The best enema of all

A wife who refuses anal sex is only marginally better than a wife who refuses sex altogether.

Readership: Men; Married men especially;

Under last month’s post, Sanctification and Sexual Compatibility (2020 June 19), there was some discussion about anal sex.  I have a mixed opinion about this subject that I’ll explain here.  I’ve made it less opprobrious and more enjoyable to read by inserting (in italics) several hilarious euphemisms for Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

Why Anal?

Of course, experienced men all know that poking pussy is the most outstanding form of coitus, followed by eager fellatio.  But over the past decade, it seems that plundering the exit has become rather “popular”.  So why is there any interest in fudge packing at all?

First of all, for younger nubes who are rather inexperienced, bum fun is all about playfulness and sexploration.  And it is not just randy young men; many young women are quite eager to defile their bodies as much as they can, just for the fun of it all.

Secondly, for those buggers (both male and female) that for some reason have a conscious reservation about raw-dogging it, pee-pee in the poo-poo is the next closest thing to vaginal sex.  It simply feels like the male is rooting in her most holy of holes.  Thus, mud mashing is the preferred go-to for those men and women who can’t control their desire, but are afraid of full intercourse, or have a sensitive conscience about “destroying” pussy.

Stemming from my interactions with single Muslims, I know truffle butter is the indulgence granted to those couples engaged to be married who want to loosen their collars and ream their bowels without having to worry about the embarrassment of an untimely pregnancy.

For those who are already married, I think the fascination with going downtown has to do with the husband’s exercise of authority over his wife’s body, and her willingness to submit.  This is the one point that I’ll focus on in the next section about purposes.

Finally, there is the gay thing, which is outside the scope of this essay, but no discussion of putting in the rough is complete without this being mentioned.  I once read somewhere that “the male G-spot is up the @ss” (i.e. the prostate gland), and the stimulation thereof is able to inspire the gay gladiolus gardens of feminine feelings, which I assume is similar to the female’s Tingles.  This is how men get “converted” into rainbow fluffies and develop the craving for flute roops, and also why it’s so hard for them to repent of punching prostate.  It’s also much easier for them to face down with other gay men, than for them to do the hard work of dickering around with the female hamster.

This curiosity of male anatomy is why prostitutes have a trade secret of keeping the nail of one finger trimmed short for the purpose of using that finger to stimulate the male G-spot of a customer who has any difficulties in spilling his load.  Or so I’ve heard.

Noble Purposes for Probing the Poop Chute

In the headline of this post, I wrote, “A wife who refuses anal sex is only marginally better than a wife who refuses sex altogether.”  Let me explain this further.

Consider for a moment, the level of female submission possible on a spectrum of her interest.  On one extreme, a cryogenic wife will go liquid nitrogen at the very suggestion of passionate lovemaking.  Somewhere in the middle, there are luke-warm wives (like Cathy), who have the attitude that “vaginal sex is all I’m required to do”.  Ho hum…  On the other extreme is the soaking wet, quivering wife who is so filled with horny desire, she is begging to be f*cked every which way she can, in every hole, all night, every night, and not soon enough!

To ask married men which type of response is most preferable in a wife is wasting your breath.

To ask which response is more likely to characterize and contribute towards marital sanctification also carries a foregone conclusion.

As I mentioned in the first section, the wife’s willing submission and cheerful obedience is what makes both the marriage and the sex a delight to both husband and wife!  But the Bible goes a step further by requiring the wife to grant the husband full authority over her body.

“³ Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband.  ⁴ The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does.  And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.“ ~ 1^st Corinthians 7:3-4 (NKJV)

Note that the same is true for the husband in the latter part of verse 4.

Now, we know a lot of people would read this passage literally and through a legalistic lens, and so they would naturally come to the conclusion that if your wife wants to dress her husband up in a clown suit before she goes down on him, then 1^st Corinthians 7:4 lends Biblical support for that.  Going further, a very arrogant wife might argue that if she wants to shove her bumpy purple dildo up her husband’s backside, then of course, 1^st Corinthians 7:4 means that that should be admissible too.

But I need to point out here, that those who want to chase after such futile arguments in a tit-for-tat brinkmanship are devolving into a hard-hearted legalistic approach concerning their views on authority.  Moreover, they are missing the whole point of what it means to “have authority over the spouse’s body”.

St. Paul doesn’t go into great detail in this matter, but instead leaves it up to individual married couples to experiment with.  But my understanding of the scripture gives the implication that a married person should be pulling out all the stops in learning how to titillate the other person unto ecstasy, and should never be selfishly putting the brakes on their marital passion.

The point here is to get your spouse to lose control over their sexual desire for you, such that they are making love to you on impulse and without prescient contemplation.  If a married person has the power to turn the other on to such a degree that he/she has lost their mind, and dives into the act of intercourse without any thought, hesitancy, or reservation, then that person might be able to truthfully claim that he/she has authority over the other’s body.

If a wife has a very low libido, then the husband will find this undertaking to be quite a challenge.  But seldom does a husband have a low libido.  Men are usually up for some action at a moments notice.  So there is no reason why a wife should have any trouble ramping up her husband’s desire.  But instead of wives wondering how they could make their husbands more excited, and working her body on his body towards that end, we often hear of wives who do what they can to dampen her husband’s desire.  This is just wrong.

If she is putting hard left and right limits on what she is “required” to do in the bedroom, then she is clinging to a legalistic mindset, she is lacking a spirit of submission, and she is creating anxiety and self-consciousness surrounding sexual intercourse.  Obviously, she is not intoxicated with the ecstasy of love in her discoverie of marital consummation.

Instead, a worthy wife should allow her husband to be delighted in her body.  This is rather easy to do, because men are visually stimulated.  Really, the wife has it so easy when it comes to pleasing her husband.  If she can look him in the eyes, and show a little enthusiasm for his excitement, then the man is invariably satisfied.  But many wives cannot even do this much.  Excuses abound.

Going further, if a wife has a submissive heart and is really into her husband, she’s not going to care a whit about which hole gets penetrated.  She is simply overjoyed that he is getting off on her.  To a woman who is totally obsessed with her man, there’s no difference between playing sit-and-spin with the fireman and flying a kite!

I also know from experience that when the pounding gets heated and heavy, it’s easy to inadvertently stab one too low and thereby give her a pleasant surprise.  It’s also a humbling experience for her, which is a good thing for the sanctity of the union.

Although I will readily agree that spitting into the wind is frivolous and distasteful, the exercise of authority over the wife’s body (as I’ve described above) is very important for sanctification to occur.  If this absolutely must include tossing in the cornhole, then he’d better get to it, and get it done.

Also consider how many women play backgammon in their younger years, presumably to avoid pregnancy, or to “live in the moment”.  Then later in life, they enter into marriage with the mind that bunghole bungling is somehow dishonorable or “beneath her”.  As a result, she refuses to allow her husband to shoot the moon.  Verily, that husband will be vexed to the quick until he can knock a few shots of Bailey’s squarely up her bum.  And to men who are in this situation, I would say it’s a prerogative to “own your wife” in every way, mouth, tits, glory hole, and @ss!  She shall be your wife because you humbled her!  And humbled her more than the last dude.

Concluding Statements

Really, if your wife isn’t saying (in her heart), “Ohh, my succulent c0ck draped lord and master!  F*ck me up to heaven any which way you want!  Do it NOW!”, then there’s something missing.  You’re not experiencing marriage at its finest.  If she wants to nitpick about this position or that hole, then she’s broken in some way.  If the husband has qualms about this position or that hole, then he’s not experiencing a mind-numbing desire for his wife.

In all these words, I’m not arguing that being an admiral for the Royal Mounties is holy by any means, nor that it is right, nor even necessary.  I am rather indifferent about the matter.  I just want to point out that married individuals who are particularly persnickety about the peeping turtle have shunted their natural passions and affections with pride, legalism, guilt, or shame, and are living in the vanity of their minds.

In sum, get out of your heads and start living!  Picking out the gnat (boofing) and swallowing the camel (marrying) is probably not going to make your marriage any better.  Instead, cultivate a heart-felt desire for your spouse.  If you have enough desire to poke her pooper, and she has enough desire to take a backwash up the drain, then surely you’re living on the ugly edge of life, but sanctification is sure to happen.

Related

• Σ Frame: The Mosh Pit of Sex Analysists (2019 March 24)

News Flash: Stupidity, Ugliness, being Liberal, are all Heritable!

SJW’s paint heritability as something ugly, but project they do.

Readership: All;

About a month ago, there was a discussion about heritability under the post, The Morphing Ethical System in the U.S. (2020 June 26).  This post digs this up again.

The Cognitive Dissonance of Liberals

A while back, liberals made a big squawk about how sexual orientation was genetically determined.  The argument claimed that sexual orientation and gender orientation are heritable traits, and that these are all admissible as qualifications to jump up (or down, depending on your perspective) the totem pole of intersectional feminism.

Their purpose for backing this argument was to assert that it is impossible to convert or reeducate gays.

But ever since the “gay gene” was debunked, they have been waffling and backtracking.  Now, saying anything is heritable is rayciss.  Oh, by the way, race is heritable too.  So I guess heritability is indeed racist.*

Of particular note, feminists think that certain children can somehow be rainbow trannies needing hormone therapy and “gender reassignment”, even though both their parents are totally straight.  Of course, the “gay gene” argument won’t work in this case.  But even so, liberal educators are in on the racket, and even the courts go along with this rubbish.  The cognitive dissonance and mental backflips here are more hilarious than a prime-time sitcom.  These people obviously don’t come from a pedigree of scientists.

Our in house psychologist Scott gets into it a little deeper.

“…this debate [on heritability] is absolutely batty, in light of the overwhelming evidence that generalized (g) intelligence and its two subtypes (fluid and crystallized) are mostly heritable traits.  Intelligence is the most studied construct/trait there is.  It is part of a cluster of traits in what most people know as “personality.” it is relatively stable over the lifetime and very difficult to dislodge or move in one direction or another within subjects.

The culturally neutral tests have done nothing but CONFIRM this stubborn bit of reality.  Tests like that are known to be impervious to all sorts of outside influence, (that’s why they were developed) like all the usual bogey men: SES, diet, “systemic racism” and even serious brain injury.

Of course, in the context of the current dilemma, the blank slate must be adhered to because it is the version that most closely resembles “anti-racism” — the secular religion in America.  If personality traits (like intelligence) are heritable, then gas chambers are surely next.  It’s crazy.

Bo and Ben Weinguard as well as the guy who runs “A New Radical Centrism” and others are in trouble with the mob.  Steve Hsu, and others have already fallen.  And those guys are LIBERAL!  So is Jonathan Haigt and he is in the crosshairs.  It’s the wild west and as [Derek] pointed out, this time everyone is about 1 standard deviation below where they were back then.”

SJW’s eat their own kind!  Check out this story at Shadow to Light: More Social Justice Violence (2020 July 29).  Two SJW kooks beat up an elderly, gay Democratic Senator!  It sux to be liberal!

Scott goes on to list many other things that are highly heritable (besides raw brain power and attractiveness).

• Motivation
• Suicidality
• Propensity towards anxiety or depression
• Propensity toward aggression and aggressive forms of problem solving
• Internal vs external locus of control
• Frustration tolerance
• Time horizon/delayed gratification
• Suggestibility
• “Clannishness” vs out group tolerance
• Openness to novel experiences
• …and many others!

In his post, All Human Behavioral Traits are Heritable (2012 December 31), Jay Man notes that political and religious attitudes are also heritable.**

“…some of these [traits] hang together in factors.  These factors tend to hang together in ethnic groups/races.”

Noteworthy Omissions

Upon further inspection of the feminist argument, we notice that any mention of race, intelligence, or attractiveness is verboten.  Race has been constructed into THE hot button issue, simply because it does so quite nicely, and for no other reason.  So don’t fall for it.  But why not include the last two traits in the stack (intelligence and attractiveness)?  Why are these necessarily omitted from their discussion?

For all the talk we hear about equality (e.g. fatty tattooed women claiming to have a place on the cover of Sports Illustrated), we’ll never hear SJW’s demand that women should treat unattractive men as well as they treat attractive men.  Why is no one going on the warpath to defend the rights of geeks to be awkward?  Why is there no equal opportunity employment missive for stupid ugly people?

Maybe it’s because if there was, then it would become obvious how absurd, unreasonable, and inefficient the demand for equality has become.

For example, equal opportunity is no longer intended to prevent the discrimination of equally qualified minorities or to help disabled veterans with PTSD land a sustenance income.  Now, it’s intended to give the less qualified purple people eaters a safe haven and to discriminate against the overeducated but duly qualified ethnic majority.

Furthermore, a cursory look at the SMP proves that race, intelligence, and attractiveness are perhaps the most influential factors in choosing a mate.  You know, why does everyone prefer to f*ck intelligent, attractive, white people, and swipe left on the fugly dumb@sses?  Yet in spite of this natural preference, the lowest common denominators of society multiply like the crackers that belonged to Elijah’s widow.

Of course, the real reason these arguments are omitted is because these narratives are not useful towards demolishing the backbone of the traditional Christian culture.  And make no mistake, it is Christ Himself who is being targeted.  All of this is a manifestation of the dystopian dream of social equality, mind you.  It is the anathema of a natural social hierarchy, an evil hearkening back to the Tower of Babel debacle.

Scott concludes,

“I would like to live in a world where it’s ok to notice these things.  Also to live in a world where we notice the outliers.  And then go have a sandwich.

But here’s where it matters.

Know yourself.  Know the group you came from.  Be willing to dispassionately ask yourself “do any of those stereotypes apply to me?  Do I care?  Am I unique in some other ways?  If I have goal I have set for myself, will it be harder or easier to accomplish because of it?”

Then make your plans.  Move out and fail or succeed on your own.  But don’t pretend like you inherited absolutely nothing from your ancestors.”

Scott’s advice about introspection is solid.  Don’t count on gleaning this kind of self-awareness from liberal educators or from watching the nooz.

Conclusions

In sum, SJW’s can’t wrap their heads around the concept of heritability, and even the scientific community is rolling over in deference.  “Post truth” strikes yet again!  The general populace of sheeple are even worse.  If CNN had a regular program showcasing the special abilities of autistic individuals and defending their rights to be president, I’m sure 60% of the population would agree after a few years and elect a cretin just to prove their altruistic wokeness.

There’s been a long running rule of thumb in the Manosphere, “Don’t f*ck feminists!”  But based on our study of heritability, we could expand this axiom to say, “Don’t f*ck any women who have traits that you wouldn’t want more people in the world to have (namely, your children).”

I expect this topic to boil over and create further schisms.  But to a level-headed person, it’s all fluffy nonsense and a waste of time, to put it gently.  The bottom line here is that all human characteristics are heritable to some degree, both desirable traits and undesirable.

Do your homework.  Know yourself.  Vet your women.  Choose the next generation wisely!  And don’t forget to teach your children.

* I’m being humorous.  This argument is known as racism.

** H/T: Deep Strength.

Related

• Chateau Heartiste: Older Moms And Divorced Moms Raising Generation Of Psychopaths? (2012 December 17)
• Jay Man’s Blog: All Human Behavioral Traits are Heritable (2012 December 31)**
• Chateau Heartiste: Racist Babies (2017 April 14)
• Chateau Heartiste: Fake It Till You Make It Really Works (2018 May 30)
• v5k2c2 (Derek Ramsey): Beyond Nature vs Nurture (2019 December 16)

Tinder Translations

Did you ever wonder what women on Tinder really mean?

Readership: Single men currently using Tinder (or a similar social networking app);

Introduction

In the beginning, say around 10 years ago, social networking apps were a fun way to meet lots of different people and make casual conversation.  In fact, I met my wife on OK Cupid.  But in recent years, many social networking apps (e.g. Badoo, Grinder, Tinder) have become nothing more than a rolodex for ONS/hookup/STR’s.  People who use these apps are looking to get waylaid ASAP.  So if you get on one of these apps, you have to be aware of this.  Anything you see on a Tinder profile has to be read through this lens.  

Such as it is, Christians have no reason to use these apps at all.  However, I am guessing that many young Christian men (and women) get on Tinder just to see what’s happening there.  So in this paragraph, I’m talking to you younger Christian guys.  If you’re going to do the online dating thing, then you had better know what you’re looking at.  Otherwise, you’re making trouble for yourself.  Reread the last half of the first paragraph above.  If you’re thinking that your motivations are totally innocent, then you had better watch yourself.  You need to know your threshold of temptation before you get too far into it.  It’s too easy to fall into the meat grinder when the opportunity is available at a mere swipe.

The intentions of the slore above with the 1,000 c0ck stare are unnervingly obvious, so no translation is necessary.  However, most other wimmin have a consistent habit of sugarcoating anything that is unseemly.  This is all the more true on social networking apps.  A little bit of translation work is necessary to uncover what they really mean.  This gem is from bence86 on 9 Gag.*

Dictionary for Girls on Tinder

• “I’m a proud mother.” = “I have no job.  I need your salary.”
• “If you can’t accept my children, swipe left.” = “You should love my kids, but I don’t want any of your own.”
• “Perverts, swipe me left.” = “Perverts who are not handsome, swipe me left.”
• “Only dogs play with bones.” = “I’m fat and too lazy to do anything about it.”
• “Nerds/gamers swipe me left.” = “I do not have a hobby.  If you have a hobby, I consider it to be a distraction from your potential to earn.  You need to have a job so you can pay mine.”
• “Half-naked guys swipe me left.” = “I can show 34 pics of my nails, but you cannot be proud of your bodywork/sport achievements.”
• “Message me, I don’t bite.” = “I’m lonely and bored.  Please someone write me!”
• “I’m only here cause of a challenge” = “I will be in a relationship from Tinder within 2 weeks.”
• “I like fooling around.” = “My sense of humor is 0.”
• “I can enjoy parties without drinking.” = “I am on my phone all the time, and I leave the party before 11 am.”
• “Appearance is secondary.” = “I’m ugly.  I could not take a single good pic from 33 tries.”
• “Only serious relationship.” Ann (44) = “Half the city f*cked me already.”

I could add a few more to this list.

• “I’m not here for hookups/ONS.” = “I’m here for hookups/ONS, but I decide who and when, so don’t embarrass me by asking.  Meantime, while I’m looking at other men’s profiles, your purpose is to entertain me.”
• “I have x (number of children), and I’m happy with this.” = “Don’t ask me to have any (more) kids with you.”
• “No dick pics!” = “I’ve already had the biggest you can’t imagine, so yours won’t excite me.”

Go visit Boxer’s blog for more degenerate offerings.  Links below.

If you’re still not sure these translations are accurate.  You can go check it out for yourself.  But in my opinion, it would be better to take this word at face value and stay off dating apps altogether.

Old hands, feel free to leave other translations below in the comments.

* Edited for clarity.

Related

 

• v5k2c2: Tinder Admits What We Have Always Known (2019 March 30)
• v5k2c2: Thirst and Fragility (2019 April 7)
• Σ Frame (Lexet): Crunching the Tinder Whoard (2019 September 20)

Pottery and Tea

A summary of the highlights of my trip last week, with pictures!

Readership: All;

Last week, my wife and I took a trip to the mountains of central Taiwan.  We met her parents there, and spent a few days together.

We rented a two story cabin.  The house was orange with blue shutters, which was a strange but lively color combination.  The interior was well furnished, and it had pine paneling that smelled wonderful.

I think this is the first time I’ve posted a photo of myself here.  So I’m sure readers will be interested to see what I look like.  I used to lift weights when I was younger, but I ruptured my lower back in 2014 (while working out) and the resultant pain was so intense that it required an endoscopic discectomy about three months later.  Since then, I’ve had to mind my posture and I haven’t had a regular lifting routine.  Now, cycling is my main physical activity, and occasionally, I play tennis.

This was the view from our bedroom window.

This was the same view at night.

On Wednesday, we visited a local pottery manufacturer.  My father-in-law and I tried our hand at the potter’s wheel.  Professional potters make it look fun and easy.  But it’s a lot more difficult than it seems.  The clay is pretty stiff, so you need to apply firm pressure to change its shape, but you also need to have a very steady hand.  Getting the right balance between force and steadiness is quite challenging.

This video clip shows me trying to form something that resembles a pot.  My wife is narrating.

When my hands were cupped around the base of the pot, I’m trying to pull it towards the center, but I was unsuccessful at that.  The teacher (shown in the yellow shirt) told me not to be too concerned about this, but to work the clay anyway.  In the earlier demonstration, he was able to make a perfectly round bowl, even though it was a little off-center.  As you can see in the video, if you apply too much pressure at once, the clay gets thrown out of center, and the centripetal force quickly magnifies this imbalance.  This gets more tricky when you try to draw the side of the pot higher and thinner.  I imagine it takes years of practice to become very good at this.

While I was there, I remembered the analogy of the potter in Isaiah 29:16; Isaiah 64:8; Jeremiah 18:1-9; and Romans 9:14-24 (read here).  As I was working on the wheel, I thought, God’s job is difficult!

They had a large number of finished pieces that people had made over the years.  Some looked like a little kid had made them, which had a charm of its own, while others were very ornate and beautiful.  All for sale.

My wife and I picked out these small earthenwares to use as courtesy gifts in the future.

Wednesday evening, we had dinner at a Hakka restaurant.  I always hate to see people post ubiquitous photos of food on Farcebook, but since this food is very unique, I’m willing to post a couple photos.  This was sooo delicious!

On Thursday, we went to a tea plantation.  The rows of hedges in the foreground of the photo below are tea plants (Camellia Sinensis, not to be confused with Melaleuca).

I learned that there are (only!!!) two varieties of tea, which are named (very creatively) small-leaf and large-leaf teas.  The following photo shows the small-leaf tea plant.  If you look closely, you can see the bud at the end of the stem.  When the tea leaves are picked, they only pluck off the last two leaves and the bud together in one piece.  During tea competitions, tea judges and aficionados examine the leaves after infusion to verify that there are indeed two leaves and a bud on each piece.

The tea plants are trimmed back periodically, to allow fresh shoots to grow.

The following photo shows the fruit of the small-leaf tea plant.  (Average diameter ~ 2 cm.)  I was very interested to see this, because although I have drank a lot of fruit tea in my life, I had never before seen tea fruit.  The fruit was very hard, and I can’t imagine it would be edible.  Like the coffee bean, the tea fruit is mainly a large seed with a thin fleshy skin around it.

The next photo shows the large-leaf tea plant.  When harvesting this variety, planters are not as picky as they are about the small-leaf tea (i.e. only selecting the twin leaves and bud).  This kind of tea is used to make Assam tea and various black teas.

Now, I’m sure readers are wondering, If there are only two varieties of tea plants, then where do all those hundreds of different kinds of tea come from?  These differences arise because of the way the tea leaves are processed after picking.  The processing includes things like steaming, drying, sun curing, crushing, fermentation, oxidation, and aging.  The oxidation techniques, and the length and conditions of fermentation, especially, result in a vast majority of different flavors.

What do they do with all the tea leaves that have no buds, or have not been processed quite so perfectly?  These leaves are used to make a lower quality (i.e. cheaper) tea.  The worst leaves of the harvest are overoxidized to hide the poor flavor (it tastes bitter, not smooth and fresh), and broken into pieces so that no one can see that they are not first rate buds.  Then they pack this bottom quality tea dust into cute little paper bags and sell it to the Americans and British for the top dollar market price.

And the Americans aren’t any the wiser.  They think Lipton is really good tea.  But in Asia, no one other than cheap restaurant owners will buy that kind of tea.

In sum, I’m enjoying my time in Taiwan.  No regrets about coming here.

Related

• Pique (Jessica Ederer): The Ultimate Guide to Different Types of Tea and Their Benefits (2019 September 28)

Make like a tree…

No posts this week.  I’ll be traveling to a few scenic areas with the in-laws.  Hiking, eating indigenous food, and some barbecue are in order.

I will respond to comments, but not to emails.

If you’re craving some fodder for reading, I encourage you to go through some older posts from Dalrock or Christianity and Masculinity.  I also found that Ed Hurst has some great posts on game from a Christian viewpoint going a few years back.

Of note, I’m searching for some real world case studies on Christian game, or married game.  If you come across any comments that contain personal stories on this topic, I would appreciate it if you would leave a link below.

In case you’re still wondering what the title of this post means, it’s an old pun.

Make like a tree… and leave.

Handling an IOI requires a Miracle!

Is it possible for a high SMV Christian man to respond to an IOI in a Christ-like manner?

Readership: High SMV Christian men;

As far as I can tell from the comments, Wednesday’s post was a miss.  So I need to go over it again.

Σ Frame: Wimmin at the Well (2020 July 15)

Jason accurately commented,

“Well this post is written for high / higher SMP men… …and they are pretty much married, and do have options and choices.”

This is not a criticism (as Derek said).  This is assumed as a fact.  The targeted readership for that essay is high SMV Christian men.  It is obvious that single Christian men need to learn how to handle IOI’s efficaciously.  But in general, women are also attracted to men who are taken, due to pre-selection among other things, so married men also get a lot of IOI’s.  Thus, married Christian men also need to learn how to handle IOI’s too.  It is also assumed that the high SMV man is the prize, which means that he has options and choices, and he is not so desperate to shed his load.

The larger question addressed in that post is what a Christian man should do in response to a woman’s IOI’s.

Let’s break this down.  When responding to IOI’s, what are the choices that these high SMV men have?

The basic choices are…

1. Ignore it.
2. Acknowledge and escalate (presumably to coitus, according to her desire).
3. Acknowledge and reframe the situation into something redemptive.

There are other choices (e.g. “acknowledge and s1ut shame her”), but I will dismiss these as being unconstructive to the following discussion.

Choice 1 is a miss.
Choice 2 is not a Christian response.
Choice 3 is the oft overlooked (if not absolutely esoteric) Christian response.

So what does Choice 3 look like?

Ed’s comment (which was cited in the last post) speaks to this question, but no one else has addressed this question.  In fact, this question has never before been entertained in the entire Manosphere, to my knowledge.

I am disappointed that, with 36 comments so far, no one has made any comment on the main idea of that post — how to deal with IOI’s in a Christ-like manner.  There has even been a lot of high-faluting talk arguing to the contrary, even to question the authority of Christ in the matter!

For example, Derek wrote (twice),

“As I read the book of John, I come to the unmistakable sense that absent the will of the Father, Jesus had no power at all, that is, there was nothing [no divine privilege] to avoid using.”

SMH…  My Bible says differently.  In John 10:30 Jesus says,

“I and My Father are One.”

While we ponder what that might mean, over in Matthew it says,

“And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” ~ Matthew 28:18-20 (NKJV)

“Making disciples” includes those women giving out IOI’s, like the woman at the well.

Someone could argue that Jesus wasn’t granted all power and authority until after His resurrection, but since we are living after His resurrection, it still applies to us.  In addition, we also now have the Holy Spirit available to us, which apparently was not available to Old Testament believers.

I take all this to mean that Jesus’ authority is the same as God’s authority.  Jesus’ will is the same as God’s will.

We had better believe that Jesus has all power and authority in heaven and earth, or else our faith is worthless!

The fundamental question we are getting at here is whether this power and authority is available to the current day believer in certain forms.  Ed suggested that it all depends on God’s purpose for your life.  It seems like Derek, AngloSaxon, et al. are saying that it’s not available.  As Derek said,

“Honeycomb, Sharkly, and Bee all liked this comment.  That’s four people who all agreed that the premise of your post is ridiculous because Jesus’ interactions with women do not translate to anyone else, due to his divinity.  I suspect some may find the notion that Jesus was worried about IOIs and dating to border on blasphemy, as evidenced by the vehement objection to Ed’s response.”

Imagine that!  Jesus was “worried” about IOI’s!  Project much?

Again, Derek writes,

“I mostly ignored your post because I thought it was ridiculous for a bunch of different reasons.”

So, even though he “ignored” the main post, he can still churn out 1,312 words in 10 comments to discuss the matter.  Should I really take that seriously?  The original post only had 759 words!  TL;DR?

Assuming that they are commenting on topic, “ridiculous” would mean that receiving, reading, and dealing with IOI’s as Jesus did would be miracles out of our reach.

Honestly, if I were a younger Christian man reading through those comments, it would be easy for me to see the overall consensus and conclude that it’s unrealistic to expect that a man could respond to IOI’s in a Christ-like way, as if that would be some kind of miracle.

<<<begin sarcasm>>> What a great excuse to choose option 2! <<<gleeful sarcasm>>>

<<<more sarcasm>>> Better yet, just choose option 1 and go MGTOW! <<<end sarcasm>>>

I’m not convinced about that, and Derek’s arguments haven’t changed that at all.

Furthermore, if most men think that reading and handling IOI’s in a Christian manner is a preposterous oxymoron — a “miracle”, then I can totally understand why some people think Christian men are total losers in the SMP.

I want to challenge Christian men to believe that dealing with IOI’s can be redemptive if handled properly.  The livelihood of our churches and the sanctity of our Christian marriages depends on it!

But it seems like I’m writing to an empty audience.  The real miracle is for a Christian man to believe that he is indeed high SMV, and that he can get any IOI’s at all!

Note: When commenting, please stay on topic.

Related

• Dalrock: Overcivilized men, uncivilized women. (2010 November 21)
• Dalrock: How should Christian men respond to slutty women? Marry them! (2012 January 23) 
• Σ Frame: Trajectories (2020 February 28)
• Σ Frame: No Authority to give “Consent” (2020 March 6)
• Σ Frame: Fighting Fires (2020 March 20)

Wimmin at the Well

Missionary dating is not what you might think.

Readership: High SMV Christian men;

Christian men with a high SMV invariably receive many IOI’s from various women.  But then, assuming he can read them, how should he respond?

If he simply turns her down or ignores her overtures, she’ll probably just skip to the next man.  Time’s a wasting!

It’s important for him to step up the game, but following this to it’s natural conclusion — sex — just isn’t the Biblically prescribed Christian response.

So what is a man to do?

Ed Hurst left a powerful comment under the previous post, 8 Examples of IOI Word Semantics (2020 July 8).

“We live in a very sad world.  I think it’s important for men who follow Christ to be aware of how these things work [i.e. the communication of romantic interest through IOI’s], not because of “lost opportunities” but so that we may be redemptive.  It’s one thing to be oblivious to overtures, but it’s a powerful witness when you recognize those overtures and can say why you decline.  I’ve said often enough to women, “Flattering, but I’d rather not.”  It sometimes turned into a Woman at the Well moment.”

The phrase “woman at the well” refers to a story about Jesus’ interaction with a Samaritan woman in the book of John, chapter 4.  [Click on the link to read it, if you are unfamiliar with the passage.]

The text doesn’t recount their interaction in greatly extended detail, but I’ll put money on wagering that she probably gave Him the bucket list of IOI’s.  Remember, Jesus wore a garment without a seam (John 19:23-24).  This was the equivalent of wearing a silk Armani suit back in the day.  IOW, He always looked super sharp, and I’m sure she noticed that.

So how would a typical modern man respond?

Modern guys would stand there blinking in the sun, thinking about how thirsty they are, pondering the best travel route, and how to get back to work on time.  A chad might be checking out her cleavage and thinking about how to implement his day game strategy.  Any modern man definitely wouldn’t be wearing Armani in the desert.

But what did Jesus do?

After making some small talk, he basically made her out to be a slore by mentioning that she had no fewer than five “husbands”.  (I’m fascinated to learn that Jesus could somehow discern the exact number of men she had slept with.)  I’m sure he was rather polite in his verbiage, but anyway, she absolutely ate it up!  She thought this revelation was so cool that she told everybody in town!

Of course, this approach just wouldn’t go over in today’s politically correct culture, and it probably wasn’t too appropriate to talk about this back then either.

The Woman at the Well, by Howard Lyon.

The Takeaway

This Bible story and Ed’s admonition lends a Word to high value Christian men — Open the eyes of your heart and read those IOI’s!  If you miss the fact that she’s interested, then you’re a dud.  But if you can pick up on that, then your range of options opens up.

Turning down her invitation to have sex puts you in the driver’s seat of the relationship, which is good and right.  But she will probably interpret this response as a rejection of the relationship and then ghost.  So at that moment, you have to communicate to her that your refusal is not necessarily a rejection, but that it is instead an invitation to have a better kind of relationship.  Have a heart-to-heart talk with her.  Explain why you want to wait, and how it can lead to a God-glorifying union.  There’s a chance that she might understand and believe, especially if she’s a Christian.  But if she doesn’t submit to your frame in this respect, then let her go.  You’ve just saved yourself from sin, heartache, and wasting your time on someone who doesn’t have God’s best for you in her mind.

It’s a prime moment for evangelism because her heart is open, trusting, and compliant.  Whatever move you make will go straight down to her heart and become part of her spiritual identity.

So, give those chicks who are coming on to you some signature Red Pill fare, and attach your Christian purpose to have a God-honoring marriage.  Keep it lite and non-judgmental.

Don’t just be another cad taking his turn on her thatch.  Instead, use these opportunities to do something for the Kingdom.

Related

• Christianity and Masculinity: How to communicate sexual desire in a relationship (2017 October 3)

Cancel my views for what we call the News

When the news is strictly propaganda, it’s time to turn it off.

Readership: All

I’m busy writing reports these days, so a rant should suffice for today’s post.  I don’t rant much often, so enjoy it while it lasts.

On topic, here’s Dirty Laundry by Don Henley of the Eagles fame.

I’m old enough to remember news anchors like Walter Kronkite and Dan Rather — men who staked their careers on veracious accuracy.  We don’t have news anchors like them anymore.  Instead we have talking heads who can’t keep their fairy tales straight, Anderson Cooper and that ugly sh!t face.  You know that guy I’m talking about.

The last time I saw real news coming out of CNN was their coverage of the Chechen rebel situation in 2007.  Watching those Russians blow stuff up was truly fascinating.  The terror on the faces of the correspondents made it real.  Since then, there hasn’t been a dimes worth of real news.

“The spread of globalism means that you as an individual must be made to care about matters happening in some other godforsaken shithole on the other side of the world.”

Adam Piggott: The Friday hawt chicks & links – The tribal edition. (2020 July 11)

Commener Klaus responded,

“Well put, Adam.  I’m starting to watch less news as I tire of being told of the plight of (e.g.) the Rohinga… or plastic straws in the ocean.  When the economic times get tougher, folks aren’t going to be as generous with caring about strangers.”

Evidently, westerners still watch the news with a serious mindset.  LMAO!

When was the last time the news made you properly informed, without trying to “re-educate” you?

When was the last time you had some news that improved the quality of your life or made your day better?

When was the last time you wasted half an hour of your precious leisure time sipping on the alphabet soup of lies?

Isn’t it about time that people wake up to the fact that the news and the internet only serve as an umbilical cord to the globo machine?  It’s way past time to disconnect.

But no, people still waste their worthless hours sucking off the witches teat of the Zi0nist propaganda megaphone.  They don’t call it a boob tube for nothing.  A better name would be the lube tube, because if they can soften you up with all those lies and that emotional drivel, it will be all that much easier to bend you over and ream you out of heart and home.

I can summarize the underlying gist of the nooz, so you won’t need to bother sifting through the doublespeak.

Get down on your knees! You’re going to swallow whatever I put in your mouth mind — BLM, Christian bigotry, COVID, democracy is flailing, feminism, global warming, Islamophilia, Jesus freaks, the Marshall plan, Marxism, #MeTwoo, orange man bad, tone police brutality, political correctness, racist statues swim like fish, pornstar kickstarts Civil War 2, socialism, white guilt, white man’s burden, white supremacy, Czar Putin dictates election, and Trump is a meanie.

I’ll give you a greasy spoon of unemployment, mortgage forclosures, and traditional chivalry to make it go down easier. Remember your manners and don’t talk back, white boy!

In case you weren’t listening, you’ll hear it all again at 6:00 pm.

And while you’re busy digesting this load, we’ll import foreigners and spline-fit them to take your stead in society.  You must pay homage to them as your betters.

That’s right!  All you need to do is to trust us.  Relax on your comfy sofa at home and drink the Kool-Aid narratives on the news.  Soon, hell will arrive and our work will be done.  If you don’t like that, then go vote for either one of our puppet candidates.

Is the general populace so dumb that they can’t see beyond this sh!t show of smoke and mirrors?

Protect your mind!  Put down your cheetos and push your chair away from this circus funhouse!

Remember, the so called cancel culture works both ways.  If the news networks won’t broadcast real news, then I’m not going to watch that crap.  Neither should you.  Let their ratings drop through the floor.

Related

• Σ Frame: Yankee Stay Home! (2019 February 12)
• Σ Frame: Paul Harvey “If I were the devil” (2019 August 24)
• Σ Frame: Moon Day Review: Murder by Numbing (2019 November 12)
• Σ Frame: The 5 Phases of Deprogramming from the Matrix (2020 February 4)

How to Develop an Attitude of Detachment

Maintaining Frame is the same as setting Socio-Emotional Boundaries.

Readership: Men;

In the Manosphere, there’s been a lot of talk about the importance of maintaining an emotional boundary.  This trait has assumed many labels (dependent on the context), including abundance mentality, detachment, Dread, maintaining Frame, remaining aloof, and Zero Farts Given (ZFG).  I’ll go with detachment for the remainder of this essay.

In spite of the attention that this concept has received, I don’t think it has ever been described in great analytical detail.

I came across one of Ed’s old posts that actually describes this attitude from a socio-spiritual-psychological viewpoint.  I’ve reposted it in full below.  If a man can understand what this is all about, it makes it all that much more easier to construct this attitude within himself.

Do What’s Right: The Parable of Boundaries (2012 September 30)

If you haven’t spent time alone with yourself, feeling for your personal boundaries, you aren’t ready for life.

We could rephrase that for Christians as spending time in God’s presence, in prayer and meditation, but on the human plane the difference is nil.  A spiritual awareness simply adds another level of imperative.

In many ways, the signal difference between childhood and adulthood is taking responsibility for yourself.  You can’t do that unless you’ve spent time with yourself with a level of disengagement, detachment.  You have to be out of your mind to usefully return to your senses.  Infants have no ego boundaries.  The awareness develops of itself, but means nothing without contextual teaching.  We teach children by degrees how to disengage, but no one can do it for them.  If they don’t have a sense of how they impact the rest of the world, and that it matters for its own sake, they remain children.  We call this developing an ego, a sense of self-awareness.

By the same token, identifying the boundaries between egos also means identifying sane limits.  Not in the sense we avoid crossing those boundaries; they will be crossed or humans don’t communicate.  We can’t transgress them meaningfully without understanding them.  We can’t take our place in this world until we sense the moral boundaries of human limitations.  We already have too many people honestly incapable of rising above childhood without people simply failing or refusing.  Children typically have an inflated yet fragile ego, and sanity means fixing that.

Whatever it is we imagine life is for, whether you believe in God or the Fall or whatever, we have to understand where other people are.  Even if we choose to reject everyone else’s sensibilities, we still have to know what they are.  The alternative is a madness to which we already stand too close.

There are a very large number of people yet gripped in their childhood mythology.  They want reality to change to meet them, and stumble along with varying measures of success because too many people humor them entirely too much.  Most of humanity are too polite in places where rudeness is demanded, and too rude where it really serves no purpose.  That doesn’t leave too many of us sane people to shake things up.  This is no crusade, but if you choose to sally forth against insanity, you’ll need this minimum consideration behind you.  You have to change, at least in the sense of dumping everyone else’s fantasies for your own.

Most of those pulling the levers of social and political control are demanding you embrace a very bad fantasy.  This won’t be easy.  Strategically it won’t matter whether they actually believe those fantasies; it affects only tactics in the context.  The problem is the fantasy itself, and their demands for uniformity.

So you’ll often encounter people who simply don’t grasp sanity, and some will be more annoying than others.  Given our economic insanity, you may well have to share a lot of time and space with idiots.  They’ll gnaw at your boundaries.  They are so egregiously silly, they aren’t satisfied with ignoring them, but openly attack them, taking it as a personal insult you are different.  God has all the power in the universe, and more, but He may not authorize you to escape them directly in time and space.  That means creating a space internally, a space in effect.  You can’t control them, but you can control yourself and learn to make them respect your boundaries to varying degrees.

The default is a detached regard.  Attack the problem, not the person.  Getting you to hate them is part of their attack; don’t surrender that.  Don’t permit them significance until they earn it.  Make it insanely expensive.  Respond functionally to the issue when it arises, with a detached examination of how they respond back.  Learn the tactics of boundary management as a normal measure of existence.  Even a measure of dread is a win for them.

“Sure, act stupid all you like.  I have all the time in the world to shut you out.  I do this every day.”

It’s an art to discern the fatal flaw in another person’s madness, but it’s enough to simply know what you have to do to pass through this life.  If you can’t, then don’t deal with certain things.  This is why I suggest violence does have a place, even if it sits in a low priority position.  Without any discernible passion, punch their lights out and remark on why and how to avoid it the next time.  What does it take to keep them a safe distance? Meanwhile, develop your armor.  If physical violence is too improbable for whatever reason, there are various measures of noncooperation which serve the same purpose.  People with too much power still have their own limits, and you can find ways to negotiate boundary collisions.  Be the smart one in the problem and you’ll suffer less.

Still, don’t surrender more than you can afford.  You are the only one who knows what that is at any given time.  That’s why you need a frequent dose of human isolation, to reset and make those inevitable readjustments, or at least reaching out there and feeling for those boundaries again.

From Ed’s description, we can get an understanding of how detachment is very healthy, psychologically, socially, and spiritually.  We can also understand why detachment is attractive to women — because it is an indicator of inner strength, authentic independence, and maturity in a man.

Now that we understand exactly what detachment is, a man can go on to the next step of trying to identify exactly what is preventing him from developing the inner boundaries required for the manifestation of this detachment.  Below, I’ll offer a list of the possibilities.

• A lack of purpose
• Neediness — a lack of self-sufficiency.
• An unhealthy or underdeveloped ego
• Unrealistic or unreasonable expectations
• Ignorance of what you personally require out of the interaction, or not sticking to it.
• Caring too much about the outcome, which may lead to manipulative avenues of control
• A sinful mindset — thinking that your way is the only way, the best way, or the right way, as opposed to having a shepherd’s heart and being led by the spirit.

As you can see, basically all these can be summed up as a lack of Frame.

Case Study 1 – The Abundance Mentality of Detachment

AngloSaxon and Derek argued that a man does need a woman.  Derek writes,

A man needs a woman for marriage.  In “What Constitutes Biblical Marriage“, I listed six reasons implied by Genesis 2 in the ‘one-flesh joining’ of marriage.  These are things that only a woman can give a man when she becomes his wife.

1. Metaphorical one-flesh joining: teamwork or shared purpose
2. Literal one-flesh joining: permanent spiritual bond that mirrors the relationship with God.
3. Children
4. Blood ties (extended family)
5. Sex
6. Relationship permanence

That’s a great way to reframe the “abundance mentality”.  IF a man already has those things, then it becomes a list of things to be thankful for.  But for those men who don’t have all those benefits of marriage already under his belt — single guys, and men with sub-optimal marriages — then dwelling on that checklist of “needs” is not going to help him develop confidence and an abundance mentality, which is the kind of frame necessary to attain those things.

In the same comment, Derek paraphrases a passage from 1^st Corinthians 12:12-27, which describes Unity and Diversity within the Body of Christ.  I’m not certain these verses apply specifically within marriage.  But if we jump back to 1^st Corinthians 7, we find a chapter about marriage.

²⁶ I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is: ²⁷ Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed.  Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.  ²⁸ But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.  Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.
²⁹ But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none,

It sounds to me like these verses are saying that a man doesn’t need a wife.  St. Paul even goes further to say that being married is a burden.  I’ll amplify the phrase “trouble in the flesh” as meaning “a royal pain in the @$$”.  However, as Ed and Derek pointed out, life is exponentially better when you have one.  All this is assuming that the woman in question is actually worthy to play the role of a wife; that she is spiritually obedient, helpful, pure, good willed, free from vices, submissive, maintains herself, and so on.  A man definitely doesn’t need a wife who is anything less than this.

Who can find a good wife? ~ Proverbs 31:10

10 years of debate in the Manosphere has come to the general conclusion that it’s the guy who can adopt an abundance mentality and maintain Frame, among other things.

Case Study 2 – Self-Sufficiency is the Power behind Dread

I lifted this short testimony from commenter RPC over at Dalrock.  It’s basically one man’s story about how he discovered the truth behind soft Dread game.

“One of the worst things I ever did for my marriage was read “Every Man’s Battle” when I was newly married in my early 20s, and then followed the advice and told my wife all about my “sexual sin.” I really did both her and me a great disservice.  On my part, 10 years of irrational shame and guilt.  On her part, 10 years of paranoia.

Then, I red-pilled a few years back, read up on some of the churchian doctrine regarding male sexuality, and realized it’s all bullshit.  I essentially told my wife to butt out, stopped defending myself every time she saw me glance at an attractive woman, and held my head high about my sexuality.  The result is a better marriage and far more respect from her, and no more neuroticisim.  I know it might not work that way for everyone, but I would encourage all men to stop with the self-flagellation.  It does wonders for your confidence.

An ironic byproduct is that the group of men I used to meet with for “accountability” have started treating me like an apostate.  The martyr complex is strong.”

I’ve heard many men say something like “your marriage won’t improve until you’re ready to leave it all behind”.  A wise man realizes that leaving it all behind is not the point, but that having a strong sense of purpose is the key.  If a man is so thoroughly self-sufficient that leaving it all behind is a viable option, then he is closer to home.  Many men never come to this realization, and so their marriages continue in perpetual stagnation.

Case Study 3 – Detachment is a Qualifying Trait of Attraction

Scott told this story in a comment under Christianity and Masculinity’s post, Generating and handling attraction from the opposite sex (2020 July 8).

Ironically, this ability to not care (e.g. be outcome independent) is what helps to drive at least some natural attraction.

As painful as the roller coaster of serial monogamy has been for me, I feel it has provided me with some insights that can actually help in the MMP/SMP and comes from this truth.

The cycle ALWAYS follows (followed) this formula:

1. Relationship starts.

2. Relationship runs a predictable course.  There is a loop within a loop.

1. Highly charged, novel, getting to know each other, great sex
2. Comfortable
3. First “fight”
4. Sex starts to decrease
5. Tension over the downward spiral
6. Blah blah…
7. More weirdness…
8. …aaaand Breakup!

If SHE does the breaking up –> Depressed, “oneitis” “I’ll never meet another one like her”, negative feedback loops.  Friends keep setting you up with new girls, you sabotage every one until you finally get over it and reach the following step, which you will already have reached if YOU DO THE BREAKING UP.

3. “Over it.”  Don’t give a crap, totally self-sufficient.  Not really interested one way or another.

4. Right at about that stage is when another on catches your attention, and not a moment sooner.

Back to 1.  Meet cute, relationship starts.  Ready, go.

(In between each LTR, there are FWBs, ONSs, etc. while you shoot around in the dark trying to make sense of how stupid everything is.)

My point is, being aloof seems to be more than just driving some degree of attraction.  In my case anyway, it is a stage or condition that MUST be met in order to proceed to the next meet cute.

I’ve experienced this too.  In my experience, being able to maintain a happy-go-lucky ZFG attitude doesn’t seem to be controllable at all.  You can’t fake it.  You’re either there, or you’re not.  But when you’re there, the IOI’s pour in like Niagara Falls.  This one factor alone adds credence (in my mind) to the argument that Godliness is indeed attractive, but if so, then true Godliness is not what we think it is.  Could it be that defacto Godliness is not much more than a combination of the following?

1. Being confident to game the woman or face the situation.  (Fully trusting in God.)
2. Not being distracted or burdened by guilt, shame, fear, worry, anxiety, etc.  (Spiritual freedom in God.)
3. Having a solid outcome independence.  (Security in God.)
4. Maintaining an attitude of abundance.  (Satisfaction in God.)

If so, then how could a man cultivate this spiritual disposition within himself?

The answer to these questions might be found in the next Case Study of Boundaries.

Case Study 4 — The Power of Interpersonal Boundaries

Earlier this year, I browsed the books that were up for sale on Amazon under the label of “Christian Courtship and Dating”.  The quality of the results was dismal.

However, the best-selling books under this category were variations of Cloud and Townsend’s classic seller, Boundaries – Boundaries in Dating, Boundaries in Marriage, etc.

When I saw this, I realized that this is probably the best information out there, concerning courtship in a Christian context.

Boundaries are the most fundamental element of maintaining control of one’s relationships, as well as one’s self.

Donal Graeme wrote a post a while back which covered the subject of setting boundaries, Knowing When to Escape (2013 December 15).  This post is a must read for young single women, and fathers of the same.

Many secular writers discuss the concept of boundaries in mystical terms, such as being “grounded”, “based”, or maintaining a “locus of control”.

Even secular feminist authors like The Goddess Principles writes about “protecting/conserving your energy”, and how to use this power to trample over men.  Basically, this is about preserving the ego through the use of boundaries.

So this information is out there in many forms, in psychology, philosophy, that new agey BS, but it is conspicuously absent from Christendom.  The main problem is that these sources simply describe it as a nebulous power that you have to somehow develop out of thin air, making it seem as though either you’re born with it, or not.  But actually, the habit of maintaining personal boundaries can be learned – but only if they are taught!

Concluding Statements

In summary, I’ll quote another post from Ed which is quite fitting, Practice of Purity (2013 December 19).

“You cannot touch eternity if you belong to this world.

While we are here, our whole purpose is manifesting eternity in how we pass through this brief time.  It requires a sense of detachment, of being disentangled from even yourself.  If you cannot bear in your consciousness a recognition that your true self is something other than your mere flesh and thoughts, then you cannot operate in God’s glory.  While fully involved in human life here with a passion and ardor for what really matters, you hold an awareness on a higher level.  You see clearly what matters here because your soul is not confined to this plane.

That sort of awareness has substantial consequences.”

Related

• Donal Graeme: Picky Picky (2014 March 18)
• Christianity and Masculinity: Revisiting dread in the Bible with an anti-chivalry lens (2020 June 18)
• Frame: She Needs You (2020 July 1)

8 Examples of IOI Word Semantics

Women make very subtle hints. If you miss them, you’re out.

Readership: All;

A few months ago, I wrote a List of Female IOI’s (2020 March 30) which has since become one of the more popular posts this year. One of the verbal IOI’s listed was Word Semantics — playing with fuzzy semantics to form suggestive euphemisms.

Men interpret word semantics as a test of his intelligence, level of experience, and social awareness. But usually, women are not that aware of word semantics as being a test. They’re only looking to get involved with a guy, and when she makes the effort to hang out with him, things either pick up or they don’t.

Since I wrote that post, I came across this one from Bored Panda: Obvious Hints From Girls That Guys Hilariously Failed To Notice (2017). The author, Greta Jaruševičiūtė, apparently invited readers to leave their own stories on the topic. I found most of these to be great examples of fuzzy semantics, and there are also a few examples of coded speech, loaded language, pointed suggestions, and suggestive innuendos.

In this post, I’ve picked out eight stories that make for good Red Pill discussion.

* * * 1 * * *

Friend was driving a group of us home after a night out and I was the last one.
Me: Ice cream sounds so good right now.
Him: Yeah I could go for some ice cream
Me: I have some at my house, want to come up for some?
Him: Sure!
Go upstairs and he actually wants ice cream so I sit super close to him on the couch and ask him if he wants anything else *hint hint*. He then spends 15 minutes asking for my opinion on the next car he should buy and then leaves.

More evidence for the claim that women always have sex on the brain. Maybe if she served the ice cream topless, she wouldn’t have had such a cold response.

* * * 2 * * *

We went to eat and then a movie. After the movie was over we sat in the parking lot for hours. I then drove us back to her house so I could go home. Sat in her driveway till 1 am talking and making out.
She told me: “You’re making this so hard.”
Me: “Making what hard?”
Her: “To be good.”
Didn’t click. 30 minutes later she tells me a guy has never gotten her off. Didn’t click that she was hinting. I literally said “challenge accepted” but went on talking and never made a move. It clicked the next day.

Still more evidence for the claim that women always have sex on the brain. It would be too humbling for her to ask.

* * * 3 * * *

There was this girl who worked behind the bar at my local that I got along with and for some time too. Stepping out for a smoke break, she goes on to say that her brother is gay and in a relationship.
Her: Why is it so easy for him and all I want is a boyfriend.
Me: Hope it’s not contiguous (sic. contagious).
She was dating one of the guys working there a week later.

If the man doesn’t pick up the signal, she’s on to the next one. Time’s a wasting.

* * * 4 * * *

When I was 23, I woke up in the middle of the night to two girls (one of whom I was dating) standing next to my bed. They had been drinking, so naturally I offered her friend my couch… In the morning I realized my mistake, and asked for a redo… No.

No redo’s. Ever. You have to read her mind and be DTF on a minute’s notice. But if you get the hang of how women are, it’s not hard to read their minds. If she’s giving you steady attention, and you’re alone, there’s a very good chance she’s thinking about coitus. In this case, they didn’t even need to be alone.

* * * 5 * * *

16 year-old me playing guitar (hears doorbell ring) open the door and girl from my history class is standing there.
Me: Hey! What’s up?
Her: Just wanted to stop by and see what you’re up to.
Me: Nothing, just playing guitar.
Her: Are your parents’ home? Can I come in?
Me: Yeah, they won’t be home for a few hours.
…cut to me playing guitar with her sitting so close to me that my arm keeps hitting her and messing me up…
Me: Uhhhh… Could you move over a bit?
She gets up and leaves.

I’ll say it again. If she’s giving you steady attention, and you’re alone, there’s a very good chance she’s thinking about coitus. If you don’t deliver on the spot, she’ll be off to find one who will. Time’s a wasting.

* * * 6 * * *

So one day I end up singing a special song I co-wrote with a friend in church. And afterwards this girl I barely know strikes up conversation. She says she likes the song (which most people were saying that day) and what not and she gives off signals that she’s flirting but I don’t return them because I still think she’s my friend’s girlfriend (because that’s the unwritten law). Later after a Facebook search I discover I was wrong. Now things are forever awkward cos she thinks I’m not into her.

Women expect men to read their minds and know all the background story. The thing is, this is an unrealistic expectation. Only bad guys would be DTF under any circumstances, which may explain why hot chicks always seem to end up with bad guys. She may be a church girl, but nevertheless, if she doesn’t wake up to this dynamic, she’ll end up with a cad.

* * * 7 * * *

So far, all these case studies have described clueless men missing their chances to be a father. However, there are cases where it is the woman who ignorantly screws up the innuendo. Consider the following examples.

My now-husband and I used to work at a newspaper together many moons ago. He (city reporter), me (designer) and the MANAGING EDITOR were standing in the newsroom talking one day about some story. All of a sudden, he looks at my chest and goes, “It must be cold in here!” I followed his gaze. Yes, it was cold. I thought the ME would have a stroke. It took me about 15 more years to figure out he had the hots for me. July will be our five-year anniversary.

One can only wonder what she did in those 15 years before she settled down with this one. But I guarantee it didn’t take her 15 years to figure out that she had (or didn’t have) the hots for him.

* * * 8 * * *

Once I called my friend and asked him if he was going to the club that weekend. He answers with, “Why? You don’t have a ride?”
Few weeks after, he already knows “I need a ride to the club” and I tell him I had a date but cut him off to go with him. Later that night he says, “Your date is there if you wanna go dance with him.”
20 years later, including 18 years married to him he is still clueless of any hint. Took him 2 years to understand!

Maybe not if he knew she was a carousel rider. He’s just the silent type who waited for his turn. The funny thing here is that she thinks he is clueless, but actually she is the one off the mark. Commenter Chris Doehla responds,

That’s not a hint. That’s more of a hint that you’re not interested/unavailable. Why do girls think bringing up another guy ever helps? Why would it clue him in that you’re interested in him if you’re talking about some other dude, especially if you had a scheduled date with him? You schedule dates with guys you like, so he probably thought you were more interested in the guy you actually had a scheduled date for, especially if the pretense of the conversation is that he’s just giving you a ride.

Some women are so focused on keeping their schedules (or inboxes) chock full of male entertainment, that they are unaware of how this is perceived by men.

Conclusions

Contrary to popular stereotypes, women always have sex on the brain, and men are naïve and altruistic. I’ve mentioned this before in previous posts. After reading a few of these word semantics, it seems obvious that it is generally true. Women are sharper than men when it comes to the sluice bait.

In most of these stories, the men never get it. But there are a few in which he does – but only after the fact.

This goes back to something I’ve said before. When a woman makes a strong advance by humbling herself sexually and opening her heart, it’s like a once in a lifetime chance. If you don’t kick things up a notch, and do it with gusto, she’ll interpret this as a rejection of her ever-so-subtle signal, and she’ll never come back. She’ll go on to the next guy on her list. If she does come back, then she has already gone through the other guys on her list without finding any satisfying takers. But since the women who do this tend to be promiscuous, perhaps it is all for the best when righteous minded men miss out.

Related

• Σ Frame: Things I Learned About Women in College (2018 April 4)
• Σ Frame (Lexet): Yes, Women Lust Too (2019 December 6)