Recently, it has dawned on me that the rut men are stuck in has a lot to do with false hope. False hope about what? Well, sex. Feminism supposedly liberated men from the confines and drudgery of marriage, and in the beginning many men eagerly anticipated a world in which they would no longer be frustrated by their inability to sleep with the attractive women they saw all around them. If only those women were liberated, they thought, sex would be easy to come by. Of course, this turned out to be a huge disappointment. F. Roger Devlin has explained in detail why this is the case: women’s sexual liberation only benefited the most attractive men in terms of wealth and looks because it turned women’s hypergamous instincts loose on our society.
The problem is that this has not done anything to quench natural male desire, so most men continue to soldier on in the face of failure, doing whatever they can to land a woman for a night of release, or possibly a relationship. Most men are stuck in a constant state of frustration that is at least as bad as it was during the old days of social shaming, and at the same time they get virtually none of the old benefits that used to come from having a wife.
Although men are not happy with the current state of relations between men and women, they still hold onto the fantasy that they are – or at least have a chance to be – more sexually fulfilled than they would in a more traditional society. It is essentially a gambler’s mentality, with men thinking that if they at least have a chance, someday they’ll hit it big. Most never will, and as more and more single men age out of the prime dating market they will discover that they wasted a good portion of their lives alone and frustrated. Some, like Sodini, may even become suicidal or homicidal as a result.
In fact, this is where feminism and women really have men by the balls, so to speak. I also suspect that this is why traditional morality and abstinence are hated with a passion by feminists. It is this constant state of deprivation combined with just-out-of-reach titillation that gives women such absolute power over men. Imagine a country where the government enforces scarcity for the majority of people, yet constantly shows examples of how being a patient and obedient little citizen could pay off with fabulous riches at any time. For most people it’s a cruel lie, but it fosters false hope for the majority and thereby keeps them in line. That’s what’s happening to men: many of us are eagerly anticipating a pussy payoff even as women smirk and walk all over us in every other realm of life.
There are two ways to break out of this rut, and unfortunately neither comes all that naturally to most men. First, there is Game, which can make it so easy to get laid for those with talent that women cannot manipulate them with sex. Secondly, there is a spiritual commitment to extramarital abstinence, which similarly robs women of power over its practitioners. I think both are equally effective on the individual level, but due to hypergamy only the latter would likely be effective as a society-wide approach. Interestingly, I think even attaining a certain level of Game has a spiritual aspect as well, because one might transcend certain temporal appetites simply through overexposure.
Neither Game nor commitment to sexual morality can ever be absolutely implemented, but both could become a lot more widespread than they currently are in our netherworld of male deprivation and false hope. And, strangely, I think they can exist together and have a cumulative effect, because at their core both share one belief in common: women’s sexuality is overvalued. Those who practice Game may seem to be sex fiends who live only to get laid, but fundamentally Game is a technique that lowers the cost of obtaining sex — these guys don’t think it’s worth blowing hard earned money or going through humiliating ordeals to get laid, and they’re acting on that principle. Those who believe in sexual morality think that women’s sexuality is of lesser value than obedience to God and their faith.
Both paths are different, but they end up in the same place: with the realization that getting laid just ain’t worth all that.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 342 comments… read them below or add one }
“Interestingly, I think even attaining a certain level of Game has a spiritual aspect as well, because one might transcend certain temporal appetites simply through overexposure.”
Yep.
Getting laid is actually the easiest thing in the world. Back in my high school days I used to snap up every piece of pussy that came my way,fearing that I might never get another chance, but after realizing how easy it was to get laid I now measure exactly how much bullshit I’m going to have to go through and if it’s too much, I just throw that one back.
No sense wasting your time and money on pussy, you can always get it cheaper and better somewhere else.
I think there is another aspect that is often overlooked: competition against other men. I’d say that most men get more sex today than at any time in the past. 60% of our male ancestors didn’t procreate. But there is a “keeping up with Jones” effect at play here. When we see certain guys getting lots of action, even though we may be getting a little action too, it reminds us that we’re “losing”.
The same thing applies to the economy. People today have more material goods and a higher quality of life than at any time in the history of the world. The poorest person today lives a more luxurious lifestyle than the wealthiest nobles of the ‘olden days’, yet people are miserable with their station.
Happiness and utility has to do with expectations. Welmer is right when he discusses the expectation that men had in wake of feminism and liberal sexual morality. The idea of feminism promised so much to so many – women *and* men that it inevitably failed due to excessive pressure. Feminism and progressivism promised a Utopia which, of course, never came to fruition.
The third possibility: remove onesself from the issue entirely by joining a culturally conservative church, find a tolerable woman and settle down to a marriage that is close to traditional. This is expensive in some terms, because cultural, traditionalist, conservatism does not appeal much to many modern men, especially young ones. Looking at it cold bloodedly, though, it is superior to both alternatives because a woman in the home is worth any number at the bar, provided she’s selected from a pool of women who are not feminist in outlook. And even more cold bloodedly, having children is voting on the future. Mark Steyn says the future belongs to those that show up for it. Looking around at my church on sunday, I see men and women in their 20’s & 30’s (and some in their 40’s) with children. The only families with one child are those with newborns, most have two, three, or more children. When I spend time in other places, I see feminists with no children, or perhaps one. Demographics are not on the side of those who hate children.
Today’s newborns are the new voters of 2028.
There are other reasons, and problems, with family life within a culturally conservative matrix. It isn’t for everyone. But it affects the future more than Game or withdrawing does.
The reason that feminists hate “traditional” values is because it imposes morality on the WOMAN where she cannot be overtly sexual (at least in public) to attract the Alpha men and be viewed as respectable. Feminists are basically bitter ugly and/or lesbian females who can’t stand the idea of men enjoying themselves and taking the good looking females away from them. Lesbians make up only 1/2 of 1% of the population yet organisations like NOW are at least 50% or more lesbian. These are the same misfits and man hating neurotic spinsters who were around in the 1800’s and wanted to ban everything associated with men like drinking to whorehouses to boxing (it was illegal) . You’ll notice that these Carey Nation types never went after any “vice” associated with females. She went around busting up saloons but why not drug stores? 80% of opium and /or cocaine addicts were female in the 1800’s
I like this post, and definitely agree. This is the formula for men:
Game + Dropping Out = LIBERATION
Some guys will learn Game, and will use it to varying degrees of effectiveness and for many purposes. But many more men will eventually “drop out”. I think the most likely ways this will happen is either through male abstinence, or guys just refusing to chase anymore, instead prefer to do other things with their time, whether it’s video games, sports, hanging out with other guys, porn, travel/expat or whatever. In any case, when fewer and fewer men start showing up to romance the womenfolk they will find that they have overreached themselves.
Yes—most of the women are chasing the few guys at the top, classic 80/20 scenario. But what this means is that women have essentially commoditized themselves.
But hey, it’s what they wanted, right?
Good article. That’s how I see it, too.
When we see certain guys getting lots of action, even though we may be getting a little action too, it reminds us that we’re “losing”.
This. Sometimes married men complain about only having sex a few times a week (the average for a married couple) because they assume everybody else is having sex a few times a day, so they feel left out. When in reality, they probably wouldn’t actually want to have sex a few times a day, at least not all the time. The fact is that they’re having sex a few times a week, every week, all year, year after year. And they don’t have to waste their time chasing airheads in bars in order to do it.
Novaseeker described marriage once as sexual socialism, and that’s pretty much what it is. You get a wife, she may not be the greatest but you get to pick her out yourself, and she’s available and reserved for your private use (to put it crudely).
I agree, Welmer. I’ve always seen PUAs and MGTOW as allies who simply use different strategies in the same fight.
I like being married because my wife is sane and has traditional values.
If I were unmarried, my choice would be aggressive Game devoid of all sympathy and compassion for the other side.
PUAs have misogynist-itis just like feminazis do. If you dare suggest a man should wear the pants in his relationships, these bozos pull out the misogynist card even faster than feminists. PUAs are insecure white knights disguised as “cool/smooth guys”
I learned some of David DeAngelo’s teachings several years ago, had some fun, and then chose celibacy.
I now do my best to avoid women altogether but do sometimes bring out a little bit of Game. The combination of a successful, intellectual, but frankly unsexual man who is far more knowing than most guys has inspired more than a few women to shake their ass/make doggy-in-heat eyes in my direction. One lady even tried to set me up with her 18 year old daughter. (!!!) But nope, not going there ladies.
I don’t know if I’ll be celibate forever but to say the least, there is incredible power in knowing you don’t need them, you probably don’t even want them, and they can be yours if you so choose.
Highly recommended.
Sword and shield, baby.
Real talk: this sounds like a powerful way to live. I can’t even imagine what this would be like, and I’m sure on some level it’s bliss—to have bitches just falling over themselves around you, but you’re completely zen, totally self-actualized, needing nothing from them. But I think this is really only possible for older, more mature guys. Men my age (mid-20s) just can’t get over the pussy. I personally think about it all the time—the urge is just too strong when you’re young, I think. Without Game I’d really be up a creek—like a lot of other guys my age.
But I honestly do look forward to not giving a fuck…in about 20 or so years when the urge just isn’t quite as imperative, and when I’ve been a more tempered by life. But right now, I think Game is the way to go for guys at this stage in their life.
You’ll be in more control of those urges within a few years — not a few decades. Men go through a pretty profound change after adolescence is complete, which is generally around the age of 25 or so. It isn’t purely hormonal either — there’s something about the increasing white matter in your brain giving you more control over impulses if I remember correctly. I’d say I was at my most hopeless from 17-24, and then after that I rapidly gained the ability to control myself and say no to women.
These days, being able to exercise restraint around women is a very valuable ability to have, especially as you get older and more established. They can and often will wreck your life for their own aggrandizement, but they can’t do that if their sexuality holds no power over you.
Why not just see an escort? Find one on CL, some of them are pretty cool. I befriended an escort awhile back and she enjoyed my company and didnt mind giving me freebies once in awhile.
Dragnet says:
In my case, I declared celibacy in my late 20’s….It does help that I meditate easily and frequently and practice some mind-body techniques of channeling energy such as kundalini yoga, chi gong, chakra toning, and shaking meditation.
You’ll know if and when the time is right for you. The path I’ve chosen has it’s benefits but it’s not necessarily “better” than another…except maybe the path of a supplicating mangina
“and at the same time they get virtually none of the old benefits that used to come from having a wife.”
I think you over-rate the supposed benefits of having a wife. I can’t think of any except for those very few men who got lucky enough to ge a wife like my mum.
‘Feminism’ is good for men as society collapses. As the ship goes down women are going to become more and more desperate for someone to look after them and that will require sexual favours to the men. I am lucky, I’m towards the top of the tree so a lot of others are going to suffer a lot more and a lot sooner than me.
By being so ‘liberated’ sex becomes easier to get than it ever was in the past. And since a vasectomy is cheap it comes without the chance of kids…..just ‘wrap up’ because she WILL have some STDs if she is over 21 and western. Such is life…we all must take risks….
I am male and I am liberated. And as has always been the case I need to compete with other men for women. That’s as liberated as it’s ever going to get. That should motivate men to work harder and make money because that is all that women are interested in.
I do not think it is outrageous to suggest that men will breed women just like sheep or cattle. AH has an old article about this. The only thing stopping us is the guvment so we can tell the guvment to take a hike.
Black&German February 3, 2010 at 13:22
“This. Sometimes married men complain about only having sex a few times a week (the average for a married couple)”
B&G, married men complain about only having sex a few times a YEAR….you got the wrong timeline. I know PLENTY of guys who had to go without sex for months on end because they face 10-15 in jail if they ‘rape’ their wife. Please stop with lies like this….it is actually much worse than this being married.
the religious freaks promoting marriage as that ship sinks are worse than the feminists.
Oh my god…
“women’s sexual liberation only benefited the most attractive men in terms of wealth and looks”
A statement of shortcomings, thus frustration?
“Although men are not happy with the current state of relations between men and women”
Speak for yourself, pleaaaase!!!
“In fact, this is where feminism and women really have men by the balls”
NO, this is where YOU feel they have YOU by the balls…
“that gives women such absolute power over men”
In your little world, maybe…
“many of us are eagerly anticipating a pussy payoff even as women smirk and walk all over us”
Ahum, rephrase: Walk all over ME. You allow this?
“There are two ways to break out of this rut”
Yes, indeed..
1) look in the mirror and see where YOU fail
2) pull the plug on your PC, and go out and see the real world.
“Both paths are different”
Indeed,
1) accomplishes an image of yourself and allows you to get past and beyond yourseld
2) leads to a perception of REALITY.
Welmer, you are a smart guy with an outstanding vocabulary, yet somehow you miss out on something rational.
Black & German says:
As somebody who posts a lot on this site, it would seem to me you would have seen some of the many anecdotes about men trapped in sexless marriages by shrieking harridans. If not, here is another one-
A friend of a friend married his college sweetheart. They were each other’s “first” sex partners and long-term relationships. I would consider them “low beta” male and female. Nothing to write home about, but nice enough.
Within a year of getting married, she pushed him into buying an old Victorian house out in a cornfield with his money, so that he has to commute ungodly hours to work every day. They then had a kid, and the minute she found out she was pregnant she declared, “I no longer feel sexual attraction for you, and we need to sleep in separate bedrooms now.” The baby is about a year old, and this guy is stuck in a sexless marriage with a woman who basically used him to buy her a house and knock her up, apparently so she could fulfill her “Little House on the Prairie” fantasies. He is contemplating divorce but knows he will get taken to the cleaners if he does so.
I hear stories like this all the time. And often, her true colors do not appear until after she’s squeezed out a few kids. How can marriage even be a viable option anymore, for a man?
Whether he chooses game or celibacy, a man must lose the toxic shame over “not getting laid.”
The first step is to be able to answer, “you can’t get laid” with a “so what?” It means when a woman taunts you with, “you can’t get laid” you can answer “so what?” It means when another man taunts you with, “you can’t get laid” you can answer “so what?” It means when another man is been mocked with, “you can’t get laid” you can look the would-be accuser in the eye and say “so what?”
It means becoming happy that seduction is currently one of those things you are just not that good at. So what? On average, we are all average. We cannot all be masters of seduction anymore then we can be all be master chess players, master pianists, or Wall Street masters-of-the-universe.
It is true that the sex drive can be powerful. It is true that unfulfilled sex drive can be frustrating. Do not add to that with toxic shame. Do not add to others toxic-shame with your own comments.
I’ve been meaning to write up a post on “solutions” but haven’t had the time. This post touches on some of my ideas. Thanks for promoting the subject, Welmer!
And by some of “my” ideas, I mean, ideas I had had previously to writing the post. Not trying to imply Welmer stole them or anything – great minds think alike, perhaps?
That’s not marriage. If she’s refusing to sleep with him, she’s breaking her vows. Obviously.
The problem isn’t marriage, it’s that so few people have real marriages. They just have a piece of paper and a shared last name.
The problem is that modern laws have been changed to reflect feminists, rather than God’s, ideas about marriage.
Being one of the “older gentlemen” here, it’s fairly easy for me to completely avoid women. And yes, it is nice. Don’t need one. Don’t want one.
Exiled, you apparently have this habit of seeing everything in subjective terms (a very feminine characteristic, BTW). Don’t you realize that I’m not writing about myself, but rather the situation in general?
Although quite important, the personal isn’t everything, you know.
Definitely propose them. If we don’t get some ideas out there, we’ll just stay in a rut.
BlackGerman: You really need to get your facts correct. Married couples having sex a few times a week? lol Maybe for newly weds but some of these couples who have been maried a few years have sex a few times a month and in some cases a few times a year or nothing.
Welmer, in the second option are you referring to being committed to not having sex period (what I would call celibacy) or being committed to not engaging in premarital sex?
Either one would fit into that. Basically, what I mean is people valuing spiritual ideals over sex, and seeing sex for its own sake as morally wrong.
What about the commercial option? When I’ve listened to men who have gone this route, I hear recurring themes: 1) it’s better than they ever expected, 2) it’s less expensive than they thought it would be (and much, much less expensive than traditional dating), 3) the convenience is nice, as is the variety, 4) the visual quality is way better than you typically find out-and-about in bars and such, but I think the most interesting recurring comment is that many men have said that it re-calibrates their attitudes about how much they are willing to sacrifice to obtain sex – for ever. Once they know they can get laid on short notice pretty much anytime for about half what the typical man spends on Valentine’s Day, they’re less likely to let some tease walk all over them, emptying his wallet in the process. A nice side benefit is that this option unburdens other (non-pro) women he associates with from feeling like she is expected to have sex with him. No pressure- she is free to go home to her cats and get a good night’s sleep (and he’s free to go home and leave the toilet seat up), a win-win!
I’m meeting more and more men that bifurcate their relationships with women, having non-sexual relationships with women whose company they enjoy and using Game or the commercial option to address their sexual desires, as needed.
Oh, yeah. Almost forgot- CONTRACTING for sexual acts is illegal in my state. However, it’s not illegal to HAVE sex with, e.g., a mini-skirted hitch-hiker you just picked up or with your masseuse (NB: In Minnesota I believe you have to wait two years after breaking off the masseuse-customer relationship before you can have sex with your masseuse, even if you’re married to her). So don’t do anything illegal, OK?!
Remember again :
It takes only 10% of men learning Game to disrupt the entire sexual marketplace. Just look at the confused psychosexual weirdness of Anounkage wrt Roosh.
It takes just 20% of men to avoid marriage for ALL single women to be greatly stressed out. If 30% of men avoid marriage, the stress is even higher.
It takes just a few high-income men to not produce to totally wreck the ‘progressive’ tax base.
————————————
The Four Horsemen are on the horizon. They will transfer the costs of misandry onto women no later than 2020. Count on it.
Note that the ‘Men’s Rights Movement’ is not expected to be a force in the near future. There is no MRM at this time.
My plan involves escorts for sexual release, and contempt for the rest. It has worked pretty well so far..
Parodoxotaur & Advocatus Diaboli and all other “Plan Cers”
Have fun.
Don’t forget to use protection.
Chuck’s post about perceived competition and what we lack is very true.
Reality/celebrity TV doesn’t help anything because you see how easily women will give it up to any guy who’s pre-selected on some level.
To some of Welmer’s points:
Ferdinand’s addressed this in a post of his own, and it won’t work in robbing women of their power. It just reduces the field a little bit, but there’s still plenty of takers in the market.
As you and others have said, Game man transformation benefits that transcend scoring with women.
I believe it was TFH who said if anything, it should be applied as a selective filter, rather than a tool to unlock the key to more skanks.
There is personal power and reward in making oneself less available in the sexual market, at least from a “chasing” aspect. You’ll still have plenty of options if you have a high-value life.
PUA’s are definitely getting too much of an average thing.
“Don’t forget to use protection.”
Always good advice, especially with the disease ridden women you’re likely to meet in a North American bar. Thanks for your concern, but I have chosen to be celibate for the time being, so no worries!
I like your confidence TFH.
There was no movement against the Berlin Wall either, but it fell down just the same. All it took was the slow and steady accumulation of forces that made its continuing existence impossible. 2020 seems entirely realistic to me.
I believe it was TFH who said if anything, it should be applied as a selective filter, rather than a tool to unlock the key to more skanks.
Yep. I think that my own path has been quite a common one. Run Game in your late 20s/early 30s. After about 20-25 women, a lot of men come to the conclusion that that is all there was.
After that, they move to arms-length LTRs, or sporadic trysts, but far less pickup velocity than in their younger days. Game then becomes a screening mechanism, and means through which to avoid gold-diggers, etc.
All it took was the slow and steady accumulation of forces that made its continuing existence impossible. 2020 seems entirely realistic to me.
Game at the top of the market + sex technologies at the bottom of the market will destroy the power of women from both ends.
Expatriation + tax base disengagement + marriage avoidance choke off the supply of money that women depend on men for.
Islam thrown into the mix will be yet another force that crowds out lefto-feminists demographically.
I know a bubble when I see one.
The continuing ascent of the bubble before the pop will be scary and dangerous, however.
Fifth Horseman
The cold war was from 1945 to 1989. Tens of thousands of people that were killed or sent to Siberia in the decades long fight against communism. Ronald Reagan asked Gorbechev to “Tear down this wall” in 1987before it happened.
”””””’Real talk: this sounds like a powerful way to live. I can’t even imagine what this would be like, and I’m sure on some level it’s bliss—to have bitches just falling over themselves around you, but you’re completely zen, totally self-actualized, needing nothing from them.”””””
This also happens when you are having sex.
The secret is:
”””””who is far more knowing than most guys has inspired more than a few women””””””’
So yea a guy with options has more options and if you just fucked and then woman throw themselves at you it is easy to be zenlike he he he
My dad does the celibate thing because of religion but I don’t think it produces satisfaction as it seemed to provoke jealousy when I got home and started going out every night and getting woman.
Yeah exactly, it’s not natural to be celibate. Those who are usually have suppression/depravity issues.
Oh, yeah. Almost forgot- CONTRACTING for sexual acts is illegal in my state
______________________
fuck the state, you can find an escort on craigslist tonight in your area if you want to. Use a little bit of common sense and discretion and it really isnt that hard. There is a protocal and etiquette, most will ask if you are a cop and then ask you to touch their breasts, s0mething the police will not do. Incidentally, it is much easier to “run game” if you can buy sex at any time. Once women find you attractive and they find they cant lead you around by the cock for some reason, they are much more interested in you.
I think that’s pretty clear.
20% of marriages are sexless, where they have sex 10 times a year or less. But the other 80% have it more frequently, and once or twice a week is average. Do a Google search, if you don’t believe me. In my age group, twice or three times a week is average.
And remember, if that’s the average, that means there are some couples “doing it” once or twice a month, and others who mate like rabbits.
I’m not denying that there are sexless marriages (and let’s not forget that it’s sometimes the man who isn’t in the mood, or is experiencing health issues), and most marriages go through highs and lows. My point is that your average married man has sex more often than your average single (many of whom aren’t getting any at all and would think once a week was a veritable bonanza).
Cohabiting men have sex a bit more often, but they tend to cycle in and out of relationships with dry spells in between.
Those who are usually have suppression/depravity issues.
As opposed to your own saintly self? You are truly a man of character to be admired. Banging any hot teenies lately, Toby? Gotta get ‘em while they’re young and hot! You go boy!
I have gone through both ends of the spectrum with regards to the frequency of marital sex…and I’ve come to these conclusions (as detailed in my postings on the topic at Roissy)
A woman’s “lust” is predicated on hypergamy; no woman can lust a man she doesn’t respect; therefore, if she is your authority figure…if she wears the pants…if she’s “the boss,” if you defer to her in the majority of all relationship decision-making…she will rule you. And her hypergamous nature means if she can rule you, she will instinctively sense that you are beneath her, and she will NOT lust you.
This is where I believe most sexless marriages come from.
Don’t get married.
But if you do…never forget that your sex life with her depends on you maintaining the majority of the upper hand of the relationship. Never forget that hypergamy is the key to keeping her ‘gina tingling!
“Use a little bit of common sense and discretion and it really isnt that hard.”
Epoche*- that was pretty much my point.
TFH,
The scary part, in my opinion, will be the legislative attempts to squeeze men for money once the dropping out trend becomes significant. That’s really their main weapon as policy makers, and ironically their main weakness. In the Toronto Star today there’s an propoganda piece intended to sway liberals into dumping the current government by associating them with MRAs. No suprise since The Star has been pushing this regime change agenda for a while and it is a known bastion of feminist disinfo. But it clearly shows that there is some awareness of the trend amongst feminists who are trying to manipulate policy. And in my brief time following this board I’ve noticed some odd duck women here trying to engage debate. I’ve also noticed when The Star puts out these pieces the the comment boards are filled with men rebutting the claims. One wonders who deep into the zeitgeist the MRA thing has become.
Er, how, not who. Got a little dyslexic there.
The scary part, in my opinion, will be the legislative attempts to squeeze men for money once the dropping out trend becomes significant.
They’ll try. They’ll try hard.
But you can’t force someone to work, or prevent them from expating, outside of outright slavery like the Bradley Amendment.
And they cannot implement a wider scale of that without a major destruction of the economy and major rise in crime.
Feminism would collapse long before that.
Everyone assumes that a ’sexless’ marriage means the man wants it and the woman doesn’t.
I think it might be equally common for the woman to gain 50 pounds, killing all attraction in the man. Then the man is FORCED to have sex with the obese wife, under penality of financial ruin.
That would be the greater hell than if the man is deprived by the woman.
Or a ‘domestic abuse’ charge in Mexico.
Too true Tood.
Like Tom Leykis used to say – most older men don’t need viagra…they just need young, hot poontang, not the erection-killing landwhale she became after marriage!
I know a lot of married guys with relatively thin wives who blew up like balloons after marriage. Obesity is a national epidemic.
heh – in such cases B&G, who’s doing the cooking?
Aside from that, males attraction works different from females – a man’s overweight body is not necessarily as much of a attraction killer to women compared to how men’s attraction works.
Women can always close their eyes and think of England. A paunch wouldn’t turn me off, but there’s a point where it’s just gross.
And then there are all of those Walmart couples where everyone’s fat, including the kids. Doubt they’re getting it on.
I’m just trying to imagine all of the people that fall into the “sexless marriage” category. It’s probably a pretty diverse group. Hmm… What about those going through chronic or terminal illnesses like cancer or heart disease. Erectile dysfunction and impotence is another one.
I know a woman married to a total workaholic who complains about the lack-o-lovin’. What about someone married to a trucker or someone who goes on business trips a lot?
A man gaining 30 pounds does little to hurt is romantic prospects.
But 30 pounds is all it takes to turn a female 10 into a 4.
Morbid obesity kills it for both genders, of course, but a man has more leeway than a woman, in both weight AND age.
I know a woman married to a total workaholic who complains about the lack-o-lovin’.
A man that won’t screw his wife, and is a workaholic, probably can’t stand coming home to his wife for whatever reason — she got fat or she she’s such a shrill nag, he’d rather work overtime than come home and hear it. Whatever role she played in that, that’s most likely what it is.
Or he’s banging his younger, hotter secretary.
HL :
Don’t get married.
I think it is quite powerful that even HL says this. We know his story. He is often cited as an example of LTR Game (given how many people have an obsession with denying the existence of LTR Game).
BUT, the reality is that the level of Game needed to sustain an LTR, could similarly be applied to getting young hotties. So the better a man’s LTR Game within marriage, the bigger his opportunity cost as well. A man adept at LTR Game could be pulling 8s and 9s if he were single. Or 35 year olds when he is 60.
When even HL, despite his own success, advises other guys not to get marred, that really closes the case.
A man that won’t screw his wife, and is a workaholic, probably can’t stand coming home to his wife for whatever reason
Yep. Work is a way that he can stay away from his wife.
The wife, of course, fails to take any responsibililty for her own actions. She calls him a ‘workaholic’, when in reality she made him want to avoid his own home.
Oh yeah…I don’t recommend marriage to any of my friends, acquaintances or family.
Not in this country, not in this society.
Not under these laws.
I also know that should I find myself not married in the future, I will NEVER do it again.
Ever.
Hell, I will never live with another woman ever again.
And it has nothing to do with my wife, either, things with her have never been better. But in terms of living with a woman? I’m one and done.
But I do understand why some men still want to get married and have kids. For them, they need to understand the truth before they expose themselves to such a huge, live altering risk.
HL,
I am contemplating the idea of getting donor eggs + IVF + surrogacy and getting two kids, and then going it as a single dad.
I can get this done in India for $20,000 per kid. I can have my parents come live with me too, to help out. I can certainly afford a nanny. I will still keep a nearby condo as my ‘home office’ (i.e. bachelor pad), that is separate from the main home. In this way, I have access to things that most men don’t.
BUT, is it morally wrong to bring a child into this world who does not have a mother (although they will have a grandmother and aunt)? We know that single women do this all the time, and it is wrong to take handouts from the state or from the father who was ditched. But is it wrong if they were NOT relying on support outside of their own earnings?
I wrestle with the morality of this issue, and, thus, whether I should do it.
When even HL, despite his own success, advises other guys not to get marred, that really closes the case.
Well, that settles it! Oh, come on. Asking if marriage is worth it at the Spearhead, is like asking if “all men are potential rapists” at Feministing. There’s hardly a cross-section of the population on here.
Of course the laws are crap, and it’s a serious problem. Just look at our declining marriage rate, and the divorced men who are being unfairly treated. But not everybody on here is living in the States and marrying an American woman. The institution of marriage, in and of itself, is a good thing, and deserves a bit more respect than it gets around here sometimes. Civilization wouldn’t exist without it.
TFH – It’s good that you have moral reservations holding you back. I believe children need both a Mother and a Father…and having kids like you propose is being selfish just like a single mother through IVF is. You are essentially deciding that your children won’t have a mother to satisfy your own desire to procreate.
Better to expat to a country with women who are happy to be a wife and a mother if you want to have kids. Or import one here – and don’t let her watch TV, read grocery store magazines or befriend Toxic American women… lol
B&G – The institution of marriage, in and of itself, is a good thing, and deserves a bit more respect than it gets around here sometimes.
I give the institution of marriage all the respect in the world. It’s the institution of divorce that has destroyed the institution of marriage’s sanctity.
Asking if marriage is worth it at the Spearhead, is like asking if “all men are potential rapists” at Feministing.
Come now, this comparison is not even close. Saying marriage is an incredible danger to Men in this day and age is a FACT bared out by our current reality.
Feminists who are brainwashed with the fear of all men as potential rapists have no actual basis in reality, compared to what divorce does to men in this country.
One is a very real epidemic with far reaching consequences..the other is just empty propaganda designed to scare women into accepting feminist ideology.
It’s all about time management, guys. I guess you could say my husband was a workaholic.. However, he still manages to fit me into his busy schedule. He will often drop by home in the afternoon. Might be for an hour might be for ten minutes
Workaholics are generally very energetic people.
I have to agree though, if a guy is TOO busy to have sex with his wife then he is most probably getting it elsewhere.
Where there’s a will there’s a way.
We have two kids, and we still manage to sneak off for ten minutes whilst they are watching tv.
My husband is also a bit of an insomniac, so many a time I have been woken up after midnight. I’m not complaining, mind you. I do the same thing myself. Lol
Asking if marriage is worth it at the Spearhead, is like asking if “all men are potential rapists” at Feministing. There’s hardly a cross-section of the population on here.
Not with HL. He is NOT a divorced man, who has been through the legal system.
It is equally likely, B&G, that you still don’t realize how uncommon your value system is in this day and age.
The institution of marriage, in and of itself, is a good thing, and deserves a bit more respect than it gets around here sometimes.
Replace ‘is’ with ‘was’. There is no reason for a man to enter such a lopsided arrangement. You read my description of the differences between Marriage 1.0 and Marriage 2.0.
Civilization wouldn’t exist without it.
That ship has sailed. Feminists and divorce lawyers colluded to destroy civilization.
You are sounding like a socialcon. No one has any business telling anyone else to marry unless they are willing to DO something about the laws.
Marriage has to be made attractive to MEN, not women, for the institution to survive.
I give the institution of marriage all the respect in the world. It’s the institution of divorce that has destroyed the institution of marriage’s sanctity.
Well, of course. But that’s not what he was getting at. He’s saying that marriage is a bad thing and men shouldn’t bother. Not merely that our modern laws and greater society have weakened marriage and turned it into a crazy, dangerous mess.
Liked your answer to him about the baby. We shouldn’t be depriving children of their parents. That’s cruel. It’s one of the things that makes no-fault divorce so evil.
He’s saying that marriage is a bad thing and men shouldn’t bother. Not merely that our modern laws and greater society have weakened marriage and turned it into a crazy, dangerous mess.
Your second sentence contradicts your first.
There is a point at which the laws and other forces are so bad, that many men would not do it. And I am not some PUA like Roissy. If the state’s meddling in marriage has lost ME, it is safe to say that it has lost most men who bother to inform themselves about what can happen to them.
Women don’t understand this, since they have a limited grasp of cause and effect.
If women want marriage to revive, women have to fight the changes in the laws. Only then will the customer, men, be interested in the product again.
We have two kids, and we still manage to sneak off for ten minutes whilst they are watching tv.
Bob the Builder is good for that, and the episodes are pretty long. But it’s totally crap when the DVD player sticks and they come looking for you.
You are a trip, Kathy.
Marriage has to be made attractive to MEN, not women, for the institution to survive.
You are assuming that it’s attractive to women. Neither sex seems to value marriage anymore. That’s why we’re dying out, remember?
You know B&G, it wasn’t that long ago that I’d tell men that “not all women are like that…you can find a good one and make a happy family.” But now, I’ve seen plenty of women who I once thought were “not like that” and saw them become that and divorce their husbands and permanently screw up their children’s lives forever..
…all because “she fell out of love” or “needed to find myself.”
No, a man that would risk marriage needs to have a full understanding of how the system is set up, needs to understand what triggers his wife’s attraction, and how to avoid “beta-izing” before he could even begin to consider taking the plunge and taking the vows of modern Marriage 2.0.
I’ll say this: when I got married young and dumb, I had a couple of things going for me despite my ignorance of the legal and cultural environment that has given us marriage 2.0 – my wife was a virgin, she came from an intact home in which her parents are still in love and still get along great, she has a great relationship with her father, and she wanted to be married and have children more than a career and education.
If I didn’t have all of those things in my favor, I would most certainly be a divorce statistic right now.
Black & German,
That’s the norm. Woman gets man to marry her, then she decides she doesn’t want to have sex anymore. In many cases, it happens within a y ear and certainly once they have one kid. There’s nothing the guy can do. If he files for divorce, he loses everything. If he stays, he goes insane and she eventually leaves him. If he has an affair (her favorite solution), she files for divorce and he loses everything (and she has everyone’s sympathy)
You are assuming that it’s attractive to women. Neither sex seems to value marriage anymore.
It is. They profit financially from it. That they are no longer attractive as a divorced woman over 35 is another matter.
Women want marriage much more than men. That is why, as Obsidian says, ultimately, women will suffer more due to feminism than men.
Your second sentence contradicts your first.
No, it doesn’t.
You can be married without a civil marriage, you know. Marriage is a covenant, civil marriage is about the formal legal recognition of the covenant, and marrying in the Church makes it a sacrament. The Justice or the pastor don’t actually marry you, you know, they just officiate and act as witnesses. You marry each other, the other people are just bystanders or helpers.
You can marry someone just by taking their hand, looking them in the eyes and saying those magic words. If you then treat her as if she was your wife, acknowledge your children as if they are your children, and stay with her until death do you part then you are married. And this doesn’t change if you live in California or Casablanca.
God created marriage, not the State. Giving power over marriage to the State and thereby turning it into a political tool was the first mistake.
There’s nothing the guy can do.
Unless there’s something seriously wrong with her physically, I don’t buy this. A woman telling her husband “I don’t want to have sex anymore” is basically throwing down the ultimate LTR shit test. You don’t have to fail it.
The husband needs to merely up the ante…agree and amplify. Escalate it…but above all, do not ‘give in’ to her shitty ultimatum. Turn it into your own ultimatum.
HER: “I don’t think I want to have sex anymore.”
HIM: “You want a divorce, just after we had our first child? Are you crazy? Don’t you know how bad it will be for our kid if we got divorced?!”
HER: “I didn’t say I wanted a divorce…”
HIM: “By saying you don’t want to have sex anymore, you ARE saying you want a divorce. If that’s the case, than lets get it over with NOW.”
You see…Re-Frame into YOUR frame. Don’t let her dictate the frame of that conversation.
Ah well, it might not work, but that’s what I would do…
B&G,
You are still dancing around the elephant in the room.
Preaching does not shield a man from the laws. This is why socialcons are total failures, they think pseudomoral posturing is a substitute for laws heavily rigged against the man.
Giving power over marriage to the State and thereby turning it into a political tool was the first mistake.
And therefore smart men choose not the enter into something so rigged against them. So what are you going to do about it? Cause and effect, B&G, cause and effect.
Men need to be enticed back into marriage. Until then, many will sidestep this rigged, lopsided arrangement.
Kathy:
“My husband is also a bit of an insomniac, so many a time I have been woken up after midnight.”
David: Sounds like “Australian foreplay”: “Are you awake?”
Hawaiian Libertarian:
“I’ll say this: when I got married young and dumb, I had a couple of things going for me despite my ignorance of the legal and cultural environment that has given us marriage 2.0 – my wife was a virgin, she came from an intact home in which her parents are still in love and still get along great, she has a great relationship with her father, and she wanted to be married and have children more than a career and education.”
David: My wife was a virgin, and I was not very experienced myself. And she came from a good home. She had a sensible profession for a woman (librarian) and we had both finished our studies. These things have probably helped keep us together, even through various stresses, which have included a strain of autism in our genes apparently.
As for physical attraction, my wife is nearly fifty and I have no trouble feeling sexual attraction. I have never been bothered by a bit of age on a female. Most women have a good feature that they – or you – can play up.
Actually, you can still get married the old fashioned way, and it will stand up in court as far as inheritance and such is concerned. You don’t need a state licence, but instead, you use a Family Bible. Both of your names are entered into the Bible, and then all of your children are entered as they are born. You keep the guest book, so you can call witnesses to the event in case the government contests it.
This is the way marriage has always been. It is a religious institution granted by God. The government has no business co-opting God’s institutions. Just like your basic rights as put forth in the Constitution are granted to you by your Creator specifically for the purpose of: What God gives, only God can take away. Therefore, the state has no business there. This is actually the proper dialectical path to get the government out of marriage.
Also, getting married on the Bible indicates that you are marrying with the criteria in mind that is put forth in said book, and not according to the laws of the state, which is what you would be doing by signing a state license.
Of course, it is not perfect, because there are now futher complications with things like common-law marriages, and being sued for children born out of wedlock. But, for the marriage savers, this is the proper dialectical point to begin with to undermine state authority in marriage. If George Washington and Abraham Lincoln got married this way, it is certainly good enough for the rest of us peanuts.
You can read more about his concept in the following article: 5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License – by Pastor Matt Trewhella
And therefore smart men choose not the enter into something so rigged against them. So what are you going to do about it?
Me, personally? Uh… bitch about it on here.
I’m already married, you know. I’m not trying to convince you to marry me, or anything. I just care about it for religious and demographic reasons.
And my statement isn’t dancing around anything. Marriage is important. If marrying a Western woman is too crappy a deal, marry someone else. There are millions of women out there that would fall down and kiss your feet if you asked them. It’s not like there’s a woman shortage on planet Earth. LOL. Know plenty of guys who “married out” and are very satisfied and would recommend it to anyone. Marriage isn’t the problem. The problem is that the laws and the partner selection suck.
I wrote a post on the privatizing of marriage (what Fedrz is referring to) called Get Rid of Civil Marriage. I’ve broached the subject on my favorite Catholic board and was surprised when a lot of people seconded it. I was expecting people would try to put me in a straitjacket for my own safety. But it seems that even some priests are starting to discuss this openly.
B&G – look, you’ve contributed some worthwhile commentary here, and I’ve read a bit of your blog…for the most part, you “get it.” You, and Hestia, and Kathy and a few other women do demonstrate a good grasp of a lot of the issues that we discuss here.
But please, you should know better than to refer to us in terms that make us nothing more than the mirror image of Feministing.
When I say I don’t recommend marriage to anyone nowadays, it is not due to a sense of misogyny or hatred of western women – but rather because I recognize just how influential the feminism as reflected by those harpies at Feministing have been in dramatically changing marriage into it’s current system that regularly enslaves men and destroys children’s lives at the whims of wymmin’s ‘gina tingles.
Pointing this out does not mean I am attacking you or your marriage.
B&G,
Unless and until the laws are improved, the number of men interested in marriage will decrease, not increase. Period.
Ferdinand wrote about how women have collectively abused the institution of marriage, only to now find that they are not able to get men to marry since women want marriage more than men.
Agitate to change the laws. Or else see the decline of marriage continue or even speed up.
Oh, I know. I’ve come down now. Did you check out my link and the one Fedrz posted?
Interestingly, State Marriage Licenses are based upon racism.
They were introduced to control inter-racial marriages, and later were extended to the entire institution.
People fighting the government on issues like this really need to understand the Dialectic, because just as the Dialectic was used to undermine such things in the first place, the Dialectic is also the path to undermining the stupidity of the government and destroying state power.
Pointing this out does not mean I am attacking you or your marriage.
Ditto.
B&G is a good woman who is a net positive to the world, but we are once again seeing two female traits in action :
a) Inability to grasp cause and effect
b) Inability to hold women accountable for their own actions (in this case, abuse of the institution of marriage)
And the fact that you can even comment here, alone, shows why The Spearhead is a million times more morally sound than Feministing.
Agitate to change the laws.
I am trying! But, in case you didn’t notice, I’m just one housewife who’s screaming from my keyboard instead of cutting out coupons like I’m supposed to be doing right now. I’m hardly a political force. All I can do is post, write, raise my kids, and vote.
You are totally preaching to the choir, TFH. And feminists wouldn’t listen to me, anyways. They think I’m some quaint relic from a bygone age.
Ideas are the powerful. I remember there was a tagline for a book by a feminist author (she later repudiated the book) which read “This book changes lives”. Well, this blog changes lives.
It bears repeating. The Internet has truly levelled the playing field. More and more men will be able to “take the red pill”.
Another thing is that once you can name something, you have power over it and you can start to fight it. The feminists were brilliant with this: coining terms like “sexism” and “male chauvinist”. But now men can fight back with “mangina”, “white knighting”, “supplicating”, “alpha”. Even “gina tingle”. And feminists are fighting desperately and losing – viz. Denise Romano.
And feminists wouldn’t listen to me, anyways.
But MEN would. Whenever you see a whiteknight/mangina man use shaming language against another man, YOU should step in. He will back down since he is programmed to defer to women.
Yes, you should not fight feminists. Let Muslims, Game, and technology do that eventually.
But YOU should fight manginas/whiteknights, who are the second most destructive force after feminists.
Remember that in terms of who is responsible for the damage :
Feminists > mangina/whiteknights > average women.
Average women just want to side with whoever is winning. But many MEN are a big part of the problem.
You, B&G, should focus on thwarting these men. Focus only on that.
B&G,
Whenever you see a mangina/whiteknight MAN either a) use shaming language against another man, or b) side with feminists in the misguided belief that it will get him laid, YOU should correct him as needed, and confront him if necessary, and use countering shaming language against him.
Focus only on that. Let that be YOUR mission. Let other forces fight feminists, but you should focus on YOUR mission.
That is where YOU can make the biggest difference.
You know what would devastate a white knight, coming from a woman?
“Real women like real men, not supplicating wimps like you.”
TFH-
I’m a newbie here and want to thank you for expressing with far more clarity, organization, and force thoughts and feelings I’ve had for some time. I’d like to put in my 2-cents on some of the issues you’ve raised.
“I can get this done in India for $20,000 per kid.”
See if you can get a package deal (I’m sure you’re already working this angle.). Having children close in age is great. They are natural playmates, and sibling rivalry promotes healthy competition and growth. They will act as your eyes on each other, and back each other up. They’ll go to school together and play on the same sports teams. As many parents will tell you- the time goes by really fast. Too fast.
“ is it morally wrong to bring a child into this world who does not have a mother “? 1) social pathologies associated with single mother (aka fatherless) homes are not associated with single father homes, 2) throughout millennia, single fathers have raised countless children after mothers died in childbirth (which was pretty common until ~150 years ago). While I believe raising children in an intact family (= a husband, a wife, and their children) is best, I also believe that raising children in single father homes is much, much better than raising children in single mother homes. As you noted, the latter is quite common. I’d like to further point out that it’s subsidized (i.e., encouraged) by the government.
An aunt or grandmother will not replace a mother. Nothing can truly replace a parent’s love and presence. But then, an occasional boyfriend “male role model” or butch girlfriend won’t replace a father, and the state subsidizes single motherhood. The state has no problem throwing loving, caring fathers out of children’s lives. Many mothers, single or otherwise, seem to have no problem having their children raised by Aunty, Grandma, or some day care facility (which I’d like to acknowledge is better than just locking the child in a room and leaving him to fend for himself while Mommy is out partying). All things considered- I’m impressed that you are concerned about this.
“Women want marriage much more than men. That is why, as Obsidian says, ultimately, women will suffer more due to feminism than men.”
Anyone who doubts this should go to their local newsstand and count the number of publications directed at women regarding marriage and weddings. My local one has over two dozen- wedding dresses, bridal flowers, locations. Then see how many are directed at men. My local newsstand has zero. I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that’s typical. The fact that so many women are so clueless surprises me, although I suppose it shouldn’t at this point.
TFH – while you make good points, I think a better one would be for B&G to mentor younger women that may look up to her.
Be an example.
Show other women that despite what the culture teaches young girls, a woman CAN be happy and fulfilled in having children, and being a good wife and mother.
She can be far more influential to younger women as “counter-programming” to the feminist cultural zeitgeist, than she can confronting people.
This the tact I’ve learned to take when it comes to giving young men who ask me for advice. Most guys will give a blank look at you if you try to explain ‘game’ and ‘hypergamy’ to them.
But if you do things like explaining how they should make their “mission” there priority, and tell them things like “no woman respects a man that she can rule,” it makes intuitive sense rather than trying to completely override a mind that is thoroughly brainwashed by our blue pill culture all at once.
TFH, have you checked out my blog lately? And when are you going to post something new again? What about the new Apple tablet?
The problem is that I sincerely believe that some of the guys could use a bit of shaming. It’d do them good. The women need it too. Everybody needs it. We’d all be a heck of a lot better off if there was more shame spread around.
I can’t stand feminists, though, as they’re my natural enemies.
So I go on attack when I see someone defending them. But man-whores are fair game, as well.
I would shame promiscous men by asking if such a man doesn’t have a better way to spend his life than chasing crumpet.
Traditionally men who spent all their time chasing tail were regarded as a bit of a joke by other men.
I suck at confronting people anyway. I’m too religious. LOL.
Parodoxotaur, women want to marry. They want to dress up in a pretty white dress with a crown and throw a flower bouquet. What they don’t want to be is wives. Real wives. Real clean the toilet, cook dinner, wipe snotty noses, and lay-down-and-spread-em wives. They just want to play pretend for a bit, which is why they jump ship in record numbers as soon as the day-to-day reality of being a real-life actual wife and mother hits them full in the face.
But man-whores are fair game, as well.
I don’t think so. I think the only men that are fair game are those who purposefully go after another man’s wife. I wish 1000 severe shitkickings upon such men.
But if men, who are outmatched in the sexual marketplace and who have little hope of finding a decent wife – and even if they do will still be taking on enormous risks, want to go out and bang a bunch of trollops, then go for it. It’s not perfect but sex is part of being human, and men will adapt. I also think prostitution should be legalized.
I would shame promiscous men by asking if such a man doesn’t have a better way to spend his life than chasing crumpet.
Traditionally men who spent all their time chasing tail were regarded as a bit of a joke by other men. — David
I don’t think you are in a position to speak like this about them David.
You had your sexual desires satiated through marriage by your wife. The vast majority of men today will not be presented with the same opportunity.
Not to mention the fact that a player getting plenty of poon will hardly be fazed by an older, married man trying to tell him “there are better things to do with your life.”
A player will just smirk, while he makes plans to hook up that same day…
Aside from that, B&G would do well to remember that without promiscuous, slutty women in abundance, there would be no such thing as “man-whores.”
Uh oh, Fedrz. A bit of moral relativism rears it’s ugly head again.
Basically what you’re saying with that is “It’s okay if we treat other people like human refuse, but we’ll protest if someone else treats us like human refuse.” No go, no deal, no dice. Either something is wrong on principle, or it isn’t wrong.
It’s one thing to show compassion for someone’s “moment of weakness”. It is another thing to give them a free pass and say, “Go forth, fornicate, and fill the earth!”
Wait, there’s something about that phrase that I haven’t got quite right…
Sluts are sluts. They are found in masculine and feminine versions and they’re all fair game to me. I’m an equal-opportunity slut-shamer. No discrimination here.
The vast majority of men today will not be presented with the same opportunity.
So why isn’t there a sex strike? I hear all about the marriage strike, but if a large portion of men just spent one week collectively refusing to have sex, it’d send quite a message.
I’m a former slut, so I recognize them immediately in the wild. Takes one to know one. LOL.
Although I have to say that the new-and-improved modern sluts are much more uh… hyperactive in their sluttishness than we were back in the day. It’s amazing that their bits don’t wear out and fall off from the daily abuse. Yuck.
Good night guys.
Bullshit.
Men and women are not equal in the sexual marketplace. Just like women are not, nor never have been, equal to men in the economic marketplace.
Differences between the sexes are not a social construct.
I think you are employing some moral relativism here.
Just to let you know, I have a great deal of respect for honesty. And to be honest, I’m not all that proud of how I behaved before I got married.
I think you are forgetting that following our natural desires instead of showing fortitude and personal restraint is what got us all into this mess in the first place.
Goodnight Fedrz.
If I were not religious I would probably have had more sexual partners. But what I can’t understand is a man spending so much time chasing one girl after another. One at a time, maybe for a few years each. But a different one every week? No. You increase your chance of snagging a “bunny boiler” or a “crazy”. And there are better things to do with your life.
One of my themes is that women really are secondary. A man should pursue his dreams and acquire a woman or women. Women shouldn’t be his dream.
Water under the bridge now, Welmer. Get up, dust yourself off, and move on. We’re lucky to have made it out of that kind of environment with all of our sanity and limbs intact. I know people that are still stuck there. Never going back. Oh, hell no.
Goodnight to you, too.
Don’t play snotty with me B&G, I have been in the game long enough to realize that women such as yourself often do more damage than the out and out trolls.
Sexuality is the domain of women. And for the vast majority of men, they would have led moral lives – take myself for example. I would have been quite satisfied to remain with the girl I lost my virginity with… but, I didn’t control the sexual marketplace – she did.
And, it is pretty rich for a former slut to “reform her ways” and then preach shame to others. This is the typical path that almost all women follow. Run around when they are young and satiate their sexual desires with thugs, and then later, decide to “virgin up” and find their beta provider.
Nuh uh. You are no position to talk.
I think it’s a Catholic thing. We do forgiveness a lot. We don’t have that Calvinist attitude that if you are good you will always do good and always be good. Catholics understand that you can get better and worse and better and worse as your life goes on.
To be honest, I would not have married a girl, good Catholic or not, if she were not a virgin. But that’s just me, not Catholicism.
If I were not religious I would probably have had more sexual partners. But what I can’t understand is a man spending so much time chasing one girl after another. One at a time, maybe for a few years each. But a different one every week? No. You increase your chance of snagging a “bunny boiler” or a “crazy”. And there are better things to do with your life.
One of my themes is that women really are secondary. A man should pursue his dreams and acquire a woman or women. Women shouldn’t be his dream. — David
I agree with most of this, David.
In fact, I was raised in a very religious manner, and the number one reason why I haven’t attended church in the past 17 or 18 years, is because of sexuality. A coin was flipped – yours landed on heads, mine on tails.
But, at the same time, the number one driving force in any living creature, after basic survival, is the desire to be sexual and to reproduce.
Marriage used to “transmute sexual energy,” but, one cannot simply go about and say that since women are no longer marriageable, men ought to remain 90 year old virgins and transmute their sexual energy as if a monk or a priest.
I used to believe in the “one at a time for a few years” as well, but this is not good. It does not acknowledge emotions nor the damage they cause. Your life is a complete shambles this way, and is driven by extreme emotion. Better to play game than to play serial monagomy.
Ultimately, you are right, that it is better to not be led around by sex – but this does not easily happen for men until they begin to experience andropause in their mid-thirties. We are not biologically created that way.
I have a better idea. Expat and you will have three women at the same time. (I say REAL women, not the pathetic mutant being that calls itself “a woman” in the States). I was celibate in USA: introverted, very devoted to work, classical beta. I am an alpha here. I haven’t improved my game and I am the same guy. I just moved.
I like the idea of Game + celibacy, as in you game a chick ’til she’s ready to fuck you and then at the last minute you say, “Nah, thanks but no thanks.” and then leave.
“[S]ingle fathers have raised countless children after mothers died in childbirth (which was pretty common until ~150 years ago).”
You can say that again. My Pa raised me and my two half-brothers alone and we all turned out OK!
HL :
I think a better one would be for B&G to mentor younger women that may look up to her.
While that would be good, the reason I think that anti-misandrist women shaming mangina/whiteknight men is the optimal bang-for-the-buck, is that a) there is zero of this currently going on, and
b) very few people realize that the mangina invisible hand is what made feminism so powerful, far more powerful than the harridans would ever have become on their own.
A woman shaming men for being manginas/whiteknights just doesn’t exist, which is why it would have the maximum upside.
She could do both, of course. The two are complementary.
B&G,
but if a large portion of men just spent one week collectively refusing to have sex, it’d send quite a message.
A much stronger message would be if all men just spend one DAY not going to work, and assembling in protest. Family law would end by sundown.
And when are you going to post something new again? What about the new Apple tablet?
There is still a very sizable traffic premium from having The Misandry Bubble on top, even 33 days in. New blogs keep linking to it. 55,000 visits and 77,000 pageviews so far, and still rolling.
My wife has always been generous in this respect and ready to “come across” as we used to say here in Oz.
I went through a horny phase a couple of years ago, and we were having quickies in the morning. A woman giving a man a “quickie” is a true wife.
I will admit that, after many years, she has discovered the thrill of threatening to never have sex again. Some malign influence, perhaps a female friend …?
But I have found that “game” works quite well in this regard. A couple of swats on the arse can be a nice lubricator and leg-opener for even the most jaded wife. And then I get to taunt her with her capitulation.
I came of age in the 70s when feminism was in its first full flush of power and got hit hard with the Junior Anti-Sex League mentality, so I knew the score long before F. Roger Devlin did. I knew back then that the Midge Decter/
Katie Roiphe take that feminism was a great deal for men because it provided them with lots of pussy was utter bullshit. It WAS a great deal for SOME alphas, who now had more than they could possibly handle and no longer had to be discreet about it. For the rest of us there was just shaming language that we shouldn’t think of women “that way”. That thinking has resulted, appropriately enough, in a birth dearth among those who embraced it.
No one has ever pulled the “can’t get laid” routine on me, although I have had variations thereof (“lack of maturity”, “don’t you want to settle down?”, etc.) The proper response to the “can’t get laid” charge is “Yes, that’s true and let’s stipulate that, but that’s not the problem. The real problem is that I’ve had to work at a job way below what I might have done (and earned) if it weren’t a matter of public policy to starve me and other men similarly situated in order to promote the well-being of cunt married to men making $200K by competing with me for jobs paying $75K. I can live without getting laid, but I won’t starve to death by state fiat without going down fighting.” Hence George Sodini, and more to come.
And by the way, I AM settled down now–married for 13 years although that came late in life. A little while ago in a tender moment my wife said she wished we had met twenty years earlier, to which I responded, without malice, that had we done so she wouldn’t have given me a second glance then. No response or protest. She knew I was right.
I think it’s a Catholic thing. We do forgiveness a lot. We don’t have that Calvinist attitude that if you are good you will always do good and always be good. Catholics understand that you can get better and worse and better and worse as your life goes on. — David
I don’t particularly find this to be an accurate assessment. Unless you are going to take some of the more extreme – like strict Baptists and uniformly applying that across the board. Many churches are far too loose, and willing to allow too much PCism into their church.
As a non-practicing Protestant, I would say that if I were to start going back to church, I would look long and hard at the Catholic Church over Calvinist or Protestant ones (I do come from Calvinist Affiliation, btw), because it appears to me that the Catholic Church has gone “back to the Bible,” and is actually opening the thing up and reading what it has to say. Protestantism is proving to be a failure, because whenever faced with a modern moral issue, they choose to interpret the Bible in whichever way they see fit, and separate into a new denomination if they cannot resolve their differences.
Good on the Pope for not allowing women in office, and good on Catholic churches that refuse to remarry divorced couples. Back to the Bible.
It seems to me that the Catholics are beginning to “Reform the Reformation.” Ironic.
fedrz
Thank you for those generous remarks. It seems odd to me too that the liberal Episcopalians, for example, are ignoring the Bible by ordaining women and blessing homosexual marriages, whereas “ignoring the Bible” has always been the charge against Catholics.
Ordaining women is simply not possible. It is against Scripture and Tradition.
It is not PC to say so, but one of the traditional reasons for not ordaining women rests on the well-founded view that they are not capable of spiritual leadership, by virtue of their mental and moral weakness. A good woman, in her honest moments, and knowing what her sex really is, will admit this.
There is no half-way with women. They respect a clear “no” and they respect a man (or church) that does not bullshit about how morally superior they are and how they should be priests. The truth is that they cannot be priests because of their weaker nature. They need to be told. Deep down, they will agree.
Woman is made for obedience. She will be happiest in that state.
And this is it. The ugly truth. In MRM forums, they say that women are unable to achieve anything collectively, which is true. But then why the success of feminism? Because, as any social change in human history, feminism is the work of MEN.
Who gave women the vote? Men
Who voted the misandrist laws? Mostly men.
Our real enemies are not women (they always side with the victors). Our enemies are other men (manginas).
.
Nah. Sex is not the thing women love the most. Try to have a “reproduction strike” and see how quickly things change. It will take a male contraceptive pill, though.
Life is good. My girlfriend and mother is all. It’s hard to explain but all other women outside of this are completely invisible. I wan’t absolutely nothing to do with any woman for any reason outside of the above two mentioned. I don’t even want to talk with any other female or even exchange a glance. They are very invisible and this all happens without a walk of hatred. If approached, I’m polite but I make it very short. Strange though that my girlfriend everytime we go out get’s a fair number of women smile at her and say hello that she has never even met. I don’t even take notice except for hearing the exchange of hello’s. I get zero value out of any women outside of these two in my life. All or Nothing? How about just enough.
This seems to come easy when self employed, off the grid and no children.
So how the hell do men keep their sanity when being surrounded by so many women? A man may have a couple of entitlement influenced daughters, a wife, divorced female friends, and then you go to work surrounded by women on a mission. Do you block all the noise out? Efficiently appease them? Or just dodge them where possible? Or maybe you have a way, a system of being able to handle it all well and life is good.
I can hardly imagine the kind of courage a man needs while knowing the odds are very stacked against him to get married and have kids now a days.
Sex is natural as an organic apple pie. It’s the lack of healthy sexual release that causes men to resort to illegal means of titillation like bestiality and pedophilia.
If the Catholic priests hadn’t pretended their biological need for sex was optional, they would express healthy sexual behavior with adult women rather than illicit contact with underage boys.
–
Sestamibi,
Fantastic points you make, and very, very well said.
Do you have a blog? (If you do not, consider getting one.)
@Fifth
“Note that the ‘Men’s Rights Movement’ is not expected to be a force in the near future.”
Wrong.
It is already a force – as has been explained to you on numerous occasions.
” There is no MRM at this time.”
DEMONSTRABLY wrong.
Besides which, you cannot know that something does not exist. The best that you can claim is that you failed to detect it.
Over and over again, you keep trying to deny the existence of the MRM, and you also keep trying to deny that it has achieved anything despite MRAs CONTINUALLY demonstrating otherwise to you.
I exist. Fedrz exists. Paul Elam exists. Zed exists. So do all those men who frequent various forums concerned with men’s rights.
So, when you claim that that the MRM does not exist, you are talking unmitigated codswallop.
I can’t believe we missed this Alimony thread at the WSJ yesterday:
http://blogs.wsj.com/juggle/2010/02/02/as-women-earn-more-alimony-laws-lag-behind/
I must be losing my edge.
… no thought-grenades, no ninja strikes, nuttin. Damn.
Check out this article, Puma.
First, pay particular note to this line:
“Which is just as the MRA movement wants it. Me Tarzan. You barefoot, pregnant and bringing me a sandwich.“
(Me thinks this charicature of a journalist reads The Spearhead! ***Fedrz Thumps Chest***)
Then go read the comments!
Yo, Canada!
There is hope yet!
Wake up, scratch you balls, piss while standing and think about the great advantages of being MALE in this world.
Open your mouth and I’ll be happy to oblige.
@Exiled Saint
“Wake up, scratch you balls, piss while standing and think about the great advantages of being MALE in this world”
You obviously haven’t lost your home and children through relationship problems, or lost your limbs in the army, or been falsely accused of sexual assault, or been aware of all the misandry that bathes you, or lost your life through your job, or have had prostate cancer etc.
Could you please list me all the ‘great’ advantages that, you allege, men have compared to women these days?
Yeah, like the Dutch have a reason to call the rest of us depraved.
Wooden Shoes, Wooden Head, Wouldn’t Listen!
Harry,
We have been over this.
MRM is a proto-movement. But it is not yet a movement.
As I have written before, the minimum needed to become a movement is :
a) A think tank or two to address specific policy changes (note how efficiently feminists are able to change laws, pressure corporations and politicians, etc.)
b) Actual organized protests, even if small. There are protests about Tamil rights in Sri Lanka in Los Angeles, and Tibetan freedom in San Francisco, but no protests against misandry, but somehow not a protest of 100 divorced men in a major US city.
c) A ‘rogue’ filmmaker who can make some rudimentary documentaries.
d) Promiment men who have been screwed, to be recruited as spokesmen (Tiger Woods, Mel Gibson, Hulk Hogan, etc.)
Somehow, every lefty pet cause gets at least this much assembled in no time flat.
I exist. Fedrz exists. Paul Elam exists. Zed exists.
All 4 are doing good work. All 4 of you are indispensible. But this is 4 against, what, 40,000 full-time feminists? Millions of manginas like Exiled Saint?
If the tens of millions of men who have suffered don’t even know about the movement, it is not yet a movement.
I do not accept that a lack of media coverage, or shaming language, is a sufficient deterrent when a man is faced with losing his livelihood, his children, and facing imprisonment.
The best that you can claim is that you failed to detect it.
Something that is hard to detect even by people who sympathize with it is not going to gain much visibility. Yet somehow you seem proud that your efforts are hard to detect. That your movement is hard to detect even by heavily immersed people is a huge problem, not something to be proud of.
Have you ever worked in Sales or Marketing?
Your problem is that you are too resistant to recognizing what it takes to graduate from a proto-movement to a movement.
In the US, the ‘MRM’ should focus only on getting two pieces of legislation repealed. These are a) VAWA, and b) the Bradley Amendment. Just focus on these two. But at the moment, there is no visible evidence that there is an effort to overturn these laws.
So it is a proto-movement, not a movement.
Misandry will pop, through the Four Horsemen I wrote about. But note that none of those forces is a future organizing of a Men’s Rights Movement.
They sure don’t teach grammar in Holland anymore, or you would have simply separated them points, to make them more readable. Until you do, don’t expect anyone to read them.
Do you see what Socialism does to you?
It makes you lazy!
@Exiled
“No, I can not because all what I will list will be twisted and turned to negative.”
Well, I don’t think that I would do that.
“What I can say is, if you have a positive mindset and stand firm in life no female with a mustache will be able to put you off.”
Try entering the teaching profession! LOL!
It doesn’t matter how positive a spin you put on your life; if you are falsely accused by one of your pupils, you and, quite possibly, your WHOLE life – even with your own family – can be completely and utterly WRECKED.
You are also being deeply poisoned, almost on a daily basis, by all the misandry that permeates the ether. You just don’t notice this.
Anyway. My point to you is this. YOUR life would be much, much better if feminism was generally recognised as the hateful ideology that it is, and if it was also booted into oblivion.
Maybe you are so powerful that you can remain untouched by what feminism brings – or MIGHT bring – to you. Fair enough. But most men are not.
Harry,
Thanks, your site first clued me in four years ago. If not for you and zed I would be rotting in a German prison right now.
Exile,
You are proving ghandi’s second axiom right now. That tells me open conflict is not far away.
Are you too dense to know how to use a space key?
And gee… still, why aren’t you running to your doctor for a “concoction?”
Don’t let us stand in your way.
And especially don’t ask us when your demographics change in another 20 years and it becomes law to “visit the doctor” at 65 years old, you useless eater!
Do you believe in Euthenasia, Mevrouw Saint?
Non-sequiter much?
Aw… where’d he go?
He/she/it is gone. I’ve been getting a few loonies since the MEK post. Wouldn’t surprise me if harmageddon/exiled saint is somehow affiliated with those people. I’ll probably have to ban a number of trolls because of that post — that’s what happens when you offend a cult.
It was fun though, I enjoyed it!
I have become a born again supporter of Game and PUA since coming to this site. I still hold the same conviction that it is nothing new, and that all any man has to do to have women at his feet is take some pride in his dress and hygiene, and otherwise never even think of women as sexual creatures until they are pushing him into a bed.
It is just that simple. Just that empowering.
Women’s only real power is sexual. And of course, that is like saying the only real dangerous thing in my hand is a .44 magnum. Pussy IS power. But only because men act on their attractions.
It is ironic that once you ignore women they come to you, but it is true. And it puts all the power in a man’s hands. So for all my deriding Gamers and PUA’s here, my apologies and please spread the word.
I think it is helping.
@Fedrz,
Run around when they are young and satiate their sexual desires with thugs, and then later, decide to “virgin up” and find their beta provider.
Is that the script?
First of all, I never claimed that I was a virgin when I married.
Secondly, I never said that I was truly promiscuous. I was more of a serial monogamist. Two years with this guy, one year with that guy, and so on. It wasn’t the sex that was my biggest sin, it was the cruel and indifferent manner with which I treated men, even those I wasn’t sleeping with or had ever even touched. The man-eater, not the slut, is the female equivalent to the PUA. She’s on a permanent power-trip and leaves wreckage all around her. Is someone less of a manipulative bitch because she’s not having sex? At least if she’s having sex with him, he’s getting something out of it.
Serial monogamy is a bigger problem than outright promiscuity, in my opinion, because it affects many more people (very nearly everyone), often results in illegitimate children, wears down on your ability to pair-bond, and results in marriage being delayed for year after year until it’s no longer a viable alternative.
Am I a hypocrite?
It’s only hypocritical if you speak out against behavior that you are still doing. If you stop that behavior and then speak out against it, you are doing it because you want to warn others. Is a recovering drug addict a hypocrite because he speaks out about the dangers of addiction? Is a former atheist a hypocrite because he preaches the Gospel in prisons?
Just look at St. Paul, formerly Saul of Tarsus, the scourge of the Christians who turned his life around, gave up womanizing and murdering, and became the greatest Christian missionary ever, the founder of the Catholic Church, and an ardent proponent of chastity. Paul preached about the dangers of desire because he knew what it was like to burn.
If anything, people who have never lived like that, who have never been there, seem to have trouble discussing or understanding it. They suffer from an overly simplistic view on human nature. The “some people are good”/”some people are bad” idea. My religion (Christianity) says everybody starts out neutral (after Baptism), they either get worse or they improve, and the goal is to improve yourself as much as possible before you go to meet your maker in the hopes of not spending eternity separated from God. It’s never too late, and you’ve never sunk so low that you can’t pick yourself back up again.
So am I a hypocrite? No. I’m just a broken vessel. But that’s okay. God can work with that, too. Wouldn’t be the first time he did.
BG
I am interested to know how you changed?
The Fifth Horseman February 3, 2010 at 18:53
“Unless and until the laws are improved, the number of men interested in marriage will decrease, not increase. Period.”
Actually, I am not so sure about this any more. I used to think this. But having been single for 2 years now I would advise young men to refuse to marry..PERIOD. The only way I would have a woman in my house is as chattel. Her rights signed over to me. Why should I undertake obligations and responsibilities without rights to make sure I can discharge these obligations and responsibilities? A woman is pretty much a child. If I am to be held accountable then I must be able to discipline the child. It workds the same for children.
Sure, I like to have sex or make love with a beautiful woman. But I will get MORE of that if I do not allow any single ONE of them to live in my apartment. In my apartment in Germany I have a spare bedroom room and spare bathroom which the women eye off as ‘an opportunity to get in and live here’. I never use those rooms. They are for ‘guests’. Now..if I were to actually allow a woman to LIVE in that room the amount of sex I would get would drop like a stone, my opinion.
Having been brainwashed as a youngster and with one woman 23 years and married for 18 years and raising 4 kids and now single for 2 years? My opinion is marriage is for low grade betas who can’t get what they want any other way. It is not for guys with some get up and go who can get what they want based on their ability. Just my opinion.
And Gents…sorry for repeating myself…’Family Law’ is not law. It is legislation. You can quite safely ignore it. I never ceases to amaze me how men, even those so well educated as Fifth, in the MRA area refuse to educate themselves as to how rights are claimed by sovereigns. There is great irony that Mens RIGHTS groups actually don’t know how to claim their RIGHTS. Today, the only men paying alimony or child support are those who volunteered, usually through ignorance. I didn’t volunteer. I have posted a link to the Irish Free Man forum in the forum which contains word versions of all the docs I used to deny the Jurisdiction of the Austrailan Federal Magistrates court trying to enforce legislation on me. I have offered welmer a copy of the video. I am happy to discuss them. If you guys really want to ‘pierce the shield of ignorance’ you might want to read what I wrote on those docs and start asking questions. We are having success in the UK, Canada, Australia and hopefully the USA soon where we deny jurisdiction of the family court. And the family court is the crux of the abuse of men.
“It’s never too late, and you’ve never sunk so low that you can’t pick yourself back up again.”
Well said B&G . None of us are perfect.
“I’m just a broken vessel. But that’s okay. God can work with that, too. Wouldn’t be the first time he did.”
You have great insight and humility B&G.
My sister, who lives in Vienna, is visiting for a few weeks. She has a young son who is studying to be a doctor. Very, very intelligent. Been a bit unlucky in love, poor guy.
His girlfriend at the moment is gorgeous, according to my sister.She is twenty two , and is being tutored by my nephew. Her grades have increased dramatically. As much as she is beautiful and articulate, my sister is worried. His girlfriend refuses to introduce him to her parents as she says he is ” socially inept!” I said to my sister he should kick her to the curb.
“But she is a nice girl” says my sister, ( meaning she’s a virgin)” and J (son) does find it hard to socialize” she says.
” Crap, ” I say.
If she really cared about my nephew she would not have said such a hurtful thing to him. She is using him up, the bitch!. My sister reluctantly agreed.
( It annoys me that beautiful women can often get away with bad behaviour)
Ironically, his previous girlfriend, also twenty two, loved him to bits . Never put him down and would do anything for him. My sister liked her. She too was a pretty girl,my sister said that she could see the love in her eyes everytime she saw her with her son. Sadly, he dumped her because of her past. She had had a few other men.
*sighs*
Hi, Globalman.
Could you tell me where the link is, or be good enough to post it again.
Thanks in advance!
Oh blah blah blah, B&G,
Don’t go on and on with your sob story and being saved and it’s all OK.
Who gives a shit about your personal life.
This is The Spearhead, not Cosmo.
You wanted to shame men as sluts the same women, without acknowledging that men and women are not equal in the sexual marketplace.
And then got all righteous and stomped off of here.
Uh oh, Fedrz. A bit of moral relativism rears it’s ugly head again.
Basically what you’re saying with that is “It’s okay if we treat other people like human refuse, but we’ll protest if someone else treats us like human refuse.” No go, no deal, no dice. Either something is wrong on principle, or IT ISN’T WRONG.
It’s one thing to show compassion for someone’s “moment of weakness”. It is another thing to give them a free pass and say, “Go forth, fornicate, and fill the earth!”
Wait, there’s something about that phrase that I haven’t got quite right…
—
Sluts are sluts. They are found in masculine and feminine versions and they’re all fair game to me. I’m an equal-opportunity slut-shamer. No discrimination here.
— “The vast majority of men today will not be presented with the same opportunity.” — Fedrz
So why isn’t there a sex strike? I hear all about the marriage strike, but if a large portion of men just spent one week collectively refusing to have sex, it’d send quite a message. — B&G
—
I’m a former slut, so I recognize them immediately in the wild. Takes one to know one. LOL. — B&G
—
I think YOU are forgetting that following our natural desires instead of showing fortitude and personal restraint is what got us all into this mess in the first place.
Goodnight Fedrz. — B&G
Every one of those men who you behaved as a “man-eater” with, was treated like trash by you when you had much more sexual power over them than they had over you. Many of them likely would have committed themselves to you.
That you have decided to “go Christian” is irrelevant.
All of those guys would have been better off pumping and dumping you – correct? From their perspective that would have been the smart move, rather than wearing their heart on their sleeve while you kicked them in the balls.
So don’t go telling men they have to be Bible Bangin’ little virgins while you ladies figure out the score.
Fedrz -
Yeah I also saw that Antonia Zerbisias article while catching up with the news last night. I can’t believe she is so dense as to say “Shared parenting which is now law … thanks to the efforts of feminists”. In which planet is she living? Feminst groups like NOW are the main opponent of Shared Parenting bills in many US states. I can’t imagine it being too different in Canada or anywhere else in the Anglosphere.
@fedrz re: BG’s blatant egoism and hypocrisy
Amen, Brother Fedrz! Preach it! I say unto thee, verily thou art breaking off the Word in this place! Amen and amen!
Testing and sterilization.
Start with exiled saint guy or whatever.
Once the stupid are dead, things will change
Problem is the society is run by the stupid and defended by the stupid. It is a giant conspiracy against perception aptitude. Starts in childhood it does.
Fedrz -
Yeah I also saw that Antonia Zerbisias article while catching up with the news last night. I can’t believe she is so dense as to say “Shared parenting which is now law … thanks to the efforts of feminists”. In which planet is she living? Feminst groups like NOW are the main opponent of Shared Parenting bills in many US states. I can’t imagine it being too different in Canada or anywhere else in the Anglosphere. — Puma
The feminists here in Canuckistan are constantly trying to take credit for solving the problems they have created. It’s quite sickening, actually.
Check out this 5min this 5min video with a fembot arguing with Ezra Levant, where a feminidiot tries to take credit for fighting against Sharia Law being implemented in Ontario – while at the same time campaigning to end free speach in Canada, based on “hate speach” against Muslims in the first place! (Basically any mention of Muslims that does not indicate they fart rainbows is Hate Speach here.)
Go Ezra! Holy shit did they piss off the wrong guy when they pissed in Ezra’s Cornflakes! He’s a one man wrecking crew getting Free Speach restored back in Canada.
HL said…Better to expat to a country with women who are happy to be a wife and a mother if you want to have kids. Or import one here – and don’t let her watch TV, read grocery store magazines or befriend Toxic American women… lol
I imported one. And it took a while (about 25 years) but those toxic American women ruined her. And I WILL not get married again.
Virgins lecturing non-virgins on chastity, would go over about as well as white people lecturing black people on what it’s like to be black. The audience would listen politely, go home and think, “What does that person understand about what I’ve been through? What do they know about what my life is like?” There actually are a surprising number of women that ask me for advice, or look up to me for guidance. They don’t ask a nun. They don’t ask a woman who’s been perfectly pious and completely virtuous all her life, because they assume that person can’t relate to them.
Think about it, why does everyone listen to Welmer, Novaseeker, and HL? Because we all recognize that they’ve been there. They’ve been through it, and they know what they’re talking about.
@Laikastes
How have I ever been hypocritical? Please enlighten me.
@TFH,
Actually, that’s not a bad idea. Men stay home from work day. Hmm… It’d be awfully difficult to organize, though. There you go, TFH. Sounds like a job for you. Shouldn’t be impossible. The feminists had a lot of success with the “Bring your daughter to work day.”
Good news about the post. That’s an amazing amount of traffic. Wow.
@Fedrz,
Unless you are claiming rape, then you’re just making excuses. Are you really coming on here and blaming someone else for your mistakes? As you have pointed out yourself: God does not allow men to use “my woman made me do it” as an excuse for misbehavior. He holds men to an even higher standard, not a lower one. Nice try, though.
And I didn’t “stomp off”. I went to bed, which is customary to do at 2300 when you have to get up at 630 to make your kids breakfast.
As if Cosmo prints stories about redemption and reconciliation.
From their perspective that would have been the smart move, rather than wearing their heart on their sleeve while you kicked them in the balls.
In comparison, yes. But think how much better off everybody would have been, if I’d have married my first love as I planned, and been taken out of the market completely.
PUAs and man-eaters used to end up married at a young age, often to each other. It was the end of marriage that allowed us to let our inner animal run wild and bring down society. The evidence of that is all around you.
@Toby,
That’s a pretty big charge to make, considering that it is completely unsubstantiated.
I assume that by “healthy sexual behavior with adult women” you mean marriage, right? Watching Protestant ministers marry, divorce, remarry, etc. is nauseating. I don’t know if I’d want that sort of circus going on among my own church leadership.
Anyway, there are married Catholic priests already. It’s not a matter of core doctrine that they be unmarried. It’s more a reflection on the enormous burden of responsibilities that they will have to carry when they become priests.
Kathy,
Yeah, I think there’s some confusion about virginity and chastity, as far as virtues go. I think it’s perfectly legit to say that you won’t marry someone who’s not a virgin, and there are real concrete benefits to doing so. But it in our day and time (where virginity is rare), it greatly limits the number of potential suitors. And those that are left are not necessarily the best potential mates, although there will be many among them who are.
Marriage is a big investment and I think we really need to keep our eyes on what’s going to matter most in the long run. Not being a virgin is a very obvious sign that you are physically or emotionally tainted. But being a virgin isn’t automatically a guarantee of virtue. There are other ways of being corrupt, oftentimes much more damaging.
I was pretty terrible before I lost my virginity and it took me years to repair the damage even after I became chaste again. The fornication was just a reflection of the soul rot; it was a symptom, not the disease.
@Scattered
Grace, of course. How does anybody change?
@B&G
Don’t worry about Fedrz. Take it from a man who is a “Bible Bangin’ little virgin” (from Fedrz). If I found a girl who honestly learned from her error, I would be proud to have her.
@Fedrz
I disagree. It will definitely cause problems in the relationship. That you can’t deny. I for one will be able to tell my wife that I will never compare her to any previous woman because I haven’t had sex with any. I’ll be lucky if she can say the same. But the idea that having a change of heart is irrelevant is just plain dumb. If she learned from her mistakes then she is on our side with this. Promiscuity hurts everyone involved, including you. The basic problem that exists in the Feminist movement is now we have women who no longer have to control themselves, because they now have no consequences (like having to have a child). If both sides could control their desires, it would be a better world for everyone. The sad truth is that men who won’t (I say won’t because they and can and refuse to) control their sexual are demonized while women who do the same thing are essentially looked at as idols. It’s ridiculous on all counts.
GOSH – I hate to disagree – but – I think there is some social programming in the author here…
“It is this constant state of deprivation combined with just-out-of-reach titillation that gives women such absolute power over men.”
Keep in mind – we live in a world of matriarchal lies.
In my opinion, lies that date back far beyond the 60’s.
Men, Women and SEX:
Men WANT sex.
Women NEED sex. Yes, NEED – and NEED it BADLY!
I know that statement runs counter-intuitive to every bone in most guys bodies – but trust me – it is totally true.
Ever met a woman that had gone a long time without sex?
She is typically a nervous wreck, taking many pills and living with several cats or dogs or both. Unless she is using a power-tool…
Ever meet a guy who went a long time without sex?
Not a nervous wreck – sometimes angry and bitter – but that bitterness comes not from lack of sex – but an excess of rejection – rejection that is caused by feminism and its bitter misandric attitudes towards men. Women to this day still do not know how to say “NO”, instead, they use really hateful ways to turn guys off…
Men get rejected too frequently – get bitter. Women on the other hand – do the rejecting – then go out and buy another pet to abuse, and take more pills to subdue their sub-conscience mind that is now chewing on them like a rabid weasel because they are going counter to what their instincts tell them – get sex and be FULFILLED.
The prostitute is the irony of ironies – it is like getting paid to go to a restaurant and eat.
If you don’t believe me – try this:
Tell your girlfriend – you still want to be a couple, but you do not want to have sex anymore – she will go into a melt-down (it might actually end the relationship).
WANNA BE REALLY BOLD:
Walk up to a woman in a social setting, and tell her, “I don’t want to have sex with you” – watch her go into a melt down – one less guy to fulfill her “NEED”.
When a woman approaches you, and asks you anything – like, “Do you have the time?”, or “Do you know where the bathroom is?”.
Respond with, “No, I do not want to have sex with you”.
Watch her go into a meltdown – one less prospect of sex – her NEED.
If a woman approaches you in a dance-club, and says, “Would you like to dance?”.
Tell her, “No, I do not want to have sex with you”.
MELTDOWN.
I said elsewhere in a comment on another story.
Women tried to destroy marriage claiming it was “slavery for women”.
Men are now depraving them of it (marriage strike) – and they are crawling back.
You deprave women of sex – they will come crawling and BEGGING back…
Men WANT sex.
Women NEED sex.
It’s a fact – get it into your heads.
@Joseph,
My husband’s main complaint is actually that (in his words) “it’s hard living with a saint”. New Christians are a bit like children who are just discovering the world. We’re so extreme and excited about everything that we drive everybody bonkers.
@B&G
Trust me, I understand the feeling. People at my church put me on a pedestal. In one case, literally. I am one of the uncompromising long-term Christians. People just don’t know what to do with you. My only point on this forum is that we are not dealing with women alone who are out of control. It’s both sexes who have this problem. The men who are here generally tend to fall into the middle of the road. They want some form of structure so that both sides can call it a win. My belief is that what most guys on this forum advocate is actually a Biblical model (aka how God intended it to work). Men we appointed the task of leadership in the home by God (Genesis 3). Why? Because women will go batsh** crazy if we let them run things. As far as who is winning the sex war at the moment, well that pendulum will continue to swing. The only real answer to the dilemma is for everyone to take responsibility for their own actions and get control over their own impulses. Without that, their is no hope of this ever getting truly resolved.
Agreed.
Fuck do Christians irritate me enormously, even though I often stick up for them. (I stick up for Christianity because it is the foundation of Western Civilization).
This is not the Pope’s pulpit.
Don’t Bible Bang at me, either of you, B&G or Joseph… or I will whip out the Bible and start banging back – in case you haven’t clued in yet, I’m no stranger to the Scriptures.
Stuff it!
Unless you are claiming rape, then you’re just making excuses. Are you really coming on here and blaming someone else for your mistakes? As you have pointed out yourself: God does not allow men to use “my woman made me do it” as an excuse for misbehavior. He holds men to an even higher standard, not a lower one. Nice try, though. — B&G
I am blaming no-one. I am merely pointing out that men and women are not equal in the sexual marketplace. Btw, the church is notorious for your sexist attitude that men are held to a higher standard than women – and they make all kinds of excuses for Christian women’s slutty behaviour and blame it on men. There are several Christian MRA’s around who are absolutely disgusted with Christian attitudes such as yours.
And I didn’t “stomp off”. I went to bed, which is customary to do at 2300 when you have to get up at 630 to make your kids breakfast. — B&G
Whatever. You’ve been on a misandrist, whining complaining rampage for a few days now. PMS is not an excuse. I don’t give a shit about your cycle nor your emotions about it.
As if Cosmo prints stories about redemption and reconciliation.
As if the Spearhead ought to have entire threads derailed by the “resident birds” yapping on and on about their menstrual flows. Christ!
From their perspective that would have been the smart move, rather than wearing their heart on their sleeve while you kicked them in the balls. — Fedrz
In comparison, yes. But think how much better off everybody would have been, if I’d have married my first love as I planned, and been taken out of the market completely. — B&G
Why didn’t you marry him? Who broke it off? I’ll bet you dollars to donuts that you did. Whether marriage or simply dating-relationships, women do the majority of ending relationships. They have since the beginning of time… you know why? Because men and women are not equal in the sexual marketplace! Or have you not read anything on this site except your own words?
PUAs and man-eaters used to end up married at a young age, often to each other. It was the end of marriage that allowed us to let our inner animal run wild and bring down society. The evidence of that is all around you. — B&G
Marriage does not exist anymore and you Christian women stood by for decades making every excuse in the book for its dismantling, no different than the rest of women in society. And any man who spoke up was shamed relentlessy by Christian women just as much as non-Christians.
You are just being willfully obtuse, B&G – and it is why “Elusive Wives” such as you are often so damaging on a men’s site such as this. You display little difference in attitude than a typical feminist when push comes to shove.
I think the way of the Don Juan and the way of the Saint are both walks of life that has been followed for millenia, both paths are probably necessary for the greater part of patriarchy to be sustained in the long run. Today we have game and we have those that are practicing sexual restraint. I have an interest in both path’s and while this may sound like a contradiction I have found that both schools of tought are easy to use for some interesting synthesis. Game gives alot of insight in how the mind works, both ones-own and that of others. It makes it clear how much of interaction is caused by sexual dynamics and it completely demistifies the female mysteria, leaving one with a clear view of reality.
The path of sexual restraint is more in line with traditional mystical paths, the main value i derive from it is a feeling of enhanced willpower and energy levels. Sexual restraint does also feel like a way to stand closer to ones “higher self”.
I think that for celibacy to have any real effect on the sexual dynamics it has to incorporate the drive for self control and the will to power. Someone who is merely staying home and watching porn is not actualy celibate.
Those who practice game often view sexaul sublimation as an impossibility, just like women do. On the other hand celibates are often confined in a narrow religious viepoint and like to shame gamers, just like women do.
@Fedrz
Bang away my friend. I’d be happy to put your scriptures in context and look at your point of view. I have dedicated my life to their study and would love to see your opinions on the matter.
I would agree with this. I personally believe women should be held to the exact same standard as men. Forget what they “think” they want. Another major problem in both Catholicism (B&G) and Protestant (Myself) is that our churches have slowly become feminine in their approach to religion. Too much tolerance for bull shit. I’m personally not in that category. Men should lead the church as Christ directs. If that happened, all this hypocrisy non-sense people are claiming is going on would disappear overnight.
Hear, hear. Look at how many millions of men are henpecked into marriage by their Christian mothers. My own Christian mother (god bless her heart) suggested I reconnect with and marry an ex-girlfriend she KNEW was a bad seed, just so she could see her son properly married rather than the wanton celibate i am.
Damn, that’s a great observation. Exactly what I have been trying my best to do these last several “dry” years…
””””’Dr. Paul,
It is ironic that once you ignore women they come to you, but it is true. And it puts all the power in a man’s hands. So for all my deriding Gamers and PUA’s here, my apologies and please spread the word.””””””””’
”””””’All of those guys would have been better off pumping and dumping you – correct? From their perspective that would have been the smart move, rather than wearing their heart on their sleeve while you kicked them in the balls.
So don’t go telling men they have to be Bible Bangin’ little virgins while you ladies figure out the score.
””””””’
The reason I like sites like roisy and rooshv is that it gives guys choices and the ability to recognize maybe what you want out of a woman by having some experience with them and realizing some are gonna be better for you than others. Thinking the one you are with is all you can get leads to allowing her to walk on your nuts. Makes the relationship more equal actually than just the woman having pussy power.
Bang away my friend. I’d be happy to put your scriptures in context and look at your point of view. I have dedicated my life to their study and would love to see your opinions on the matter. — Joseph
I absolutely hate it when one of your kind shows up on a men’s board.
There are several devout Christians that hang out here, who don’t feel the need to spout shit in people’s face on every second post.
Also, I notice you are quite quick to White Knight for the ladies here and admonish the men. That’s one of the biggest reasons I quit attending Church 18 years ago.
You and I will be butting heads, trust me, if you think you are going to put anything I say into context.
Seriously, a man in the West knows more what it’s like to be black than you or any other woman. We are the new black.
@fedrz
Hostility noted and filed. Like that’s anything new to me. WhiteKnight? No, I just agree with B&G. Lady Raine is an infant. emily needs help. I think Kathy is a Christian, but she subscribes to the feminine approach (which I don’t). Canadian girl needs to be thrown under a truck just to get it out of the way (Although I’m fairly certain she could be the answer to one of the animal shelters problems when she gets older).
As for context, I was talking about any scriptures you would wish to post. I treat scripture and what you say very differently. If you want to butt heads then fine butt away. It’s not my intent, but I’ll answer back if your intent on this dick measuring contest.
””””’ Game + Celibacy February 4, 2010 at 11:34
Marriage does not exist anymore and you Christian women stood by for decades making every excuse in the book for its dismantling, no different than the rest of women in society. And any man who spoke up was shamed relentlessy by Christian women just as much as non-Christians.
Hear, hear. Look at how many millions of men are henpecked into marriage by their Christian mothers. My own Christian mother (god bless her heart) suggested I reconnect with and marry an ex-girlfriend she KNEW was a bad seed, just so she could see her son properly married rather than the wanton celibate i am.
”””””””””
Maybe a diference my mom chased out of the house a worthless chick for marriage. Her moms plan was to have us married. Little did my mom know I had no such plans and the chick did have worth as a friend and woman to practice intimacy with. She showed me how plotting woman can be and heck maybe that is why she fucked over my dad in front of me to teach me a valuable lesson on how things were in the states so that I would do what I did and not marry a chick there and personally know how bad it could get.
As for context, I was talking about any scriptures you would wish to post. I treat scripture and what you say very differently.
How the hell would you know what I understand or don’t understand about the scriptures? You’ve already made up your mind that you are the resident expert, while not even knowing other people’s views. You’ve only been here for a few days.
What does the Bible say about pride?
Why don’t you go ponder on that for a few moments before you open your yap about the Bible again, and pretending you are a seminary scholar just because you go to Church.
Yeah, I broke it off. As you said, it’s usually the woman and I’m no exception. I was 17, brilliant, and under a lot of pressure to go away to college, not get married and make babies. But doing so made me completely miserable and was the final nail in my psychological coffin. I never made it to the university, either.
That’s why I don’t like society’s emphasis on women going to college. It sends the message that our income-earning potential is the only thing that matters.
It’s ironic, because after all that, I still became a housewife.
the church is notorious for your sexist attitude that men are held to a higher standard than women
That “sexist attitude” is balanced by the “sexist attitude” that women should be submissive to their husbands. The one depends on the other. Why should I submit to someone who is no better than I? Where do they get their authority from? They get it from being held to a higher standard, the standard that they inherit by being men.
At any rate, I don’t hold men to a higher standard than myself. I hold them to the same standard, the one you chaffing over right now. The one you are claiming it is unreasonable to hold them to: no fornication, ever, with anyone. Complete chastity and fidelity. They don’t have to be married or virgins. Nope, they can drop everything right this moment and start immediately.
Fuck do Christians irritate me enormously
Join the club. We irritate everybody. According to the Bible, if we’re not pissing people off, we’re not doing our job.
But you must admit that our theology is at least conclusive.
””””I for one will be able to tell my wife that I will never compare her to any previous woman because I haven’t had sex with any. I’ll be lucky if she can say the same. ”””””’
But it is better if she can compare all former men to you and you are the best he he he
Or the reverse if you can compare former woman and she is the best.
So basically the key is be the best.
@fedrz
I don’t that’s why I said this……..
Didn’t sound like a challenge when I wrote it, just an open invitation for discourse. If that’s prideful then by all means, just get mad and rant.
As for pride, I’m not being prideful to tell you that I have read the Bible. 194 times through to be exact (since I started asking questions and studying it in my current method). And I intentionally decided not to go to seminary because it would have been more of a hindrance than a help. I’m not trying to insult you fedrz. I actually agree with a lot of what you say. You however, seem to be angry about the fact that I’m a Christian and damn proud of it. I live my life by those principles and find life in them. I just want many of the men here to find the freedom from a lot of this insanity like I have.
I don’t find this snot mouth, smug attitude from Christians to be amusing. Nothing drives me away from Christianity faster than this ridiculous attitude – and I am someone who is quite sympathetic to Christianity in the first place!
And it’s not your job to be shaming men, B&G. It’s been said many times around here that you women should shut the fuck up when it comes to the men, and go shaming the women instead.
As for pride, I’m not being prideful to tell you that I have read the Bible. 194 times through to be exact (since I started asking questions and studying it in my current method). And I intentionally decided not to go to seminary because it would have been more of a hindrance than a help. I’m not trying to insult you fedrz. I actually agree with a lot of what you say. You however, seem to be angry about the fact that I’m a Christian and damn proud of it. I live my life by those principles and find life in them. I just want many of the men here to find the freedom from a lot of this insanity like I have.
A lot of the men here have done a lot of researching as well – and, gosh, have not only studied the Bible, but have gone outside of that as well. Reading the Bible 194 times doesn’t mean jack shit. If you didn’t get it the first 2 dozen times, it just proves you are thick.
Might I suggest a supplement to your Biblical reading: How to Win Friends and Influence People — by Dale Carnegie
This site does not need a missionary, thank you very much. There are plenty of intelligent Christians here already whom I would rather listen to when it comes to discussing the Bible and its relevance to the social issues of the day.
You know, back then, I bet you broke it off. 17 and fine – and now, a baby under each arm and titties down to your knees.
What a waste.
Call me.
Fredrz
You keep spouting that you know the scriptures and study philosophy and base your opinions on those of great men like Aristotle and Nietzsche, but when someone asks you to support your argument you get defensive.
All they asked you to do is to name the source materials. Nut up or Shut up.
Aren’t you supposed to be working?
Do you have an actual argument?
@fedrz
I don’t find your snot mouth, smug attitude to be amusing either.
Great, I never claimed to know more than them. I just wanted your opinion. Read previous posts to reference this.
Nope it doesn’t. This site was put into place so men could discuss their “different” views. I’m doing just that. It irritates you which according to the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to do. I honestly believe that the Game aspect in our society is just men who don’t want to control their urges and have found a way to make women susceptible to them. That’s my view and I base it on the Bible, no shame in it for me. Don’t like it, go piss up a rope.
It is cute to see canadian girl in love.
he he he
Fuck dude, I for one am HAPPY about stasis.
I want a bitch in a corner office raking in the dough while I enjoy life.
She can climb the corporate ladder immune from sex-harassment/gender bias discrimination lawsuits that’d stick to me quicker than glue were I to simply say to a female co-workerette: “You look happy today.”
SHE can rub elbows in the 21st century good old girl network, understanding and commiserating with her Area Manager and District Manager’s PMS whereas I would be branded The Culprit of Cramping.
Brave New World m’ laddies. Be a dick. Enjoy.
Its lunch time.
I have no argument, and apparently niether do you.
””””””men who don’t want to control their urges and have found a way to make women susceptible to them.”””””’
Have you not been reading the woman?
They have urges too?
In fact from my experience they want my dick in their pussy more than I usually want to do it. But only certain guys apparently as I am sure you have read the men too. Go to find the balance where she wants to fuck you as much as you want to fuck her is the key.
@Gunslingergregi
Read my previous posts. I clearly say that both sexes do this and that women doing it is just as bad as men. I don’t condone their behavior either.
”””””SHE can rub elbows in the 21st century good old girl network, understanding and commiserating with her Area Manager and District Manager’s PMS whereas I would be branded The Culprit of Cramping.”””””’
Yea has anyone seen a woman at work who has a chain of command?
I don’t find your snot mouth, smug attitude to be amusing either.
Aren’t you the same asshole that blew in here shaming me the other day, White Knighting for Canucklehead Girl, and telling me how “we” are supposed to be doing things, and then went on to lecture about the morality of men?
If you don’t want enemies, then don’t set yourself up this way.
I’m doing just that. It irritates you which according to the Bible is exactly what it is supposed to do. I honestly believe that the Game aspect in our society is just men who don’t want to control their urges and have found a way to make women susceptible to them. That’s my view and I base it on the Bible, no shame in it for me.
You don’t even know what others believe or not, as it would take you a helluva longer than you have been here to ascertain such things. Your arrogance is astounding.
Don’t like it, go piss up a rope.
Ditto.
””””Joseph February 4, 2010 at 12:23
@Gunslingergregi
Have you not been reading the woman?
Read my previous posts. I clearly say that both sexes do this and that women doing it is just as bad as men. I don’t condone their behavior either.
”””””
For me people should have freedom to get together break up and do what they want. Like if you want to read the bible a million times do it. Doen’t mean you should be thrown to lions but yea all the laws that affect peoples freedom should go. If someone wants to fuck goats doesn’t affect me if someone wants to be married doesn’t affect me nor someone who reads the bible. Just when they pass into law that you have to fuck goats that it is a problem.
Or when the law is that people who fuck goats are to be given job preference over everyone else again that is a problem.
hell no. I want me a twofer: a hot black female Public School teacher with full gubmint bennies.
Now, there’s a teflon bitch who could fuck her 12 year-old student, gut him then cannibalize his privates and still collect her full pension after a tart little reprimand from Ms. Principal gets put in her personnel file.
What next? Banning the Bible as “hate speech” because you don’t like what it says?
What is there to understand? What is there to debate? What is not clear about the message? There are no ifs, ands, or buts in that quote. There’s no “well, this one only counts for the women cause us men need to get our rocks off” in there. Or do you see something I don’t see.
That is the Christian message about sex. If you choose to follow it or not is your own decision. But in order to change my mind, you’d have to convince me that God and the Roman Catholic Church are wrong. That won’t happen and a complete waste of both of our time.
It’s quite rich to complain about modern women’s lack of morality (which I don’t deny) and then claim the right to moral relativity yourself. It’s completely hypocritical.
Are you aware that in Hebrew texts, adultery was considered a sin for women and that for men to commit adultery it was considered that he had to sleep with another man’s wife?
Adultery for men was considered an act of theft against another man’s property – that being, his wife’s sexual reproduction. This is what a man took “possession of” in marriage – before that, the woman was in the possession of her father. We still have vestiges of this in the marriage ceremony, where the father “gives away” the bride.
Take Solomon, for example – many, many concubines. However, what was his sin? It was not the concubines, but rather, it was coveting another man’s wife.
Lol! Sorry, David coveted another man’s wife.
@B&G
Don’t worry, fedrz has a problem with any voice that doesn’t sound surprisingly like his.
@fedrz
Did you not notice the post I made earlier about throwing her (Canadian girl) under a truck? As for the morality of men, I believe change has to start with us (men). Not women. I am moral by just about any standard. I don’t want to be your enemy, but apparently you need another one and are doing everything in your power to recruit me.
Don’t need to. As I said in an earlier post, this site was so men could discuss different views. The intolerant one in the room is you. Your mouth (specifically your lack of ability to close it) and inability to listen is astounding.
@ fedrz
Good analysis and accurate. However, you missed one thing. Fornication. Men were/are supposed to be married before having sex.
King David had several wives of his own.
2 Samuel 3:2-5
2(A)Sons were born to David at Hebron: his firstborn was Amnon, by (B)Ahinoam the Jezreelitess;
3and his second, Chileab, by Abigail the widow of Nabal the Carmelite; and the third, Absalom the son of (C)Maacah, the daughter of Talmai, king of (D)Geshur;
4and the fourth, (E)Adonijah the son of Haggith; and the fifth, Shephatiah the son of Abital;
5and the sixth, Ithream, by David’s wife Eglah. These were born to David at Hebron.
Men were/are supposed to be married before having sex.
What about his concubines?
@fedrz
Exactly several wives!
At any rate, I couldn’t care much about it.
But the Bible itself holds men and women to different standards. Which B&G herself seems to think does not matter – after all, she runs on the Law of Eve.
@fedrz
Concubines were considered a type of wife. They belonged to him and were entitled to protection from him. Their children didn’t receive the blessing of inheritance however.
And Lo,
didst firepower
yawneth of yon strife
betwixt thine Philistines
and he departeth…
Firepower 3:16
So?
Marriage doesn’t exist anymore. What’s your point?
Don’t bitch at the men here. Go fix marriage if you are going to insist men remain celibate outside of marriage. It’s pretty rich to tell men to get married in order to have sex, when marriage does not exist, nor does the church enforce it, nor fight for it.
You are telling men to be 90 year old virgins. Give me a break.
The Church is the one who dropped the ball with marriage, since God gave it to them, and they turned it over to the state to be dismantled.
Serial monogamy is a bigger problem than outright promiscuity, in my opinion, because it affects many more people (very nearly everyone), often results in illegitimate children, wears down on your ability to pair-bond, and results in marriage being delayed for year after year until it’s no longer a viable alternative. — Black and German
–
(Wow, simply fantastic!)
Welmer,
Could you, B&G or anyone else please do a seperate post on this very interesting and most poorly understood concept of ’serial monogamy’???
Would be so obliged!
@ fedrz
God gave marriage to men, not the church. And yes, we fucked up. I’m talking about taking it back the right way. With self control. The state shouldn’t be involved in marriage any more than Rosie O’Donnell should be involved in gun rights. They both think they have a point and they are both retarded for thinking it.
“It’s never too late, and you’ve never sunk so low that you can’t pick yourself back up again.”
Really? Try telling that to the millions of guys who have had their children stolen from them and then poisoned to them who are having 50%+ of their after tax income taken from them.
Fuck I hate how hypocritical western women are nowadays. It’s just disgusting. A man totally arse raped by the femnazi state should just ‘pick himself back up again’? It’s just a disgusting attitude to take to a man who has had a myriad of crimes committed against him. Women simply have no sense of justice. What cunts.
Oh. And by the way. A man like me who transitions from ‘Family Man’. Devastated and contemplating suicide. To a ‘Global Man’ loving his life and happier than ever. Free of all legislation. Free of any obligations to pay for women and children including free from paying income tax. Don’t you wimmin just fucking hate guys like me! I’ve had women call for my death in public places. That’s hate right there.
The BIG crime I committed against you western women is I can see you for the total fucking crap you are expressed in comments like this. I turned my back on you western women. You are toxic. You are beneath contempt. You are beneath me to socialise with. I tell every young man I talk to how crap you are and how they should avoid you. Tough shit for the few good women there are that they did not stand up for truth, honour, justice and right when they had the chance. I absolutely picked myself up off the mat and am better and stronger than I ever was before. Only problem you ladies have is that I won’t do what you say. Fuck you western women. Really. Comments like that are just disgusting in a place like this.
Here is a question for the wimmin here. What punishment of my ex or what benefit to me do you propose to remedy the kidnapping of my children and the child abuse of those children by the poisoning of their minds against their father? Go ahead. What penalty or benefit? Let’s hear it. After all, after the perjury she made and the femnazi state kidnapped my children and put me through poverty and abuse, there is no path for the ‘Family Man’ to ever return. How are you wimmin going to remedy the mess one of your number created?
Brazilianguy February 4, 2010 at 07:25
“Could you tell me where the link is, or be good enough to post it again.”
http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=225
God gave marriage to men, not the church. And yes, we fucked up. I’m talking about taking it back the right way. With self control. The state shouldn’t be involved in marriage any more than Rosie O’Donnell should be involved in gun rights. They both think they have a point and they are both retarded for thinking it.
Yeah, well, duh, I pointed that out way further up this thread already.
Male self-control is not the problem, in fact, by human nature it is not a problem for males to stay with the same woman, it is more natural for men than for women – it is the females that are biologically prone to straying.
You can exercise all the self control you want, Joseph, but there is nothing you can do about forcing your wife to exercise self control.
The only way to convince women to stay with their husbands, and to shun the Rotating Polyandry mating cycle of women, is to make children of marriage automatically to be in the custody of the husband, not the woman – which is also put forth in the Bible, and is the basis of Patriarchy – or, fatherhood.
So, why complain to the men here about their sexual proclivities? Marriage does not exist, and without the Church or the State to enforce women’s behaviour the way God intended marriage and children to be, there is no point in you running around here trying to convince men to save themselves for marriage – which doesn’t exist anymore, anywhere.. You are a Christian, go fix it first, then come and convince men of your better system – I’m sure you will find many takers.
@fedrz
Exactly, but if all the men act with self-control, then the women run into a brick wall. It’s called we’re in charge, get over it. We get our junk in order first and they have to follow. They are only doing what we allow them to. When we finally get our junk together, they will fall in line. They have no other choice except Meow Mix.
Exactly, but if all the men act with self-control, then the women run into a brick wall. It’s called we’re in charge, get over it. We get our junk in order first and they have to follow. They are only doing what we allow them to. When we finally get our junk together, they will fall in line. They have no other choice except Meow Mix.
Good luck with that. Many of us have been preaching the marriage strike for years, as well as not having any relations with women period – including sexual.
Guess what?
People are still having sex.
Only a very few will be swearing off sex until they reach andropause in their mid-thirties to early forties.
What are you preaching that is new here?
In fact, women are quite willing to share alphas and form together in harems, so even if 80% of men did what you say, it still won’t “force” women into line. Most women are only interested in those 20% of men at the top anyways, and they have no intention of listening to you – why would they?
@fedrz
I’m not suggesting anything new. Just a different take on why, not necessarily the how. The why is always more important than the how.
A better take would be to focus your attention on the Church, and demand for them to uphold marriage as put forth in the Bible, and then for them to challenge the government to stay out of Biblical Marriage under the Right to Freedom of Religion.
If Sharia law is almost being imposed in Canada, certainly Biblical Law ought to have a clear case in countries that are based upon Biblical Law in the first place.
Agreed, I make this case a church often. Most of the guys are busy trying to not get into trouble with their wives. I have started a men’s mentor group and intend to pass this type of thinking off to them.
But no reason I can’t post it here too.
Good for you, just don’t show up into my conversations cozying up to the women, and forcing the Bible down my throat.
fedrz February 4, 2010 at 13:56
If Sharia law is almost being imposed in Canada, certainly Biblical Law ought to have a clear case in countries that are based upon Biblical Law in the first place.
__________________________________
pretty much every civilization is based upon marriage and family. It is not considered a good thing to have children out of wedlock in africa, china, india or any moslem country.
@fedrz
Not your conversation. Just ignore me if it irritates you that bad. I have my opinions and will voice them.
“Kathy is a Christian, but she subscribes to the feminine approach ”
Lol! And what might that be , Joseph?
Sorry Joseph, I misread you there. I thought you said feminist approach. My bad.
Not your conversation. Just ignore me if it irritates you that bad. I have my opinions and will voice them.
Fuck you’re an annoying little punk.
”””””’Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body.””””””””
If you are not your own then where does free will come in?
Is it saying you are a slave?
What is the point of saying you did wrong if owned by someone else how can you be responsible?
Joseph
“Game” can be used in a marriage by a man to regain the initiative.
The churches must stop overvaluing women. People think the last pope was a real old conservative. He was actually something of a feminist, called himself that on occasion, and, I was thinking this morning, a bit of a mangina. Where do you think we Catholics got those ridiculous altar girls from? In the good old days, and in the masses I attend still, women sit silently in the pews with their heads covered.
I understand that you are a Protestant, so please don’t mind my raising Catholic points. I think the answer is for all the churches to actually look at what scripture says, and it is not “men bad, women good”. The churches have forgotten that women suffer from Original Sin too. Arguably, they are affected worse.
The answer is quite simple – women need to be put in their place. This sounds harsh, I know, but I think we have learned how goddam silly they can be if they get ideas above their station. Not only will this make men happier, but it will make women happier too. A woman likes to know where her boundaries are. She wants her “gina tingle”, and the best place for her to get it is from her husband, and if she is excited by him that will do it for her. Women are excited by dominance. A lot of soft religious men don’t realise that underneath all the sugar and spice, there is a firecracker that will go off in the most amazing ways if you stimulate her just right. Even the most ordinary woman has her “inner slut”. The trick is to for the Christian husband to bring it out.
Speaking crudely, you have to make your wife your “bitch”. Or someone or something else will.
There is nothing a woman won’t do for a man who turns her on. That is why women’s sexuality has to be controlled so carefully, and I suspect a lot of scripture is directed to that. “See that she respects her husband” could easily be read as see that she responds to his dominance sexually.
My wife generally responds very well to firm handling occasionally. Christian men must stop being squeamish in their dealings with women.
@ David
Do we attend the same Mass? No alter girls, Latin, head coverings, etc. Do they ring the bells at yours, too?
Man, David, we’re totally old-school.
@ Gunslinger
I found your commentary on goats fascinating. At first I was appalled, and then I though: Well, I suppose bestiality is the next fad.
Anyway, to answer your question: If you are not your own then where does free will come in? God owns you, but you have the free will to do as you please. By besmirching his property, you are sinning against God. God will not stop you, but he may punish you later.
@ Get Real
I am a woman and therefore not allowed to contribute. Perhaps someone else will.
@ Fedrz
Marriage still exists in the Catholic Church. And if anyone backs out from civil marriage, the Church will be the first to go. You’re welcome to join us.
But the Bible itself holds men and women to different standards.
Having multiple wives is not the same thing as fornication, rather it is polygamy. My Church does not allow polygamy and St. Paul (the Bishop of Rome, and the first Pope) spoke out quite clearly against it.
From 1 Corinthians 7, it is clear that St. Paul is discussing marriage as an institution between one man and one woman. By this era, polygamy had already died out among the Jews.
It’s a particularly interesting passage, as it continues on he quite obviously makes the case for celibacy and devotion to religious life.
Nothing drives me away from Christianity faster than this ridiculous attitude – and I am someone who is quite sympathetic to Christianity in the first place!
If you’re sympathetic to Christians, you will get you eternity in hell. If you’re mean to us, you get eternity in hell + 1.
There’s no Christian halfway house. Sorry, but I couldn’t resist commenting on that.
That’s one of the biggest reasons I quit attending Church 18 years ago.
Yeah, right. You stopped attending church for the same reason I did: you were ashamed of your behavior, and felt like a hypocrite singing hymns and listening to Gospel readings. Fess up, now.
People leave church because they can’t take the pressure. They’re sleeping with their girlfriend, or cheating on their wife. They’ve had an abortion, or they ran out on their family. It’s easier to leave than to admit that you’re doing wrong, and ask for forgiveness. Sometimes they leave and join a different church, sometimes they leave and found their own church, and sometimes… they just leave.
That’s okay. You’re welcome back any time.
I’m not giving up on you so easily, Fedrz.
Hebrews are nice but listen to Jesus on adultery:
Got that? Gouge out your eye, dude.
@Globalman
What is the alternative to picking yourself up? Lying down and continuing to let people walk on you, that’s what. Let go of the anger, man. It’s keeping you warm right now, but it’s a crazy way to live.
I don’t hate anyone, Globalman. Really, I don’t. I love you, and Jesus loves you. This is me sending love vibes your way. >>>>>>>
”””” If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.
””””’
So really dieing before you can do wrong would be a great gift to give someone. Mybe all those aborted babies being sent to god are a gift from humanity since they can’t sin and now you have a much higher percentage of humanity in heaven because of it he he he
No dick control….no bankroll…
Are you by chance extraordinarily handsome? That’s not a phenomenon I’ve noticed. Women see most men as sexless drones. If I ignore women they ignore me.
B&G
I usually attend a Traditional Latin Mass. This is the one recently freed by the last two popes.
My wife used to come with me, and I got her to wear a hat when she did (for a while, she wore a veil). She made some good friends there, but she hasn’t been with me for a while. We sometimes attend an English Mass.
Little story: In about 1964, I was a very small altar boy. I remember seeing a girl wandering around the sanctuary. I think she was dusting statues. I was scandalised!
Another story: A few years ago, I attended a vernacular mass in a country town. Teenage girl in jeans leads the procession carrying a cross, sashays into the sanctuary and plonks her girly bum down on a pew.
You can imagine my reaction.
He, he. Yeah, I can imagine. My husband won’t let me wear a veil, but I’m allowed to wear a hat sometimes.
B&G
Actually, full disclosure, it was a bone of contention between us. She wore a veil for a while, but this is a bit excessive in some ways. So, she took to wearing a hat.
Because she loves me and wants to please me, she did this for me, but I think it was always under protest. She became fairly comfortable with the headcovering (in fact, I think the whole scenario turned her on a bit). But she finds the Latin Mass rather alien, despite liking the people. She doesn’t like chant and so on.
Since then I have learned a bit more “game”. These days I am not asking her along with me. I suspect she will eventually decide she wants to go with me, and I’ll just tell her that if she wants to come, she covers her head. Otherwise don’t bother. I went to confession a couple of weeks ago, and she decided to come with me. That is a good marital dynamic.
I am slowly learning to be a “cool” and effective husband!
You are a good girl, B&G, which is why I hope you don’t get forced off this site.
I’ve really got to go to confession again. It’s been a while.
Head coverings can be very alluring, so it’s a double-edged sword. You have to be careful how you wear it, or the guy across from you will be slack-jawed through the entire mass.
Yes, I have heard young men say that a pretty girl in a veil is damn sexy.
We used to have a really lovely woman in our congregation who wore a black veil (strictly, it should have been white). She was like a Tolkien princess. And intelligent and accomplished. But, good grief, that woman was useless. Never married, never became a nun, never did anything much. What a waste. Not my type, but she was simply made to adorn some man’s bed!
With confession, just make it a routine. Don’t build it into something big. Just go and be casual about it. It’s like routine maintenance for the soul.
I have seen a few girls in jeans wearing veils. Now that is mixed messages.
Yeah, I’ve got to get a routine going. Now it’s like I barge in to confession 3 times a year and take up residence.
Jeans and veils. LOL. That’s actually really funny. Never seen that before.
Marriage still exists in the Catholic Church. And if anyone backs out from civil marriage, the Church will be the first to go. — B&G
Sorry, that’s not marriage in my books. That is mere symbolism. If I am going to give a child my name through sexual relations in marriage, then I will need an enforcement system to ensure that I can fulfill my fatherly duties as laid forth in the Bible.
The Catholics are doing better at this than most, if they refuse to marry divorced couples in a Church ceremony, but it is mere symbolism. Hardly different than the cross in the church merely being a symbol of the actual cross. Symbols are not real and tangible.
Ask Novaseeker how comforting this symbolism was during his divorce.
You do know that the divorce is rate is now higher amongst Christians than non-Christians, don’t you?
Sorry toots, the Catholic Church, above all other churches, has the resources and political clout to fight for marriage. If you are getting married on the Bible, then the form of marriage as laid forth in the Bible is what ought to stand. The church – all churches – cower like wimps in their pews when it comes to flexing their muscle on this. And they do have the muscle. When they but their billions to work to do so, let me know. Until then, shove it up your ass.
Having multiple wives is not the same thing as fornication, rather it is polygamy. My Church does not allow polygamy and St. Paul (the Bishop of Rome, and the first Pope) spoke out quite clearly against it. — B&G
Sorry, I don’t believe in Saints, Bishops and Popes. And no Church today believes in polygamy except for the Mormons and possibly some various cults and extreme sects.
And no shit it is not the same. But, you will notice, how this argument started off – you dissimulative, purposefully misleading female – was about you declaring that men and women are held to the exact same standards – “a slut is a slut no matter male or female,” and in your pious righteousness, you declared it was your Christian duty to shame men the same as women – to which I countered that men and women are not equal in the sexual marketplace… and I further illustrated that even the Bible acknowledges this, that men and women are not equal in sexual virtue: A woman who was married would be committing adultery by having sex outside of marriage period; whereas a married man was only committing adultery if he went after another man’s wife. As in, it would not have been considered adultery if a married man went to a prostitute. This is the basis of Patriarchy – it rests upon the sexual virtue of women, so that a man is assured that the children of marriage are his own. If he strays from the marital bed, it is not the same as a woman straying, because the male straying does not cause paternal confusion.
Male sexual virtue is meaningless. Female sexual virtue is extremely important. It is the basis of Patriarchy. Or haven’t you clued in yet why so many men around here want to have mandatory paternity testing at birth?
That the New Testament puts forth different rules has no bearing on the fact that the Bible clearly acknowledges that male and female sexual virtue is an entirely different issue.
I am familiar with what Paul says… I also know what he says about women.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Let the women keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says. If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a disgrace for a woman to speak in church.
Maybe you should take a hint.
—Nothing drives me away from Christianity faster than this ridiculous attitude – and I am someone who is quite sympathetic to Christianity in the first place!- — Fedrz
If you’re sympathetic to Christians, you will get you eternity in hell. If you’re mean to us, you get eternity in hell + 1.
There’s no Christian halfway house. Sorry, but I couldn’t resist commenting on that. — B&G
I am merely baptized, and have never made a profession of faith. I have never agreed to succumb to church disciplines, and I have never asked Jesus into my heart and then rejected him.
So go fuck yourself, you sanctimonious Pharisee.
John 8:7
When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her.”
If God does not judge a man until the end of his days, then who the hell do you think you are to cast judgments around with such cavalier smugness?
That’s one of the biggest reasons I quit attending Church 18 years ago. — Fedrz
Yeah, right. You stopped attending church for the same reason I did: you were ashamed of your behavior, and felt like a hypocrite singing hymns and listening to Gospel readings. Fess up, now.
People leave church because they can’t take the pressure. They’re sleeping with their girlfriend, or cheating on their wife. They’ve had an abortion, or they ran out on their family. It’s easier to leave than to admit that you’re doing wrong, and ask for forgiveness. Sometimes they leave and join a different church, sometimes they leave and found their own church, and sometimes… they just leave.
Now here’s some more bullshit you pulled out of your self-righteous ass.
How the fuck would you know why I quit going to church? Fuck are you an arrogant cow. I was not ashamed of my behaviour. I was outraged at the church, for their blatant hypocracy, that even when dating and being engaged, when your “betrothed” turns into a bunny-boiling fucking shrew after blatantly cheating, they would continually point the finger at the man. When your ex takes delight in showing up to church and making sure she sits in the pew in front of you with her new fuck of the week, or starts sleeping with your friends, or gets new boyfriends up town to chase after you and get physically aggressive with you on her behalf… and the church just shrugs… it’s time to give them the proper signal:
…………../´¯/)……..…… (\¯`\
…………/….//……….. .…\\….\
………../….//………… .….\\….\
…../´¯/…./´¯\………../¯ `\….\¯`\
.././…/…./…./.|_……_| .\….\….\…\.\..
(.(….(….(…./.)..)..(..(. \….)….)….).)…)
.\…………….\/…/….\. ..\/……………./
..\…………….. /……..\……………..,,./
….\…………..(………. ..)……………/
……\………….\……… ../…………./
…and never set foot in that shit-hole place again. And aside from one cousin’s wedding where she had to beg, and my father’s funeral, I never have been in church again. Many men have gone through something similar – although I was lucky that it was merely a serious dating relationship, and not marriage and children. I tossed most of my friends from church at the same, and never looked back.
That woman is still a fucking psycho, and when she got married a few years back, she even found out how to contact me in the new town I was living in to let me know she got engaged – why? You tell me… I have an idea why. Almost a decade had passed. The last time I was home, she tried to talk to me and I just walked by as if I didn’t know her. Lol! I still have one or two friends that are friends with her, and I seen her name on Facebook and checked out her “friends,” – pretty much every guy she ever slept with that I know of, is on her list – except for me, lol, by my choice. I wonder what her “enlightened Christian husband” thinks of that? She is highly regarded in the church – as, I am sure, is a good Christian girl like you, B&G.
That’s okay. You’re welcome back any time. I’m not giving up on you so easily, Fedrz. — B&G
People with attitudes like yours & Joseph’s reminds me of exactly how much I hated church, so good fucking luck with that!
fedrz
Please go easy on B&G. I think her heart is in the right place.
Yes, women should shut up in church, but this is not church.
I am on an Internet discussion group for traditional Catholic men, and we have a general rule (formulated by me, actually): “no chicks, no clerics”. But even we allow a few women on. Although I got one kicked off for daring to try to veto a man from joining.
I don’t know if you have powers to ban people on this site yourself, but please don’t kick B&G off. She is one of the better ones.
The answer lies in settling – for both sexes.
Beta female may desire alpha males, and for a certain period of time, might be able to snag a few. But at some point, when their biological clocks start ticking, they know they have to settle for a beta male in their own league.
Same with guys. Sure, we want the hotties, and despite the fact that they are hot, we somehow hope they will be “cold” to every other male but us, but of course it doesn’t work that way.
Rare is the hot alpha female who doesn’t know she can “do better” and in fact does.
The vast majority of us average, OCD/anxiety/ADD/depression plagued humans must settle for each other.
An ADD plain Joe beta goes well with an OCD plain Jane beta.
””””””’Male sexual virtue is meaningless. Female sexual virtue is extremely important. It is the basis of Patriarchy. Or haven’t you clued in yet why so many men around here want to have mandatory paternity testing at birth?”””””””””””’
Exactly.
The thing about the catholic church is that you can get an anulment so that you can get married again. Like the marriage never happened. So there is divorce.
fedrz
Please go easy on B&G.
David, no offence made to you here, but, this is a typical pattern of what happens when women show up in men’s boards on the internet. Ask any veteran that has been around for a few years. More boards have exploded and gone down because of the likes of B&G than having 20,000 angry feminists show up to screech hatred at us.
Ferdinand Bardamu made a post about it here, and I wrote an article about it here.
It is like clockwork. It happens every time, and the typical ploy is to get male allies to play against eachother. Like what is happening right here between you and me… or how Joseph is the first to jump up and admonish other men on how to behave towards women – and then follows up with trite comments to cover up.
There is a reason why Angry Harry says having women on a men’s forum is like having a child help you put up wallpaper – no thanks!
Hestia is one of the few women around here that truly understands this – women’s role in this whole thing is to take care of the other women, and leave the men to sort out their own shit.
B&G knows this too – but she refuses to do so.
When you start seeing post after post on a men’s forum about women talking about their menstruation, start the friggin’ egg timer.
Haven’t you noticed which sex is dominating the conversations on nearly every thread here lately?
That’s pretty sad. But, having seen what you are comparing her to, I can see your point. I would suggest that neither of you consider a career in sales – the more you talk, the less interested people seem to be in what you are selling.
Either way it is good practice to learn to deal with bitches especially for the guys who have to work with them. It doesn’t have to ruin a site. Same shit was brought up at roissies a while back and didn’t come to fruition. Why because things have changed and part is that you need to learn to efectively deal with the stupid bitches at work. Woman will always get the free pass. So point that out every time. Why does a bitch get to argue only one sided. Shit like that. Come up with the bitch crushing technique that guys can use to protect themselves. Of course that is usually just to not give them attention.
zed, I’m not selling anything. I am not trying to convert anyone to anything.
I see what you are saying, fedrz, and I am reminded of that saying, “women ruin everything”. That is sort of what I am saying about my own church (women, shut up and obey).
I am not a white knight. I am quite happy to see a woman booted off if necessary. As I said, I made a woman on another site, who claimed to be a traditional Catholic, ask her husband’s permission to continue posting. She got it, but then pissed me off again, and I got her kicked off for being cheeky to a man.
This is a man’s site. I value that. But I would prefer to keep B&G around, if she behaves herself. I agree, no menstruation stories.
As you can see though holding them to a high standard causes them to break the fuck down for the majority. So that works too. Yea that is right I expect you too be a contributing member of the team and raise kids and clean and cook and a lot of other shit because your capable. Fuck that letting woman have the luxury of sitting in a house with kids until they have created something with the man that allows both the man and woman to do that.
I don’t know if you have powers to ban people on this site yourself, but please don’t kick B&G off.
I don’t have any powers here.
This is just the voice of an ordinary Canadian yelling back at the radio – “You don’t speak for me.”
B&G is fine, I don’t agree with everything she says but she’s not the enemy, not by a very long shot. She gets the issues. Sure, her approach is religious, as is mine, but that isn’t a reason to exclude her.
Women like B&G go on irrelevant tangents about topics that have nothing to do with the article posted. So far I’ve read novel length posts of nothing more than religious sermonizing and the merits of modern marriage.
She is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and is more destructive than outright feminist trolls because the naive are prone to take her pro-marriage delusions at face value – making her an insidious threat who derails otherwise productive discussions into irrelevant banter.
Women with an agenda should be outright banned from posting here.
All or nothing? No man or woman can demand all or nothing, because ALL of us would end up with, guess what? NOTHING.
Happiness lies somewhere in between the two extremes.
The answer lies in settling – for both sexes.
Beta female may desire alpha males, and for a certain period of time, might be able to snag a few. But at some point, when their biological clocks start ticking, they know they have to settle for a beta male in their own league.
Same with guys. Sure, we want the hotties, and despite the fact that they are hot, we somehow hope they will be “cold” to every other male but us, but of course it doesn’t work that way.
Rare is the hot alpha female who doesn’t know she can “do better” and in fact does.
The vast majority of us average, OCD/anxiety/ADD/depression plagued humans must settle for each other.
An ADD plain Joe beta goes well with an OCD plain Jane beta.
They’re spending the same amount of money (or more) that they would spend on buying women drinks and dinner, but they are just channelling that money into the pockets of PUA gurus rather than the mouths of women. And they still have to go through humiliating “in-field” practice drills. So in the long run it seems almost impossible for a man to avoid humiliation and the emptying of his bank account – all again for the same end result: getting laid.
Unless B&G is completely misrepresenting herself, and I have seen her website so I doubt it, she is – at worst – a reformed sinner.
So, she says a bit too much. She’s a woman.
I think she is what is sometimes called “a man’s woman”. They are not bad women.
This man votes to let her stay. Provided she remembers her place.
The biggest enemies, are the little manosphere-groupie single sweet young things, who have their own blogs with little valuable to say on them (and even some downright unhelpful comments, complete with shaming language tactics), but because they hang around the boys and bat their eyes and smile and play footsie, so to speak, get otherwise sensible guys linking and blogrolling them. They, not the man-respecting, sensible Christian wives who largely (if not completely) get it, are the ones most dangerous; the potential Trojan Horses of this ‘movement of individuals’, who will derail it if we let them.
””””” Hi-Grade February 4, 2010 at 21:19
Those who practice Game may seem to be sex fiends who live only to get laid, but fundamentally Game is a technique that lowers the cost of obtaining sex — these guys don’t think it’s worth blowing hard earned money or going through humiliating ordeals to get laid, and they’re acting on that principle.
They’re spending the same amount of money (or more) that they would spend on buying women drinks and dinner, but they are just channelling that money into the pockets of PUA gurus rather than the mouths of women. And they still have to go through humiliating “in-field” practice drills. So in the long run it seems almost impossible for a man to avoid humiliation and the emptying of his bank account – all again for the same end result: getting laid.
Not if they stay on the free sites.
Will S
B&G is married.
There are a few women around Roissy and this site who actually seem to want to be nice to men, and will even tolerate a bit of rudeness. They don’t mind hearing uncensored male thoughts. I think we should allow them to stay, if only as examples of real women to serve as annoyances to any feminists who might come by.
I also find women very interesting and love getting an insight into the little internal mechanisms that make them tick.
Get Real–
Many thanks for the kind words. I’m flattered by your suggestion, but I don’t think I have the quickness to come up with new ideas for blog contributions as frequently as required to put out a quality product.
Besides, sustained bitterness gets real tiresome and eventually sounds whiny unless one can be entertaining about it too. Unfortunately, I have plenty of the former but little skill at the latter. The Spearhead and other associated sites pretty much say what I think, so there’s not a whole lot I can add to the discussion either.
And anyway, others might rightly say I have nothing to complain about. I have a nice family, a good marriage, and a decent job in these parlous economic times. That may be true, but it all came too late in life. As Obsidian has repeatedly pointed out, there once was a time when a solid beta like myself would have a shot at a normal family life, but as we know, feminism took care of that. I don’t blame feminism for my own shortcomings, but I was above the margin before, and below the margin after. And our later parenthood is partially attributable to our son’s autism, so he’s paid the price of feminism as well.
I recognize that I’m the lucky exception to the rule, and because of that I fully concur with the nearly unanimous opinion expressed on these sites: DON’T GET MARRIED!
I have no problem with the Christian faith but wtf is this crap.
If you need the wrath of god to be a good person thats fair enough but don’t look down your nose at other people who can be decent human beings without it.
The notion of faith is contrary to the scientific method, it turns speculation into premise. If biology can function without a soul why the hell would we have one.
”””””’If you’re sympathetic to Christians, you will get you eternity in hell. If you’re mean to us, you get eternity in hell + 1.”””””””
The thing is the christian woman use shaming language like this lol
So a woman says a guy did something wrong and everyone thinks he is now going to hell.
Why do people in a certain religion have to always say that someone not having their religion is going to hell for an eternity of pain. I mean wtf
I think more realistic to say that this is hell and when we die everyone goes to heaven.
Does it really make sense to be punished for eternity for things you do wrong on earth?
Eternity?
I mean really people can’t fathom saving a million dollars normally or building a million tanks. Nevermind fathoming 3 billion dollars which could buy you 3000 red lobsters.
But for a human being to comprehend an eternity of supposed pain?
Could you comprehend 20 years in prison?
Could you comprehend the rest of your natural life in prison?
An eternity of torture for everyone not in your religion?
Does that make any sense at all?
No one can comprehend an eternity in hell therefore it is like putting a retarded person in jail or crazy person and we don’t hold them accountable for their actions because they can’t.
Would a god who loves us give a punishment for eternity for disobeying?
Or might it be prorated.
I mean purgatory sounds maybe fair.
Would God not be fair?
Someone tells me because I was born into a catholic family that I am catholic and I am told by human beings that the bible contains the word of god. Yet I have never seen god to talk with him about the eternity in hell thing. I just have some people who it is in the best interest of that I believe in god or people say they talk to god and god wants this and god wants them to do that. Or god wants me to do this or to do that. Who can prove you go to hell for eternity. Sounds more like a tale of the devil than god doesn’t it?
Maybe a tale of the boogeyman or some obscene horror movie that never ends.
B&G is warning you. It is a work of charity to warn sinners of their ultimate end. This is not a theology site, and all the questions above have been considered for hundreds of years. If you are seriously interested, you could read some philosophical theology.
I have a Ph.D. in biology and I am a Catholic.
But I don’t want to discuss this stuff here. I agree that B&G was a bit tactless, but she seems to have hit a nerve.
@ Fedrz
I’m with you 100% on the disdain for the sermonizing.
@Guns
Dude, sometimes you make no sense at all, and at other times you’re fucking brilliant. But you’ve been swinging the common-sense bat hard and hitting home runs these last few posts! Nice job.
I’m a Christian myself, but if you Catholics are telling me that *I* have to submit to the Bullshit “AUTHORITY” of a Father Church that would put a Goddamned NAZI at it’s head, then you are barking up the wrong tree.
Right now you sound no different then the Mormon Church who tells me that Christ is the brother of Satan and that I can rule my own planet someday if I only give up my pride and,oh yes, 10% of my income to the “only TRUE Church”.
I’m generally tactless, but I hit a nerve on purpose this time.
I’m not religious because it gives me “warm fuzzies”. I’m religious because I know that it is the Truth. I don’t believe that all religions are the same, and that everyone is going to heaven. What would be the point of practicing a religion if I thought it didn’t matter which one I chose? Should I be PC about it, hold hands, and sing Kumbayah? Give me a break.
I’m firmly convinced that secularism is one of the reasons for the many ills of society that we see around us today. And I know that you guys also know this, but don’t want to admit that it is true, because then you’d have to admit that your own lack of belief is part of the problem. Ouch! So I think it is completely appropriate to mention ideology and theology when discussing those ills. And if it makes you uncomfortable — good! I read things that make me uncomfortable, all of the time. When I complained about it once, you all sneered and told me to “grow a pair”. Well, grow a pair yourselves.
Some people — both men and women — on here, seem to have forgotten that religion and marriage (which are closely intertwined, as we can see from our discussion) are among the basic building blocks of civilization. And that monogamous marriage was a development that further spurred on social ascendancy, for those cultures that enforced it.
It’s true that men created and designed both of those institutions for the larger benefit of society. As we all know, and can see all around us, if you leave women to structure society you’ll end up with communal hunters and gatherers in a matriarchy, worshiping the Great Mother Earth. Patriarchal religion — such as Christianity — brought us into the Modern Era.
The core difference between a patriarchal and matriarchal religion is that in a patriarchal one there is a “Father God” who loves us constantly and unwaveringly, but expects our best behavior and punishes us severely if we screw up. Whereas, in a matriarchal one there is a “Mother Goddess” who is fickle, and concentrates on “caring for us” and granting us favors at her discretion. Patriarchal religion was a huge improvement that ushered in the concept of absolute truth, and it’s siblings morality and justice.
Without patriarchal religion, there is no absolute truth.
Without absolute truth, there is no morality.
Without morality, there is no justice.
How can you define what is just, if you can’t define what is true?
Now those same men crow here about “what men built” while crapping all over the main tools they used to build it. Then they complain about the lack of justice and morality among the women.
Do you not see the inherent contradiction?
FIRSTLY, SOMETHING RELEVANT TO THE ACTUAL THREAD(!): I think the Game combined with celibacy approach sounds great. Coming from a Catholic perspective I cannot really let go of the fornication = sin equation, but even in human terms the gameplan seems good. Get the women panting with your combination of aloofness and savoir faire (or whatever Game is) and then, when they throw themselves at you, tell them that you’re not really interested in skanky women.
One point of correction, though. I don’t see how chasing women is helping combat feminism. If you’re a young guy sowing your wild-oats (as they say), fine, but don’t pretend that by nailing lots of hot chicks you’re striking a blow against feminism.
There are many fronts in the fight against feminism. Some of us are married and trying to put our wives in their place and keep them there. We’re converting feminists into respectable wives (who fulfill their duties in the kitchen, bedroom, and nursery) and trying to have enough kids to win the demographic war (religious, philosophical, political, racial–what have you). When we’re up in the middle of the night listening to a crying baby (and our wife complaining about having to nurse, AGAIN), we aren’t consoled by thoughts of solidarity with you guys out there chasing tail!
If I weren’t married–and at this point I think that I’d prefer to remain single, if I had the chance (but then the grass is always greener…)–I think that more good would come of mastering the sexual impulse and directing the energy into more useful pursuits. You don’t have to be a monk to do so–Nietzsche, after all, was a strong supporter of the strenth that comes from celibacy.
ANOTHER POINT: Marriage is not the problem. It’s part of the Natural Law or human nature (however you want to view it). We’re not going to get away from it as a society. Divorce is not the problem–it’s a symptom, though divorce laws are terribly unfair to husbands/fathers. Civil marriage is not the problem (but we’re getting warmer). There is absolutely no reason that the State should be interested in a family matter. (Locke is part of the problem here with his marriage contract idea; indeed, Locke is a problem for many reasons.) The problem, at least in the West (Europe and its international progeny: N. and S. America, Australia, etc.) is the desacramentalization of marriage. For Catholics, marriage is a sacrament and confers Grace, which is so necessary in a marriage, esp. today. It lasts for life and cannot be dissolved, no matter what. Thanks, Protestants, for making marriage just another everyday thing and throwing us to the dogs of secularism and feminism.
DAVID: You seem to be a very sensible sort. I’ll look forward to hearing more from you. I think that you’re taking the right approach with your wife, in general, but specifically regarding TLM attendance. I, too, have gone through this. My wife is a “cradle-Catholic” with all the liabilities that this implies in this day and age. She still feels more comfortable with the Father Flapdoodles of the world. We aren’t fortunate enough to have Tridentine Masses every Sunday, but are averaging about 2 per month and most holy days (and a lot during Advent and Lent). I didn’t demand the veil but took a combined approach of pressure and then laying off. This is my modus operandi in general: intense pressure till she gets to the breaking point and then retreating. It seems to be working. She comes to Latin Masses with her veil.
The hold of feminism and liberalism on her improperly formed mind is gradually being broken, as well. Going to Confession together is a great idea–it always gets my wife all choked up, because it is such a female-oriented sacrament: they get to talk about their feelings, they get to seek approval from a male authority figure, they have an emotional reaction to the infusion of Grace. (I’m not, of course, saying that Confession is not important for men–it’s just that I think it has special appeal to women).
One important point: If you have children, make sure they come with you to the Latin Mass (if they’re old enough not to need their mother’s constant attention). Not only will this be another draw for your wife, but it will also get your children on the right track.
As for B&G, you’re right, she is not the one of the bad ones. She seems a little silly at times and also seems to have a bit of a feeling of superiority (justified when compared with other women, but misapplied on this site). All the same, I’m sure that she’s made a few sandwiches in her time. (Traditional) Catholic housewives and mothers are about the best we’re going to do these days (or any days for that matter).
B&G: I generally find your comments thought-provoking, though we (happily?) married and Catholic (by the Grace of God!) types should probably be a bit more aware of the suffering that men on this site have gone through. They’re right to be angry and now is the time and place for great tact.
I’m definitely in favor of the veil. Find some (wiley feminine) way to persuade your husband. Also, check this pamphlet out: http://www.angeluspress.org/oscatalog/item/8135/chapel-veil.
You might also be interested in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Dear-Newlyweds-Pope-Pius-XII/dp/1930959001 (a must read for all Catholic couples–esp. the female half).
Finally, you might find this essay interesting: http://traditioninaction.org/Cultural/B006cpVocationWoman.htm (real Catholic teaching on women–not JPII’s feminist nonsense–I’m with David on that one!).
FEDRZ: I’m very much in sympathy with you. I find Bible Bangers and “Christians” to be vexing, as well. I can also understand why you stopped going to church. You’re also right about the duty of the Catholic Church to rise up in defense of real marriage. It’s happening in little ways, but not nearly enough at the higher levels. B&G is part of the solution, even if she can be (a little) insufferable. If you decide to Pope (as you mentioned you might one day): Make sure you find a traditional priest and attend Latin Masses!
DAVID: A correction: I applied the pressure/relaxation treatment to get my wife to commit to TLM. The veil took care of itself. Once she was attending Latin Masses, peer-pressure eventually worked its magic on her. When she saw all the other women wearing veils, she felt the need to do so as well. You can also, of course, get some very beautiful hand-made veils online. Girls of every age love to play dress-up. The appeal to vanity will also help: “You look so good in a veil!”
Every husband knows best how to manage his own wife. One must keep the long-term aim in mind, even if it requires unbearable compromises along the way! From what you write, I think you’re taking the right approach.
Of course I’m insufferable and self-righteous. Women are generally either insufferable, nonsensical, cheerleaders, or mute. That’s why we’re not supposed to speak at Mass. But this isn’t Mass, so you have to put up with me until I leave or am kicked out.
I’m also sardonic, sarcastic, ironic, and my posts are characterized by self-effacing humor. Are we done psychoanalyzing me yet?
@Antiphon
Okay, I’ll stop being snarky long enough to say that I checked out your links and found them interesting.
May I also note that Fedrz (and some others) doesn’t mind my religiosity as long as I am agreeing with him. In other words: he prefers me in a cheerleader capacity and became angry when I refused to back down and concede the point. Submission depends on authority, and he has none over me. He neither belongs to my family nor my church, and his influence is therefore naturally limited.
Of course, it’s much more painful to have a fellow devout Catholic criticize me, so I will try not to be quite so insufferable in future.
You really don’t know when to shut-up, do you, B&G?
And while I mostly don’t mind you or other women being around, I don’t like how many men cozy up to women, and allow women to dominate all of the conversations on men’s issues.
It is, quite frankly, none of you damned business to “keep men in line.” If you women would concentrate on your own sex, 90% of this shit would have never happened in the first place.
It is also none of your business to shove your religion down people’s throats – and if you actually expect anyone to believe you “touched a nerve on purpose,” I will call bullshit, because you aren’t that smart – just like I call bullshit on Joseph’s reading the Bible 194 times. (It takes 75hrs-80hrs to read the Bible – without stopping to contemplate what you’ve read, which means that if you were to read the Bible once a month, you would need spend between 2.5hrs-3hrs per day just reading, and likely double that to actually reflect and interpret what it means. That would be 5hrs of Bible study a day for over 16yrs, 365 days a year – and from a 27yr old, who then would have started doing this at 11yrs old. That would be rather freakish, in my opinion. Non-Christians aren’t the only ones who lie.)
But it’s interesting how you are now boasting of your manipulations… not much different than what Schopenhauer says:
…so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defence with the faculty of dissimulation, and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights.
May I also note that Fedrz (and some others) doesn’t mind my religiosity as long as I am agreeing with him. In other words: he prefers me in a cheerleader capacity and became angry when I refused to back down and concede the point. Submission depends on authority, and he has none over me. He neither belongs to my family nor my church, and his influence is therefore naturally limited.
You were the one that started off by hopping around like a fucking chicken accusing me of Moral Relativism, you dissimulative shrew. STOP LYING!
You have no authority over anyone here either – but you seem to think that no-one is allowed to oppose your righteous filth because you are religious.
If I were married to a woman like you and you kept pulling this ridiculous nagging crap… it wouldn’t be sandwiches this time.
STOP SHOUTING!
No more sandwiches… is that a threat or a promise?
Okay, I’ve pissed you off enough for the day. I have to go now. But feel free to elaborate on the “no more sandwiches” business. My interest is piqued. David would recommend a good spanking, I’m sure.
+1 Male Logic and Reasoning > Self-Righteous Religiosity
Go fuck yourself, B&G. If you insist on making me an enemy, I will oblige, though that was never my intention. But I have no fear in confronting women, like many other men ’round here apparently do.
And you religious gentleman… what the hell is up with you? You are at a site that discusses B&G’s type of behaviour all the time – and all of you are nearly tripping over yourselves to excuse her ridiculous behaviour. And yet, you wonder how this kind of shit crept into the church?
B&G has hardly yet proven herself a “good girl.” She is in her late twenties or early thirties, I believe. She stopped going to church in her teens/early twenties, so she could slut around, and become a “man-eater,” in several serial monogamy relationships that lasted for a time each… yeah, so… how many years do you think it has been since she has been the Prodigal Daughter and returned home?
When she is 60, and reflects upon her life… then it’s maybe time to listen to her and praise her virtuous life.
But the way the religious men here nearly trip over themselves to make excuses for her, begging to keep her around, and find so much righteousness in her, illustrates exactly how this kind of shit has infiltrated the church in the first place. Are you guys that desperate to believe that women exist as how she presents herself? Is she presenting a dream to you of what you wish your wife was like? If you guy’s are actually studying game to enhance your marriages, you should realize by now that that’s what women do! For a living! They mould themselves around whatever vision the man wishes her to be.
Weininger blames all of this nonsense on men, because he says, men choose to view woman as they wish her to be, not as she actually is.
Men do the same thing with women as mothers do with their own children. Even if a mother has a veritable monster for a child, she always views the child as a genius and an angel – because that’s what she chooses to see. Men are the same with women.
“Imagine”???? LOL
fedrz:
Weininger blames all of this nonsense on men, because he says, men choose to view woman as they wish her to be, not as she actually is.
Men do the same thing with women as mothers do with their own children. Even if a mother has a veritable monster for a child, she always views the child as a genius and an angel – because that’s what she chooses to see. Men are the same with women.
This is a very good point. It certainly is what I was doing up until about a year ago. Reading (online, books, etc.) and talking with other men has greatly opened my eyes. Now I try to see my wife in realistic terms (strengths and weaknesses).
If you guys are actually studying game to enhance your marriages, you should realize by now that that’s what women do! For a living! They mould themselves around whatever vision the man wishes her to be.
Exactly, that’s rather the point. So if we give them a good vision, they’ll improve. If we want women to be sluts, they will be. If we want them to be sacrificial wives and mothers, they will be (though this will require a great deal more cajoling). Women, like children, are to be moulded. It requires a great deal of work and the final product is not always as good as one would wish, but at least its better than the raw materials.
Antiphon,
Exactly. Women are empty vessels that need to be fulfilled.
How many times have you heard of a man meeting up with his ex-wife/ex-girlfriend a few years later, and remarking that she is a totally different person than who she was when they were together?
Men are not like this. Men start off as saplings that blow in the wind when they are young, but eventually grow into a solid oak, and not much phases them once they are fully matured. A 40 year old man will most likely still have a very similar character as a 50 year old man – but this will only be true for a woman if she stays with the same man.
How many times have “good Christian girls” left their husbands, by waving good-bye as they ride bitch on the back of a Harley?
How many guys are shocked to find their ex-wife is living with a drug dealer?
All of you guys out there that are married – your wife is presenting an image to you that is not real! If your marriage falls apart, she will attach to a new man, and mould herself in the image of what he wants. She could change 180 degrees in a heartbeat.
Women are empty vessels.
Or, women are a riddle to which man is the answer.
It is why men must lead, and she must submit to his vision – and she has to like it or lump it.
And they should also shut-up a whole lot more.
Yes. And it took me about 4 girlfriends before i realized women are needy, clingy, and looking for direction BY NATURE. I thought I was just getting stuck with all the weeping willows.
That’s one of the reasons why i choose celibacy. I can’t stand dealing with a petulant creature who spends all day second-guessing my every move but then still depends on me for her personal happiness.
If I ever date again I’m just going to come right out and tell her what to do, whenever i’m with her, every step of the way.
fedrz,
We’ll have to agree to agree on that one (esp. the last point)!
The hard part is that all of this depends on an act of the will on the part of women. In Ye Olden Dayes women had no choice but to like it or lump it. They were married with children and economically dependant. There were also, of course, social pressures to stay put.
Now the trick is finding a woman who will “submit to the man’s vision”. She has to want to be led. Or better, she has to realize that she wants to be led (because, of course, deep down she does). There are women out there like this. Many of them are religious, but not all are. The trick for men is finding them and then having the strenth to seize the reins and the fortitude to hold on no matter what.
As for “good Christian girls” on the backs of Harleys. I don’t know how many have ended up that way. I can only say that Christian formation starts long before marriage, ideally. If a girl is formed from the very beginning by her parents, it will hopefully stick. Here the girl is trying to please her father (and less, her mother) and the male authority figures of God and Christ. Then when she is turned over to her husband, she needs to transfer her allegiance from father to husband (he also needs to be man enough to make that transfer happen). He must also be prepared to rule over her with the authority of God. She must be prepared to accept that.
I think on the whole properly formed Christian (your term) or Catholic (my term) girls will have a good chance of success. But still, finding them is difficult. I only know that they will more likely be in the pews at Latin Masses surrounded by a bevy of brothers and sisters than in a coed dorm, sorority house, or singles bar.
Of course women are malleable and changeable. That’s a good thing in a wife. Who would want a wife who didn’t mold herself to better fit her husband? Women select their husbands, and the ones who are happiest are the ones who then submit to their chosen mate. Our power is in the choosing, but once we have chosen we’re supposed to follow.
I see where this conversation is going, and I’d like to defend my parents preemptively by stating that they did not raise me badly, they didn’t raise me enough. Because they were both working outside of the home, I was left to my own devices for too much time every day. It is impossible to raise children on a part-time basis; there are too many evil influences who are merely waiting for a moment of access.
Obviously they didn’t do a terrible job of raising me, as I managed to come back and resume my proper place, and they continue to be a powerful and positive influence in our lives. They are also setting a good example by remaining married — for 33 years now — and attending church with us and saying grace when they’re over on their frequent visits. I don’t agree with their politics, but in their case it is a simple issue of “doing as they do, not as they say”. So I ignore their political views, and emulate their behavior.
You’ve been around enough internet venues to know that it always just a matter of time until the religionist hit squad shows up – threatening us with eternal damnation unless we bow down to them and do things their way. Maybe when their churches are almost entirely empty of men they will figure out that maybe they are not as infallible and “blessed” with divine insight as they thought they were.
They all want to be led. Most of them talk a good game about being “independent” and “strong”,but this is precisely because the idea of doing things for themselves scares the living shit out of them. You’ll notice that when there is no man around to lead them, women replace him with the leadership of a group of other women (security in numbers), this is hilarious as shit to watch as it results in a kind of Lord of The Flies system of government every time,but my point is that women have no idea what to do unless someone else is telling them to do it .
Every man could cause a woman to submit to him, the trick is not getting arrested for doing it, as most of the tried and true techniques are now known as “domestic violence”. But, of course, that means jack shit as we all know, because it’s also “domestic violence” if she “feels afraid” of you for absolutely no reason at all.
If you want a submissive woman who practically worships the ground you walk on, go down to your local woman’s shelter, pick up one of those pamphlets on how to recognize “domestic violence” and follow the information in it like an operator’s manual to women. You are then guaranteed success.
To clarify this, everything that they call “domestic violence” in such pamphlets will cause a woman to submit to you and respect you, all of the recommendations that they advise in order to NOT commit “domestic violence” will cause your woman to treat you like shit and take advantage of you, nearly always resulting in the same behaviors from the woman that they label “domestic violence” coming from the man.
Ah… Zed is back. I was wondering where you were.
@Fedrz,
I’m tired of arguing with you. I genuinely like you and it’s preventing us from discussing the topics at hand. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this particular aspect of sexual morality.
I must admit that I was under the impression that you are out to make an enemy of me, which is why I was lining up my armory. How about a bit of mutual disarmament?
”””””It’s true that men created and designed both of those institutions for the larger benefit of society. As we all know, and can see all around us, if you leave women to structure society you’ll end up with communal hunters and gatherers in a matriarchy, worshiping the Great Mother Earth. Patriarchal religion — such as Christianity — brought us into the Modern Era.”””””
So you know the truth then that it is good for the masses to keep them in line but it is a lie and your just status whoring to get a warm fuzzy of being better than someone else yet don’t believe the divine.
Yes religion is a good tool to keep people in a box and not doing bad things using fear as a tool.
This is something that is present all throughout history. Adam and Eve, Sampson and Delilah, Joseph & Potiphar’s wife (false rape & all the men believed her), the Sirens, the Gorgons (B&G has shown her hair of serpents).
If you look at things in another way, it becomes even clearer.
God often describes himself in “riddles” throughout the Bible. I am who I am. I am the Alpha and the Omega. The Beginning and the End. And finally, in John 14:6, Jesus answered, “I am the way and THE TRUTH and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
The answer to “God’s Riddles” is He is The Truth. To be more exact, The Absolute Truth. (This is a distinct feature of Monotheism, btw – One Truth, rather than the multiple truths of polytheistic religions – such as in Babylon, where Abram came from, and left in order to make a covenant with God).
The Absolute Truth “is what it is.” It doesn’t care if we understand it. It exists separate from us. Whether we ever discover how the universe actually came to be or not, there is a real, truthful answer to that question. If we discover it or not is irrelevant to the answer. The Absolute Truth does not change. It will be the same today as it was 10,000 years ago, and also 10,000 years into the future – it is eternal. The Absolute Truth is pure – it is never wrong. And so on. In every instance, you can easily argue that God and Absolute Truth are synonymous.
And, now, if we go back to Adam and Eve, you will note that upon finishing Creation, everything that was created was from God and it was good! The only thing that was created which was not from God was Eve – the woman. When God created Adam, he created Adam in God’s image. Adam is a “photocopy” of the original… but Eve, is a photocopy of the photocopy – she is one step further from God, or Absolute Truth, than Adam/man.
In this sense, comparing to Absolute Truth, man is better able to discern Absolute Truth than woman. It is not that man is Absolute Truth, it is just that he is closer to it than woman is.
This is, in fact, what the story of The Fall in the Garden of Eden is a story about. There are only two kinds of truths – the Absolute Truth, and the Relative Truth.
When you look at The Story of the Fall, what did Eve do? She allowed the Relative Truth of the Serpent to over-ride the Absolute Truth of God. (The Serpent didn’t out and out lie – he stretched the truth). She saw that the fruit was pleasing to the eye, good for food, and useful for gaining knowledge, so she took of it and ate it. All Relative Truth justifications for over-riding Absolute Truth.
And Eve was cursed because she was decieved.
But Adam was not decieved. When Eve came to him, Adam was still without sin, and knew that Eve had already sinned… and when she asked him to sin with her, Adam said, “Sure Toots! I’m a scum sucking mangina who will do whatever you request!”
When God cursed Adam, He begins with, “Because you listened to your wife…”
That is not trivial.
Adam had the ability to recognize Absolute Truth better than Eve, who is mired in Relative Truth because of her nature of being one step further from Absolute Truth than Adam.
Man is not only Absolute Truth, though – he is also hampered with Relative Truth… but, he will see Absolute Truth more often than Woman will.
Both the Absolute Truth and the Relative Truth are very real things – but it is of utmost importance that the Absolute Truth always trumps Relative Truth. (Perhaps the original sin is placing Relative Truth over Absolute Truth?)
Also, if you were to look at evil totalirian systems, you will notice that it is not a secret about how easy it is to lead a system/society astray by putting women in charge:
“Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.” — Karl Marx
Keep in mind that Marx’s idea of “social progress” is the destruction of Western Civilization, including Christianity.
Why do you think they outlaw Christianity/The Bible in Communist countries? It is because the Bible is based in Absolutes! And when there are absolutes, like when men are insisting that 1 + 1 = 2 because there are two f***ing apples in front of him, it becomes very difficult to manipulate reality – and manipulating reality to make truth whatever you wish it to be is every totalitarian dictatorship’s wet dream!
This plays along with what G.W.F Hegel also notes about the differences in male (logical) and female (herd) thinking:
“… Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated–who knows how?” — G.F. Hegel
Men are educated by universal principles and logic – but women are educated by feelings of unity and arbitrary inclinations and opinions.
In other words, men know that 1 + 1 = 2 because he takes one apple, and then another apple, and puts them in front of him and verifies that there are two apples. You could argue with him all day that it isn’t true, but he will always point back to the two apples.
But women know that 1 + 1 = 2 because the herd believes it is correct. If the herd believed that 1 + 1 = 3, well than that would be right also, so long as the herd believed it. (Ever wonder why women are so much more into fashion than men?).
Auguste Comte, put forth the same thing when he devised The Social Sciences as a system to rule the world through science – he recommends often the worship of women and the diminishment of the male role in society, in order to accomplish his totalitarian goals. Why would that be? It’s the same thing as in the Communist USSR – it was not so much that Christianity was “illegal,” but rather, psychologists declared that people believing in Christianity were suffering from “mental illness,” and the men in white coats showed up, and you disappeared.
When you rule by Relative Truth (the Female Principle), you can easily make 1 + 1 = 3.
See the Church of the modern day.
Women will either be led by men and adhere to men’s Absolute Truth, or they will be led by the herd, and any truth becomes possible – and mostly, that will lead to evil and destruction.
You’ve been around enough internet venues to know that it always just a matter of time until the religionist hit squad shows up – threatening us with eternal damnation unless we bow down to them and do things their way. Maybe when their churches are almost entirely empty of men they will figure out that maybe they are not as infallible and “blessed” with divine insight as they thought they were. — Zed
The sad thing is that the answers are sitting right in front of them – but too often they apologize for those answers profusely.
It blows my mind sometimes, when I start researching some of the ancient things about the Bible, and come across scholars who do backflips to excuse the misogyny they are interpreting from the Bible… the question to me becomes, “Why is that misogyny in there in the first place?” It is not an accident, because it is contrary to human nature.
B&G: I am implying nothing about your upbrining. It seems that the picture you draw is much like my own. Little supervision, what there was tended to be misguided, though well-intentioned. By the way, I find you completely sufferable, but fear that might not have been clear.
ZED: I’m no member of a hit squad, nor am I threatening eternal damnation, which is just as likely an outcome for religious people (cf. Dante’s Inferno). I am merely saying this: Human nature has strengths and weaknesses. Because men and women are human their relations are troubled. In this day and age of pseudo- and false philosophies human nature is often obscured because it is viewed through the wrong lenses.
The business of (Catholic) moral theology is to diagnose and propose cures for human pathologies. Much of it is rooted not in a religious understanding of the world, but draws rather on Natural Law teachings as they can be found in Greek philosophers (for example). In the West, the Catholic backbone of the civilization for centuries (well over a millenium) kept people (and I include, here, women) in check by trying to force them to submit to the dictates of Reason (in the Greek not the “Enlightenment” sense). It also gave them supernatural reasons to do so. Society was well-ordered.
A lot of what is said on this forum seems wrong-headed because it is rooted in nothing solid. “Women are sluts, therefore I should screw as many as possible (once I get my vasectomy and a case of condoms, that is).” Many men here have been terribly treated by their (ex-)wives, other women, and society in general and so they are angry. They are here to blow off steam, try to understand their situation, and give the benefit of their experience to others. (For the latter, I am extremely grateful. For my part, I try, a bit, to offer some help in understanding what has gone so dreadfully wrong with inter-sexual relations.) Some men here are young and trying to understand the world. For those I think blanket declarations, like: avoid marriage(!!!), are not necessarily useful.
The churches are empyting, as you point out, in large part because they have swallowed the feminist line (along with the hook and sinker). I am Catholic and have attended Mass at churches with feminized priests, butch-nuns pretending to be priests, pews filled with old ladies, effeminate men, families with 1-2 children and career-oriented looking “mothers”. I have also attended churches with manly priests who say unpopular things from the pulpit and say the Mass in Latin. The congregation is made up of young families, with men in coats and ties, women in (conservative) dresses and veils, babies everywhere, boys in ties, girls in veils. The women stay at home, cook, bear and raise larger families (5-10 children is not unusual), often homeschool, submit to their husbands, hate feminism, etc.
Isn’t it clear that there is a connection? If The Spearhead is merely concerned with teaching men how to get more ass then I’ll stop reading the articles. If TS is trying to make sense of what’s gone wrong and proposing solutions, then let’s look at sub-cultures in our society that are working. The Mahometans seem to get things right, so I guess you could move to Saudi Arabia, convert, and marry four submissive women. On the other hand, we in the West could just reclaim what is rightfully ours. The uncomfortable truth is that this requires a return to Christianity (real Christianity).
The Church, ailing as it is right now infected with Liberalism and Feminism, is going to lead the way. What it needs is more men who know what’s at stake and women willing to follow their lead. That’s where the fight is, not in singles bars. If you want to get laid, get laid, but don’t philosophize about it. If you want to combat feminism then let’s get going. We’re not going to do it wallowing in emotion and becoming “masculinists”. We’re going to do it at the personal level for now. Seek out a good (enough) woman, save her from herself, raise good children with her, and we’ll take over. You’re not going to win by showing up with nothing to offer but your Game.
I realize the TS community is diverse. There are some serious men out there reading and commenting. Think long and hard about the basis of your complaints. Don’t bitch about religious hit squads. And don’t think Seventh Heaven is what religion is all about.
fedrz: Agreement again. Let’s put the misogyny back in the Bible. Also, you’re analysis of Adam and Eve is right on. So I’m Catholic and you’re not. We see eye to eye on many things of concern to men.
I have also attended churches with manly priests who say unpopular things from the pulpit and say the Mass in Latin.
My God bless those priests. Ours are also like that, and our church is overflowing with large, young families every Saturday and Sunday. They just moved to a new building 5 years ago and it’s already standing-room only. People are hungry for that message.
There’s a distinct lack of male leadership in our society, so it doesn’t surprise me that the house is full when a man decides to stand up and speak the hard truth.
Our RCIA is full.
I’d argue that it’s not misogyny if they aren’t doing it out of hatred for women. It’s paternalism.
But I’m splitting hairs, now.
Of course, women are (to quote “Ghostbusters”, “consummate snowball artists”. It is one of the things a man eventually learns. I agree totally, and I have been saying this, it is one of my themes, believe me I have thought and thought about these things, that men must start viewing women as they actually are.
There is a saying that a cynic is a disappointed idealist. If men expect too much of women they are bound to be disappointed.
I don’t care if you get your insights from scripture or from evolutionary biology. I use them both.
Yes, it has occurred to me that B&G may be a chameleon, reflecting back what she thinks we want to see. Maybe she is a bit, but I think she is basically honest, or as honest as a female can be. Men hardly know their own minds, and women still less.
In any case, who cares? I don’t care why my wife irons my shirts. She can iron them for God, for society, because that is what other wives do, because that is what she feels like, because she has been reading the Bible, because she claims to like ironing. Who cares? She irons them.
Likewise, I don’t care why B&G expresses the conservative views that she does. For whatever reason, she chooses to make anti-feminist remarks. Good.
I like having her on this site. Every group of men needs a few handmaids around.
I agree that women are empty vessels. This is physically true and mentally true. They need to be told what to do and think. Preferably by a man or men. But, as somebody just said here, failing that they will believe what is in a women studies textbook, or what a liberal politician says, or what the feminist movement tells them, or what the Devil tells them, like Eve.
In any case, stop taking women, including B&G, so seriously. Whether you disbelieve the Bible, or take it as allegory, or believe it literally, learn one thing – woman was made “for the glory of man”. She is derived and secondary. As I constantly remind my wife, teasingly, she was made for my pleasure.
When I was younger and naughtier, I once read a pornographic story in a girly magazine. In it, the girl said that she “wanted to be whatever he wanted me to be”.
That is the essence of woman, and of “game”. If you expect something, a woman will eventually comply. She will come to regard what you think and want as natural. I remember once, when we were newlyweds, telling my young wife to lift her skirt so I could check what colour panties she had on. Obediently, she lifted her skirt. Just for fun, I got her to do the same thing last night. Purple.
The MRM is full of Biblical Followers:
“Better to live on a corner of the roof than share a house with a quarrelsome wife.” — Proverbs 21:9 (Fathers4Justice)
“Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and ill-tempered wife.” — Proverbs 21:19 (Men Going Their Own Way)
“I find more bitter than death the woman who is a snare, whose heart is a trap and whose hands are chains. The man who pleases God will escape her, but the sinner she will ensnare.” — Ecclesiastes 7:26 (Zed)
“…while I was still searching but not finding – I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.” — Ecclesiastes 7:28 (Fedrz)
If I were trying to please the men here, I could hardly do a more miserable job of it than if I am, without being banned outright as a troll. If I’m a chameleon, I’m a neon-pink one with purple stripes.
@Fedrz:
I don’t quite agree with this interpretation, heres why.
Remember what the tree was — Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
The assumption has to be that until they ate the fruit, they did not have this knowledge. They knew it was forbidden, but did not know that breaking that very specific command was evil. They didn’t know evil.
They were both cursed for listening to someone other than God – He had already forbidden it , it was moot to listen to anyone else.
Now the curses:
Death would now come to them, as promised for eating the fruit.
Each was also cursed for being persuaded to violate the command – Eve:pain in childbirth;Adam:earn food through the sweat of his brow.
But that was not all – the serpent was cursed to crawl on his belly because he deceived Eve into eating the fruit.
AND Eve –knowing it was evil; she had eaten the fruit already — deceived Adam. She knew the difference between Good and Evil and chose Evil . So she was additionally cursed – she would be ruled by Adam.
Not trivial at all.
The MRM is full of Biblical Followers
Of course it is. Most true civil rights movements (such as abolition or desegregation) are driven by the religious (feminism and “gay marriage” being the exceptions). There’s a reason for that.
After all, if you claim injustice, you must have some idea of justice to base it on. Inalienable rights granted by God, etc., etc.
They’re going to regret pissing off the Catholics, though. Up until now, we’ve been very busy with the pro-life movement, and they’re awakening a sleeping giant. We’re an incredibly large and diverse church, with a strong hierarchy, so it’s hard to get the ball rolling. But we’re also an enormous, wealthy, and powerful institution, and once you do get the ball rolling it can quickly turn into an avalanche.
Reminds me a bit of the foolish attack on Pearl Harbor.
Black&German
It pleases and amuses me to have you here.
I like to patronise women. Just ask my wife.
David (paternalist)
My husband’s a paternalist. You think I’m difficult.
Um… where have you guys been for the last 40 years? Where were the catholics when women began divorcing and fleecing their husbands in droves and stealing their children from them? Did the church fight for the sanctity of marriage? Or did they just look the other way and hold out the collection plate in front of people, like they do when mafia bosses come into church? What was the Holy Father’s stance on politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton who openly approve of murdering unborn humans, Pelosi even calls herself a Catholic. So did the Kennedy’s. Bill Clinton was even allowed to take communion in a Catholic church. What’s up with that?
I am sure you guys will wake up and show us all something any day now. Get ready for the big comeback. By the way, when your ex-nazi leader decides to do something about all the faggotry and pedophilia that runs rampant in his own clergy, maybe people will actually start to take the church a bit more seriously.
B&G
I don’t think you are difficult. I think you are very amenable. I don’t know why some of the men around here find you so challenging. Perhaps they should just picture you in a dirndl serving them beer.
SteveinTX,
Actually, where I got that explained in detail from was a Youtube Video of a university lecture which I watched from Michael Heiser, who has a Ph D. in Hebrew Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages. He is a Christian, who attends a church, but he also studies the Bible from other perspectives, and also interprets it directly from the Hebrew language, which sometimes puts different twists on meanings. For example, he is where I got it from that Sodom & Gommorah, in the Hebrew Language, were the only two cities in the area that were indicated as feminine in Hebrew. Which, to me, indicates that they were trying to make a clear message about runaway sexuality being feminine in nature. Also, he is where I got it from that the most evil of all Ancient Hebrew demons were females, and so on.
I’ve been looking for the link, but can’t find it – it was about a year and a half ago that I watched them… and even so, I think I watched all of his lectures that were on the internet on the subject. There were several – it took me a while to get through them. If I can find the right video, I will put up the link… but, it will be somewhere in an hour long video. Lol!
However, I remember that he made quite a specific point of it, actually – that Eve was decieved, but Adam sinned knowingly.
It is fascinating when you get into the nitty gritty of it.
LOL! Oh yeah, baby, you have really kicked butt with your pro-life movement. 50 million dead babies later I’m sure y’all are going to get started doing something really significant any day now. Who knows, maybe another Torquemada will appear to rain down suitable punishment for all the heresy being practiced today.
Of all the religious groups in the world, I have to say that the catholics are the last ones I would worry about pissing off.
Nah, just tiresome.
I was reading the many posts, when Klaatu’s album “Hope”(1977) sprung to mind.
Below is a link to the album lyrics for your entertainment, and/or education.
http://www.klaatu.org/lyrics/hope_lyrics.html
fedrz,
I’ve heard that interpretation before as well. The way I’ve heard it was that if he didn’t, Eve would be banished from the Garden and he would be alone again – so to be fruitful an multiply, another commandment, he chose to eat the fruit. Frankly, I think it gives Adam too much credit for knowledge he didn’t yet have.
But one other twist that I heard was that regardless of whether he knew, he was still responsible as head-of-household; sort of “the buck stops here” kind of thing.
It kind of forces the question of who got cursed by the whole leader thing.
I would definitely be interested if you find those videos – thanks !
Urban Catholic (Jesuit) universities are frequently the most radical left-wing, feminist, pro-abortion and anti-male institutions in town. The church can’t even control its own schools.
Nuns are very often barely-closeted feminists who operate so-called DV shelters and the like. American Catholicism is a disgrace.
FYI, I am a Catholic. My childhood church used to hold funding drives for Marxist guerrillas in Central America, and hosted PFLAG and gay pride meetings. A number of priests in the area dropped dead of AIDS in the late 80s/early 90s. I mean, it’s one thing if they’re attracted to men and remain celibate, but it’s entirely different if they’re calling themselves priests while having anonymous sex in the local park and picking up gay prostitutes on Broadway.
Things may be a bit more under control, but the old sinners remain very much in control behind the scenes. I don’t think it will truly change until they are all too old to work or dead, which won’t be for at least another 20 years.
It’s true that we’ve been pretty AWOL until now, in regards to the culture war. We were more focused on defeating communism and such under the last Pope. But Pope Benedict has set a clear, new direction and emphasis. I’m quite proud that the new Pope is a Bavarian.
He’s easily now one of the most hated men on the planet, which means that he’s doing very well. Remember that we’re a hierarchical institution, so the message doesn’t change until the leadership does.
So the message is: We’re here now. Sorry we’re so late. I just hope we’re not too late.
Sneer at us, if you like. But considering that we’re still the largest church in the world and the US, taunting us is playing political suicide. Wait until the next elections, you’ll see what I mean.
As soon as I see women starting to dominate forums and men defending them, it’s time for me to move on.
Welmer,
Things are truly changing in the Church. That’s why I’ve gone back. Perhaps it hasn’t hit the west coast yet, but in Texas and here in Maryland, things are definitely improving. Really. It’s palpable.
Perhaps demographics are driving the changes as the hippies and lefties die off. They don’t reproduce, you know.
We’re getting more and younger priests, too.
David: Yeah, I know that; I wasn’t talking about her. I was talking about the single gals who act friendly towards this community, and love to hang around and gab, but who, when you scratch below the surface, really aren’t that supportive, and who really don’t get it, and who thus, aren’t really allies, esp. when you see the things they say on their own blogs. Some of them are quite stupid, and don’t really contribute anything of value, and in fact, detract much. And I’m not advocating banning anyone. But I am suggesting not giving them a platform, and ignoring them.
http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2008/11/catholics-vote-for-obama-evangelicals-dont.html
Well, since your strategy seems to be the long game, time will have to tell how things pan out. I think you are 15-20 years too late for the current crop, so I would suggest just writing off anyone over the age of 20 or so and concentrating on indoctrinating as many young’uns as you can get your paws on.
Perhaps. 25-30 years hence, there may actually be a canticle for Leibowitz.
SteveinTX,
There are several videos of his on Google Video. He gets into quite a bit of varied topics that are not neccessarily Biblical, though – like he often battles with Sitchen, over Sitchen’s “aliens theory” of creation and so on.
I can’t find the e-mail that I got which had the link to the video, anymore – it was a long time ago now, so I suspect it got deleted. Reading about various creation & flood stories is kind of a hobby of mine, and I remember that I was exchanging several e-mails with a friend of mine and we were discussing various theories of Genesis 6, in regard to the “Sons of God and the Daughters of Men” and also, how the Nephilim could have been on the earth in those days – and also afterward, the heroes of old, men of renown… if supposedly everything was destroyed in the flood, except for that which was on the ark.
I am quite certain it was in a video where he was discussing how the ancient Hebrew texts deciphered the Nephilim in Genesis – and also later in the Bible (Like when Joshua’s spies saw descendents of the Nephilim and the Israelites destroyed these hated people, even though they were scared shitless of them).
The video wasn’t specifically about the subject we are discussing here, except I remember he purposefully stopped his lecture midpoint to expand upon it that Eve was deceived but Adam sinned knowingly. Btw – I don’t always agree with what all of these guys say, but I basically watch or read anything on the subjects at hand, from multiple viewpoints, and make up my own mind as time goes on.
It’s also quite fascinating stuff (to me anyways) because it is so related to Sumeria civilization (& later Babylon), which is where people from Noah to Abram would have lived until leaving for the wilderness.
The book of Genesis is a cool book, lol!
About those crazy nuns and Catholic-In-Name-Only colleges.
Silence!
fedrz
I realise you are partly just “funning”, but Black&German is not under your authority.
If she is what she claims to be, she is under the authority of the Catholic hierarchy; and, more directly, under that of her parish priest; and most importantly that of her husband.
But this is a man’s site, and she could be banned.
If you really think she should go, get the men that run this site to ban her. But don’t toy with her.
I don’t run this site, but my respectful advice would be to let her stay. After her husband spanks her, of course. (Just joking).
“Let a woman learn in silence “.. how to make a bloody decent sandwich, too!
http://zone.artizans.com/image/TOO618/waitress-serves-guest-burnt-sandwich-to-go-with-dark-beer/
David,
I’ve been trying to be nice, but stop being so damn pathetic and begging for this woman like this.
I have not requested that she be banned.
And Welmer is not going to ban her.
If you want to know what irritates me even more than B&G’s arrogant, self-righteous behaviour, it is your behaviour!
What the hell?
And by the way, I am not “funning,” B&G.
This broad doesn’t know when to shut the fuck up. And you are enabling her!
And, given how many of you religious men bounce up to defend her questionable virtue, without thinking… No wonder the church can’t keep men in the pews. Women are vicious creatures, and B&G has been behaving like a smug, smart mouthed bitch all through this thread – and not only do you not put her in line, but you defend her. What do you think I was talking about earlier up when I described why the church got the big “fuck you” from me?
And your religion does not rule this board. Why do I have to respect your religion? B&G doesn’t respect my religious beliefs, and says being an irritating bitch is what she is supposed to do. And even further, she condemns me to everlasting hell +1!
And you defend her actions! Repeatedly!
WHY?
You really have no right to complain about marriage laws, or any feminization of the church, if you cannot see this. The church deserves to die, if Christian men refuse to see women as the Bible describes them – and the Bible trumps the church, including the Pope – every time
Like Zed pointed out earlier, how many men will have to be driven away from the church by Christian men white-knighting for women, no matter how ridiculous or undeserving they are, before Christian men wake up?
This article is not a joke – it describes something very real that happens over and over again:
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/01/18/guide-to-bird-watching-in-the-manosphere/
What better example than this thread itself.
Btw – why aren’t you guys sticking up for Joseph, but only for B&G?
fedrz
I am not here to proselytise for my religion.
I think that traditional religion is an excellent way to keep women in line. If a woman, rightly or wrongly, thinks that she should obey her husband and stay faithful to him whatever, because that is what her God wants, that is a powerful control on her behaviour.
In turn, I really don’t know what you are talking about concerning my reading of the Bible. I have repeatedly stated that women are really put in their place in that book. Short of burning B&G as a witch, what more could I have said? I have said that women are portrayed in the Bible as morally inferior to men and deserving of subordination. I have pointed out that women are made for men.
What more could you reasonably want?
And yet, over and over and over and OVER, you are begging on her behalf.
When have one of you stood your ground and admonished her to STFU?
All you guys do is say, “yes, she flaps off her mouth a bit much sometimes, BUT… (let me tell you why it should be excused).
And you say it to me, not her!
I know you are putting in effort to maintain control in your marriage, David.
But imagine, all the effort you are putting in… and one day it falls apart despite your efforts… and your wife turns into a bunny-boiler, which they all do.
And no matter what you say, nor how much you open the Bible to back up your case… all the people in your church go, “Yeah, she shouldn’t have left you for the biker after draining your life savings, BUT, YOU should be doing this, and that, and blah blah blah….”
Cotton pickin’ tags!
OK, fedrz, now we are getting somewhere. I think I understand your point. I found this with my wife. Women need to be shown. They need to feel things. I got nowhere by waving Ephesians at my wife for years. And even if a woman is in line for a while for religious reasons, there is nothing to stop her throwing off her veil and finding the biker you mention.
A man has to put a woman in her place personally. He cannot rely on a text in the Bible. Since I have changed my attitude to my wife to one of “confident superiority and the expectation of her obedience”, I have finally got her attention. In my experience, arguing theology with a woman is pointless. She will probably just dismiss it as male logic! Women respond to a man’s “command presence”. If you get her hormones humming, her mind will follow.
As for appealing to you, rather than her, this reminds me of just about the only time I have ever seriously misbehaved. I screwed another young man’s new bride. When he found us in my college bedroom, I asked him, “John, what are we going to do?” Later his wife said how much that showed my traditionalism, that I would appeal to him without regard to her opinion, as if she were a chattel. Perhaps it’s the same here.
Men should make decisions about women.
As for telling B&G to shut up, I’ll keep that in mind.
Fedrz – and Kathy,
Don’t worry, be happy .
Lol, Get Real!
Nice one.
David,
Lol! No, that is not really the point I was making.
Why are you appealing on her behalf in the first place? Why do men always feel the need to jump up and say something in defence of women in the first place?
Do you realize how loud you have made B&G’s voice? And what kind of a message you have sent to other men? Anyone ought to know now that if they oppose B&G, there will be several men that will run up and automatically defend her because she is a female – and that will allow her voice to become louder than the men’s voices, because fewer and fewer men will oppose her, no matter what ridiculous nonsense she spouts.
Take, for example, that ex-girlfriend of mine. Nobody was prepared to condemn her behaviour – no matter how ridiculous she escalated it to, including slutting around, Social/Relational aggression, and even outright promoting physical violence and thus, even breaking the laws of the country. In fact, a couple years after we split up even, her whoring around led to her becoming a single mom – with a thug who abandoned her – and people in church did backflips to excuse her behaviour, I remember some were even trying to suggest (hope) that she was “forced” into sex. It was unreal, she had screwed half the town, and flaunted it like crazy, screwing over some other men/boyfriends along the way, and when her ways caught up with her, people still tried to find a way to view her as innocent.
So, it is not only that a woman is naturally far more manipulative (and don’t even feel shame in being that way), and it is not even that 95% of what they say is so meaningless as to be treated as nonsense… but also, their social power causes men to trip over themselves to defend them – and that last part is men’s fault, not women’s.
This happens in the Church, it happens in Greater Society, it happens in Government, it happens at the Workplace, it happens in University… and guess what, it even happens on Men’s Websites on the internet – where the woman is little more than electrons and anonymous words on a screen!
You are pretending that B&G was just quietly sitting in the corner holding her rosary and saying earnest prayers for starving orphans on this thread, instead of being the aggressive, mouthpiece shrew that she was.
How do you think that institutions like the Church became so feminized in the first place? Did the ladies hold guns to the men’s heads?
Geez, guys. Listen, I didn’t mean for this to become a big argument about me.
The topic was the moral basis for modern sexual mores and I thought that was what the discussion was about. Fedrz, you refused to argue theology with me, and instead reverted to telling me to shut up and harping on about my inglorious past. Here’s a hint: calling someone who admits she’s was a slut a slut, is like running into an AA meeting and shouting “You’re all just a bunch of drunks!” It makes you look like a self-righteous fool.
Furthermore, I have condemned no one to eternal damnation, as that’s hardly within my personal powers. Obviously. I was merely pointing out that being “sympathetic” to Christianity won’t do you a whole lot of good in the long run. That sympathy and $1 will get you some fries.
There are two kinds of people that are useful to Christians:
1) Those who agree with our views on morality and the ordering of society (which you obviously don’t)
2) Fellow Christians (which you aren’t)
Everyone else is part of the problem, and can only be our allies on a topic-by-topic basis.
I’ve had enough of this. Y’all know where to find me, if you care to.
Well said, as always, Fedrz. Thanks for jumping in and trying to keep the bullshit out of the Spearhead. Many of us are too weary of the fight to view it as being worth the bother.
@David – Let me add to what Fedrz has been saying here, and show how you have been acting exactly in contradiction of what you have at the same time been preaching.
Here we have a woman with the arrogant audacity to come onto a men’s board and try to take it over and lecture the men here on the proper way to conduct their lives. And, when some of the men here tell her in various ways to shut up, white knights like you jump in to defend her right to believe that she knows everything and tell everyone else what they are doing wrong.
If you were hosting another man and his wife in your home and the woman arrogantly presumed to lecture you on how you treated your wife and when you let her know that she had crossed a boundary had her husband speak up for her and contradict you – what would your reaction be? “Traditionalism” seems to be fine for you and the way you treat your wife in your own home, but when you go into someone else’s “home”, which is what the Spearhead is in a way, your “traditions” fly out the window when it comes to other men.
B&G is an insufferably arrogant child who presumes to lecture people her own parents’ ages on how to conduct their lives. Everything about her and everything she does violates what you claim to believe – and yet you stand up for and support her when she does that. If you ever have cause to wonder why you seem to find so little acceptance of your beliefs, you might look at how you sabotage them all the time.
I cannot imagine that B&G’s husband works as hard as he does in order to subsidize her spending hours every day on the internet, attention-whoring and discussing their sex life with a bunch of strange men. If she really has all that much time left over after taking care of their household and children, she might give some thought to starting a home business to relieve some of the income-earning burden from him instead of indulging her bloated ego bloviating on subjects she knows absolutely nothing about to people she knows even less about.
Those people who tolerate or support sick 0r intolerable behavior are – to that extent – responsible for it.
Most of the women posting here don’t bother me much because I don’t read their posts. I quit reading B&G’s back in September or so, and only catch what she says if someone else responds to her in a way that piques my interest. But, the signal-to-noise ratio has gotten so bad here that I have more or less stopped reading the comments on this site that I am part of.
Like Fedrz has pointed out a couple of times – when the women show up and get a couple of men to start sabotaging other men on their behalf, you can just about set an egg-timer until when the site implodes with internal conflict between the women with their mangina supporters and everyone else.
And here is a “hint” for you – since you seem to know a bit about AA, what you are doing is known by the people who really get the program as “two stepping”: going from the first step – admitting that there is a problem – and jumping directly to the 12th step – “carrying the message to others” – while neglecting the minor detail of working the 10 steps in between which actually constitute the path to recovery.
Well, since we have settled that the majority of men here are of no use whatsoever to you “christians”, perhaps you could do us all a favor, yourself included, and shut the fuck up and go the fuck away.
The irony.
@ Zed – Awesome poster.
B&G has now left this thread for the third time. What’s the over/under on her return?
I’ll take 15:27 Hours.
@ Soap
“I’ll take 15:27 Hours.”
Sucker bet. I’ll pass.
@ SteveinTX
And Eve was cursed because she was decieved.
But Adam was not decieved. When Eve came to him, Adam was still without sin, and knew that Eve had already sinned… and when she asked him to sin with her, Adam said, “Sure Toots! I’m a scum sucking mangina who will do whatever you request!”
When God cursed Adam, He begins with, “Because you listened to your wife…”
That is not trivial. — Fedrz
—
I don’t quite agree with this interpretation, heres why.
Remember what the tree was — Fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
The assumption has to be that until they ate the fruit, they did not have this knowledge. They knew it was forbidden, but did not know that breaking that very specific command was evil. They didn’t know evil.
They were both cursed for listening to someone other than God – He had already forbidden it , it was moot to listen to anyone else.
Now the curses:
Death would now come to them, as promised for eating the fruit.
Each was also cursed for being persuaded to violate the command – Eve:pain in childbirth;Adam:earn food through the sweat of his brow.
But that was not all – the serpent was cursed to crawl on his belly because he deceived Eve into eating the fruit.
AND Eve –knowing it was evil; she had eaten the fruit already — deceived Adam. She knew the difference between Good and Evil and chose Evil . So she was additionally cursed – she would be ruled by Adam.
Not trivial at all. — SteveinTX
I don’t quite agree with your assessment of my assessment – Lol!
For example – the Tree was of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
Once they ate of it, they understood of Good and Evil. (Which the serpent had promised to Eve – it was useful for gaining knowledge, which they did – He didn’t lie).
But, Adam knew Eve had already gone against God’s word. Whether Adam understood Evil is not really so much of an issue, but what is, is that he knew Eve had already gone against God. Knowledge of Good & Evil was not neccessary for him to know they had only one rule to follow, and Eve had already broken that rule. Whether you want to call it that Adam knew Eve had “sinned” or, whether merely had gone against God’s rule while not yet understanding sin, is not so important as he already knew Eve had gone against God, and he was not deceived like Eve was. She gave some of it to her husband, and he just took it and ate it down, because she gave it to him/asked him to. There was no deceit involved. (Btw. If you Google “Adam sinned knowingly,” there are pages and pages that come up, so it appears there is much to back up what I was asserting – although the first time I heard it explained was in one of those Heiser videos).
Further, as per death coming to them – this is not exactly true. The serpent says, “Surely you will not die.”
And, surely they did not die. Even though God cursed them and kicked them out of the Garden, he also offered them a path to salvation, resulting in everlasting life. But now, they had to work for it. Again, technically, the serpent did not lie – he stretched the truth/deceived.
Btw – this is a recurring theme in almost all religions that exist: There once was Paradise, Man screwed up, and now must endure trials and tribulations, and there is the hope/promise of Paradise being restored to him.
Also, on a side note, it is interesting that if one is to take the Biblical timeline literally, Adam did not follow in the way of the Lord after leaving the Garden.
In the Ancient Hebrew texts, about the “Patriarchs” before the deluge, Jared returned to the ways of the Lord – and he was the only one who was following the ways of the Lord. Jared became the father of Enoch, who was so righteous that God took him to heaven directly. Enoch was the father of Methuselah, who fathered Lamech, who fathered Noah – It was the line of Jared that returned to God’s ways, and they were the only ones. And, Jared and Adam were contemporary for 470 years, and, in fact, Adam and Methuselah were contemporary for 243 years. In the old texts (not neccessarily all found in the Bible as we know it – such as the 3 Books of Enoch), if it indicates that it was only the line of Jared/Enoch/Methuselah/Lamech/Noah that was following the Lord – this would indicate that Adam chose to reject God after leaving the Garden.
Alrighty, Cliff Klaven out.
OK. Thanks for all that. I’ll think about it.
I apologise for being a bit insensitive. I had not realised some of the details of the disappointments some men had experienced with women.
I am pretty new here. I have always been interested in what people call “gender issues” but maybe I am out of my depth in some of this debate. I have been fairly lucky with the women in my life too so I am more curious than righteously angry.
I do agree that men have been treated badly in recent years and women are increasingly silly.
My final remarks to Kathy, B&G, and other women might be to stay and read, but post less. It really is a men’s place.
@David
My final remarks to Kathy, B&G, and other women might be to stay and read, but post less. It really is a men’s place.
It was a mans world at one point David(so the story goes), and look at what happened. Aggressive men controlling women and less aggressive men… weak men. Its a game of power and control.
Metaphorically speaking, Fedrz n Zed are aiming to stick their little cocks in your arse. And it looks like your all ready to accommodate the them… aren’t you darling? You are soon to become this tag teams gimp. Is that what you want sweet pea?
Fedrz n Zed act at times, like you’re common kindergarten variety bullies. Zed being the top dog of the two(Fedrz is, in my view, both less intelligent and more insurer, and thus, consequently, the biggest whiner when things don’t go his way).
And for the record, having a reasonable IQ, doesn’t make up for a low EQ. As a recommendation, those who don’t like, or agree with B&G’s opinions(for example), may I suggest, simply ignoring them.
But! All is fair in love n war gentlemen. There is ultimately, no right or wrong… only dominate perceptions of it. Consequently, we seek to have others support our views, opinions and position with regard to… WHATEVER. So! Who’s buying into what then?!
Personally, I like a little salad with my steak… but, I have the option of leaving it on my plate. Just saying… know what in mean?
May the biggest psycho win. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!!!
It’s not my site. I am fairly new here. I don’t want to upset men who are clearly very unhappy already, probably rightly, about women.
The ladies on this site seem OK to me, but maybe I am missing some subtlety. I don’t have a great EQ myself.
“It was a mans world at one point David (so the story goes), and look at what happened. Aggressive men controlling women and less aggressive men… weak men. Its a game of power and control.”
Yeah, that’s an interesting point. It’s all about power really? Very post-modern. Very evol psych: “sneaky fuckers”, alphas, betas, supplicators, manginas, white knights. Some smart kid is probably collecting all this material for his or her Ph.D. thesis. I can supply a likely title: “Male display: the evolutionary psychology of the men’s movement. Power, pussy, and pussy power”. Or “Dominance hierarchy on a men’s movement site”.
It probably is all about power. I think it is a theme. Alpha males leave beta males with spoiled women. Alpha males give away the rights of beta males to cement their own power. Females play “Let’s you and him fight”. Eric Berne (“Games People Play”) would have a field day.
Still watching with interest.
David, if you want to understand some subtlety, read this and this. Yes, I am a shameless self promoter, first link aside.
Thanks, J. Durden. I actually commented some time ago on that first one of yours. I was delighted to be able to say something finally about an appalling feminist episode of The Cosby Show.
To be clear, the first link is not written by me.
Welcome to THE SPEARHEAD David. I look forward to your input.
zel
I have been around for a while. I have had fun lately teasing some of the ladies with my increasingly reactionary views on women and the church. So far, they have not objected. It’s a game of chicken.
zel February 6, 2010 at 16:16
know what I mean?*
@David
A game of chicken?
Sorry, zel, you are too obscure for me.
I do have a low EQ, after all.
I really do hold those reactionary views, well most of them, but watching ladies accept them was entertaining for me.
I see. Well, each to their own.
Alright Zel, it’s 3am in NZ after a Saturday night. Put the leftover beer in the fridge and crawl into bed now.
And, btw, everyone knows that Zed is my sidekick!
LOL! Nice 1 fedrz!!!
@Cliff er.. fedrz
I think I see your point, but I am not completely convinced of no deception on Eve’s part.
As a morality tale, it seems to me that Adam and Eve are analogous to children — “Don’t touch that hot stove – you’ll burn your hand !” The kid doesn’t know what burn your hand means, but backs off because Dad said “don’t.” Dad leaves the kitchen, in comes sis. Sis, who got talked into burning her hand on a hot stove by the mean neighbor kid earlier, says “Oh go ahead, put your hand on the stove.” Kid, thinking “hey this is sis, after all” puts his hand on the stove.
Dad hears commotion, and finds out the story. Punishments ensue.
Sis didn’t actively deceive (lies or half-truths) she just betrayed his trust.
They both knew not to do it, but she also knew why when she encouraged him.
Adam and Eve both chose to break the commandment, additionally the serpent and Eve with full knowledge of Good and Evil, chose Evil.
I don’t let Adam off the hook, I just think that Eve had additional malice.
However, I do want to read up on some of the stuff you talked about. My interpretation just comes from Genesis – additional resources should prove interesting.
Klaven two to Klaven one –out
Yep that Adam and Eve story is full of symbolism. She was tempted by the “serpent”….
Yes married women are tempted by other guys’ “serpents” to this very day. Strangely when the husband finds out, or when she finally pulls the ripchord, and divorce happens, somehow she gets rewarded with being paid alimony for her sins. In the eyes of the Family Courts, even when she is wrong, she is right.
I guess we have come a long way since the biblical days … baby!
… since in the biblical days her reward for cuckolding her husband, wouldn’t be receiving alimony, it would be receiving stoning.