needs. In most situations, normal men seem to give women the respect they merit. The problem therefore is that these women are getting the respect they’re earned, not the respect they want. And for some reason, despite the fact it would get us what we want quicker and easier, modern Western women seem determined to not modulate their behavior.

    As always, it’s sad to see churches endorsing this nonsense.

  37. Anonymous Reader says:

    Revisiting the great quote in Dalrok’s OP:

    Jesus didn’t die on the cross for you to be a side chick.

    By the way, Scott, thanks for being on FaceBerg so other men do not have to.

    Now then…variations on a theme…

    “Jesus didn’t die on the cross for you to settle for a second best man”.
    “Jesus didn’t die on the cross for you to not wear a white wedding gown”.
    “Jesus didn’t die on the cross for you to not have a child at 40”.
    “Jesus didn’t die on the cross for you to have to drive a Hyundai”.
    “Jesus didn’t die on the cross for you to have to fly coach”.
    “Jesus didn’t die on the cross for you to have to drink wine from a box”.

    They just write themselves. It’s easy. Try it yourself!

  38. Anonymous Reader says:

    cynthia
    The idea that you should find a man who will treat you with respect is very important in this regard; being with a man who doesn’t respect you can be a very damaging experience.

    Where in the Bible are men told to respect women in general, wives in particular?

  39. Anon says:

    I agree with Cynthia’s assessment of a young girl needing to be taught sufficient self-respect so that she doesn’t allow a man to use her. That’s a big deal. There are cads out there, some even deliberately go after girls who are virgins just to devirginize them. This used to be talked about in the manosphere, it used to be said that girls needed to be taught to recognize how those men treat them differently. Girls won’t know how to avoid them if they aren’t taught that they do in fact deserve better treatment and are valuable.

    I wonder Dalrock… what is your wife teaching your daughter, who is now 14 right, regarding her worth and value of her virginity? She’s at the right age where hopefully you and your wife are being diligent in confirming her value and worth so that she respects herself enough to avoid the allure of cads who will cheat on her/mistreat her. All this is incredibly important for her to figure out right now, at your daughter’s age, and yet you don’t seem to understand the basic meaning in this quote that women should not be sidechicks, because of accepting Christ’s death for their sins, and therefore altering their life around that fact that they were *died* for… and therefore valuable to Christ.

    The Bible commands Christians to treat their bodies as extremely valuable, because of Christ’s death, how you don’t know this, and yet are holding yourself up as a theology teacher to thousands of men, is astounding.

    “Every sin a person commits is outside their body, but the person who is sexually immoral sins against his own body.
    Do you not know that your body is a sanctuary of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God?
    You are not your own, for you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body (and don’t sin sexually).” 1 Cor. 6:18-20

  40. Robert What? says:

    Women look to Christ to get what they think they deserve. Men look to Christ in the hope that they don’t get what they know they deserve.

  41. Asaph says:

    Hope you’re being sarcastic

  42. Nick M says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    “Jesus didn’t die on the cross for you to have to drive a Hyundai”.
    “Jesus didn’t die on the cross for you to have to fly coach”.

    I recognized you, Joel Osteen. No need to use the Anonymous Reader nickname anymore.

  43. Anonymous Reader says:

    I’m not picking a fight with cynthia, who has been an interesting commenter for a while, by the way.

    On the topic of respect: women are always perked up by this Aretha tune. If I were still tending bar, I believe I’d play it on the jukebox about once per hour, to get them to drink up and order another.

    But a little research reveals that she was covering / recovering a tune by Otis Redding. On the oldies stations / channels mainly one hears “Dock of the bay”, but he’s the man who wrote “Respect”. Notice the difference in lyrics? I could not find a vid with lyrics on screen, sorry.

    Paraphrasing: “Here’s all my money, if you cheat on me it’s ok, but at the end of the day? Show me a little RESPECT”.

    tl;dr
    Despite all the feminist “blank slate” “equalitarian” brainwashing, women still crave love.
    Men still crave respect.

  44. Jack Russell says:

    I remember Lori Anederson’s article about men preferring debt free virgins. Katie Emmerson, the daughter of Sheila Gregoire went berzerk. Donavan Sharpe broke down Emmerson’s rant about this. It is 48 mins long, but well worth the listen. He wonders why Emmerson would get triggered by this article, and suggests that Emmerson possible wasn’t a virgin when she married.

  45. Spike says:

    The problem of the Carousel isn’t addressed by the church, and it won’t be in the near future.

    It isn’t addressed, because churches still maintain a sexually sanitised environment. In this sexually sanitised environment, men’s sex drives (God-given and therefore good) are demonised. Women’s sex drives (Peaking in late teens /early twenties) are ignored / excused in favour of education / career / travel / mission work.

    Any sexual act traced to a women is in fact, a rape. I sat through a sermon where David allegedly raped Bathsheba – after he watched her having a bath in the open, presumably within sight of the Royal Palace. Women in the church are “sisters” that men aren’t supposed to be interested in sexually. This creates a dilemma: If good women in church are’t approachable and therefore marriageable, should he go outside the church to get a wife if he wants one?

    On top of it all, women take advantage of this culture mercilessly. They will break the church’s sexual rules under the radar. She will tell you she “made a mistake”. She will tell you she “was in love”. She will tell you that you “can’t choose who you fall in love with”. She will tell you she “fell pregnant”. She will tell you she “made the hard decision to have an abortion”. She will be supported by her fellow church sisters. You are only to respond with sympathy.

    When you come to church you should expect to hear the truth about every subject. That includes sex – as God’s plan for it is. I have only ever heard God’s plan for sex discussed on blogs such as these, not in the church.

    That plan is: Men are to prepare themselves for marriage by work, study and be providers. Women are to prepare for marriage by keeping themselves chaste, and assembling good home making and home-keeping skills. Marriage is to be entered into soberly, objectively – in this case, “Is s/he a good partner? Can s/he maintain a commitment for life? ” – and quickly. Courtships of years are ridiculous. Modern concubinage (“we live together….”) more ridiculous still.

    I don’t see this changing. I see it changing when enough men have had enough to let the structures collapse.

  46. wodansthane says:

    @Lost Patrol
    “Pat said it, not me”

    Wonder how he knows about her “experiences?

  47. James says:

    Thought I post this about the 40+ dating front. The carousel and the Chad phenomena you post about are alive and well. Even in those seemingly normal middle school teachers and pharmacists you meet every day. I was divorced 4 years ago, spent the first 3 raising kids (alone) and mostly out of market.
    I had an empty nest and moved to a new job by a tourist town. Decided to shape back up and join a dating site. Well, right now I’m juggling 8 different women all of which want to drive up to spend a weekend. Two have already done so. They drive 4 hours to spend a weekend with an unknown man in a tourist town. I figure it’s the “Eat, Prey, Love” fantasy. I’m over 6 ft, have my hair, a good career, a muscular guy. So I guess I’m a “Chad” now. I did fine with women in college, but this is a different level.
    The most shocking thing is that they show me the lists of 100+ men on their dating site feed and they laugh at them. Normal nice guys. They don’t care if I’m still on the dating site after we meet. They are happy to chat and call and plan their next vacation with me. If feel sorry for the other guys. The system is broken. It’s all bizarre. I didn’t really want to date this way, but you can’t meet women at work (METOO) and the churches are filled with grannies and manhaters. I mean a single guy walks into a church and they all look at me like I have the plague.
    I read what you were writing but I didn’t believe it until it happened to me.

  48. locustsplease says:

    @jack russel. I hate long videos explaining social things but this is a good video i watched the whole thing and its worth watching especially because i have seen said video and he sees things i couldnt clearly identify. He points clearly how she is a deliberate manipulative liar. She cannot even tell you the truth her emotions. And yeah i thought shes got to b lying about being a virgin because women dont down grade their social status. But after watching i would put a %0 chance she was.

  49. Oscar says:

    @ Jack Russel

    That chick is out of her mind. Remember when people used to dismiss hysterical people as too emotional to be taken seriously? These days it seems that the more hysterical a person (especially a woman) gets, the more others listen to them.

  50. BB says:

    Rereading the OP, I withdraw my above criticism. The condoning of the carousel IS implicit because they don’t condemn fornication (the main problem with the “being the side chick” thing) and fornication IS what’s happening Christian circles (the cultural context). The thing Larry Kummer quoted? It also doesn’t condemn fornication and she used the phrase “her man” instead of “her husband” implicitly condoning fornication.
    I think it is good to see women using phrases like “used goods” and “sloppy seconds” even if they are trying to turn those phrases against men because it tells the truth that pre-marital sex damages people, relationships, families children, etc. and , anyway, phrases like that are more natural and powerful in their imagery when applied to women.

  51. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Trump making black women fat: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-policies-racism-may-cause-some-black-womens-weight-problems-professor-says

    Do President Trump’s policies make me look fat?

    That’s the sort of question some black women may be asking themselves, a Rutgers University professor suggested during a recent appearance on the Oprah Winfrey Network.

    Although, more accurately, the problem may be the stress and anxiety caused by the policies than the policies themselves, Brittney Cooper, who teaches gender studies at the New Jersey-based university, said on a recent episode of “Black Women OWN the Conversation.”

    Research shows black women lose weight more slowly than white women, and the Trump presidency may be exacerbating the situation, Cooper said on the program, according to CampusReform.org.

    “We are living in the Trump era,” she said, “and look, those policies kill our people. You can’t get access to good health care, good insurance.

    Increased stress could be changing black women’s metabolisms to the point where it becomes more difficult to shed extra pounds, she said. …

  52. Lost Patrol says:

    RPL

    Trump making black women fat:

    This is where we live now: Dr. Brittney Cooper

    https://africanastudies.rutgers.edu/faculty-mainmenu-134/core-faculty/140-brittney-cooper

    This is the same Brittney Cooper that says the concept of time is racist.

    https://www.thecollegefix.com/rutgers-professor-even-the-concept-of-time-is-racist/

    According to the Rutgers University Faculty Salary Schedules, Brittney gets paid about $75,000 per year and a full benefits package for this kind of insight. I actually thought it would be more.

  53. Testi says:

    @white
    “…I do realize the side chick quote is sneakily trying to use Bible quotes to moralize the carousel.
    I am not defending that.
    I am focusing solely on the teaching of worth and identity from these quotes.”

    Do you enjoy tying your brain into knots?
    Bullshit is bullshit. Why are you trying to precipitate “teachings” from it?

  54. Expat Philo says:

    Nova, people happen to enjoy eating taco bell, regardless of the damage it causes to their body. I would also point out that this is NOT mindless equalism, do you really think society would laugh if it were 14 year old girls, really?

    What this episode demonstrates is the truly insidious way we treat boys, not as young and foolish creatures in need of the protection of the law against predators, but as subhuman brutes who aren’t worth the trouble. That woman is a rapist. If a 14 year old cannot enter I to a contract, which I think we all agree is a wise decision, then they cannot consent to sex, even if it does happen to be fun.

  55. Expat Philo says:

    Edit: equalism comment was applied to me, not the comments. Whoops. Still way off base, but makes more sense.

  56. buckyinky says:

    Expat Philo – all rape is wrong, but not all wrong things are rape.

  57. Novaseeker says:

    all rape is wrong, but not all wrong things are rape.

    That’s right. The woman is not a rapist either than in an extremely technical legal sense based on a modern statute. At no point in human history has consensual sex between a male minor and an older female been considered to be rape. The reverse, however, was always viewed differently and for the very sane reason that it had a good chance of leading to pregnancy, and in any case greatly diminished a young woman’s marital viability throughout almost all human history — this was not the case for voluntary encounters between underaged males and older women. It just isn’t the same thing, never has been viewed as the same thing, and it’s silly to view it as the same thing.

    The issue arises with underage males and older men, because this situation is almost never consensual — that is, it is actually *rape*.

  58. thedeti says:

    Whether I have or have not gone to college, had sex before marriage, aquired debt, gotten a tattoo, etc. does not make me any less worthy of the sacrificial love of Jesus Christ, so what right does any earthly man (or woman) have to call me less than worthy to simply be his wife due to the same criteria?!

    For the eleventy billionth time:

    Christ’s propitiation on the Cross was to save humanity from eternal separation from the Father.

    Christ did not die so sluts could get married. Nor did He die so that debt laden tattooed sluts can have whatever man they want.

    Any man can call any woman he wants unworthy of being his wife for any reason he wants. Since it’s the man’s time, money, labor, resources, attention, and life on the line, he gets to decide who he will marry. He gets to decide who is worthy of being his wife. He gets to decide who he will marry, and whether he will marry. He gets to select whatever criteria he wants for whom he will marry. And if he does not want to marry a debt laden tattooed slut, he is within his rights to decide that. He gets to judge it. He gets to judge her.

    Christ gets to judge women’s worthiness for Heaven.

    Men get to judge women’s worthiness for marriage.

    This is all about the fact that men are making their own decisions about who is worthy and who is not worthy for marriage, based on criteria that men alone select.

    This is about the fact that women are losing control of the narrative on this. This is about the fact that women do not get to control the selection criteria anymore.

    Ladies: Jesus gets to decide whether you get into heaven and His heart. But I get to decide whether you get into my house, wallet, resources, and heart. And I get to make those decisions however I see fit.

  59. thedeti says:

    They just write themselves. It’s easy. Try it yourself!

    Fundies and Charismatics have long perpetrated the false “Prosperity Gospel”. This false teaching holds that when you get saved, when Christ accepts you and forgives your sins, you then become entitled to material, tangible “blessings”. More money, a better job, weight loss, better physical health. A better spouse. A hotter spouse. Children. A new boyfriend/girlfriend.

    You’re also entitled to “favor”. Other people will supernaturally just fall in line to give you things you want and need. People will just show up with money for you, when you need it, because “God told [them] to give [this thing you want/need] to you right now.”

    It strikes me that “Jesus didn’t die for you to be a side chick” and “I’m worthy of marriage even though I’m a debt laden tattooed slut. Jesus forgave me. Why can’t you?” are the new “Prosperity Gospel”. A carousel rider can keep on riding, but once she calls on Jesus, she’s entitled to material benefits. Her “born again virginity”. A husband. But not just any husband – a hunky millionaire handyman husband. A hot, rich, devout husband. A divorce from her current no good husband who doesn’t pray well enough. That her past and the visible and invisible scars left behind from that past will be magically erased as if they never happened and never existed. And that any man she wants will present themselves to her, just when, where, how, and as she wishes.

  60. Disillusioned says:

    A real problem I am seeing in Christianity is the feeling that once your are “one”, nothing that you do is wrong. You can just slap the label of “Christian” on anything including yourself and that makes it right and without criticism.

    People seem to not want to acknowledge that we are constantly fighting to put our flesh into submission. Thus sometimes our flesh takes over. Also, it is imperative that we renew our minds. It is written in the scriptures. Not all that will come out of our mind will be Godly. Of course this all needs to come out of a repentful heart.

    Instead, what we are now being told is that once you are saved ( assuming you really are) you are a Son of God and everything that comes out of you is good. Scriptures are taken out of context such as the fact that God will grant you the desires of your heart. Grace now rules and you don’t have to change anything. You are a new creature with a new heart and you are GOOD! Of course, the fact that an innocent observer sees no change in who you are before you got “saved” and the present may raise an eyebrow but nothing more.

    Nothing is said about being conformed in the Image of Christ. Nothing is said about sanctification. It is now just a matter of waving your hand during a service, maybe getting baptized, and you have arrived and don’t need to change at all. After all, God loves You the way you are! God will now bring the desires of your heart to you! After all you deserve it since He died for you in the Cross. And if you are a guy and your heart says you want a red headed model, then it is your destiny. If you are a woman and want a strong tattooed dude with a pony tail, is 6’8″ tall, has a motorcycle and plays drums in a band, then God owes it to you to give him to you. This is the present way of thinking.

    I have participated in Church single groups and they contain the most carnal, shallow and unrealistic women I have ever met. The women all think that they are princesses and God MUST bring them a hunky dude. I also go country western dancing at places that are in essence bars and the women are more down to earth and realistic in their expectations. In fact, most are less shallow than what I have seen in Christian single groups.

  61. Expat Philo says:

    So, the evil a woman commits is to be overlooked because her victims were males who happened to enjoy it?

    Enlightening.

  62. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Jack Russel, @locustsplease, @Oscar

    Like locustsplease I don’t generally watch such vids, however that one was useful as a kind of “fisking” of Sheila Gregoire’s daughter. IIRC there exists video of her and her husband, and he appears to be a normal, rather Betaized man as one would expect.

    One thing that didn’t get mentioned in the vid is the “personalizing” aspect. We saw this all over the church-girl blog space after Lori Alexander dropped her bomb in the middle of the tea party. In order to be a scholar of anything, a person must be able to read and understand simple and somewhat complicated sentences.

    “Men prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos” isn’t a complicated sentence. Yet somehow many women became extremely emotional over it, and in their emotion the statement magically changed to “God only saves debt free virgins without tattoos”. An abstract statement twisted into a personal attack inside girlspace.

    Women personalize things a lot. Men Do That Too but we tend to do it differently. It probably has to do with the ingroup vs. outgroup fears that lurk way down deep in the female hindbrain. To be regarded as a “slut” back in the good old days might just get a girl exiled from the tribe, or left behind when the tribe moves on. It’s tied to the survival instinct, and that’s why the emotion rears up out of nowhere: to be “outgrouped”, to be exiled is an existential matter of life and death, for the female hindbrain. That’s why the emotion is so intense. She’s not crazy per se, the back of her brain is terrified of being labeled “slutty” leading to “outcast”..so, “crazy with fear” perhaps. Fear that she herself does not, and can not, really understand.

    This is not unusual. With The Glasses on it can be seen over and over again. Women individually and a group sometimes will “hear” words that were not said, then get stoked up in outraged anger over the imaginary words. It’s a result of their emotions, their limbic system, and it’s a feature to be dealt with, because it doesn’t go away with age. The 18 year old girl outraged over something that wasn’t even said will become a 30-something woman who can get outraged over something else — that wasn’t said.

    Sure, it can also be a fitness test, but not in this case.

    The extreme emotionalism among the churchgoing blogger-girls is a good example of why women should not be allowed to preach, by the way. “Ask your husband at home” is sound in many ways.

    Disillusioned
    A real problem I am seeing in Christianity is the feeling that once your are “one”, nothing that you do is wrong.

    I’m pretty sure there is a word to describe that situation, it might be this:
    https://infogalactic.com/info/Antinomianism

  63. Expat Philo says:

    Besides, historically, a 14 yo boy had been raised with the understanding that he may have to shoulder a household of responsibilities should his father pass. Do you seriously maintain that this is the case today? Apples and oranges, that’s what we have here.

  64. Anonymous Reader says:

    Expat Philo
    So, the evil a woman commits is to be overlooked because her victims were males who happened to enjoy it?

    Who are you replying to?

  65. Crank says:

    “Whether I have or have not gone to college, have a job (or even hair), or am a homeless alcoholic omega male with a pot belly, etc. does not make me any less worthy of the sacrificial love of Jesus Christ, so what right does any earthly woman have to call me less than worthy and reject my sexual advances due to the same or any other criteria? Spread your legs, bitches, unless you think you’re better than Jesus himself!!”

  66. American says:

    “…and she has had all kinds of experience.” <– I would bet money that she has.

  67. feministhater says:

    Either it is wrong to have teachers having sex with their students or it is not.

    Pick one or the other. Condoning the act of sex of a thirty year old female teacher with that of an 14 year old boy but spewing rage at the male teacher who has sex with a 14 year old girl means you have no sense of consistency.

    If in both cases the minor consented, it is then only the difference of whether they were of an age where their consent could be made with the full faculty and maturity of the brain and body.

    If girls mature quicker than boys, it negates Nova’s argument. The 14 year old girl is more able to give consent than the 14 year old boy. If it was really based on the girl maybe becoming pregnant, the punishment would simply be marriage as it was in the past, not imprisonment.

  68. tteclod says:

    @Frank K

    Decades ago, when I was a young man, I heard after-the-fact about my former girlfriend’s wedding from her previous (before me) boyfriend, who received an invitation, so, yes, carousel riders invite former lovers to weddings.

    She’s been married twice more since then. I can testify that Heavenly Father does indeed watch over children and (lovesick) fools.

  69. horsemanbombadil says:

    Even a perfect robot to replace men isnt good enough. The future!

  70. tteclod says:

    I heard a “messianic rabbi” expounding upon “Let him without sin cast the first stone” during my afternoon commute yesterday. His explanation was something about how this provided an opportunity for the men to “save face” and not be the man to condemn the woman because each of them was also guilty of some sin and so they would have some empathy for the woman. The rabbi’s argument wasn’t that none were innocent and so couldn’t accuse the woman, but that they would show her mercy because they, too, were sinners.

    His argument, of course, is bullshit, and avoided the most obvious conclusion from the text. The accused adulteress was “caught in the act” by her accusers – but she is presented to Jesus alone – without her lover. Jesus, being no fool, suggests that the man among them who is “without sin” to throw the first stone. Every man there knows which sin Jesus means (as should the rest of you), and can’t start the execution. I wonder if any of the men DIDN’T catch her “in the act.”

    Isn’t it interesting that where the Bible records the story of the woman accused of adultery, it doesn’t mention her husband? As far as I know, an unmarried woman can’t commit adultery. Perhaps that’s an oversight. Or perhaps he was away, like Mr. Prynne.

    Which brings me to my main objection to “Jesus didn’t die on the cross for you to be a side chick.” Heavenly Father long before Jesus’ birth established how and when a man weds a women, and it doesn’t require a proposal, a ring, or a ceremony. If our customs and laws recognized that moment a marriage starts rather than ignoring it, we would see clearly that there are no “side chicks.”

  71. white says:

    The Israeli age of consent law is the most blatantly sexist one I have ever seen, designed specifically to turn a blind eye on women.

    “According to the Israeli Penal Code of 1977 the age of consent in Israel is 16 regardless of gender or sexual orientation, for any form of sexual relations involving penetration (unless the person above 16 is the one being penetrated – in that case the age of consent is 14).”

    Novaseeker would be proud!

  72. tteclod says:

    I can’t find it. I did find a spot – Ephesians 5:33 – where the NIV translates that women should respect their husbands, but then I checked the Vulgate. The word translated “respect” is “timeat,” which means “fear.” The Greek uses another word – φοβηται – but that also means “fear” (the source for phobia).

    It seems less like what we’re told the Bible means when it says, “Fear God,” and much more like, “Be afraid of your husband.”

  73. tteclod says:

    “That plan is: Men are to prepare themselves for marriage by work, study and be providers. Women are to prepare for marriage by keeping themselves chaste, and assembling good home making and home-keeping skills. Marriage is to be entered into soberly, objectively – in this case, “Is s/he a good partner? Can s/he maintain a commitment for life? ” – and quickly. Courtships of years are ridiculous. Modern concubinage (“we live together….”) more ridiculous still.”

    Spike, I think you overstate Heavenly Father’s plan for sex (and marriage). It’s really very simple. You marry when you [active verb]. Adultery is [active verb]-ing a woman who another man has [active verb]-ed, unless she has been abandoned by her previous husband (Old Testament), or he died (New Testament). Anno Domini, Christian men can’t dispose of any wife, except for adultery.

    There’s a clue to all this in the story of the woman at the well. If that’s too complex, you can always refer to Jesus discussion of marriage in Matthew 19. His disciples, upon hearing that divorcing a woman is committing adultery (by forcing the wife into adultery) as is [active verb]-ing a divorced woman, hazarded that it would be better not to marry. Jesus thought that was funny, and suggested they could only manage celibacy if they were dickless.

    I think we do have much to sort in our confused society, but I don’t think it’s any worse than circa 30 AD. I think that Heavenly Father has enough mercy to permit women abandoned by a husband to marry another man – better that then suffering alone or becoming promiscuous. But for men who fear Heavenly Father, [active verb]-ing a woman isn’t a one-night effort, and that changes the risk-reward analysis, as Jesus’ disciples realized.

  74. Scott says:

    The only other place I have ever heard the “you are married to the last woman you had sex with” (or variants such as “you are committing adultery with every one you have had sex with after the first one’) argument besides ttclod is the hardline Church of Christ–the tradition I grew up in.

  75. First, Christ didn’t sacrifice Himself on our behalf so that Christians (male or female) could have a pleasurable life of sin.

    This sentence jumped out at me the most. It cuts to the heart of an internal conflict im having between my aspirations to join the church, and the red pill.

    On the one hand, Christians are called and expected to obey God in everything, and that includes their sexuality. Either total chastity OR sexual relations with one’s married spouse, and only that spouse. Everything else is varying degrees of sin, and harmful.

    On the other hand, TRP and some that follow it assert that a man failing to exercise his masculinity by, among other things “spinning plates” and “getting experience” is less than what he could be.

    Tangential to this but no less important is the fact that churches today are being corrupted and repurposed by the feminine imperative. Before I started attending the tiny Greek Orthodox church here I went to a few others and I was extremely turned off and annoyed by the female pastors, the 4-1 ratio of women to men, and the total service of the gospel to the feminine imperative. The bible studies and sermons were all about how it relates to women.

    I am quite happy with my little Orthodox church, and I am talking about joining full-time with the priest. But my sex drive is still there. The pornography is still there. I’m no virgin, I’ve spun plates in the past, had some women here and there, never exactly what I’ve wanted, I’d have to put in alot more work and start meeting women again to get what I want.

    I want conflicting things, now. Yes, God and God’s laws ought and should take precedence over anything else. Meditation, prayer, finding other hobbies, all these things can keep lust at bay, and in the meantime I should be looking for a wife, right? But the nagging question I have in the back of my mind is, how does this make me different from the very same women like Wendy Griffith or the commenter at Alexander’s blog. Is there any way to integrate both TRP and Christianity permanently into my life, together? or are they simply at odds?

  76. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    tteclod: so, yes, carousel riders invite former lovers to weddings.

    Of course they do. It’s another shit test, with potential traps on either side.

    If the groom complains, he is “insecure in his manhood.” She is free to condemn him.

    If the groom does not complain, he is a wimpy Beta. She is free to hate him.

    How do you pass the test? I’m not sure even the woman giving it knows.

  77. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Scott
    “You is married because intercourse” is an idea that pops up in parts of the androsphere. If I remember correctly it was one of the hobbyhorses Artisinal Toad rode for a while, but maybe his ninja wives convinced him to give it up. It’s a form of role-playing, sometimes along with elaborate proposals for a functioning theocracy or absolute monarch.

    I’m coming to regard it as a form of displacement activity.

  78. locustsplease says:

    About 90% of christian women have this mentality and i might b generous. When they meet jesus its gonna b a rude awakening, these are polar opposites. When he says to them calmly you had sex with 5 men and any man who touches you commits a sin you are no mans wife!

    They present christianity as love and sacrafice. Women get the love man have to sacrafice. There are about 5 pastors who have the balls to say that women are not marriage material after 5 men. And they are not except rare cases which they mostly are not.

    Same as abortion you had 1 now you are no mans wife you are sin. Some how saying women are sinners is now incompatible with gods forgiveness. But really they would have to acknowledge their sin repent and ask for forgiveness. If a man is convicted of murder christian people have to see a serious repentant person to suggest any woman marry that man. A woman has an abortion hey honey just walk in the door and anyone who says a word about repentance is legalistic. Polar opposites.

  79. Scott says:

    I remember my Church of Christ preacher growing up used to preach sermons on that topic from time to time. I wondered why we had wedding ceremonies in the church if that was true.

    Now, I would like to see a return of pressuring young people whom every knows are already having sex to get married. To make a formal declaration (or in my case bless the union with the sacrament). They are behaving like married people, and need to do the right thing.

    But the sex=marriage thing is not really workable in real life.

  80. Frank K says:

    How do you pass the test?

    You cancel the wedding, walk away and never look back.

  81. vandicus says:

    Sex involves becoming one flesh, but it does not equal marriage. Sex outside of marriage is fornication.

  82. Name (required) says:

    “You is married because intercourse” is an idea that pops up in parts of the androsphere. If I remember correctly it was one of the hobbyhorses Artisinal Toad rode for a while, …
    That’s a rule God was willing to see his people live by. Yes, Toad pushed it. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Don’t fornicate, and you won’t fall afoul of that rule.

    But the sex=marriage thing is not really workable in real life.
    Then you need to change your real life. That rule has worked well for me. It helps that I was chaste until marriage, I suppose. I recommend that approach.

    By the way, [active verb]-ing? Are we ducking four letter words here? If that’s a blog rule, I’ll try to comply.

  83. Luke says:

    Anonymous Reader says:
    October 15, 2019 at 2:55 pm
    “So…in my best Cathy Newman voice: Jesus died so you could stay a whore?”

    [hands on hips, then right hand up with index finger wagging]
    “Judge not! Judge NOT! Let him without sin cast the first stone!”
    [stomp foot! backturn, leave in a huff]

    ———————————————————————————————————————-
    Re Jesus and the whore about to be stoned, I always figure they left out the rest of the story. When Jesus said “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, the nearest guy to him could well have just handed Jesus a rock and said, “Jesus, if you wanted to go first, all you had to do was say so”. 😉

  84. Acksiom says:

    The first problem with turning a blind eye to underaged male sex with female authority figures is that not every young boy exits the affair unharmed, and Novaseeker admits that with his “almost certainly” caveat.

    It doesn’t matter what the okay/harmed proportions are, because that’s not how the rule of law works. The law is there to protect the boys who aren’t ready for that kind of intimacy, regardless of how few of them there might be. They still deserve the same protection of their well-being, whether dozens or millions.

    That’s not mindless equalism. That’s the one of the peaks of advancement of the rule of law in modern culture.

    The second problem with it is the current state of paternal assignment in law, which remains one of its troughs. If she gets pregnant, the boy is a father at the age of 14/15 and on the hook for child support. I don’t think I need to find any of the cites of this actually happening for people here to remember the fact of their existence.

    It does surprise me that the latter problem, at the very least, appears to escape Novaseeker’s notice. It’s not only a valid counterpoint to his given basis for declaring the two sexes’ situations uncomparable but a very obvious, given just a few moments analytic thought.

  85. Oscar says:

    @ Anonymous Reader

    Like locustsplease I don’t generally watch such vids, however that one was useful as a kind of “fisking” of Sheila Gregoire’s daughter.

    That explains a lot.

    You know, if these female preachers want to eliminate the doctrine that women should not preach because they are more easily deceived, then maybe they shouldn’t get so hysterical on video for all to see. Melting down emotionally on camera just because someone wrote an article with which they disagree – maybe, just maybe – could be counter-productive to their cause.

    Nah. It’ll be fine.

  86. cynthia says:

    OT, but Dalrock, I think you may find this interesting.

    In a recent speech at Notre Dame, AG Barr said the following:

    “But today – in the face of all the increasing pathologies – instead of addressing the underlying cause, we have the State in the role of alleviator of bad fconsequences. We call on the State to mitigate the social costs of personal misconduct and irresponsibility.

    So the reaction to growing illegitimacy is not sexual responsibility, but abortion.

    The reaction to drug addiction is safe injection sites.

    The solution to the breakdown of the family is for the State to set itself up as the ersatz husband for single mothers and the ersatz father to their children.”

    Interesting, because I don’t think I’ve ever heard such a high ranking government official call out what the legal system has set up in regards to divorce and single moms.

    The whole speech can be found here: https://www.justice.gov/opa/speech/attorney-general-william-p-barr-delivers-remarks-law-school-and-de-nicola-center-ethics

  87. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Hypergamy televised: https://news.yahoo.com/five-men-week-women-spoilt-choice-tv-dating-093525062.html

    A woman invites five suitors to live with her in “Five Guys a Week” from Britain’s Channel 4, then gives them their marching orders if they fail to please her.

    “The guys all live with her at the same time and have to compete” for her favour, said Virginia Mouseler of The Wit industry database.

    In a clip from the forthcoming series shown in Cannes, divorcee Amy tells her hunky beau that “it pains me to have to eliminate you” while two minutes later she confesses to the camera, “I love it that it’s me that does the picking.”

  88. feeriker says:

    cynthia says:
    October 17, 2019 at 7:41 am

    So, did a riot erupt and Barr get tossed off the Notre Dame campus for making such un-PC remarks (especially at a Jesuit University)?

  89. Scott says:

    Feeriker-

    Generally when a “conservative” goes off the reservation and makes statements like that, the resounding chorus chimes in:

    “If men weren’t such miserable losers and dead beats, there would be no need for the state to come in and replace them.”

  90. Minesweeper says:

    @James, congrats on your ascension, but seriously bad idea inviting women to your pad. False accusations will await you. Never give you home address. Ever.

    Seriously.

  91. OscarWildeLoveChild says:

    Dalrock, I just had to laugh, thinking about you and Rollo. Did you see that Mia Khalifa or whatever her name is–the porn star, is getting MARRIED (this weekend I think?). I did not read of watch the interview, it was a link from another story. The headline was something like Mia Khalifa is ashamed of her porn past (which by the way, she claims was only three months long…little hard to believe).

    So, couple things. The Wall is Soft (as Roosh has always contended). There will always, ALWAYS be a white knight there to wife’em up. Secondly, she has to say she is ashamed now as part of her new “born again virgin” narrative. And lastly–they won’t last more than 3 years…5 tops…he’s some famous chef, so she will divorce rape him, walk away with cash and prizes…and her claim will be, when interviewed years down the road…you guessed it, “He just couldn’t handle my past…he wasn’t mature enough, or accepting enough, to handle my prior life…and truth be told, I’m NOT ashamed of it…in fact I have a new DVD….”

    Wait for it. It will come.

  92. cynthia says:

    @feeriker

    It looks like everything was quite cordial at Notre Dame. However, AG Barr also dared to insinuate such terrible things as democracy can only succeed in this country if the country is Christian, and that it is a violation of one’s rights to have atheism and SJW politics rammed down their throats in public school. The storm is likely coming for him.

  93. Robert What? says:

    I never realized what an utter fool Pat Robertson is.

  94. Anonymous Reader says:

    I never realized what an utter fool Pat Robertson is

    Better late than never.

  95. thedeti says:

    Griffith, on the video:

    Every woman is worth “I love you, period.”

    Um. Says who?

    Perhaps every woman who gives her life to Christ is worth “I love you” from God. That is for God to decide.

    But whether a woman is worth a man’s “I love you”, is for individual men to decide.

    Ladies, I’ll decide whether you’re worth “I love you”. I’ll decide your worth and value to me. Your salvation does not mean I have to invest in you, commit to you, or marry you. Your salvation does not entitle you to the love of any man you want.

  96. Minesweeper says:

    @OscarWildeLoveChild says:”Did you see that Mia Khalifa or whatever her name is–the porn star, is getting MARRIED (this weekend I think?).

    …they won’t last more than 3 years…5 tops…he’s some famous chef, so she will divorce rape him, walk away with cash and prizes…and her claim will be, when interviewed years down the road…you guessed it, “He just couldn’t handle my past…he wasn’t mature enough, or accepting enough, to handle my prior life…and truth be told, I’m NOT ashamed of it…in fact I have a new DVD….”

    It will be his toxic masculinity that will be the problem, nothing else.

    Not the fact she sucked 20 miles of dick on camera.

    @BillyS, hope your doing alright man, not see you in a while.

  97. Hugh Mann says:

    “Written by none other than the lovely Wendy Griffith, and she has had all kinds of experiences!”

    They just don’t include being married and raising a family?

  98. Anonymous Reader says:

    Somewhat OT
    Doug Wilson has a new project to work on: a women named Rachel Green Miller has written a book with the title “Beyond Authority and Submission: Woman and Men in Marriage, Church, and Society”. I have not looked at it, but given certain facts I suspect is a more subtle version of conservative Feminism.

    Her site:
    https://rachelgreenmiller.com/

    Wilson reviewed a chapter, some of his allies piled into criticism, Miller was in the process of firing back, and a bit more searching revealed that she’s been a public enemy of his for several years via blogging.

    Wilson’s review
    https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/a-little-jumpy-perhaps.html

    This is all just a heads up: it very much appears that yet another evangelical woman has written yet another book to explain patiently to men how we are Doing It All Wrong and if we would just listen and pay attention like good little boys, society would be hugely improved….and Doug Wilson is in his fumbling, pedantic, way attempting to push back but probably not too hard. Henches on both sides are chiming in, so the various online sites such as the Gospel Coallition are probably already on fire.

    Rachel Held Evans was not available for comment.

  99. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    It appears that International Pronouns Day was a few days ago: https://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/news/stoke-on-trent-news/senior-police-officer-criticised-issuing-3436154

    And an English cop got in trouble for supporting it:

    A video released by a senior police officer to mark International Pronouns Day has come under fire from social media users.

    Deputy Chief Constable Julie Cooke, from Cheshire Police, released the 29 second video on Twitter underlining why she was backing the campaign.

    Having started in the USA, International Pronouns Day aims to encourage people to use the correct terminology when talking to those who are transgender or gender nonconforming.

    The campaign says referring to people with the correct pronouns is ‘basic to human dignity’. …

  100. JRob says:

    Great find AR.
    I researched Dougie’s fencesitting elsewhere and found an old interview.
    https://issuesetc.org/2012/07/31/4-evangelical-feminism-doug-wilson-73112/

    Pretend it ain’t him if you care to listen.

  101. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Another Feminist vs. Tranny battle: https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/toronto-public-library-under-fire-over-event-by-controversial-speaker

    The Toronto Public Library is coming under fire over its refusal to cancel an event featuring a speaker who believes transgender rights endanger women, with several authors vowing to boycott the institution’s events in light of its decision.

    An online petition that had gathered more than 2,500 signatures by Wednesday afternoon says the library is providing a platform for Meghan Murphy to spread hate speech.

    The petition, started by authors Alicia Elliott, Catherine Hernandez and Carrianne Leung, says the publishing professionals who sign it will no longer participate in events at the library if the talk is allowed to go ahead on Oct. 29.

    “We are shocked that our public institutions we hold in regard would allow Murphy to have a platform while purporting to uphold community values. More than that, we feel betrayed,” the petition reads.

    “Offering Murphy a platform means denying the resources and promise of safe and equitable space to trans communities.” …

  102. Scott says:

    RPL

    You know, we all (including me) keep waiting for the coalition of the freak show aggrieved to implode from their inherent internally inconsistent values and interests colliding but it never seems to happen.

  103. BillyS says:

    Thanks Minesweeper. I finally got a new job that should work out really well. It is keeping me very busy, but I would rather have that than living in my car. I am still lonely as hell, but nothing I can do about that. I want to find a good church, but too many smug churchians for me. I will keep looking, but it is tough to find a place I can agree close enough theologically and avoid condescension by those who have no clue how hard it is to connect in today’s society.

  104. BillyS says:

    RPL,

    The campaign says referring to people with the correct pronouns is ‘basic to human dignity’. …

    Everyone should use the correct pronouns, but not the ones people who mutilate their body (or minds) want.

  105. Oscar says:

    @ Scott

    You know, we all (including me) keep waiting for the coalition of the freak show aggrieved to implode from their inherent internally inconsistent values and interests colliding but it never seems to happen.

    That’s an excellent observation, and I recently re-read a quote from Orwell that may explain why it never seems to happen.

    “Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”

    ― George Orwell, 1984

    It may never happen, and that’s scary as hell. The only place where the collision seems inevitable is where Islam becomes at least a plurality of the population.

  106. Well, right now I’m juggling 8 different women all of which want to drive up to spend a weekend. Two have already done so. They drive 4 hours to spend a weekend with an unknown man in a tourist town.

    I can’t say you’re not doing Glenn Frey one better, dude. The first thing I saw with that was “Four that want to own me, two that want to stone me, one says she’s a friend of mine,” but that’s only seven. Pick wisely, sure, but take. your. pick!

  107. Gunner Q says:

    “You know, we all (including me) keep waiting for the coalition of the freak show aggrieved to implode from their inherent internally inconsistent values and interests colliding but it never seems to happen.”

    That’s not the way the devil works. His ideal society has us constantly running from one lie to another. It doesn’t matter which lie we support so long as it isn’t the truth.

    When your beliefs become nothing more than your chosen path to seizing power, Satan smiles. *Gunner points at the Democratic Presidential debates*

  108. BillyS says:

    James,

    While I do want to get into better shape, juggling several women has 0 appeal to me, no matter how attractive they are. That probably makes me one of the “losers” the women who follow you laugh at, but I don’t care about that. I also find living a hedonistic lifestyle to go completely against serving my Lord, however willing the women are, so I would question that part of things if you claim to be a Christian yourself.

    This makes it really tough for men like me who have no earthly connections, but the alternatives are not worth pursuing for anyone who wants to attempt to honor God with their life.

  109. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Nanny molests 11-year-old boy, gives birth to his son: https://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Nanny-gets-20-years-for-sex-abusing-child-having-14544133.php

    A former live-in nanny has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for repeatedly sexually abusing a Florida child. She later gave birth to the boy’s son.

    News outlets report 28-year-old Marissa Mowry was sentenced Wednesday after pleading guilty to sexual battery and agreeing to be designated a sexual predator.

    Authorities say the abuse started when the boy was 11 and Mowry was 22.

    The now 17-year-old victim and his 5-year-old son appeared Wednesday with the teen’s mother, who testified that the family initially thought Mowry had a baby with her boyfriend. Her son later disclosed he was the father, and DNA proved it.

    The teen’s mother said this changed her son’s life, but he’s an “amazing dad,” taking his son to school each day before going to school himself.

  110. Frank K says:

    I also find living a hedonistic lifestyle to go completely against serving my Lord

    + 1 million. Our Lord didn’t die on the cross so we could be players.

    For some reason this reminds me of an anecdote:

    I was having lunch with my colleagues and someone brought up the Billy Joel song, the one where he said the he would rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. Many preset chuckled and expressed their agreement. Once they were done, I calmly said “No one is laughing in Hell”. No one challenged me on that.

  111. thedeti says:

    Always a photo of the female offender in the older woman/minor boy statutory rape cases.

    Reason? To appeal to men’s prurient interests. Men read those articles to see the picture so they can say “would bang” or “Would not bang”.

  112. Frank K says:

    A former live-in nanny has been sentenced to 20 years in prison for repeatedly sexually abusing a Florida child.

    Are the late night talk show hosts and comedians still cracking jokes about how lucky kids like that are?

    And why do I have the sinking feeling that she will be released very early, and will successfully sue her victim for custody and child support?

    Once pedophilia is decriminalized I’m certain that every molester will be released from prison, as governors will be tripping over each other granting them pardons.

  113. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Woman forces husband to sign divorce papers at gunpoint: https://www.wkrg.com/northwest-florida/pensacola-woman-accused-of-forcing-husband-to-sign-divorce-papers-at-gunpoint/

    A Pensacola woman accused of forcing her husband to sign divorce papers at gunpoint was arrested Friday.

    Millanie Sherbrook, 45, was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without the intent to kill.

    An Escambia County Sheriff’s Office arrest report says Sherbrook and her husband were arguing over divorce on Oct. 11. When the man refused to sign the papers and stated he would rather handle it in court, deputies said Sherbrook grabbed a Smith and Wesson .38-caliber handgun, pointed it at her husband, followed him and told him to sign the papers.

    The man eventually gave in to Sherbrook’s commands and signed the papers, deputies said.

    Sherbrook continued to follow the man with the gun, the report said, so he called law enforcement.

    He told deputies he feared his wife because “she is a good shooter.”

    Sherbrook was arrested. She remains in the Escambia County jail without bond.

    In all these cases, the woman always gets off easier than the man.

    What if a man had forced a woman to sign divorce papers at gunpoint? Or if a man had repeatedly molested an 11-year-old girl?

  114. kaminsky says:

    Frank K you beat me to it. This boy probably has to run a lemonade stand 60 hours a week to pay child support. At least they can’t enslave him much with imputed income later on.

  115. Frank K says:

    I suppose that since he’s still a minor that his parents have legal custody, But when he turns 18 that will change and if she’s released before the child grows up you just know that she will sue for custody as well as cash and prizes.

  116. Oscar says:

    @ Red Pill Latecomer

    A Pensacola woman accused of forcing her husband to sign divorce papers at gunpoint was arrested Friday.

    Millanie Sherbrook, 45, was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without the intent to kill.

    She kind of did him a favor. It wouldn’t take a genius lawyer to argue that case on the ex-husband’s behalf.

  117. Frank K says:

    She kind of did him a favor.

    That’s what it takes these days to a fair shake, your ex has to be convicted felon, serving time.

  118. Kaminsky says:

    Don’t celebrate so fast on the husband’s behalf. This would be an interesting one to follow. She can claim abuse etc and I doubt she even does any time at all.

  119. Scott says:

    Off topic, but I was thinking about a recent conversation we had on here about Generation X

    https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/2019/10/18/generation-x-turns-50/

  120. locustsplease says:

    @frank k. Yes you are right convicted and serving time. Just being charged with a crime, this person has rights and is innocent until proven guilty. Convicted, your criminal record cannot b used against you in a divorce or child custody case unless it directly involved the child. Convicted and in jail, well its physically impossible to give this woman the house so here you go.

  121. Acksiom says:

    >Nanny molests 11-year-old boy, gives birth to his son: https://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/Nanny-gets-20-years-for-sex-abusing-child-having-14544133.php

    Novaseeker?

    Hello?

  122. @Dalrock Is Hodges worse than Driscoll?

    Megachurch suit mocks Revelation 13…

    True Bible teacher sets the record straight from Revelation 14

  123. Chuck Headroom says:

    Some of you posters, who I actually quite like, appear to be flagrantly violating tenets of Dalrock’s comment policy: namely, the age of consent arguments are indeed derailing the thread.

    In other news, the daughter of Dr. Jordan Peterson has left her husband and is now “friends” with Manosphere-adjacent figure “Cobra” Tate. What a small world. https://twitter.com/KeithWoodsYT/status/1185269435050987525

  124. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    More news on the anti-male bias in college admissions: https://www.takimag.com/article/tough-testing/

    One of the less remarked-upon gender gaps is in college attendance: Young men have fallen far behind young women. Males now make up only 43 percent of college students despite continuing to earn slightly higher average scores on college admission tests.

    Perversely, journalist Paul Tough’s much-praised new book, The Years That Matter Most: How College Makes or Breaks Us, calls for America to worsen this inequality by dumping the SAT and ACT for being biased toward boys. …

  125. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Poor Meghan Markle is already suffering abusive levels of boredom and drudgery from being a royal: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7593293/Meghan-says-existing-not-living-struggles-pressures-royal-life.html

    Meghan Markle has said that she is ‘existing, not living’ while struggling with the pressures of royal life and media scrutiny.

    The Duchess opened up during an emotional interview with broadcaster Tom Bradby for a new documentary which is set to air on ITV tonight.

    A new video from the documentary has emerged today which shows Harry discussing potentially leaving the UK one day to live in Africa. …

    In an article for the Sunday Times, Mr Bradby recalled asking Meghan whether she was able to cope with the endless media scrutiny the newlywed has been under.

    She said, ‘We are taking it one day at a time,’ before admitting that the couple are currently ‘existing, not living.’

    The Duchess received an outpouring of support from Twitter users on Friday after a clip from tonight’s documentary was released in which she admitted she was ‘not really OK’. …

  126. Anonymous Reader says:

    She said, ‘We are taking it one day at a time,’ before admitting that the couple are currently ‘existing, not living.’

  127. Opus says:

    Over here we are all desperately praying for the return to non-abusive levels of drudgery and boredom for the Duchess of Sussex. We talk of little else which is why that Mail article has garnered no less than twenty six thousand comments comparing her misery with that of the privileged Africans she so recently graced with her presence. Surely then she will support the petition to be heard this week by the East Sussex County Council relieving her of the formidable pressure of being called and to her face Duchess. No one in these egalitarian times needs that. We are all true Brexiteers and thoroughly approve of her consort the Duke’s oft spoken desire to get away from his wife and thus avoid further unseemly public rows (such as the one this week) and to live forever in Botswana (wherever that may be).

    Are there any Africans in Beverley Hills?

  128. Frank K says:

    Does this count?

  129. horsemanbombadil says:

    How people used to meet.

    Should do a contest on why he didn’t say anything

    And what nuclear rejection she would use if he did.

  130. feministhater says:

    Harry’s divorce will be epic. Probably won’t even get that far, Meghan will have an unfortunate accident with a nail gun or perhaps a vacuum cleaner, you just never know these days….

  131. Minesweeper says:

    @horsemanbombadil, that was hilarious !

  132. Minesweeper says:

    @FH, “”When I first met my now-husband my friends were really happy because I was so happy,” she said.”

    Now shes NOT HAPPY which means the relationship is doomed to never recover.

    Anyone guessing on a timeline ? BPD’s tend to move quick when facing abandonment (as the UK public has of her now), I’m thinking, he will have another couple of months, before the initiation of it all.

    I bet you harrys fortune she has a TOP UK divorce lawyers number already.

  133. Frank K says:

    I bet you harrys fortune she has a TOP UK divorce lawyers number already.

    I wonder if there are any special gotchas in the UK when the royal family is involved. If said lawyers have been awarded their “silk: (Queen’s Counsel) could it be revoked by the Queen?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Counsel

  134. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    About a year ago, I read in a U.S. tabloid that in the months before the wedding, the royal family had MI5 scour the internet for porn videos and images of Meghan. They also sent agents around the world, buying up the rights to Meghan’s porn work, and paying off people who had dirt on Meghan. British intelligence worked very hard cleansing Meghan’s past.

    I suppose all that Meghan porn is in an MI5 vault somewhere, and could be released in case of divorce.

  135. Frank K says:

    How exactly did they buying all her porn? I assume that at the time it must have been for sale to the public. Did they visit every dude who bought a VHS or DVD and make him an offer he couldn’t refuse?

    Anyway, this whole debacle just goes to show how absurd it is to fawn over royalty from any country. or any celebrities for that matter, Yet it sells.

  136. Minesweeper says:

    @FrankK, the royals tend these days to get divorced, well if the last 40 years is anything to go buy, and the lawyers make out like bandits.

    Only Will+Kate have survived – happily, I guess hypergamy dosn’t kick in when your wedded to the future King of England.

    Although Im sure Opus has an learned opinion on this.

  137. Opus says:

    @minesweeper

    I do of course have a view, which is that these days even being the King of England is not what it once was (frankly presently a Satrap). You appear to have forgotten that Lady Di was once married to the heir to the throne but that did not stop her seeking (like Semele) even greater fame – as she hung out with the world’s true superstars – Pavarotti, Mandela, Mother Theresa – and like Semele burned up. There should be a lesson there for Markle but I doubt she would take it even if it were shoved in her face.

    I enjoyed The Lift, and was wondering where it was made. The spellings are American yet I thought America used to term Elevator rather than Lift. Would it then be Canadian?

  138. Liz says:

    William and Kate have only been married for eight years. They do seem happy (I suspect they are). But that isn’t very long.

  139. Frank K says:

    From what I read Lady D got a $22.5 million lump sum. Google says that MM’s net worth is $5M, so it would be a big financial win for her. Of course, she won’t be able to return to her previous life as a second (or third?) tier actress and the semi-privacy she once had, not even in the US, though I doubt the paparazzi will hound her the way did Lady D.

  140. Minesweeper says:

    @Frank K, LadyD got $22.5M 20 years ago ? Whats that in today money ? $50M ?

    MM can easily hide away on some tropical island for a bit, the paps will forget her\ner endless stream of new lovers etc if she dosnt want to play along for kicks.

    I mean look at Fergie ? Or rather don’t…..

  141. Minesweeper says:

    @FrankK, Poor Opus has been looking at photos of fergie for the last 40 years.

    As long as they dont post a pic of MM having her toes sucked by her new bf, trust me, the brits will forgive. I mean, the bar is loooowwwwwwww.

  142. rogerrrrrr says:

    This is empowering, as Christ’s teachings apply equally to both sexes! As a man, I go, bro! Women better be prepared to crawl through broken glass for my favor! Christ didn’t die on the cross for me to be in the friend zone! Me! Meeee! It’s all about my romantic life! Yeah baby!

  143. Belittled says:

    Here’s an area in marriage and sex with the church largely fails.

    A significant number of women “defraud” the marriage bed on a regular if not consistent basis. This definitely happens when the husband is a “blue pill beta” who she does not truly respect nor have any sense of sexual obligation to, but it also has occurred to some of the best looking “manly” men that I’ve known.

    A significant percentage of fundamental/evangelical pastors admonish husbands to “love their wives as Christ loved the church” and give her extra tenderness because she is a “weaker vessel”. Entire ‘Christian” programs, some costing hundreds of dollars a month (who in the hell can afford that), have been established to help men deal with their pornographic addictions. In many cases the use of porn is a direct result of their “Christian” wives refusing to engage in even the most vanilla acts of sexual intimacy on a regular basis.

    Yet, in view of all of this very few preachers/Christian counselors I’m aware of have the stones to tell women straight up “the Bible commands you to love your husband with your body (1st Corinthians 7)‘ and if you do not do so you are sinning against your marriage bed and God. Never mind, exercise in church discipline against “Christian” women who refuse their husbands sex.

    I stayed in a fail first marriage for years longer than I should’ve. Not a single Christian nor preacher/pastor ever suggest that I divorce my now ex-wife, who blatantly admitted that she was a feminist, with no obligation to share her body with me, and did not in fact love me. She would not initiate divorce because I provided a beautiful home, health insurance, and a steady income. In the Old Testament economy she would not have lasted a week in their concept of marriage, yes she got a nearly “free ride” for years in Christian marriage because I was extremely conscientious about “holding up my end” as the husband. This is wrong and it’s exactly why I finally got the balls to man up and divorce her. Now, did I get any support for my evangelical brethren for this? Are you kidding? I had to leave church for years.

    Nevertheless, I have no doubt that a robust Christian faith on the part of both husbands and wives have helped build many strong marriages and families. However, when this is not the case and one or both spouses neglect and abuse the holy commands regarding marriage in the New Testament, Divorce unfortunately is the only outcome, especially for the spouse who wishes to continue in a genuine faith. I do not repent for my divorce!

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.